The New Imperialism?

Contrary to popular notions, the world does not run on rainbows, unicorns, and skittles. Modern industrial economies need in particular, oil and gas and coal. With the earthquake in Japan turning Western nations against nuclear power (because of perceived risk), something will have to be done to garner critical resources. Which are not equally distributed among the planet, but concentrated (oil in particular) in the Middle East. Since 1945, the Western powers have been ebbing away from that area, preferring to buy oil at a distance from whoever would sell it, no matter how messy. That is likely to change. Recently on CNBC, Niall Ferguson observed that the likely outcome of the current Middle East turmoil is first, civil war, then Islamist take-over, and finally cross-border wars. All of which are going to make oil shipment nearly impossible, no matter how many eager buyers there will be, there just won't be anyone able to sell.




Ferguson of course is bullish on China, while ignoring China's very real problems. A financial sector that is a house of cards (China's State Owned Enterprises are propped up by constant new loans, to keep employment going -- these organizations don't actually make money, they exist to keep people working). China faces massive resource constraints, a largely illiterate interior population, about 30-40 million young men who will never find wives (gender imbalance due to selective sex abortion and the one child policy), a rapidly aging society before it gets rich, and massive ethnic/racial/religious separatist movements in Tibet, XianXiang (Muslim Uighurs) and in the East (Hui Muslims, ethnically Han but devout Muslims). China is the world's largest manufacturer, but its population mostly does not benefit, suffers from massive corruption and pollution, and is mostly quite poor.

Internally, China depends on an annual growth rate of 8-9%, something almost impossible to keep up much longer. There is only so much growth a nation can do by electrifying, building new roads, and so on. This is what the Soviets encountered in 1970 or so. China is quite likely to spark the new imperialism.

It has a certain logic. China needs ever greater raw materials, particularly oil which it must import from the Middle East. China must be tempted to intervene, militarily, to secure its own oil. And perhaps India will be tempted as well, it also depends on growth which means ready access to imported oil, and cheap oil at that, to fuel economic expansion and prevent its own civil war. Both India and China historically have been plagued by civil wars fueled by resource constraints and falling incomes after periods of growth, and their leadership is acutely aware of this tendency.

Europe too, faces challenges. Italy must at some point intervene in Libya, or it will be overrun by Libyans and Africans, becoming a third world hell-hole no different from Tripoli or Benghazi. Italians certainly don't want to fight and die, but neither do they want to be ruled by the Colonel, or people like him. The same holds true for France, and indeed Northern European nations like Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. If fifteen million Africans and North Africans wash up on Italy's shores, be assured that at least half of them will simply start walking north.

And most of these nations are weak. Libya is a set of tribes with flags, Algeria and Morocco little better, the same is true in the Gulf. Weak nations, with resources China, India, and the West need to run their economies above poverty-civil war levels, unable or unwilling to sell oil and gas because they are gripped by civil wars and cross-border wars? That is a recipe for "blood for oil," with the enthusiastic support of everyone who does not want live like a Santa Cruz hippie in the dirt and mud for the rest of their life. China and India seem already edging into confrontation over who will control the Indian Ocean and perhaps the Persian Gulf oil supplies. China has made massive investments in Africa, most of which have not panned out because … the continent is full of Africans. Which means the usual African level of stupid corruption, fighting, and such to garner ten dollars for a tribal chief who could have made ten million had he agreed to let the mining/resource investment proceed.

All the industrialized nations, from the West to China, are hideously vulnerable to Middle East oil being unavailable at any price, or only massively expensive prices. At which their economies seize up and civil wars of one sort or another break out. Internal peace depends in large part on cheap imported oil. Thus each nation is likely to set out, alone or in concert with others, to intervene, first diplomatically, then economically, and finally militarily, to secure the one resource (oil) that allows their economies to function at strife-avoiding levels.

This is particularly true since the idea is not a permanent colony, in unappetizing lands, but mere resource extraction in good old imperialist fashion. Something that goes back to the neolithic, no doubt. The West, and China too, likes to talk about self-determination, about anti-imperialism, human rights, and all that. If it is a question of permanent oil prices at $200 a barrel because Saudi Arabia is involved in a civil War, Iran has invaded the weaker Gulf states, and Libya is collapsing into constant attrition warfare between the Colonel and his enemies, yes both the West and China will intervene. India might as well.

The desire to avoid internal collapse will simply be too strong. China has no real oil reserves of its own. Like Japan it imports nearly all of its needs. China cannot keep its hundreds of millions of factory workers employed with oil at $200 a barrel. Since its rulers like very much, ruling, they will do anything and everything to get oil down appreciably lower, socialist and anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist rhetoric notwithstanding. The same is true for Europe, and ultimately America.

Indeed, the absence of America in the Med while Libya implodes and the Colonel promises to push most of his eastern population (into Italy, essentially) has been a wake-up call for Europeans on the need for their own navy, air forces, and army. Expect to see some rearmament being pushed by conservative parties arguing that becoming "Camp of the Saints" is not a wise policy. And that keeping hundreds of millions of North African and African refugees out of Europe requires armed forces of real size and capability. Even constrained, an industrialized Europe could build five-ten aircraft carriers and support ships, plus planes and people to run them. They don't have to be world-beating, just better than what Khadaffi will have, or the mass refugees. And from there, well it’s a short jump to wondering just why all that oil is not pumped for their benefit?

Western guilt is likely to end along with post-war prosperity. No one likes to sit in the cold and dark. Even Europeans expect results. Like the power to go on when you flip the switch.
...Read more

Asians In The Library: UCLA's Diversity Comes Home

The standard view of "diversity" is everyone holding hands dancing around rainbows and unicorns denouncing how awful White Beta Males are. Great for everyone but White beta males. But even smoking hot Alpha White girls don't like diversity. Because it brings stress, conflict, and turf battles into everyday life, which is already stressed out from a non-stop acceleration due to technology creating a 24/7 connection to the world. UCLA coed and model Alexandra Wallace (that's her above) put a Youtube video (since removed, below is a copy) about how Asians in the Library annoy her (with rude behavior):




While certainly not a deep thinker, the young lady's main points are: 1. Asian students at UCLA are coddled, and kept immature by uber-helicopter parents, with negative fallout for Whites (who are left to fend on their own), and 2. Asian students at UCLA are rude and don't follow the rules (keep quiet in the Library) that White students do. [Presumably the very few Black and Hispanic students who actually do visit the library, follow the rules.]


Wallace has since "apologized" and no doubt UCLA will punish her. The UC Chancellor said he was appalled and University officials are "evaluating whether there have been any violations of the student code of conduct and what sanctions, if any, are appropriate."

Youtube is great. People cannot stop posting to it. Nor Twitter or other social media. Recently Gilbert Gottfried was fired from Aflac, as the voice of the Duck after Twitter "tweets" such as:

"I just split up with my girlfriend, but like the Japanese say, "They'll be another one floating by any minute now."

"I was talking to my Japanese real estate agent. I said 'is there a school in this area.' She said 'not now, but just wait.'"

As the proprietor of Dlisted notes, "You know, we've really come a long way as a society, because we don't even need to change out of our stained sweats or leave our houses to get fired. Just spew out some offensive fuckery on Twitter and wait by the mailbox for your final check to show up."

The Internet is really an outlet for people to post unfiltered by politeness and social repression, what they really think. For Charlie Sheen, it was mainlining crazy. Social media, and video, allowed him to exhibit his full on crazy, taking him from rebel Alpha male that women dream of taming, that bad boy magic, to just plain crazy and sick. Spelled U-N-A-T-T-R-A-C-T-I-V-E.


More and more comments, tweets, Youtube videos, and the like are pushing back on diversity. Which makes even those most socially powerful (attractive young UCLA coeds who have probably most of the straight male population panting after them) annoyed. Ms. Wallace may be the top of the social heap, but even she needs to get work done at the library, and not be distracted by rude cell phone behavior. Nor be stepping over expat Asian kids relatives doing laundry, cooking, shopping, and other things. [No doubt fighting for washers and dryers in the laundry room is not particularly fun with elderly Asian relatives ruthlessly cutting in front of "nice, polite," White kids.] You can see the frustration build, even poorly articulated, with her description of being raised to be "nice, polite" and have her cautions ignored. And focus interrupted by loud talking on cell phones. Because rules are just for White kids, not the rest.

And that's Ms. Wallace's main beef. She has to follow the rules, the others don't. Even the hottest girl on campus finds that annoying. She still has to get work done.

Diversity creates a thousand and one petty annoyances, and with California being ground zero for White ethnic cleansing, the annoyances build up heavily. The internet, with social media a draw for 24/7 rants/soap-boxing statements, is almost irresistible. I have no doubt whatsoever that Ms. Wallace's social circle said much the same thing, over and over again. No doubt it is enraging to be a numerical minority, and the only one held to the rules, while everyone else flouts it.

Ms. Wallace should not have apologized. She should have stood her ground, and demanded the University enforce rules equally, not just for White students. No doubt an "example will be made" of Ms. Wallace, but it will not change White students minds, nor that of the average White person. Who will see merely another PC jihad, by the usual suspects, while those of more privileged races skate.

Ultimately, the internet by giving voice for those who speak out about the cost of diversity (second or third class status for Whites, with no payoff for the social friction, daily) will erode the elite's ability to enforce orthodoxy. Efforts will be made to contain the damage, but the internet is too big, and the lure of saying what you really think too strong, particularly for young women who seem more than young men focused on self-expression, to be walled off by a PC firewall. Huffington Post may have a five minutes of hate, but most Whites are likely to find themselves in broad agreement that diversity imposes a constant social friction with no benefit for them.

And the strongest argument of all is "What's in it for me?" [The motto of one John Dortmunder.] For most Whites, the answer is, a daily kick in the face. That's not a winning proposition, any more.
...Read more

TV Gets Older As It Runs Out of Young People

The Wall Street Journal reports that broadcast TV is getting older. Well, of course. TV ran out of (White) young people. As America becomes a bifurcated nation, one of aging Whites with money, and young mostly Spanish speaking Hispanics without money, cultural changes are already transforming America. Rock music has died as a new and engaging creative force, largely because the 1980's was the last White cohort big enough to support innovation, coupled with the collapse of the Black family (and Church going thus choir training). FM radio such as Indie 103.1 is another example of not enough young White people to support what used to be a money-making institution. TV is getting older because its is running out of young, White people. And that will in the end, translate to a renewed cultural conservatism and set of attitudes, older people not being known for adventurism and open-ness to new experiences, risk taking, and thrill seeking.


The Journal notes:

In CBS's new cop show "Blue Bloods," Tom Selleck, at the age of 66, plays a New York police commissioner. Kathy Bates, at 62, snagged the lead role in NBC's legal series "Harry's Law." And 62-year-old rocker Steven Tyler is fast becoming the crowd's favorite judge on his first season on Fox's "American Idol."

Viewers 55-plus make up nearly 60% of the weekly audience for 'The Good Wife' on CBS; a 30-second ad recently cost $108,000.

Television is starting to act its age.

For decades the TV industry has operated on a currency of youth, creating shows that appeal to 18- to 49-year-olds, the age group advertisers traditionally consider most likely to buy new products, switch brands and spend on everything from cars to soft drinks. But as the nearly 80 million baby boomers continue to age out of the coveted demographic—the oldest boomers are turning 65 this year, the youngest 47—networks want to charge advertisers more to reach them. After all, these viewers still watch a disproportionate amount of TV, and they control half of all U.S. consumer spending.

From Ed O'Neill's patriarch on ABC's "Modern Family" to 51-year-old Hugh Laurie on Fox's "House," boomers' influence can be seen in programming. On "NCIS," TV's No. 1 drama with an average viewer age of 57, strapping young naval investigators turn to wise 59-year-old Mark Harmon for advice.

TV is just older. The accompanying graphic shows how key shows, have increased their average viewership age, over the years. While Friends and Seinfeld explored the idea of being young, single, and open to all sorts of relationships, or "Summer of George," in various comic formats, today's shows such as Blue Bloods are about the duties and responsibility of family. A remarkably conservative message, and one diametrically opposed to that of Friends or Seinfeld or much of anything else in the 1980s through the 2000's. The idea of family and duty, in the person of a patriarch, hasn't been seen on TV since the 1960's and Bonanza.

This change is being driven by economics:

Currently, networks still charge advertisers more for shows with younger viewers. A 30-second ad on "The Good Wife" cost, on average, $108,000 in the fourth quarter of 2010, or roughly $25 per thousand viewers, according to SQAD Inc., a Tarrytown, N.Y., media-research firm. In contrast, on a Wednesday night on top-rated "American Idol," where the average age is 44, Fox can charge $435,000 for 30 seconds—or about $46.75 per thousand viewers. "Glee," one of prime-time TV's youngest shows but whose audience is nowhere near that of "American Idol," gets $47 per thousand viewers.
…
The networks want marketers to ignore age and pay for viewers based on income and other factors—in effect paying more for affluent viewers who are 55-plus. CBS Entertainment President Nina Tassler says the network has always created shows that appeal to all ages. But "boomers have always been a priority customer for us," she adds.

"Rather than saying a 22-year-old is more valuable than a 58-year-old, we're saying, 'Look, the fact is an affluent 58-year-old is certainly more valuable than a 22-year-old who is just getting by,' " says David Poltrack, chief research officer at CBS Corp., parent of the CBS network.

Still, most marketers prefer to reach young consumers, whose buying preferences can make a product or service cool so that it eventually catches on with older buyers. "Young people are still prime targets for mortgages, car loans and investment advice," says Joe Abruzzo, head of research at Havas SA's MPG unit, with clients such as Dannon, Carnival Cruise Lines and Sears Holdings Corp. Networks are selling advertisers on older consumers "because that's what they can offer."

Pharmaceuticals, luxury-car makers and financial firms are on board. "This isn't a wave, it's a tsunami," says Jim Speros, chief marketing officer at Fidelity Personal and Workplace Investing, a unit of Fidelity Investments. "[Boomers] have to feel like they're seeing themselves in the [TV] spot."

Marketers are on the trailing edge of the change. Cruise ships are not filled with 20 somethings, they don't have the money. Neither are twenty somethings going to buy Viagra, or Diabetes drugs, or financial planning products, or retirement advice, or luxury cars, or much of anything in that class. The twenty-something will spend on electronic stuff, movies, and clothes, but his/her ability to do so is under tremendous pressure. The twenty something earns far less than a fifty-sixty something. Gas prices, food prices, and clothing prices can all constrain the twenty something's ability to spend on consumer goods beyond the basics in a way that older consumers with cushions are less constrained. Inflation and prices rises hurt all consumers, but the twenty something is hurt the most.

And … there just is not that many of them, counting Whites. Given that a good portion of the younger residents of the US are Hispanic, with far lower household income (and illegals live in gripping poverty), the growth of young Hispanic consumers is an economic dead zone. Consider an illegal alien, making around $3.50 an hour, the going wage rate in the LA area (minimum wage is $8 an hour). He will not pay taxes, but assuming he works 2080 hours a year (40 hours a week times 52 weeks) that is only $7,280. Assuming he works 80 hours a week, every week, that is still only $14,560. Out of that, he must pay his room/board, his meals, and very likely a crossing fee to coyotes, compounded continuously, with retaliation to his or her family should he fail to make scheduled payments. He or she also needs to send money home (most illegal alien workers tend to be male, however). That's not a lot of free cash.

What are the likely outcomes of a shift therefore, in TV and culture to an older, more affluent, and increasingly numerically inferior White group?

The first is the end of open-ness to Mexican culture. Punk and Pop bands in the 1980s, from Wall of Voodoo ("Mexican Radio") to X, the Blasters, Los Lobos, the Minutemen, all incorporated various Mexican themed sounds and songs. It is remarkable, with Mexico such a huge influence on America's future, and comprising essentially a great deal of America's population, how absent Mexican culture is in current American music, films, TV, and so on. Only in food, has Mexican influence been felt.

This is not surprising. Open-ness to another culture depends on not being threatened by it. With the population replacement/displacement characterized by defacto ethnic cleansing, no-go areas, Whites as minorities in their own nation, the ability to be open and accepting of other cultures, let alone the one doing the replacing, is pretty low. White elites that listen to NPR currently don't feel threatened, and find their "real enemies" are ordinary Whites in the suburbs. But culture is not made by NPR or PBS. Young White kids find themselves isolated and outnumbered, and so unlikely to adopt Mexican musical culture, or much of any other parts of Mexican culture. At any rate, there are not enough young White kids to provide an audience and the critical mass for experimentation followed by commercial break-throughs.

There is is no equivalent to a modern day Elvis, putting together the dance elements of Western Swing music, the soul-fulness of gospel, and the simplicity and emotional power of the blues. There are not enough White kids to supply a critical mass of young boys noodling around on their guitars in a garage, in off hours, and not enough White kids to provide the few that have anything new with an early, accepting audience (and early commercial success), and even less open-ness to borrow from other cultures when your own is under constant threat.

Instead, all musical innovation essentially stopped sometime in 1988. The model is now conservation of what exists, rather than creating something new. That cultural message, one that is accepted by both young and old, mostly, is of itself extremely conservative.

You can see this work itself out in what new electronic products generate buzz. Ipads are just another form of a computer. They might be cheaper, more mobile, and more handy for things on the go than older computers, but they are still just a computer. They aren't flying cars, or laser weapons, or teleportation devices, or invisibility cloaks, or anything like that. And the cultural content on them tends to be re-runs of the A-Team, from the 1980's, or other nostalgia fare. Aimed at wealthy boomers as much as young twenty somethings.

Economically, power is shifting, from companies catering to young people, Facebook and Twitter valuation bubbles aside, to those who create products aimed at the middle aged and middle class. With evolutionary changes not revolutionary changes in the offing. A better phone, not a flying car.

America has become, in one sense, a very conservative nation, culturally. And that change is driven by demographics. We just ran out of young White people, and that change is likely to work itself out in business, politics, and culture. Mostly in an aversion to change, risk, and all the brave new hype of a post-White America. The people who watch Kathy Bates and Tom Selleck are not interested in "Machete." If anything, they are focused on maintaining the character and aspect of America as it was in 1984 or so.
...Read more

The End of Female Advancement

Women long for Alpha Males. Well, file that under "duh." Alpha males, those possessing higher amounts of social dominance, power, charisma, and attractiveness, than the women around them, are irresistible. They come in many different varieties: Bill Clinton, Barack Obama (by virtue of celebrities and famous people openly worshiping him as a Living God), and Charlie Sheen (before his meltdown made him merely mentally ill, not a tame-able bad boy). One of the quickest ways to Alpha male status is of course, violence. Violent men are fairly irresistible to most women, as Theodore Dalrymple documented in "Life at the Bottom."


One of the unforeseen but logical outcomes of women's out of control, un-moderated desire for Alpha males, is the lack of female advancement. Oh sure, we have women like Hilary Clinton, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Sarah Palin, and Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi. Clinton merely continues the age-old tradition of trading on a powerful husband or father's name. That's great if you are a Kennedy, or a Clinton, or a Bush, or now an Obama. Not so great if you are a nobody. But the other women, mostly succeeded on their own (with one critical advantage). Their advantage: a beta male husband.

The Financial Times Lucy Kellaway noted:

... successful career women are all getting stuck in the “marzipan layer” just below the boardroom. According to the author, Sylvia Hewlett of Columbia University, this is because too few men are willing to pull women up on to the top of the cake. Men, she argues, are worried about being seen to support a woman too openly because they fear they might be suspected of having an affair with her.

This strikes me as a pretty feeble reason for the lack of women CEOs. Prof Hewlett is right to say that men hold women back, but is wrong to think the holding back happens at work. In fact, it happens at home. The biggest reason that alpha women don’t become CEOs is that they have made the common, yet fatal, error of marrying an alpha man.

My evidence for this is based on long observation of the women I know. Some of them did brilliantly for a bit, but then their careers stalled. The problem was not that they had had too many children (successful women seem to have lots of them) but that their alpha husbands insisted on putting their own careers first.

Until last week this was just a vague prejudice. But on Wednesday I sat down with the FT’s list of the 50 top business women and Googled each one, searching for information about their home lives. Annoyingly, some of them have succeeded in keeping their private lives private, but with the rest I found my theory spectacularly well borne out. Nearly all have children, but I could not find a single one with an alpha male husband.

The only whiff of an alpha mate came from the household of Andrea Jung, CEO of Avon, whose husband was the CEO of Bloomingdale’s. I use the past tense not because he lost the job, but because he lost his wife – the marriage didn’t last.

As far as I could tell, all the others have husbands who have been prepared to sacrifice their careers in order to aid the glorious ascent of their wives.

Indra Nooyi, CEO of Pepsi and the world’s most powerful businesswoman, is married to a man who quit his job and became a consultant to fit in with his wife and children. Ditto with Irene Rosenfeld at Kraft, whose husband decided to be self-employed 20 years ago to help her. Ditto with Ursula Burns at Xerox.

There are three pretty obvious reasons an alpha husband is a problem for the aspiring female CEO. First is logistics. If you want to be really successful you need to be mobile. You need to have a husband like Gregg Ahrendts, who wound up his construction business so Angela could move to London to be CEO of Burberry. You also need to have someone who is prepared to see the children occasionally. And above all you need a bit of encouragement. If you have spent all day competing with men at work, you don’t want to go on competing at home. You want someone like Lloyd Bean, Ursula Burns’s husband, who worked at Xerox long before she joined, but who claimed delight when his wife whizzed past him in the fast lane. Or like the husband of the Indian banking supremo Chanda Kochhar. She says he is “genuinely happy about my progress”.

The lesson for a future female corporate queen is to give more thought to her choice of spouse. She should go for someone who is mentally her match, but who is happy to play a supporting role. In other words, Mr Right should be a male Kate Middleton.

Alas, there is a problem here in both demand and supply. High-flying women are programmed to go for high-flying men. Most men aren’t attracted to women who are more successful than they are. And until those things change, there is not going to be more than the odd sprinkling of women emerging from the sticky yellow marzipan into the glorious royal icing on top. [emphasis added]

There you have it. Ms Kellaway nails it. Women are not going to advance. Not in significant numbers. It is notable that the women she cites, are mostly older women from before the wave of unrestricted female hypergamy.

To climb the corporate ladder, a woman needs a supportive spouse. One as Kellaway notes is willing to sacrifice, be mobile, be emotionally supportive at home, and be willing to take a lesser role. Almost no rational man will do this, because women find these things unsexy and grounds in and of themselves for an affair or divorce or both. Men are simple creatures, they will be whatever women reward. Women talk a great game (about things they don't mean) but when it comes to reality, and choices, the end is obvious.

Being a Kitchen Bitch is a fast-track for divorce (after being cheated upon). Being sexy, which means making most women in your orbit want to sleep with you, if you are a male, is vital to keeping attraction and thus love, and faithfulness, in a marriage. This is the cost of sexy.

Sexy men are well, sexy, but they are not supportive or reliable. They won't move when their partner's career takes off. They won't take second place. They certainly won't take of the kids, and be emotionally supportive. The whole point of being sexy is being of higher status, and power, than their female partner. That's why they are sexy in the first place.

Modern women ages 20-40 have a fantasy that a man will be uber-sexy, and also supportive. When they find out he's not, they choose sexy and choose not to advance. Women will choose the hot sexy guy over the career every time. And they do. It is not motherhood, or men being unwilling to work with women. [Though the penalties for being bossed by a woman -- a man is unsexy and thus basically a eunuch or a neuter are very serious, particularly to younger men on the look-out for a romantic partner who might turn into a wife.] It is women's desire for a sexy man at the expense of everything else.

Everything has its price. Including Sexy Men. As more and more men discover the nature of female hypergamy, and the desire of women in the modern era for sexy men at all costs, the male support for measures (certain to fail at any rate) promoting female advancement in the corporate boardroom and other places is sure to collapse. Under two heavy weights.

The first is that women themselves are responsible for lack of female advancement. They choose sexy men who must be higher than themselves, and then wonder why their men won't pick up and move when they get a transfer and promotion. Why their men won't do the dishes, look after the kids, or provide even an ounce of emotional support. Because the men are sexy, that's all they do.

The second of course is the knowledge that for every female that advances to their own level of power and importance, let alone above it, there is one more women who finds the ordinary man sexually invisible to repulsive. I.E. the price of female advancement is the making of more Beta Males. The textbook definition of which is a man with the same or lower social status as his female peers. Delayed marriage and longer single duration for men means this is not a trivial issue. Particularly early on. Men would do better, by far, if women were restricted to being secretaries and the like in the professional workplace, because they gain nothing by female advancement (they are single) and lose everything by it (they become either repulsive or sexually invisible to their female peers). Not that this will ever happen, but single men are likely to dig in their heels, tremendously, at any further female advancement. Married men, particularly those that married later in life, are likely to equate their wives moving ahead of them in power and status as a guarantee of an affair and/or divorce. Only those with post-menopausal wives (no one will want them anyway) would benefit.

Sexy has its cost, and women are starting to find that out.
...Read more

Let The Eat Ipad

Seeking Alpha reports that:

When NY Fed's Bill Dudley was pressed by a working-class audience about how he can view inflation as low when grocery prices keep rising, his response: "You can buy an iPad2 that costs the same as an iPad1, that’s twice as powerful." Grumbling ensued, as Dudley is stunned to learn that iPads are more popular at Fed offices than on the streets of Queens.

This is not going to end well. No one at the Fed has a clue. They are isolated in a wealth bubble. They don't understand how people live. An Egyptian or Tunisian style melt-down looks more and more likely. ...Read more

Obama's Advantage: White Women

No matter how bad the economy, with gas possibly at $10 a gallon next Summer, unemployment officially north of 18% then, and widespread riots and shortages, Obama has one secret advantage. Most White women love him. Sarah Silverman recently noted her encounter with Obama in a "secret meeting" and spoke about it in quasi-sexual terms.


Silverman noted in an interview with Howard Stern:

I actually love our president, and I'm enjoying some nice blind faith, like the others got for eight years. And I believe in him." (Silverman made a humorous video in the lead-up to the 2008 election called "The Great Schlep" in which she encouraged Jews in Florida to vote for Obama.)
…
"He shakes my hand, he goes, 'Oooooo, I'm a big fan! You're very talented! Although I turn the volume down when my girls come into the room,'" said Silverman, whose particular brand of humor is notable for its edginess and is frequently controversial.

Silverman said that Obama "jokingly" said, "Ooo, you helped me win Florida.”

"I was so nervous and excited," said Silverman, adding that the president asked what project she was working on next.

"I'm going to be naked in a movie!" Silverman nervously shot out.

Silverman said Obama turned to her agent and said, "Oh, you'll have to send me a copy of that," but added that it wasn't meant in a creepy way but more as "a gracious way to get out of" the awkwardness that Silverman had created.
…
The meeting remains firmly ingrained in Silverman's memory, however.

"Oh my God, he gave me a big hug," said Silverman. "His body is like a thoroughbred. It's just, like, pure muscle."

White women love Obama, for the most part. Obama remains the rock star, the celebrity, the uber-hottie. Not for anything he's done, not for results, or a good economy, or more security, or a better life. But because in the female-centric world of fashion, celebrity, and such, all the big entertainment names fawn over him like a living god. White women love Obama because Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, Oprah, Ellen Degeneres, and other celebrities bow down and worship Obama. Its that simple, female hypergamy run amok.

Women exist, for the most part, in a hyper-PC driven workplace and social environment where social positioning, power, and status matter, not results. This is very different from male-dominated workplaces that rely on words such as "production," "productivity," "value-added," "profit center," and the like to define success and value. Engineers either create products that succeed or fail. They meet deadlines or don't. They produce high or low margin products. Their buildings stand, or fail. In areas like fashion, corporate finance, human resources, education, and the like, dominated by women, it is more status, social standing, and social power that dominate, because objective measurements are either impossible or replaced with social networks.

Even the entertainment White men and women consume accentuate this difference. Men prefer sports where winning and losing are clearly defined, and players and coaches who are not very nice, or even lawful, are tolerated as long as they produce winning results. By contrast, female entertainment enforces rigid PC rules, except when stars have an image of an Alpha Male. Charlie Sheen, before his rants and tirades, suffered no real consequences for bad behavior. It was only when he appeared sick, crazy, and ill, instead of Alpha A-hole bad boy, that he was tossed over the side. Warner Brothers TV first gave Sheen a million dollar an episode raise after his arrest for threatening his wife with a knife across her throat on Christmas Day. Female audiences did not react in disgust and tune away, they tuned in even more. But when Sheen looked un-sexy, crazy, ill, erratic, and weak, he was dumped.

Obama will have an edge with White women. Unless he is made to look un-sexy.

Yes, this is enraging to men. Who think a President should be judged by results, not on how stimulated he makes a bunch of White women voters. While Silverman is an extreme, she's not entirely unrepresentative of the attitude of most White women towards Obama: a "hunky" Black guy, with more testosterone and masculinity, than White male rivals, who is the world's biggest rock star celebrity. They don't care if they're desperately poor under his leadership, any more than Rihanna cared that Chris Brown slapped her around, or Charlie Sheen's girlfriends and wives cared about abuse up to actual death threats that were credible.



Because sexy beats everything else for women. For women, five minutes of Alpha beats five years of dutiful beta male support. Heck Monica Lewinsky is still in love with Bill Clinton. She's never married nor had kids, because she's still in love with this Guy.

Monica still hasn’t got over Bill and would take him back in a second,’ a friend said.

‘She told me: “There will never be another man in my life that could make me as happy as he did",' the friend told the National Enquirer magazine.

‘Monica still carries a torch for him. She’s dated some guys, off and on, since the whole White House mess. But she’s never been able to get Bill out of her heart’.
When Clinton's memoir My Life came out in 2004, Miss Lewinsky spoke of her upset at its contents to the Daily Mail, saying rather than being a physical fling, it was a mutual relationship.

'He could have made it right with the book, but he hasn't. He is a revisionist of history. He has lied.

'I really didn't expect him to go into detail about our relationship', she added. 'But if he had and he'd done it honestly, I wouldn't have minded.'

She believed he made it sound like the dalliance came only at her initiative and was purely physical.

'He talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn't resist the dessert.'

Clinton wrote that his affair with Lewinsky revealed 'the darkest part of my inner life' and led to his temporary banishment from the White House bedroom.

He said on CBS' 60 Minutes that he became involved with Lewinsky 'for the worst possible reason. Just because I could.'

But according to Lewinsky at the time, 'That's not how it was. This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels, right from the way it started and all the way through.'

There is a reason that Sarah Silverman wants to send Obama a copy of her movie in which she's naked. There is a reason Monica Lewinski is still in love with old, sick, and ugly looking Bill Clinton. Obama and Clinton are Alpha Males. They are Alpha Males because the media and celebrities and such treat them as living gods. No other reason. Not Adonis like physique (both are ugly, and in relatively poor health), nor natural charisma, nor anything else. Just the social approval and deference high ranking celebrities and media retards give the two in every aspect.

So what must anti-Obama people do to separate White women away from Obama?

Simple: Make Obama look like Charlie Sheen. Sick, foolish, weak, and laughed at.

Obama recently made a play for the Oprah crowd, admitting he was bullied as a child. This should be seized upon constantly, and Obama must be mocked as weak and pathetic, particularly around White women.

A modest proposal. Around any White woman you know, mock Obama as weak, a pansy, a sissy, easily bullied, and quote his own words. Make Obama look like a kind of gay, weak, and laughed at nothing. Just the very fact that a lower status male is laughing at him, openly, will work wonders. Indeed, the one weakness of Obama with White women is his strength.

Obama does not have a magical pull on White women based on results. On wealth delivered and guaranteed. But rather on social approval and social dominance. While the media can and will push Obama the Living God who is Super-Sexy idea, with the enthusiastic support of women like Sarah Silverman, the power of laughter and mocking is strong. A "laughing campaign" of personally laughing at Obama as weak and pathetic, un-sexy, in front of White women (his power base among Whites) would if widespread, be terribly damaging to his re-election prospects.

There is nothing White women will forgive less, than being an un-sexy beta male.
...Read more

When Will Hollywood Turn on Diversity?

Hollywood is a weird place. It celebrates "diversity" yet its people live as far away from Black and Hispanic people as possible. No place on earth is Whiter than Malibu. And as much as Hollywood hates ordinary White people, they have proven complete failures at reaching Mexican audiences. Funny, semi-ironic hipster stuff like Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, the Office, 30 Rock, and Sideways don't appeal to working class or poorer Mexicans. Who prefer broad, very Mexican stuff like Sabado Gigante.


Any quick views of Telemundo or Univision (which Conan O'Brien likes to mock) reveals a huge and unbridgeable culture gap. Hollywood is good at making SWPL movies and Television and books (Lovely Bones, Tuesdays with Morry) that SWPL hipsters love. Semi illiterate dishwashers, car-washers, day laborers, and waiters from Southern Mexico? Not so much.

Nor is Hollywood prepared for the economic difference, when very poor Mexicans make up the largest consumer of entertainment. If Hollywood is hurting with Redbox, Netflix, Amazon, Apple, and now Facebook offering movies for dirt-cheap, how will it handle an impoverished Mexican population that can only spend say, $1 or so for the biggest hit movie? Hollywood and its entire infrastructure, from movies to ad-supported TV to cable-supported TV, depends on a White middle class audience that will buy/view/support the culture of Hollywood, and reward them very well financially.

Sooner or later, Hollywood movers and shakers are going to go bankrupt (like former NFL Star Tiki Barber, trying to return to the NFL at age 35 after his fling with a hot blonde 19 year old intern left him unable to pay for his divorce, and fired from the NBC Today Show). Because they will be unable to reach the new Mexican majority audience, at cheap enough levels. Mansions in Malibu are great, but someone has to pay for them. That means, on a certain level, most projects have to make money, or some make enormous amounts of money, to support that level of wealth.

This means, ultimately, Hollywood has to either become very, very Mexican, with Mexican producers, writers, actors, and such replacing the nearly all White SWPL cadre in place now, with those replaced happy and delighted to be replaced, or somehow Hollywood White SWPL folks all become "Mexican inside" speaking fluent Spanish, completely immersed in Mexican culture, and able to churn out movie after movie with masked Mexican Luchidors driving around doing Luchidor like things.

The likelihood of either happening is so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant. Therefore, Hollywood is bound to fail on demographics alone, leaving aside the transformative nature of technology. As it does, and Hollywood hipsters are shocked to find their mansions foreclosed upon, expect a massive turnabout. A Mexican majority nation won't support a SWPL Hollywood. Simple as that.
...Read more