It was just over one year ago that WND Books published “The Return of the Great Depression.” In that book, I articulated six possible scenarios and explained which scenario I considered to be most likely. I also made a number of predictions, some of which can now be profitably analyzed to see how accurate they were. Keep in mind that at the time the book was published, the end of October 2009, the scenario which most of the mainstream economists were declaring to be in effect was the Green Shoots scenario.
Explaining Gamma
Do you know the story of Snow White? Then surely you remember how the seven dwarves took her in when she was homeless, provided her with food and shelter, and cared so much about her that they shed tears for her and built her a spectacular crystal pedestalbier.
And of course, you will recall that she ran off with Prince Charming at the very first opportunity.
Dwarves are Gammas. Alphas are Prince Charmings. Most men, being Betas and Deltas, fall somewhere in between and therefore face a choice about how to comport themselves in their interactions with the opposite sex. But we can draw two important conclusions from the fairy tale. One, behaving like a dwarf won’t get you the girl. Two, Prince Charming doesn’t stick around to ask twice; if Snow White doesn’t want to get on the horse right away, he rides on without her. It’s a big forest and there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.
VPFL Week 8
83 Blackmouth Banksters (6-2-0)
49 Winston Reverends (4-4-0)
54 Valders Quixotes (6-2-0)
43 Judean Rhyneauxs (4-4-0)
82 Meigs Marauders (4-4-0)
61 Bane Sidhe (5-3-0)
63 MS Swamp Spartans (3-4-1)
63 Moundsview Meerkats (1-6-1)
51 RR Redbeards (3-4-1)
51 Greenfield Grizzlies (2-5-1)
It was kiss your sister week in the VPFL. I’m frankly shocked that I managed to avoid losing with Aaron Rogers only contributing 3 points, although as it turns out I could have even won if I hadn’t neglected to start Jacob Tamme for the injured Zach Miller at TE; I picked Tamme up with precisely that intention but somehow managed to forget to actually plug him into the lineup. And it’s good to be a Bankster, as Blackmouth is starting to show signs of separating itself from the pack.
The economics of polygamy
The Economicon explains why we can expect to see polygamy embraced by the state before too long:
Legalizing polygamy, economist David Friedman wrote in his book Hidden Order: The Economics of Everyday Life, “allows some men who before wanted one wife to try to marry two instead — provided that they are willing to offer terms at which potential wives are willing to accept half a husband apiece. So the demand curve for wives shifts out. The supply curve stays the same, the demand curve shifts out, so the price must go up. Women are better off.”
It’s very hard to argue with the economic law of supply and demand. And the flipside of that is the recognition that most men will be worse off, with the obvious exception of those sufficiently rich and powerful enough to both support and attract multiple wives. Given that the general trend of American society is already in motion towards the economic benefit of women in general and elite men in particular, the fact that legalized polygamy fits squarely upon this progressive trend line would appear to make it all but a done deal, especially if one takes into account the decline of traditionally monogamous Christian culture and its replacement by various pagan cultures that range from openly polygamous African and Arabic immigrant cultures to the practical polygamy of the secular divorce culture in which men financially support multiple wives and families while limiting their sexual involvement to the latest wife.
Keep in mind that from both practical and sociological perspectives, the legal status of a woman as an “ex-wife” rather than a “wife” is largely beside the point so long as the man is still responsible for being the primary provider for the familial unit. And please note that I’m not at all interested in the various arguments that can reasonably be made for Christian polygamy on a theological basis as they are an irrelevant tangent in this societal context.
Being eminently practical beneath their superficially romantic exteriors, women can usually be relied upon to politically press for that which leads to the material advantage of their sex. Notice how the historical commitment to “sexual equality” on the part of feminist activists was thrown entirely out the window once it was perceived that the pendulum had swung in the opposite direction. This isn’t to say that millions of American women won’t be continue to be content in a monogamous state-licensed relationship, only that enough of them will be convinced of the material benefits and potential security of not being limited to one that they will be willing to provide the political horses required to ride through the cracks in the traditionalist wall made by the judidical homogamy advocates.
Moreover, invoking supply and demand again indicates that this is an obvious way to counteract the so-called male marriage strike. As the supply of marriageable men dries up due to male inclination and/or male unemployment, the institution of legalized polygamy can not only make up for this shortage, but essentially render future supply deficiencies nonexistent. If Roissy is correct about female hypergamy and “five minutes of Alpha are better than a lifetime of Beta [Gamma]”, then it can only be a matter of time before lower-status women begin to actively demand legal polygamy in order to expand their access to relationships with higher-status men capable of supporting them and their progeny.
The question ultimately boils down to whether women of the politically active sort would prefer half of Prince Charming’s castle to the entirety of a woodcutter’s cottage. The acquisition of male assets through divorce was never going to work for long, as it only took forty years – a little less than two generations – for growing male awareness to break the traditional marital model and reduce marriage rates among the 25-34 age group from 80% to 45% and the overall rate to 52%. In less than three generations from Ronald Reagan’s signing of the California no-fault divorce law in 1969, conventional monogamous marriage will no longer be the statistical norm.
So, women will either have to become the primary familial providers or they will turn to a different wealth distribution model. Both history and economics strongly suggest the latter.
Joel Rosenberg gets protected and served
As I have written on numerous occasions, the police are both lawless and unaccountable. One wonders how they can be considered to be “law enforcement officers” when they demonstrate so reliably that they have no idea what the relevant law is:
Sergeant William Palmer, the Minneapolis Police Department Spokesman, is under investigation for assaulting Joel Rosenberg, a local self-defense activist, in the waiting room of the office of Timothy Dolan, Minneapolis Police Chief. this afternoon, at approximately 130PM.
Rosenberg and his wife, Felicia Herman, had arrived at the office by previous arrangement with the suspect, Palmer, to examine the first of several Minnesota Government Data Practices Act responses that Rosenberg has submitted to the MPD and the City of Minneapolis. In addition to his responsibilities as police spokesman, Palmer is also the MPD’s Data Practices Officer.
When Rosenberg removed his jacket, revealing one of the two lawfully-carried handguns on his person, Palmer leaped at him, laid hands on him without lawful authority or Rosenberg’s consent, and removed one of Rosenberg’s pistols, “sweeping”, or momentarily pointing it, at Rosenberg as he moved to unload it.
“Palmer did not commit a further assault by patting me down,” Rosenberg said. “If he did, he probably would have found the snubnose revolver in my right pocket, and threatened me with that, too.” Rosenberg smiled. “He took one of my knives, too, but missed two others.”
Palmer admitted, in front of Rosenberg, two witnesses, and a video camera, that he had done so out of a belief that it was somehow unlawful for Rosenberg, a permit holder, firearms instructor and the author of Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota to carry in Minneapolis City Hall, and threatened Rosenberg with the loss of his carry permit — something that Palmer has neither the authority to threaten nor to do — and with arrest.
Rosenberg responded, “I will not resist arrest, sir,” and attempted to advise Palmer that Minnesota Statute 624.714 not only permits Rosenberg to carry his firearm there, but that Subd. 23 of that statute says (emphasis added):
No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may change, modify, or supplement these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise of a permit to carry.
“It’s really very simple,” Rosenberg explained. “Bill had no right to touch me at all, much less grab my gun, much less point it at me, even momentarily. I expect that the HennCo Sheriff’s Office will investigate, and act according to both the facts and the law. And that’s not the only crime Bill committed today, in that act. He really needs to obey the law that he is sworn to enforce and uphold. Whatever that was today, it was not ‘To Protect’ nor ‘To Serve.’ It’s not for him to make up the law as he goes along.”
Rosenberg immediately proceeded to the office of the Hennepin County Sheriff, where he filed a criminal complaint with Detective Bill Gottwaldt, who has promised Rosenberg a fair and impartial investigation.
And yes, it’s THAT Joel Rosenberg, the science fiction author and straight shooter. I’m sure we all expect Officer Palmer to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and punished accordingly.
Yeah, that’s convincing
It will take a lot more than suspending Keith Olbermann to convince anyone with more than one-quarter of a brain that MSNBC is an impartial media observer:
MSNBC TV host Keith Olbermann was suspended indefinitely on Friday for making campaign donations to three Democratic congressional candidates, apparently in violation of NBC News ethics policy. The announcement came in a one-sentence statement from msnbc TV President Phil Griffin: “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”
So, Olbermann’s evening contributions in kind to the Democratic Party worth millions of dollars are fine, but contributing a few actual dollars to a few Congressional candidates are not. Olbermann is an ass, and a much less intelligent ass than he thinks he is, but this attempt by MSNBC to pretend it is anything but a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party isn’t likely to fool anyone.
Verse of the Day
“As dead flies give perfume a bad smell, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor. The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Even as fools walk along the road, they lack sense and show everyone how stupid they are.”
– Ecclesiastes 10:1-3
Keep that in mind the next time you speak with one of your Christian friends who inclines to the left. And it is, of course, intriguing that the Bible should not only correctly anticipate post-18th century political ideologies, but correctly identify the sort of individual who belongs to them as well….
One year later
In which the loss is regretted
Gail Collins makes the post-election case for Christine O’Donnell:
There were awful speeches from all sides on Tuesday night, but I liked Christine O’Donnell’s adieu. (“We’ve got a lot of food. We’ve got the room all night. So God bless you. So let’s party!”) That girl is so on her way back to cable TV.
You certainly have to admire Miss O’Donnell’s epicurean attitude towards defeat, if nothing else. On the other hand, some Kossacks are angry and bitter, counting down the days until America becomes a brown, third world country freed from the shackles of a constitution written by dead white sexist slave-owning men.
“We just have to be patient.
And wait for your hearts to stop beating.
And stop they will.
And for some of you, real damned soon, truth be told.
Do you hear it?
The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?
Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.”
It is interesting how many Americans, particularly white Americans, absolutely refuse to understand that immigrants do not want America to remain America. Mexican immigrants want America to be an improved version of Mexico. Turkish immigrants want it to be an improved version of Turkey. Even the descendants of involuntary immigrants want America to become an improved version of an imaginary Africa. None of them will get exactly what they want, of course, but the significant fact is that they will transform it by the mere fact of their presence and so whatever it eventually becomes, it will not be what it was before. It will not be America or even recognizably American. And it must be recognized that the end of America is not only something that the likes of the Kossack quoted are anticipating, but something they believe is directly connected to the objectives of Obama and the former Congressional majority.
Meanwhile, the NYT is spinning like a thirty-something married woman’s rationalization hamster after being unexpectedly hit on by Brad Pitt/Justin Bieber/the Twilight guy:
“Tuesday’s election was indeed a “shellacking” for the Democrats, as President Obama admitted after a long night of bad news. It was hardly an order from the American people to discard the progress of the last two years and start over again. Mr. Obama was on target when he said voters howled in frustration at the slow pace of economic recovery and job creation. To borrow his running automotive metaphor, voters threw the keys at Republicans and told them to drive for a while, but gave almost no indication of what direction to drive in.
Right, the people voted for Republicans because they so enjoyed “the progress of the last two years”. This isn’t news or analysis, this is a feeble attempt at revising history as it’s being written.
You wanted it, you got it
If this woman’s lament doesn’t put an amused smile on your face today, well, you’re probably not a man under the age of fifty:
Let me tell you, dear ladies: the age of chivalry is dead.
Yesterday, I drove out of a car park in Kensington, London, to find the power-steering on my BMW had gone. The car wouldn’t move. Thankfully, I was in a cul de sac, not a motorway. I stopped and tried to pull over. My car was one foot from the kerb. I put my hazard lights on. Next to me was a building site full of men in fluoro jackets standing doing nothing. They could see my distress when I began peering under the bonnet. I got back in the car, and on my mobile phone to call the BMW breakdown service to get the vehicle recovered. I was in tears. Still no one bothered to help….
I had thought it was just my ex-husband who used to allow me to put petrol in the car while he sat warm in the passenger seat, but if my experience yesterday morning is anything to go by, it’s a generational phenomenon. As Top Gear’s James May said this week, young men have lost their masculinity, in that they can no longer fix things. And this loss of manners is far worse. Young working British men: you should be ashamed.
Be ashamed of what? The “f****** cow” is totally in the wrong here. And I wonder, were those nearby men really “doing nothing” or did she simply neither realize nor care how they were occupying themselves thanks to her female solipsism?
Women demanded legal and political equality and our great-grandfathers were foolish enough to grant it to them. So they used that equality to force the last three generations of men to spend between 12 and 16 years being drenched in feminist propaganda about how women were strong, independent, and equal to us, except of course for their intrinsic emotional and moral superiority. Once they had achieved sufficient political power, they then set about redefining the concept of equality in a successful effort to strip men of their legal rights and render them legally inferior in an extra-Constitutional court system where men are guilty until pronounced innocent. And then, after all this, they’re surprised when we don’t treat them like our great-grandfathers treated their great-grandmothers.
I am confident that I speak for many, if not most of the men of my generation in my instinctive response to this woman’s petulant demand that men be at her beck and call: F— you and fix it yourself, Ms Strong Independent Woman. It’s not my problem.
I suspect that these days, the average man is probably more likely to help a male stranger than to help women he doesn’t know. At least a man is likely to have the decency to be grateful and not take your assistance as some sort of rightful homage. As for chivalry being dead, I think it is pertinent to quote Isaac Asimov on the historical conventions of the concept.
“This is Helen as viewed through the eyes of courtly love. By the convention of the troubadours, a woman need not deserve love, she need merely be a woman.” And don’t forget, a woman’s chivalric champion was ideally supposed to be her adulterous lover. It is little wonder, then, that modern women lament chivalry’s death.
(HT: SB)