Why Republicans Will Not Shrink Government

- by Imran Khan

 

Here we are, on the eve of a red wave that will see the GOP wrest over 60 House seats, 8 Senate seats, and 7 Governorships away from the Democrats.  As a free-market, small government advocate, I greet this development with only minimal enthusiasm.  In fact, on a scale of 1 to 10, while I certainly rate the Democrats as a shameful 1, I cannot give the Republicans a score any higher than a 4.  My ratings of 1 and 4, interestingly, offend not just Democrats but Republicans as well.  Allow me to elaborate.

Republicans have held the Presidency for 28 of the last 42 years.  They have also held majorities in Congress for substantial periods of time.  Yet, no one can dispute that the US is far more left-leaning than it was in 1968.  Government spending as a percentage of GDP is much higher, incidence of single motherhood is vastly higher, free enterprise is less respected, individual liberties are lower, and popular entertainment has become vulgar, disgusting, and immoral.  These are all things Republicans do not desire, yet it has happened under their noses anyway.  We can thus conclude that :

Republicans winning elections does not counter leftism, it merely postpones the inexorable advance of leftism.     

So why are Republicans unable to advance what their voters want, while the left can advance their agenda whether they are in office or not?  The reasons for this are as follows :

Marketing Ignorance : Longtime readers are aware of how I strongly emphasize that one must never refer to leftists as 'liberals'.  In reality, they are illiberal, intolerant, and rigid.  By allowing them to assign a positive word like 'liberal' or 'progressive' to themselves, the right already concedes the battle before it has even begun.  Would you want to enter into a public debate with someone under the agreement that they get to call themselves the 'smart/good person' while you have to be known as the 'dumb/evil person'?  Yet this is what the right readily agrees to, and they appear to be incapable of learning from their errors.  In 8 years, I have seen just two articles by a Republican describing why it is unwise to refer to totalitarian leftists as 'liberals', while every other article posted daily continues with this foolishness. 

But it goes further.  For years and years, the left has behaved with extreme hypocrisy on issues of race, ethics, and pro- vs anti-American stances.  The response that the right delivers is to point out this hypocrisy in a polite manner, expecting the left to acknowledge their error and not repeat it in the future.  Needless to say, the left has no problem with hypocrisy and projection, and has no intention of changing this.  Yet, the Republicans still fail to notice that pointing out such examples of hypocrisy has no effect on the debate.  The definition of insanity, or at least stupidity, is repeating the same action a number of times, and expecting a different result, but Republicans fail to see that the character of their opponents is far too uncivilized for the toothless tactics that Republicans restrict themselves to.

Take, for example, the African-American vote, which usually goes 90-96% for Democrats.  This is true even if the Republican candidate is black and the Democrat is white (as was the case in 3 major races in 2006).  An examination of recent history quickly reveals this loyalty towards Democrats as more than a little odd.  George Wallace ran for President as a Democrat on a segregationist platform as recently as 1976 (note that this was after Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' approach).  Furthermore, Robert Byrd, a senior leader in the KKK, was a US Senator in the Democratic party until 2010.  These facts would make it less surprising for blacks to vote 90% Republican than the current reality of the opposite.  But this yet again shows how poor Republican messaging is.  The party of George Wallace and Robert Byrd still manages to get 90% of the black vote, due to the left's tireless propaganda in black neighborhoods, and historical revisionism in school textbooks in inner-city public schools.  As a result, the black vote is not even remotely available to Republicans, and with African Americans being 11% of the US population, for a Democrat to win a nationwide election, he only has to get 40 out of the remaining 90% of votes to be cast.  The Republican, by contrast, has to get 50 out of the remaining 90%.  That is correct, for a Republican to win, he has to get not 50 out of 100%, but 50 out of 90%. 

And while Democrat tactics have been underhanded, the Republicans can only blame themselves for being so weak, inobservant, and slow to comprehend what they are up against. 

The Judicial Battlespace, Where Only One Side Shows Up : Elections are only half of the battlefield.  The other half is the legislative/judicial landscape where laws are discreetly created and enacted without voter approval.  The left tirelessly pushes its agenda through an army of lawyers and judges, with the right not even noticing.  This unchallenged activity from the left is the reason that they have managed to reduce their dependence on the electoral process, easily duping Republicans into thinking that winning elections is a 'victory against leftism'.  That Republicans be distracted from even noticing this crucial other half of the battlespace is quite acceptable to the left. 

As just one example, this is why the left is easily able to distract Republicans with inconsequential side issues like 'gay marriage', while not a single 'social conservative' protested that New York became the final state out of 50 to replace fault-based divorce with 'no-fault' divorce.  For 'socons' who claim to care about preserving the institution of marriage, yet not utter a single word about a legal system that has been rigged to increase lawyer revenues by making it easy and profitable for women to get divorces, is shockingly dim.  To put it even more plainly, the number of straight men avoiding marriage to women due to gay marriage legislation is zero, whereas the number of straight men avoiding marriage due to brutally anti-male laws is sizable.  The socon reaction to this, in their strategic brilliance, is to attack gay marriage and ignore what really disincentivizes marriage. 

Aren't conservatives supposed to be the people who understand how economic incentives work?  This socon behavior would be the equivalent of an astronomer being unaware of the existence of the Moon, and is the reason that most 'socons' do not deserve to be taken seriously. 

This is why a massive form of brutal redistribution in America today is not even noticed by those who claim to oppose socialism.  Alimony is awarded to a divorcing wife on a 'no fault' basis, putting the husband into a 70% marginal tax rate.  Even if he did not want a divorce, failure to pay this 'no-fault' alimony carries possible imprisonment.  Thus, he is placed into near-slavery, and certainly has no incentive to invent new technologies or start new businesses.  10-30% of the male workforce being under a 70% tax rate during their peak earning years cannot be good for the economy, yet not one 'conservative' is fighting this, as pedestalization trumps capitalism in the conservative ideological hierarchy. 

Republican Appeasement of 'Feminists' : As I explained in The Misandry Bubble, a lot of men, both left and right-leaning, have an extremely inobservant belief that groveling to women and excusing them of wrongdoings that no man would be excused for, is the way to get women to like them.  In reality, women have the opposite reaction to a man who is too willing to appease, and find such a man to be a useful puppet at best.  What makes it worse when a conservative Republican does it, is that in being a white knight, he tosses aside every other principle he claims to advocate. 

Most would consider Steve Forbes to be a prominent, central representative of conservative Republican ideology.  However, in Forbes magazine he has taken to publishing frequent articles that are decidedly misandric.  I had the opportunity to ask him about this online, and he surprisingly gave the unthinking answer, "As a man with 5 daughters, I am concerned about women's issues.".  How nice of him, but surely someone as intelligent as Steve Forbes would recognize that caring about the enviroment does not equate to an endorsement of the most fringe lunatic enviromentalists.  So why can't he make such a distinction with 'feminism', rather than declare that he endorses any and all 'feminists' without questioning the possibility of extremism (which certainly harms his daughters) in their midst? 

It goes deeper.  The need for many conservatives to pedestalize women is so ingrained, that when someone points out to them how (and why) serial killers receive a torrent of love letters from an army of swooning women, the conservative gets angry not at the women, but at the messenger who points out this inconvenient reality.  Flat-earthers do not like seeing evidence that the Earth is a sphere, and conservative pedestalization of women is precisely the same psychology. 

Now, for any leftist reading this, I am going to reveal a secret to you.  The secret is : it is easy to get a conservative to support any and all government programs as long as it is packaged as 'chivalry'.  Do you want more government-subsidized daycare for unwed mothers to get them to vote Democrat?  Tell a conservative that supporting this is 'chivalrous' while opposing this is 'misogynistic'.  Do you want conservatives to support another tax on the wealthy to finance Obamacare?  Tell him that women will suffer without Obamacare.  Do you want more money to go towards teachers unions so that they can indoctrinate public school students even more deeply into Marxism?  Tell a conservative that female teachers are underpaid (even though they aren't), and need a higher wage.  Do you want cap-and-trade or any other Al Gore legislation passed?  Find some convoluted way to show conservatives that women would suffer more than men if more carbon dioxide were produced.  Yes, they really can be duped that easily.  The typical conservative will jump at the chance to out-left a leftist when the prospect of appearing like a hero to women (again, refusing to learn that this actually repels women) presents itself.  Try it, and see how every other principle, from small government, to free markets, to support for two-parent upbringings, to adherence to the US Constitution, will be jettisoned in their rush to be a pedestalizing white knight.   

My Republican friends get angry when I give away this weakness to the other side.  My answer to them is that if your side is so weak and needy that you are afraid of this weakness being revealed, how can you possibly support such useful idiots?  Reform your side instead, and even I would subsequently rejoin. 

Steven Baskerville discusses how conservatives who think they are 'tough on crime' have little understanding of the tyranny they have enabled, by building the left's Trojan horse for them.  Over here, Ferdinand Bardamu describes how Democrats and Republicans unite to form the Misandry Party.  For example, both parties are under the belief that innocent 'single mothers' were abandoned by 'deadbeat dads', and a typical debate between left and right would constitute an argument about who has done more to punish 'deadbeat dads'.  In reality, it is usually the mother who has discarded the father's presence, while seizing his money, and is further using the state to prevent him from receiving joint custody or even visitation rights.  But this reality is such a departure from the prevailing narrative that such a man can go to neither party for any sort of Father's Rights support.  Many conservative women are not sympathetic to the oppression of men under state-backed misandry, and only seek to replace the leftist brand of 'feminism' with a slightly more religious version of their own. 

These three reasons are why we see conservatives rarely driving an agenda, but rather only opposing what the left dangles before them as a distraction.  Hence, the right keeps falling back and falling back, ceding more and more ground with each cycle.  The alternating of power between Democrats and Republicans constitute a two-steps-back, one-step-sideways descent into leftism, so pardon me for not being too excited about the sideways step, the mere postponement we are about to take through the party earning a 4 taking seats from the party earning a 1 out of 10.  Their inability to distinguish between insignificant side issues and the topics that actually matter, combined with the needy chivalry that trumps every other principle that they claim to hold, makes the current conservative/Republican mainstream fatally flawed. 

While I was in strong agreement with the GOP during the crisis of the last decade, the War on Terror, I see them as very much in a 'useful idiot' role in the crisis of this decade, The Misandry Bubble. 

This brings us to the core mismatch in US politics.  As the emergence of the Tea Party has shown, at least 70% of the electorate wants lower taxes and lower spending.  The approval ratings of the last 3 Presidents all rose and fell in tandem with the level of government spending.  All this is established, yet the voters can't seem to figure out how to achieve it. 

Back to The Misandry Bubble, where I establish that 70-80% of all government spending is a transfer of wealth from men to women in some form or the other.  Entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare are mostly financed by taxes paid by men, but are mostly consumed by women, who live 7 years longer than men, thus creating a reality where a woman's post-65 lifetime is twice as long as a man's (7 years for a man, 14 years post-65 for a woman).  Most of the increase in public sector employees have been female.  Through unopposed 'feminist' lobbying, most of the $800B stimulus was diverted away from infrastructure projects since too few women work in those, and instead diverted to the already bloated healthcare and education sectors in order to employ more women.  Teachers are not just well-paid, but it is a profession that men are mostly barred from.  Extreme subsidization of single motherhood has created an America where 41% of all babies are born out of wedlock.  

Therefore, if the electorate is truly interested in shrinking the size of government, they first have to confront the artificially created absurdities in American society that are currently considered normal.  There is a reason that all traditional societies, whether European or Asian, shamed unwed mothers and recognized them to be parasites.  There is a reason the word 'homewrecker' was common until recently.  There is a reason there were no jobs for 'court appointed visitation supervisors' to be employed by the state to oversee the actions of a man who has had his children taken from him on a 'no fault' basis.  There is a reason that any successful society defended the institution of marriage fiercely by making marriage at attractive arrangement for the man, which in turn ensured that the woman was better off as well.  No successful society has replaced the family unit with government, yet America is attempting to do this with taxpayer funds. 

To even the most strident Tea Partier, I ask, how badly do you want to trim government spending?  Badly enough to cut single mothers off from the trough, and thus prevent the creation of future single mothers and their spawn?  Badly enough to lay off thousands of teachers, and fight teacher's unions attempts to prevent merit-based performance reviews?  Badly enough to be far more courageous than needy socons, and work to crush the predatory divorce industry, that strives to increase divorces in order to employ more people in the divorce ecosystem?  Badly enough to phase out major elements of SS and Medicare (and Obamacare), even if 'women will suffer from the cutbacks'?  Badly enough to be called a 'misogynist', 'loser', and 'worse than Hitler'?  Badly enough to receive every form of shaming language they can fling at you? 

If the answer to any of the above questions is 'no', then you are not ready to do what it takes to reduce government spending.  There is no return to the non-defense spending levels of 1960 or even 2006 without curing this culture of the disease currently killing it, and the Tea Party will not be able to take their cause to the next level without such courage.  To make this even more clear :

There will be no reduction in Federal, State, or Local government spending in the US without a fierce and pervasive detection, confrontration, and reduction of state-supported misandry, currently propped up by both Democrats and Republicans.   

Do you, the American voter, have what it takes to save America? 

As a Futurist, it is my job to bring attention to topics that will become more widely discussed several years from now.  When the points detailed here are discussed more openly in 2017-18, remember who defined the heart of the challenge in 2010.   

Is the GOP likely to slash government spending to a level that voters seek?
	Yes
	They will make moderate reductions
	They will make no reductions, or worse
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Note on Comments : As I already explained in The Misandry Bubble, any Pavlovian utterance of the word 'misogynist' takes very little probing to quickly reveal itself as just projection of anti-male bigotry outward, and is an admission of such bigotry.  Although I am amused that 'feminists' still can't even spell the most important word in their vocabulary. 

Comments

[Joaquin]

Whenever i hear conservatives bragging about the popularity of the tea party, i point out the leadership at grassroots level is largely female and the movement is being co-opted by a new breed of feminist like Palin and others.

These women are sending a strong message to conservative men in power to "man up" and take charge even using those exact words in the media. Yet the emasculation of men is so ingrained in American culture and society, that even a movement preaching minimalist government, constitutional rule of law and low taxes is controlled largely by female interests and personalities while conservative men stand passively and submissively behind them.

Marxist/Female supremacist indocrination has psychologically castrated 90% of men in America and the West - cons and otherwise.

[Sam]

I'm sorry... I usually love your futurism, but in this post, you're so far away from reality that reality itself has collapsed in on itself. It's like you divided by zero, except politics instead of math. I guess I should back that up, but it'd take too long to cover the whole article, here are a few points from the first few paragraphs:

1. On assigning biased names, Republicans are much worse. "Moral Majority"? "Values Voters"? By contrast, "Liberal" and "Progressive" are quite mild (and "liberal" has even taken on negative connotations thanks to endless Republican propaganda. How many current Senators/Representatives actively advertise themselves as liberals?)

2. "popular entertainment has become vulgar, disgusting, and immoral" Right, evil Democrats are scheming how we can ruin entertainment. BTW, what's your stance on those damn kids playing on your lawn?

3. Byrd/Wallace... Way to generalize. According to your two-point-set logic, I could easily prove Republicans are the party of closet homosexuals/adulterers. A large portion of the Republican party would love to see blacks hunted and killed for sport.

Please write more about futurism, not politics.

[The Futurist]

Joaquin,

That is absolutely correct. The Tea Party women still expect men to do hard work all their waking hours in return for very little. It is a 'better' deal than lefto-feminism, but not by much.

Of course, the women in the Tea Party actually *want* a man to stand up and take charge. That is how attraction circuits work.

Sam,

A large portion of the Republican party would love to see blacks hunted and killed for sport.

Projection. That too just a week after the left punished Juan Williams for leaving the plantation. The left was always more racist than the right, ever since the days of Abe Lincoln.

Please write more about futurism, not politics.

Translation : You are intellectually outclassed, and really don't like it when colored people say unapproved things (just as Juan Williams did).

Particularly given that this article is mostly about slamming REPUBLICANS. Reading comprehension, Sam, reading comprehension.

I assume, Xamuel, that you are opposed to manginas/whiteknights/pedestalizers. That is the crux of this article.

[jeffolie]

I correctly predicted Gridlock for 2011 & 2012 in my jeffolie predicts 'the politics of the backlash will unseat incumbents in 2010' that I predicted in 2008. There was no Tea Party then. I predicted Obama would be President, I predicted this in 2009 well before Obama was a significant campaigner.

I predicted no economic growth for 2011 & 2012 because of my expectations of economic and polical Gridlock.

I predicted in 2009 that Obama would not be reelected in 2012.

The Misandry Bubble

I have been posting what I call the 'American Family Gone Viral' for years. The result is rarely does a child reach 18 with the child's biological father as the husband to the child's care giver. Women are now behaving like VIRUSes that attach to others (men) temporarily, reproduce (have children or adopt them), and then move on to a different partner (man or woman). Children are raise by grandmothers more now than ever before with the percentage jumping from 10 to now 16% in just the last 3 years.

[Sirana]

So, any utterance of the word 'misandry' (which you used 7 times in this article) is really just projection of anti-female bigotry outward, and is an admission of such bigotry.

Good to know...

[The Futurist]

Sirana,

Nope. Misandry is vastly more common than misogyny. For every man who is truly a misogynist, there are 10,000 who conduct the opposite of misogyny - treating women much better than they would treat another man.

Go read 'The Misandry Bubble'. Twice. You will learn a lot.

[Sirana]

Do you even look at the words that come on the computer screen when you are touching your keyboard? You don't see the irony in your statement that "any Pavlovian utterance of the word 'misogynist' is really just projection of anti-male bigotry outward" when you yourself are using the word misandry over and over?

[The Futurist]

Sirana,

Misandry is real. Misogyny, for the most part, is not. My points are well supported by research, and well explained.

Your amateurish shaming language, far less so. It reveals your lack of intellectual depth.

Unless you can comprehend the issues in The Misandry Bubble in an intelligent and objective manner, and properly discuss the mistreatment of men, you have nothing of substance to contribute.

Go read Female Masculinist. Also read Dr. Helen.

Both are women, who correctly point out the pervasive anti-male bigotry in America today. You have a lot of reading to do before you understand the scope of the subject at hand.

[ButlerSpeaks]

De-bookmarked.

[Trevor]

Sirana is just the typical fembitch who has the mental capacity of a 7-10 year old boy. See how she can't even have any discussion other than ridiculous shaming language. She doesn't want to hear anything that any reasonable person says.

She is just pissed that she can't get a man, and is not capable enough to earn enough money on her own. A dime-a-dozen femiNazi who is a moocher off of men, nothing more.

[Jabberwocky]

Republicans look after the interest of rich people first and foremost, period. Everything else is lip service or philosophical double speak. Democrats suck because they are naive, short-sighted, and impractical. They are like parents who spoil their children and then have to let them live in their basement because they never took school seriously. Republicans suck because they are actively deceptive to a far larger and more organized degree. They lack empathy yet are too afraid to be brutally honest when it would be politically detrimental. Dems are too stupid to pull off the con that Repubs have pulled on their conservative/religous base. I hope the Tea Party cleanses the Repubs of their elite/connected-protectionist racket they have going on. I doubt it. Power and money is too corrupting. I like Rand Paul I think. I fear it will have to get worse before it gets better.

[Sirana]

Very interesting and thoughtful comment, Trevor with only a slight blemish. I am in fact male and not female. Internet pseudonyms can be deceiving that way. But other than that you are spot on!

[Trevor]

Oh, Sirana is a mangina! Even worse.

Sort of like a Jewish Nazi, you are.

[Sirana]

And Godwin's law strikes again. That didn't take long.

[Trevor]

So Sirana, you ARE a mangina then?

[MsA]

Sirana's a troll. Don't feed her.

[Sirana]

Are you asking if I am related to Phyllis Mangina, the Basketball coach at Seton Hall University? If so then I am pretty sure that I am not.

[Sirana]

MsA, in my experience the troll is usually the one comparing other people to Nazis. But then, I'm just a dime-a-dozen femiNazi who is a moocher off of men, so what do I know...

[Zyndryl]

"Badly enough to cut single mothers off from the trough, and thus prevent the creation of future single mothers and their spawn? Badly enough to lay off thousands of teachers, and fight teacher's unions attempts to prevent merit-based performance reviews? Badly enough to be far more courageous than needy socons, and work to crush the predatory divorce industry, that works to increase divorces in order to employ more people in the divorce ecosystem? Badly enough to phase out major elements of SS and Medicare (and Obamacare), even if 'women will suffer from the cutbacks'? Badly enough to be called a 'misogynist', 'loser', and 'worse than Hitler'?"

Yep. Sign me up.

But I think the guy who posted 'De-bookmarked.' proves your point even better.

[Vinny]

I think this is a major change event election going on today and the Republican leadership seem to get it from the way Mitch McConnell and Michael Steele talked about delivering on spending cuts or knowing the R's are done. The R's will not last another election cycle as a political party if they go against the Tea Party and the progressive R's that were not up for election in this cycle (Snow, Collins, Graham, etc) are out in the next primary cycle.

This country is weird to foreigners because we have a very strong independent streak to the point of "you tell me to do this and I'll just do the opposite because I can". It's why negative campaign ads can backfire if they're not careful.

I'm not sure how this all relates to misandry in any convincing way, but I guarantee you Paul Ryan's budgetary road map will get another exhaustive review.

The R's have 1 chance to show the country they are serious about reigning in federal spending. The cold war is over, thanks to the efforts of Ronaldus Maximus, the Farewell Dossier, the Polish Pope and Margret Thatcher. The military spending needs to be cut as well as no increases in benefits, weekly votes to cut discresionary spending and reduce the size and scope of the federal government as well as eliminate all funding for obama's czars.

I think you're gonna see some serious action in the next congress. They may not get past a veto, but they're gonna make the progressives sweat.

[jeffolie]

Vinny points correctly to the obvious:

"....They may not get past a veto..."

Plus, the Democrats are likely to control the Senate. Biden gets to cast tie breaking votes.

[s32]

I'm a little bit more optimistic. They newer batch of GOP leaders, like Chris Christie, seem very willing to take on the female dominated teacher's unions.

Time will tell

[Anonymous Man]

You're not helping with your attitude of extreme partisan-ism and hyperbole. The only sane path to helping the country out of the hole it's in is to be moderate.

[Vinny]

Anonymous, moderates don't make changes.

wiki, Overton Window...moderates don't change the perspective of the "at large" public. The window needs to be moved back to the right since it's been incrementally moved so far left the past 20-30 years. The baby boomer generation is eating itself up and will consume itself out of existence in the near future. Their apex was obama. He's now a 1 term president that's worse than Carter.

Hopefully we'll look back on this period as a wake up call that we took to overcome a generation of baby boomer idiots.

[Zyndryl]

Hey Vinny,

'This country is weird to foreigners because we have a very strong independent streak...'

It is weird because we have the political outlet to exhibit that streak, not that other countries don't have it also. Our primary system is generally unique to this country...especially compared to European parliamentary systems.

Basically, our political factions have to form coalitions before the election instead of after. And given how the states run the primary show, challenges to the status quo is easier to effect here.

[Zyndryl]

"Hopefully we'll look back on this period as a wake up call that we took to overcome a generation of baby boomer idiots."

Yes, things have definitely gone straight to hell ever since the Boomers started taking over, starting with Clinton.

"extreme partisan-ism" = "people who have convictions that piss off those who don't"

[The Futurist]

extreme partisan-ism

You mean partisanSHIP. I am not a partisan as much as I like to punish bad grammar.

is to be moderate.

Small government IS the moderate position, as it ensures no ideology of any sort can be forced onto people by the state.

At any rate, we have at least three Democrats offended by an article that is mainly devoted to slamming Republicans.

[vinny]

Zyndryl, good point. I didn't even think of it that way thanks for the perspective.

here's a good article out today on Paul Ryan's plan;

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/03/paul-ryan%E2%80%99s-big-plans-for-a-small-budget/

It is actually better that the R's only won the house because you need 60 votes to get anything done in the senate anyway and in 2012 people will see what the house does on spending and decide that's a pretty good idea and take to solving the long term financial problems the D's and government in general created without blaming the R's.

The government creates these bubbles through regulation. (which is why the "making homes affordable act" passed in the Carter congress and strengthened by the Clinton early congress led to the Fannie/Freddie bubble that collapsed the world economy that bought US bundled securities)

So I think at any other point in our history I might agree with you on the R's, but not at this point in history.

We'll see. I hope I'm right.

[Obsidian]

The Futurist,
Thanks loads for the comments of support over at IMF. If I may, the following will give you and your readers a more clearer understanding of what went down:

The Day I Got "Juan Williams'd": A Wake-Up Call To Bloggers Everywhere - Especially Brotha Bloggers

We all have particular dates on the calendar that mark watershed moments in our lives. For me, one of those dates is Wed, Nov 3, 2010. Why this date and not say, the date I founded my blog, The Obsidian Files - which had just celebrated one year old on Halloween?

Because, more than the founding of my blog, it was the day that it was taken down, that looms the largest for me. And its a date others reading along should do well to remember.

Because its a date that follows on the heels of another important date for the body politic - it was barely two weeks after veteran journalist and avowed Liberal Juan Williams, was summarily fired from his job of more than a decade, NPR, for daring to speak his mind and do so with those on the Right. There's a great deal of similarity between Williams and myself - we both do what we love, which is to write and to give our take on the great issues of our time. To be sure, he's been at it a lot longer than myself, and he gets paid for what he does to boot - something I don't mind, because I never set out to do this blogging thing to make money (although that just might change, if my guess is right...). But perhaps the biggest thing we both have in common, is that we're both Black Men.

But not only are we both Black Men, we're supposed to fit into some kind of pre-defined box - we all know the drill by now. Black Men aren't supposed to think for themselves. They're supposed to be for Leftist causes and issues, come Hell or Highwater - and if we don't, if we question them, on any level whatsoever, then we're "Juan Williams'd" - meaning, thrown under the bus, tossed overboard, kicked to the curb. You get the idea.

Williams has said, in the days following his firing by NPR, that a lot of his assumptions came tumbling down - he was a Liberal because he thought that Liberals were tolerant, open minded folk. He found out the hard way - and I'm quoting him now - that this assumption simply wasn't true, and that if anything, it was those on the Right, who had proven to him far and away more tolerant. he ought to know - after all, he sat among the Rightest of the Right, for years. And they weren't the ones who cast him out, like a leper. It was NPR - bastion of Leftwing points of view.

The parallel for me could not have been more striking - for it wasn't rabid, raving, foaming at the mouth White racists in the form of "HBDers", storming the Wordpress gates and clamoring for my head on a platter - it was my own "people", in the form of Black Women, who did it. The very same Black Women, I would bet a dollar to a donut, who consider themselves progressive, open minded tolerant and "Liberal". The same Black Women who have pulled the level for the "D" column in virtually every election since they could vote. The same Black Women who claim to be for the rights of the minority - except "minorities" they don't like. Like Brothas who speak their minds for example, about issues that actually matter. What are those issues, Obsidian? Sexual Politics, that's what.

Earlier this year, during my tenure at the online Men's magazine The Spearhead, I ran into a buzzsaw of contention for merely pointing out some things about my White brothers than they didn't like. a veritable shitstorm was started, much gnashing of teeth, this, that...but I wasn't banned or "fired" from The Spearhead; and no one called for my blog to be taken down. Those who have known me for any length of time know that I've had epic battles with many on the HBD side of the ledger - again, no one called for my voice to be shutdown. True, I've been more or less banned from participating at certain blogs; but that's a far cry different from wanting to shut another person's blog down.

That only happened when Women, in this case they happened to be Black, did so.

And, let's be clear as to what kind of Black Women I'm talking about, lest I be accused of being a "misogynist" much in the way Williams was accused of being an "Islamophobe" - I'm not talking about the everyday Sista out there just trying to get by and live her life. I'm talking about Sistas who have chosen to enter into the public square of opinion and debate and attempt to foist their views onto the rest of us, without challenge or critique - then, when such a thing happens, which is inevitable, they want to suddenly revert from "strong, independent Women" to Damsels in Distress, pilloring you with all manner of Ad Hominem assualts in the process. In other words, these Sistas - and again I'm talking about bloggers and writers who have chosen to make it their life's work to be advocates for certain points of view, and in some cases GET PAID FOR IT - want to have it both ways. They want to go into the public square, get up on the soapbox and say what they want, without challenge of any kind. And when they are challenged, when their views are shown to be proven false, when they're exposed as the phonies and frauds that they are, they then want to shut you down, after attempting to paint you as a "misogynist" or a "racist" or a "stalker" or whatever else they can think of. Personally, it's Black Women like these, that are doing grave harm to Black America, and I say that without any hint of hyperbole; this is not purple prose I'm going into here.

For Wordpress' part, they are no better than NPR in my view, hang on, actually, they are worse - at least Juan Williams got a late night phonecall. I didn't even get an email from WP. I was informed by others than my blog was gone. Ask me what I think of Wordpress' commitment to freedom of speech.

Being born under the Sign of the Archer, every minute of every day is a "teachable moment" and had been reflecting on aspects of daily life long before that phrase became fashionable. Unlike so many others have been indoctrinated to do, my approach is to look at the world around me, and ask "wassup wit dat" and look for answers to explain it - not, instead, come to the table with preconceived notions already in my head, and try to make what I see fit those "facts". I've found personally, that such an approach, if nothing else, simply doesn't work. And it's served me well.

Which is more a pressing concern for our body politic - racism, or feminism? For me, the answer couldn't be cleearer. After all, it wasn't hooded Klansmen, or HBDers, or Tea Partiers, or the Rotorary Club armed to the teeth with The Bell Curve, who stormed the Wordpress gates. It was those who consider themselves "progressive" and who all have vaginas, who did it. And they also just so happen to be Black.

I am hoping that this incident will be the one that will finally unite the much-beleagured "Men's Movement"; fellas, we have much bigger fish to fry here. And if we let differences in skintone continue to divide us, then it will be as I've said in one of my final Wordpress blog posts the other day, about why Black Men vote the way they do, with so very little to show for it - we will have brought it on ourselves, and will have no one to blame, but ourselves.

You have an ally in me, brothers. It's up to you, if you want to take a Black hand in friendship.

Many of you claim to be at least moderately to the Right. If that's true, then follow Fox News' example, not just over the past few weeks, but the past decade, because that's how long Juan Williams has been there. If you're truly serious about moving the ball forward, join with Brothas like me who are finding their voice and telling it like it TIZ. it isn't my skintone or my supposed "genetic inheritance" that's your problem. Your problem comes from a much more pernicious source, and you all know it. And we will never mount an effective counterstrike, if we remain divided. Do not get this twisted, gentlemen - if it can happen to me, it can happen to you.

Lastly, as we all know, it was a happy ending for Juan Williams - his firing by NPR led in truth, not only to a serious pay raise, but a full-on platform to air his views, uncensored and uncut. I think the same will be true for me - I think I'm on the cusp of something great. Because when people mobilize to have your voice shutdown, that means that not only have you struck a raw nerve, but that there's a there, there - and you need to cultivate that.

I want to thank all the well-wishers for coming out in support of me, online and especially off, and for all their help in assisting me in restoring key back postings of mine. I expect to have everything back up and running within a week or two. And when I do, it's no more Mr. Nice Guy. Now, it's ON.

Lemme tell you what I really think...

More to come - count on it

Now adjourn your asses...

The Obsidian

obsidianraw.bravenet.com

[jeffolie]

Adding the $600B for 8 months to the existing FED programs for regularly buying Treasuries results in the FED buying enough Treasuries on a monthly basis to fund the federal budget deficit for 2011.

New taxes with the now established GRIDLOCK are unlikely to fund the deficit, the FED monetizes it.

[Lyle]

Your comment re spousal support is not true at least in the community property states. IN NM (due to a family experience) unless you are married 30 years there is no spousal support allowed, just child support. Now in the states with english style laws it may be different. Just checked Texas law and the max term is 3 years unless the other spouse is disabled. In other words sickness and health is the rule for long term spousal support in Texas.

[Joris]

Lyle,

That is not correct.

In California, alimony does exist, and if the marriage was more than 10 years, the man has to pay for a lifetime. That is right, an 11-year marriage leads to a lifetime of alimony.

Sirana,

Add me to the list calling you a mangina (a self-hating man), and that describing you as a 'Jewish Nazi' is accurate.

[Lyle]

So it differs by state. I cited Texas and NM so there are differences. The Texas law is just, if the spouse is disabled, its either the other spouse or the state who supports the person. (Note that it could be the wife who has to support in this case)
It would be interesting to get a state by state listing.

[jeffolie]

Palin leading 'hate and loathing' the FED

I have been predicting for more than a month now that average Americans will hate and loath the FED for SCREWFLATION (screwflation is the rapid price rises in basics that more impact middle and lower classes such as energy, food, college tuition, health insurance premiums) and blame the government for no growth in 2011 & 2012. In 2008 I predicted, Obama will not be reelected 2012.

"... No matter, she is now out in front of yet another issue as there is about to convene a new Congress of the United States in which she has a brace of allies indebted to her for her help in getting elected. Mr. Bernanke seems to have blithely ignored his other critics, but it will be more dangerous to ignore the Mamma Grizzly..."

============================================================

Palin v. Bernanke

Her Warning To the Fed Chairman Puts Her Out in Front on the Debate on the Dollar

The New York Sun | November 8, 2010

One of the questions in respect of 2012 is how it has happened that the only major Republican figure, aside from Congressman Ron Paul, to stand up and be counted on the dollar is Sarah Palin. She is supposed to be an ex-beauty queen without a lot of sophistication. Yet she is reportedly scheduled to be in Phoenix today delivering a major address challenging the plan of the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, to inflate the dollar. Snippets of her text were put up Sunday on the National Review Online and began immediately rocketing around the globe, no doubt in part because of the Palinesque phrasing, in which she called on Mr. Bernanke to “cease and desist.”

Now we don’t mind saying that the Sun has been looking forward to the Alaskan breaking out on this issue. In October 2009, we issued an editorial called “Palin and Paul.” We noted that those waiting for a politician to pick up on the monetary issue were perking up to a posting on Mrs. Palin’s Facebook page. In it she had noted that the Gulf oil states were reported to be negotiating with Russia about abandoning the dollar as a unit of pricing, observed that an official of the United Nations had called for a new world reserve currency, and, most importantly, warned that the value of the dollar was collapsing in terms of gold. Her posting, we wrote, suggested that she was ahead of the rest of the undeclared contenders for 2012.

At the time, the value of a dollar had slid to just less than a 1,000th of an ounce of gold. Today it has plunged to barely better than a 1,400th of an ounce of gold. In other words, in the year since Mrs. Palin took up this issue, the Bernanke Dollar — or the Obama Dollar, or the Pelosi, as we’ve sometimes called it — has lost a third of its value. The chairman of the Federal Reserve is now on an announced plan to try to inflate it further. So far the Congress that has oversight of the Federal Reserve has been largely mute, though there have been some notable exceptions (Congressman Paul Ryan, for example, and Dr. Ron Paul, of course; among the big newspapers, only the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal has been in front of this issue).

We were struck, reading the Robert Costa’s National Review advance on Mrs. Palin’s speech, with the reach of her warning. She attacked QE2, as the second quantitative easing of monetary policy is called, head on. “The Fed hopes doing this may buy us a little temporary economic growth by supplying banks with extra cash which they could then lend out to businesses. But it’s far from certain this will even work. After all, the problem isn’t that banks don’t have enough cash on hand – it’s that they don’t want to lend it out, because they don’t trust the current economic climate. And if it doesn’t work, what do we do then? Print even more money? What’s the end game here?”

Mrs. Palin is looking over the horizon: “Do we have any guarantees that QE2 won’t be followed by QE3, 4, and 5, until eventually — inevitably — no one will want to buy our debt anymore? What happens if the Fed becomes not just the buyer of last resort, but the buyer of only resort?” She comprehends how it is going to get to the voters she’ll be courting. “[E]veryone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar — a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market — is pushing oil prices upwards. That’s like an extra tax on earnings.”

The worst part of it, in Mrs. Palin’s warning, is that “because the Obama White House refuses to open up our offshore and onshore oil reserves for exploration, most of that money will go directly to foreign regimes who don’t have America’s best interests at heart.” In other words, she is reasoning out a coherent economic and geopolitical argument that she and her party — Tea, if not the mainstream GOP — can take to the voters. She is moving effortlessly from her Facebook page, which has more than 2.3 million friends, to our intellectual journals. So as we asked at the outset of this editorial, how has it happened that she is the first to brand this issue?

Was it her time running a state whose economy is tied to oil, which often tracks gold? Is it that she can see Russia from her door? Is she just smarter than the other candidates? Is it her savvy, and her husband’s, at running a fishing business? Is it her journalistic instinct? Or does she read more papers than Katie Couric? No matter, she is now out in front of yet another issue as there is about to convene a new Congress of the United States in which she has a brace of allies indebted to her for her help in getting elected. Mr. Bernanke seems to have blithely ignored his other critics, but it will be more dangerous to ignore the Mamma Grizzly.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/palin-v-bernanke/87128/

Read more: http://unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=financial&action=display&thread=8002#ixzz14ij36Fcl

[Stephen J.]

Without disagreeing with much of what you say -- particularly the accumulative distortive effect of the financial inequities built into divorce and alimony law -- I'm not sure that it's "pedestalization" of women to point out that for all the hundreds who write swooning love letters to serial killers, there are tens of thousands who don't. Similarly, I don't think it's "appeasing" women to seek cooperative equality wherever possible, and to observe that for all the appeal a strong, decisive, commanding male figure exercises, women -- like men -- quickly grow to resent feeling powerless, or like they "owe" lifelong deference to those who provide for them. Gratitude is the most quickly exhausted of all forms of goodwill; a social structure that demands it has its own critical weakness built in.

Similarly, while the proportion of women who exploit divorce laws for their own selfishness is sizeable, I am unsure what measures could be put in place to prevent that which would not unfairly punish the smaller, but still significant, proportion of women who *need* those laws to escape abusive husbands, especially bringing their children with them.

What might be needed is, unfortunately, a commitment to a level of *personal* chivalry, for its own sake (because it will not pay off in direct personal reward for all its practitioners, and possibly not even the majority of them in this generation) that we may no longer have the cohesion or conviction to implement. If laws designed to protect women are being abused to exploit men, it is up to men to make those laws unnecessary, by keeping our pants zipped, our hands open, our manners courteous, and our decisions considerate and, wherever possible, cooperative; and if we insist on the authority to put a foot down, we must be willing to subject ourselves to the responsibility of putting it down neither frivolously, nor selfishly, nor abusively, and to the just consequences of violating that obligation.

[The Futurist]

Stephen J,

I'm not sure that it's "pedestalization" of women to point out that for all the hundreds who write swooning love letters to serial killers, there are tens of thousands who don't.

Sure, but read the linked article. There is no comparable volume of predictable male admiration for female criminals. There are also no love letters from women to male Nobel Laureates.

I don't think it's "appeasing" women to seek cooperative equality wherever possible

Also true, but there are so many areas where men are suffering from unequal treatment. 80% of suicides are of men, for example, as are 93% of workplace deaths.

would not unfairly punish the smaller, but still significant, proportion of women who *need* those laws to escape abusive husbands,

What about men who are being abused, which is equally often?

While no system can be perfect, removing the state entirely would be a good start. The way divorce was handled pre-1969, ultimately prevented more problems than it created. Countries with divorce laws similar to pre-1969 America (the nations of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia) have greater social stability for the average person, and most children growing up with two parents (unlike the US).

I think you should read The Misandry Bubble in detail, if you have not already.

If laws designed to protect women are being abused to exploit men, it is up to men to make those laws unnecessary,

Yes............

by keeping our pants zipped, our hands open, our manners courteous, and our decisions considerate and, wherever possible, cooperative

NO. You continue to have no willingness to hold women accountable for the very wrongdoings that you would never excuse a man of. This IS pedestalization.

Why do you think the pick-up artist field of study is booming? Those men are adapting to what WOMEN have become.

[Stephen J.]

"You continue to have no willingness to hold women accountable for the very wrongdoings that you would never excuse a man of. This IS pedestalization."

I have every willingness to hold individual women responsible for individual acts of wrongdoing, either morally if I know them personally, or legally if they've committed a crime and that can be proven. But I am far less willing to punish women in general by returning divorce laws to something men can too easily exploit for their benefit, either. I don't think reluctance to make most ordinary decent women suffer for the selfish venality of a few of them is "pedestalization".

Bear also in mind that the wrongdoings of men tend to be different from the wrongdoings of women. Women exploit men financially; men abuse women physically. I also don't think it's pedestalization to observe that the laws to address and prevent one type of abuse will not necessarily be exact analogues for what's appropriate to address and prevent the other type.

Most of all, though, my point is that it does not matter how you structure the laws; there is no law that cannot be unjustly exploited by someone clever and selfish enough. What is needed is a personal, moral and cultural reformation in our behaviour and attitudes, and that reformation cannot be enforced by law or demanded of either sex alone without concessions from the other. We must not pedestalize either sex, but we cannot enter such a process already convinced they are nothing but enemies, either, or treating them that way.

(For what it's worth, I have read "Misandry Bubble" and found much of its content telling and worthwhile. I do think, however, that we are not nearly as endangered a culture as it suggests, largely because it seems to me to be a victim of what might be called The Policeman's Fallacy -- when everyone you deal with is either cops or crooks, you start to see everyone who isn't a cop as a crook. More men and women are decent sorts who treat each other fairly than you give the impression of believing, I have to say.)

[The Futurist]

Stephen J,

I don't think reluctance to make most ordinary decent women suffer for the selfish venality of a few of them is "pedestalization".

70-90% of divorces are filed by women. The suicide rate of men undergoing divorce is as high as 20%.

The fact that you don't seem to have a problem with HIM having to pay HER for years after divorce, even if HE didn't want a divorce, is revealing. If the exact same situation occurred but with the genders reversed, you would still side with the woman. That, sir, is pedestalization.

This is not an attack, as a few years ago, I might have held a similar opinion. The point is, not many people even *notice* the double standard against men, which again, is visible when you reverse the genders in a typical situation.

Women exploit men financially; men abuse women physically.

40% of all physical abuse is by women against men. You probably were not aware of that. In fact, female violence against men is often shown as humorous in the media.

In Tiger Woods' case, his wife assaulted him with a golf club, knocking out a couple teeth. If the genders were reversed (her having multiple affairs, and he assaulting her), he would be in prison. So the only constant is that the man loses.

that we are not nearly as endangered a culture as it suggests

When 41% of all babies are born out of wedlock, and a fair portion of the remaining 59% will see their parents divorce during their childhood, that does portend to a society a couple of decades away from grave peril.

I would encourage you to go to The Spearhead, and make the same points. There are many brilliant and articulate commenters there, both male and female. You might gain perspectives that you previously had not considered.

Also read the Stephen Baskerville article linked.

[Zyndryl]

When 41% of all babies are born out of wedlock, and a fair portion of the remaining 59% will see their parents divorce during their childhood, that does portend to a society a couple of decades away from grave peril.

And what is the cuckolding rate? I can't seem to find any good stats on that.

[The Futurist]

Zyndryl,

There is no way to measure it, but the general consensus in the Men's Rights community is about 10%.

Feminists are actually trying to ban paternity testing, with the ludicrous rationale that 'the mother should have unilateral authority to decide which father would be best'.

[jeffolie]

1. Globalization
2. Family structure

These are long term and horrible trends undermining morals and lowering quality of life. Men lost good paying jobs so women reacted by becoming independent of men and shunning marriage leaving children in moral destitution. It began in the 1970s and accelerated by 2000 leaving Japan & Europe with low birthrates and marriage rates while America has rapidly joined this trend in the last 3 years resulting in America's overall 41% unwed mothers as of 2009.

============================================================================

jeffolie predicts...Big trouble by the end of Nov 2011

America: By the end of Nov 2011 governments will hit the political and economic backlash from austerity. American State & Local governments will have massive layoff and very little federal bailout help. Screwflation will raise the prices of middle and lower class expenses such as college tuition health insurance premiums, food and energy.

Europe: By the end of Nov 2011 governments will hit the political and economic backlash from austerity. A European version of 'the politics of the backlash' unseats some European government leaders and legislators just as American Democrats were unseated here. The Euro will have significant problems by the end of Nov 2011.

China: By the end of Nov 2011 inflation from commodities (oil, copper, iron, food) imported will squeeze profit margins while cheaper labor in India & other Asian manufacturing exporting countries will hurt.

[jeffolie]

Veterans Day: Thank you for your service.

I am a veteran:

US Army 1970 -1972, Vietnam war

[jeffolie]

I continue to predict President Sarah and Obama will be unseated.

===============================================================

Sarah like Ron Paul attacks 'corporatists', Goldman, FED...

Sarah may yet gain some foundation and a platform to separate Sarah from Romney, et al. if she continues with attacks on 'too big to fail banks', the FED, Goldman, Geithner...

"...In her ... “Going Rogue,” ...also attacked “corporatism” in which government and business conspire against entrepreneurs and consumers...perpetuate bank bailouts...on Facebook:..lobbyists work the regulations in their favor, while their smaller competitors are left out in the cold....institutionalize the “too big to fail”...Goldman Sachs on many an Obama administration résumé, including Rahm Emanuel’s and Tim Geithner’s chiefs of staff. We need to be on our guard against such crony capitalism...Palinomics...“free-market populism,” a version of conservative thinking that is pro-market rather than pro-business..."

============================================================

Why Wall Street should fear Sarah Palin

Nov 12, 2010

The only people in Manhattan who are probably eager for a Sarah Palin presidential run are the supposed comedy writers at “Saturday Night Live.” Wall Street bankers, on the other hand, not so much. Big Money has been snarkily dismissive of Palin’s recent opining on monetary policy, the dollar and the dangers of inflation. But guess what? A “free-market populist” campaign in 2012 would likely further highlight that Palin’s not too big a fan of them, either. And her economic musings are yet another sign she’s running

In a speech and a pair of Facebook postings this week, Palin unexpectedly warned her followers about the inflationary dangers of the Federal Reserve’s “pump-priming addiction” — a reference to the latest round of bond-buying by the U.S. central bank, known as quantitative easing. That’s hardly a novel or unreasonable critique. Many conservatives, and even some Fed officials, share Palin’s unease.

It’s the politics and timing rather than the substance that is raising eyebrows. Avid Palin-watchers see her move into economic commentary as further evidence of a run for the White House. Indeed, the campaign team for putative Republican frontrunner and former banker Mitt Romney is assuming she will be in the race. And her upcoming, much-hyped reality television show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” will no doubt play like an extended campaign commercial. And polls certainly hint she would be right in the thick of the fight with Romney and Mike Huckabee, if he runs (via CNN):

In Iowa, it appears Mike Huckabee’s still got a base: the former Arkansas governor is tied with Mitt Romney at 21 percent, with Sarah Palin close behind at 18 percent, and Gingrich nabbing single-digit support. In New Hampshire, former Massachusetts governor Romney displays his home court advantage: he draws more support, at 39 percent, than the rest of his top rivals combined. Palin once again nabs 18 percent. And in the key early-voting state of South Carolina – where Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney both endorsed Gov.-elect Nikki Haley in the GOP primary this year – Palin, Huckabee and Romney are again neck-and-neck.

If Palin does get in the game, her views leave her — not for the first time — well positioned to exploit the zeitgeist. Voters right now seem dubious of Big Anything, be it Government, Business or Money. In her 2009 book, “Going Rogue,” Palin offered a remix of 1980s-style Reaganomics — low taxes, less government spending, strong dollar. That’s all perfectly sync with her recent Fed-bashing. But she also attacked “corporatism” in which government and business conspire against entrepreneurs and consumers. This view fuels Palin’s critique of Obama’s financial reform plan, which she portrays as a creation of Wall Street designed to perpetuate bank bailouts. As she wrote on Facebook:

Of course, the big players who can afford lobbyists work the regulations in their favor, while their smaller competitors are left out in the cold. The result here are regulations that institutionalize the “too big to fail” mentality. … The president is trying to convince us that he’s taking on the Wall Street “fat cats,” but firms like Goldman Sachs are happy with federal regulation because, as one of their lobbyists recently stated, “We partner with regulators.” … You’ll find the name Goldman Sachs on many an Obama administration résumé, including Rahm Emanuel’s and Tim Geithner’s chiefs of staff. We need to be on our guard against such crony capitalism.

Palinomics, embryonic as it is, seems to be rooted in “free-market populism,” a version of conservative thinking that is pro-market rather than pro-business. It says the role of government is to help markets function more fairly and efficiently for everyone, encouraging competition and “creative destruction” (which Palin specifically mentioned in her book). Pro-business policies, by contrast, can end up subsidizing favored companies, raising barriers to entry and otherwise entrenching the status quo.

Palin is also familiar with one of the champions of free-market populism, the University of Chicago’s Luigi Zingales, linking to his writings from her Facebook page. It’s easy to imagine her campaigning against corporate tax breaks, say, or in favor of limiting the size of banks under the belief that as long as they are ginormous, government will find a way to bail them out. That agenda might not attract much campaign cash from Manhattan bankers or Washington lobbyists, but it could be a compelling formula in the new Tea Party-infused Republican party. Then again, bankers who care about cutting government spending and keeping taxes low might want to take a second look.

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokouk....ar-sarah-palin/

[Paul]

The Futurist,

You neglect to mention that Tiger's ex got 750 million as well, under the condition that she never reveal anything to anyone about Tiger.

Her settlement breaks down to about 14k/hr of marriage.

[Savethemales]

The Futurist, you have another great article. Ive been learning alot about the evils of feminism and misandry and ive come to the conclusion that it will be technology(VR and robogirls) that will "save the males" and end feminism. As long as most men can't stay away from women, they will get used by women for their money. The transfer of wealth from men to women is what feeds feminism. Only once technology offers men better alternatives, will most men abandon women and feminism will starve to death. I am working on my blog and will link it here once im done.

Paul, Tiger Woods was worth $600m, maybe up to $1b and he lost $100m, not $750m as rumors say. He had an old prenup that protected him to some extent and he had the money for the best lawyers. Still, his ex-wife didn't deserve $100m, unless she somehow helped Woods become more famous and earn more by being married.

[The Futurist]

Savethemales,

I do not think that waiting several years for far-from-certain technological substitutes for women, and using that as an excuse to avoid them in real life today, is a sound strategy. In fact, that is letting feminists win.

VR Sex is a small ingredient of a multi-dimensional solution, but will never be a core of the solution.

You have repeated the same thing enough times over here. No more.

[jeffolie]

41% overall unwed mother
40% marriage obsolete

The 'American Family Gone Viral' dominates where women act to form temporary relationships, reproduce, move on...just like viruses.

Children rarely reach 18 with their biological father as their mother's legal husband and often a grandmother performs as the primary caretaker.

The motivation to buy a home is declining while supply of 'for sale' houses increases. Prices will continue to decline. The primary motivation and DEMAND for homes general comes from 'family formations' which are collapsing into a 100 year low in America and Europe.

=======================================================

Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete
Nov 18 WASHINGTON – Is marriage becoming obsolete?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101118/ap_on_re_us/us_declining_marriage

"...42 percent of all black women and 70 percent of professional black women are unmarried. "If you can't get a husband, who am I to tell you no, you can't be a mom?" she asks. "A lot of women resent the idea that you're telling me my chances of being married are like 1 in 2, it's a crapshoot right now, ... I can have a family of my own...whether a guy asks me to marry him or not."

==============================================================

Nov 6 Blacks struggle with 72 percent unwed mothers rate

Seventy-two percent of black babies are born to unmarried mothers today...The girls don't think they have to get married. ...Children of unmarried mothers of any race are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock.

...17 percent of Asians,....29 percent of whites,... 53 percent of Hispanics ..66 percent of Native Americans ...overall U.S. population was 41 percent...in 1965...a 24 percent black "illegitimacy" rate. The white rate then was 4 percent.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNWED_BIRTHS_72_PERCENT?SITE=OHTOL&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

==================================================

The motivation to buy a home is declining while supply of 'for sale' houses increases. Prices will continue to decline.

Motivation:

The primary motivation and DEMAND for homes general comes from 'family formations' which are collapsing into a 100 year low in America and Europe. Mexicans are leaving America because of high joblessness and not starting new families in America or even abandoning existing families in America; thus, the decline of over one million Mexicans back to Mexico reduced housing DEMAND.

Americans are not marrying. In record numbers, Americans between 24 and 35 are single and NEVER MARRIED. Even more in this age group are 'never married' than those that are married for a new record of 'never married'. DEMAND for new houses is reduced and unlikely to increase from new family formations in this age group. New college graduates fit in this age group and are burdened by HIGH COLLEGE DEBT. So even college graduates that start new families often can not qualify for large mortgages or not qualify for any mortgage at all.

[The Futurist]

I see that Sirana vanished after 'he' was slammed for his needy girlie-man posturing.

Sirana is an example of the 'third gender' that is forming in the West. This 'third gender' has decided to be subservient to women in the hopes of earning a pat on the head and nothing more. Their chromosomes might still be XY, but they retain no remnants of resemblance to their masculine ancestors.

[jeffolie]

One of my adult daughters took my advice and laid down an ultimatium:

Make a marriage proposal and diamond ring by New Years or the relationship is ended.

"Man up or out."

[The Futurist]

jeffolie,

While I hope it works out for your daughter...

...in general, a man should never cave in to such an ultimatum. If he does, the woman will cease to be attracted to him, as he will appear to be someone she can dominate. If the man caves, the marriage is already starting out on shaky ground.. The very act of caving makes a man irrevocably unattractive to the woman, so everybody loses.

If you have a son who is ever given such an ultimatum, tell him to NEVER give in to it.

[Stephen J.]

"70-90% of divorces are filed by women. The suicide rate of men undergoing divorce is as high as 20%."

Those are troubling statistics, but I've seen carefully spun statistics used by feminist groups often enough that I don't trust any numbers any more without knowing how they were calculated. How do the divorce stats change if repeat divorcers are taken out of the data (which is the big caveat behind the famous but misleading 50% divorce rate stat)? How do they change if the legitimately-motivated divorces (e.g. for proven abuse or infidelity) are removed? How many of those divorces are amicable and uncontested, and merely filed by the woman because the man didn't care to bother with the paperwork? And you say the suicide rate is "as high as" 20%; what does that mean? Is it 20% or isn't it, and if it is, over what regional and temporal distribution of sample set? And so on.

I don't ask these questions to say "you're wrong" but to point out that if your argument appears to be cherry-picking its data, fewer people will be willing to accept the thesis. Misleadingly spun statistics from feminist groups are half the reason for the inequities you rightly point out; we should be careful to avoid falling victim to the same weakness.

[JoeMarie]

Women belong at home with children. PERIOD.
MEN NEED TO PAY FOR THE COSEQUECNCES OF WANTING SEX ALL THE TIME. IT IS DISGUSTING..I SAY NO NO NO..

IT IS A MAN'S JOB TO MOW THE LAWN AND PROVIDE A PAYCHECK.
AND WOMEN WHO GIVE IN TO SEX GET WHAT THEY DESERVE

MY FATHER HAD A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS AND I WENT TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL AND THEN HE DECIDED TO HAVE AN AFFAIR WITH A MARRIED WOMEN. MY FATHER REFUSED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT AND I WENT TO WORK AT THE AGE OF 13 I HAD TO GET A PAPER ROUTE AND WAS PULLED OUT OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. THE MOTHER SUPERIOR HAD SPOKE TO MY FATHER ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS FOR ASKING OUT ONE OF THE NUNS AND SENDING HER FLOWERS.

MY FATHER HAS 5 CHILDREN FROM 5 OTHER WOMEN..
HIS UNCLE HAD 5 WIVES AND AT MY UNCLES FUNERAL I MET ALL 35 OF HIS CHILDREN HE DID NOT PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR ANY OF THEM

MY FATHER HAS REPEATEDLY SAID I STOPPED WORKING SO I WOULD NOT HAVE TO GIVE YOUR MOTHER A DIME..

I KNOW THE NAME OF HIS GIRFRIEND BECAUSE FOR 3 YEARS WHILE MY FATHER HAD THE BEGINNING OF THE AFFAIR HE MADE ME LIE TO MY MOTHER ABOUT HER..
I WORKED AND SENT MYSELF TO COLLEGE AND I WANT NO FAULT DIVORCE ELLIMINATED AND FEEL THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SHOULD STOP ENCOURAGING MEN IN HAVING DISGUSTING SEX WITH WHOEVER THEY WANT

AND I ALSO WANT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO REINSTATE THE ABILITY FOR A WOMAN TO LITIGATE AGAINST A HOME WRECKER.

MY MOTHER GOT NOTHING AND I LIVED IN POVERTY WHILE MY FATHER LIVED HIGH OFF THE HOG AS HE PUT ALL OF HIS ASSETS IN THE MARRIED WOMENS NAME. I CAN REMEMBER GOING TO BED HUNGRY AT NIGHT

I CAN REMEBER NOT HAVING ANY MONEY FOR LUNCH

I PRAISE THE ARTICLE WRITER FOR SEEING THAT THESE BAD WOMEN NEED TO BE PUNISHED..SEX IS ONLY FOR HAVING CHILDREN AND WE CAN TRUST THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL HELP TRU CONSERVATIVES BRING IN THE NEW AREA OF CLEAN LIVING

AS ANN COLTER BOOK SAYS WOMEN NEED TO STOP ACTING LIKE WHORES AND NEVER SAY YES TO A MEN
AND CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU THINK WOMEN DO NOT LIKE SEX AND DO IT BECAUSE THE MEN WANT IT...IF YOU MAKE A BABY IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY FOR IT NOT THE GOVERNMENTS

I AM HAPPY TO SAY I AM MARRIED AND MY HUSBAND IS NOT A PIG WHO WANTS SEX..HE IS A GENTLEMAN AND UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS IS AN UNGODLY WAY TO BE.

SO I AM VERY GLAD THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS GOING TO FOCUS MORE ON MORALS AND AWAY FOR FORNIFICATION.

THE BEST DEFENSE A WOMAN HAS IS LONG FLANNEL NIGHTGOWNS AND SWEAT PANTS

DO NOT BE AFRRAID TO SAY NO HAVING SEX ALL THE TIME IS AGAINST GOD AND IT IS WHY ALL OF THESE MEN AND WOMEN ARE BROKE GOD IS PUNISHING THEM BECAUSE SEX IS ONLY FOR PROCREATION...

SEX IS NOT A RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY..I ALSO THINK PORN SHOULD BE OUTLAWED AND THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO VIEW THIS FILFTH SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE MENTAL EVALUATIONS IT IS ALSO AGAINST GOD

IT IS WONDERFUL TO HAVE CHRISTIANS RUNNING THE COUNTRY AGAIN.
THE PERVERTS OF THIS COUNTRY WILL BE OUNISHED AS IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE

[JoeMarie]

I read many of these posts and one activity would stop many of these problems. AS WOMEN DO NOT GIVE INTO SEX EVEN AFTER MARRIAGE UNLESS THE MAN WANTS TO HAVE A CHILD.

SEX IS FOR NO OTHER PUROPSE. PEOPLE WHO THINK ABOUT SEX ALL THE TIME NEED TO WORK MORE. IF YOU KEEP YOUR MID BUSY YOU DO NOT THINK OF UNGODLY AWFUL THINGS.

BEST ADVICE FOR THE FATHER WHO HAS THE DAUGHTER WHO WANTS MARRIAGE..TELL HER SHE NEEDS TO STOP HAVING SEX WITH THE MAN.

IT IS VERY EASY TO JUSTIFY THIS BECAUSE ABORTION IS AGAINST GOD
MEN WHO ARE AGAINST ABORTION IF THEY TRULY ARE THEY UNDERSTAND THE AWFUL THING THEY ARE DOING WHEN HAVING SEX AND NOT DOING THIS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A REAL MARRIAGE.

NO MARRIAGE NO SEX...SHE WILL SURELY BE BLESSED WITH A RING BECAUSE GOD ALWAYS HELPS THOSE WHO MAKES THE RIGHT DECSIONS.

SHE NEEDS TO SAY NO AND SHE WILL GET HER RING.

I NEVER GAVE INTO MY HUSBAND. I WOULD NOT TOUCH HIM AND KEPT GIVING HIM PICTURES AND PAMPLETS ABOUT ABORTION WHENEVR HE BROUGHT UP THE TOPIC OF SEX..SO HE WOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WOULD BE RESPONSIBILE FOR. IT HELPED HIM FIGHT HIS URGES WHEN WE DATED BEFORE MARRIAGE..NOW HE VERY RARELY ASKS FOR SEX AND THIS MEANS HIS MIND IS CLEAN AND CHRISTIAN

I THINK WHEN MEN UNDERSTAND THEY COULD BECOME A MURDER BY HAVING THE UNCLEAN THOUGHT OF FONRIFICATION IT MAKES THEM PRAY AND SEE THE RIGHT WAY..

[Savethemalesfuturist]

Let me address your posts.

The Futurist,

1. I will have to disagree with you there. While you are all for game, I am all for going your way. The goal is to prevent women from legally stealing your money so they can feed feminism.

2. There's no ifs, only a when regarding technology and we have a good understanding on predictions. Computers will be a thousand times more powerful from 2010 to 2020 and a few million times more powerful from 2010 to 2030. This is the laws of accelerating returns and follows a double exponential.

3. I now have a blog: http://www.opendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=D847407 that explains the 5 sirens and horsemen and ill be adding more entries over time. Im sure youll disagree with some of my points, but then I disagree with some of your points. Every futurist has come to their own conclusions and have their own ideas. As for repeating, it's a habit of mine but you are right, I don't need to keep repeating when I have all my points in my blog.

4. The third gender you refer to, I call manginas. They aren't men but women with a penis.

jeffolie,

While demand for large houses will drop big time, small houses and condos will increase in demand as more and more people live single and alone. Also why did you tell your adult daughter to try and trap him into marriage? That is not fair for her boyfriend who almost certainly will face financial ruin and loss of freedom down the road. If any woman made a such demand, id tell her "don't let the door hit you on the way out" and let her dump me. She doesn't love me, just wants to use me. If it was love, she would not care about marriage which is a money train for her.

Stephen J., The divorce rate in some states is close to 75%. I explain in my blog how women trap men into marriage to use him then dump him when she's done and she continues to be rewarded long after the divorce. Every man should know to never marry. The marriage rate is dropping every year so the marriage strike is working.

JoeMarie, Women sell sex and men buy sex. You can blame feminism for the sexual liberation as well as all the false rapes and high divorces. I have no interest in sex and this has kept me out of trouble and been a huge advantage in my life.

[The Futurist]

Stephen J,

Statistics that are more solid are highly desirable, yes.

But I think putting the range of female-initiated divorce at 70-90% covers all estimations, including those from feminists.

As far as other stats like the male suicide rate, false rape charges as a percentage of all rape charges, percentage of domestic violence by women, etc., many of those stats have linked sources in The Misandry Bubble.

Lastly, rock-solid stats do not deter feminists from repeating falsehoods. The best example is the 'pay gap' lie. A large percentage of women (not just declared feminists) believe that they are paid just 77% a man for the same output. This has not just been heavily, heavily debunked by real stats, including by other women, but does not even stand up to even the basic test of logic and econ 101 (again, see The Misandry Bubble). The notion that all bosses (both male and female) are so anti-female as to overpay a man for the same output, and forego profit for this, is absurd. If this were true, any non-sexist business could thrash its competition just by hiring women.

But yet that tired old lie is repeated again and again, simply because many (perhaps most) women find it more profitable to create a narrative of victimhood, knowing that not enough men will reject the falsehood even if they know it to be false. So solid stats will not cause many women to cease the profitable victim narrative.

[jeffolie]

Dark Chocolate Friday: I took advantage of RiteAid deals to pay about 60 cents per pound for M&M dark chocolates...got a lot...most will go into the freezers.

Dark Chocolate seems to be a cheap, effective, uplifting mood enhancing drug for my 4 adult women.

This supply may better be labelled...family guy's survival stash.
.

[Stephen J.]

"I think putting the range of female-initiated divorce at 70-90% covers all estimations, including those from feminists."

Probably, but what I think is worth knowing -- and what will be asked of anyone making this case -- is not all female-initiated divorces, but the numbers that validate the thesis.. I.e., divorces that fulfill all the following criteria:

1) Initiated by the woman.
2) Conducted under no-fault divorce laws, with any concomitant charges of abuse or infidelity either not made or dropped for lack of evidence (the primary indicators of frivolous charges).
3) Completed against the partner's will in the matter.
4) Incorporating alimony settlements that cause the partner significant financial and psychological stress.

These are the baseline criteria; you would also need to compensate for situations like repeat divorcers, "starter marriages", "shotgun weddings", arranged marriages (still common in many immigrant communities) and "green card" marriages.

It may well be that accounting for this still includes 45-50% (?) of all divorces, which is still unacceptably high. But the accuracy is indispensable. Bear in mind that if you can be shown "wrong" on any one figure, that is cause enough for many to ignore *all* the rest of the data. In the end, I think accuracy is more important than impact; the latter may gain more converts but the former will hold them longer.

[The Futurist]

Stephen J,

96% of all alimony is paid by men and just 4% by women (source linked in the Misandry Bubble). That 4% is useful in masking the overwhelming anti-male bias of the situation, by pulling up women as anecdotes.

Also, did you read the Stephen Baskerville article?

Even worse, courts favor mother-only custody rather than joint custody of children, as police departments receive matching grants from the Federal government in proportion to child-support wealth transfers under the Bradley Amendment ('child support' being another form of alimony, as the woman has no accountability on how she spends the money).

In order to facilitate the creation of more single mothers (who vote left), entire narratives of 'fathers being unnecessary' and 'deadbeat dads' are created, even though the situations are created by selfish mothers and revenue-seeking police departments and divorce lawyers.

I would urge you to go to The Spearhead and ask a lot of questions to commenters there. They have more direct experience with these laws.

[jeffolie]

Demand for homes will continue to decline as Family Formations decline.

The biggest problem is the lost of manufacturing jobs for men because of globalization, free traitors, etc. The West is doomed to be a dumping ground for 'cheap ass labor' manufactured products from India, China, etc. Family formations in the West are doomed without manufacturing jobs for men.

Austerity as practiced in the West means giving money to FIRE industries including banks plus immunity from prosecution while resulting in declining income for all but the top 20% of earners. Tax collections will always decline resulting in worse budget deficits and deficit spending building more debts and finally Central Bank (FED, IMF, etc) money printing, bond buying from banks, Quantitative Easing.

.

[jeffolie]

Wives out-earning husbands stresses marriage and causes some divorces making marriage less popular as 'The American Family Goes Viral'. Rarely does a child reach 18 with the child's biological father as the husband to the child's caregiver. Women mimic viruses in the way women move on to different men, reproduce, move on again.

Women do not want a 'broke ass man' as an extra emotional and financial burden so more women do not marry or divorce.

Why are men broke, no jobs for average men are available because manufacturing has gone to India, China and 'cheap ass labor' that started in the 1970's and accelerated under Clinton.

Education has failed men as twice as many women are graduating college as men creating even more 'women out-earing men' in the young adult, child bearing ages. Birthrates for modern, recent college graduates are dropping while unwed mothers and illegals mostly hispanic dominate the newborns.

Screwedup teenagers of unwed mothers and moved on remarried mothers compound America's problems.

=====================================================

The Power Mom Backlash

by Danielle Friedman

As more wives out-earn their husbands and outshine them at the office, many couples secretly struggle with reversed gender roles—sometimes leading to adultery or even health issues. Danielle Friedman on America’s new marriage crisis.

...Recent research is troubling: Husbands with kids at home are 61 percent less likely to report that they’re “very happy” in their marriages when they work fewer hours than their wives, according to the National Marriage Project. Men who are economically dependent on their female partners are significantly more likely to cheat. And soon-to-be published research out of Stanford University reveals that male unemployment increases the odds of divorce.

“We haven’t come to terms with the fact that we’re facing a whole new social moment, in which women are doing better than men are.”

Perhaps even more alarming, Kristen Springer, a sociologist at Rutgers University, has found that high-earning men in their fifties whose wives make more money than them suffer from more health problems. The reason, she believes? The “stress of expecting to be the breadwinner but not living up to this ideal.”

While few comparable studies exist on female breadwinners, marriage experts report that women, too, experience their share of angst when the stereotypical roles are reversed. Deep down, even many professionally driven women feel that opting out is a “birth right, or something they’re entitled to,” says Joshua Coleman, a psychologist in the San Francisco Bay Area and co-chairman of the Council on Contemporary Families. And they, too, cling to stereotypes about manliness.

...When men feel like a failure in this realm, they often become depressed and detached—and interestingly, participate less in housework and childcare. From here, wives who buy into gender stereotypes often lose respect for their husbands, setting them on the road to divorce.

Read more: http://unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=noneconomic&action=display&thread=8170#ixzz17Mc2KMeO

[Peck]

This is why women need to realize the anti-human nature of feminism. Even their own biological functions rebel against the social state of modern society, yet they continue with this.

Women have themselves to blame, as very few men that could make the attempt to change the status quo are going to be willing to. Why bother when you can have as many women as you want?

[ReaderLon]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337005/Childless-couples-win-right-pay-surrogate-mother.html

[ReaderLon]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703493504576007774155273928.html

[jeffolie]

I took my wife, Olie and two of my three adult daughters to Disney's Anaheim parks where they can hop between Disney's 2 theme parks early today: Disneyland and California Adventure.

Taking 3 of my 4 women to Disneyland keeps them happy which is great. I have been successful with this many times.

The Disney parks are open until midnight and the 60 degree temperature plus grey skies keeps down the lines.

do not go with them for many reasons:

1. the rides jolt my back and I get pain for weeks

2. my women are happy going without me

3. the peace and quiet is priceless

more...

[ReaderLon]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/12/16/132105724/predictions-for-2011-from-1931

The Futurist: How about 2091?

[ReaderLon]

Check chapter 8 at http://ilookforwardto.typepad.com/9%20Things%20to%20Look%20Forward%20to%20in%202030.pdf

[jeffolie]

Williams, Shadow Banking early stages starts mid 2011.

I agree the crisis will be "...massive selling of dollars..."

I disagree on the timing and continue to predict after the 2012 elections. Williams may be correct. I think the European crisis will take longer to play out and serve to support the Dollar longer than he does. It does not matter much to my family because we bought our modest hoard of our metals much lower in 2008 when silver was as low as below $10 and gold was as low as below $800.

"...Accordingly, high risk of the early stages of a hyperinflation beginning to unfold by mid-2011 continues...."

I predict rising Treasury rates will implode the financial world. Treasury rates will rise a lot when the Dollar crisis starts after the 2012 elections if not before then. Over $400 Trillion in Interest rate focused Derivatives will collapse as counterparties will not be able to pay.

=================================================================

John Williams Discusses The Reasons For The Upcoming Dollar Dump

Lately, anywhere we look, there seems to be a pattern emerging: those economic thinkers who actually construct and run their own macro models (not the glorified powerpoint presenter variety) and actually do independent analysis and tracing of the money flow, instead of relying on Wall Street forecasts that have as much credibility as a Moody's home price hockey stick from 2006, almost inevitably end up having a very dire outlook on the economy. One such person is and has pretty much always been Shadowstats' John Williams, whose "shadow" economic recreation puts the BLS data fudging dilettantes to shame. That said any reader of Zero Hedge who has been with us for more than a few weeks, knows all too well our eagerness to ridicule the increasingly more incoherent lies coming out of the US department of truth, so no surprise there. Yet another aspect over which there is much agreement is that no matter how one slices the data, the outcome for the US currency is a very grim one. Which is why Williams over the past several years has become a major fan of the shiny metal. Below we recreate portions of his latest observations on the upcoming currency collapse, courtesy of King World News.

John Williams today was dispatching information regarding gold, silver, M3, nearby massive selling of dollars and inflation. Here is a portion from his commentary, “Despite November 9th’s historic high gold price of $1,421.00 per troy ounce (London afternoon fix) and the multi-decade high silver price of $30.50 per troy ounce (London fix) on December 7th, gold and silver prices have yet to approach their historic high levels, adjusted for inflation.”

Real Money Supply M3: The signal of the still unfolding double-dip recession, based on annual contraction in the real (inflation-adjusted) broad money supply (M3), continues and is graphed (above). Based on today’s CPI-U report and the latest estimate on the November SGS-Ongoing M3 Estimate, that annual contraction in November 2010 was 4.0%, narrower than October’s 4.5% contraction, and May’s post-World War II record annual decline of 7.9%.

Incidentally, if there is one thing we disagree with John on is that the broadest aggregate (M3 for Williams, Shadow Banking for Zero Hedge) is declining. That said, an expansion in the most critical broad money signal is merely the missing piece of the puzzle that we believe John Williams needs in order to confirm his thesis of upcoming hyperstagflation through (or rather resulting in) currency collapse.

As to how this perceived volatility will impact asset classes, regulars will find nothing surprising in the following:

Currency values and precious metals prices can be volatile, but the long-term weakness in the U.S. dollar and relative purchasing-power-preservation attributes of gold and silver, and the stronger currencies outside the dollar, remain in place. As with systemic risks in the United States, risks in other areas of the world — such as among the countries using the euro — likely will be addressed by the spending or creation of whatever money is needed (indications of any needed U.S. backing are in place) in order to prevent systemic failure. Keep in mind that the U.S. remains the proverbial elephant in the bathtub in terms of pending effective sovereign bankruptcies.

The various European crises remain an intermittent foil for the U.S. dollar, pulling market attention away from the unfolding solvency crisis in the United States and a likely move to massive selling against the U.S. currency. Accordingly, high risk of the early stages of a hyperinflation beginning to unfold by mid-2011 continues.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/john-williams-discusses-reasons-upcoming-dollar-dump

.

[jeffolie]

Should You Get Married? Quiz

This tool at this site makes you address and quantify important issues...go to the site to take the quiz...change your answers to see different results. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/12/should-you-get-married.html

but for me it was all about the chemistry...I knew I would marry Olie after just 3 dates and told that to a friend in 1975.

==============================================================

December 20, 2010

Should You Get Married?

Did you know that December is *the* most popular month for wedding proposals to be made.

We guess that makes sense, since June would appear to be the most popular month for weddings to take place, but before you consider popping the question, shouldn't you answer a more basic question first?

Should you get married?

Well, should you? Are you really ready? Wouldn't it be nice if you use a tool to take the guesswork out of whether or not you should seriously propose marriage at this time?

You're darn right it would be nice! Here at Political Calculations, our stock in trade is making tools people can use to answer some of the most sensitive questions affecting their lives, and this is no different! We've adapted Geek Logik author Garth Sundem's formula addressing this very delicate situation for your exclusive, confidential use in this holiday season, so you can confirm, with precise mathematical certainty, that yes, you *should* get married.

Or not, in the case that you shouldn't! After all, maybe you're not really ready at this moment. Either way, our tool stands ready to help you know when you're ready. Just enter the indicated information below, and we'll take care of the rest....

Wedding Proposal Readiness Data
Input Data Values
How many years have you been dating?
The number of times per day that something makes you think of this person.
If your families got together for a holiday dinner, the estimated number of times there would be uncomfortable friction.
How many shared interests and/or goals do you two have?
How many individual or conflicting interests and/or goals do you two have?
The average number of disagreements you have with this person in a month.

Should You Get Married?
Calculated Results Values
"Tie the Knot" Index Value
The Bottom Line

In the tool, a "Tie the Knot" Index value greater than or equal to one will indicate that you are indeed ready to start shopping for a ring, while a value less than one will suggest that you're not ready yet. We provide this information so you can gauge just how close you might be to the threshold of either popping the question or not if your circumstances were just a bit different.

And because you made it this far, here are the other awkward questions that we've developed tools to help you answer:

What Are the Chances Your Marriage Will Last?

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/12/should-you-get-married.html

Read more: http://unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=noneconomic&thread=8314#ixzz18mkd2iOv

[jeffolie]

It is 'father's day' today:

In the retail trade, today is 2 days before Xmas and fathers notoriously buy Xmas presents to save their procrastinating butts 2 days before Xmas. Men typically find last minute sales abound and will repeat the 2 days before Xmas buying next year.

Men can be spotted on 'fathers' day' in the Malls that usually are full of women..

[jeffolie]

Today is a 'happy mothers' day' for those with cash and gift cards....Olie tells me the malls and major stores are full of women this day after Xmas.

[jeffolie]

You should look at the larger picture over the last 60 years where average American men now no longer can support a family.

Undermining Boeing...China gets tech info

Corporations and American governments have given away technology to 'cheap ass labor' countries for 60 years starting with giving Japan the info to make transistors and cars. After Japan we gave info on tech and cars to Korea so that Koreans could under price Japanese products. Clinton gave tech and missle/nuke info to the Chinese. More recently, India got tech and info to under price the Chinese.

This long process undermined Europe and American manufacturing and average men's jobs/incomes leaving low paying service jobs plus allowing new cutting edge industies to start up in Europe and America. Later, tech and info on the new cutting edge methods go to 'cheap ass labor' countries. America gets left with innovating new industries, low paying service jobs, under employed men while corporations import 2nd generation products and services to dump into America and Europe which piled up debt. Tech manufacturing mostly is now done in 'cheap ass labor' China, Korea, Japan for even the newest tech gadgets.

The below piece highlights yet another tech going to a 'cheap ass labor' country:

=============================================================

"...Meanwhile our largest creditor, China, is attempting to take the last bastion of true manufacturing from the United States and we’re letting them take it. In fact GE, a company who the tax payers just bailed out and who should have been allowed to fail, is now giving the Chinese the technology necessary to compete against Boeing commercial aircraft:

China Squeezes Foreigners for Share of Global Riches

General Electric Co. is finalizing plans for a 50-50 joint venture with a Chinese military-jet maker to produce avionics, the electronic brains of aircraft. The deal with Aviation Industry Corp. of China would give GE access to a Chinese government project aimed at challenging Boeing Co. and Airbus in the civilian-aircraft market.

For those who think that being in debt to China poses no real risk, you should talk to a Boeing worker about that. And you can bet that it won’t be long before they are taking this technology and using it to take the other last bastion of American manufacturing, namely producing weapons. Evidently America is hell bent on only producing worthless paper.

http://economicedge.blogspot.com/2010/12/morning-update-market-thread-1229.html

[Danny]

You sound libertarian not republican?

[ReaderLon]

Chapter 8: http://ilookforwardto.typepad.com/9%20Things%20to%20Look%20Forward%20to%20in%202030.pdf

[Kursch]

Futurist,

Thank you! I found this article to be both informative and spot on! As a teacher working in LA Unified, I was shocked to find out that according to your article, I'm overpaid! I also was unaware that my union was actively seeking to indoctrinate an entire generation of young people into Marxism, although to be fair I don't think you need to worry as most of them can barely do their times tables or read a book. Perhaps we could teach them communism if we put it into a "rap" song or on Univision....

Also as a male teacher I would like to point out how correct you were on how difficult it was for me to get employed in the school system because I was born with a penis! Fortunately the misandrists must have been out that day because I interviewed and got the job.

Thanks again for this insightful article.

[ReaderLon]

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/8baa5540390f11e098e0000255111976/comments/bf05c456390f11e084c9000255111976

[Burton]

Perhaps the best solution is to let the entire system collapse. And then we build upon the ruins. Perhaps form warlord bands built upon tried and trued principles, much as the successor kingdoms did after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Call it Operation Phoenix.

[ReaderLon]

http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/the-higher-education-bubble/

[Optimal]

@Burton - The sad thing is that it probably will take the entire collapse of the system to restore liberty, justice and the family in the Western world. Democracy is the problem. That may be a hard thing for many of you to hear, but it's the truth. Democracies are practically destined for failure. Modern democracy is the worst of all because it carries with it dogmatic notions of equality and utilitarianism that cannot be achieved.

[RL]

What do you think, The Futurist?

http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/high-iq-dating/

[M. Simon]

OT since I can't post on the right thread (no one has yet posted after me).

The best dang introduction to Game is a chapter in "Surely You Are Joking Mr. Feynman" by Nobel Physicist Richard Feynman. I forget which one. He talks about breaking the Game "rules" and discusses how he recovers.

The final bit is most instructive. He says that he preferred a woman who didn't require Game since he was not wired for keeping it up indefinitely. And he found one. I would have liked to have met her. She must have been an awesome woman.

[M. Simon]

Manufacturing labor is not coming back to America. Manufacturing never left. If the Chinese weren't making it for us, machines would be.

Manufacturing labor is going the way of farm labor. Get used to it. BTW it will cause wrenches to the economy the same as when farm labor was no longer needed.

[M. Simon]

I'm seeding this to lefty sites to see if I can get a rise out of uber Constitutionalist TEAs.

I never noticed a Prohibition Amendment. Except for Alcohol.

BTW of the major R candidates (not counting Ron Paul and Gary Johnson) only Palin has even mildly rebuked the Drug War. Roughly: "We have better things to do." So when the time comes she can pivot to make anti-Prohibition a bigger part of her campaign. I'm SO glad Todd is her husband (I'm sure she is too).

Any way the above is one of the ways I'm supporting Palin and hope to knock the rest out of the field.

My dream ticket?

Palin/Johnson 2012

[M. Simon]

I'm a big fan of Aleister Crowley. He said Christianity was a religion for women. Weak sniveling women.

He was a man's man. Thus Christians hated him.

OTOH he WAS a royal bastard. He wrote his work in such a way that the weak could easily be lead astray. I'm sure he thought it an amusing way to cleanse the gene pool. He hated weakness. Especially in men.

[M. Simon]

The Futurist,

This is a heads up. Read my anti-Prohibition articles at Classical Values and Power and Control
from the last week or so. The Ds are going to make Drug Prohibition a campaign issue.

This will be the pivot point:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/09/prohibition-movie.html

Which gives you about a month to get ready. Leave a message at my blog if you want to discuss. Classical Values

[M. Simon]

If you leave a message at CV do it on one of my posts. Any one. We are not fussy. Or any post at PaC.

[M. Simon]

I have something more to add. Why aren't Republicans (the Party of God or at least the God fearing so we hear) draining the swamp?

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/02/fertile-ground/

I go into the Frankfort School and how abused children are its recruits. (you know - sexual deviants, drug users, man haters, etc.) The connection is blatant and yet no one seems to notice.

The secret motto of the Democrat Party: "Got PTSD?"

[The Futurist]

M Simon,

Remember that while the majority of child abuse is conducted by women, Republicans, given that pedestalization of women is their highest value, always assume only men can be at fault, and pass laws around this belief. Republican denial about the wrongdoings of women towards children is at near pathological levels.

Denying a child a father is a form of child abuse, and a large slice of American women are incentivized by the government to do just this.

[joshua]

Fiscaly Democrats do the wrong thing for the right reason and republicans don't do a damn thing. Hopfuly libertarians wont wast our money on social engineering (controling private lives, bailouts, wars, ect.). To democrats i say that nobody takes care of their property and buissnes better than the owners of said institutions. to republicans i say that trying to control others family, relationships, and upbringing is just as bad as affermative action. thanks for reading.

[Suraj]

The problem is >> AMERICAN WOMEN.It's not you.Read the paercbapk The Cultural Devastation of American Women: The Strange and Frightening decline of the American Female. by Nancy Levant.That will answer your question perfectly.American women have such an off-the-chart sense of entitlement it's simply unbelievable. I live in Calfornia, and while they seem to grow the most beautiful women here . they are universally the most unattractive . on a GLOBAL scale.I am also non-American and I refuse to date American women. Stick to European, Eastern European, Brazilian, and Asian women. They are much more worth your time.

[M. Simon]

Funny you didn't mention Drug Prohibition.

You might like this bit on how The Drug War relates to the financial crisis.

Do you know what happens when I usually present this material (both sources are reputable)? I'm labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist. This is not hidden made up stuff. It is all from open sources.

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/the-coming-financial-crisis-explained-in-1997/

I have lots more. Lots and lots. Look up - McCoy The Politics Of Heroin - for instance.

[Sharon J.]

Republicans will never fully usurp lefties because as time goes on, there are more and more liberals. It's just the reality of the situation. Conservatisim is on its way out.

[Jerry S]

This article touches on the topics you discussed above and elsewhere on this great blog.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/nation-singles_664275.html
A Nation of Singles
The most politically potent demographic trend is not the one everyone talked about after the election

[Brad]

This "theory" turned out to be completely inaccurate. Republicans tried to shrink government and stood up to shaming language. They lost in 2012 solely because many of their voters decided to stay home when Mitt Romney won the nomination. The "War on Women" thing got alot of the blame, but turnout in 2012 was poor on both sides. 3 million fewer people voted in 2012 than in 2008 and Obama did among 4 million votes worse. Mitt Romney finished less than 5 million short of Obama (McCain lost by 10 million). The Libertarians got a record total of over 1.2 million and there were around a million and a half right-wing 3rd party votes altogether. Many Republican-leaning voters actually voted for Obama to spite the GOP for nominating Romney. If the Republicans had a stronger nominee (somebody who didn't create the precursor to Obamacare and didn't hold left-wing views in the past on virtually every issue), they would have won.

The real reason Republicans fail to reduce the size of government is the liberal media. Many Republicans want to be liked by the liberal media for some reason I cannot fathom. This explains the John Roberts sellout.

There are people that blame the Latinos and predict that the Latinos will be the demise of the GOP. These people are simply delusional. Texas is now a majority non-white state. Texas is now solidly Republican and will stay as such for the foreseeable future. Texas used to be a swing state until around 20 years ago. Younger men nationally are a nascent solid-Republican voting block. This year, 20% of black males under 30 and a strong majority of white males voted for Romney. Romney was uniquely unappealing to younger voters and many younger men that should be Republican voters stayed home or voted for Obama out of spite. The numbers among women under 30 are bad for the GOP, but not bad enough to cancel out the men under 30 vote if it turned out in heavy numbers (against Hillary Clinton, that's very likely to happen and will be probably the reason why she loses in 2016). Once the misandry bubble has popped and the younger generation eventually gets married, we can expect the women to adopt political views more in line with their husbands, as previous generations of women have upon getting married. America is going to go the way of Texas in the near future and that will be helped by the economic collapse Obama's about to cause on January 1st and recent Democrat attacks on both the 1st and 2nd Amendment (which are illegal because every Democrat elected official should know that the Supreme Court has ruled in recent years against censoring Grand Theft Auto and against gun "control") following the Sandy Hook shooting. Gun control is toxic for Democrats because it is highly unpopular in swing states Democrats have to win (PA, OH, VA, FL to name a few). Anti-video game demagoguery is a bad idea politically because it may activate the nascent staunchly right-wing young male vote that can bring about Republican rule for a generation if it is activated. The young male vote will be out en masse in 2016 and will align with the Tea Party to nominate Rand Paul and Rand Paul will be the 45th President and the one that will successfully shrink the government.

[The Futurist]

Brad,

You are completely wrong, sad to say.

If anything, this election proved that the voters are now dominated by big-government seekers.

Rand Paul in 2016? No chance. In fact, even John McCain's 2008 platform is too right wing for what the electorate will have become by 2016.

You are witnessing exactly why Democracy devolves to socialism. Also, referring to hard leftists as 'liberals' is exactly why they continue to beat small-government types. You truly have no idea how they are running circles around you, sad to say.

[Tosiaki]

I believe that the religious right (christian fundamentalists) have done a very good job poisoning the republican party and driving scores of young people to leftist ideology. You don't have to look very far at the internet to see scores of people outraged at their actions against same-sex-marriage. I would conclude that religion is a very big blinding factor here: not only does it prevent them from having sensible views on policies, but their very nature fails to draw people to their side.

[Commenter]

Even so, perhaps I only say this in retrospect. The social conservatives have been losing a lot of power recently this loss of power makes them look laughable, although not so much 10 years ago probably.

[Jeff]

The right blows money in the worst ways.. they are worse than democrats in most ways. Anyone who thinks the country has moved left over the last 30 years in any way except for on social issues (gay rights etc) is delusional.

[idiocraties]

Again, before his time The Futurist predicts the rise of the use of the term "cuckservative"