Tag: society

One guess as to my opinion about Terry Jones’s announcement that he intended to burn a Talmud and a Koran on September 11th. Here’s the hint… I’m a libertarian.

I didn’t get outraged by Mr. Myers assaulting a communion cracker or trashcanning a Koran and I’m certainly not bothered by Mr. Jones burning whatever book he wants to burn so long as he happens to own it. What is far more troublesome is the reaction of so many public figures, mainstream and conservative alike, as they fall all over each other to condemn a man exercising his Constitutionally-protected free speech rights. It is obvious that they are far more afraid of provoking the wrath of foreign Muslims than they are of provoking the wrath of the decadent American citizenry.

Needless to say, the anti-book burners won’t decry the Afghans burning American flags and chanting “Death to Christians” in response to the mere suggestion that someone intends to burn a Koran. They are no defenders of freedom or respect for religion, they are already subservient dhimmis.

In which it is argued, contra my prediction of the brothel/burqah option, American women are rather far along in the process of abandoning marriage in favor of concubinage:

If one takes a close look at contemporary American society, it appears that concubinage is gradually reasserting itself in Western culture and law. This is an inevitable result of the idea that men have an obligation to financially support illegitimate children; an idea that was rejected by Christians because it fatally weakens the incentives for women without significant property to engage in monogamous marriage. In fact, Islam prohibits concubinage as well, and dictates that although a man may have up to four wives, each one will have the same status under the law. Abuses have always occurred, but the contrast between European and East Asian society (Chinese in particular) was stark up until modernization in Asia. Rich Chinese men often had a “first wife” and varying numbers of concubines, the Emperor would have hundreds of them, and lots of ordinary Chinese men had to make do sharing prostitutes or going entirely without a woman.

For young women, a life as a concubine is often preferable to being married to a poor man, and increasingly that option is open to them in the US. For the lucky few women – usually the exceptionally attractive and mercenary – a sexual relationship with a wealthy businessman, athlete or politician can guarantee decades of support if she manages to get pregnant. Rielle Hunter, John Edwards’ adulterous lover, is an example of a woman who pulled it off. Scores of women manage to hit the jackpot with young, unsophisticated athletes; thousands upon thousands of others we’ve never heard of take advantage of relatively wealthy men. In these cases, where child support will be enough to live on, the arrangement is concubinage in all but name. The only argument against equivalency is that sexual exclusivity is not guaranteed, as it usually was in ancient forms of concubinage, but given that sexual exclusivity is neither guaranteed nor enforced in marriage any longer and concubinage has always been held to be a lesser alternative to full marriage, it is fulfilling the exact same role the institution did in ancient times.

It’s an interesting historical correlation, but I don’t think the devolution into modern concubinage is so much an end state as a stage on the continued devolution into full female subjugation. The reality is that economics and demographics alike predict the unviability of any society with universal suffrage and concomitant legal favoritism towards women. Therefore, anything that naturally develops from that society is irrelevant, since the society is going to either collapse or be conquered and be replaced by a competing one.

Derbyshire explains why it is an effective and PC-subversive television show:

For a strictly limited time period, we’re permitted take a break from official reality to ponder unpalatable truths.

In a post-Malthusian society that has shed most customary constraints on mating (class/race/religious endogamy, arranged marriage, doweries, etc.) and un-hitched sex from procreation, mating is an open Darwinian struggle. Beautiful young women and men gifted with the seductive arts (“game”) mate a lot; plain women and gauche men are left in the dust.

Inside a pretty woman there is often a slut, who can be awakened by a man with good “game.” But …

… ceteris paribus, a woman’s desire for long-term commitment is greater than a man’s.

Meek provider-type males with no “game” rather frequently end up having their life blood, and bank balance, drained away by whiny self-centered ex-wives.

Ambitious, worldly parents are resented by their offspring, and …

… such parents in turn regard the less successful of those offspring with mild contempt.

Kids, even intelligent kids, often dislike school. Boys particularly dislike the feminized PC pablum that forms the curriculum of the average American public school today. They would sit all day eating junk food, watching TV cop shows, and playing Call of Duty on a GameBoy if they could.

Low-class white women are often obese and coarse.

It is also interesting to watch how being engaged to Chelsea is rapidly turning Charlie into a gamma as he fails test after test with her. The minute she turns a stern look on him and says his name in a deep voice, he caves. I don’t know if this is the result of new writers attempting to “tame” him and thereby ruin the show or if they are setting the stage for Charlie to stand his ground as a man and declare non servium while bringing the show to a close in a glorious blaze of alcohol and escorts as Alan marries the annoying woman instead.

I assume the former, however, since Chelsea didn’t seem the sort who would hold any significant appeal for Charlie from the beginning. But then, I tend to catch the show sporadically and out of order, so I could easily be missing something. In any event, it would appear Charlie Sheen may be the last American hero to be permitted to the masses on television.

Intel CEO reminds Washington that capital is mobile. Especially human capital:

Otellini’s remarks during dinner at the Technology Policy Institute’s Aspen Forum here amounted to a warning to the administration officials and assorted Capitol Hill aides in the audience: Unless government policies are altered, he predicted, “the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here.”

The U.S. legal environment has become so hostile to business, Otellini said, that there is likely to be “an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth, much like we’re seeing today in Europe–this is the bitter truth.”

I think he is dead on target here. My father was a pioneer in the computer graphics industry and he’s certainly not creating any new technologies or jobs in prison. I was one of the leaders in bringing graphics hardware to the computer game industry – no one believes this but you can look it up in the Computer Gaming World archives – and have invented a few things from a next-gen sound card to the world’s most advanced mouse and an AI system. I left the country more than a decade ago because I saw signs on the horizon of what Otellini is now pointing out. Furthermore, I run into Americans moving abroad to set up businesses on a regular basis, not every day, but a lot more often than I did 10 years ago. Between the high corporate taxes, the inflexible bureaucracy, the insane amount of regulations and paperwork required, and the global reach of the Internet, it simply doesn’t make much sense to start any business that isn’t a location-tied service one in the USA anymore.

As Schumpeter explained, no entrepeneurs means no economic growth, which means declining societal wealth and eventually grass hut city time. Unfortunately, most people are demanding even more government and they’re getting what they vote for while John Galt votes with his feet.

Do you honestly believe American police are any less corrupt?

The killers came for Mayor Cavazos in the early hours of Aug. 16 when seven SUV’s rolled up and men in police uniforms descended on his palatial home. Servants stood back terrified, as their boss was forced away at gunpoint. On Aug. 18, his corpse was dumped on a nearby road. There was a mercy of sorts in the manner of his killing – shot dead with two bullets in the head and one in the chest, and spared the mutilation and rape inflicted on so many other victims. The following day, hundreds of residents wept over his coffin in Santiago’s central plaza, lining the stairs up to the church with candles and holding signs calling for peace.

Then on Aug. 20, more disturbing news broke. State agents arrested six of the mayor’s own police officers and said they confessed to involvement in the murder.

In fact, given the draconian seizure laws that permit American police to arrest money and keep a percentage of it, there is a sound basis for arguing that American police forces are even more structurally corrupt than their Mexican counterparts. They may not be murdering any mayors, but then, they make even more money without having to do wetwork for hire. The American history of Prohibition strongly suggests that main reason for the insane violence on the Mexican side of the border and the police corruption on the American side is that some drugs are deemed illegal. Legalizing all drugs would eliminate both the violence and the corruption, which of course is why most police oppose drug legalization so strongly. It would mean the end of their drug war-financed gravy train, which is worth around $450 million$1.58 billion per year to the LOCAL law enforcement agencies of the country.

Instapundit rightly slaps down a reader who wants to give carte blanche to cops:

If there is one thing about your political views that drives me nuts, it’s your seeming animosity towards law enforcement. I understand that much of what you highlight are honest to God abuses of power, some of a very serious nature. (Some are just bad mistakes.) But I think you ignore one salient fact – cops basically deal with dangerous assholes. You and I don’t, typically, deal with such people on a regular basis, so we have to be careful how we judge policemen. Maybe the officer was wrong to mention rape, but how many self-righteous (and guilty) jerks whip out their cell phones and start giving cops shit? A lot, I’ll bet. They can’t afford to take a kumbaya approach to dealing with people, you know? Perhaps you should cut them some slack.

Well, I’m happy to cut people slack in cases of, say, mistaken self-defense where it’s an honest mistake. But the things I flag are abuses of power, pure and simple. We don’t have titles of nobility in this country, and when you have a badge and a gun you should behave better than the average schmuck, rather than having a license to be a jerk. I’m always surprised that people find this controversial.

The reader is absolutely wrong. Police should be given absolutely NO slack whatsoever. If they are going to enforce the law effectively, then they must be more law-abiding than the average citizen. Instead, they are little more than a licensed gang of armed criminals whose lawless behavior is overlooked because it is in the interest of the state. Fortunately, there are some law enforcement officers who are capable of rising above their bureaucratic profession, but it is not hard to observe that most police have more in common with the “dangerous assholes” of the criminal minority than they do with the non-criminal majority of the population.

The fact that police forces tend to be made up of corrupt and undisciplined individuals has been seen throughout history. Soldiers are seldom considered to be society’s elite, but even inexperienced second-line military units make police units look like a collection of gutter riff-raff in comparison. In strategy games like ASL, for example, police units are usually represented by conscripts, which tells you all that you need to know about their professionalism, effectiveness, and morale.

I don’t know if bad men are drawn to the job or the strains of the job makes good men bad. But regardless, the ethic of “badge makes right” is a legal, moral, and ethical non-starter.

It begins as France starts the expulsions:

France expelled nearly 100 Gypsies, or Roma, to their native Romania on Thursday as part of a very public effort by conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy to dismantle Roma camps and sweep them out of the country, the Immigration Ministry said.

This is why I have never bought into the notion that the European nations are going to disappear due to their demographic issues. They are reacting much more strongly to a much lower percentage of the population than Americans have with Hispanics because they have no “melting pot” mythology. Notice that with the economic contraction, the assumption that Turkey would join the EU has faded away. Demographics are destiny, but they do not always proceed in a clean and linear fashion.

The Dark Lord of the Crimson Arts points out what should now be obvious to everyone who is paying attention:

As it is, our society is at a fork in the road. We can go one of two ways if an end to the divorce industrial complex is your goal:

1. Rescind feminism.

Basically, turn back the clock on the so-called “improvements” in divorce litigation. Put divorce lawyers out of business. Custody of children would be split evenly, half the time with mom and half the time with dad, unless solid evidence of extenuating fault could be found, such as pedophilia or physical abuse. End all affirmative action and favoritism, explicit or implicit, for women. This means no more maternal leave or sexual harassment workshops. Return shame to its rightful place as a molder of human behavior.

2. Follow feminism to its logical conclusion.

Completely gut the traditional notion of marriage by legally establishing polygamy and assorted polyamorous relationships as equally valid unions. (Should be easier now that there is legal justification for gay marriage.) Make divorce as easy as buying a gallon of milk. Reform marriage so that it better reflects the evolutionary disposition of people to fall out of love after seven years (or approximately the time the kids are old enough to function without constant parental supervision.) If we are biologically designed by evolution to weary of our partners after seven to ten years, then why is marriage not arranged in such a way that acknowledges this reality?

Obviously, our suffragized society has chosen the latter goal. How’s that working out for everyone? Bankrupt, divorced and stupid is no way to sustain a civilization.