Friday, October 30, 2015

Last Week's SM, Preview This Week's 20

I did not watch the debate but it appears the Trump was not stumped again. Senators Cruz and Rubio appeared to perform well, but how much of Rubio's good performance is the GOP Establishment wanting voters to believe he did well. I bet they both pick up some Carson supporters. Nixon was right, they are coalescing around him. I could not have timed my Jeb post better. I can see this resolving itself with a Trump-Rubio ticket. It will be considered a "unity" ticket. It balances things out nicely for the GOP (youth, corporate stooge, handsome), secures a swing state (Florida) and slides Rubio into a job with responsibilities that match his talents (none). As much as I think Trump-Cruz would crush Hillary-Puppet in debates, Trump-Rubio would pacify the GOPe.

Did you catch the massaging of one poll with limited reach and a high margin of error being used by the media as a sign that Trump is done? It was timed perfectly for the lead into the debate, but then Carson had another comatose performance. The media is doing anything to slow down the Trump Train. Of course, multiple other polls showed Trump comfortably ahead, but if you ever doubted the use of polls to guide the electorate, you have had all doubts removed. I still don't see Trump doing anything to change the course of our country, but he has destroyed a Bush and is sending shitlibs into hysterics. I am thankful to watch the Trump steamroller in action.

Last week I tackled the fact that the Democrats' debate stage was full of ghosts of their past with no relation to their future. The betrayal of the Jim Webb whites is a shame by the progressive white leadership, but the Bernie Sanders' whites are going away through lack of reproduction. This week I am spotlighting a possible solution for Syria. It has nothing to do with the war, but everything to do with reducing the desire of one of the main US coalition partners to see change. It will also help Egypt.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Creepy. That was the post-debate word to describe former Senator Jim Webb's performance in the Democrat's presidential debate. His story about his wartime experience and killing a man was creepy to the left's viewership. His stories barely drew applause or any positive reaction. Webb looked lost there and sounded as if he did not belong. This was not because he was an old white man, as the stage was all white with multiple candidates over Social Security's full retirement age. The party had left him behind. It has left what he represented behind. Webb's creepy, stranger in a strange land and lost performance fits perfectly as he was a ghost of the Democrats' past.

Webb has since pulled out of the race. He had no shot at the nomination, but his withdrawal reveals a truth about what the Democrats have become. The party's demographics have become so diverse that a candidate must either be plugged into the Establishment's money sources, which can afford to lay out the social welfare programs to secure minority support, one must be a minority or so progressive that the candidate spouts the latest fringe left political talking points. A Democrat's 51% general election winning voter bloc is made up of 40% of whites, 95% of blacks, 66% of Hispanics/Asians/Gays. Being of a minority group will help secure a piece of the fringe, so if you are not, you better have the cash or the far left lunacy on your lips to cobble together a coalition. Webb did not represent any of that, and in doing so, reveals just how much the Democrats have changed.

American political parties represent interests, and beyond the large economic interests of the donor class, they represent small economic and social concerns of their foot soldiers and voting blocs. The progressives took over a political party that was the Solid South and big city machines. When contemporary conservatives wail about the Democrats being the party of the KKK, all they are doing is reminding you that once upon a time, the GOP was the party of radical social change and Democrats of social conservatism. The Solid South was just the white economic power structure; party affiliation meant little to them. Modern conservatives miss the point that parties change who they represent, and at one time, the Democrats used the South and the working class white vote to win. They rode that city machine-Solid South combination to electoral victory throughout the 20th Century. Without the South, they lose in Wilson's re-election in '16, JFK's '60 election, and Carter's win in '76. Those rednecks and crackers that Jim Webb represents with his military service and Scots-Irish roots were the voting muscle that pulled the lever for Democrats throughout the 20th Century.

The 1976 election mattered as a multi-month theatrical production for saving the image of the Left. The Left had switched to catering to the nascent McGovern Coalition, but was trying to trick the rest of the nation into thinking that it had not junked the white union and working class yet. Jim Webb would have been at home. The 1976 Democratic National Convention had Ron Kovic, Marine, Vietnam vet and purple heart recipient, speak of the trials and troubles of veterans. That convention famously staged the closing with Jimmy Carter onscreen in front of liberal George McGovern and Dixiecrat George Wallace holdings hands. This was a massive optics rehabilitation after the back to back disastrous conventions of '68 and '72. With Dixiecrat support in elections, the progressive brain trust could mold the legal system through court nominations, create the regulatory infrastructure they wanted for control of our economy, and pad budgets to secure greater loyalty from business interests.

To steal a progressive media term, the Dixiecrats were problematic. The changes the far left in the mid-20th Century wanted were being held up by a political system that granted power to these Dixiecrats who aligned often with Northern conservative politicians. The Port Huron statement by the SDS explicitly states this as a target to attack. Starting in the '60s, the New Left attacked the Dixiecrats while enabling the immigration onslaught at every turn. Adding in immigration, the progressives simply replaced elastic white voters with questionable loyalty to progressive whims and new ideas with more reliable foreigners who could be bought. Even in the 1990s, Democrats like Barbara Jordan wanted to see immigration curtailed and reformed to help lower income white and black Americans. Nothing came of it. By then for the Left, it was too late. The decision to junk the working class and union whites who crossed the line to vote for Nixon (hardhats) in '72 and then Reagan (Reagan Democrats) in '80 and '84 was set. Webb must have missed the memo to change parties.

Webb is not the only ghost on the stage. He was joined by another as Senator Bernie Sanders, old school socialist, spoke of policies like in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Sanders forgot that those policies are in nations with very large white majorities and unified cultures. Even times are changing in those nations with Europe's immigration policies. They are facing a decision of keeping the welfare state or keeping borders open. Sanders has mentioned curtailing some immigration in America, but that puts him in opposition to the donor class' interests. White progressives upset Obama did not live up to progressive expectations are already ambivalent on Clinton, but the donor class is not. Sanders may represent the socialist soul of the Democrats, but he cannot raise money from the Establishment donors.

Senator Sanders is openly socialist, and the party has drifted in his direction but not exactly how he and who he represents envisions socialism. Pay attention to his rally locations and the audiences. They are in Whitopian states and the audiences are whiter than a Whole Foods on Saturday. Sanders message will fall flat with minorities who just want their cut of the economic redistribution pie. With the growing minority share in the American Left, how much of a future does environmentalism and civil liberties of any sort have on the Left? Minorities stopped Prop 8 in California. As their power grows, what white progressive pet causes get stomped in the mud? His party has become so diverse that the progressive economic message has been squeezed by corporate interests above and by the need to placate the diverse voter bloc screaming for "gimmedats" below.

While Sanders' problem of there not being enough white progressives on their own to overcome an Establishment candidate like Clinton is a harsh reality of the Left's voter coalition, Webb's problem is far more troublesome. The disconnect between a veteran sharing his experiences and an entire voter bloc reveals the separation the Left has made with our military. The silence and little applause for Webb when he mentioned our military shows the deep fissure between the Left's base and martial values and the spirit of what it takes to keep the barbarians at bay. Rotherham should be all that is needed to know the Western Left will sell the natives out to the barbarians for ideological reasons. The anti-war posturing is repulsive when one considers how it has been the Left in charge, nominally, of foreign policy and the military for the last seven years. The stupidity of Marie Harf saying ISIS could be defeated with jobs and memes is not a stand-alone, out of touch elite problem. The Left has forgotten that, sometimes, one needs to fight. Who will fight for them?

Webb and Sanders will walk away and melt into the presidential mists. Webb's one "creepy" line will be a joke for a late night comedy cycle, and some whites will wax nostalgic for Sanders in time, "oh gosh, if only he'd beaten Hillary, the socialist utopia would be here". The Big Business puppets will continue their spot in the circus, just now in a Hispanic or black form. Empty suits like Barack Obama, Julian Castro and Cory Booker who can string along some talking points and read off teleprompters are the future of the Left.

The speed of the change should be a cause for alarm for those white progressives and white working class voters that make up the 40% of whites who still vote Democrat. Webb was elected to the Senate in 2006. Ten years later, he is no longer welcome in his party. Of the 40% of whites that vote Democrat, how many of them will recognize that their hopes for a Sanders or Webb type are never coming true? Where will they turn? How soon do they rebel against a system that has turned them, not just their political symbols, into ghosts?

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Friskies' Weird Sexy Ad Campaign

Ummm, Youtube, what's going on with this cat advertisement?




And what about this one?




What the hell is going on, is this an organized campaign?





Jesus Christ, it is.



Pay attention though and listen to each entire advertisement. There is something different about the specific ads. If the ad has a female speaker, the speaker eventually mentions Friskies food or a food reference around the 18 second mark. If the ad has a male speaker, there is no food reference. It is just a straight 22 second audio personals ad you would find in those awful tele-dating services from the '90s or a phone sex introduction.

We should expect more cat lady demographic advertisements in the future.

WW1: British Propaganda

The quaint country town
When athletes fought  

I love recruiting propaganda posters. They are of course biased, but that it the point. I love them for how they punch holes through modern attempts to retcon the past. Were they fighting for gays, trannies, and open borders? No. They were told it was for their idealized little town.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Jeb's Gridlock Nonsense

Jeb Bush is facing hard times. Jeb Bush is facing the reality that it is not going to happen for him. Dorkier younger brother is his role. Flaming out before the primaries might be the perfect ending to his political career. All is not lost. His son now knows that his dad failed for some specific reasons, and George P. Bush will calibrate his candidacy for president in 2028 (if we make it) to account for his dad's failure. Jeb did let slip something weird though in his rant about having better things to do.

Something does not seem right in his rant. I will copy and paste the rant into this post for you to review.



I don't want to "sit around and see gridlock just become so dominant". Correct me if I am wrong, but the GOP has both houses of Congress. The GOP has some tough turf to defend in 2016, NH, FL, PA, and WI, but has some opportunities to pick up Senate seats. The GOP could lose all four of those tough Senate seats, pick up zero contested seats and still be able to push the president's agenda through. President Jeb would be sitting pretty with some citizen dissatisfaction with his predecessor as a goodwill cushion (Just look competent!).

What gridlock? Where would the gridlock be? I do not think Congress has much, if any, power, but there is a major agenda item that you could do that would not run into any gridlock and deliver cost savings to a majority of Americans: repeal Obamacare. Straight line party vote to get rid of it, but before you do, call all of those insurers to guarantee premium reductions for the fall January enrollment season. Insurers would be heartbroken, but the mergers are going through, consolidation is happening and a 20% drop after multiple years of double-digit increases would still put them ahead. That is a huge opportunity. It would automatically give him a better legacy than his dad or brother.

Jeb might be whining about gridlock because Jeb's agenda is not base friendly. Jeb might be planning something gigantic that will change America forever. Oh, jeez, what could it be? Immigration reform. Jeb's fear is that Trump's shifting of the immigration discussion and how it has emboldened immigration opponents will destroy the immigration grand bargain his elite donors seek. Jeb's main problem is that the Tom Delay crowd is not in Congress anymore. Potential allies who shared the same donor network like Eric Cantor are gone. Jeb not passing the 14 year freshness test really hurts him in this instance.

This throwaway rant by Jeb is not as much about gridlock as it is about where his campaign is now. Gridlock is a slip of his tongue that can have an alternative reading as I provided above, but this is about his sickly campaign. Jeb prevented a third Romney run by scooping up his donor base. Jeb's competition was suppose to be donors working it to have him take on the Koch supported Walker. The parasitic consultant class saw a predetermined match-up offering limited jobs for them in an environment of a way too easy of a donor class to prey on to give themselves fat paychecks. The 17 candidate race started.

I will cut Jeb some slack on one account. Jeb's cuckservative bit is his betrayal of America for immigration. He lost his 1994 bid for the Florida governorship by being honest that he wouldn't do squat for blacks. Immigration is high end punditry type of betrayal. He is not an entirely brainwashed retard like the lower tier of the GOP punditry. The entire GOP pundit and consultant machinery not treating Dr. Ben Carson's campaign the way they should have has hurt their supposed chosen one. Carson gave one speech. Carson has all of the traits that the GOPe smart set hates about Trump and no positives. He just is NOT Trump. Carson has some additional negatives, but he is NOT Trump.

Jeb Bush had no clue that the GOP is so brainwashed about "not appearing racist" that they cannot properly brush off comatose Carson. Jeb probably saw Carson as useful (just like the dumb GOP punditry), but now the GOP has a candidate eating 20-25% support when in reality they are just a fundraising machine for some hustlers. Add to this Trump's 20-25% support, and it's major trouble. The fighting with proxy candidates is weak and something that his father and Reagan did not do in 1980, nor his brother in 2000. Had Jeb showed a bit of dominance, he might have prevented the 17 candidate clown car race.

The clown car atmosphere has killed Jeb. Even if he were to win the nomination, he has been mortally wounded in the eyes of voters. Jeb's hoped for 30% baseline of support was eroded by similar GOPe approved candidates like Kasich, Pataki, Rubio and Fiorina siphoning off 2-6% a piece. The GOPe played it too cute. Now the coronation is in jeopardy. If there is one silver lining for the GOP, it is seeing Jeb behave when he is in a rough spot. This is not the behavior of a man who can think quickly, fight while outmatched and stay positive. Jeb is a puppet, but one that needs both a hand up his ass and the wind at his back. Jeb is a sunshine candidate, not a winter soldier. America is in decline. Our civilization's winter is upon us. No more Jebs. Bring on the Faustian Caesars.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Tales From Weimerica: Tween Halloween Hookers

Weimerica is a cornucopia of degeneracy. There is something for everyone. The pedo push has really taken off, with a new essay saying pedos are not bad people. Think they would feel the same about racists, "Hey, he may be a racist but he hasn't killed any blacks over their skin color, so he is a good person"? God no, you're a horrible person for even noticing the slightest difference between groups. I'm not going to waste my time with the pedo debate, but let's make sure pedos aren't tempted. What we should do for pedos is not put pedo bait out for them. Unfortunately, the sex positive psychopaths of feminism and progressivism want you to encourage, enable and support your daughter by having her dress in a sexy costume for Halloween. Not your 18 year old daughter, but your tween daughter.

Tweens, those 9-12 year olds who are not yet teens are now the subject of "to whore or not to whore" Halloween costume debates. The gospel of progs itself, the New York Times, supports whoring them out. The NY Times and Yahoo both pushed empowering your daughters to dress sexy for Halloween. These parenting advice essays read like Gender Studies claptrap because they are recycled gender studies or human sexuality 240 lectures. This sexualizes children. Not just teenagers who might have adult looking bodies, but tweens. Tweens are adolescents that are not teenagers. What ten year old needs to dress like a sexy cat or nurse for Halloween? None, absolutely zero. Not everything needs to be sexualized. You know who doesn't support this? Cosmopolitan. Cosmo said no with some good ideas like not training our daughters to be future sex workers. Cosmo sounds reasonable. Cosmo, "50 Ways To Be Freaky In Bed", said enough.

This is a sexualization of children but this is a secondary effect of American culture sexualizing everything and the infantilization of American adults. Halloween has become an adult thing. Young adults do no grow up and keep on dressing up. This is simple kids fun that adults cannot let go of, and sadly, the whoring of American women is turned to "11" on Halloween. The "sexy ____" costume has been a staple for years now, and seems to be a marketing and cheap clothing retailer idea sprung from seeing millions of women go as sexy, Catholic school girls for Halloween 15 years ago. The Whore Off that Halloween has become was eventually going to inspire younger and younger groups to ape the adults in order to see more adult.

This confrontation was bound to happen. Our mission as adults was and is to say, "No, some things are for when you are older". Our mission was and is to tell young adults to put things away as those are kiddie pursuits. Those were default reactions when we split culture and society up well by age. There is a time and a place for everything. This works. We abandoned it. The problem group is the easily persuaded who will read these garbage essays and whore out their tween and teen daughters. We have destroyed the split between child and adult, creating a weird 20 year period of sex obsessed manchildren and nymphettes. They hit age thirty shells of what prior generations were at thirty for life history and accomplishments. It is up to you to say no.

This is Weimerica. Sexualize everything. Including your kids. Come on, your kids can consent to sex. You know this. Why else did the media spend years telling you that they could legally consent and make the decision about what gender they are. If a kid can legally make the life altering decision to change the very core of what they are, their gender, then they have the adequate mental faculties to consent to sex with an adult. It's liberal logic! Don't fret about serious stuff; just go get laid. Don't think about tomorrow, just focus on tonight. Tonight, what better thing is there to focus all of your energy on finding a sex partner that boosts your status in your social circle? It's the Weimerican Way!

Monday, October 26, 2015

Halloween, the Army of Lanzas And Unintended Consequences of Suburbia

We moved the common man out of the congested cities of the early 20th century and put him in nice, clean and planned suburbs. Fresh air, green grass and a little piece of heaven for everyone. This is what the boys fought for in Asia and Europe. This was the American Dream sold to the last wave of immigrants. I did not quite work out that way. The streets were clean and grass was green, but humanity still retained its dark side. You can't escape it.

That is what makes John Carpenter's Halloween so thrilling but also so fresh with audiences thirty years after its release. The killer and killing could be in your development. The setting is a suburb in Illinois with well maintained lawns and cute kids and teens that can walk to school. It was filmed in California, and the leaves were kept in bags for use and re-use, but it's a town out of Americana. The schools are full of well dressed kids, the teenage girls have regular obsessions with boys, and the cops have small town worries like who broke into a store for a weird burglary or teenage pranks. A series of murders (a spree killer) occurs to terrify the city. It is never the same again.

There is nothing supernatural about the killer, Michael Myers. This is not a monster movie. This is different from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Psycho stories that deal with rural, isolated killers. Those killers were evil and made more evil by their environment and families. Norman Bates and Leatherface were part of families with odd histories that prevented them from being properly socialized. Myers is not. He was in a bucolic suburb. He had a normal family in a nice two story house with a yard where trick or treaters roam freely. Myers commits a heinous murder as a child, and is spirited away. Myers never responds to therapy. Someone (Dr. Loomis) clearly knows he is evil, and despite protestations, the system flubs handling Myers. Myers slips away and commits more mayhem. There is no motivation, no answer, no response.

Halloween sticks with us because the headlines of the '80s with suburban killers like the multiple "Night Stalkers". Myers survives the pop culture aging process compared to Freddy Kruger and Jason because he is not a cartoon. He feels real. He can be real. What is Myers but a forerunner of the Army of Lanzas we see shooting up movie theaters, schools and stores. It is the same story. A boy grows up clearly "off". He might have problems that warrant the special care of a school psychiatrist. There might be one person yelling for the boy to be sent away, but somehow the system is always sure it can handle him. It does not happen. One of the Lanzas goes on a killing spree, and we're stuck wondering why only because we are scared to admit the truth.

It is a nation of 315 million people. We have a dysfunctional culture. We have media mandarins that elevate the sick, chastise the normal and value victimhood. Our atomized society has made it so that every family has a Lanza lurking, so what makes the few that shoot up crowds tick? These random young men who go off are unfortunate tragedies. Actuaries run simulations and programs, some even like a roulette wheel. There is always a low probability event that is out there on the fat tail of the curve. Sometimes the van of executives going on an extreme ski trip gets destroyed, and suddenly an insurance company has to make six $1 million payouts. If you keep the structure of our society as it is with the atomization, violence glorification, medication, free-for-all structure, and broken family enabling, you will eventually get a "00" roulette result. Taleb refers to the black swan. The Army of Lanzas are black swans in your community, your family. No matter what you do, no matter how clean the community or high the median home costs, you will not escape that they are present. Evil is around every corner.

This take on Halloween falls into line with some of the analysis that stresses the suburbia theme. Please read that link to see feminist critics read into the story all of these power struggles for women, men and sex, and then to see Carpenter swipe it all away. As he puts it, the most sexually frustrated woman has the energy, strength and anger to attack the villain. Fun to see that quick dismissal of the critics by the artist. My take bemoans the destruction of the city neighborhood community and the replacement of the small country town with suburbia. Suburbia was not natural like the country towns of old nor even that inorganic yet "procedural in creation" city structure. We created "bedroom communities" from scratch and now see the unintended social outcomes.

This is a separation between Halloween and other slasher films. It has aged well since creepy, loner spree killers have made headlines. This is a fictional movie with some unintentional and intentional comedy. It makes the cable rotation more than others, and is far more re-watchable than the '80s slasher flicks or gore-porn of the '00s. The soundtrack is great at setting the mood, seriously, watch scenes on mute, and they lose all tension. The production quality is not great, and the acting is okay. What keeps us watching is the nagging feeling that we have seen this story play out over and over again. Freddy? A dream. Jason? A campfire story you tell in the woods. Michael Myers is a bit different and bothers us a bit more. He is the faceless killer, the one that gives no warning and does not communicate with us yet is a part of our community. He is the scariest creep of them all.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Social Matter - Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders and Ghosts of Democrats Past

This week at Social Matter I tackle the disappearing history of the Left in "Jim Webb. Bernie Sanders and Ghosts of Democrats Past".

Creepy. That was the post-debate word to describe former Senator Jim Webb’s performance in the Democratic Party’s presidential debate. His story about his wartime experience and killing a man was creepy to the left’s viewership. His stories barely drew applause or any positive reaction. Webb looked lost and sounded as if he didn’t belong. This was not because he was an old white man, as the stage was all white and multiple candidates were over Social Security’s full retirement age. The party had left him behind. It has left what he represented behind. Webb’s creepy, stranger-in-a-strange-land and lost performance–fits perfectly. He was a ghost of the Democrats’ past.

Now maybe you hate the Democrats, and maybe you don't. I dislike the progressives, and I come from a family where one side is full of old school New Deal Democrats. Union guys, veterans of every war, mill workers, ethnic whites and the small guys who made up the foot soldiers. The betrayal of those citizens burns me to my core.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Last Week's SM, Preview of This Week 19

Last week I wrote on Rand Paul and the disillusionment of his fans as they learned he is just another politician. It is sad because of the Ron Paul legacy, and that genuinely fun period of time from his announcement in 2010 of a Senate run and his one man, anti-statism show in DC. You believed he would be different. You were wrong.

Rand's role was always going to be VP. Had he stayed out of the race, it'd been easier for him to announce an endorsement in spring 2016 and then get picked up to be the cool libertarian guy to appeal to anti-surveillance voters in swing states. Had he just duplicated his dad's campaigning, he'd probably be sitting at 20% of the vote. Well maybe 20% if he were black. "I'm not racist media, see I like the black guy!" Look GOP base, if you will want to vote for a non-white to earn your anti-racist card (that doesn't exist), support Gov. Bobby Jindal. Very competent and intelligent administrator who actually has governed his state. Seriously, you fucking morons. He actually fought the Establishment GOP in his own state. Support Jindal and get your "I'm not a bigot" adrenaline rush.

This week I am writing on Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders and the ghosts of Democrats past. There is no way either of them can win, and the white Democrats who vote D for ideological reasons should take note of what happened to their party.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"I warn you to travel in the middle course, Icarus, if too low the waves may weigh down your wings, if you fly too high the fires will scorch your wings. Stay between both." - Ovid, Daedalus and Icarus 

It was a fun moment. Rand Paul announced he would seek the Republican nomination for the open Senate seat in Kentucky. Dad was gone, but the Paul legacy would live on! It could even be better in a younger, telegenic package with better public speaking skills. Paul went from fringe underdog to runaway winner. It was not just that, but he was making it look like fun. Whether you were a libertarian or just a cynic, it felt like someone who understood the corrupt DC creature was going to be in DC. Many people got lost in the outsider marketing and forgot that besides those money-bombs, he received a healthy dollop of RNSC money.

The moment grew in fun, length and effect. Senator Paul wasted no time pointing out quick, easy ways to slash the budget by half a billion. No one in DC listened. Paul took stands against drones, unlawful detention and whatnot to scale back the surveillance state. His filibuster was a fun political show, and so successful in infecting the public discussion space that opportunist Sen. Cruz copied it later. In an age where we raise awareness of things everyone knows about, Rand Paul actually raised awareness about the media-suppressed droning of US citizens and what was considered lawful. He was a lone voice in DC, playing a modern day Mr. Smith and shouting for the increasingly nervous slice of informed citizens. He also had fun and was smart with social media. For a skeptic like me that nothing can change, it was fun watching him. He felt like one of us. It felt like he might be able to shift the conversation. The post-Snowden world of suspicion towards the government seemed tailor made for him. Rand Paul fans were gleeful. The press even wrote on a possible "Libertarian Moment".

Then he had to make noise about running for president.

If there was a "Libertarian Moment", it lasted as long as a puff of smoke. Senator Paul started odd moves and statements. The anti-drug war talk turned into talk about incarceration on all offenses, black outreach, and even pictures taken with Al Sharpton. As anti-war as he (and his dad) had previously been, he softened a bit. He met with Israel-focused donors. He started to dance the dance. His statements became typical politician platitudes and talking points. In the post-Snowden world, he decided to tone down the concrete message of "stop spying on Americans". A pro-freedom message is not his core message. Since he is associated with the Tea Party wave election, does he sound like a politician looking out for the dwindling middle? No, that's Trump's message. Rand became just... another... politician.

This is the system, and you fell for it. He was always a politician. To give credit to the Paul fans, it felt different. There was a palpable panic that the Tea Party caused for the GOP's Establishment that is echoed today with the anti-Trump hysteria. That last remaining source of opposition campaign money (middle class whites) propelled Ted Cruz to the Senate in '12; just read the primary campaign details. The Establishment chosen GOP candidates were losing in primaries and having to resort to dirty tricks to win (Sen. Thad Cochran recruiting blacks for a run-off). Many believed these guys were different. Compared to the normal GOP, they managed to throw some sand in the USG leviathan. Holding just the House of Representatives, they caused budget fights and managed to change spending a little. That is all history now as they have been absorbed by the Establishment and co-opted for the elite's goals if they ever were rebels.

That feeling of "one of us" ran deep and the realization of betrayal hurts. A Rand fan sent me a note typing a great line, "It's like they know we love him, they know we know their control and now they make him look like a clown to rub it in." It feels that way sometimes. It also feels like watching a friend ride the wave of drinking and fun too long, crashing into a rehab stint. I knew his campaign would fail miserably, which is why when asked about it, I would say it would be like Icarus's flight. Rand is perfect VP material for this system, not figurehead president, because he caters to an elastic voter segment and is "cool". The Icarus comparison is easy to push. Father teaching son, but the son did not listen and flew to close to the sun, trying to reach the highest of heights that dad did not dare to try.

His dad did not quite get it either, and recall the old Moldbug line, "Electing Ron Paul is like showing up at an autopsy with a live human liver. Yes, the patient died of liver failure, but that was a week ago". This system creates a box and is for show, and if you don't play ball, you will be squashed very early on (state senate or house) or not tapped on the shoulder for a call up to the majors. Rand did not have to be squashed. He did something worse. Did he sell out and play ball? Did he shed the thing that so many people liked about his father and the message? Nah, he just showed you that the system is complete, that he was part of it and wanted to lead it. He wanted to win their game and play by their rules. What's worse is he showed you for the hopeful believer in democracy's redemption that you still are.

Senator Paul could rally and win the presidential election, but filibustering, #StandWithRand Rand Paul is gone. That guy crashed and burned like Icarus, but he isn't exactly Icarus. He knew what he faced and adapted to it. The problem is that, like Icarus, you believed it could be different. You tossed aside the warnings and the wisdom. You knew going in that all of these politicians are bought and paid for and part of a system. You liked Rand a little too much. It was you who defied the advice and flew too high. What melted in the sun and crashed into the ocean was your hope that someone was "in" on the system's corruption and could change it.

Note on Cheesecake, Egalitarianism and Hollywood Casting

Before I post the Social Matter preview, I thought I'd spend a moment to say thanks to you all for responding to my TIME 1955 Perfect Body Hoax post. That was more of a fun post for me that I did not think would take off. Once a week, I post a fun topic post. It was fun not just because of the cheesecake involved, but the inadvertent mirror on the American soul issue. I didn't even mention how women gleefully objectified a woman and a particular look while the media informs us that women hate to be objectified and no one should objectify anyone. Who hates being told they're sexy? No one. It is like the cat-calling video and street harassment, who hates the "concept" of calling something sexy? Someone who never is told they are sexy. The media and academia are taste-makers, and they are a disgusting force when held by people infected with the progressive mind virus who want to destroy Western civilization. Easy to execute plan: destroy their symbols of beauty while raising up the ugly as beautiful.

I love those type of posts as they occupy an intersection of so much in America we are afraid to admit, or even discuss, plagues us. Women diving head first into fads end up supporting traditional norms by either what they support under the surface or how goddamn ridiculous they look supporting. We can't talk about women getting significantly fatter, but we all know it. We know it's wrong. Men and women have both become fatter, but there is a difference. We know by height and bone structure that the 30 lb weight gain by women who stayed the same exact average height (5'4") is different than the 30 lb weight gain by men who also grew in average height by three inches in the same time frame. Our American lifestyle is broken, especially for women. To discuss any of it, we'd receive the "fat shaming" onslaught. I don't care because with each "share" of that TIME 1955 meme, the chubbsters support my idea that they hate being fat and in-shape is beautiful... and healthy. The need to silence any criticism is that we would be pointing out that the progressive's, 21st century social paradise is a shit-show.

This is just a small aspect of a deeper problem of public discourse. American media so easily criticizes other nations for behaviors and problems that America has on an even bigger scale. We also talk all of the time but never about what matters. Even if we tried, we would be shushed with accusations of racism, sexism or homophobia by the volunteer thought police and then the mandarins of public debate. Not discussing problems was an old Hollywood joke about WASP families, which was an unfair smear when countless social groups do it. It's societal wide now. The prog excuses are even more strained. I love to read articles that blame black women being enormous in 2015 on the legacy of slavery because I can look at photos from the 1960s (50 years closer to slavery) and see a plethora of slender black women. That excuse ain't working except on true believers and fellow fatties.

The Hollywood selection for size 0 women bothers me too but from a "I don't like skeletons" perspective. Film and TV are escapism. Why would I project myself into a role where my sexual pairing is built like a boy? C'mon Hollywood homos. A little known and now defunct blog "Revolt Against the Modern World" had a great post on Hollywood egalitarianism making us all jerks. It's a great post on how Hollywood pushes so many unattractive or skeletal women to be considered sexy or cute in the name of diversity and equality. Narrative over reality. Force feeding an egalitarian idea of beautiful over the idea that there is an objective, traditional view of beauty. We're not all pretty, but we know it when we see it.

The linked post by Flavia is fantastic. I like to think of the flip side, too. Who gets sidelined because of Hollywood's choices? There is a limit to roles, so if producers stuff in Narrative hires, who sees their Hollywood career go down a lower track? There is one woman who, had she been an actress 20 or more years earlier, would have had a bigger career: Diora Baird. Bad pic on Wikipedia, just Google her with the Safe Search "off". It's worth it.

Very Catherine Deneuve-ish
Seriously, Hollywood WTF?


She is like Catherine Deneuve... with giant breasts. No steady career, and she smartly married someone with a weekly network drama role and has a kid. Jesus Christ though, how the hell did she not have a bigger career? Same goes for Kathleen Robertson. Robertson and Denueve would have been perfect '80s action movie or '70s disaster movie babes. Can't imagine why Hollywood did not cast either buxom, red head/blonde girls for romantic leads or action movie love interests. Even throwing one in a Judd Apatow comedy would have been fine. Must have been parts meant for Michelle Rodriguez, Jennifer "Aging Spinster" Aniston, Lucy Liu, Kate Hudson and Zoe Saldana.

Enough! Cheesecake meandering is over, go do something productive this Friday.

Even Playboy was smart enough to shoot a set

Thursday, October 22, 2015

WW1: Gas Attacks

Battle of Loos
Much is made of the use of chemical warfare in World War One. The gas attacks started lightly in 1914 with tear gas. In 1915, the attacks started to use far stronger disabling agents as well as lethal gases. An interesting thing that happened was the idea that gas was not proper warfare but these same powers started to employ tactics that led to starvation and destruction of civilian populations through total warfare. Gas aimed at soldiers is heinous, but decades later, we employ many munitions and tactics that are far more destructive. Gas being deemed a weapon of mass destruction is interesting since gas has a limited reach. Many of the WW1 gas attacks were subject to the wind.

The above picture is from the Battle of Loos, and that battle along with others in the fall, saw widespread use of gas. It did not take long to figure out proper countermeasures as well as where in the trench one should be when gas came. Counter-intuitively, the higher one was standing in a trench, the less likely one was to be affected by the gas. Being on the move helped too. Gas masks developed, even ones for dogs and horses, and the two sides started to develop mechanical means of overcoming the entrenched defenses.

It makes one wonder. For all the talk of how evil the Nazis were, why did they not gas the troop build ups in southern England? Why did they not gas the troops washing up on shore at D-Day? It seems odd they did not since the Allies prepared for gas attacks with clothing, Churchill planned to use gas if the Nazis ever landed in England, and we hear how the Nazis used gas in the Holocaust. Weird. One would think they'd have used all the tricks in their playbook to keep the D-Day invasions or even the Russian hordes at bay. Strange quirk of history.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Smearing Soda Like Tobacco

The NY Times has an interesting article on the decline of soda. Soda is in the middle of a long decline. The decline started in the late '90s with an acceleration after 2005. The article itself has prog slanting as one would expect from the Times, but it also helps us understand the advertising of soda and what it may eventually be associated with. Soda is becoming an increasingly underclass beverage with a heavy non-Asian minority make up. Soda could end up forever legal but socially forced into a consumer ghetto.

We do live in a society that never wants to grant agency to citizens that exhibit dysfunctional behavior. It is the gun. It is the other person. It is a magazine cover. It is soda. Soda is liquid candy, and should be viewed as such. It is a treat. No one ever claimed it was part of a healthy diet. Americans just drank it because it tastes great. Go months without soda and then sip a Coca-Cola. It is awesome. Americans never know when to stop, so we drank too much. Our obesity epidemic has Leftists looking for scapegoats. Sugar is the main one they are targeting and soda is a convenient and easy to discard villain.

The article never really discusses why soda consumption has dropped for fifteen years but obesity rates have continued to climb. The article cites children drink 79 fewer sugar sweetened beverage calories a day, which sounds impressive, until you realize that is half of a can of Coca-Cola (6 ounces). The article repeatedly points out how soda taxes failed but the debate has created a stigma with soda drinking. Yeah, we can make a simple order of a drink socially unacceptable! They refuse to see how Stalinist they look with every move.

The secret tucked away though is how whites have abandoned soda consumption. Looking at the charts of beverage consumption, seems they just substituted water for soda. Comedy is seeing the article site juice consumption as a positive instead of soda when they contain the same amount of sugar. Even the academics note the racial divide.
The subtitle reflects her view that “Big Soda” is an enemy to be vanquished, and that the industry is already losing ground to its public health foes. Though the sharpest declines are happening among richer, white populations, Ms. Nestle said she expected that poor and minority customers would also reduce their soda intake over time, just as tobacco declines occurred first among educated consumers and then spread to a larger population.
Are we so sure this will happen? Define richer please since that term could mean $1K more in income or $100K. I only ask as blacks still smoke more than whites and Hispanics by a measurable margin. Smoking is now seen as a lower class habit, and soda may become the same.

If anything, the consumer make up of soda referenced in this article explains the oddly colorful advertising approach by soda makers. Coca-cola had a Super Bowl ad that was poz-itively diverse about America, but think of their target market? Soda consumption skews non-Asian minority. That is who they are reaching. It is akin to the "Truth.com" paid Twitter anti-smoking campaign #BigTobaccoBeLike. Why the hell would they use ebonics and a Black Twitter styled hashtag campaign? Blacks are overrepresented in both the smoking population and Twitter users. Shhhh, but why do you think McDonald's advertisements always star blacks unless it is an ad about breakfast? Ba-da-ba-da-daaaaaa, whites only go there for breakfast on their way to work while blacks use their EBT there for other meals!

While I do not drink caffeinated soda, I do see the argument they have. Go after cake, cookie and dessert makers too. Taking it one step further, we have the Left and advocacy groups (looking for a paycheck) pushing reform because our underclass cannot control themselves and we desperately want a silver bullet for our obesity problem. "It's not you and your problems. It's the soda's fault!" I can ride along with Child Protective Services and count how many homes with babies have bottles or sippy cups filled with Mountain Dew or Coca-Cola. They know it is not good for a baby to consume, but they still give it to them. They are lazy, not uninformed. They don't care and cannot see beyond next Tuesday.

If this all sounds familiar, it is the standard procedure for any dysfunctional behavior in America. Our underclass, heavily NAM, misbehaves. Prog whites call for action and campaigns directed at all because it is a sin to notice patterns of behavior vary between groups. A backlash, led by whites, begins with "it's just self-control... personal failings... personal responsibility". The backlash loses, we get a policy forced on us from the top on behalf of the poor, abused and mind-controlled bottom that just can't help themselves, and everyone is more miserable. The media tells us that if we do X, we're shitty. Some on the margin stop. Enough do that ostracism rears its ugly head despite ostracism being pitched as a bad thing when it hurts progressives. Rinse, lather, repeat. Soda will steadily lose and steadily become something that no self-respecting white family allows their children to consume.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Delusions of American Women: "TIME Magazine's Perfect Body in 1955"

It has been a while since I have explored the widespread delusions of American women. I have covered boudoir photography, burlesque dance classes and troupes, egg freezing, blaming your career for being single, and the belly dancing chubbsters. It is a bit of fun to tackle the fads that women flock to that feed their delusions and egos. This new one comes from the depths of Facebook (actually started on Twitter). The thousands and thousands of shares reveals its deep connection to 21st century American female delusions.

Facebook is full of memes. Some are funny. Many are cringe-inducing. A few can give you insight into the modern American mind. My mom calls it Fakebook because women create these fake representations of their lives on it. Women will construct whatever reality they want out of quotes, trips, pictures and videos. Faceborg is a nickname I gave it that focuses on the collective hivemind vibe it creates. There is one meme that caught my eye and caused me to do a bit of Googling. The meme is pictured below.

REAL WOMAN!!!

You can just hear the Facebook moms and chubsters saying, "See, that is a real woman! We used to consider it ideal... real women! Where's my bucket of ice cream!" I'll add the commentary that runs through their minds as they see the picture.

Mind of the Facebook Woman
They click "share", smile inside and move along. They skip over their doublethink. They miss the revelations behind the meme. The meme itself is a lie. That picture is not from 1955. It is not from TIME magazine. The picture is from 2004. It is of a model born in 1977. A lot of make up, a mid-20th Century hair style, large natural breasts, hips and a gingham patten bikini can trick American women. I'll show the debunking pic below.

Pornstar? More like nude model
This meme and the reactions it causes really offer a great glimpse at America and the emptiness of body image concerns.

1. This is a massive retcon of the past. By sharing, approving with a "like"or the lack of push back, we believe that in 1955 men liked those hourglass figures. The lie is that belief as well as that we think the media agreed to show them. Few on Facebook were around in 1955 to know the cheesecake. We feel something has changed, and we agree that hourglass with a slightly softer look was a past ideal. We have seen enough cheesecake photos and Elvgren pin-up paintings to think this model would fit that era. We're admitting it is not the media approved ideal of today, and recall, media means "officially sanctioned".

We are wrong as Bettie Page, Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly, Eva Marie Saint, Ingrid Bergman and countless other Hollywood stars or pin ups were slender women with maybe C cups. Recall that the average cup size of American women has grown due to rising weights and plastic surgery. Jayne Mansfield was an outlier as the "working man's Monroe" who was also Monroe with bigger curves. Men did like the hourglass as evident by Mansfield's fame, but the ideal was still a slender woman with a slight hourglass. Ideal wouldn't be the workingman's woman because he was of lower social status. The aspirational ideal would be the higher status male's conception of ideal (Grace Kelly, 1954). Elvgren himself often took his real life models and nipped and tucked their figures for his pictures. The Snopes link debunking this photo even comments on this false memory.

Side note: has the progression from slender hourglass to full hourglass for men to prefer a sign of "prole drift" as Paul Fussell noted in his book "Class"? More proles now so now we prefer the workingman's Monroe look. Is it more a sign of American culture absorbing the southern and eastern European immigration of 1880-1920 and subsequent assimilation? Ethnic white girls were built differently than your Anglo/Germanic Americans.

2. The date is important. By assuming it is 1955, they want to push what they think is a non-airbrushed photo. This is real. This is what real women look like. They are trying to appeal to authenticity, and use that "truth" as authoritative evidence for their argument.

3. Who is doing the sharing? The Facebook crowd skews older and more maternal. Women realize they are fatter. From the looks of their posts, they are always trying to lose weight. Women realize American sex lives are different now. Their sex lives are different now. Middle aged women, especially single middle aged women cruising Facebook, now want to excuse away their lack of sex on societal expectations or contemporary conceptions of ideal. "Men aren't interested in me because they are brainwashed to want Charlotte McKinney." The ideal did not change, but the average woman's size did.

Here is a link with nice charts for average height and weights for women in the '50s. Both genders were much lighter then. If you check the charts, even women 5'10" had a median weight of 144 lbs in the '50s. That equates to a BMI of 20.7, which is almost underweight. The average 5'4" American woman of 2015 weighs 166 lbs. The 1950s average woman at 5'3" and ages 35-39 weighed 133 lbs. That is even more remarkable since the average woman of that era and age had more pregnancies!!! Think of Monroe, Page, etc. How much lighter were they in reality? If peak sexy Monroe weighed 115 at 5'5" (probably 120), how much of a gap between her and the average 40 year old mom of 3 was there? Roughly 20 lbs, and if some of it was in the mom's breasts and ass, it's potentially a good gain. The gap between Monroe and the normal, woman under 30 was even smaller. Your 1950s wife did not have Monroe or Liz Taylor's face, but her body was in the ballpark.

4. The picture is from 2004. Because the picture is a contemporary model of a genre (porn) associated with seedier (lower) class men, we see a hard truth that heterosexual men have not changed their preferences for their carnal desires. The .70 waist to hip ratio preference holds even for men born blind. The nude model in the supposed TIME 1955 photo, Aria Giovanni, is paid well to look curvy now. She earns an income off of selling that sexual ideal to men today, sixty years after Jayne Mansfield. Men haven't changed much.

By using her to create a false group memory or idea, we are supporting the idea that beauty can be objective, that today's offerings are far from what is beautiful, and that we all agree that is an attractive look. I think Aria Giovanni has stopped modeling and definitely doesn't look like she did in 2004 at age 27, but the point stands: that body type is still a winner for broad male approval. Spreading this meme actually destroys a prog idea that beauty is subjective and relative and blah blah blah, why won't anyone sleep with ugly feminists.

5. Women get angry at the anorexics of Hollywood and fashion. Not all are anorexic, but the pushed "size 0" image bothers them. Women also joke about gays running Hollywood and fashion. They never put it together that women and gay men are making many of these casting selections and decisions. Women are not putting it together that the male ideal does not line up with the anorexic look pushed by the media, yet they can blame it on some vague, nebulous idea of a male conspiracy to push eating disorders on them. The conspiracy fails since we have all time highs for obesity and other overweight metrics. If hetero men were making decisions to push an aspirational type for a conspiracy, the Hollywood rom-com genre would be stacked with Sofia Vergara types, not Kate Hudson types.

The conspiracy does succeed if you view it as a conspiracy to make you unhappy that you cannot match up with a freakishly rare form. They want you to be unhappy with that image in the mirror not aligning with the sexy, skinny CSI because during the commercial break, they will sell you the fix. A mom over age 40, and shucks, you just don't look like Marg Helgenberger or Julie Bowen? Don't worry. Food manufacturers and the diet industry will air ads every 7 minutes because they know you are watching. Only the stars used to get plastic surgery and Botox, but now you can too! If you are too fat to change to even a close approximation of them, don't worry. There are anti-depressants and anti-anxiety pills during the same commercial breaks.

6. They will blame a male conspiracy, but who are these models/actresses selected for? Who really is the target audience for rom-coms, fashion and network television? Women. The women selected are trying to fit a female ideal. Women project themselves into these roles. They want to be the lead doctor in the ER that is still skinny enough to slip into something sexy for a date with George Clooney. They want to think they can be the single mom still skinny enough to go on a date after a long shift at the precinct. Why? Because being thin is a female status marker. Being thin is associated with being young and sexually attractive. Being thin gets you better men.

Rom-coms are not made for a man's utopian romantic/sexual situation (porn is). Men are not watching chick cop shows. Women always choose a thinner female body as "ideal" compared to men, always. Disregard the numbers shown in the below image as I have seen them altered multiple times, and this version seems to be for soothing fatties' minds. Jesus Christ, the woman in the middle is not a size 12! The original was "women's ideal size 2", "men's ideal size 6", "national average size 16".

Of course Middle is the best! - signed all hetero men

7. Truthfully, this is an "impossible" ideal as well. the hourglass proportions and sizes of Christina Hendricks, Sofia Vergara and Aria Giovanni are almost as rare or impossible to achieve as a size 0 model. Add to this other effects. They are done up, photoshopped, possibly surgically altered and in 2015, possibly using HGH-steroids that cut fat to look in peak condition. They are paid to look amazing. Most of the breast implant industry is thankful for the decades of coverage of Salma Hayek and Angelina Jolie's breasts. The hourglass is a different ideal to reach, but more possible than a zero. The curves of your girlfriend are hourglass in shape but just are not "Hendricks sized". The truth these TIME 1955 meme supporting women avoid is that Aria Giovanni's near perfect hourglass is just as short lived as getting down to a zero for those who have it. It is a couple of years, but women still support it. The message built into females supporting it is that they are much more likely to have some T&A in an hourglass or pear shape of sorts compared to the "race to zero" stick look.

Sorry ladies, but this is your love-hate relationship with media portrayals of the female body. You want to be thin. That's your fantasy. You made Sarah Jessica-Parker a sex symbol and fashionista. Men did not. The media gives it to you. Processing the reality in the mirror with your media provided hopes causes frustration. Still, it is the media giving you the escape fantasy that you want. You might have been envious of Britney Spears in 2001, but you enjoyed that she was not a stick looking waif. When she gained weight and chubbed out, you laughed at her. Who gained or lost 25 pounds is always an US Weekly fixture. Weight loss/gain has become the second act of Jennifer Love Hewitt's career. Women will always notice a photographed woman's weight, and the old saying fits, "you can never be too rich or too thin". Just do not tell me it creates pressure to conform and be thin because over two-thirds of you are overweight. The bucket of ice cream allows you to feel comfortable, safe, accepted and part of the growing, oversized herd. That TIME 1955 ideal is not real, was not an ideal for everyone, and for you ladies... has never ever been what you wanted.

Breasts are real, Facebook beliefs, not so much

Monday, October 19, 2015

Burying Playboy

I come here to bury Playboy, not praise it.

Playboy is done with publishing photos of naked women. This is something one never would have predicted in 1995 and possibly as late as 2000. Rich Cromwell's opinions at The Federalist on the end of nudity in Playboy mirror my own. I never had a subscription, and he is a few years older than I. At this point, Playboy is the old man everyone is waiting to die to split up the assets. I am talking about Playboy but that might as well be Hefner himself. It is already dead. Cromwell touches on something about Playboy's political drift, and he is right, but I would add to that some points.

There was a time when Playboy would publish something no one else would, and it would be a gem. The best take on the Hunt brothers and their quest to corner the silver market in the '70s as the dollar faced collapse was in Playboy (Silverfinger). There is shitlib framing, but Hunt gets a better portrayal than anything he would get today. The Hunts were the Koch brothers but focused on sound money therefore "evil". Side note: I'd rather have the Hunts backing my bid against the USG system than the Kochs. Buried within that article is the completely forgotten historical point that the commodities exchange fucked the Hunts over because the very people on the other side of Hunts bets were the big banks. Hunt pulled asymmetric warfare on them, and nearly won. They had another article that was brilliant about online sex capabilities in '93 or '92. Playboy questioned how much people would pick the controlled illusion over true, sensual touch. Those articles were not steady enough, but the broad market was not reading a skin mag for the articles.

The old Playboy 20 Questions interview section would have a big name and occasionally a gold nugget would slip out. Playboy published Jimmy Carter's "lust in the heart" line. People took a little liberty with what they said when interviewed by Playboy. It was a platform for "edgy". Hell, Playboy was going to give you book excerpts. The first chapter of Mike Royko's classic book on Mayor Daley "Boss" was published in Playboy before the book was released. You were reading Playboy for the cheesecake, but they tried to put something intelligent or different in between the cornucopia of cigarette and alcohol advertisements. I leafed through one recently and wanted to start smoking Camels.

Just last week, I cited a chart from page 70 in the July 1989 issue. Think about that. I used a 26 year old chart from a Playboy issue to discuss a contemporary cultural issue. Gender and social issues changed rapidly during its time. Playboy gave up space that could have become a natural monopoly: safe space for men and well articulated thoughtcrime. Because of their market, they had a spot in culture to report or discuss things in our media fueled gender wars. They decided to go prog and toe the line rather than stake out an area for men. Another thing Playboy was rather intrigued by and reported regularly was technology. They saw in the early '90s that the world wide web would be a frontier for sex. They just absolutely botched the transition.

When I posted my version of Maxim, the same could be said for Playboy. I'd rather own Playboy to make it a Dark Enlightenment vehicle, but it'd be more expensive to buy. Men yearn for a male space discussing worldly issues from a man's POV. An alternative gender narrative was there for Playboy to broadcast: the '80s campus rape hysteria, sexual harassment lawsuits gone wild, the decline in male employment. Playboy never staked it out. Imagine a Playboy with the balls to interview the German kid accused of raping Mattress Girl. When the Internet video streaming capabilities reached full power and the government did nothing to push back, Playboy lost its smut edge. It'll just be another men's general interest rag like GQ.

Another thing that hurt Playboy was the the leaked sex tape. Even if you did not see it, you might have seen screen-caps. Even if you did not see it, you heard about it. Roughly a generation ago, someone might shoot a breakout pictorial or something sexy to reshape their image. Elle McPherson and Katarina Witt both appeared in Playboy. Different version of the same trick. Remove the sex tape option, and it's easy to see Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian doing a pictorial spread ("topless only for my mom" they'd say) in their desperate hopes of building a name. How long ago was the last Playmate that was a nationwide sex symbol? Pam Anderson? Anna Nicole Smith? Jenny McCarthy? That's 20 years ago.

Playboy wasn't killed by Internet porn alone. They should have purchased hardcore content performers under a different brand in the late '90s like how they did their video and PPV specials in the '80s and '90s. What kid who watched '90s scramble-vision could forget Playboy's "City Girls" series? They sort of did this with Jenna Jameson's company but botched the fact that the performers and pipeline of more performers matter more than the platform and delivery system. They could have used the magazine as an aspirational vehicle for the hardcore girls, but used the hardcore porn as a promotional vehicle for the magazine. Penthouse has actually done this with some success. Yes, having all smut one click away took the taboo factor away from Playboy, but something else helped kill Playboy.

The nexus of the sexual liberation Playboy pushed, the girl next door fantasy and technology helped slide the dagger in deeper. Digital pics, emailing, texting because of Internet amateurs, sexting and selfies. Playboy often tried to show you the sexy girl next door. How could their fiction ever, ever compete with the literal girl next door texting you nudes? How could a posed and airbrushed "coed" in the "Girls of the SEC" compare to the girl in Cascadilla Hall sending you an email containing a close up pic with her breasts on display titled "Cum Over And Study"? It is the same tease and fantasy, but this time, you could make it reality. Playboy got squeezed by the plethora of diverse porn on demand that you could consume without anyone finding out and shaming you and the innocent, girl next door pic sharing phenomenon.

I'm poking holes at Playboy, but it was a part of growing up for me. It was a piece of the adult world with Johnny Carson's Tonight Show, driving and smoking. For Internet age people, it is hard to understand what finding a Playboy was like for boys. It was like finding the Ark of the Covenant and a glimpse into a hoped for future. Once a friend's dad told us to clean out the apartment of a tenant he evicted for $20/each. I was 13. We cleaned the kitchen, the filthy bathroom, and took a break. The place smelled awful. The bedroom remained. In the guy's closet was a stack of 20 or so Playboys. We called a third friend to bike over with his paperboy bag so he could haul the cache of Playboys away so we would not be busted by my friend's dad. I could call up my friend today, and we'd still laugh at it. Now we'd be sending links of the newest tube site containing God knows what degeneracy.

Playboy was a little different. Playboy had so many stunners as centerfolds that even 13 year old me knew if I saw a Playboy just to go to the middle to see a "10". They were always wearing something sexy. Often, it was garters and stockings that to my disappointment, when I became an adult, were considered an obsolete form of undergarment. Bring back garters and stockings! Playboy could find the hottest version of whatever you were looking for, redhead, blonde, hispanic, black, etc. Seriously, they found the whitest looking black woman (not skin tone but bone structure and build) of all time, Karin Taylor, who is now a trophy wife mommy blogger. That is why "Playboy Playmate" and bunnies had an aura or mystique.

Just teenage memories. Men of a certain era now know that those odd circumstances, hiding spots for magazines and that Playboy discovery moment are now lost shared experiences. That period of discovery and interest in searching for more lines up with young boys becoming young men. All go through it. Playboy's part in it is officially gone, and unofficially has been gone for years. My favorite centerfold: Nancie Li Brandi (Dec 1975), the staging, costuming and soft focus/light give the shoot a dreamlike quality. First Playboy I ever saw: the Jessica Hahn Playboy. Only Playboy I ever bought: the Baywatch Playboy from 1998. Proof this is all obsolete? We can find all of this and more today in a few minutes with Google. Then, we had to wait once a month. Even by 1998, the Internet was sending a tsunami of smut our way, rendering Playboy less a magazine and more a brand.

Playboy, thanks for the memories, but the glue factory is over there.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Social Matter - Rand Paul, Icarus and You

My newest up at Social Matter is on the most spectacular crash on the GOP side. Spectacular not for the money involved but the crushing of any true believers on that libertarian, conservatarian, still wants to vote harder right-ish wing. Senator Rand Paul, Icarus.

“I warn you to travel in the middle course, Icarus, if too low the waves may weigh down your wings, if you fly too high the fires will scorch your wings. Stay between both.” – OvidDaedalus and Icarus  
It was a fun moment. Rand Paul announced he would seek the Republican nomination for the open Senate seat in Kentucky. Dad was gone, but the Paul legacy would live on! It could even be better in a younger, more telegenic package with better public speaking skills. Paul went from fringe underdog to runaway winner. It was not just that, but he was making it look like fun. Whether you were a libertarian or just a cynic, it felt like someone who understood the corrupt DC creature was going to be in DC itself. Many people got lost in the outsider marketing and forgot that besides those money-bombs, he received a healthy dollop of RNSC money.
You knew this post was coming. You wanted to believe in Rand, you really did, but we will have to junk the barrel not the apples.

Friday, October 16, 2015

Last Week's SM, Preview of This Week's 18

Last week, I wrote on the progressive pu-pu platter of garbage USG forces on clients. This managed to get linked in the comments at ISteve, so some of you liked it. Nations do get force-fed this crap. This is also why China's statements of different systems for different nations is an appealing counter-offer for potential clients. The non-USG world system takes time to assemble, but it is also going to take some marketing.

This week I will be writing about Rand Paul, Icarus and his fans. It has been a sad, sad trajectory for Rand Paul. His fans are disheartened. They should have seen this coming, but all y'all wanted to believe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When discussing the force feeding of progressive beliefs on foreign nations in the US empire, I have used the term progressive buffet. That is incorrect. A buffet implies that a nation can sample from the different options available. There is no selection. There is no option. It is not a choice. There is a better term.

What happens is a nation must deal with the items the progs are pushing today. A nation has no choice. They must eat up. The nation must eat them all. The proper term for this forced meal is the pu-pu platter. This even feels more fitting for progressives since pu-pu platters are a Hawaiian or Chinese dish. A pu-pu platter is a collection of different appetizers. It has tasty treats. You might get stuck with some duds though from sharing, plus the pu-pu platter does not let you choose the items included. You just get it and have to eat it.

What is in the progressive pu-pu platter? This can change over time. Once you've stepped into the restaurant and had it sent to your table, you're stuck with it. A definite item is feminism. No matter what nation, the progs will slip in to push their brand of feminism in your culture. It does not matter what religion dominates your nation nor the eons of tradition, feminism is a prime directive. It is American feminism so it is cartoon feminism from George Soros to your door. The pair with this is education as female education (Western crafted education) is a good weapon for depressing the birth rates of potential economic rivals like Germany and Japan.

Another pu-pu platter item is multiculturalism. Yes, Africans have African nations and Asians have Asians nations, but the little minorities in those nations must be included and treated fairly (except whites in sub-Saharan Africa). The Burmese get pushed on the Rohingya. China gets prodded about their problem with Uyghurs. Every European nation has been getting their dose of multikulti in drips thanks to the USG Cold War victory. The Western elites have weaponized Muslims in nearly all corners of the earth with Muslims raising hell in the Philippines, Europe, Africa and others spots in Asia. Muslims supply a nice Alinsky effect where they goad the home nation into any type of reaction that can then be used as propaganda to scold the home population (fear of backlash that never comes). The majority always must bend to the minority. This is the destruction of the home culture and history in order to reach for the multicultural shining city on a hill.

The pu-pu platter has to benefit the elite of the target nation. There has to be a reason to sell out. This is where the open borders menu item comes into play. Flood the nation with labor to depress wages and generate more income and wealth for the elite. This also reinforces the multikulti item. How else can you weaken national consciousness when you force multiculturalism on 90% homogeneous nations? It is hard work if there are few visible minorities. You need to stuff it with others. The progs are pushing Africans and Pakistanis into South America as they suck South Americans into America. The chain of open borders insanity really is that terrible.

A new addition to the pu-pu platter is sexual minorities. The focus is on gay rights, but this includes all of the LGBT crowd. No one can escape this. No tradition is long enough to not be asked to break for gays. Even black American Obama went and chastised African leadership for being mean to gays. This was a trip meant to be a myth bolstering "return home" to Kenya. China, Russia, and Eastern Europe all get the tsk-tsk. America is now willing to give aid and military comfort if you stand up for gay rights. Those are the strings to the aid money and sweet deals. That was the obstacle preventing the US from helping Nigeria fight Boko Haram.

No pu-pu platter is complete without easy money policies tied to the World Bank and IMF. This usually comes with the package of free trade and economic liberalization policies. This greatly helps the elites as they can feed their clan or tribe at the trough of aid, loans and investment. This creates bubbles in those little nations that benefit current asset holders and those in political power able to grant mining rights and commission large projects. When the debt goes unpaid, the vulture funds and other big money boys can swoop in to buy it up and demand payment in full in American courts. There is a price to pay as a member of the Empire.

The World Bank and IMF are similar to another piece of the pu-pu platter: outsourcing governance to NGOs. The soft tendrils of the USG system will work as the missionaries, both Christian and Progressive, find their way into the host nation to educate and enlighten the population on the latest Harvard memes. Like any good religion this converts natives, even if just for a steady bowl of rice or yams, and poisons the local public discourse as now members of the community are spouting the lines from the foreign interlopers.

A nation can have a lot of these items, and think they are safe, but no, there is one more. Bashar Al-Assad was the head of a multicultural nation that respected religious minorities and even had a strip club (how progressive!). Muammar Gaddafi ran a multicultural nation with government respect for Sub-Saharan African tribesmen, and even had opportunities for women that the Islamists did not like. Both of those men had a problem. They were autocrats. Democracy is the chief item of the pu-pu platter.

All of these other policies and interests only work best when universal suffrage and the voting booths are used to legitimize a government. Each featured policy above agitates and politicizes gender, race, religion, etc and creates a political need for all members of society to get invested in rule even if they have zero power. The progressive pu-pu platter might look appealing with items that are marketed as good with slick descriptions and packaging. The reality is that buying into the progressive pu-pu platter is akin to eating one at your local Chinese restaurant. After eating it and leaving, you're stomach is a bit off and you're hungry twenty minutes later. You regret the order by the time you get home.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

My Podcast With Social Matter - "Find The Black Tom Brady"

I did a podcast with the guys at Social Matter. The sound early on my end is bad but not just because my voice. We cover entertainment, sports and culture. Jesus Christ, I forgot how young I sound. It is just under 2 hours. First 13 minutes of the pod is just culture, and how people identify. The rest is sports. We talk of people who don't give a shit about sports, sports and race, sports and family, etc. I hope you enjoy.

Go listen to it there!

Note: I deliberately spoke slow because I hate it when I listen to a podcast or radio show and people just motormouth it.

Zeppelin Raids


This is not from the "Blitz". The photo above is taken after the October 14th, 1915 raid on London. Yes, London was bombed in World War One. It was bombed by Zeppelins. This one killed dozens of civilians. Interestingly enough, the Germans stopped the Zeppelin bombing. They would not bomb London again until they built their bombers and deployed them much later in the war. Zeppelins were not just used for random bombings but were for recon and troop formation spotting. Opponents would send fighter planes to then take them out, forcing zeppelin defender wings on the German side. 

Zeppelins were not the blimps we see over sports arenas today. Zeppelins were much larger (double the length). It is not just nostalgia talking, but I'd love to see the return of zeppelins. For all the SWPL love of rail travel, why not travel in something of comparable speed (80 mph) but far more luxury as you are in the skies. The slow speed also removes terrorist "planes as missiles" risk. When the US breaks up, can one regional bloc that forms create a Zeppelin network? Midwestopia or Dixie, can you do this? I'll take this over a plane any day.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

The Proper Mix of Elite Universities in Film

Strolling down memory lane this week got me thinking about how I translated my college experience to my family. My parents would often ask about my college experience while I was there. My dad never went to college and my mom went but lived at home. None of my aunts and uncles went away to college. They did not grok the school rituals but were curious. No generation gap, but a "going away to school" gap.

I would try to explain it to them, and sometimes fail. My cousin at Dartmouth and I would compare notes as well as breathe a sigh of relief to come home in the summer with normal people, to hang with our great, normal circles of friends and to fool around with normal girls. We had a hard time translating our experience to our family. If I was watching a movie and something caught my eye, I would point it out to my family as reality. Even now, I find film is the best way to do so but with a proper blending.

My "college experience" is gone. Whatever the college experience was has changed. What the Internet was doing to college life was already changing the college experience while I attended college. Social media has changed college even more, but change is constant, so this is no surprise. If I could capture the elite university experience discussed in "The Morning After" and my own memories in film, I would set up this formula. (Note: this isn't today. It is '80s/'90s elite unis.)

1/4 Animal House + 1/4 PCU + 1/4 With Honors + 1/4 Real Genius

Animal House might have been set in the early '60s, but it captures many of the timeless things about private schools with elite pretensions. Just the guys going to an all girls school to get laid is an echo of Harvard guys trying to score BC-BU girls. The anti-fraternity movement is an old one and reflects Dean Wormer's shenanigans. It has obvious economic advantages for the school, as suddenly they can buy at a bargain price nice off campus housing near or on campus. Ask Williams University in Williamstown, MA why they got rid of frats. They won't admit it, but they have a lot of nice upperclassmen housing they confiscated acquired from fraternities. Because of it's 1978 release date, Animal House afterwards inspired every goddamn fraternity to emulate the antics in the film. If you went the frat route, Animal House is a good description of your time on campus. The dumber legacy kids were often found in frats. There was a significant contingent of strivers in this group. Frat crush parties, specific sorority bar nights, and dumber classes for legacy admissions/athletes were where you met Animal House Girls.

PCU was a great 90 minute joke with some weak spots about politically correct and slacker culture on campus that was entrenched already by the late '80s. Jeremy Piven's shitlord crew was a good stand-in for the folks at elite schools who still liked to have fun and rage it. Smart proles. PCU did catch onto the joke of "college is a scam" decades before everyone else exemplified well by the character writing a thesis on Michael Caine and Jack Nicholson being in a film on television at all times. I had a friend who wrote eighteen pages on the symbolism in the song American Pie; I wish I kept it. PCU was already onto the game that if you mouth the right things, the administration and professors will take care of you. I had friends who pretended to be gay so suspected lesbian Rachel Weil would give them As. This was a T-shirt and jeans crowd or beer 'n' weed crowd. These were friends you could count on to laugh at the protestors and go party on a Friday. They were not frat people since frats were too structured. House parties, bars, where you bought your weed, concerts, humanities and social sciences classes, studying in the sun in open space and random judo/free pizza in the lounge nights were where you met PCU girls.

With Honors covers the strivers and the well off kids at the elite schools who attend to network and learn to "run the world". This crowd and the frat types had significant overlap and shared traits but were eager to slap at the other crowd. The classroom scenes or mentions in this film are complete hogwash. The movie might as well be the proto-SWPL college drama. This flick does reflect the crew of kids who think, "I gotta obsess over one midterm because it will affect a grade that will affect my chances for the right law school that will affect who I clerk or intern for that will affect if I can be elected/made partner by age 30, goddamit leave me alone while I study for the 10th straight hour!" I felt bad for these kids, but they brought it onto themselves. These students also dressed really well. The preppy Ivy crowd and later Abercrombie and Fitch demographic is represented here. After hours select house parties, bars, more exclusive unadvertised frat gatherings, in a bathroom doing lines, student organization meetings, History/English Lit/Psychology classes, and secret society get-togethers off campus were where you met With Honors girls.

Real Genius is an '80s, cult classic comedy showcasing the great comedic talents of Val Kilmer in a movie full of pranks. It is based on Cal Tech. This film is 100 minutes of good fun that does capture nerd school tics and traits. Would've made a great TV series, that, if successful, could've last beyond four years as the leads went to grad school there. If you were a STEM major or had many STEM major friends, it spoke to you. The archetypes are all there: the prodigy, the never-studies-for-his-classes genius, the weird happenings in steam tunnels, the cute autistic girl unaware she is cute, the suck up grad student, and the scheming professor. The great thing about this crew is that it applied to anyone at a nerd school who really loved their major, not just the STEM kids. Tremendous conversations could be had with anthropology majors if you just got them out of their rooms. You didn't meet Real Genius girls; you randomly bumped into them when they left their room.

That's the formula for how those elite unis were then. Funny bit is how PCU and With Honors are both 1994 flicks, reflecting the climate Roiphe wrote about in her book. Higher Learning does not make the cut because John Singleton is retarded, it's an awful movie and blacks barely exist at elite schools. If no fraternities at the college, no worries. Young men will find the roles they want to fit onto their crew through the Animal House cast. In the absence of structure, groups of men create structure, even MTV Real World-Road Rules Challenge teams do this. I am out of touch with today's elite campuses, so I will have to do "research". Find out what the mix is now.

-------------------------------

If you are wondering where I fit into this:

1. My social circle was heavy PCU, some With Honors and a dash of Animal House. We would drink, smoke up or party, and then on walks back to our apartment, shake the cages of progs who slept in them to protest animal testing. We made fun of every political group or event. We broke our way onto the roof of our Low Rise dorm and launched yogurt and oatmeal filled condoms from a slingshot at obsessive nerds returning from the libraries at night (of course we knew the math/physics to hit people on the walkways). We caused plenty of property damage. Might explain why I had friends kicked out of school. I still knew too many status striving types, and tolerated their whining for far too long. I never complained about coursework and studying; it was why I was there.

2. My relationships were with the With Honors girls (often Downstate NY, status obsessed & wealthier) and a few Animal House sorority types (often buxom). They all wore tight black pants and pastel tops. It was like a uniform. A few times I hooked up with PCU pot smokers, and I still recall those short lived flings fondly. Should've replaced some of my With Honors flings with PCU girls.

3. I gave up on most of my Real Genius friends by junior year. One was fun, kept in touch and was/is straight out of the film. He now works for a defense contractor. For the first two years of college, I reenacted the scene where Val Kilmer cajoles the nerds into partying on a weekly basis. I had to talk nerds into drinking and socializing. Lost causes. It got old.

I learned. I laughed. I loved. I got the fuck out of there.