Some Laughs from FW de Klerk

FW de Klerk, Apartheid-era South Africa's last Prime Minister, recently gave one of the all-time stupid speeches by a former leader. In the speech he called for a non-racial approach to politics in South Africa. That de Klerk, always good for a laugh. Jerry Brown is good for a good for a laugh, he's appointing Goodwin C. Liu to replace California Supreme Court Judge Carlos R. Moreno, 62. Liu has never been a judge, but is reliably hard-left and anti-White. Hispanics are upset because Moreno was the only Latino/Hispanic judge on the court, which will now have four Asian members, and three White judges. Even more good for a laugh, the Pew Hispanic Report which as Steve Sailer notes, shows a huge wealth gap between races.

Add it all up, and America is in for South Africa style laughs. As the have-nots conspire with the have-lots, to get more the only way they know how: take from the have-middle-class.


First, de Klerk's spot of idiocy. The reason Apartheid lasted so long is because everyone, White, Black, Indian, and Mixed Race knew the endgame. Blacks, and Blacks from the most powerful tribe, would take everything, and everyone else would be varying caste levels downwards, with Whites at the very, very bottom considered not even human (and thus, disposable). There would be no place, none at all, for any White in non-Apartheid South Africa. This was the reality. Why such a repressive regime that exacted large costs to its White population (the need to personally bust heads, always an ugly and depressing task, international sanctions and displeasure) lasted long after the writing was on the wall.

de Klerk states:

It is unacceptable to sing songs calling for the shooting of anyone. It is unacceptable for Julius Malema to call whites criminals - and to add that their land should be seized without compensation. It is even more unacceptable for President Zuma to sit on the same platform, smiling, while Malema, as a key office bearer in the ANC, makes such racist comments.

It is unacceptable for Gugile Nkwinti, our Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, to declare that all "colonial struggles are about two things: repossession of the land and the centrality of the indigenous population." He is actually saying that the colonial struggle is not yet over; whites are colonialists whose property must be seized; and only ‘indigenous' South Africans are central to our society. People from minority communities must presumably be content with a peripheral or second-class status.

It is unacceptable for the Judicial Services Commission to ignore unambiguous constitutional requirements regarding the manner in which it should be constituted - and then to refuse to fill vacancies on the Cape bench, despite the availability of eminently fit and proper candidates, simply because they happen to be white.

It is unacceptable for COSATU and the SACP to set as their mid-term vision the utterly unconstitutional goal of “worker hegemony in all sectors of the state and society.”

Can one imagine the outcry that would rightly ensue if a member of the United States government were to call for the re-establishment of the centrality of the white majority?
…
According to the ANC's Strategy and Tactics analysis, the establishment of our non-racial constitutional democracy in 1994 was not the end of the liberation struggle - but only a beach-head on the way to the ultimate goals of the revolution. The struggle has continued relentlessly since then - and it has been directed primarily against our constitutional accord.

The ANC's first priority after 1994 was to shift the balance of forces in its favour by seizing what it calls the levers of state power. These include "the legislatures, the executives, the public service, the security forces, the judiciary, parastatals, the public broadcaster, and so on." This was not just empty rhetoric. Using cadre deployment, the ANC has taken vigorous steps to take over - or to try to take over - all these institutions. In the process it is obliterating the constitutional borders between the party and the state; it is undermining the independence of key constitutional institutions and it is opening the way to large-scale corruption and government impunity.

The ultimate goal of the NDR is a ‘non-racial democracy' - in which all aspects of control, ownership, management and employment in the state, private and non-governmental sectors will broadly mirror the demographic composition of South Africa's population.

Like the communist ideal of the ‘classless society', the non-racial democracy has a superficial appeal - but is equally unattainable. In practice, demographic representivity would simply result in racial domination - what the ANC calls "African hegemony" - in every facet of the government, society and the economy.

To achieve its goal of eliminating what the ANC regards as "apartheid property relations" the NDR would require massive and forced redistribution of property and wealth from the white minority to the black majority. It would also require the disemployment of large numbers of people from minority communities.

Whites, Coloureds and Asians would be corralled into demographic pens in all aspects of their economic and professional lives according to the percentage of the population they represent. The prospects of South African citizens would once again be determined by the colour of their skins - and not by their skills, their contribution to the economy or by what Martin Luther King called the content of their character.

Malema's inflammatory rhetoric, Gugile Nkwinti's land reform proposals, cadre deployment, the failure of municipalities and government departments - can be traced back, directly or indirectly, to the NDR's corrosive and unconstitutional ideology.

The entire speech may be found here.


De Klerk's speech is profoundly stupid, because all of what he is complaining about is EXACTLY what was on order the day Apartheid ended. Black South Africans will never forgive nor forget, not unto a millionth generation, Apartheid. Incapable of generating wealth on their own, and facing the inevitable mismanagement attendant of the leadership of Jakob Zuma. Democratically elected, Zuma has five wives, all of them polygamous, has been on trial for rape (of an HIV-positive woman), has more than twenty children, a number illegitimate, and lacks any education beyond primary school, being primarily a former cowherd. Zuma's predecessor Thabo Mbeki, who was want to expound on how "spores" cause AIDS, and sex with a virgin would cure it, was no better.

Zuma's primary objective is to survive as leader so he can steal as much money as possible, to live a large lifestyle. All those kids and wives cost! He could care less about anything else, and that is exactly why he was elected.

Julius Malema is a rising power, the head of the ANC Youth Wing, who wants boiled down to essentials to shoot all Whites and take their property. He'd like to live that big man life too, and so would his followers. Most Black South Africans feel this would be a fine thing. They don't see any way else to better their lives, they hate White people, and feel Africa is no place for Whites (or anyone else besides Africans).

In "Dreams from My Father: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE," Barack Obama recounts a visit to Nairobi, Kenya, and a lunch with his half-sister. They're enraged by poor service and fawning attention to White tourists (who pay more than government officials) by the Indian proprietors. Obama describes with affection his dead father's plan to nationalize all property not belonging to Africans, and give it to Africans, after throwing all non-Africans out. Africa, Obama Sr. had declared, belonged exclusively to Africans and no non-Africans had any business holding property or doing anything but visiting for a short time there. A sentiment Obama Jr. endorses in the retelling, in his book. As Obama notes, all the monuments and cultural achievement in Europe left him cold. He felt no connection to them, despite being half-White. But the poorest slum in Kenya, he loved.

You can find the same sentiment among Indonesians about Diaspora Chinese, or Whites, or people like Obama. The Malaysians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese all hold similar views. Their nations belong to the ethnic majority, non-ethnic compatriots have no business doing any business there, holding property or even living and working there. This is universal. As soon as the curtain went down on Apartheid it was only a question of when, how, and whom the seizure of all White property and exile/internment of all Whites (and indeed, all non-Africans) would happen in South Africa.

De Klerk should have known this. The price for the end of Apartheid in South Africa was all non-Africans getting out. No example in human history, ever, has had a multi-racial, multi-cultural, peaceful and "diverse" setting without a brutal tyrant killing lots people on a regular basis to enforce his rule and favor certain groups. Humans just are not built that way. No we cannot all get along, the best we can hope for is living apart peacefully.

But De Klerk is good for a laugh.

So too is Jerry Brown. Brown is appointing Goodwin C. Liu, a rabidly anti-White, hard-left lawyer who has never been a judge before, into the California Supreme Court. Latinos are angry:

“It should have been a Latino and somebody who was native to Southern California,” said Victor Acevedo, president of the Mexican-American Bar Assn.

“We are almost the majority of the people of the state of California, and for the governor to say there isn’t one Latino who is qualified to serve on the court is extremely troubling,” he said. “That to me is like the governor turning a cold shoulder to the Latino community in Southern California.”

Of course, Whites are down to only three representatives on the California Supreme Court. And this matters because who you have on the court bench determines how the goodies get sliced up. Given that much if not all of decisions involving who gets what money, justice, special privileges, treatment, and so on come from the court systems, a fight over who is on the bench is inevitable. This is just one of the ways in which a "diverse" society has a huge cost overhead compared to a mono-ethnic one.

Mono-ethnic societies don't fight over division of resources based on race. With a temptation to screw over the losers, permanently. You also don't have cow-herd polygamist clowns like Zuma as President. Even a relative unknown and non-entity like Truman was a far better leader, far more widely read, far more experienced, far more educated, far more able, than a clown put up by a race-based system like South Africa's.


But most laughable is the Pew Hispanic Center data. That Latino demographic juggernaut? It has a median household net worth of $6,325, compared to Whites at $113,149. Blacks are at $5,677, and Asians at $78,066. Or put it another way, more than half of Hispanic households (and Black ones) have almost no money at all.

Blacks of course are not expanding demographically. The Census Bureau reports that Blacks were 12.9% of the population in 2000, and 12% in 2010. All races lost income, during the recession, but Blacks and Hispanics had low starting points anyway. Hispanics have been unable to create wealth, in contrast to Asians who though they lag behind Whites do not do so in the order of magnitude ways that Black and Hispanics do.

A mostly White America, facing a Black population that has no means or hope of any means of being anything other than a Welfare Transfer burden, can probably support that wealth transfer as long as times are good and the burdens not too heavy. There is no way this can happen with Latinos at essentially the same household income as Blacks. There's just too many Latinos.

Latinos are poor, and remain poor. They represent an ever increasing burden on White household income at a time when that income has declined, about 16%. Meanwhile, triumphalist "we are replacing you" rhetoric which is underscored by demographic reality is matched by "give us your money." And, "We have ownership of Supreme Court Seats, and other positions. They are ours!"

This won't end well. Flight first, as the exodus in California becomes a flood. Who wants to pay for illegal alien families, as what amounts to second or third class citizenship in California? Texas and other places will be next. Then fight, but one characterized by intermittent rather than sustained political action. Almost all White Middle and Upper Class women are in favor of mass immigration, open borders and such. As repeated endlessly here on Whiskey's Place, this is because ordinary White Middle and Upper Class guys are Beta Males. Repulsive to women, who want "sexy back." At any rate, they don't like a mono-ethnic culture. Advertising is a window onto the way elites think they can influence the (almost exclusively female) target audience. And anti-ordinary-White-Guy disdain just drips from advertising.

Quite likely there will be an intermittent political action designed to stop illegal immigration, transfer payments to illegals and their descendants, but one that will be fragmented, doomed, and a massive failure. Most (not all but most) Middle and Working Class women WANT demographic replacement. Just look at Househunters International:



A "sexy" and "not boring" life is just what the Doctor ordered to spice things up. It's Eat Pray Love all over again. If the personal is political, the political is personal. Mass immigration means cheap nannys and gardeners, no more "boring" mono-ethnicity, and something exotic right in your backyard. Better than an exotic pet!

Laughs are coming though, as the have-nots (the Latino underclass with a median household income of around $6,000) combine with the have-lots (rich White elites) to screw over the White middle class. Will America turn into Brazil? I think not. More like South Africa, with an explicit race-based class system, rigid quotas, and massively failing infrastructure.

Why not Brazil as the US future? Because the expectations are too high. Brazilians only recently emerged from abject poverty to semi-starvation, and while they expect an improving lifestyle, anything up from a favela likely to be buried in a mudslide is a plus. Just having food to eat most days is a step up. In America, the expectation is that Whites are moved to a fourth/fifth class status, AND the modern Welfare state is kept up. It is quite true that with votes and the monopoly on state power, a Goodwin Liu led California Supreme Court could issue rulings say, dis-allowing White votes in elections in order to achieve "racial fairness" and that such a ruling would meet "Constitutional tests" (because Constitutions don't matter -- they are mere pieces of paper, only people willing to defend them matter). The South African Constitution is a marvel, probably more enlightened than the US Constitution. And like the Soviet Constitution, completely ignored. The US Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court and other judges say it is. That is all.

So yes, undoubtedly Whites have been pushed out of full equality in life, in terms of how justice, taxes, and other goodies are divided. Third or fourth class status no doubt looms for Whites in the US, and probably all of Europe. Camp of the Saints, massive demographic change, and Whites a discriminated, third class minority in places like the UK, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and yes Norway are already inevitable. All those poor people in North Africa want the nice things that Europeans have, they need only get on a boat and take them. Europeans won't stop them, most of the female population would figure it would be a good thing anyway.

But, you cannot make someone work as a serf or slave any more than the whip can lash. The modern Welfare State and the ability to transfer prodigious sums of money to Big Men and a trickle to patronage objects is dependent on a White middle class that makes even bigger sums of money. The nirvana of "post-racial" government merely means Whites as official fourth class citizens, perhaps not even legally considered human.

That outcome will happen, in South Africa and elsewhere, because Big Men get by for the moment making it happen. When the money runs out, they'll think of something else. Meantime, those twenty plus kids and five (and counting) wives need money!

So the last laugh will be on the victors. Sitting in a burnt-out hospital, dying of an infection that would have been routinely cured only thirty years ago. As the lights flicker out all across the Western World. Even the White elites all for a multi-culti, diverse world will be the object of the joke. All that money Soros collected won't do him a bit of good as it becomes basically worthless, and he cannot buy anything more in health care than a dancing Witch Doctor. All Western medical care having been interned along with the White Middle class that supported it.

In the end, it all comes down to money. The new demographic wave just can't create it. And you can't get money from a despised fourth class minority.




...Read more

Chicks Dig Jerks, Version 5,799

Chicks dig jerks. Sad, but true. The most beautiful women often choose the most jerky of men. Including violent, dangerous men. the Daily Mail has a story of another woman, killed by an ex-boyfriend/husband. Laura Ackerson, 27, was found dismembered in a creek, 1,200 miles from her North Carolina home. Her ex-boyfriend and his new wife have been charged with the crime.


This is nothing new. You can find an example of brutal murder of a young (or not so young) woman by a husband, boyfriend, or ex of that category any day of the week, in any major metropolitan area. The question is, why? The standard feminist answer is, that all men are scum, and evil, and murderous killers of women. The more accurate answer is that violent behavior even directed towards women is a turn on. As Theodore Dalyrmple noted, in "Life at the Bottom," but did not address fully, women prefer mostly violent men, even his educated, professional nurses. They'd stick by men who would physically abuse and humiliate them. Why? Because they craved that violent dominance.

It is the role of any society to rein in, control, and harness properly sexuality. Because un-channeled sex is destructive. We don't want 13 year olds having sex, even though biologically it is possible. We as a society understand the great harm, not just to the child involved but society as a whole, when that happens. We take great effort to shield adolescents from sexual activity, or at least society used to (that effort is under continual assault by Hollywood's leftists).

In the same manner, female preference for dark, dangerous, bad boys was usually not a problem, because older women, aunts, mothers, grandmothers, co-workers, neighbors, etc. had a hand in reining that behavior in. Don't be stupid, don't be slutty, don't make a mistake, don't ruin your life. Desire is what it is, but control over primal urges for women roughly paralleled the teachings over desire pushed by adult men for boys: be a man, straighten up, hold your horses, be stronger than your desire, avoid the bad girls, be a gentleman, etc.

One wonders who a guy like the accused, managed to have a kid with a very attractive woman, and then marry another woman, who while not looking good in her mugshot, is probably hotter than any office nerd beta male intermittent girlfriend. The answer of course is obvious. It was the danger and brutality itself that attracted the women in the first place.

That's just unsustainable in the long-run. A society cannot run on women, bad boys, and illegitimate kids. Most beta males, around 99.999999% of them won't do anything harmful. They just won't work. They won't go around shooting kids on some youth retreat. But they will do the absolute minimum at their jobs. Why should they work hard? To give over taxes to this guy's kids:



Or maybe this woman's kids:



You cannot get blood from a stone. Ultimately wealth is created, for things like health care, good roads, clean water to drink, safe food to eat, power flowing through the grid, by beta males. No they are not sexy, but they keep the lights on. All over the West, the lights are going out. Not just light-bulb bans (which is part of the delusion that you can mandate "sexiness' and not pay a concrete price) but the society that produces light bulbs. America and the West are doomed to be miserably poor, violent, and chaotic, as the White middle and working class joins what the Black and Latino classes have already embraced: single motherhood and bad-boy addiction.




...Read more

Anders Breivik: Beta Male Rampage

Commenters on the Left are gleefully asserting that Norway Bomber/Shooter Anders Breivik, who claims to have acted alone, and plotted for nine years, is a "conservative" thinker given how he has cited writings by prominent anti-Jihad bloggers, such as Fjordman, Larry Auster, Gates of Vienna, Atlas Shrugged, Pamela Gellar, Bat Y'eor, and more. Commenters on the Right cannot understand him, either, as posted at Gates of Vienna:

This sadistic, barbaric attack must be one of the strangest terror attacks ever. One would never think, from the killer’s online comments, that he was a mass murderer in waiting.

The killer was right-wing and anti-jihad, yes, but he was not a neo-Nazi (he was pro-Israel) or a white supremacist (he opposed the BNP because they are racist). He was Christian, but not a fanatic (he was pro-gay).

In fact he was apparently like me — liberal right. He was anti-racist, pro-gay and pro-Israel. So how on earth did someone like that become a terrorist against the West?

The answer is that politics (either left, right, nationalist, multiculturalist, anti-Jihad, pro-Jihad) had nothing to do with it. It was another … BETA MALE RAMPAGE.

We've seen this before. Breivik planned to spend 1,800 pounds on a hooker before the killing. Yes, oddly reminiscent of the Jihadis, particularly the 9/11 attackers, but a big red flag as to the real motivation. The LA Times reports that Breivik copied and pasted ... the Unabomber's manifesto as his own.

Do men kill for ideology? Surely, some will. But most murders, and particularly most mass-murders sure to wind up with some nasty punishment in one way or another, come from the more common motives. Hate, revenge, sexual frustration, mental illness (Son of Sam, hearing a neighbor's dog "speak" and command to murder), jealousy, rage, and so forth. The ugly side of human nature having to do with primal urges, not which political philosophy one adheres to. What philosophy did the Columbine killers, cross-dressers, anti-racist, adhere to? What philosophy did giggling lunatic (literally) Gerald Lee Loughner, a Jew, and member of a prominent Democratic political family, follow? What philosophy did Cho Seung Hui, or George Sodini, follow? None save the Beta Male Rampage. [The picture at the top of the post is of Cho, Sodini, and Breivik from Top clockwise.]

We've seen this before, in China, as the report here, and also here show. Chinese men, not attached to any political philosophy, go off and kill kindergartners (other men's children). The men are typically loners, without any women in their lives, or any prospect at all in the sex-balance hell that is China (selective sex abortion means about 4 men for every woman in many areas among younger people). So, being beta males they plan their rampage carefully, and kill the winners in the reproduction lottery. That's not hard to understand now, is it? Ugly in the extreme, to be sure, but there it is.

In a similar manner, the ever-present Chinese bus bombings not done by Uighur separatists are lone male, beta male rampages as shown here.

China has occasionally witnessed bus explosions staged by disgruntled farmers or laid-off workers wanting to air grievances over poverty, demolitions or corruption.

Yes, the modern Western society produces a few real winners. Alpha Males (those with the ability to project breezy, unshaken dominance and sexy assurance) get most of the desirable women, leaving the beta males to slave away. A few go nuts, crazy, and unfortunately because the wealth transfer systems of modern Western oriented society (this includes China) dissolves nationalistic, unified bonds, the targets of these rogue males, beta males on a rampage, are not leaders, kings, generals, and the like.

The targets are uniformly, children, young people, and women. The very people most males are hard-wired to protect, but because of lack of any success/investment romantically-physically, and a profoundly atomizing society that acts like acid to dissolve social bonds between people (other than non-White race based organizations like LULAC or the NAACP) the groups who should be protected become targets of unimaginable brutality and cruelty.

We saw this with Sodini. We saw it with Cho. We saw it with the Chinese Kindergarten and bus attackers. We saw it with Breivik, too.

Those on the right are struggling to understand Breivik. Why he did what he did. The man was in favor of gay rights, and opposed fundamentalist Christianity for that reason (as did the Columbine Killers, who were also pro-gay rights). Breivik condemned both Nazism and Communism for violence and the amount of dead it produced, as well as pre-Enlightenment Christendom. Breivik was pro-Israel, and dismissed the British Nationalist Party as racists, the EDL as a bunch of goons, and Vlaams Belang as "pro-Nazi."

Breivik's Facebook page (Atlas Shrugged makes an observation about how it was altered AFTER the shooting) shows his interests to be Winston Churchill, Max Manus (a Norwegian Resistance Fighter) and Machiavelli. That's not important. What a man is will NEVER be revealed by his political philosophies. [Note, "Christian" and "Conservative" were added to Breivik's Facebook page after the shooting, in post after post he describes himself as no Christian, and proud of his pagan Viking heritage.]

What reveals a man's character is what entertainment he chooses. Breivik's favorite books were listed as Kafka's "the Trial" and Orwell's "1984." I doubt he ever read them. If he did, it would seem he's frustrated by what he sees as an overweening state, crushing the life out of his own individuality. In reality he suffered no real oppression, he was not beaten, electrocuted, limbs amputated, or otherwise brutalized the way many in the Third World are regularly. None of his family were murdered by police goons or militias. The reason these books were chosen, likely is that as a nameless cog unimportant to anyone (and significantly, any woman) Breivik identified with the protagonists.

But what stands out is his favorite TV shows. Gay/Female ghettos all, and quite disturbing. The Shield, Tru Blood, Dexter, Caprica, and Stargate Universe. Only a profoundly disturbed man would find these shows attractive, given that they all push a gay man's or woman's idea of an Alpha Male.


The Shield, features an amoral, corrupt bad guy (Michael Chicklis) as the leader of an anti-Gang unit. The character murders an honest cop to conceal his corruption, and frames a gang member. This is the hero. Tru Blood is a vampire/gay-civil-rights metaphor show, the titular "Tru Blood" allowing vampires to eat synthetic blood instead of killing humans. Every normal, White guy is presented as a mouth-breathing, sub-human bigot, with the Vampires being ultra sexy and of course, ultra violent. One scene has the lead vampire (played by Stephen Moyer) breaking the neck of a female vampire during a disturbingly violent and icky sex scene. Dexter of course features Michael C. Hall as the "good" serial killer, trained by his father to only kill … other serial killers. In a most sadistic manner. Meanwhile the character pretends to be a boring beta male in a forensics lab, and dutiful and boring husband/father. Caprica is the sequel to Battlestar Galactica (the revival by Ron Moore, not the original by the late Glen A. Larson) featuring icky sex and killer robots and massive corruption and no decent lead characters. Stargate Universe is the Battlestar Galactica revival version of Stargate, with icky sex, depressing and gritty themes, and no likable lead characters.

The portrait here is of a straight guy desperately wanting to fit in with the conception of an Alpha Male, and failing. The shows all are quite female-skewing, and the fantasy (violent men who kill but are "controlled" by the hotness of a woman like Tru Blood's Anna Paquin) is pretty explicit (and disturbing). The fantasy is not Cary Grant or George Clooney (beta males, get rich, famous, work out and dress suavely!) No it is one of ultra-violence and domination, pure and simple.

Breivik was a sick, disturbed man. But his motivation was primarily sexual, and primal, not political. Unlike say, Volkert van der Graaf, the assassin of Pim Fortuyn, who van der Graaf murdered because of Fortuyn's opposition to Muslim integration and conservatism. [Fortuyn of course was famously openly gay and conservative.] No, Breivik is just another Beta Male Rampage.

Every society will have sick, deranged individuals. A society sufficiently large will have people mentally ill. The question is, how does a society deal with these people, and what constraints society-wide operate to at least limit the damage a mentally ill person can accomplish?

The answer in the West (this includes btw Coastal China) is … not much exists to limit or channel the damage into minimal violence. Most beta male losers channel their frustration into things like World of Warcraft, slacker entertainment, or the like. Amusing themselves to death, as they opt out of the race they cannot win. A small minority end up doing some very nasty violence, in a run-amok rampage. Often very carefully planned and concealed, in Breivik's case for years, supposedly. Due to the sick, winner/loser nature of the society, mentally ill beta males like Breivik don't feel any connection to kids or women. They are "other people's kids" they seek to kill, like the Chinese kindergartner attackers.

The reason is not political. It is one of the losers having their revenge on the winners. Breivik reportedly bombed the Labor Party building, and then went on an attack on Labor Party kids at the Youth camp. Important questions remain: how did the bomber make a successful fertilizer bomb, given the difficulties most terrorists have found in making them go off (the Times Square bomber Faisal Shazad for example). McVeigh practiced in the Arizona desert outside Kingman with the Fortiers, to perfect a detonation system that would work (and not blow him up, he had no intention of dying) far away from Oklahoma. Indeed it was not until the FBI traced McVeigh's movements that the feds discovered this training/practice, despite neighbors at the time complaining to police. McVeigh famously also had the help of Terry Nichols. A massive fertilizer bomb requires muscle to mix the fertilizer and diesel fuel, drums to store the mixture in, and considerable muscle to move them into a big van. It does not seem to be a one-man task.

There is the question of how, after the vehicle with the bomb blew up, (there may have been more than one, according to latest reporting) Breivik made his way to the Island Youth Camp, more than 20 miles from Downtown Oslo. With, I might add, a bag filled with guns and ammo, heavy and bulky, and with a police uniform. This suggests at a minimum another car, stashed somewhere, and quite likely a driver.

Then there are the gun restrictions in Norway, which are quite restrictive and must be approved by the Government. "Machine pistols" which are military weapons, are not available to civilians. Reportedly, Breivik used a "machine pistol" in the shootings. Gun licenses are expensive, to acquire and maintain, as is ammunition, which is also quite restricted.

There is no reporting, as of yet, how Breivik got onto the Island. He certainly did not swim with that load of guns and ammo. Meaning quite likely a private boat not a ferry (the arriving SWAT team found no boats available, and dithered as the shots rang out on the island only 1,000 yards away).

I myself suspect a helper of some sort. Perhaps a weaker personality dominated by Breivik, as in the John Mohammed/Lee Boyd Malvo Beltway Sniper mass murders, or Columbine.

But ultimately, making sense of this massacre will only happen when people face the truth. The reason, the real reason all those people died, was another Beta Male rampage. These will continue to happen, until loser-dom for Beta Males is ameliorated, or crazy people are locked up quickly (easy bet, Breivik was notably mentally ill to those who saw him in person, and nothing was done), or perhaps both. Crazy people do crazy things, and naturally our society that doles out rights and is reluctant to lock up the crazy will pay a severe price. But even so, crazy people follow only the path of winner and loserdom. It is human nature for the loser beta males afflicted with deep mental illness to want to punish those (kids, women) they feel are the "belongings" of the Alpha Male winners.

Outside of the families and friends of the slain, of course, no one really cares in Norway or elsewhere about the dead. That's the ugly but effective reality. And now that he's killed about 100 people or so, assuming Breivik is not knifed in prison, he'll have beautiful women throwing themselves at him in conjugal visits. The depressing reality -- when Joran Van Der Sloot was arrested for the murder of the Peruvian Girl, women all around the globe sent him marriage proposals. He had previously cut a wide swath among women in SouthEast Asia, on the notoriety of being the prime suspect for the murder of Natalee Holloway. Accused wife-killer Drew Peterson had hot coeds throwing themselves at him, at age 55, left and right. Scott Peterson arrived in prison to find marriage proposals from beautiful women. And Scott Peterson not only married an attractive woman, but had an attractive mistress (Amber Frye). Newly accused Dodger Stadium thug, Marvin Norwood, one of two men accused of beating Giants Fan Brian Stow, has according to his cousin who called in to KFI AM 640 Los Angeles "the John and Ken Show" a number of illegitimate kids by a number of women, all of whom he beat on a regular basis.

Violence does not (sadly) repel women, it rather attracts them, and often the most attractive rather than the least attractive. Tru Blood is not a story about a man who is devoted to his wife, changes diapers, and does the dishes. That behavior is what a "Kitchen Bitch" does, a beta male with no attraction to any woman. Rather it is about a hot chick waitressing at a diner who snags the ultra Alpha male, a dominant and violent vampire. Just like Buffy the Vampire Slayer was about a hot chick who first bangs a violent, sadistic vampire who kills her mentor's girlfriend (and tortures him), and then her violent, sadistic, murderous rapist (vampires Angel and Spike, respectively).

On one sick level, Breivik merely became the fantasy that women adored. The violent, dominant, killer Alpha.

This is why things like Tru Blood are important. They didn't cause the guy to go out and kill people, but as a signal of what female audiences want, it is a huge red warning flag. Because women tend in the end to get exactly the kind of men they desire.

Breivik was a time bomb waiting to go off. Mentally ill, no doubt, no women in his life at all, save his mother, and with nothing to live for save a fantasy of violence, he was going to do damage. There was no question about it, unless he had been committed early. [That he had a hand gun and hunting license is appalling -- the man was obviously mentally ill and no one examining him spotted it.] BUT … a society more healthy and robust, would have channeled that explosion of mentally ill violence towards less damaging targets: a political leader, a celebrity, or the like. Horrible and tragic, but far less damaging than that of 100 people more or less lying dead, many of them children.

Those on the anti-Jihad side are filled with despair, feeling (accurately) that this will be used to smear all anti-Jihad, anti-Islamists. They should not despair, for there was no way Europe would ever resist Jihad and islamization in the first place. If Breivik had never been born, it would not have mattered a jot. Any more than the murder of Pim Fortuyn by van der Graaf made any impression at all on the pro-Islamicization, pro-Multiculturalist, pro-Diversity forces.

Women in the West, raised to equality or even a bit more, than their male peers, naturally find them … repulsive. Beta males. Lacking the sexy! They want … well they want Vampire Bill. Or Vampire Angel. Or Vampire Spike. Or Dexter. Or Vic Mackey (the Shield). Violent, dominant, murdering men who kill with impunity, and whom they hope to control. That's the fantasy. It certainly is not … changing diapers and doing dishes. That's what a Kitchen Bitch (derisive name for a supportive beta male coined by Sandra Tsing Loh and echoed by feminist bloggers) would do. And no one wants a Kitchen Bitch.

Western men have turned into Kitchen Bitches, by and large. Being supportive, being equal, being totally lacking in violent, sexy, domination. Is it any wonder that Western women, en-masse, have rejected Western men and their civilization? In favor of non-White men who will … dominate them? Roderick Shonte Dantzler, who killed his ex-wife, his daughter, her parents, his ex-girlfriend, his ex-girlfriend's sister, his ex-girlfriend's sister's daughter, and tried to kill another ex-girlfriend, was a Black ex-con who got his ex-wife pregnant when she was 16 and he was 22. No statutory rape charges were filed. All his exes were White. No questions there, Dontzler was far preferable, to a Kitchen Bitch, because he was violent and dominant. That he was often in prison, on anti-psychotic medications, and threatened to burn his own mother's house down made no difference. Women in the West are DESPERATE for sexy dominance. So they will put up with anything.

OneSTDV notes again, the stupid White men commercials, with the hot-sexy wife who actually makes money by being a hot-shot businesswoman, continues the theme of White guys are stupid. Larry Auster had noted that DHS had produced a video with "suspicious" White guys reported by patriotic Black/Hispanic/Muslim people. This is no mystery. White guys are mostly, beta males, equal and therefore as sexually desirable as a bowl of cold oatmeal to women. Who in turn support, widely, islamization (at least they'll get domination), mass immigration, and multiculturalism (hatred of White/European culture).

No argument, facts, stats, or anything would sway White women. They want their sexy men! Women will defend a violent, dominant, Alpha male to the end, almost. Meanwhile women despise beta males who they view as weak, untrustworthy, and icky (devoid of sex appeal). As long as women in the West found most of their White male counterparts their equal or slightly inferior, they'd support all of the anti-Western agenda: mass immigration, Islamicization, diversity, PC, Multiculturalism. So they can get sexy, back.

This means the West is doomed. So there is no point in doing anything about it, or even caring much, other than sentiment and nostalgia. White women have decisively rejected White men, hence the appalling low birthrate (they don't find men sexy enough to have kids by). White women are prey to appalling fantasies about violent domination (watch night-time TV). White women find White men unsexy Kitchen Bitches, and will vote en-masse, en-bloc, for their immediate replacement by dominant non-White men. Cherie Blair famously endorsed the Burqua and fought for it, in the UK. Her sister converted to Islam. Why? Because Islam provides domination, something most women want desperately.

That women will find the real-life "Handmaid's Tale" (Margaret Atwood's book created horror among women, because the men were not sexy enough, not the domination) quite unpleasant is of course ironic. But that is human existence.

Human society nearly always flounders on sex. It is explosive, and a limited resource that cannot be spread out much. Repressing Alpha Male, and female sexuality, to a limited set of choices, as traditional Western society did, allowing women the maximum amount of freedom before hypergamy runs wild, with ugly domination fantasies, meant building a high-trust, nuclear family society that could weather lots of shocks and competition and chaos. And still come out with more wealth than ever before. The harem-building model of Mormons before repudiation of polygamy (they were poor and beset with violence and mistrust when polygamous, middle class and prosperous now), and Muslims since the religion's founding, means violence and poverty. Though women are generally happy in it, finding men dominant and violent to their liking.

In short, Breivik is a symptom of underlying causes, rather than the cause itself. The West was doomed the moment it raised up women to full equality, female sexuality being what it is, Western women found Western men unsexy, and therefore deserving of annihilation and Western society deserving of replacement. They've set about it quite well. Had Breivik never existed, the killings never happened, nothing would have changed. Western women would have led the effort to replace the White population (which they damn for producing "Kitchen Bitches") with one non-White and at least possessing sexy, dominant men. That poverty and violence will result is no matter. Western Women are not stupid, they know what they will get. But sexy is worth it, for most of them. And therefore they will get it.

One final note, it is amazing the passivity among the youth on the island. Apparently they only tried to get away, there was no attempt by the young men to overwhelm the shooter and well, kill him. The feminized, passive orientation of young men is striking, and found at Columbine, at Virginia Tech, and many other places (Montreal). Napoleon's genius was to make the average peasant a small landh0lder, with a chance at his own family and wife. His men fought like lions as a result, even after the carnage of the Revolutionary wars. Napoleon far overperformed, with this simple insight. Men and boys will fight like lions for "theirs," had they a claim on their girlfriends likely to be their wives, the young men at Virginia Tech or Montreal or the Youth Camp Island, would have suffered horrific casualties but killed the shooter. Men fight like this in the Marines, even today, doing things of amazing bravery under fire, and they are ordinary men, not Spec Ops warriors, or super-human genetically engineered fighters. The Army, Navy, and Air Force has produced men of similar bravery, decorated for heroic combat actions.

Why then the passivity? Because Kitchen Bitches don't die for an Alpha's harem. A man might die for his "brother" (created by training and combat). But he won't die for the Alpha's squeeze.




...Read more

China Wins the Future

Lots of people from Thomas Friedman to Barack Obama wish the US were more like China. I thank God every day it is not. Slashdot has a story and comments about a derailment of the high speed bullet train that led to numerous dead and injured, and coaches falling off a bridge. Only a few months too, after Railways Ministry officials expressed concerns that safety standards had been ignored in building the high speed train network. The claim of course was retracted, but undoubtedly true.


Winning the future, Obama's "WTF" slogan (no I am not kidding) requires more than building up pirated technology in a slap-dash manner, cheaply. It means innovation. Which in turn requires … property rights widely respected and widely dispersed. China is again regressing to its Eunuchs-on-command-from-the-Emperor mode. Brilliant men either make a few, poorly understood breakthroughs (gunpowder, magnetic compasses) or copy something else, which then goes stagnant. Since there is no one at a deep-wide level to push technology ever further.

The West did not invent: gunpowder, magnetic compasses, paper money, printing, civil exams, and a lot of other things borrowed from China and India. But what the West did do, far better, was push advances constantly. Relentlessly, generation after generation. So that every twenty years there were newer and better navigation devices, charts, understanding of navigation, time-pieces, calculation log-books, and weapons. Made possible not by people under control of the Emperor, or the Central Party Oligarchy, but by many competing, widely distributed, always on the make ordinary folk trying their best to improve their lot every day.

The West beat the best brains on the planet. The West never had Court Eunuchs to match the Chinese Emperor, or the Ottoman's scholars, or the ones in India. But it did have the Beretta Family, and the Caslon family, and the Caxton family, and the Wright family, and many more. All building on the work of others, to constantly improve technology to their own advantage. China has nothing like it.

There are many talented people in China. But their innovations, their designs, will go nowhere for their own advantage. No one is going to invent anything for the glory of the Emperor, or Central Party Committee, and the advantage of Red Princelings. Instead that lack of ability to better one's own self except by examination and rising in the Emperor's (or Central Party Committee) service means a mind-bending bureaucracy stifling anything other than stealing some other culture's advances.

That's not winning the future. More like heading for a crash, as the ability to work smarter with resources diminishes. As Jim Chanos famously observed, the USSR grew tremendously from 1946 up through the late 1970's. Then productivity hit a wall. All the cement had been poured. All the villages electrified. All the people taught to read. All the highways built. All the peasants sent to technical school. And productivity fell, year after year, in accelerating fashion. Because fundamentally, people won't work hard for anyone but themselves. Slaves may fear the whip, but avoid any serious work for their masters. Meanwhile the genius of Napoleon, a former peasant himself, was to make French peasants small landholders. Give a man a piece of property, no matter how mean, and a chance at a family of his own he can improve, no matter how small, and he'll fight to the death for it.

If you wonder how Napoleon managed all those victories, against so many, for so long, before luck ran out, that's how.

The US has many faults, but it is not China. And for that I thank God.
...Read more

When Will the Middle Class Opt-Out of Education (and Public Life)?

Hippies made a film in 1970 called Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came, a naïve but interesting idea, nevertheless. But what if people had a way … of opting out of all sorts of things they find awful? What if you never had to leave your house, almost? That was the subplot of 1995's The Net with Sandra Bullock and Dennis Miller. But in real life Middle Class (White) Americans are now poised to do just that, with Education and almost everything else.


The Orange County Register reports that Hispanics still lag far behind White students in K-12 education.

The U.S. Department of Education report, released June 23, shows the achievement gap between white and Hispanic students has not closed at all since the early 1990s, with the overall difference between the groups remaining above 20 points, or roughly two grade levels, on a scale of 0 to 500.

"With everything that the state of California is trying to do, it's frustrating that the achievement gap really hasn't moved," said Alicia Berhow, administrator for the Latino Educational Attainment Initiative, an outreach project of the Orange County Business Council.
…
The report shows a 21-point gap in math between fourth-grade Hispanic and white students in 2009. At grade eight, the gap rises to 26 points.

The gap is similarly wide in reading – 25 points in fourth grade and 24 in eighth.
California fares even worse than the U.S. average, trailing the nation by 4 to 7 points in fourth- and eight-grade reading and math.

The full report is here. Boiled down to its essentials, despite twenty years of sustained federal and state efforts, Hispanic (that means mostly Mexican) kids are about two grade levels behind White kids. This makes public schools a sink-hole for public resources, as well as being hell for any White kids unlucky enough to be lumped with significant amounts of Hispanic and Black kids. Despite all efforts, considerable sums of money, and the best educational minds spending 20 years on the matter, learning has not caught up to White kids. It remains, fairly abysmal.

This has significant impact on public culture, taxing, spending, and voting.

Education, in K-12, simply does not work for Hispanic and Black kids, save as a fairly obvious patronage operation. The dismal performance of DC public schools led voters to … toss out Mayor Adrian Fenty and Superintendent Michelle Rhee, in favor of the old-style, Marion Barry patronage. Black voters in DC don't expect their kids to learn (and the elite like the Obamas and Clintons before them certainly don't send their kids there). They expect the school district to provide jobs. Same as the Atlanta Public Schools, with Steve Sailer repeating the Atlanta Journal-Constitution story, about cheating parties, erased test forms, and the like done by Assistant Superintendents, to Principals, to teachers, on down the line, all Black which is not surprising given the patronage demands in the majority Black school district. The Black staff that ran the schools knew well, their kids could not meet aggregate test score goals in No Child Left Behind mandates. Nor earlier, Georgia State goals, mandated by the Legislature. So they cheated. Hispanic kids just fail at a lower rate.

No one has been able to make either group, Black or Hispanic, consistently match Whites. For whatever reason, it cannot be done. Meanwhile, as Sailer reports a new federal study shows unsurprisingly, Blacks and Hispanics get disproportionate amounts of disciplinary referrals and suspensions and expulsions, compared to Whites (and Asians). This is not shocking. Nor is the obvious conclusion that when Education Secretary Arne Duncan says he will team up with Attorney General Eric ("My People") Holder to "go after" school districts with a pattern of racial disparities in disciplinary action, what he means is more zero tolerance to expel some hapless White kid who brought a paring knife to school to eat an apple along with a Black kid who beat another kid's head in, during a fight.

Zero Tolerance is just a way to expel White kids to make the numbers look good, race-wise. For the feds, for various grievance groups like the ACLU, NAACP, LULAC, etc.

With all that, why send your kid to public school? Why aren't there busing fights? With parents "stuck" in houses they cannot sell, and job markets frozen? Because either they already sent them to private school, or they are looking at things like the the Khan Academy. Nope, its not the training ground for Captain Kirk's arch-enemy, it is an online, free site providing lots of lessons on almost anything a high schooler could want.

Eventually private school at home will be even more affordable, just have an internet connection, a computer, and watch videos of lectures, do downloaded problem sets/practice, and use online tools for help, tutoring, corrections, and test-taking to measure progress. Drilling for AP tests has never been easier, let alone SAT/ACT. Princeton Review, Kaplan, the Great Courses, are all likely to expand into this space with the money of course being in reduced expenses (no bricks/mortar spaces with heavy staff costs) and piecework test correction, assistance, tutoring, etc. Go at your own pace, avoid ugly peer interaction, learn anything, from Latin to Greek to French, regardless of what the school down the street offers. Avoid Black/Hispanic acting out and learning-lagging, let alone racial harassment, for White and Asian kids.

Indeed, the whole "rating" thing allows kids and parents to pick tutors with high ratings/results, like the Amazon rating system in the Marketplace, or Ebay's rating system, or Yelp!. Wouldn't you like to pick your kids French tutor than just "go along" with whatever is out there at the public school? Yes of course younger kids have to be watched, but work at home schedules can accomplish this. It is more pleasant than sending them off to school every day. Itself quite expensive in public schools if any Extra-curricular activities are included:

Budget shortfalls have prompted Medina Senior High to impose fees on students who enroll in many academic classes and extracurricular activities. The Dombis had to pay to register their children for basic courses such as Spanish I and Earth Sciences, to get them into graded electives such as band, and to allow them to run cross-country and track. The family's total tab for a year of public education: $4,446.50.

"I'm wondering, am I going to be paying for my parking spot at the school? Because you're making me pay for just about everything else," says Ms. Dombi, a parent in this middle-class community in northern Ohio.

With that sort of charges, kids can participate in athletics, music, and other things on a per-sport basis just as easily, in private clubs, the way kids in Europe often do. A plus, as Steve Sailer notes, it keeps daughters healthy, active, and away from bad boys like Levi Johnson, no Bristol Palin pregnant at 16 risks, by filtering out by income levels those kids with single moms, but a bad boy attitude with athletic ability picked up by victory hungry coaches/athletic departments (did I mention, no Levi Johnsons?) That sort of thing keeps boys from getting into fights too much, or becoming overly aggressive or too fearful, or picking up bad habits (smoking weed, not studying) found among say, greatly gifted but poor students on the Football, or Track, or Basketball teams.

It is not just limited to K-12 either. Michael Barone thinks higher ed will burst as a bubble as well. California's UC system is "broke" but is doubling down on diversity, hiring more diversity bureaucrats during the budget crisis. Meanwhile as noted, Jerry Brown signed into law mandating K-12 educators teach "This Day in Gay" about Gay culture and contributions to history. Not only is the law stupid, it takes up valuable and limited time for gay propagandizing at the expense of math and science.

The Great Opt Out has begun. Sooner or later (and it might come sooner due to cash-strapped parents looking to save money on education), various private groups will offer a complete package, and exam-certified results. Your kid can study at home, at his own time, on his own pace, knowing exactly where he stands, in passing various exams to get his diploma, and certification/college credit for Advanced Placement, as well as pushing up his SAT/ACT scores by drilling without enduring acting-out, or simply time constraints of being one of 45 kids in a class.

The internet allows easy delivery, at far lower cost, of the best lecturers on a subject. The internet allows easy, interactive, and very low cost (compared to the public or private bricks and mortar school) delivery of tutoring, exam-correction, drilling, and the like. Mavis Beacon can teach you to type by computer a lot easier than say, a bored Mrs. Diffle struggling to control thirty sugar zonked 12 year olds. Boring drills with the computer can be spiced up a bit by game play, or what have you, motivating kids who struggle. Unlike a teacher with a class full of kids, the computer can slow down or speed up to give a student just the right amount of drill, in Latin, biology, or Calculus he or she needs.

It has not happened yet, because people still think of education as something that happens because of "Miracle Teachers" who look like Mr. Hand, or Edward James Olmos, or Robin Williams. Interspersed with "magical" things like football games, or Quidditch, homecoming, and all the rest. In a word, nostalgia. From the High School settings of the start of "Smallville" and "Buffy" to Harry Potter, that model of delivering education has a lot of power and romance. But …

A wise band once said, "Give me convenience or give me death." The Dead Kennedys were right, too. Vinyl, film pictures, the cassette tape and Walkman, all had their charm, defenders (the film "High Fidelity" with the tiresome John Cusack) and some technical advantages (for vinyl/tape, a more accurate if hissy capturing of the analog sound waves). But like everything else in life, convenience won out. It was cheaper and easier to take digital pictures and store them on your computer. Cheaper and easier to buy first CDs, then MP3 downloads, and put them on your Ipod. It is cheaper and easier to use Netflix than Blockbuster. It is cheaper and easier to use e-books than trot out to Borders and buy a physical book. And it is cheaper and easier, and also more effective, to have your kid educated at home by "the best" online company offering a comprehensive catalog of the "best lectures" by the best teachers, all rated and reviewed. Than hauling them off to be babysat every day by bored and under-trained and often patronage-chosen-only teachers.

This means, of course, that a White middle or even working class taxpayer base is not going to spring for heavy school taxes. White guilt save a few SWPL yuppies is played out. The White Middle Class is not staging a revolution, they already walked out on life. They walked out on Borders, and the shopping malls. Too many hassles, of living among non-White majorities with basically little enforcement of laws regarding harassment or worse, among those favored with the "correct" ethnicity/race. Whites opted out of the book offerings, opting for e-books that have little PC barriers, one way or another. It could be women's porn, the romance novels, easily read without shame on a Kindle. Or something else, a ripping tale of adventure offered cheap. White middle and working class men opted out of television, save televised sports, long ago. There's been nothing but opting out.

The great untold story is the simple writing off of most post-War American institutions by White Middle/Working class people. Marriage, the nuclear family, monogamy, Party Identification, mass media consumption, century old technologies, television, all of it written off largely by a population opting out, and using the internet to move around old ways of doing things. Some of this is pretty awful -- Ashley Madison, the various other "cheating" sites and raising kids in what amounts to a parade of guys through Mom's bedroom. Some of this is sad, the death of network TV, newspapers, film photography, vinyl, cassette tapes, the VCR. And some of this is revolutionary -- the process of abandoning public schools for private online education. [Including, inevitably, a cry for credential by examination instead of by purchasing a degree in Chicano Studies from Yale.] Glenn Reynolds noted that poor bar pass rates by Blacks and Hispanics will create a huge amount of pressure to make sure they pass by lowering the exam standards.

But on the reverse, the mass of White middle and working class kids educated online will want a true meritocracy, grading by tough standards that makes their exam pass rates the equal or better of a degree in Chicano Studies from Yale. If you have a degree, say online from Texas Tech in Petroleum Engineering (one of the top ten schools) and pass the federal certification, with top honors, it ought to make you (and everyone doing that will want this) the equal of a guy from Yale who barely passed. This is more the Chinese model, except that the twist is delivery online of studying and lectures. Indeed the delivery could be global, with results and reputations built hour-by-hour the way Amazon rankings, or Ebay rankings, or Yelp reviews do for various merchants or professionals.

Needless to say, the White middle and working class will do their very best to kill alternatives, like Public Education and particularly K-12, and University education, since their kids won't go there. And desire to take down tony private schools, from Philips Exeter to Yale, by taking federal money away from the latter and larding on taxes on brick and mortar schools. Call it the reverse Amazon tax.

In a sense, public education is already dead, it just doesn't know it yet. It has become a dumping ground for Black and Hispanic permanent underachievers, mostly. [Yes it is true there will be a few exceptionally talented Black and Hispanic kids. In terms of numbers however, their impact will be akin to the Sturmgewehr 44 and the Me 262 Jet for the Germans on either front -- too little and too late. Or one can compare it to the total failure of US White basketball players to compete much in the NBA, despite their numerical advantage.]

A K-12 system that produces only patronage for non-Whites, and poor results, and pushes White middle and working class families towards internet opt-out, will get no votes for taxes. Yes the Hispanic voting juggernaut will come, real soon now. Or not. In the meantime, voting is done by those who show up. People whose kids don't and won't ever go to the local public schools don't tax themselves to school their demographic replacements.

And by the same token, Yale and Harvard are riding for a fall. Yes they are old, established brands, with lots of rich alumni. But they have powerful enemies, who wish to see them broken upon the wheel. Federal funding is probably going to be yanked at some point. And all sorts of penalties for credentials based on school rep, instead of standardized, merit-based tests cooked up. Its easy populism, and while the Ivies may run Wall Street and Hollywood, no one actually likes them. Voting is a popularity contest. They'll still be around, so is the University of Milan. Or the University of Paris. Even Oxford and Cambridge and Humboldt Universities are around. But while they still have cachet, they are not what they once were. Universities are more than just a place for rich kids to hang out before they work at Greenpeace in Paris for a year, and then settle on a fake "respectable" career playing at work. Much of that will move online too, because its cheaper, free-er, and easier.

Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death indeed.
...Read more

End of the Empires: News Corp and Apple

Both News Corporation and Apple Computer are in the news, with News Corp. sliding downwards in stock price, and Apple share up, based on the phone hacking scandal in Britain, and increased Iphone sales for Apple, respectively. But both organizations face a downward slope to being "ordinary" corporations, like Time-Warner, or GE, or Sony, or Microsoft. Both Apple and News Corp. rely on a single man, exclusively, to focus their organizations towards maximum profitability. By doing things differently than their competitors, and reaping considerable rewards. Neither man, of course, has a replacement and the succession is likely to be a disaster.


News Corp. is a highly leveraged, media company. It must make payments of about $1 billion every year to service its debt, mostly bonds. As long as the company generates that cash, it does quite well. The leverage results in higher returns for equity investors, who are basically taking risks (currently satellite TV expansion in the UK and Asia) with other people's money (the bondholders) while reaping the rewards. But the key is servicing the considerable amount of debt. Which means, basically, Fox News.

Fox News produces on its own, about $1 billion a year in operating profit. Enough to fund the payment on debts year in and out. The Film division last year produced about the same, but the Film division is highly variable. Some years it can produce even a loss, and other years perhaps more. News Corp. MUST make those debt payments, and bondholders watch the cash flow quite carefully, as do shareholders. No other division within News Corp produces anything like the money Fox News produces to service the debt every year.

And this is a problem -- because the successors to Rupert Murdoch are stupid. James Murdoch, Lachlan Murdoch, and Elizabeth Murdoch have been quoted as saying they wish to fire Roger Ailes and turn Fox News into MSNBC. Wendi Deng, Murdoch's current wife, has been quoted as saying the same thing. This will gain them the admiration of "respectable people." The Guardian and BBC will cease to attack them. Jeannine Garofalo, Bill Maher, and Whoopi Goldberg will be happy. So too will Sting, Trudy Styler, and Bono, along with Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, and Jamie Foxx.

But no one will watch. Fox News is extremely profitable, a money-making machine, because its costs are low, and advertisers pay through the roof to get its huge audiences, which dwarf the other players, who fight among themselves for the small group of (to be sure wealthy) White people who are liberal. Most non-Whites lack money (little Lexus purchasing among the Black and Latino community) and don't care about news (Latinos if they watch news watch it in Spanish, and Blacks at 12% of the population watch little news anyway). Even as the non-White population grows, their share of disposable consumer income is not growing much anyway. Making the demographic change of America outpacing that of the political/consumer change. Importing millions of dirt-poor illegal alien Mexicans, has not made them rich. Their kids, born in this country, remain poor also.

Therefore, the action is split among Whites, the rich liberal faction, which spends a lot of money on things like TD Ameritrade, or Lexus autos, and the like, and the vast working/middle class White consumer base, which buys Fords, Toyotas, and Budweiser. The market for the White Upper Class Liberals, is already saturated. NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Oprah Winfrey Network, Lifetime, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, NPR, PBS, and more all compete for attention, time, and money. Anyone NOT an Upper Class Liberal (or who does not aspire to be one) has only … Fox News.

Fox News only makes money because no one competes with it. No other Media organization can or will "sully itself" to make money by being slightly less left-wing, slightly more middle/working class, than the upscale, liberal, upper-twenty-percent income folks who watch CNN. As of 2009, according the US Census Bureau, the top twenty percent in income numbered roughly 23 million households, and they make more than $100,000 a year. The number of people in the middle, the 60% center, make from between $20,000 and $100,000 a year, and number about 69 million households. The people at CNN and the NYT and NPR don't care about the middle/working class, the 60% of the income around the median. That group is an alien people, living in places like suburban Dallas or St. Louis, with interests, views, and incomes totally alien to the urban coastal hiperati that makes up the alternatives to Fox News.

Rupert Murdoch understand this. He knows, from a brief experience on a working-class tabloid early in his career, that the middle/working class if catered to on a social level (which is the fundamental basis of Fox News) can make a lot of money. Not so much in newspapers now, but certainly in TV news. And perhaps on the internet, eventually. Fox News has been picking up money left on the table by all the other competitors, by being slightly less hard-left and more middle/working class oriented. [Even so, they've avoided carefully describing the race of the Flash Mobs assaulting/lynching Whites this Summer.]

Regardless of how the phone hacking scandals play out, someone not named Rupert Murdoch will take over News Corp. soon. Murdoch is a man in his eighties, he simply cannot run the organization much longer. If not James, then Lachlan. If not Lachlan, then Elizabeth. If not Elizabeth, then Wendi Deng. One of them will succeed Rupert Murdoch, and do exactly what they have promised interviewers time and again: fire Roger Ailes, and turn Fox News into MSNBC. Very soon after that, the Film division will have a bad year, losses instead of earnings, and News Corp. will struggle or miss debt payments. And so begin a long, slow, NYT-like decline. All because the remarkable attributes of Rupert Murdoch, understanding that there is money to be made catering to middle/working class conservative sensibilities, cannot be duplicated in his family.

The same is true for Apple, regardless of increased Iphone sales for now. Steve Jobs is a very sick man. His company has been terrible without his leadership. Alone among Apple CEOs, Jobs understands that what he sells is a mixture of hip-glitterati envy, and convenience in making things "just work," be it a smartphone offering all sorts of handy and convenient apps (at the expense mind you of privacy and security), or a music player that integrates completely with your computer, or a store to buy music and video and books and applications, that integrates completely with your computer and various devices. In addition, Jobs understands the model of generally well paid engineers to produce high-end software and hardware, and the integration between them, producing mostly high-end results, for which the company charges a high-end price.

Absent Jobs, there is no one with the vision and ability to make Apple competitive down the road as Google/Android gets better and bigger and cheaper in smartphone offerings. Absent Jobs, there is no one to push personal computing into the next space, perhaps recording and classifying and moving around video from Satellite, Cable, and over-the-air broadcasting the way a TIVO or VCR does, only with Itunes capabilities and the ability to synch with a portable player to take wherever and whenever you want. Absent Jobs there is no one with both a design and engineering eye that can produce products that look beautiful and function well enough to inspire gadget lust among Apple's well-heeled buyers.

In the meantime, Apple has become trapped like most computer makers in China. Manufacturing (contrary to what Steve Wozniak, Apple Co-founder argued) has long been sent to China, decades past, like nearly all computer manufacturers. Making tighter integration with hardware and software, last minute changes, and quality control and supply chain shock insurance much, much harder. The CEO has to be even more on top of things, because the factory is not five minutes or five hours away, able to quickly re-tool and deliver a changed antenna, on an Iphone, for example. Or a different screen on an Imac. This makes getting it right the first time vital, and only Jobs has been able to do this. No other computer exec, including Bill Gates, has been able to make as many design wins on hardware/software integration as Jobs has done. This is the fundamental basis for Apple's success.

And its downfall. Other than Jobs, can any exec on the horizon offer more than Carly Fiorina style cost-cutting and job-shedding? A "me too" attitude towards commoditization, or pie-in-the-sky business consulting (Xerox's Diversity CEO, Ursula Burns is a good example of the futility of this approach). Apple is not going to compete with say, Oracle, SAP, and Sybase for business integration money. The company has no expertise and no ability to execute that strategy. For better or worse, Apple remains consumer-wedded, and that means a strategy of not being the low-cost leader, but easy to use, integration already done, high-margin leader. The only person in the history of personal computing to execute this strategy continually and successfully is Steve Jobs. He simply is not replaceable.

Now, Apple and News Corp won't fall right away. They won't go bankrupt and liquidate like Borders. Or Circuit City. Or Compusa. They can muddle along for a good long while, like Xerox, or Kodak, or GM, or Palm (before it was bought by HP). Zombie companies, subject perhaps to periodic bailouts, eking out a not-dead, not alive existence. But absent their visionary CEOs, neither company has the ability to make the money they used to, by consistently beating the competition through a strategy that is obvious but near-impossible to duplicate. In many ways this speaks to decadence and debauchment of the elites. That both Murdoch and Jobs beat them for so long by doing the clear and obvious. With never a thought to beat them at their own game.
...Read more

The Phone Hacking Scandal: PC Makes You Corrupt

The Phone-Hacking scandal involving News Corp's News of the World tabloid, where various celebrities, politicians, and ordinary people (murder victims, slain British soldiers in Afghanistan) had their voicemail hacked generates a lot of media attention on News Corp's rather unsavory practices there. The BBC, Guardian, and the rest of the far-left British establishment (but I repeat myself) has gone into an orgiastic overload regarding the scandal. However, a new editorial by the Wall Street Journal's Holman Jenkins likens it to a British Watergate, and points out the big area of corruption: the Police.


The scandals involving the corrupt and unethical means by which tabloids gain information about celebrity targets has been old news for decades. Donald E. Westlake wrote about tabloid seamy excesses in the 1988 novel Trust Me On This. One of the ways tabloids would gin up scandal and protect themselves, was to pay associates of celebrity targets substantial sums of money to speculate on tape about weird/repelling and patently untrue things about the celebrity. If sued, the tabloid would produce the tape. The major plot-point of the novel was a murder and attempted murders related to a ruthless attempt to generate pictures of a celebrity target that resulted in deaths. That tabloids were ugly and ruthless in generating dubious content about celebrity and politician targets was old news even then, in 1988. If people don't like that, they only needed to stop buying tabloids, or now stop reading their websites. TMZ, Radar Online, X17, and other gossip sites online (the Huffington Post arguably belongs in that category as well) are not going away. Because people LIKE their content, even if most of it is generated by interns with cheap video cameras trolling celebrity hotspots looking to generate confrontations that are newsworthy. [Celebrity publicists have trained most of their clients to say nothing, just smile and wave as they leave.]

Seamy as it is, this gossip stuff sells, and if the public wants it shut down, they need only stop patronizing it. All of these organizations are private, not government run, and depend utterly on the goodwill and patronage of their readers and viewers.

No, the scandalous thing is the corruption of the British police. Long thought of in the US as a sort of homey, unarmed and incorruptible if clueless police force, the British police have been mired in corruption scandals since at least the 1970s. They have also been inept, and totally PC. Indeed the corruption has gone hand in hand with the PC desires of their masters, the British elite.

As Jenkins writes:

But the bigger scandal, as the headlines are starting to reveal, is the police scandal. Even top cops were phone-"blagged" and yet apparently complained to editors about it rather than treating it as a crime.

Had police pursued obvious wrongdoing and jailed a few journalists back in 1999, a lot fewer British citizens would have been victims of privacy invasions. Those who've likened the hacking scandal to Britain's Watergate are onto something. After the Watergate break-in, behavior that had been tolerated, routine and abetted by official agencies became, overnight, untolerated and prosecuted. Remember, it was the FBI's No. 2, blowing a whistle on his own agency, who played "Deep Throat" to the press.

We're also struck at how often the subject of cocaine comes up. Jonathan Rees, the private eye accused of bribing police to get information on behalf of several tabloids, was Scotland Yard's suspect in the unsolved 1987 ax murder of his partner, who was believed about to blow the whistle on cocaine trafficking by police in southeast London. Rees himself subsequently went to jail, along with a corrupt police officer, for planting cocaine on a woman involved in a child custody dispute. Sean Hoare, the late News of the World reporter who blew the whistle on widespread phone hacking at the tabloids, spoke of widespread cocaine usage on tabloid news desks. For what it's worth, we're guessing that drugs will be part of the story before it's over.

Police, routinely helped tabloids and other papers, including the Daily Mirror (not a News Corp paper), the Daily Telegraph (not a News Corp paper), and likely the Guardian and BBC (also not News Corp outfits to put it mildly) obtain information on people in a corrupt manner. Cocaine and other drugs are rumored to be rampant among the police, tabloid reporters, editors, "respectable" papers, politicians, judges, and the entire British elite. As is a corrupt and venal attitude.

The British version of the TV series "Life on Mars" addressed the corruption and lack of PC-ness, with the view that while the corrupt antagonist to the hero might be well, corrupt, he at least got results and was not handcuffed by PC. The Sopranos Tony Soprano, and the Shield's Vic Mackey are similar characters. Audiences across the West are sick of the PC, more so than the corruption. The PC, multi-culti, diversity stuff just means subordination of ordinary White citizens into an eternal groveling position relative to non-Whites, nearly all of whom have nothing but hostility to the White majority, the traditions, and values of the country. [See Luc Besson's "Taken" for a fairly good run-down of this, as well as his "From Paris With Love."]

However, as noted in the film "Taken," the corruption comes with PC. They are part and parcel. France's police forces have always been viewed as corrupt, enforcers for whoever holds the political reins (Vichy and Occupying Nazis, Napoleons I and III, the Bourbons, corrupt Third Republic, Fourth Republic, and Fifth Republic officials). But the British Police until the 1970's retained a reputation for being both efficient and free of corruption. The problem with the British police has been the corrupt nature of their political leaders. Who have demanded adherence to a PC line, which is explicitly anti-Majority, anti-White, anti-culture, anti-Tradition, anti-History, and totally alien to everything about Britain and its culture and its people. So the only people who were promoted, on the ability to adhere to PC and parrot its idiot delusions, were corrupt individuals who had nothing but contempt for Britain and its people and its values.

You cannot have it half-way, or "best of both worlds." If you want sexy men, for women, then you must deal with the death of the nuclear family, and single-motherhood as the norm for almost every family. And the dysfunction that single-motherhood brings, the fragility, the chaos. If you want multiculturalism and "diversity' then you must deal with sexual discrimination, and isolation of menstruating girls at public High schools:

It’s the scene every Friday at the cafeteria of Valley Park Middle School in Toronto. That’s not a private academy, it’s a public school funded by taxpayers. And yet, oddly enough, what’s going on is a prayer service – oh, relax, it’s not Anglican or anything improper like that; it’s Muslim Friday prayers, and the Toronto District School Board says don’t worry, it’s just for convenience: They put the cafeteria at the local imams’ disposal because otherwise the kids would have to troop off to the local mosque and then they’d be late for Lesbian History class or whatever subject is scheduled for Friday afternoon.

The picture is taken from the back of the cafeteria. In the distance are the boys. They’re male, so they get to sit up front at prayers. Behind them are the girls. They’re female, so they have to sit behind the boys because they’re second-class citizens – not in the whole of Canada, not formally, not yet, but in the cafeteria of a middle school run by the Toronto District School Board they most certainly are.

And the third row? The ones with their backs to us in the foreground of the picture? Well, let the Star’s caption writer explain:

At Valley Park Middle School, Muslim students participate in the Friday prayer service. Menstruating girls, at the very back, do not take part.

Oh. As Kathy Shaidle says:

Yep, that’s part of the caption of the Toronto Star photo.

Yes, the country is Canada and the year is 2011.

Just so. Not some exotic photojournalism essay from an upcountry village in Krappistan. But a typical Friday at a middle school in the largest city in Canada. I forget which brand of tampon used to advertise itself with the pitch "Now with new [whatever] you can go horse-riding, water-ski-ing, ballet dancing, whatever you want to do", but perhaps they can just add the tag: "But not participate in Friday prayers at an Ontario public school."

As Steyn notes, local Canadian Muslims are discussing how best to kill homosexuals. Canadian laws forbid religious worship in public schools. But that law is ignored in Toronto, where local schools are 80-90% Muslim. Of course the "real enemy" is traditional culture, values and people. Icky White Beta males, traditional values, the two-parent nuclear family as John McWhorter writes, "A neighborhood where every child had two parents would be a little odd and almost ominous. Except if it were a highly traditional religious community, one would suspect strangely stringent notions regarding compatibility and even sexuality." [Translation: two-parent families are icky and bad, except for say, non-White immigrants who are religious. Those people are OK, they're not "the wrong sort of White people" who need to be annihilated.]

PC is corrupt. You cannot get "halfway corruption" with PC. You get it all. You get a disregard for everything that traditional society teaches is right, and correct, including treatment of women, those not in the majority, individual rights, the historic culture and tradition, and trust. Police rummage through phone records, record calls, spy on people, and sell the information to which ever tabloid or newspaper or media outlet wants it. News of the World or the BBC. The Sun or the Guardian. It does not matter. The corruption engendered by PC never just stops like the fantasy of "Sharia Lite" where you can get off any time. Like Sharia, like Multiculturalism, like PC, like Diversity, it means a corrupt and brutal environment where nobody but the very rich and powerful have any rights. None.

The Guardian and the BBC will surely come to regret their jihad against News Corp. While News Corp is surely guilty, the role the police play in supplying not just News Corp with phone details, but the BBC and the Guardian, who surely used them, is bound to come out. As is the rampant and shared drug use, trafficking, and corruption of a shared, PC-bound elite. Who have nothing but contempt for ordinary people and their values.

What, really, does PC have to offer? Obeisance to the powers-that-be, that is all. Perhaps a few patronage scraps not gobbled up by the main players, thin gruel indeed. For most people, its an obvious lie that is ground in their faces every day. As long as the money lasts to pay enough people off, like the Soviet Union, then the game will continue. But as the money is running out, the game is coming up. The scandals are not just that News Corp. UK papers hacked phones of a murdered 13 year old and British soldiers slain in Afghanistan. It is that the police were selling to all comers, with coke and money and favors and all sorts of corrupt stuff involved, likely all the way up to the top of Labor, Tory, and Liberal Democrats. Along with most of the elite, and the top people at the BBC and Guardian. News Corp's people on the spot, James Murdoch, Rebecca Brooks, and others, all know where the bodies are buried. The shared coke, the favor trading, the police flogging secrets of ordinary people thrust into the news and celebrities alike, all for a price. And who got what to get what, including rival organizations. Like the Boss Tweed Ring, this is not an isolated pattern but a national scandal.

Because PC makes you corrupt. And the price of the corruption is sure to come out. Those in the dock of the media frenzy will drag others right along with them. With the result that the British public will realize their police and elites are a bunch of coked-out corrupt cronies, all connected, and all venal and small.


...Read more

Arrow of Desire: Sexy Not Dependable Men

A couple of recent articles in both Larry Auster's site and the Wall Street Journal show how the arrow of female desire in America (and really the West) has changed over the years. Towards Sexy not Dependable men. It is a massive shift, one likely irrevocable, with profound impact on family formation, wealth creation and retention, and national power. A massive preference for "sexy men" means basically an America and a West that is poor, violent, generally static, and unable to innovate around and over problems.


First, the view from the Upper Middle Class. Susan Gregory Thomas is a writer for the WSJ, Washington Post, MSNBC, and other news outlets. Her memoir of growing up as one of the children of Boomer Divorce, and the cost, is worth quoting from:

Growing up, my brother and I were often left to our own devices, members of the giant flock of migrant latchkey kids in the 1970s and '80s. Our suburb was littered with sad-eyed, bruised nomads, who wandered back and forth between used-record shops to the sheds behind the train station where they got high and then trudged off, back and forth from their mothers' houses during the week to their fathers' apartments every other weekend.

The divorced parents of a boy I knew in high school installed him in his own apartment because neither of them wanted him at home. Naturally, we all descended on his place after school—sometimes during school—to drink and do drugs. He was always wasted, no matter what time we arrived. A few years ago, a friend told me that she had learned that he had drunk himself to death by age 30.

"Whatever happens, we're never going to get divorced." Over the course of 16 years, I said that often to my husband, especially after our children were born. Apparently, much of my generation feels at least roughly the same way: Divorce rates, which peaked around 1980, are now at their lowest level since 1970. In fact, the often-cited statistic that half of all marriages end in divorce was true only in the 1970s—in other words, our parents' marriages.

Thomas talks of her search to avoid divorce and the pain it brings. Yet, by marrying a guy who was dependable, and solid, a guy she takes pains to praise, it is clear that ... she had no sexual desire for him at all. A boring Beta Male, no matter how good at taking care of kids, running the house, cooking, and all that, inspires nothing but contempt. She notes she had not slept with her husband for years. The contempt for lack of sexiness oozes off the page:

I believed that I had married my best friend as fervently as I believed that I'd never get divorced. No marital scenario, I told myself, could become so bleak or hopeless as to compel me to embed my children in the torture of a split family. And I wasn't the only one with strong personal reasons to make this commitment. According to a 2004 marketing study about generational differences, my age cohort "went through its all-important, formative years as one of the least parented, least nurtured generations in U.S. history." Census data show that almost half of us come from split families; 40% were latch-key kids.
…
To allow our own marriages to end in divorce is to live out our worst childhood fears. More horrifying, it is to inflict the unthinkable on what we most love and want to protect: our children. It is like slashing open our own wounds and turning the knife on our babies. To consider it is unbearable.
…
But marriages do dissolve, even among those determined never to let it happen. After nine years, my husband and I had become wretched, passive-aggressive roommates. I had given up trying to do anything in the kitchen and had not washed a dish in a year. My husband had not been able to "find time" to read the book I had written. We rarely spoke, except about logistics. We hadn't slept in the same room for at least two years, a side effect of the nighttime musical bed routine that parents of so many young children play in semiconsciousness for years on end.

Yet I never considered divorce. It never even entered my mind. I was grateful that my babies had a perfect father, for our family meals, for the stability of our home, for neighborhood play dates.

But then, one evening, I found myself where I vowed I'd never be: miserable, in tears, telling my husband that we were like siblings who couldn't stand each other rather than a couple, and listening as my husband said he felt as though we had never really been a couple and regretted that we hadn't split up a decade earlier. "I'm done," he said. It was as if a cosmic force had been unleashed; the awful finality of it roared in like an enormous black cloud blotting out the sky, over every inch of the world. It was done.
…
I had married the kindest, most stable person I'd ever known to ensure that our children would never know anything of the void of my own childhood. I nursed, loved, read to and lolled about with my babies—restructured and re-imagined my career—so that they would be secure, happy, attended to. My husband and I made the happiest, most comfy nest possible. We worked as a team; we loved our kids; we did everything right, better than right. And yet divorce came. In spite of everything.

No, "divorce did not just happen." Any more than sex with an Alpha Male "just happened." Even with every reason to remain married, the woman divorced because a non-sexy, non-dominant male, is simply too repellent for most women to stomach for very long. Even Upper Middle Class ones with strong emotional reasons to remain married (note her imagery comparing divorce to slashing her babies with knives, strong stuff). But the pull of an Alpha male, and sex with one, was simply too strong. She married the kindest, most stable person she'd ever known. And grew to loathe him, as a sexless sibling, instead of a sexy man.

How many men can be sexy, all the time? Not even I'd wager, Antonio Banderas or Brad Pitt. A normal man, domesticated and involved in child-rearing, will not be sexy for long. No man, not even Brad Pitt, looks sexy changing diapers. Or cooking dinner. Or taking care of kids. Those are the unsexiest things a man can do, besides World of Warcraft and Cosplay. Well, maybe Star Trek and Star Wars nerdery qualifies too.

Then there is the view from the White working class. Larry Auster has the story of one Roderick Shonte Dantzler, who in Grand Rapids Michigan, killed seven people, including an ex girlfriend, her sister, her sister's daughter, his ex-wife, his daughter, and his ex-wife's mother and father. Before killing himself (he got the order wrong, he should have killed himself first). Sad and ugly though this is, it is not unusual, and the cross-racial issue is not as important as Auster thinks it is. Here in Southern California, not a day goes by without the same story playing out, only all the victims and the perpetrator are Latinos, generally Mexican immigrants (illegals) with little or no English skills. Here is one from the Orange County Register. Here is another.

No, what I found remarkable was that Roderick Shonte Dantzler, a man on anti-psychotics, in and out of prison, with no visible means of support, a man who threatened to set his own mother's house on fire, had a daughter by a much younger woman, and three attractive ex-girlfriends. The man's daughter, who he murdered, was by simple math conceived by her mother when she was 16 or so, as Larry Auster reports.
Dantzler married her ... while he was in prison. For shooting five times at a car with a (White) couple in it, in a road-rage incident. One would think this would prove to be a barrier to romantic love, but apparently not. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, a man with a prison record, no visible means of employment, on anti-psychotic medications, a man who threatened to burn his own mother's house down ... has three ex-girlfriends. One of whom he married and conceived a child by.

Note, not one weird/crazy woman found him attractive. By all accounts three working class White women found this guy attractive enough to become his girlfriend. None of the women were repulsive, each could have easily found more dependable, more reliable, and certainly less dangerous men to date and or marry. Yet they chose -- this guy. It is remarkable.

What is going on?

Among the White working class women, no less than among Black women, or Latino women, illegitimacy is rising. And the reason is, these women all demand sexy men. Sexy men don't stick around. They don't do dishes, cook dinners, help raise kids, contribute to the household, and certainly never change diapers. That's for loser Beta Males. Sexy men are well, sexy. And for working class women, that means T-H-U-G-S. That was true for Black women, by the early 1960's, and exploded by the late 1960's. For Latino women, it shifted sometime in the mid 1980's, judging by illegitimacy rates of only 17% in the 1980s, compared to over 50% today (Black women today have national illegitimacy rates of over 70% nationwide and over 90% in the urban core). For Working Class White women, illegitimacy is over 40%, according to Charles Murray.

A Black family, contrary to "noble Platonic lies" that TV advertising, movies, and the like tell us, is a single Black mother with two or more illegitimate kids by different fathers. This is not a recipe for a happy life for children. Kids of different fathers generally hate each other, and any observer of either faculty politics or dynastic politics knows that when kids fight, over trivial scraps of affection by a single mother, the effect is like a Plantagenet bloodbath, only with faculty politics low-stakes. Someone dies not for reasons of state, and dynasty, but because Mom favors the half-brother more.

Latino/Mexican families are rapidly approaching this point of no-return.

So too, are White working class families. This group is getting to it later, and slower, than the other groups, but it is getting there all the same. The train might be a bit late, but the same hellish destination awaits.

Even worse, so are White Middle and Upper Middle Class families heading for disaster. Thomas deludes herself that the price for her sexual satisfaction is not her children's best interests. A "happy divorce" is an oxymoron. No matter what, at best kids face a group of "instant siblings" in the case of remarriage who will all hate each other, despise the "new parent" and compete constantly for attention, love, and affection. That is the best case. The worst case is a parade of men, who have no interest or affection for the kids, and the formation of a new family by the ex-husband and the abandonment of the old one. A "shared family" is no family at all. Men simply seek to create another one to replace the one they lost. With the kids falling into the cracks, from which they never get out.

Steve Sailer has posted perhaps the best column he's done yet. On why there is no real "diversity" among the Women's (and Men's) US Soccer teams. Among his points is that the concerns of modern, Upper Class White parents is high parental AND paternal investment in kids, particularly daughters (to keep them away from sexy men who will get them pregnant at age 16 like Roderick Dantzler). With an emphasis on wholesome, outdoor sports that lead to College scholarships, not pro sports careers, and a lily-White, Upper Class environment. No Thugs, bad boys, goons, Chavs, etc. allowed.

And this is because the economic environment is incredibly competitive. As blogger Half-Sigma has written (be sure to check out his bios on the NYT writers, he's covering them all and so far they are all well connected, well-born, hereditary wealthy upper class folks which explains a lot) unless you are an economic winner, meaning the right school, the right career, the right grades, the right connections, the right attitude ... everything can blow up in your face. The winners win big, but unless you are an exceptionally talented athlete, actor, singer, or entertainer, you better be part of the prepare from Grade School track of Upper Middle Class striver. A man like say, Thomas Edison arise from poverty, to become powerful and rich and famous. Not today. It is tick all those boxes, make sure it's an Ivy or near Ivy (Stanford, Univ. of Chicago, Northwestern, NYU). Make sure its the right career, working for the right folks. Doing the right things. The littlest mistake can derail a career before it ever starts.

And this means, upward mobility requires two parents. Economic success, merely standing in place, doing no worse than your Upper Middle Class parents, means an intact nuclear family. Unfettered by divorce and the demands of multiple families, child support and the like. No parade of men, abandoned kids, and replacement families. This is something that Park Slope society knows well.

The same Susan Gregory Thomas who crowed about how she dumped her Beta Male Hubby (for a hotter hunk, btw), became a persona non-grata among the Park Slope mommies:

After all, she had gone from Park Slope matron, complete with involved husband (“We had cracked the code of Gen X peer parenthood”) and gut-renovated brownstone, to “a Red Hook divorcée,” she said, remarried with a new baby and two children-of-divorce barely out of preschool. “All of a sudden, this community I’d lived in for 13 years became this spare and mean savannah,” she said.

It was as if, she said, everyone she knew felt bad for her but no one wanted to be near her, either. Even though adultery was not part of the equation, Ms. Thomas said, “I feel like I have a giant letter A on my front and back.”

That a woman who has been divorced should feel such awkwardness and isolation seems more part of a Todd Haynes set piece than a scene from “families come in all shapes and sizes” New York, circa 2011. But divorce statistics, which have followed a steady downward slope since their 1980 peak, reveal another interesting trend: According to a 2010 study by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, only 11 percent of college-educated Americans divorce within the first 10 years today, compared with almost 37 percent for the rest of the population.

For this cross section of American families — in the suburban playgrounds of Seattle, the breastfeeding-friendly coffee shops of Berkeley, Calif., and the stroller-trodden streets of the Upper West Side — divorce, especially for mothers with young children underfoot, has become relatively scarce since its “Ice Storm” heyday.

There is a reason for that:

The shift contains an economic as well as a social component.
“That this change has occurred mainly among the affluent suggests it’s not just a reaction to the divorce epidemic of the ’70s,” Dr. Cherlin said. “The condemnation of divorce is also coming from the group that is most confident it can make its marriages succeed, and that allows them to be dismissive of divorce.”

From this perspective, splitting up with tender, vulnerable children in the mix is seen as a parental infraction.

“I’ve definitely experienced judgment,” said Priscilla Gilman, author of a new memoir, “The Anti-Romantic Child,” which deals in large part with her 2006 divorce. “Everyone said: ‘Isn’t there anything more you can do? Your kids need you to be together. They’re so little.’ ” At the time, Ms. Gilman knew only one other person who was divorced. “I had progressive, feminist friends. None of them were getting divorced, none of them.”

Several divorced women suggested that the news of their marital unraveling seemed to unnerve other couples in their social circles, prompting unease about their own marriages. (That anxiety may not be entirely unfounded. One study out of Harvard, Brown and the University of California, San Diego, last year found that divorce actually is contagious: when close friends break up, the odds of a marital split among their friends increase by 75 percent.)

“There has been a striking shift in both beliefs and behavior towards marriage among educated and affluent Americans,” said W. Bradford Wilcox, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project. “There’s a tacit or explicit recognition among well-educated parents that their kids are less likely to thrive if Mom and Dad can’t be together.” [Emphasis added]

Is this, then, the revenge of the children-of-divorce generation, rebelling against the experiences of their mothers and fathers? When I asked people who divorced in their 20s and 30s while researching my 2002 book, “The Starter Marriage,” about why they divorced with such alacrity, the response was near universal: “I wanted to do it before it was too late — before we had kids.”

Whereas their parents were divorce pioneers in the ’70s, unsure of how marital dissolution affected children and letting caution blow in the wind, today’s splitting couples are viscerally aware of how divorce feels to a 7-year-old.

A good deal of the reason for divorce is of course, sex:

In another unexpected twist, some divorced women say they detect an unspoken envy. Other wives and mothers, they explained, were “battling it out” while dealing with the unceasing tasks of wifedom, motherhood and work.

“What I get from a number of married women in my community is jealousy of my new lifestyle,” Dr. Monet said. “Dating, going to yoga five times a week, having time for myself. Raising young kids with a spouse doesn’t afford you much time.”

But in a place like Brooklyn, income divided among two households means that your kid ends up in Public school. Where life is hell for White kids. Even in gentrified Brooklyn. Heck the property boom in the Financial District of Manhattan is partly due to the fact that there are few schools there that are not White-majority. No Upper Class woman wants their kids beaten or worse at school, where wolfpacks roam and teachers merely babysit. That won't get them into Harvard, or at worst, NYU. It means CCNY, or low-level proletarian living. Which in NYC metro area, is hellish indeed, for working-class Whites who moved down not up.

Hence the social disapproval of divorce, the shunning of the divorced women (by other women afraid it is catching). Its all about making sure your kid does not become worse off. In a place like Brooklyn the pressures to stay together to avoid the non-White underclass are strong. Even so, a non-trivial number of women in that milieu follow their urges. Note that Susan Gregory Thomas quickly had another kid with her new husband to cement the bond. [It is highly likely that half siblings will hate or at least deeply resent each other, family is not merely a random collection of people dropped in on a household. The older kids are not the new Husband's, he's unlikely to give a damn about them compared to his own, generally speaking. And the Wife has to keep new Hubby happy, he's the one she threw over the old guy for. Her older kids are unlikely to get much compared to the new kid, in that situation. After all, they came from an "inferior" father she rejected in favor of a "sexy" guy. She's already made the calculation that she could and would do better. And at event, she's unlikely to be the face launching a thousand ships, as women that age generally don't even launch second glances. She's stuck with her choice and it will always come down, in general terms to the choice she made. Older kids be damned.]

Clearly, the women of Park Slope, Brooklyn, are fighting a valiant and determined fighting retreat, a vigorous defense that Lee, or Napoleon, would have applauded. A defense that however, is as doomed as those notable military leaders conducted. Ultimately, not even the desire to do better by one's children is a force that can contend with female desire. Desire is what it is, women want, and have always wanted, sexy men. They are now in a position to get, exactly what they want. And they will get it.

For women in the working class, that is likely to be thugs-a-plenty. Men like Dantzler, of any race really. [Proof positive, somewhat tangentially, of lack of White racism against Blacks -- no consequences of any not happened to either Dantzler or the White women he dated, married, and impregnated (before killing two of them and their entire families) because of the relationships. No beatings, no threats, no cross burnings, nothing.] The important thing is sexy. Which for the working class means violent thuggery.

For women in the Upper Middle Class (and Middle Class) that is likely to be defined as stud-hopping. A fortunate few will land new guys, who hopefully will never make the mistake of actually doing any housework or caring for the kids. Women say they want it, but it makes men unsexy -- and women will never forgive that mistake. Not ever. Stud Hopping makes women happy, but at the expense of producing kids who are able to compete in a vicious, extremely competitive world where mistakes are punished ruthlessly and there is no real margin for error.

The way the world used to work, how lower to middle to upper classes formed their families, and nearly all save the top Aristocrats and Royalty (who were as distant and as alien as movie stars and pop stars are today) was that desire played a part, but only a part, in family formation. Certainly men had to have some sexiness in them. But Mr. Darcy was not the best dancer, nor the most witty speaker, nor the man who simply dominated the room by being the biggest thug. The Jane Austen model while flawed in many ways functioned well by not ignoring or sidestepping female desire, but requiring women to master their own desire. Even with full voting rights, and other liberty, women until the pill, condom, urban living, and highly mobile anonymity retained the essentials of the Jane Austen model. Which meant a deliberate trade-off, sacrificing some sexiness in men, for more stability and support, with the knowledge that even the sexiest man will grow old, gray, and unsexy. As will they too, if they are lucky.

Sexy was part of the demands on men, but not the only thing, and women would be relatively happy for just a bit of sexy, now and then, in exchange for stability and support.

That was blown apart by technology. Allowing women unheard of mobility, including physical mobility, anonymity, easy contraception, and welfare for the working class, not much lifestyle changes in the middle and upper classes. Yoga classes, dating, and such still go on. Divorce does not mean sleeping in a car, with cans of dog food for dinner. Even highly educated, professional Upper Class women will divorce when the burden of unsexy husbands are too great, and of course when an Alpha male is on the horizon, available.

The valiant, and unprecedented brave fighting retreat waged by the women of Park Slope, might last for a full twenty years or more. But eventually they too will fall. Brought down by untrammeled, unrestricted, unmoderated female desire. For sexy men. Family has changed, irrevocably. Family is now, whatever guy Mom has shacked up with, for now, and who likely does nothing and contributes nothing but being sexy. Which is a full time job in and of itself. Being sexy is not easy, just ask the Situation.

So we are looking, twenty or thirty years out, at a total collapse of the White working, middle, and EVEN Upper Classes. With only intact Asian families (where divorce is not unknown but strongly discouraged) as the knowledge elite, and hereditary aristocrats (the Murdochs, the Kennedy clan, the Clintons perhaps, and so on). America and the West will soon resemble say, in social structure, Brazil or Venezuela instead of say, Sweden. A collapse, fairly rapidly, of the White middle class into lumpenproletarianism, is something no one among the political and cultural elite has considered. If Gen X hated the Boomers for divorcing, what will the kids of Gen X feel towards both the non-White population that makes them easy lunch, and the chaotic family situation that led them to vastly reduced status from their parents? [Take Thomas's kids for an example. The older ones are unlikely to get much resources invested in them, or inherit much -- the younger one is likely to get it all. Write that out big among the next generations.]

The answer is not likely to marching jackboots (which in any event required a modern, middle class industrial power on the part of Germany, machine guns do not simply create themselves, nor do Stutkas or Panzers). But rather a grinding, feuding-style set of violence familiar to Mark Twain or any observer of the Hatfields and McCoys. That is where the arrow of desire will fall.
...Read more