Gay Star Trek

There are plans for a new Star Trek TV series. Among the tidbits, two gay leads. Is there a problem with this plan? Sure. As William Goldman noted, in Hollywood "nobody knows anything." But ... in Bar Rescue, a reality series on Spike-TV, bar consultant John Taffer knows quite a lot. With demographic profiles, surveys, even aerial photos of nearby bars and identification of what kind of establishments the competitors are. All that for a reality show. The great "Moneyball" revolution has begun, with ordinary bars, restaurants, and every other small business discovering that computers and simple stat programs (often just spreadsheets) can offer meaningful statistical analysis to make their business a success while others fail. How long can this sort of idiocy, ala "Gay Star Trek" go on?

Not long. Because sooner or later one Hollywood studio will gain dominance by adopting a Moneyball approach.


Goldman believed no one knew anything, and that moreover, no one could know anything. This belief pretty much approximates Baseball management before Bill James and the Moneyball revolution proved this wrong. Making "gut calls" on both players and moves (stealing bases, giving up outs to move a runner up into scoring position, going for "good body" guys who can't hit instead of "ugly" guys who can) is no longer supportable. The same way that trading by big firms has moved away from "gut calls" and instinct to program trading, computerized searches for micro-advantages in mis-pricing, so too has sports management. Besides baseball (the Red Sox, Yankees, Rangers, and other teams have adopted all or part of the Moneyball approach), the NFL (particularly the New England Patriots and New Orleans Saints), NHL, have adopted a method of statistical analysis to overturn long-held but erroneous assumptions about proper strategy and player selection.

Only Will Smith and his agent have really applied any rigor to figuring out what movies are successful, and which ones are not, and identifying common elements. Such as a Sci-Fi theme, action, comedy/humor, and so on. Early in his career, Smith and his agent sat down and did such an analysis, and came up with a set of criteria that he has mostly stuck to, in taking roles or declining them. Such a discipline has led Smith to become one of the all time box office champions, in terms of leading men. And it was not really that hard to figure out.

So too with TV. TV breaks down into female-oriented (which is most of it) and the few scripted shows that guys still watch. Star Trek, the original series, was famously just a Western set in space. Creator Gene Roddenberry pitched it as "Wagon Train to the Stars" and it even had regular Western character actors such as DeForrest Kelly as one of the leads. The original series garnered so-so ratings on NBC during its run, upon cancellation running for decades with great ratings. Various film revivals made lots of money, and series attempts even with living room sets (Star Trek Next Generation) or female captains (Voyager) or looming angry Black guy leads (Deep Space Nine) did acceptable ratings. The secret to the original series repeat success in syndication was being just a Western in space. That was it. The whole point. Nerdy White guys watched in droves, imagining they were Captain Kirk. A guy macho, but not too much, whom they could conceivably become. Those nerdy guys first started balking at imagining themselves the patriarch of some living room in space (Next Generation), then as some Looming Angry Black guy (lead Avery Brooks, a fine Shakespearean actor, for some reason played the character of Commander, later Captain Sisko like Othello). The last straws were Captains as inept female middle managers (Voyager) and milquetoast nebbishes (Enterprise). The final Star Trek TV series, Enterprise, was canceled in February 2005.

Who watches Star Trek? Gays? Nope, only 2-4% of the population is gay. What about the revival of BattleStar Galactica, which had prominent gay characters? That show was mostly watched by ... women. And it had fairly miserable ratings, as it went. Witness the swift cancellation of "Caprica" the follow-on show. Much of the TV business either is too stupid (always a possibility) to realize press and media coverage do not equal popularity (Gossip Girl dominates the media, yet barely ekes out a million in viewers). Or producers and such don't care, they won't share in financial success and just want to raise their profile in the industry for their next job.

Nevertheless, a professional management would have on hand:

1. What is the target audience, how much of them can we realistically expect to get, and how much will advertisers pay to be on our show?
2. How much will the show cost, and how expensive will it get over the years?
3. How long will the show realistically run?
4. How much can the studio sell other areas of revenue, DVDs, merchandising, etc.?

A professional management, would know much indeed. It would know the success rate for each type of show, and each type of audience intended. Women are not fond of action-mostly shows, and men don't watch night-time soaps. It would know how much money would be spent, and how much money would be expected in return.

Proposals such as a Gay Star Trek, would be laughed out of the office. Writers and producers would not even pitch them, for fear of looking stupid. This seems like a monumentally stupid idea, therefore it is almost a lock to go into production.

No one knows anything because they are less motivated than a bar consultant to find out about their business. Who their customers are, what they want, and how much money each type generates. It is astonishing that Warners/DC has not copied Marvel's formula for exploiting, what must be admitted is second-class super-heroes. With a rich pantheon of demi-gods and mythological heroes, DC is making ... Deadman the series, on CW. Along with a flop-tastic Green Lantern, and Jonah Hex. With all that money, why hasn't there been a plan to have Christian Bale's Batman, a Superman, a Captain Marvel, a Doctor Fate, a Hawkman, a Green Lantern, a Flash, a Green Arrow, a Wonder Woman, and a Martian Manhunter team-up in a Justice League Movie? Or two?

Why? Because Warners/DC are run by a bunch of idiots. Meanwhile, Disney has largely left Marvel alone, to make decent to good superhero movies. Thor, Captain America, and the second Hulk movie were all acceptable to good comic book movies. Captain America may be the best of its genre. Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury shows up in all of them, along with the Iron Man movies, and fans are excited. Marvel is not doing anything difficult, and the formula is pretty cut and dried. Stick to the comic book origin and basics of the character. Choose an actor over a physique, and strike a long-term deal. Use good actors in all the roles, don't skimp on support. Treat the script with respect, don't camp or joke it up. Deliver meat and potatoes and the fans will show up -- there is a reason these characters have lasted for in some cases more than half a century. Their creators knew what they were doing -- just don't screw it up.

Nope. Instead we'll get a Gay Star Trek. To match the Gay Christ Allegory of Superman Returns. It will fail, miserably. And execs will say, no one watches sci-fi on TV anymore. Let's do another soap opera.


...Read more

Girls Who Like Boys Who Like Boys

The new Sundance Channel series, "Girls Who Like Boys Who Like Boys," explores the gay best friend phenomena. Because, apparently no one demanded it, but got it anyway.





This brings a new face to the reality of niche, upscale TV. It is inescapably a female-gay ghetto. And the desire for upscale women for gay best friends for shopping (as detailed by the LAT review here) is telling. "A Celebration of the most important relationship in a straight girl's life -- her gay best friend!"


This show is the illustration of why, beta males are losers. Far too many, get pushed into gay best friend categories. Also, a look at the picture shows why straight White guys should never wear shorts except at the beach. The proliferation of "gay best friend" in urban, professional circles for women is toxic for the average White beta male. Thus the need to go Alpha male, or simply not bother.

For those wondering why this guy was featured on KTTV Fox Los Angeles, with his PUA bootcamp offering $1,300 seminars on how to actually pick up a woman and not be the gay best friend, the "hunk or gay" mentality of the modern professional woman is a big reason why. Gay best friends are an aspect, an indicator, of a skewed relationship market.

Our current relationship/sexual model puts a premium on hotness, and desire of the moment. John Edwards is not experiencing millions of women calling for his head, after betraying his cancer stricken, dying wife in the most ugly way. Now Elizabeth Edwards is struggling to live long enough to divorce him, to shield her assets from both Edwards bastard love child and legal action. So her children are not left with nothing. You would think there would be an outcry from women, to string up Edwards on general principles. Yet … nothing.

Decency, compassion, and faithful companionship seem to be the province of pets and gay best friends. Not family and spouses. For men, it seems various video games and perhaps pets as well. This is not the mark of a strong social structure able to withstand rapid change and many shocks. If Twilight, and Ugly Betty are part of the problem, so too is "Girls Who Like Boys Who Like Boys."

In a rational society, a woman's best friend would be her husband. Who, even if he was older, or fatter, or less socially dominant, would be her partner in every aspect of her heart and life. Not a mere sex object supplemented by a fabulous gay best friend. That the upper classes so obviously celebrate this dysfunction is more evidence (if it was needed) of their decadence.
...Read more

Beta Males and Inferior Men

Comedy writer and former "Upright Citizens Brigade" performer Julie Klausner has a new book out. Called: "I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Faux Sensitive Hipsters, Felons and Others," it contains her complaints about inferior men and beta males.

To quote from the story in the Miami New Times:

Like most of us, she spent her twenties ricocheting from douchebag to douchebag, and she reveals every crappy moment in her dating memoir I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Faux Sensitive Hipsters, Felons and Others. As expected, there are tons of laugh-out-loud lines delivered from Klaunser's sharp-wit pen. More surprisingly is how cringeworthy tales of blow jobs with goths and bedbug-infested one-night stands are followed with sage observations. For instance, she points out the stark difference between guys and men. (As she writes, if Mad Men was called Mad Guys, it'd star Joe Pesci and not Jon Hamm.)

The book is due to be made into an HBO series produced by Will Ferrell.

Historically, leading men, at least in comedy, have featured either the feckless or the boorish: the Fred Flintstones and Bullwinkles and then useless beta males. In my book, I say date guys like Rowlf and Fozzi and not Kermit. Let me think about it.

Klausner is unhappy with Michael Cera as a leading man, finding him immature and not manly. Though she is quite happy with teen-age Molly Ringwald, girlish 80's icon, as the leading lady for the late John Hughes movies.

It's the teenage boys I'm worried about. They're not going to college in numbers. They're going to be angry -- depending on who's coming back from the war. There are charities for girls and I'm all for that, but ultimately, the real problem is the epidemic of inferior men - which is basically what my book is about.

But her real beef is with the "inferior men" she has to deal with. In other words, not being hot enough to get the commitment of an Alpha male, full time, or "change" the "vintage-eyeglass-frame-wearing guys from Greenpoint or Silver Lake, who pedaled along avenues in between band practice and drinks with friends, sans attachment, oblivious to the impending hazards of reality and adulthood." Plus of course insulting attention from "inferior" and useless beta males.


This then, is the portrait (in extreme, somewhat) of the modern urban professional woman. Moving from "douchebag to douchebag" in fairly grotesque sexual situations, but terminally attracted to hipsters and trustafarians and indie band layabouts and felons and other Alpha males. Finding the "useless beta males" in her orbit both annoying and inferior. As ultimately the men she cannot gain commitment from or "change" into a tragically hip douchebag with money and responsibility, are inferior.

While of course, you'd expect this from say, Paris Hilton, who associates with Gummi Bear Davis and Fat Elvis Davis (grandsons of oilman Marvin Davis). The modern day equivalent of the Dick Van Dyke Show's Rose Marie? Not so much.

Note too, her books are designed to appeal to women readers. So both the exploits of sexual hook-ups in the most degrading and debased nature, and the complaints about the useless beta males and other inferior men, hit a chord. Otherwise this stuff would not be published, nor would she have so many projects. Even if the chord is mostly in Hollywood, it is important. Because Hollywood shapes the culture.

Modern women who are attractive but no great beauty, face a quandary. They can have access to "douchebag after douchebag" as the writer put it, Alpha males who will happily bed them or exploit them to pay the bills if they are layabout indie musicians in lame bands. But only the most beautiful women, can secure the commitment of an Alpha with money as well as options, and then only when they couple with an aging Alpha (think Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas, or Annette Benning and Warren Beatty.)

After all, an Alpha is by definition, a man who can have many women. So he has many options. He will exploit them fully. Women are drawn, inexorably, to men who have the approval of other women, particularly those with a high partner count (other women slept with him, he must be GOOD!) This is hard-wired. The inferior men, the useless beta males, are not even on their radar. Nor will they be, ever. Women don't need anymore, a Kitchen Bitch.

Yet the qualities that women like Klausner desire, along with the sexiness, are found only in beta males, for the vast majority. Only a beauty like Catherine Zeta Jones marrying a much older Alpha at the end of his string, can expect faithfulness or even tenderness, sustained. This is the nature of the sexual marketplace. The freedom comes with a cost, and the winners exist only at the expense of the losers. The sexual marketplace, after all, is not like others. Men cannot "create" new women out of demand, and a value of a woman sexually and romantically decreases with age (as do that of men). A woman with many lovers is worth far less than one with fewer, and even for men there comes a point when too many is too many. Though indeed it comes later for them than women, given the aura of pre-selection dominant among women's decision making. But for winners to exist in the marketplace (maximizing their partner counts and freedom) there must inevitably be losers.

Average women are now no longer shamed (by more beautiful and Alpha women) from sharing the few desirable men. Be they indie rockers, trust funders, felons, pornographers, and hipsters. These are the men after all, Klausner chose to sleep with. Her book was not titled: "Accountants, Actuaries, Engineers, Programmers, and Managers: Boring Beta Nice Guys I Slept With." Those guys go home to their porn collection, while a few male winners go home with a new girl every night.

The biggest losers in the new Sexual Marketplace are ordinary guys, who live a life of involuntary celibacy in intermittent spurts, unless they can generate their inner asshole, and become at least for a while, the dominant, jerky, asshole that professional urban women like Klausner craves. Is Klausner an outlier? Certainly. Most professional women don't behave the way she does in outrageous degree. But it is certainly there, the preference for jerks and a-holes, just not as publicly expressed and likely not as thoroughly lived, as Klausner. But there, as the white-hot reaction for her book and HBO series shows.

Next up as losers, are the most beautiful women, who have to put up with cheating, endemically, from Sandra Bullock to Elin Nordgren. Their dominant Alpha a-hole husbands often choose less lovely hook-ups, because they simply crave variety and convenience. Of course these women could have married an accountant or someone of far lower social standing and power, but they chose naturally a man equal or better than their own, and with masculine power to match their feminine beauty. Thus not just discreet cheating, but massive amounts of it, in various forms. From John Edwards to Bill Clinton to Gavin Newsome (now California's Lt. Governor) to Eliot Spitzer to Mark Sanford, this is the cost for the beautiful women married to the most powerful men.

Winners, are of course, the women like Klausner, attractive but no great beauties, who can rack up sex with men they would never have been able to have before. No wonder this group, professional urban women, are the greatest advocates of the current social and sexual system. And no wonder they have nothing but contempt for the Kitchen Bitch and useless beta males.

What beta males offer, which is the potential (but not guarantee) of companionship, faithfulness, and help in child-rearing, really is not important. Klausner's book, in exploiting as she puts it, the 18-34 demo, is proof of that. It is a memoir of the bad boys she slept with (including felons apparently), not a good guy she ended up marrying. Absent from the book is a path to marriage and family, something very different from what women were interested in, fiction-wise, even thirty years ago.

This cannot be emphasized enough. Fiction appealing to women, overwhelmingly, does not focus on marriage and family, but rather bad boy hookups and degradation, along with rage at useless, beta males and other inferior men, as Klausner puts it.


Indeed, dig deeper and and see that is nerdy White guys who are Klausner's problem (and women like her).

"What I say in the book is the white, nerdy, sensitive guy is not the minority anymore," Julie said. "Between tech jobs and the creative establishment, I mean, they are the ones who feel repressed but they are actually high status."

Julie explained how the "white, nerdy, sensitive" guy, who is most in control of the comedy world, is not the nice, non-threatening person a lot of women think he is.

"There is this book 'Guyland' by Michael Kimmel [that says] how boys don't really grow up to be men anymore, they mostly become 'guys' who play video games and live in a 'frat house' type of environment for the duration of their 20's," she said. "The kind of boy's club I'm used to? It is definitely not a jock-y, frat-y kind of thing. They say 'I'm sensitive and nerdy,' but actually it's like 'You're a huge child and you're terrified of women, but you don't like sports so you think that makes you less of a misogynist."

Yep, from the woman who dated felons and trust-funders, the enemy is the nerdy White guy who is really a misogynist. Read: not high status enough. Klausner doesn't have a problem with bad-boy Charlie Sheen, who held a knife to his wife's throat, on Christmas Day. But she does have a problem with guys who are not dominant and masculine enough to hold her sexual interest.

Or rather, White guys who are not sexy enough for her. Its basically the equivalent of the frat guy "No Fat Chicks" refrain. Only "No Fat Chicks" extended to every woman who is not super-model thin. This is the attitude of sexual plenty. Never before have ordinary women had so much sexual access to dominant bad boys as today. No wonder the ordinary guys around them provoke them to rage and disdain and the nuclear missile "misogyny." After all, they don't need them. They can pick up a sexy bad boy any time.

"Any woman I know can smell a boyfriend a mile away. Women are intuitive, they know when a guy is interested but he's not going to be there for her in that boyfriend-y way," Julie said. "But if he wants to fuck you, and he's attractive, obviously you're going to go in that direction. And for people to say 'Oh, you should have waited and he would have stayed' it's like, 'No he wouldn't have, and I wouldn't have gotten laid.' I'm still allowed to feel bad when he doesn't do what he's supposed to."

Again, Klausner and women like her (probably most women on the Huffington Post) want a sexy bad boy. Just one devoted to her. She'll trade sex with the bad boy in favor of "boring" life with a useless, White beta male.

And that is the other part of it. Klausner has no complaints about Hip Hop and Rap artists spouting off about bitches and hos. Nor the lurid imagery of most rap videos. Nor Mexican/Latin machismo. Nope. Her complaint is White guys are not macho tough and dominating enough. When of course, any masculine display by a White guy is allowed only if he is entirely outside the professional workplace. The macho assholes Klausner and most White female professional women crave, can only exist in the indie band, trust fund, hipster, and felon environments. Try that in the professional corporate workplace and you as an ordinary White guy get fired. Fired fast. Complaining about White guys not being as tough and as dominant as a Hells Angel's biker is like a guy complaining that the girls at the mall are ten pounds overweight, and are not in fact supermodels.

Indeed the hatred of nerdy white guys gets overt:

The "mousy" girl she's talking about, the kind that every guy around her seems to want, is brought up in her book as the character Pam Beesely on "The Office." She writes: "There's nothing scary about Pam because there's no mystery: she's just like the boys who like her; mousy and shy. The ultimate emo boy fantasy is to meet a nerdy, cute girl just like him, and nobody else will realize she's pretty."

So who decided Pam was the epitome of emo-boy desire? Probably the emo-boys who get writing jobs on popular NBC sitcoms. Julie expressed her discontent with this domination of culture.

"Whenever culture isn't being controlled by enough gay people or Jewish people, I always get nervous," Julie said. "I feel like the whole 'Pam' thing is a result of straight, angry nerds taking over the world, frankly. And the gays and Jews, look... We know what we're doing; we've done this for years."

Of course, Klausner would not like culture being controlled by Jewish guys like Shuster, or Siegel, or Lee, Kane, or Kirby, or Mayer. No Superman, Batman, Hulk, or Captain America for her. Funny, how when nerdy, non-gay Jews created a whole pulp industry, or the modern Hollywood, their model of masculinity was Superman, or Captain America, or Batman, or Jimmy Stewart, or John Wayne. Of course, in the same breath, Klausner worships Tina Fey. Who is definitely neither gay nor Jewish. Klausner's beef of course is with too many nerdy White writers. Who just are not hot and dominating enough for her.

Why does she care who the emo-boys find "pretty?" Considering her disdain for them? The answer of course is that Klausner herself is not exactly a knock-out. Her words about Tina Fey needing to lose 30 pounds before going on the air are revealing, and empathetic, and she herself in her pictures does not look like a drop-dead beautiful woman. And yet, she still racked up the bad boy count. Even an ordinary woman can rack up the frequent flier miles with the bad boys. Leaving her equivalent male counterpart with porn or World of Warcraft. She wonders why emo-boys and slackers never grow up? Why should they? What's the reward? Disgust they're not gay from the bad-boy addicts? Being an honorary gay for a day?

Klausner's ideal society would be comprised of a few bad boy Alpha Male White guys, plenty of non-Whites and all the beta males turned gay. So they won't bother her and be instead politically correct. Since most of PC is designed to channel "evil Male White energy" into a denatured and de-masculinized emo-boy dead end, that at least "stops racism" and such. Since every White guy who is not Alpha is a threat. A threat to hit on her, quite likely, which most SWPL women, urban professional White women, find revolting and sickening.

This explains, by the way, the gender gap for White women voting. White women will always vote more Democratic than White Men, because a non-insignificant portion of White women have nothing but contempt for White guys who are useless beta males. Not hot enough for them. Most half-way attractive White women would prefer all White guys be either hot, dominating Alphas, or Gay. Hence the love for gays and disdain for Straight White Guys Who Are Not Charlie Sheen. Professional White women simply detest the 90% of White guys not on their sexual radar, for obvious reasons, and detest everything that these White guys like and stand for. Not the least of which is anything to the right of Tina Fey. Who is the default taste-maker for the White female professional class.

Again, while Klausner is more extreme than most White professional women, she is not expressing anything that is not fairly common among most of them. Disdain for White beta males (and implicit approval for pretty much any non-White guy?) Check. Hatred for "useless beta males?" Check. Love of the gays and hatred of Straight White Guys Not Charlie Sheen? Check. Disappointment that all the douchebags she slept with would not "change" for her? Check! A dubious and checkered sexual past making her a poor bet for a long-term relationship? Double check! A taste for the slumming side (including felons?) Triple Check! Yes while Klausner is more extreme than most, she is not outside the pale. She's not subject to ridicule and hatred the way, say Sarah Palin is. Salon does not make fun or her, nor do New Yorker writers say of her, as they do of Palin, that hearing her voice makes a piece of their soul die!

White women will not change their general hatred of beta White guys until and unless they all turn into variations of Charlie Sheen. I.E. dominant in some way, complete assholes, who are nevertheless terribly sexy (because they break through PC behavior bs to be completely masculine a-holes). While still of course conforming to PC beliefs generally. As does 9/11 Truther Charlie Sheen (it only makes him more attractive to women, he's getting great ratings among his almost exclusively female audience on Two and A Half Men). Since that will happen, well never, the same fairly large (around 8-5 percentage points in the White female vote) split towards Democrats will happen.

Thus, any desire for Conservative votes among Whites MUST take far more of men. White professional women like Klausner will always vote their hatred of nerdy Straight White guys who insulted them by expressing a sexual/romantic interest* in their votes. Thus greater votes among same nerdy White guys is the only possible outcome for victory. Non-whites being futile territory since Democrats/liberals can always outbid conservatives with anti-White guy measures spreading pork, preferential discrimination (against White guys) and benefits (no White guys need apply) to win their votes.

Conservative Republicans need to take note. White Professional women will never vote for them any more than Tina Fey (their heroine) will. They need to hit the slacker guy, the emo-guy, with appeals to embrace their inner asshole and "be a jerk. Vote Conservative!" The way beer commercials push outrageous but funny behavior.

*It is an insult, for most semi-attractive women, to be hit on by guys their own attractiveness level who are not dominant A-holes. Because it implies they are on that level of attractiveness, not the level they pencil themselves in, as the most beautiful, because they can sleep with Alpha A-holes. Because average looking women can nab (for a while) that tattooed biker, or indie rocker layabout, or the trustafarian, or the hipster, all of whom have a lot of other women, they figure they are more beautiful and desirable than they are. They find it gravely insulting for an average guy, of their own status and attractiveness, to express an interest in them.


...Read more

Advertising: Get the Man Out!

Advertising forms the basis for much of what is deemed mainstream and acceptable culture in Western society. Advertising is everywhere, all the time. Drive down the road and you'll see billboards. Listen to the radio and you'll hear ads. Watch TV and you'll see ads. Mostly what the ads push is a new model of male behavior and identity. Which is, gay or asexual to the point of androgynous idiocy. The message being that traditional masculine behavior is threatening.




While the ad may serve as a parodic insight into what most of the SWPL class view the world, an "unthreatening place," where natural instincts are obliterated by the power of SWPL-ism, pay attention to the singer (and the song). Lost is any real musical power, any sense of the natural world. The beat is a drum machine, tinny sounding and as natural as artificial sweetener. The singer has all the masculine presence of a ten year old boy. Because, again, traditional men, just by existing, are threatening.

Then of course, there is the ATT commercial:



Apparently, ATT wants to put a giant orange burqua over every single building and monument (and even the sea-shore) in anticipation of Islam being the official religion of the US. In a tribute to Christo, famous for, well wrapping large buildings in what amounts to a burqua. Pre-emptive artistic surrender.

The music is of course, so devoid of any masculine identity as to be totally "unthreatening," and is the work of the late recording artist Nick Drake, a very sad case. Described by a friend as "the most withdrawn person he'd ever met, Drake had reportedly no sexual or romantic relationships in his life.

While his work has been cited by many as the inspiration for their own (much like the quip about the Velvet Underground, they sold only a few thousand records but everyone who bought a record started their own band), including R.E.M. and the Cure, the question is, why did the producers of this commercial choose this particular recording by this particular artist?

Because the song is so devoid of identity that it signifies, nothing at all. Not even a trace of a desire, to do or be anything, remains in the song or the performance. The commercial is all about a politically correct number of "diverse" and multi-cultural individuals witnessing the the burqua-ization of America, complete with breathy, non-masculine singer who sings about … nothing.

This is not isolated, InMalafide.com has a post on "So You Want to be a Dickhead" (very definitely not safe for work). Video below:



Much like the Gay Hipster Fight seen in the video below, traditional masculine behavior seems to have vanished among young urban, middle class men:



Gay or androgynous is apparently, the new mandate for men. Traditional masculine behavior is so absent from advertising that its shocking to compare commmercials from the 1980's. Check out this Miller Lite commercial from 1987 with Yogi Berra and Jason Alexander:



Or this bizarre ad (with John Madden and Sonny Bono):



It would seem that traditional masculine attitudes, behavior, like the 1995 Microsoft Windows 95 launch video:



simply don't apply to today's, hipster-only, masculine models. No one ever accused Mick Jagger of possessing Jessie "the Body" Ventura levels of testosterone, but the song accompanying the video pretty much is the message. Start up Windows 95 and you're full of energy. The song and the singer are about something. Which is, doing something (the video is full of images of people doing things, message, Windows 95 makes you productive).

Advertising is filled with the kind of hipsters (and very, multicultural, diverse people, mostly women and non-Whites) that cannot connect with middle America anymore, and certainly find traditional masculine energy both threatening and slightly obscene. This is why traditional masculine behavior is so absent in commercials, and the mass culture has been defined towards some passive, folky-rock with acoustic guitar, meaningless nothing.

Each individual commercial is of course nothing, but the media culture that is inescapable, from billboards to radio to TV to print to the web, makes the cumulative effect like a series of raindrops forming a river. Eating away at the traditional notions of what culture and cultural roles are, in an attempt to "start from Zero."

Traditional masculinity of course, is threatening. It is independent, resistant to "taming" and won't allow others to dominate it (though it will submit to authority if persuaded its wise). The same holds true of course, for traditional feminine identity, which is not "submissive" or "barefoot and pregnant" and is matchingly independent, but does not seek to dominate either, the other sex, out of fear. From women-inspired "skinny jeans" to figures like Fall Out Boy's Pete Wentz maintaining he is "half gay", it is striking at how lacking in masculine assertiveness most of popular culture really is.

And this contains within it, a possibly fatal weakness for the West. When in time of great crisis, it is absolutely essential for a culture's or nation's survival for men and women to act. Independently, and aggressively if required. Not the breathy, passiveness of "look see the sights" but with the energy of "Start Me Up." If a hurricane comes, and people are stranded in a city, they need rescuing. A government, be it local, state, or federal, will be hamstrung by procedures and rules and so on, and it takes a Dunkirk-like evacuation to rescue people. The same holds true for war, which has not been abolished, any more than human nature. Or low-level conflict involving crime, ethnic cleansing, or any other ills that beset a now globally connected, constantly changing society. Change bringing stress and conflict along with increased riches.

The lack of being or standing for much of anything other than the message of "I'm Cool and You're Not" is why so many commercials are inexplicable, incomprehensible, and do such a lousy job of selling whatever it is they are selling. ATT promises … a burqua for every building? Traveler's Insurance promises a fantasy land where animals don't eat each other? At least Miller Lite had a message: drink this and you're one of the guys, like the funny male celebrities. It is striking how much power corporations have handed over to advertising agencies run by disconnected hipsters. The only rational explanation is that corporate executives are too, disconnected and stand for nothing. As children of the 1960's and 1970's, who had their formative years in the mid to late 1980's to early 1990's wave of political correctness, have the masculine or feminine identities knocked out of them. Being "half gay" or the like.

This is why it is essential to change the advertising environment. There is just so much of it, and the messages about what is approved and what is not (in: gay hipsterism, out: traditional masculinity) so powerful by simple repetition, that deep cultural change can only come about by changing how ads are made and distributed.




...Read more

Twilight vs Call of Duty: The Hidden Story

The Twilight New Moon movie has posted $140.7 million for its opening weekend. The response, which was surprising, of tweens, teens, and their moms lining up, many a week in advance, for the movie, generated a lot of press coverage. Finally, the press and feminists celebrated, a movie that generated fangirl response on the lines of Star Wars and Star Trek enthusiasts. The hidden story, of course, is the phenomenal sales, unheralded, of the video game "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2." The game posted $310 million in sales its first day, and 4.7 million copies in its first 24 hours. Beating the "Grand Theft Auto IV" record of 3.6 million copies . The five day figures for "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" were $550 million, again beating "Grand Theft Auto IV" which held the mark at $500 million.

The lesson is that while the attention may go to the fangirls, and the expensive legacy media of theatrical movies, the profits go to male-friendly videogames. Among the reasons: there isn't much competition. Moreover, it is likely movies and video-games will continue to diverge, one becoming a female-gay ghetto, and the other being "males only."



The first "Twilight" movie cost according to was $37 million. No current figures are available for the "New Moon" sequel, but the cost likely spiraled to around $60-75 million, given more effects, characters, rising salaries for actors, and so on. Marketing probably added another $30-40 million, making the film's total up-front cost of around $90 to $115 million or so. As Hollywood business writer and author of the "Big Picture," Edward Jay Epstein estimates, Studios net only about 18% or so of their revenues from theatrical / box office receipts. Fully 82% of revenue comes from Video on Demand, DVD, Pay-TV, and free TV rights (foreign and domestic). Further, studios only get 75% for the first weekend box office receipts, falling to about 50% thereafter. For foreign box office sales, percentages can drop even further while costs for dubbing, promotion/marketing, import fees, and so on can mount. It worth noting that piracy threatens both theatrical and DVD revenues. The LA Times notes that some studios have dropped profitable Korean and Spanish-language divisions, due to piracy. Eli Roth famously found that his loathsome "Hostel" movies were on sale on the street in Mexico City for the equivalent of twenty-five cents, American. Good quality pirated copies, too.

Of that $140.7 million that Twilight: New Moon pulled in, the studio will keep $105.5 million or so. That essentially covers its cost up-front and likely assures a tidy profit for the movie, assuming DVD sales track ticket sales and are not impacted by piracy.

Compared with the development costs, which were estimated to be $40-50 million and around $100 million total, the film "Twilight: New Moon" and the video game "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" cost about the same.

But, the video game already pulled in about $310 million, or $210 million of net revenue, compared to a break-even figure for the film, through the first weekend (Fri-Sat-Sun) vs. the first two days (for the game). It is extremely unlikely that the five-day figure for the movie will match $550 million. Even more important, the game is more resistant to piracy than the movie. While pretty much any copy properly written to a DVD will play in most modern DVD players, making piracy technically easier for organized crime pirates, the same is not true for video games which generally have more robust copy protection. The games certainly can be pirated, but the expense generally prevents large-scale organized crime rings from participating, unlike movie DVD piracy. Moreover, online-game play is often a critical component, making purchasing of pirated discs a general non-starter, given that companies can and do require proof-of-purchase to participate in online play. These can be defeated, but again it is costly and most organized pirates do not bother.

Out of these trends several things are likely to emerge. First, that video games are ever-more bifurcated, either hit-driven like "Call of Duty" or cheap, and simple, like many of the IPhone games, which are troubled by piracy or in the case of Android low sales. Because of piracy and low-revenues for the Iphone style games, the barriers to entry into successful game development into "the next level" (profitability beyond a single developer) are likely to be high. Developers can still create simple games widely available (Apple's App Store tends to be better than Google's Android app store or Research in Motion/Blackberry's store) but widely pirated with low price points.

Hard to make enough money to move to the next level in that business. Increasingly, because of the high capital costs required to make a "hit" game, the video game business is resembling Hollywood of the 1920's through the 1940's, only with one big difference: unlike the studios the game companies have few female customers. But clearly, there is an order of magnitude or more, around two to five times as much money, hit film to hit game, available to video game makers. As game companies seek out (inevitably) cheaper labor, their costs will go down for everything but marketing, giving them a tremendous cost-advantage against Hollywood as well as making entertainment that men and boys desire.

Secondly, the success of Twilight and the sequel, are both good and bad for Hollywood. Good, in that they found a way to tap the fan-girl wallets of the folks below waiting in lines (some up to a week) for the premier [Click on images to enlarge]:



























Looking at the pictures, a common thread appears for the fans of Twilight. They mostly do not find lots of male attention, let alone that of hunky, semi-gay, Alpha Male "sparkly vampires." They tend to be pre-pubescent, Moms, or overweight. Not all of course, but that accounts for most of them. Of course they want in fantasy what they don't get in real life. The comparison to the Star Wars geeks who lined up for that movie is of course, natural and apt.

For the purposes of fairness, the "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" fans are shown below (fewer photos, because of less media interest).





Not much different, though a few are older. They seem to crave what they do not get in life, action/adventure (from the safe distance of the couch of course). Both the film and the game deliver to their respective audience.

But the danger for Hollywood is that the games can drive them out of business. Unlike the game companies, which can seek cheap programming labor in China or India, Hollywood is "stuck" using expensive actors, special effects, and location shots. The costs for the Call of Duty Franchise will only go down, over time, and sequels. While that of the Twilight series will only go up. Coupled with a tidal wave of predictable "sparkly vampire" bad-boy with superpowers fighting over teen girl projects, movies will become "gay" the way Broadway shows, reading/literature, and pop music (see Adam Lambert) have become. Many of Hollywood's key executives including Disney's Rich Ross are openly gay. While they have a keen eye for female-tween/teen appealing projects, they have failed and predictably will fail to generate much in the way of male-appealing projects. Movie after movie featuring a metrosexual vampire bad-boy that appeals to the fangirls is guaranteed to turn off guys from the theater. In favor of intermittent purchases of expensive video games. Call of Duty is listed at $60 at Amazon.com. That works out to about 5 movies, per person, or nearly 3 paired tickets at full prices. Given the pressure the recession has on wallets, sales for video games means less money men have to spend on movies. This is particularly so as movies inevitably, like TV, become a female-gay ghetto.

Hollywood is intent on replaying Detroit's strategy: create a negative view towards your product by much of the potential customer base. Depend on a small portion of the potential customers, on only a few particular profitable models. Create a negative view of your key workers and executives nationwide, and create a high labor cost. Lack any imagination or quality that were hallmarks of your products in the past. Cede key customers to rivals with lower costs and perceived higher quality.

It is likely they will end up the same, bankrupt, bailed out, and still failures.
...Read more

Can Disney Grow With Boys and Men?

With the Mancession in full swing it would appear odd that Disney, along with Time-Warner, is busy restructuring itself to appeal more to men, and boys, but nevertheless, Disney is busy doing just that. Disney recently fired Disney Studios CEO Dick Cook, shortly after making an offer to purchase Marvel Entertainment. Reportedly, Disney CEO Bob Iger is considering Disney Channels Worldwide President Rich Ross as a successor, according to Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily. Nikki's batting average on Hollywood rumors is the best among the Hollywood reporters, frequently scooping both Variety and the Hollywood Reporter, so the rumor is likely to have substance to it. But what the move shows, if true, is how thin the executive ranks in Hollywood are when it comes to proven ability to attract boys and men to either movies or (especially) television. The latter being a female and gay ghetto. [Disney's ABC is especially bad in this regard.]

Disney, Time-Warner, and other media conglomerates would prefer not to make the effort. They lack the ability, mostly, to shepherd complex, boy and man-appealing entertainment into success. Most of their outlets appeal to the "New Girl Order." But a terrible advertising climate, a crisis in DVD sales, and the threats of piracy, the internet, and simply watching existing DVDs has led Hollywood's media conglomerates to one conclusion. Women and girls are not enough.

Not enough to provide real growth in revenue, particularly if Larry Summers is correct and the current recession, with permanent job losses and structural unemployment at the 10-15% range over ten years or more, curtails the "New Girl Order." Even with men making up most of the unemployed, single mothers face economic pressure as well, if nothing else from declining real wages as tax increases and inflation mounts, along with job uncertainty. This promises to end the easy money of selling $100 "Hannah Montana" tickets to the parents of tween girls.

Hollywood focused on the female and tween girl audience because it was easy. Disney particularly was able to develop a strong stable of tween girl appealing stars, from Hillary Duff ("Lizzie McGuire") to Miley Cyrus. Disney's bets on Demi Lovato and Selena Gomez have not fully paid off, however, as the predicted influx of Hispanic/Latino girls flocking to those stars never materialized. Unsurprisingly to anyone but Disney execs drinking the Multicultural Kool-Aide, Latino/Hispanic (read, overwhelmingly Mexican) tween girls prefer real, authentic, Spanish-speaking idols from Mexico, available in Spanish-language television, magazines, and movies.

From the Wall Street Journal article:

Like other studios, Disney also has to combat the decline in DVD sales. Hollywood still makes the bulk of its profits from home-video sales. But that market, which grew more than 15% a year between 2000 and 2004, has begun to wilt. According to Adams Media Research, consumer spending on home video fell 9% last year. It projects home-video sales will fall between 8% and 10% for 2009.Mr. Iger has said DVD sales are in an irreversible decline, but he said Marvel's strong brand profile should offer a measure of protection. "They are not immune from the changes that we're seeing," Mr. Iger said, referring to Marvel, during a conference call with analysts Monday morning. "But they have established a footing that we think is more solid than what you typically see in the nonbranded, noncharacter driven movie."

As Charles M. Blow of the New York Times has written, the speed of the collapse of the Music Industry is amazing, cut in half from its peak in 1999, in ten years. First piracy, and then music streaming over the internet, free and legal, have severely cut industry revenues. Clearly, Hollywood can see the same problems facing themselves. Already Hulu.com, ironically created by NBC Universal (GE), Fox Entertainment Group, and ABC (Disney), has taught consumers to access streaming movies, television shows,and clips instead of buying DVDs. The success of South Park Studios where every South Park episode can be watched, for free, online, shows that creative people can build their own portals very quickly and capture consumer interest (and advertising revenue) without much cost. The success of "District 9" in providing a unique, and expensive look with a production budget of $30 million means that the studios, with high costs and overhead, face real challenges from productions in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and potentially many other nations with low production costs and favorable tax treatment.

Hollywood clearly must have a male audience, both boys and men, to provide revenue stability, let alone growth, if the pressures of piracy, online competition, and simply re-cycling existing DVDs (and video games) continues. Tween girls and women are not enough. From Box Office Mojo and the Wall Street Journal I have compiled the list of Female Skewing movies and Marvel Superhero movies:



Female Skewing Movie	World-Wide Gross
Sex and the City	$415,252,786
27 Dresses	$160,259,319
Devil Wears Prada	$326,551,094
Jane Austen Book Club	$7,163,566
The Proposal	$272,060,335
He's Just Not That Into You	$172,011,653
Marvel Movies	World-Wide Gross
Blade	$131,183,530
X-Men	$296,339,527
Spider-Man	$821,708,551
X2: X-Men United	$407,711,549
Spider-Man 2	$783,766,341
Fantastic Four	$330,579,719
X-Men: The Last Stand	$459,359,555
Ghost Rider	$228,738,393
Spider-Man 3	$890,871,626
Iron Man	$585,133,287
Wolverine	$363,362,640
Punisher War Zone	$10,089,373
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer	$289,047,763

Most of the Marvel Movies outperform the Female skewing movie average (which was $225 million). Only 2 out of the 13 Marvel movies listed did less than the Female-skewing movies, and that is including the "Hard R" rated Punisher War Zone movie and 1998's "Blade" made over 11 years ago and featuring a very minor Marvel character. Even a not very well made movie like the second Fantastic Four movie brings in nearly $290 million. Obviously, the usual caveats apply. This applies to world-wide box office, including foreign box office grosses, and generally the studios receive significantly less than the gross for both foreign and domestic exhibitors. Often, foreign receipts are less percentage-wise to the gross than domestic receipts. Moreover, foreign receipts are more vulnerable to pressures of piracy. As MTV reported, the movie "American Gangster" was available in major US cities on bootleg DVDs (of high quality, too) before its release. Eli Roth reported that "Hostel II" was on sale in Mexico City for the equivalent of a quarter.

However , the average of the Marvel movies is $430 million world-wide. That is serious money no matter that the net for the studios is likely to be less.

Which makes Disney's move puzzling.

Disney has access to Marvel's characters, assuming they settle with Jack Kirby's estate over the rights to characters he created including Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, the X-Men, the Hulk, and the Avengers. These characters, are proven money-makers in extracting cash from the wallets of men and boys (who are the audience who sees the movies, and buys the DVDs). Disney also has family-film studio Pixar, with hit after hit, and a deal with Dreamworks for adult fare (likely to produce prestige but little cash). The role of the successor to Dick Cook as head of Disney Studios is to push products from the Marvel character library (and undo existing exclusive deals with Sony, and other studios such as Columbia, for characters like Spider-Man and Ghost Rider respectively) to grab more of the dollars "lying on the table" that belong to men and boys. Because clearly more "chick flics" and tween-girl pop princess fantasies face limited growth potential amidst DVD piracy and audience erosion from streaming online video.

According to Nikki Finke (who has an excellent track record), Disney is considering Rich Ross. Ross is listed in After Elton as one of the most powerful openly gay men in Hollywood. As noted in the NY Times article about how Disney used "Kid Whisperer" Kelly Pena to find out what boys liked, Ross was quoted thusly:

While Disney XD is aimed at boys and their fathers, it is also intended to include girls. “The days of the Honeycomb Hideout, where girls can’t come in, have long passed,” said Rich Ross, president of Disney Channels Worldwide.

Disney XD, which took over the struggling Toon Disney channel, has improved its predecessor’s prime-time audience by 27 percent among children 6 to 14, according to Nielsen Media Research. But the bulk of this increase has come from girls. Viewership among boys 6 to 14 is up about 10 percent.

Ross's track record is one of failure to increase boys watching Disney XD. As a Gay Man, he's incapable of understanding what boys and men like in entertainment. Ross could read market research report after report, and never understand why certain content succeeds and others fail. Including girls will automatically exclude boys, by making the content "girl-friendly" and therefore actively repellent to boys and men.

The extraordinary durability of Marvel Comics characters created from 1941 through the 1970's stems from the creators themselves. Often nerdy, shy, young men who did not find enormous success with the ladies, the creators (often deeply patriotic and assimilated Jews) created power-fantasies whereby "ordinary" young men with good character were transformed into weird and powerful heroes. Some were more upbeat, others more angst-ridden, but all were "fun" in the way that only a truly masculine identity could embrace: Spider-Man swinging through Manhattan's skyline and mouthing off to adversaries the way he could not in his ordinary life, Daredevil vigorously maintaining the line between hero and villain in a struggle to save his neighborhood, the Hulk's embodiment of a child's anger and innocence, or Captain America's exuberant love for his country and smashing his nation's enemies.

Making these characters "girl-friendly" requires mutilating them out of any appeal to young men and boys. Creating female characters who "tame them" and far too much competition over the female characters. The whole point of a character like Daredevil is that while his outward self may be handicapped, the inner person and hero is a ladies man, irresistible to a host of female characters: Elektra, Black Widow, and so on.

Because the executive talent pool for Disney and Time Warner is such a female and gay ghetto, reflecting much of its product, it is not surprising that Time-Warner appointed a female marketing executive whose prior experience was Harry Potter promotions as head of DC Comics. Nor is it surprising that Disney is considering an openly Gay executive, who notably failed in attracting boys to the male-oriented channel, as head of Disney Studios. Old habits die hard, and the Hollywood studios have pursued a gay/female ghetto strategy for so long that even when recognizing that growth, or more likely simply reducing the revenue erosion, depends on attracting boys and men, all the choices on hand to run the whole thing are women and Gays.

Thus, I expect Marvel Comics to get a lot "gayer" and existing projects such as the Iron Man 2 movie, the Thor movie, the Avengers movie, and so on to become a lot "gayer" and more "girl-friendly." Read: a flop like "Jane Austen Book Club" only costing a lot more. Hollywood simply does not know how to appeal to men.





...Read more

Elitist, Left Wing, and a Little Bit Gay: Our Feminized Cultural and Political Elite

The NEA is in the news, with at least 6 federal laws and regulations violated by a conference call with artists, a PR agency, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve, designed to use the NEA to (illegally) lobby for ObamaCare. Both Big Hollywood and Big Government have all the coverage on the people and the issues you could ask for. What the mainstream media refuses, actively, to cover.

But just as interesting is the nature of the people involved. As Charles Winecoff in Big Hollywood notes:



Last month, National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Rocco Landesman said that, in American politics, ”the arts are a little bit of a target. The subtext is that it is elitist, left wing, maybe even a little gay.”

This assessment can be extended to the cultural elite, and an increasing number of younger men in the political elite. Mostly due to an influx of younger women in cultural and political leadership, younger men in these institutions (culture and politics) are elitist, left-wing, and fairly feminized.




Witness the NEA's Yosi Sergant, Director of Communications. Neither picture of Sergant depicts a man who is exactly masculine. Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, a former Obama Campaign organizer and political organizer would not inspire confidence as a non-elitist, non-left wing presence either.



No word on which artists created the art work below, but it would tend to re-inforce the "little bit gay" part to which Landesman refers:





Perhaps they were the work of someone like this man:



In a workplace with mostly women, a traditional masculine presence is not very welcome. While women certainly like the Alpha Male, most men are not in fact, Alpha, and the sort of mocking, good-natured teasing found in male-dominated workplaces is not very compatible with, particularly, younger women. Who prefer women to be "strong" by men being, well fairly effeminate. This has the side benefit of preventing Beta Males from expressing (unwanted) romantic interest in their female co-workers.

Younger women also like Gays. Heather Havrilesky, Salon's Television critic, has a post on how much she loves gays.


Gay people are just like straight people, only they're smarter and funnier and more interesting.

Also, they smell better. They've read more books, sure. And they have more friends -- that part isn't surprising. Because they're better educated, generally speaking, and also a little wiser. Like blondes, they have more fun.

When people talk about homos taking over the planet, my heart races a little faster. A planet ruled by gays! Imagine how good the scones will be!

Plus, there'll be prettier yards, less crime, more funding for the arts but less bad poetry, fewer rude, disheveled dogs roaming loose on the streets, and less weak coffee. I'm guessing there aren't many gay Hummer owners. McMansions would surely fall out of fashion, along with miniblinds, vinyl siding and Applebee's.
...
I've been idealizing gay people ever since I moved to the Castro, in San Francisco, at the tender age of 25, where I was surrounded every day by beautiful, fit, talkative men. Suddenly I knew how Captain Kirk felt when he was beamed down onto a planet of gorgeous lady aliens who were nonetheless impatient with his dull earthling ways. Sure, I've been urged over and over again not to assume that all gay and lesbian peoples of the globe are wickedly witty and charming and fun-loving and smart, but each new gay person I meet only further clouds my vision with his/her general-purpose excellence and flair.

Younger women in professional settings do tend to idealize gays, and prefer gays to the vast majority of men (who are basically, Beta Males). Gays have fashion sense (or so goes the stereotype), most of the famous fashion designers are gay men, and gay men are assumed to be like Beta males, except far more politically correct, and without all the parts of masculinity women don't like in Beta Males. Most younger, professional women, if they could push a magic button and make most ordinary, Beta Men gay, would break their fingers pushing it, over and over again.

The horrors that is Look at This Hipster become understandable when certain workplaces are dominated by women such as Heather Hravelisky or Buffy Wicks. Even men not inclined to effeminancy will adopt the clothing and mannerisms, to blend in and not arouse the ire of a mostly female staff. Public Relations, Marketing, Human Resources, Education, Health Care, and Government are mostly female. USA Today reports that women are now on the cusp of being the majority of the workforce, with men losing 74% of the 6.4 million jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007. Local governments have cut 86,000 men from the payrolls while adding 167,000 women since the Recession began.

As the Weekly Standard noted, women's groups including the National Organization for Women persuaded Obama to change the Stimulus Bill, nearly $800 billion, so that the bulk of the spending went to increase or retain employment for nurses, teachers, social workers, and librarians. All fields dominated by women. This was possible (despite the obvious fall-out in that the nation did not go back to work, merely female employment was maintained or increased) because as the article in the Weekly Standard notes, feminists like Eleanor Smeal, Feminist Majority President, Nancy Pelosi, the National Organization of Women, the Institute for Women's Policy Research, and the National Women's Law Center, had extensive political connections to the Obama Administration. Which was itself filled with many women, nearly all of whom were deeply sympathetic to the idea that the majority of stimulus funds should be spent on women, to permanently transform the American workplace into one dominated by women.

Our elites, cultural and political, will look ever more like Buffy Wicks and Yosi Sergant, as the workforce is dominated by the fields of social work, education, health care, government, marketing, human resources, public relations, and little else. Already the Democratic Political elite at the lower levels, where most of the grunt work of organizing is done, tends to be made up of women like Wicks. Who have no idea how to relate to men who don't look like Yosi Sergant, and have even less idea of the actual makeup of the American workforce and population.

Lawrence Summers, the President's Economic Advisor believes that the US will face a permanent unemployment rate of between 10-15% for the next ten years, and perhaps forever, most of the unemployed being men. That further, the jobs lost in manufacturing, transportation, energy extraction, and so on will never come back. In the meantime, the jobs that DO exist are in areas where staff are elitist, leftist, and a little bit gay.

Which sets up a large power struggle. As younger women move into the workplace, they want a nation of nurses, teachers, baristas, marketers, human resources people, and public relations people. Cool jobs for hip people. For the elites, this sounds like a good idea. What to do with say, former Chrysler Managers cleaning toilets at 49 is irrelevant. Older straight White Men are of little concern to the Buffy Wicks and the Yosi Sergants. As I noted in my very first post Can Barack Obama Win With the Youth Vote the bulk of the population is comprised of people in their late twenties to mid fifties. The prime working age.


[Click Image to Enlarge]

A pre-revolutionary condition is where rising expectations, in income and personal wealth, are suddenly dashed for most people, who can now look forward to only increasingly diminished hard times. This was the case in France of 1789, when after a sustained increase in wealth and income in rural France, successive bad harvests, increased taxes (to pay for assistance to the Americans in the Revolutionary War), and collapse of local industry due to foreign competition, led inexorably to the storming of the Bastille by peasants who expected more.

More than anything, the damning self-indictment by Rocco Landesman that the arts (and by extension the artists themselves, as well as our elites cultural and political) are elitist, left-wing, and a little bit gay are accurate. The effeminate buffoons of the hipster class, such as Sergant, and the women who insist on them, such as Buffy Wicks, have no answer for the Dave Duncansons, taking jobs cleaning toilets to put some money, any money, in the family budget. "Let them become gay baristas" is not an answer.

Just as the increasingly female-dominated workplaces of health, education, welfare, hospitality, and marketing, public relations, and human resources are vastly disconnected from the men who used to make up the nations spot-welders, machinists, factory workers, plumbers, carpenters, construction workers, engineers, and project managers, the feminized, "sort of gay" elites have no connection to the vast "uncool" populace who demand economic growth. Not permanent unemployment (mostly male) in the 10-15% range, and higher unofficially.

Certainly most Americans would regard a Yosi Sergant or a Buffy Wicks as creatures from another world, even stranger (and less well regarded) as the courtiers of Louis XVI. While Aristocracies, beloved of women, often feature those with left wing views, who are elitists, and of effeminate manners, even they must deliver for the people or be swept aside. All the tragically hip, ultra ironic, clothes, and fawning, deferential manner to more powerful men won't change this fact. Something even Marie Antoinette, who famously had a marble floored stable to play milkmaid, found out.
...Read more