Prop 8 Hate: Our Glorious Multicultural Future and an X-Ray into PC

California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and outlawed Gay Marriage, has spawned protests around the United States, and a series of some ugly incidents in the wake of it's passage. First, Gays in West Hollywood and elsewhere called Black passers-by the N-Word. Rod 2.0, and Pam's House Blend two gay, anti-Prop 8 sites, have the details. More recently, envelopes containing white powder have been sent to the Los Angeles and Salt Lake City Mormon Temples, following protests and invasions of the Temples by Gays. Gays invaded a Lansing, Michigan church that had sent money to support Proposition 8, screaming "Jesus was a Homo," threatening parishoners, and several hiding in restrooms, only discovered during a police sweep. Meanwhile the Sacramento Theater Director who donated money to Prop 8 (he is married, the father of two, and a Mormon) has been fired for making the donation. The Los Angeles Film Festival Director who donated money to Proposition 8 has tendered his resignation after his donation was discovered by a database search, kindly offered by the LA Times and Sacramento Bee, by the new McCarthyist Gay Mafia. Currently the Board is discussing how best to fire him for his political opinions, no doubt. Meanwhile, the elderly Mormon woman who owns Hollywood's El Coyote Mexican Cafe has been targeted for boycotts and threats.

This is all fairly remarkable. Given that Gays at most comprise around 5% of the population, and the numbers may be smaller. All this fuss, this political frenzy, protests, targeting of first Blacks, in "safe" very White and Gay areas (the Westside of LA) and then convenient targets such as Churches, Mormon Temples, and political donors to Prop 8 (someone had to search the databases to find the donations, and must have had their own gay Jihad reasons to "purge" the non-Gays from public life) is revealing. In the way that an X-Ray can reveal the underlying bone and tissue structure, or seismic waves the makeup of the ground through which they pass, the actions of Gays can reveal remarkable facts about PC (and Hollywood).

These are, in no particularly order:

• Gays are counting on the "Stuff White People Like" status-mongering to carry the argument politically.


• There is a complex PC hierarchy of which Gays are at the top.


• Gays are a tiny segment of the population, but are over-represented in Hollywood and the Media.


• Michael Ovitz was right, a "Gay Mafia" does run Hollywood (much to it's ruin).


• Single Women have moved closer to Gay Male behavior.


• Gays do not wish to marry, rather they wish to subvert marriage.


• Gays over-representation in Hollywood and the Media is a weakness as well as a strength.

Let's explore what the X-Rays reveal, one by one.

First, gays are not very numerous. Around 5% of the population. Whites are by the US Census Bureau about 43.1% of the California population. Hispanics account for 35.9%, Asians 12.7%, and Blacks only 6.7%. Hispanics don't vote as much as Whites, but voted for Proposition 8 in significant numbers. Gays have been very careful not to say anything negative about the Hispanic vote for Proposition 8, and Spanish Language Media has supported Proposition 8. As the HispanicBusiness.com link shows, Prop 8 opponents made ads with "Ugly Betty" star America Ferrera, which were ignored (it is an English Language TV show) and Prop 8 supporters made Spanish language ads with telenovela star Eduardo Verastegui. America Ferrera, after all, is of Honduran descent and appears in English language films. She is the "Stuff White People Like" conception of a Hispanic star, as opposed to the real one that real Latinos actually watch. Ferrera, is in fact an actress on an English language TV show watched by ... Whites (and specifically, White women). Not real, actual Hispanics who prefer such fare as "Sabado Gigante."


[Click Image to Enlarge]

The blunder in the campaign, and the aftermath (that Gays never targeted Hispanics/Latinos which in LA amounts to Mexicans) is significant. Even the "Stuff White People Like" Gays and their supporters fear angering the Mexican community which is demographically powerful. Blacks are only around 7% of the population, so they may be abused, but the N-bombs stopped fairly quickly because while Blacks can be convenient targets due to demographic weakness in California, they form an important function among the "Stuff White People Like" contingent.

Laughably, the Magical Negro, popularized by Spike Lee, forms an important function for "Stuff White People Like." Rich White Yuppies, who are bored out of their skulls, find magical transcendence by pretending "authentic" and "spiritual" Blacks are their super-secret pals. You can find this all over culture, in the films Lee derided ("The Green Mile" and "Legend of Bagger Vance") as well NBC-TV's "Heroes" (with it's magical Black guy who sees the future). Criticism of Blacks, who are remarkably anti-gay (see Eddie Murphy's Raw), risks losing the "Stuff White People Like" coalition of Rich, Bored, Status-obsessed Yuppies.

This is not anything new. Picasso and the Cubists thought only African Art could "save" their bored patrons from ennui, and Europeans have had a patronizing and romanticizing attitude towards Black American Jazz artists since the 1920's. A long tradition of using Blacks as props in the status-play obsessions of the bored rich is merely confirmed by how quickly Gays dropped the use of the N-bomb, and switched to other targets.

There are not that many gays, and exit polls, if they are to be believed, showed that Whites mostly (by a small margin), voted against Proposition 8. The Whites who voted for Proposition 8 were older, married, with children, and church goers. The natural enemies of "Stuff White People Like," who are engaged in an endless battle for status in the never-ending mating game, and constantly disparaging those with actual marriages and families. Gays politically depend on this group of Rich White Yuppies to carry their objectives forward. Politically, Gays just lack the numbers and face defeat in a straight numbers battle. In turn, the Rich White Yuppies hate the relatively poorer, but somehow married with children, Whites, who voted for Proposition 8. The pure hatred shown Sarah Palin, mostly over her class, her family, her husband, and children as a good example of this dynamic among the snob set that Gays depend on.

Here is the significance of the lack of any attack on the Mexican voters who voted for Proposition 8: Gays are afraid of them. That Gays quickly dropped the N-Word response to Blacks in their protests shows two things: One, that Gays feel free to make those attacks, because they sit higher up in the PC hierarchy than Blacks, and Two, that the attacks stopped as soon as Gays realized it weakened their hold on the "Stuff White People Like" contingent, the rich White Yuppies.

If one were to create a hierarchy level for PC, as shown by the Gay Protests, it would go something like this: Stuff White People Like > Mexicans (who are the bulk of Hispanics in LA) > Gays > Blacks > Ordinary Whites > Religious Whites. Asians are of course "invisible." Asians have the numbers in California that Blacks have nationally, yet they are ignored in political campaigns. The dog that didn't bark in the Gay Tantrum over Proposition 8 was how Asians were not even part of anything related to Proposition 8.

Are gays over-represented in Hollywood? Yes.You don't get the suggestions by "Hollywood Elsewhere" blogger Jeffrey Wells for a Maoist "self-criticism" session if Gays are not over-represented in Hollywood. While it's hard to find actual numbers, Gays seem to dominate certain key positions in Hollywood, such as Casting Directors. The Metrosexual Boy-Men plague, with actors such as Josh Hartnett, Ashton Kutcher, Shia La Boeuf, Leonardo DiCaprio, and so on, lies at the hands of Gay casting directors, who prefer the pretty boy look instead of actual, masculine, leading men. Writers and producers, too, are over-represented with Gays. "Big Love" writer-producers Mark Olsen and Will Scheffer, "Desperate Housewives" writer-producer Marc Cherry, "Superman Returns" writer-producer-director Bryan Singer, "Day After Tomorrow" writer-producer Roland Emmerich, "Chicago" producer Rob Marshall, "Sex and the City" writer-producer Darren Star, represent a large chunk of writers and producers who are actively working in Hollywood. CNS News has a report from GLAAD detailing how the broadcast networks alone (CBS, NBC, ABC, CW, and Fox) have 22 series featuring 35 openly gay characters for the Fall 2008 TV season.

“There are openly gay writers on almost every major prime-time situation comedy you can think of … In short, when it comes to sitcoms, gays rule.”

Gays are 5% of the population. Clear evidence, therefore, of how over-represented Gays are in Hollywood. To have openly gay writers on almost every sitcom.

Michael Ovitz, who complained after he left Disney, that a "Gay Mafia" that ran Hollywood was out to ruin him, was at least correct in that respect. Gays do dominate Hollywood, much to it's ruin. As the CSN News link points out (quoting GLAAD):

“Ehrenstein, a professed homosexual, cheerfully admits that gay writers are attempting to influence viewers with a homosexual agenda:

‘The gay and lesbian writers of today have been pushing the envelope any chance they get. In fact, they’re encouraged to do so. Since current comedies are positively obsessed with the intimate sex lives of straight young singles, who better to write them than members of a minority famed for its sexual candor … as a result of the influx of gay writers, even the most heterosexual of sitcoms often possess that most elusive of undertones – the “gay sensibility”—‘Frasier’ being a case in point.’

“The ‘gay sensibility consists, according to two homosexual writers, of ‘a very urban, very educated, ironic, detached, iconoclastic attitude.’ Plus, a deliberate overdose of sexuality.”

This is probably responsible for the fact that 80% of sitcom viewers are women.Gay men are able to write for a female audience, but cannot write for (straight) men. Which is nearly all men. As TV has become gayer and gayer, it has become more and more female. Men have fled it, largely, for other less gay entertainment. The parallels with Broadway musicals is pretty clear: when Gays dominate a particular form of entertainment, men flee it.

Gay men cannot engage the interest of straight men in the stories they tell, because they don't understand the desire of straight men to have exclusive access to just one woman. It's understandable, given how promiscuous Gay men on average are, and how little appetite there is for monogamous relationships in Gay society. This can be seen most clearly in "Superman Returns," which presents a Gay Superman as a Christ figure, with a Lois Lane being married to someone else. Nothing could be farther from what the Superman character is, which is wish-fulfillment for boys ("I wish I was all grown up and powerful") and for young men ("I wish I had superpowers to get the girl and save the day.") Openly Gay writer-director-producer Bryan Singer of course, could not understand this. No wonder the movie failed, despite being about well, Superman.

Hollywood increasingly relies upon female audiences for Television, which has turned into a Broadway like Gay-Female ghetto, and young men for the pitifully few movies which actually make money (Comic Book action-adventure films). The ability of Hollywood to churn out the latter is in serious question given how Gay it has become. There is about zero chance for a Gay Writer-Producer to be able to understand what young men want and deliver that on screen. It might indeed be fabulous. But no one is going to watch the action-adventure films that Gay Hollywood creates.

Gay Hollywood has been successful in one aspect — Single Women. Who can't get enough of what Gay Hollywood has to offer. The movie "Sex and the City" grossed $152 million domestically, for a cost of "only" $65 million (source, Box Office Mojo) plus marketing costs. Women form the enthusiastic audience for Gay Hollywood. Which is a historic change from the days of the 1940's and 1950's. What has happened of course is that Single Women have become closer to gay norms.

Single Women are single longer, than they were in times past. They have more sexual partners, are more likely to have multiple partners at the same time (compared to times past), and are far less religious than their mothers or grandmothers. The number of sex partners in urban areas like NYC are higher than the national average.

"I stopped counting at 56," says Christine, 35, a locations director from Bayside who lives in SoHo. "There are so many opportunities to meet men here - bars, restaurants, clubs, walking down the street, the deli. Men are everywhere."

Women nationally average 9 lifetime sex partners, while in NYC they average 18-20. As Roissy in DC points out, anonymous urban living usually equates to many women living a Gay Man's lifestyle. Complete with an emphasis on fashion, "fabulous" friends, conspicuous consumerism, and many sex partners. The NYC Health Department found that 25% of NYC adults were infected with Herpes. The rate was higher for women than men, 36% vs 19% (men), and roughly equivalent to Gay Men's rate (32%). The national average was only 19% for all adults. As I pointed out in my Hollywood's Romantic Comedies for Men, both men and women are marrying later. In many respects, Single Women's open-ness to Gay Men reflects their shared social behavior (many sex partners, urban living, jobs in "design/entertainment/law" areas, lack of religious belief, consumerism). You will find few Gays or Women in Alaskan fishing boats, Sarah Palin excepted, or among the engineers in the suburban office parks.

According to some exit polls, Single White Women voted overwhelmingly against Proposition 8. Which should surprise no one.

Which brings us to the next question, why are Gays intent on getting married? The answer is, they are not. In places where Gay Marriage has been available for years, Gays don't get married. Toronto has had Gay Marriage for years, and through 2008 only one gay couple has been married. Last year, only 107 Gay marriages have been performed.


The city of Toronto, which hosted the claimed "million-strong" annual Gay Pride March on Sunday, has one of the largest homosexual populations in Canada. Despite this fact, however, the demand for same-sex marriage licenses has drastically declined. Last year, the city issued 107 licenses to Canadian homosexual couples, whereas this year it has so far only issued 1.

Even though the overall number of “marriages” has declined significantly, the proportion of foreign couples has increased to two-thirds of the licenses issued. According to Reuters, last year Toronto gave out 924 same-sex “marriage” licenses, and of these, 338 were for American couples and 479 for foreign couples. This year, of the 320 same-sex “marriage” licenses issued, 118 were for Americans and 201 for foreigners.

The Gay Toronto Tourism Guide claims homosexual persons make up 14% of the city’s population, thereby making Toronto the third largest gay community in the world. Nevertheless, this year’s 1 legal gay “marriage” comprised only 0.01% of the marriages taking place in Ontario’s capital. This would seem to strongly confirm past charges that the political and legal campaigns which successfully and dramatically changed the institution of marriage in Canada were ultimately about nothing more than forcing acceptance of homosexuality.

Gays, in fact do not want to get married. Very few of them actually do, in places where Gay Marriage has been legal for some time. Gays are notoriously promiscuous, and promiscuity is incompatible with the traditional notions of marriage. Rather, as Stanley Kurtz has argued in National Review Online, Gays wish to use cultural arguments (mostly through television and movies) and legal ones to collapse traditional culture and specifically, the nuclear family. Which is viewed quite naturally as the enemy of Gay Culture (it is).

As Kurtz puts it, there is a three way split. A few Gay conservatives (who are as tiny a segment numerically as gays are in the larger population) admire bourgeois marriage and wish to emulate it. This is probably no more than 5% of all Gays. Radical Gays reject marriage, as outdated, and only want recognition of Gay Marriage as approval of Homosexuality. Subversive Gays (which is most of the TV writer-producer Gays) argue that the best way to destroy the Nuclear Family is to subvert Marriage itself, by moving it to "Gay" norms of promiscuity through normalizing sexually open unions.

Most straight people have no idea how much Gays loathe the institution of Marriage as it is understood traditionally. Like feminists, they view it as a prison, and the "Subversive" group wishes to sever the connection, as Stanley Kurtz argues, between monogamy and marriage.

"Big Love" writer-producers Olsen and Scheffer admit this is their goal through their TV series "Big Love." Gays who embrace a life of promiscuity can hardly be expected to embrace monogamy in marriage, or allow it in any one else, for that matter. As Kurtz argues here in the Weekly Standard and here in National Review Online, Gays allied with Feminists, Family Law Radicals, and extreme Libertarians seek to redefine Marriage out of existence.

Both by legal means and cultural means.

Which explains the defenestration of the Sacramento Theater Director and the LA Film Festival Director. Anyone and anything that threatens the Gay "Subversives" who wish to redefine marriage out of existence must be "dealt with." By McCarthyesque means if possible. As an expression of Gay Power. To erase the nuclear family and replace it with Gay Culture.

However, the Gay over-representation in Hollywood, and this defenestration of non-Gays in Hollywood who oppose attempts to redefine marriage out of existence, is an expression of weakness as well as strength.

The assimilationist Jews who ran old Hollywood knew how to count. While they may have ran much of Hollywood, they understood they were small in number, and vulnerable to the sort of pogroms that their parents had fled. Louis B. Mayer, head of MGM, created his own birthday on July 4. Jack Warner, Mayer, Samuel Goldwyn, all made sure that their productions were as pro-Middle American as possible, espousing the broadest possible view, the most populist and celebratory attitude towards America. They understood that their position was precarious, and overt expressions of in-group nepotism could create a populist backlash. They certainly had stories of such things from their parents. Moreover, they genuinely adopted and believed in the values of Middle America, which made them far more effective than the Gay Mafia in Hollywood today. Nearly all of Old Hollywood films made money. As opposed to today when only a few really do.

Gays depend on the over-representation of their segment in Hollywood (and the Media) for political strength. In sheer numbers, they have very little to offer, other than a loud megaphone, support among Rich Yuppies, and Single Women. Most straight men don't seem to care for anything Gay, given how they've fled "Gay" sitcoms (as late as the 1970's men formed half the audience for shows like the "Bob Newhart Show") and Television in general. However, they moderate their expressions of disdain around women to maximize their dating chances. This of course, can change, and the more Gay Men seek to redefine Marriage, openly, as just a "Big Gay Party" that people throw to be "fabulous" and then go on having sex with many other people, the more most men, who win by having exclusive sexual access to only one woman, will oppose Gays. In nearly every form.

Making Marriage "Gay" (i.e. promiscuous) is a sure way to make permanent enemies of many, many men. It's not as if men have not killed over women before.

Gays risk, in over-reach, alienating a large chunk of straight White men, and defining the Democratic Party as "Gay." Straight White guys avoid "Gay" like the plague.

The public punishment of "safe" targets, the Mormons, Straight White Guys, and so on, may make the Rich White Yuppies happy. It may thrill the Media. It shows how PC is oriented against the "enemies" of the Rich White Yuppies who create and maintain PC: the religious, Straight White Guys, social conservatives, and so on. With a likely long recession, this is not a winning strategy, and the various Blacklists of supporters of Proposition 8 are likely to create their own counterparts.
...Read more

More Scary Vampires

It is the day after Halloween, but Vampires are still scary. Not the vampires themselves, of course, but what they signal in terms of how women view the "ideal man." Which is both quite different than what women had viewed as "ideal" in the past, and has implications for how men themselves will react. Ironically, the Wall Street Journal has something far scarier, in it's implications, than the most bloodthirsty vampire.

First, the Stephenie Meyer novel "Twilight" will soon be showing in theaters. Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily reports that users of online ticketing service Fandango voted "Twilight" the most anticipated new movie of the year, and that the response, 95% from women, is tremendous. Naturally, of course, no man, or certainly straight man, would willingly be caught dead watching the movie. Or undead, as the case may be. Interestingly, 42% are 25 or older, while 58% are younger than 25. The novels and movie appeals strongly to young women. The Orange County Register has an article that also suggests this is the case, that teen girls form the core readers for these types of fantasy-romance novels.

"I feel bad for my future husband," says Hammel, 16, of Mission Viejo, who says practically everyone she knows has fallen for the books. "Because he'll always be second in my heart to Edward."

What is interesting is that the news story points out how the vampire novels cater to young women's desire to never grow up. To stay young, sixteen to seventeen, without responsibilities, beautiful, and in love, forever. This is a very different view, of course, from the traditional type of romance novels, pioneered by Jane Austen, where the whole point was to grow up. To become an adult, free of the confines of childhood and the childhood home, able to act as a mature young woman, indulging in both romance (and implied sex) with her husband. Marriage and children were considered the goal — it was merely a question of finding the correct husband, and avoiding the unsuitable ones.

Certain themes pop up in the vampire novels, over and over again, as detailed in a recent Wall Street Journal article. The vampires are of course of perfect physique, washboard abs, and beautiful countenances. The vampires are all "rich" and have wealth, and often power, in their own secret societies. Interestingly, most of the novels feature byzantine politics and "treaties" with humans and fellow vampires, other supernatural creatures, that the female protagonists must navigate. The parallels to the tortuous "Mean Girl" politics of High School Girl Popularity are of course, obvious. The female protagonists of course do nothing, really, except land the most powerful, and politically influential (in the "secret society") vampire, and become the "Head Mean Girl" of the supernatural version of High School. Indeed, many of them are set in Vampire Prep Schools.

For all of feminism's chorus of changing society, it is instructive that none of these novels show the protagonist gaining a career, a skill, a family with a supportive husband, or entering into a traditionally male field where the protagonist is accepted as an equal on her own terms. No, instead what these novels provide is the vicarious thrills of being the most popular and powerful girl in school, with the Big Man on Campus as the eternal boyfriend, forever. With no adult responsibility, or anything else to intrude in the "forever now," where time and the idea of time, simply does not exist. No planning for college, no career focus, no concern about family. None of that.

It's striking, how young women want so little of what feminism offered, and indeed chose the exact opposite — updated versions of the Bronte novels, only with supernatural overtones. Contrary to Freud, we can read these novels and discover what their readers want (they certainly reward the authors well, with sales in the millions). Which is, with respect to men, perfect physiques, physical power far in excess of other men, wealth that does not require work, or a daily job, and very hierarchical, feudal style politics echoing that of female cliques in High School.

The Wall Street Journal calls this the "Alpha Male," but of course it's a Woman's idea of an Alpha Male, echoing Byron, not a Man's idea of an Alpha Male.

For most men (well, straight ones anyway), Byron would be considered a failure. While dubbed, "mad, bad, and dangerous to know," Byron was by the standards of modern men an absolute failure. He had affairs with distant cousins, a married woman (whom he treated cruelly), and was likely, bisexual, having affairs with men at College, and afterwards. He was reputed to have had an incestuous relationship with his half-sister. He sent his illegitimate daughter away to an orphanage, to the disgust of the Shelleys, who eventually broke with him over that issue (Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's daughter was born prematurely and died as an infant.) None of Byron's works are much remembered today, and are only rarely read, in contrast to the Shelleys. While "Frankenstein" remains a classic, Byron's works like "Childe Harold" are forgotten.

Nevertheless, he had many affairs, was famous, and was likely the first "celebrity" in the Western World. Famous for being famous, as opposed to actually achieving anything. It's significant that he had few real friends, no real political or cultural influence, and was not an "Alpha Male" in the way that most men would understand it.

For men, Alpha Male is pretty much leadership. The man who dominates a social setting by virtue of his social network, which includes hefty doses of patronage, mentoring, decision making, and most of all, success. Not just for the Alpha Male himself, but more importantly, those in his social network. Thus, Generals Grant and Sherman, would both be considered Alpha Males, even though their sexual pairings were few, and both remained loyal and faithful to their wives. The late Coach Bill Walsh, who successfully mentored an astonishing number of NFL Head Coaches, and took over temporarily as Head Coach of Stanford, so that protege Dennis Green could become Head Coach of the Minnesota Vikings, at that time, the second Black Head Coach in the NFL would be considered by most men, as an Alpha Male. Even though Walsh was not imposing physically, or someone of stature so dominant that he controlled any room he stepped into. Nevertheless, his players and assistant coaches all felt Walsh, his system and his unique analysis, gave them the best chance to win every game. Walsh, like all successful head coaches, made it a point to expand his power and influence, by pushing for his proteges to be hired at head coaching jobs of their own.

Which points to the big difference in preferred social structures between men and at least as indicated by the vampire novels, young women. Men like "flat" social hierarchies, where hard work, leadership, and talent combined can give them opportunities to be part of a "winning team" that expands their own social network. Just as Grant and Sherman both protected each other politically, when each was at a low ebb, so too do the preferred social hierarchies of men protect against losing (since to move ahead takes risk). Achievement is measured in concrete goals accomplished — enemy cities taken, armies destroyed, supplies destroyed or rendered useless. In peacetime, games won, or items sold, or buildings constructed. All of which require cooperation, trust, and delegation of duties, indeed specialization, to accomplish anything big and worthwhile.

None of which, of course, are evident in the profoundly feminine world of the Vampire romances. There might be males in them, but they don't bear any resemblance to what most men consider "manly" anymore than Lord Byron would be any man's idea (at least any straight man's) idea of a role model. Indeed, while the relationship is paramount for the female protagonists of the Vampire romance books, for men in fantasy novels dealing with the supernatural, it is usually just an afterthought. Build an army, an alliance of trust, defeat the monster, and get the girl. All of which happen in sequence, as a result of being a supernatural Bill Walsh or William Tecumseh Sherman. Known to his troops as "Uncle Billy" and in the years after, in the habit of quietly assisting his former troops with food and money if they called at his house. For the girls in the Vampire books, it is of course the reverse. Get the brooding, Byronic hunky vampire guy, and then get the rewards, such as social power, eternal beauty, and popularity.

It is not wrong for men and women to want different things, in different order. Profound gender differences drive each culture, regardless if they are acknowledged openly or not. Yes young women seem to have decisively rejected feminism. But the problem lies in the current situation where men and women's fundamental interests are not aligned. In Jane Austen's day, as lamentable as the restrictions on women's lives were, the fundamental interests of both men and women, to make a good, life-long match for marriage, were aligned (at least for the middling Gentry that Austen wrote about). The economic growth of the 19th Century, and that of the Twentieth, brought that alignment about to the Western masses, down to the most ordinary of persons. While men and women may have thought about society differently, had different perspectives, and wanted different intermediate things, their end goal of making a happy marriage, and having successful, happy children, was shared by both, and society as a whole.

Now, there is a huge mis-match in the relationship market, and nothing speaks more to it than the Vampire novels. Young women want the hunkiest of hunks, natural of course, but also a very hierarchical society where losers and winners have already been picked, and no one changes out of their status, ever. It is a society frozen in Amber, fixed with as the Wall Street Journal describes, "atavism" of a backward, feudal nature. Not just in the original, Bram Stoker version of Dracula, but all the updated versions, from the Sookie Stackhouse series to the Laurel K. Hamilton novels, feature very feudalistic societies made up of "Kings" and "Queens" who "run things" like a combination of the Borgias mixed with the Sopranos mixed with South American Drug lords, with a supernatural twist. Societies made for pretty young women, but not for ambitious young men.

As these young women grow up, they are more likely to demand these hierarchical societies, which advantage pretty young women and place at severe disadvantage ambitious young men. They are likely to prefer older men, who will be in competition with their male peers for their favors. After all, a great deal of the Vampire fantasy is that of the older man, who looks younger. All the vampires are very much older and more experienced than the female protagonists. Politically, this equates to a high degree of support for socialism, among young women. Because socialism provides a frozen-in-amber society, with influential and powerful families running things by design. It is no accident that every socialist economy is plagued by scores of young men, outside the margins of economic success, looking to trump aristocratic control by extreme violence. This is as true in the banlieus of France as it is in the favelas of Brazil.

Among other things, this explains the infamous Gender Gap. Why single women in particular prefer more Leftist, socialist politics than men. It is really a preference for a stable aristocracy, which makes sense given how the different sexes view romantic success.

As these young women grow older, the habits and views of men they have created in adolescence, of course, are unlikely to prove a happy template for solid, stable relationships. In real life, as opposed to fiction, relationships with Byronic bad boys rarely end happily. Theodore Dalrymple notes in his "Life at the Bottom" how both his female patients and his nurses, preferred violent, abusive bad-boys, over stable, decent men. That they only grew out of their attachment to the bad boys when menopause hit. Given the weakening influence of parents, Churches, and other purveyors of traditional social values, and the strengthening influence of peers and the media environment, this is not a happy development.

It would be a mistake, of course, to blame the authors. They simply see a market, and fulfill the demand in the marketplace. No, the blame is entirely that of the social system that allows the mis-match, between young women wanting what only a very few of their male peers can be (impossibly handsome and strong, impossibly rich, impossibly mature, impossibly socially powerful), and the reality of who most of their male peers really are: the lineup of geeks at the dance from the classic 1980's John Hughes film, "Sixteen Candles."

Many or perhaps most of these young boys who are "geeks" can grow up to be successful men in business, the military, or other careers. A look at actor Anthony Michael Hall then and now, is instructive. None of them can grow up to be "Edward Cullen" of the "Twilight" novels. Only a very few men can even approach that combination of physique, power, status, and Byronic brooding bad boy intensity. Perhaps the innate desire to have these qualities in men leads young women to indulge what Roissy in DCM has called the "soft polygamy" of major urban centers in the West.

The real scary thing, however, is that we may be seeing the result play out already, in Japan. Not as a Godzilla movie, but the depopulation of Japan. The CIA World Factbook reports that Japan's Total Fertility Rate is 1.22 (2.1 is considered replacement rate). Japanese women, like their American and European counterparts, would rather chase after the closest thing to Edward Cullen society has to offer, or indulge in consumerism, than marry their male counterparts and have children. Perhaps the failure of the economic success model — the old heroic myths where the male heroes assembled an alliance and slew the monster, saving the day and getting the girl, is responsible for the new reality of the Japanese Salary Man.

Recall the link at the top of the post? The "hodo-hodo" slacker generation of workers in their twenties and early thirties do not want to be promoted. They find the extra money (not as much as before) not worth it. Certainly not worth all the extra work and time away from their own activities. Given how much of Japanese productivity is built upon (largely unpaid) extra work by supervisors, the refusal of Japanese men to take promotions is telling. In part, the young men cite previous lay-offs, where the life-long work meant nothing during budget cuts and firings. But buried between the lines is the nugget that Japanese men, the younger ones at least, no longer believe that wealth and power that is achievable from a Salary Man job will lead to a family. This is the natural outcome, perhaps, of women's increasing power and status in society.

If women have independence, freedom, and their own wealth and power, then they can demand the Byronic bad-boy, and settle into single status, permanently. Only an extraordinary man, unlikely to be found among Salary Men, could persuade them to give up their independence, and it would require the extraordinary levels achievable only in supernatural fantasy, with feudal "secret Kings" and "Queens" living among ordinary people. It takes an "Edward Cullen" to get married, in other words, and for most men, knowledge of that requirement is a reason to stop caring. Stop caring about advancement in work. Stop caring about promotion, responsibility, more money. Leisure time and amusements rule. Much like the life of "Chuck" in the NBC-TV series, before the arrival of the beautiful secret agent.

Western society is predicated on a simple but historically effective bargain between the sexes. Men compete to acquire wealth, power, and status, in a relatively "flat" and open competition, with risks and rewards and social dynamism, which also implies that yes, men (and women) can lose power and status. Women accept this part of the bargain, and in return get much greater freedom of movement and persons relative to other societies, and the protection of men against threats internal and external. It's why Wyoming and New Zealand, rough frontier societies, subject to frequent reversals of fortune, both gave women the right to vote in 1869.

The corollary of course is that few men are priced entirely out of the marriage/relationship market, and no women can really "share" the few men who can approach the fantasy of Edward Cullen, the man who Byronically dominates them and (just as importantly) other men. Generally, societies that have men along the line of Byron tend not to be romantic utopias, but more along the lines of Idi Amin's Uganda, or Mobutu's Zaire. The classic, "Big Man" society with a Big Man ruling everything, and resentful, angry men in the Bush plotting revenge and overthrow of the Big Man.

In the current consumerist plenty, young men are not squatting out in the Bush, planning to overthrow the few men who approach Edward Cullen. Western (and that would include Japanese) society is simply too rich and filled with diversions, from the NFL to X-Boxes, for that to happen. Now. But in a prolonged, and lasting depression, with female preference still set and lagging, for the fantasy of an Edward Cullen, and willing to "share" the few that approach the fantasy?

Nothing good can come of that. Which is a prospect truly scary.

...Read more

The Trans-National Elites and the Populist Response

Recently, Winds of Change put up a post asserting that Obama's probable victory in the race for President signals a new model for electoral success. Boiled down to it's essentials, the post argues that trans-national elites have become fed up with America, American patriotism and populism, and are making themselves heard by telling America what to do, how to do it, in an auction available to the highest bidder. This is similar to posts by "Wretchard" at the Belmont Club arguing the same thing.

The essentials are proposed as this:

1. Media Support that suppresses any reporting of illegality in fundraising or anything else by Obama.


2. Vast Monetary advantage by tapping the global pool of (illegal) foreign contributions from trans-national elites, including Saudi, Pakistani, Hamas, and Hezbollah/Iranian money.


3. Government funded vote fraud and mass-rallying organizations (ACORN).


4. Intimidation and bullying ala The Coming Thugocracy

This model, that of a trans-national elite, taking steps to control the US Presidential election, does seem to describe what Obama's campaign really is. There are other data points. San Francisco columnist Mark Morford describes Obama as a "Lightworker", a near-parody of the WB series "Charmed" "White Lighter" characters.

Here's where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

There could be nothing more trans-national than this statement above. A more stunning repudiation of nationalism, America, and populism could not be imagined.

Then there is the Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jonathon Valania, who argues, seriously, that White people should not be allowed to vote because they are "racist" and won't vote for Obama. Or Barack Obama, who noted:

I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.

You could not invent the more perfect, elitist, yuppie, trans-national statement, hostile to the people and where most of the majority population lives.

This is standard stuff in Europe. Where trans-national elites run most of Europe, save for Putin's Russia, and parts of Eastern Europe, and Italy. In places like the UK, or France, or Spain, or Germany, or Sweden, elites suppress nationalism, nationalist feeling, any measure of populism, and push the agenda of the trans-national elite, who form a sort of new "Medieval Priesthood" who try to tear down national institutions and national feelings, not to mention the national peoples themselves, to construct a new trans-national "peoples of the World." It is why you see considerable effort to replace native European populations with that of North African or African populations, and Dutch or Swedish politicians stating that they eagerly await the day when natives are a minority and Islam rules the land.

In most places in Europe, even places like Spain or Ireland, this sort of trans-national elitist politics works, because transfer payments from places like Germany and the UK allows trans-national elites to dispense various goodies, usually in the form of welfare payments or "free" government services to enough voters to assemble a winning coalition. This is why, even as European nations become overwhelmed with immigrants, who have declared de-facto independent states where natives dare not tread and the law does not apply (such as the UK's decision to allow Sharia Law to have the full force of Common law in Britain), governments responsible get elected and re-elected. While trans-national elites disparage unifying symbols such as flags, national symbols, national history, voters don't punish them. They have their goodies, and for now, that works.

Obama's probable victory is merely a transfer of the successful EU model, of trans-national politics, to America. However, the elites who make up the trans-national elites do have weaknesses, ones that make them vulnerable, and likely to create a world-wide backlash.

First, it's useful to note where trans-national elites do not hold sway: Italy, Austria, Russia, and parts of Eastern Europe. Russia was simply too corrupt, violent, and inherently nationalistic for the trans-national elites to hold sway. It's laughable to think that someone like Mark Morford, or Jonathon Valanian, much less Barack Obama, would face down a hardened KGB killer like Vladimir Putin, or any of his crew. In places where violence rules, and guns trump money from afar, trans-national elites are like Medieval Priests confronting marauding Vikings. Helpless.

Eastern Europe was of course, too poor, corrupt, disorganized, and chaotic for trans-national elites to give enough patronage money for local elites to build electoral alliances. The same holds true for Austria and Italy. Italy is quite instructive — notoriously corrupt, plagued by inefficiencies, no one expects anything from the government, and tax evasion and payoffs are a way of life. Indeed, the Lega Nord and other right oriented political groups are successful there, as in Austria, because people are concerned about influxes of immigrants. In Italy, the flood of North African, and Balkan (mostly Roma/Gypsy) illegal immigrants, has not been balanced by successful payoffs or patronage/welfare payments to enough voters to create a winning coalition. Meanwhile, Italians, Austrians, Poles, Bulgarians, etc. are not about to abolish their nations for some hazy notion of "citizenship of the world" and certainly not without lots of money flowing to lots of voters and people.

This was the same problem facing the Catholic Church's Medieval priesthood. While most of the educated, literate, and money-controlling people in Europe were Priests, Bishops, and Archbishops, they could not form patronage networks to rival that of the Kings, at the head of feudal patronage organizations. Significantly, the Priests could field no direct armies, or put men under arms themselves. The history of Europe from the 1100's onwards is a steady consolidation of power by Kings creating nations, and a long slow recession of international power by the Catholic Church.

The Kings of Medieval Europe could not match the production of wealth that the Catholic Church's Monasteries produced. The Kings could not produce the large amounts of educated, loyal to Rome, and absolutely required functionaries that the Church alone provided. But the Kings could create alliances to seize said Monasteries and distribute the wealth among themselves and barons, such as Henry the VIII. Or found universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of Paris, to create their own, loyal, literate functionaries. Because while the Monasteries were a huge source of wealth, they could not be defended. Defending the wealth required men under arms, something the Church was never able to produce.

In the same manner, the "Obama Model" of media in the tank, illegal foreign money (not reported by said in the tank media), voter fraud, and thug tactics has a weakness.

By moving entirely outside the media, through building grass-roots organizations, populists can control their message and use it create wedge politics, particularly through using nationalism and populism. This would include such things as various social events, private insurance, entertainment events, and so on. Particularly as the global economic crisis makes the ability of trans-national elites to provide welfare payoffs to broad slices of the electorate very questionable. In addition, populism and the notion that trans-national elites are "traitors" to the nation, putting the interests of illegal immigrants and various minority groups ahead of the nation and native majority have proved quite successful. Italy's Berlusconi, to use one example, used precisely this message to win election and stage a comeback after having been written off as politically dead.

The more that Harold Myerson of the Washington Post writes about how America must "Abolish Whiteness" by such gems as this:

In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks' party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white.

The more the trans-national elites take this direction, the more they can be attacked with impunity as the enemy of the nation, it's traditions, and most importantly, it's majority. When Barack Obama's favorite Catholic priest Father Pfleger calls 401K plans "racist" and Obama's advisors write of plans to tax 401Ks to pay for "redistribution" of wealth, from Whites to Blacks, as part of a "reparative" measure to atone for slavery and segregation, this is a golden opportunity for identity politics. As per the 2000 Census, the population breakdown is 75% White, 12% Black, and 13% Hispanic. Now, while Whites may have declined relative to that Census, it will be only marginal, and the majority of the nation is still overwhelmingly White. It is not good politics to attack the White Majority, without offering ala Britain or France, lots of "free" services and transfer payments to make those attacks palatable. It's worth noting that both France and Britain are having political problems now that their budgets are being stretched by too much resources devoted to minorities, and not enough to the natives.

In some ways, the McCain campaign is the last gasp of the "old" Republican Party, before the coming wave of identity politics. It is unlikely that future Republican nominees will play "nice." Explicit appeals to identity politics and questions of fairness will be the rule. The new populists, in the US and elsewhere, will remind the White majority that the alternative favors immigrants and minorities in spending decisions, and policies. The media, in the tank for the trans-national elites, because they are trans-national elites themselves, will be bypassed. In favor of grassroots organizations. Offering entertainment, social events, celebrations of national traditions and holidays, parades, and likely insurance, and other "benevolent association" benefits that tie people to the populist organizations and offer an alternative from government run programs that will by definition be oriented towards trans-national elites and minorities.

Moreover, it's easy to point to all the foreign money and paint the trans-national elites and the media as traitors to the nation, and enemies of the majority of the people. It is a simple matter to show the intimidation and thugocracy of minority-oriented governments, be it an Obama thugocracy, or that of a Sarkozy, or Gordon Brown Sharia-compliant regime, and make the case that the majority, made second-class citizens or worse in their own nation, have no other alternative but the populists. Even more effective, offer money "seized" from Affirmative Action programs, or minority-oriented programs, to be spent on the majority. One such proposal would be to end Affirmative Action and guarantee any citizen (but exclude foreigners) "free" College tuition for a "B" average in High School.

This is the equivalent of the Kings and Barons seizing the Monasteries. There is a lot of money and property that the trans-nationals have, and they don't have much power to defend it. While their power, like that of the Medieval Priesthood is considerable, it is not unstoppable. And it is likely to produce a Nationalist, Populist backlash all around the West as the opposition sees the "rules" and devises an end-run around them, taking advantage of the weakness.
...Read more

NBC's Chuck: Men, Romance, and Female Empowerment

Fans of NBC's "Chuck" (Mondays, 8 PM Eastern/Pacific) know that it is one of the more insightful looks at modern romance, love, and relations between men and women to come out of Hollywood in a long time. Certainly, "Chuck" is the only Hollywood production that reflects our Science Fiction World, with massive changes in how men and women relate, driven by the Pill, the Condom, and anonymous urban living, far from family and friends and stable neighborhoods. The series is, of course, as light as a souffle, and amusing but not profound. That in itself is what makes "Chuck" so revolutionary — it is the only Hollywood production to spill the beans on "female empowerment" and how it affects most men.

Which is to say, create a very few winners, and mostly losers.


"Chuck," some episodes still watchable on Hulu.com or NBC's own website, shows what happens when society tilts radically to unrestricted freedom of choice, absent any social controls, for both men and women. Both lose, though in different ways, and loneliness, distance, and unhappy isolation results. While superficially a fun, spy spoof, "Chuck" is all about a modern man looking for romance and career, in short a family. Detailing his frustrations as he is continually derailed in that quest, despite his best efforts.

Unlike the half-hearted, clownish attempts by Judd Apatow, or the comedy "Wedding Crashers," the title character of "Chuck" (played by newcomer Zachary Levi) does not fear commitment or chose slackerdom out of any real motivation. Rather, he's unable, in a status-heavy world, to attract any significant and lasting interest by women, after his career opportunities were derailed, and he found himself in retail hell, hilariously depicted as a Best-Buy spoof "Buy More" retail outlet (itself constantly in competition with nearby "Large Mart.") Chuck's problem is that in a world of empowered females, he's the head geek of the "Nerd Herd" at the "Buy More." Hardly attractive despite his good qualities.

The series opens, in a "Mission Impossible" style spoof, in harsh contrast, black and white cinematography. Chuck and his friend, uber-slacker and bad influence Morgan Grimes, are attempting to escape his bedroom, when Chuck's sister, Ellie, interrupts, and everything switches to color and normal contrast. It's Chuck's birthday, and his sister, with whom he lives, has invited all her attractive, female doctor friends. Chuck wants to leave, as he explains, because he knows he'll be a wallflower even at his own party, and he knows very well his sister's friends will have no interest in him. Ellie's boyfriend, "Captain Awesome," so named because every thing he does is "awesome," tries to coach Chuck in the finer parts of conversing with attractive women. To no avail. Chuck explains to a friend of his sister's noting he went to Stanford, and asking after sexy Big Man on Campus, Bryce Larkin, that Bryce had been his friend, framed him for cheating and got him kicked out of Stanford, stealing his one and only girlfriend, Jill. Inter-cut with the explanation are shots of said Bryce, breaking into a secret facility, downloading all sorts of secrets and blowing up a computer. Bryce escapes, sends an email loaded with the secrets, and is shot just after the email. Chuck, everyone long since having abandoned him, at his own party, goes back to his bedroom to play computer games. Noticing the email from Bryce, he opens it, and sees a series of hypnotic images that implant all the nation's secrets into his brain. This is the set-up for the series.

Eventually, Chuck finds himself with a "pretend" girlfriend named "Sarah," a beautiful secret agent played by Australian import Yvonne Strahowski. Sarah is the ex-partner and lover of Bryce, who was himself a secret agent for the CIA. [Yes, it's fantasy.] Also on board to protect Chuck and the secrets he alone now holds, is NSA agent John Casey, played by the excellent Adam Baldwin ("My Bodyguard," and Firefly/Serenity) and played with brilliant, comic timing, a tough secret agent frustrated by going undercover as Chuck's co-worker at the Buy More.

What's interesting is how the attitudes of everyone around Chuck changes when they think he has a girlfriend, and a beautiful and intelligent one at that. All of a sudden, his sister has new respect for him. His co-workers, at the "Buy More," marvel at him. His uber-slacker buddy, Morgan even thinks he himself can become more than what he is (a man with "mad work-avoidance skills.")

Chuck himself of course, was derailed in life. Intelligent, but not exactly risk-seeking, he was on track to become a software executive in Silicon Valley. Now, as a guy kicked out of Stanford, for cheating (he was framed by his friend Bryce to stop his recruitment into the CIA, out of Bryce's fear that Chuck lacked the aggressiveness to survive), he's drifted into subsistence living and depression at the retail hell of the Buy More, populated by slackers, idiots, and petty tyrants. Until of course the secrets in his brain, which he alone possesses, and can access only randomly, prompted by outside stimuli, brings the beautiful, aggressive, and tough secret agent who has to play his girlfriend, while carrying a major torch for her in-and-out of her life ex-partner and boyfriend, Bryce Larkin.

Chuck's protector, Sarah, is a very empowered woman. Tough, aggressive, often engaging in physical combat, with a take-no-guff attitude and often hilariously humorless approach (Strahowski is a very funny straightwoman), Sarah is the closest thing to Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Wonder Woman currently on TV. And while it's clear that she likes and in her own way respects Chuck's intelligence, and bravery, as an ordinary, though smart guy, involved in the bizarre spy world she lives in, it's not enough for her to really fall for him. Even though she does indeed have feelings for Chuck, whenever her former partner and on-off boyfriend Bryce reappears, it is not enough to compete with the aggressive, high testosterone presence of uber-macho Bryce. Sarah is the ultimate tough female workaholic, who is often lonely, and unable to relate to anyone but her on and off boyfriend Bryce, and that on only a superficial leve.

Chuck is a very odd show, it's as if Buffy the Vampire Slayer were remade, and "Xander" was made the star, with Angel a bit player who comes in and out to remind the hero of just where he sits in the world of female empowerment. Which is not very high, indeed.

In fact, comparing the show with the two shows most like "Chuck," which would be "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and 1980's sci-fi comedy "Greatest American Hero" is instructive. In the latter, the hero "Ralph Hinckley," is a put-upon, mild mannered teacher of at-risk kids (played by unintentionally hilariously over-aged twenty-somethings channeling the Dead End kids). Given a super-hero suit by aliens that turns him into a, well, superhero, he has a girlfriend (the always excellent Connie Selleca). Who is a smart, competent lawyer. With the help of super-conservative, often funny, veteran FBI agent "Bill Maxwell" (played expertly by Robert Culp), all three tackle various villains and bad guys to save the day. Written by TV legend Stephen J. Cannell, and presaging many of the squabbling hero devices he used to great effect in the "A Team" the show "Greatest American Hero" was in one very important respect, far different than that of "Chuck."

"Ralph Hinckley" already had a girlfriend. His life was complicated by the arrival of the suit, and the responsibility of the powers it gave him, not to mention that he lost the instruction manual and could use them only inexpertly. But he already had a middle class life, even his own home, and merely wanted to hold on to that life balanced against his reponsibility. He didn't need super powers to get his girlfriend, even though she was a lawyer, and a skilled one who made good money, more than himself, at that. He already had the life he wanted BEFORE his superpowers.

Meanwhile, Buffy's own life was centered around various vampires, ordinary guys like Xander, no matter how brave, just could not compete. Not even the "Captain Awesome" like super-soldier "Riley Finn" could keep Buffy's affections against a vampire, once he lost his super-soldier abilities. Even Xander himself lost the affections and love of his girlfriend to one of Buffy's vampires, and very pointedly, all the ordinary men were nothing but props in Buffy's female empowerment. Which echoing many of the female-oriented vampire novels and TV series, was all about a "special" girl using her "unique" powers of sex appeal and "goodness" to "tame" some dangerous, powerful, bad-boy vampire, and live outside of society. As detailed in the post Vampires and Women, this is the basic plot-line for the "Twilight" series to the HBO Series "True Blood" based on the "Sookie Stackhouse" novels.

In the world of Cannell's 1980's show, "Greatest American Hero," female empowerment meant, well earning a living doing whatever one wanted, and being treated with respect. Selleca's character, "Pam" was often the brains of the trio, and within the storylines, given just as much insight and importance as the others. Her relationship with the hero "Ralph" (played by William Katt) was complicated by the arrival of the suit and it's responsibilities, but it was an adult one, and traditional. Ralph's relative lack of money, status, and power as a High School teacher didn't matter to her before the suit's arrival, and her attitude towards him didn't change after the suit entered their lives. She viewed him as the same man before and after he had superpowers. You could not have a more traditional, middle class attitude, towards the relationships between men and women. Based on respect and love, not power.

Move to the late 1990's and early 2000's, and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." The dirty secret there was that female empowerment meant actual powers, and living outside society's strictures, just like all the other vampire fantasies aimed at women. One of the dominant themes of the show was a rejection of middle class values, rather than it's protection (as in the Cold-War era "Greatest American Hero.") Buffy, particularly after the show left her outside any real social controls (her mother died, she dropped out of College, she lived in her own closed world without any interaction with ordinary people), cared only about her relationships with vampires, power for it's own sake, and pointedly chose men based on their power and social dominance, rather than character, compassion, decency, loyalty, etc. Unsurprising, since her vampire boyfriends lacked any of those qualities. No matter, Buffy didn't care about that, merely power. A view shared by all the other female characters regarding men.

Now, move to 2007 (when"Chuck" premiered). Chuck, no matter how brave, smart, loyal, compassionate, and insightful, still can't achieve a steady relationship. Crushed when he's kicked out of Stanford, and his girlfriend Jill dumps him for Bryce, he drifts into Buy More and spends years there. It takes literally gaining "superpowers" for him to have any chance at even the illusion of romance (as opposed to the reality), and while the beautiful, and literally empowered secret agent who pretends to be his girlfriend likes him and even admires him, it's clear she'd rather "let's be friends" with him than want him as a boyfriend. That status is reserved for Chuck's arch-rival and former friend Bryce. Who is everything Chuck is not: heedless of personal risk, good at fighting, indeed enjoying it, and a natural with women, confident of his attractiveness to them.

Which gets to the heart of the matter, how female empowerment has changed. Rather than merely a matter of income and personal equality, wishing to be treated as equals, female empowerment in popular culture, seems to be a function of living outside the old social rules and indeed society as a whole, and choosing the most socially, physically, dominant men. Which leaves most men outside, stuck in the "let's be friends" zone. Even with the nation's secrets in your head.

"Sarah" herself lives alone, in a ritzy hotel room, in a downtown high rise. A far cry from the homey, ordinary, middle class tract house of "Greatest American Hero's" Ralph Hinckley. She drives a fancy car, while hero "Chuck" drives the company "Nerd Herd" car, complete with corporate paint job. Her life is lived anonymously, "Sarah" is not even her real name, and the hero "Chuck" knows next to nothing about her. Her past is a subject she's made clear is very, very closed to him. And far from the casual equality of the main characters in "Greatest American Hero," Chuck Bartowski, who has all the secrets, struggles to prove himself again and again to the spies who protect him, Sarah, his pretend-girlfriend, and John Casey (a hilarious echo of Culp's character in "Greatest American Hero," right down to the Reagan worship).

Chuck's sister asked Sarah, unknowingly, how a girl could choose Bryce over Chuck (referencing Jill, Chuck's only genuine girlfriend). And as the show makes clear, it's easy. Sarah, like Buffy before her, lives a largely anonymous life outside of normal society. While it's clear she envies the emotional closeness Chuck has to his sister and his friends, along with their mutual support, she relishes the absolute freedom her anonymity gives her. Freedom to be anyone, and do anything, since any people she knows can be dropped like excess baggage for the next mission. Only fellow uber-spy Bryce is her equal in fighting, in penchant for taking risks, for subterfuge, and courting danger, willingly. Chuck cannot compete, and in the anonymous life Sarah leads, has little to offer. When everything is done, she will go on with mysterious, dangerous missions, and Chuck will be left behind at the Buy More.

Interestingly, the Alpha and Omega of men around Chuck are his slacker buddy, Morgan, and his prospective brother in law, "Captain Awesome." A fellow doctor, alongside Chuck's sister Ellie, "Awesome" has a splendid physique, is often exercising, and is enamored of high-risk adventure sports like whitewater kayaking. He is however, very careful never to embarrass Chuck or Morgan, both obviously less successful than himself with women, and offers helpful, positive advice to both whenever he can. Awesome is just as impressive as Bryce, but mindful of how advantaged he is compared to the men around him, and shows a compassion that Bryce, engaged in danger even more than Awesome, lacks. Meanwhile, Morgan spends most of his time avoiding work, and his girlfriend Anna, a rebellious slacker type herself, often has to encourage Morgan to stand up for himself. It's clear in the antics at the "Buy More" that Chuck, regardless of formal authority, is the only thing keeping the store running, amidst the slackers and idiots found in the retail hell. Boss "Big Mike" retreats to his office to eat dough-nuts and sleep. No one else shows any leadership, and it's up to Chuck, reluctantly, to keep things running and often, bail out his slacker buddy Morgan, who's work avoidance has him often in trouble. At home of course, it's the fake relationship with his protector, who must dial down her aggressiveness in her role as the "girlfriend" that makes Chuck more respected by his sister, and Awesome. Both assuming that Chuck, in a relationship, plans to move out of retail and into something more reflective of his intelligence and possibilities. Viewers are shown, over and over, that Chuck even at the Buy More, just can't help doing a good job.

Chuck is clearly shown to have leadership potential, just not leadership in the style of Bryce Larkin (a clever play on the poet Philip Larkin, notorious for his dalliances). Unlike Bryce, and like his prospective brother-in-law, "Captain Awesome," Chuck is careful not to embarrass or humiliate his often idiotically clueless co-workers. Unlike either Bryce or Awesome, Chuck spends his days in tedium relieved with boredom, in the retail hell that is the Buy-More strip mall store where he works. Even with his potential obvious, and his technical and leadership skills applied in odd ways to his covert missions with his handlers, Chuck still doesn't fit in with his more experienced fellow spies.

In part that's a stylistic choice, a departure from the Cannell 1980's team of oddballs, but it is also a commentary on the more challenging environment of the post-modern, Science Fiction world of today, as opposed to the certainties of the 1980's. Female empowerment leads not to demands for equal respect, treatment, and pay, but for well, more power, and more powerful men.

It is made clear, to the viewers and Chuck, that while he would like to have a relationship with his protector, she demands the kind of man, that he literally cannot become, and that he has no future with her, since he does not want to be a spy, even if his lack of guile and being just exactly what he is, an everyman, gives him protective coloration amidst the hardened killer enemy spies he deals with on missions. Chuck cannot become his arch-nemesis Bryce, his attempts at a cool spy persona are played for laughs, and he knows that the very empowered female who is his protector demands an even more empowered man. A man both higher in status and importance (i.e., a cool "real" spy not a real life member of the "Nerd Herd") and just as if not more so, able to deal out violence and take risks.

In this, "Chuck" is a good exploration of our Science Fiction world. Author Richard Whitmire, and his site "Why Boys Fail" explores the gender gap in College. Fully ten percent more women graduate from college, and that's a reversal of the 1980's generation. Indeed, the empowered women of today's college age face, outside elite schools like Harvard or Yale, about 10% or more women than men in their schools. This means far fewer educated men in their peer/age group. Meanwhile, the competition for for women ages 20-30 is fierce. Boys outnumber girls in births, by about 105 to 100. While not having the horrific gender-specific abortions that characterize China or India, with the resultant "Bare Branches" and "excess" men who will never find wives, numbering about 40 million alone in China, nevertheless the better medical care resulting in far fewer infant boy's deaths, has led to a gender imbalance of around 117 to 100.

Let's put that in simple terms. That means for every 117 boys, randomly selected, there will be only 100 girls in their age group. Let us ponder that for a moment.

Now consider "Chuck" and his predicament. In College, he was able to find a girlfriend, despite being smart. Which is a turn-off to women, associated as it is with lower testosterone, unless men demonstrate, like Chuck's rival Bryce, high testosterone by doing athletic things and undertaking lots of risky behavior that signals higher testosterone, despite the smarts. The science blog Gene Expression has a link to several studies showing how higher IQ in men is associated with much higher rates of virginity. Everyone knows women do not like smart men. The technical term for these guys are nerds. They do not like them due to lack of testosterone, and this can be a problem. Chuck while in Stanford, was able to find a smart girl, who shared his interest in old text-based computer games, and have a relationship with her. As soon as he was kicked out of Stanford, she dumped him for Bryce. Ever afterward, Chuck like most guys outside of college, had no real ability to find and meet a girl he could form a relationship with.

It's interesting that both Ellie and "Awesome" are doctors, it's easy to see how their romance began, meeting in the same hospital where they work. Chuck works in a Buy More, lacks any status or power, and doesn't have any opportunity to meet women. Even if he did, he still works at the Buy More. Chuck doesn't take the kind of risks, as a matter of course, that impress women. He's not a band member, or an amateur X-games athlete, or anything like that. He likes computers and technology, and that's it.

The problem for men Chuck's age is that after College, the ability to meet women of similar background and interests is severely limited. Many like Chuck have the same sort of dry spells, after College. Instead of an institution that serves to bring men and women of the same age and interests together, they face brutal competition. Perhaps not a Bryce Larkin, lurking around, but men ages 22-40 all competing for the same group of young women, ages 22-30. The women who are out of college, in the workforce, and have men in their twenties and their thirties both competing for their favors. Made worse of course by the changing demographics that produce about 17% more boys than girls for each peer group.

All these factors, combined with the urban, highly mobile, and anonymous living make the demand for men far more like Bryce, than like Chuck. It's the world of female empowerment. Which makes losers out of guys like Chuck.

And intriguingly, the same dynamic makes losers out of women like "Sarah Walker." Sarah is portrayed as lonely, her boyfriend is often away, and she lacks any real emotional support. The excitement of the Alpha Male that her boyfriend Bryce provides, comes at a cost. No emotional support, no social network, no everyday life. Not much of a future, either, since his highly charged testosterone risk taking will last longer than Sarah's beauty, and ability to influence her male targets, which is a big part of her abilities as an agent. She is of course, unable to break away from a lifetime of habits, and cannot resist her old boyfriend, Bryce.

But Chuck's dilemma, how to compete with the Bryce Larkins (he really can't) in a world of empowered women demanding just such men, is instructive. As more and more men and women live apart, for far longer, and romance becomes not commonplace, but rare, how will society change? Perhaps part of the reason for the high rate of divorce is that men and women get married far later, when women have run through their string of Bryce Larkins, and obviously "settle" for the "nice guy" who well knows he is the last, not first choice. Both with too many partners, and not enough connections through shared intimacy of physical and emotional, during their key twenties. In a rush to have one child before infertility becomes irrevocable. Unable to spend time bonding together when both are at their peak attractiveness.

Perhaps also, the rise of single motherhood by choice, with women seeking their own Bryce Larkins on their terms, as absent fathers, and choosing lives of isolation, lead to more guys like Chuck on the outs. Absent even a pretend relationship with a beautiful secret agent, instead living the life of say "Jeffrey," the aging singleton of the Buy More stash. Intriguingly, Chuck's series suggests that Chuck's years-long tailspin is due to despair. Despair of finding any girl, and therefore just drifting through life at the Buy More.

It's telling that the main drama of today, as opposed to the 1980's, is simply finding a mate. A sad comment on how isolating modern life has become, and how lonely the current model of female empowerment really is, for both men and women.
...Read more

Return of the 1970s

While "that 70's Show" has long since ended it's run, the 1970's in America's cultural and political life never ends. In my post Obama's America: Is it Jonestown? I explored one aspect of the return of the 1970's, the eerie similarity between the People's Temple and eventual suicide and the Obama cult. Certainly, Obama echoes also many unattractive aspects of Jimmy Carter's Presidency, from supine surrender to Jihadist Islam in Iran and elsewhere, to an emphasis on a never ending apology for America and her existence, to a "sweater and tire gauge" approach to energy policy, and anti-nuclear hysteria.

But it is in the economy and culture of America where the 1970's are making a roaring comeback.

First, in the economy, many of the same factors, that is soaring inflation, particularly in gas and food prices, coupled with declining wages and high unemployment, bring to mind the "stagflation" of the 1970's, and anger with a bipartisan elite that will not fix the problem. Gone are the heydays of the 1990's, and even the early 2000's, when advertisers sought ever smaller niches for luxury or specialty goods. Gone too, are the discretionary spending on consumer goods, including electronics, computers, and various status symbols. Instead, most of consumer spending (and advertising) is focused on "value." Good gas mileage cars, cheap and healthy food, budget friendly consumer items. Ford, Chrysler, and GM are slashing advertising spending on TV, leaving networks scrambling to sell their spot market inventory to other buyers, at deep discounts.

High gas prices make discretionary travel by consumers a thing of the past. Gone too are spending on custom rims for cars, and other status-mongering displays. Starbucks has closed 600 stores, and will likely close more, as consumers stop spending $4 or more for a latte. Declining wages, economic uncertainty, fear of future layoffs, as companies plan massive budget cuts ($500 million next quarter for NBC Universal alone), amidst high gas and food prices naturally lead to a stagnant consumer economy.

Movie attendance is down, way down, and only inflated ticket prices and a few mega-hits such as "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight" have produced profits of any kind for movie studios. Meanwhile, infusion of investment money from outside sources has dried up among Wall Street's meltdown. In an economic downturn, $12 ticket prices for movies make them a once a year event, not a weekly one.

But it's in culture where we can see the return of the 1970's the most. While TV is filled with warmed-over X Files derivatives, such as "Fringe" and "Eleventh Hour," complete with dark, brooding 1990's Vancouver location shots and plot lines, one series stands out.

Which is, ABC's "Life on Mars," which at it's heart is the examination of the cultural battle to impose PC on the old, White Male dominated world. Based on the British series from 2006-2007, it features a modern day policeman from NYC, Sam Tyler, hit by a car and in a coma, imagining he is in 1973, or perhaps has traveled back in time, or both, or neither. The very ambiguity is post-Modern, from the era of today, rather than 1973. But, ironically, the main character Sam Tyler encounters, lead cop Gene Hunt, shows what is wrong with the modern era of PC.

Played by the dean of modern NYC-based method actors, former "Bad Lieutenant" star Harvey Keitel, Gene Hunt tells Tyler that his aim is to get thugs and bad guys off the street, and says, "When my time is done, people will he has been here, of that I am certain." In pursuit of this aim, Hunt will rough up suspects, intimidate witnesses, and ignore calls for a lawyer, to find his own brand of justice. Hunt and the nearly all male precinct ignore the contributions of "Annie Norris," played by Gretchen Moll, the lone female policewoman relegated to clerical duty. Casual sexism and un-PC expressions of the same, along with disregard for minorities and gays, also abound.

But what stands out is with all the lack of modern forensic technology, evidence, and scientific support, how EFFECTIVE Hunt and his crew are, unbound by the rules of political correctness and excessive legalism. Ironically, the character of Hunt, in the British version, became very popular, despite the original version's penchant for casual, minor corruption and brutality. Of course both shows, the British and American versions, are obsessed with pushing the "correctness" of the PC line, as opposed the result oriented good old boy world of 1973. Much in the same way of AMC's "Mad Men," the audience is invited to have contempt for the bygone world before PC, yet the audience in both cases actually LIKES the world before PC.

What stands out is how crippling the effects of PC have on getting anything done. Without computers, cell phones, DNA analysis, or other modern technology, Hunt and his team get results. It's striking how large the cultural appetite is for throwing out PC, in favor of getting results.
...Read more

Obama's America: Is it Jonestown?

On Nov 17, 1978, Congressman Leo Ryan, and several members of his party were shot to death in a Guyana airstrip, by members of Jim Jones "People's Temple" security force, before they could leave in several planes. Also killed with Ryan, were NBC Cameraman Bob Brown, NBC Reporter Don Harris, and People's Temple defector Patricia Parks. Following news of the shooting, and knowing that Guyanese authorities would be forced to act, charismatic and "racially transcendent" leader Jim Jones ordered a mass suicide, with poison Kool-Aide. Among the dead were infants, as well as their mothers. A needle-less syringe was used to squirt poison into the mouth of a one-year old infant, by his mother. In all, 909 People's Temple members died from the mass suicide, their dream of a revolutionary, socialist, "start from zero" society over, in violence, murder and suicide.

Is Jonestown the future of Barack Obama's America? It might well be.

The fatal flaw in what blogger Ed Driscoll calls the "start from zero" impulse is that all alternatives to the tried-and-true tradition of American representative, republican, constitutional democracy are inferior. Even worse, socialism inevitably degenerates rapidly into "Big Man" societies with a Jim Jones figure at the helm. Not all or even most socialist "Big Man" societies commit suicide, but the slow-motion devolution (ala New Wave band "Devo") into social and economic misery is clearly apparent. North Korea's "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-Il, complete with creepy songs idolizing him as a demi-God, might as well be Barack Hussein Obama, who also has children singing creepy songs idolizing him as a demi-God. Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong-Il all rule with an iron, and likely hereditary hand, nations that are as separate and removed from international trade as possible, with starvation amidst plenty the rule, and worship of the leader as a God-King a facet of every aspect of life.

The Left, and Barack Hussein Obama, largely approve of these "revolutionary" societies because the Left, and Obama, wish to "start from zero" to "remake" society in their own, perfect image. While Christian beliefs have largely vanished from the Left, and certainly Obama himself, debased, "Volk Christian" ideas such as a mutated Calvinism, describing the predestined "saved" and "damned" and the idea of cleansing society from "the original sin" of "racism" hold sway over the deepest beliefs of the Left and Obama. Indeed, Obama himself explicitly holds himself up, like Jim Jones before him, as a "savior" for America, and the World, from the original sin of racism. Explicitly promising, just as Jim Jones did, to transform, in every aspect of daily life, not only America, but the world. Both Jessie Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, have seconded that notion, publicly stating that every aspect of life in America and the World will change under Obama, as both are "redeemed" from "racism" and remade in Obama's image.

The parallels between Jim Jones, who had similar things said about him by Jerry Brown, and Walter Mondale, in the 1970's, is uncanny.

Moreover, G. K. Chesterton's supposed saying that those who cease to believe in God do not believe in nothing, but rather anything, seems proved without a doubt. Indeed the corollary is that those who reject Christianity and it's general rules and value system, seem to embrace a debased and "Volk" version of Christianity absent the restraining aspects of tradition and custom.

But why do so many, otherwise sane and sensible people embrace "Big Men" and the obviously insane ideas of completely transforming society to "end racism" and indeed, consider "racism" (in the narrow sense of anti-Black, Hispanic prejudice by Whites, rather than the other way around) the most important problem facing Western Societies? In addition, why do these attempts to "start from Zero" always end in failure? Is this failure, violent suicide or grinding, miserable poverty, the future of Barack Hussein Obama's America?

First, the embrace of "Big Man" and "start from zero" politics. The West is wealthy, filled with people who have material belongings unimaginable just generations ago, but mostly socially isolated. Great material wealth, amidst grinding loneliness and social anxiety. Job centers are not in the small towns and villages of the past, or even regional centers like Toledo, or Cleveland, or Scranton PA. Rather, they exist in great coastal megalopolis regions, that include outlying suburbs. Most of the jobs in the US, and nearly all of the socially prestigious jobs lie in the NYC, LA, Seattle, Miami, Chicago (lakefront), and San Francisco metro areas. What characterizes life in these metro areas, is long and socially isolating commutes from suburb to the city, or suburb to suburb. Lack of any social mediating institutions such as Churches, volunteer organizations, neighborhoods, and extended nuclear family support network. Gone are the aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, and so on that provide comfort and support to isolated middle class men and women.

People have no meaning in their life. Often, they remain single well into their thirties, or beyond, and lack the discipline and fulfillment that family life and responsibility bring. Meanwhile, the most dominating influence in their lives remain not intimate and supportive social connections to other people, in high-trust networks, but rather the top-down communication of the extremely liberal and idealistic media, in all it's forms, constantly preaching the flawed nature of Western society, and the need to "start from zero" to remake everything in the image of perfection. Which is itself not new, Plato, idealizing the distant Persian Empire, also wished to "start from zero" by installing a Philosopher King, and emulating the Spartan practice of raising children away from their families in cohorts, creating loyalty to the State.

Human beings are the most intensely social animals in existence. It is not for nothing that solitary confinement is considered a very tough prison sentence. Humans need social connections, it is critical to their survival. Meanwhile, Western society is built upon creating only the most minimal social connections, to facilitate rapid social and technological change. This creates a very fast-paced, constantly changing society, that in adopting and accelerating technological and social change, has few peers. But Western society's great weakness is loneliness, so it's no surprise that lonely men and women seek a charismatic "Big Man" to give their lives meaning, and transform society into a far more intimate and connected version.

Jim Jones and Barack Hussein Obama both take advantage of the deep social loneliness inherent in the West, and the desire to fill up empty lives with transcendent meaning, in the post-Christian era. All the other cults and crazy religions, from the Heaven's Gate suicidal cult, to the Branch Davidians, to UFO and Crop Circle believers, stem from Western society's great weakness. Among them, belief in "magic" of either a supernatural leader (Obama, Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite) or aliens or spirits or such, replacing the absent family and traditional religion. It's no surprise that the socially isolating West regularly produces leaders and followers who wish to destroy it. Particularly since comparatively great wealth allows people to afford such desires. Those struggling for existence focus on the next meal, not issue of loneliness and social isolation.

The idea of "racism," by which is usually assumed anti-Black or Hispanic prejudice by Whites alone, rather than anti-White racism by Blacks and Hispanics, as the "original sin" of the West is fairly obvious. The people promulgating such cults are themselves post-Christian, and thus their entire intellectual landscape is formed by Christian ideas and theology, though devoid of actual, real Christianity. The rantings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, against "racist" America, in his million dollar church, after which he retires to his exclusive, multi-million dollar mansion in a gated community, ought to produce gales of laughter from any sensible person. As would Louis Farrakhan, deeply implicated in the murder of Malcolm X, and raking in millions in the manner of disgraced televangelists Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, condemning a society that provides him wealth unimaginable by the greatest Pharaoh or Roman Emperor. Nor is, of course, Jeremiah Wright so filled with hatred against Whites that he is against affairs with married White women.

For Black practitioners of "anti-racism," the White guilt and rush by White elites to prove their "enlightened" status by falling all over themselves to endorse the agendas of said hustlers, is nothing more than an easy con. Obama, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan have all made millions off this scam. But why do otherwise sensible Whites fall for this scam, since it's easy to see how much a scam the whole thing really is?

The answer is that far too many Whites have fairly (racist) ideas of Blacks, and to a lesser extent Hispanics, as "authentic" and critically, possessing social intimacy and connections they lack. Nearly every White reporter describing Black churches will comment on the "authenticity" and critically, the "warmth" of the services. Which are objectively, no more "warm" or "cold," no more "authentic" or "inauthentic" than similar services by White churches, such as the Baptists or Pentecostals. This harkens back to the criticism by Spike Lee of the Magical Negro in films such as "the Green Mile," or "Legend of Bagger Vance," or "Radio," in which various "magical" Black characters appear and function solely to create a spiritual and emotional renewal in "uptight" and repressed White protagonists. Lee's point that the Black characters are cardboard cutouts, with no spiritual or emotional lives themselves, or concerns beyond the White characters, is well taken. By any objective means, Blacks are no more "authentic" or connected socially than any other group of people in the West. They too, suffer social and emotional isolation, no less than their White peers. Indeed, if one looks at the rates of crime, single motherhood, and other social ills bedeviling the Black Community, all of which have risen dramatically over the last forty years, one can argue that Blacks are merely the canary in the coal mine of Western society, and far from being redeemers, are themselves in need of serious social renewal by a return to traditional mores and values and connections of the Judeo-Christian West.

Which points out the fatal flaw of "start from zero" efforts, whether it is in North Korea, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or the People's Temple, or Barack Hussein's America. The problem bedeviling Western society is NOT racism: by all objective, measurable means, anti-Black and anti-Hispanic racism does not exist in any meaningful form. Instead, most of the NFL is black, with most positions "reserved" by White and Black coaches alike to Black Players. The number of anti-Black violence incidents in the US during the last ten years can be counted on one hand, while that of anti-White violence by Blacks is substantial. The Duke LaCrosse case, like that of the Tawana Brawley farce, was a gigantic hoax created by anti-Western media, eager to find original sin where there was none in a post-Christian era. Meanwhile the racially motivated, Black-on-White, horrific rape-murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom are not unusual at all. The Bureau of Justice Statistics Page has a detailed breakdown of crime in the US. Black-on-White violent crime is approximately 17 times that of the reverse, and White-on-Black sexual assault is not even measurable.

Solving "racism" by Whites is a problem that does not exist, and thus focusing on the non-existent problem prevents real problems from being fixed. The real problems of the West are a lack of connections, values, traditions, and rules to both moderate totally independent and socially isolated people, and give meaning and values to their lives. The West is very, very strong in changing constantly, but that change is itself a weakness, since it requires loneliness and isolation. Going back to tribal "authenticity" is as stupid and silly as believing Aliens lurk behind the Hale-Bopp comet, waiting to take the castrated "saved" away to a new world. Instead, the social problems of the West, and particularly America, can only be solved by a more adaptable Judeo-Christian set of rules, and critically, mediating institutions that bring people together, in neighborhoods, voluntary associations, Churches, Synagogues, and the like. With rules, boundaries, limitations, but also a life filled with the social connections humans need to survive.

What then, is the future of Barack Hussein Obama's America, should he win (as is likely) the Presidency? Is it mass suicide? Grinding poverty under Big-Man-ism? Will Aliens arrive to whisk us all off to outer space and utopia?

Likely, the answer is a long, ugly, brutal struggle for political dominance, and a revival of Jacksonian politics, with both good and bad. Middle and working class Whites who have social connections, go to Church, or Synagogues, have a family, and particularly extended families, have no need for Barack Obama's new "People's Temple" devoted to erasing "white racism" and creating a "start from zero" Big Man society. They only lose, stuck in their existing socio-economic status, if they are not moved down to provide opportunity for Blacks and Hispanics. "Joe the Plumber" illustrates this nicely. He himself has ambitions to rise in wealth and status. This indeed is what America was founded upon, and remains the "American Dream." Sarah Palin in her rallies touches on this, saying she has no apologies for America or the American Dream.

About half the country falls into this category: working and middle class White men and women with families, who seek not social transcendence from a lonely, media-dominated social environment, but economic advancement. Advancement impossible if resources are devoted to "spreading the wealth" by taking money and opportunities away from the White majority (about 75% of the population) to simply give to Blacks and Hispanics, with a Big Man controlling every aspect of social life, including social mobility. The White working class knows it will lose under Barack Hussein Obama's Big Man society, and the White Yuppie class and Blacks and Hispanics know they will win. But long term, the ability of the family oriented White working and Middle classes to resist the new People's Temple that Barack Obama and his followers seek to build is strong.

"Joe the Plumber" may not have been shot like Congressman Ryan, but his brutal degradation in the Media and by Obama and Biden, with every aspect of his personal life dragged through the mud for asking "the One" a question that was answered honestly (and thus embarrassingly) is similar in tone to the reaction of David Koresh or Jim Jones. Long term, the only solution to this political struggle, which will not end with Obama's victory, is either total revolutionary violence, ala the murder of Congressman Ryan, or "revolutionary suicide." Under the Big Man regime of Barack Hussein Obama and his cult-like followers, expect both.
...Read more