Wednesday, November 14, 2012


Lately, I've been watching the British Hitchcock films from the 1930's, and it is depressing to think that the culture illustrated in these films is gone - not imply the fashions etc. but the underlying cultural assumptions on which the society has been based for decades is gone. The British stiff upper lip, the dry good humor, the stoicism, has, as you note, been replaced by a nation of louts and sluts.

How did this happen? I've been thinking about that too. There is much truth in the old saying "monkey see, monkey do." In the late 1940's Brits and Americans allowed a device in their homes - the telescreen err television that carried programming created by people who first sought to modify, then when they saw the power of it, sought to destroy the existing culture. These people succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. In fact, based on the looting that took place a year or so ago, it looks like the immigrants in Britain, who are new to the television/loutmaker, haven't been poisoned by it yet. What an irony!

Not just television: look at "Rebel Without a Cause." The lead character, James Dean, who is outside the culture in many ways, is handsome and sexually successful. Compare that to the 1950's television show "Dobie Gillis" where the "beatnik" is unattractive, and sexually unsuccessful. 

By the 1960's the loutmaker was enhanced by the introduction of color - the better to reprogram the culture. Those bent on destroying the old culture and remaking went into overdrive, taking a small group of California beatniks and creating/celebrating a "counter culture" that has all but taken over today. 

The loutmaker is and has been on the leading edge of this great change. Monkey see monkey do - make a mockery of those who adhere to the old culture, and show those who adopt the new culture as sexually attractive and successful. The louts and sluts are nto doing anything more than imitating what they see on the loutmaker - why should they be anything other than louts and sluts when louts and sluts are celebrated day in and day out? Why would they be anything else?

Plus, when you come right down to it, who do these louts and sluts resemble? Why... rock stars of course. The adherents of the new "counter" culture are nothing more or less than rock stars in miniature - drunk, drug abusing, sexual active, who work when they feel like it ("taking care of business"), if ever, and are never responsible for anything.

Even though it is all but dead, the old culture remains endlessly mocked, portrayed on the loutmaker as unattractive, the persons in it unsuccessful sexually. Religion, which is part of the old culture is subject to the same treatment - except of course foreign religions, which are revered. Family? Old stuff. Work? For losers. Sex? Good, more the better. Commitment? Also for losers. In fact, men, the idea of masculinity, is mocked. 

However, the joke is on the louts and sluts, however - the new culture portrayed as positive on the loutmaker is not self sustaining, it is doomed to failure. More ominously this new culture cannot sustain a democratic form of government. 

So, sooner or later Britain, and the United States will lose the wealth and government that their ancestors put in place for their undeserving descendents. Who is to say that the citizens of Britain or the United States are entitled to live a first world life style? It takes work to maintain this standard of living, and when the people of the nation aren't willing to work, then what they have will be lost. A nation of louts and sluts will inevitably live in squalor, eking out a living while those who are willing to work build a society that is self sustaining. 

It's another old story - the ant and the grasshopper. A nation of grasshoppers soon to be starving in winter - and that's when the Democratic form of government will be lost when people decide to exchange slavery on the promise of bread.

It is very hard to stand by and watch while a nation commits suicide. But, when you come right down to it, in Britain anyway, the old culture died long ago. All we have left is the movies to show what has been lost. There is going to be a certain satisfaction in seeing the louts and sluts get what they deserve, along with (hopefully) those who have programmed an entire nation to self destruct.

Monday, November 5, 2012


Oddly enough, despite not being an Obama supporter, at the beginning of his Administration I had sincerely wished that something of his message was genuine, that he really meant to change government, that maybe Obama was the right man at the right time, and his could be a storybook presidency. However, over the first few months, like many Americans I was stunned, not by Obama's activism, but by his overall lack of interest and lack of vision. Obama never gets involved in governing, he never even got to the level of being a cheerleader for what other people were doing. The signature bills of his Administration - Obamacare, Dodd Frank, the stimulus, were all drafted by others - his role was to sign laws that someone else did the hard work to produce.

Obama never seems to have a presence. And what he attempts to do, he does poorly. His foreign policy - what could be called a policy, never goes much beyond apologizing. His bowing before foreign dictators is repulsive. His blaming of the prior administration for his own failures on the economy showed his poor character and penchant for meanness that always seems below the surface.

Obama's Administration is only about politics. But his ineffectual - or non-existent - leadership meant that he wasn't able to accomplish much even on issues that Democrats support. In that respect, Obama's incompetence is a blessing. With 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House, Obama could have done far more - at a minimum he could have made Roe v. Wade superfluous, by enacting federal statutory protections for abortion. Likewise for comprehensive immigration reform - it was Obama's for the taking, but he didn't press it.

Of course, a more cynical view is that the Democrats didn't want abortion and immigration to disappear from the national stage, so that they could pummel Republicans. However, what we have seen is that Obama doesn't have the intelligence capability to engage in that kind of strategic planning. The simple answer is that Obama couldn't be bothered.

For the country as a whole Obama's ineptitude is thus a mixed blessing.

And through it all, over the last four years, Americans never really got to know Obama. He is disinterested, and never makes a move unless he absolutely has to. Prior to Obama the terms, "empty suit" and "man in a bubble" were mre political invective. However, both terms perfectly picture Obama.

The real mystery with Obama is why he even ran for a second term. He doesn't want the job. But then again why should he, since he is so very bad at it. And without the protections of a media that has shown itself to be completely incapable of telling the truth about a Democratic President, Obama would be the most hated men in America. But then again, black Americans have fallen hook, line and sinker for the con job that the Democratic party has pulled on them - they are the only ones in America that seem to be unaware of this - see my other articles for a more complete description.

In the final analysis, none of those who voted for Obama were able to make the case that he deserves to be re-elected. Most of what we saw were tired cliche's about Republicans, and talking points about Romney. When pressed on it, Democrats really didn't articulate anything positive about Obama, other than he isn't a Republican, and he isn't Romney. When asked about Romney, what is said is that someone as wealthy as Romney could never made a good President. When pointed out that Democrats in 2004 ran John Kerry, a man who married into enormous wealth, what you get blank stares.  So much for the intelligence of the average voter.

On the other hand, Romney was surprisingly good, and laid out lots of reasons why he would make a good, capable president. It's too bad - very bad for America - that we will never find out what type of President Romney would have been. 

It's as if Carter beat Reagan, or Dinkins beat Giuliani - we will never get to know the greatness that might have been instead of the mediocrity and incompetence that is. 

  A blog never changes anyone's mind. But, over the next four years we will find out precisely what type of a mistake we have made. it's too bad we will never find out how good it could have been.  

It is indeed evening in America.