Archive

Archive for March, 2019

Era of Creativity in American Music, Cinema , Television etc is Over: 1

March 31, 2019 10 comments

Regular readers might be aware of an older post in which I wrote about why the past decade of mainstream movie-making in USA has been full of sequels and reboots rather anything vaguely original. The short version is as follows: the uncritical worship of financialism is behind this and many other (and much larger) systemic problems seen in USA today, from brick-and-mortar retailers dropping like flies to Boeing making some truly atrocious design choices for its 737-Max series. And yes.. ‘late capitalism’ and ‘financialism’ are interchangeable terms- in most contexts. I also wrote another post about how the downstream effects of late capitalism explain the proliferation of ‘superhero’ movies we have seen over the past decade. But how is any of this connected to the title of this post? For starters.. the general lack of creativity we have seen in american music, movies, television, streaming services, video games etc over past ~ 15 years is just another symptom of the same underlying problem.

But before we talk about that problem, let us first spend some time to properly define the issues involved. For example- How does one define creativity and how long did the ‘golden era’ last? Do music sale numbers, box office receipts etc matter and do they affect how we define creativity? So let us begin by discussing all of this and more by using real life examples. That way, I can explain the issues involved in very clear and straightforward terms. Given my greater interest in the visual arts, I will first focus on cinema, television, specialty cable shows and streaming outlets in this part. Here is a good question to start this discussion- Was there ever a ‘golden age’ of american cinema? The answer to that question, while affirmative, is a bit complicated. See.. most people are trained to think that the ‘golden age’ of american cinema was between 1927 and the mid-1950s, when TV started to become the more widespread form of audio-visual entertainment.

I think differently. While cinema was the dominant form of audio-visual entertainment in that era- it was not the ‘golden age’ by any stretch of imagination. The quality and originality of the movies in that era left much to be desired- and that is a huge understatement. While a small part of the blame can be assigned to technology, most of it was a result of how the whole system was run. See.. Hollywood studios were the worst thing that happened to Hollywood- because they were run by losers who cared only about the bottom line and exerting their egos over creative people. That is why movies from that era are so bland, insipid, and unmemorable. Sure.. they made money- but that was largely a consequence to there being no other competing audio-visual media. Also cinema theaters were among the first public places to be air-conditioned. The true golden age of american cinema began after the studio system fell apart in the 1950s and the Hays “moral” code became increasingly irrelevant throughout the 1960s.

The golden age started sometime in the early- to mid- 1960s. And there is something else, which facilitated this era. Today, we think of Hollywood movies as being internationally popular. This was, however, not the case for many decades. Many large European countries had flourishing local film industries for many decades before and, in some case, even after WW2. The Italian, Spanish, German and Russian film industries has tons of very talented directors, producers, actors and the financial means to make and distribute their products. So why did all these other players slowly decline after the 1950s and 1960s. Well.. in the case of film industry in Russia, Germany and other East-European countries, the rise of state communism and promotion of extremely bland control-freaks into position of power resulted in complex regimes of unofficial censorship. People with non-standard worldviews were either silenced or learned to keep quiet.

Let me put it this way.. the majority of memorable and influential movies you can think of simply could not be made in those countries after the early 1960s. Do you think they would have allowed their people to make movies such as Jaws, Star Wars Trilogy, ET, Back to the Future Trilogy, first two Godfather movies, Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Blade Runner, The Matrix, the first Jurassic Park, a couple of the original Indiana Jones etc? But why stop there.. what about the first two or three Police Academy movies, all those teen sex comedies from the 80s and 90s, spoofs with Leslie Nielsen or by Mel Brooks and many.. many more transgressive comedies. My point is that the quality of even mainstream Hollywood movies was pretty good (compared to rest of the world) between the late 1960s and early 2000s. But why was Hollywood able to make and market some pretty amazing movies in those three and a half decades- while the rest of the world kept making the same types of movies they had been making since the 1950s?

Some of you might invoke reasons such as american exceptionalism or Hollywood being run by a certain religio-ethic group. The reality is rather different and it all comes down to a combination of two or three factors that were unique to Hollywood. Firstly, after the late-1960s there wasn’t anywhere near the level of direct and indirect creative censorship as compared to other countries. For example- films in former east-Germany and Russia had to pass multiple rounds of scrutiny by people employed specifically to enforce ideological purity. Or take the case of India, where films that did not adhere to the standard Bollywood format had no chance of getting funded and filmed, let alone distributed. In sharp contrast to that, one could make and raise money for all sorts of crazy sounding ideas (some of which later became cultural landmarks) without the fear of being labelled as a dangerous subversive or a perma-failure in Hollywood.

Then there is the effect of 3-4 decades of post-WW2 opportunity for non-rich or non-connected people to get into the film industry. See.. one of the big differences between the american movie industry and the its equivalents in the rest of the world was that the former let people who were not rich or connected into the movie industry- especially behind the camera. Just look up the biographical details of most iconic movie director, producer, special effects guy etc between the late 1960s and early 2000s and you will see that they did not come from a family who was already established in the industry. but why does this matter? Well.. people who rise to their position by coming out the ‘right’ cunt are usually not the most competent or capable candidates for any given job. In my opinion, this was probably the most importance difference between Hollywood and its equivalents in other countries.

The third reason is linked to how success and failure was treated in Hollywood as compared to its foreign counterparts. Which is really a fancy way of saying that frequent failure was considered an unavoidable part of making movies. A few moderate failures or even a couple of nasty ones was not an automatic death sentence or cause of perpetual ostracism in Hollywood- as long as you had a decent record of success or demonstrable competence. To be clear, I am not saying that the american film industry was some great meritocracy full of fourth and fifth chances or kind altruistic people. But it was significantly better than its counterparts in other countries as long as you were white. It was this combination of factors which allowed the extraordinary three and a half decades ‘golden age’ of Hollywood- from 1968 to 2003. But why did it end at 2003? Let me put it this way, truly significant movies made after 2003 are few and widely spaced.

In the next part, I will go into some detail about why 2003 is the best cut-off point for Hollywood making truly amazing and creative movies. As you will see, it has much more to do with new business models based in financialism, managerialism and other bullshit ideas that are also destroying other industrial sectors in USA. You will also see how similar the demise in this sector is to concurrent demise of others such as pharmaceutical research, physical retail outlets and many more. I will also show you what outcomes these financial and managerial types are targeting and how that explains the demise of creativity. You will also see why these losers were in the back-seat during ‘golden age’ but are now firmly in driver’s seat of this dying car.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Mar 30, 2019

March 30, 2019 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual tomorrow.

Amateur Busty Selfies: Mar 30, 2019 – Busty amateur cuties taking selfies.

Side Selfies: Mar 30, 2019 – Amateur cuties taking side selfies.

Doggystyled Amateurs: Mar 30, 2019 – Amateur cuties taking it, doggystyle.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Some More Thoughts on Principal Conclusions of the Mueller Report

March 27, 2019 2 comments

In the previous post of this hopefully short series, I wrote about how the release of an executive summary of Mueller’s report has sunk the hopes of many partisan democrat voters. Apparently, many of these retards were fully expecting the report to be some sort of deus-ex-machina which would magically end the Trump presidency and then “everything would just go back to normal”. As I have written in many previous posts, the election of Trump in 2016 is just another symptom of an ongoing slow-motion implosion of neoliberal status quo and imperial pretensions of USA. In other words, removing Trump from office via some sort of legal coup will have zero effect on the constellation of factors which enabled his rise in the first place. But try telling that to the hordes of partisan democrat voters clamoring for Trump’s impeachment for “collusion” with Russia.

Which brings us to an issue that I hinted in the previous post on this topic. Why were so many partisan democrat voters animated by the possibility of Trump being impeached through proof of him “colluding” with Russia? Let me rephrase that question to better explain what I am getting at. Why were they fixated on the “collusion with Russia and Putin” bullshit story when there are tons of far more legitimate reasons for legal prosecution? I mean.. we all know that the orange buffoon is a walking disaster, in addition to having a highly shady past and serious conflict on interest issues between his business empire and office since he was elected in 2016. So why did partisan democrat voters and affluent Reagan democrats (such as MikeCA?) focus on the most ridiculous accusations against this real life version of George Bluth Sr.?

On Sunday, Matt Stoller made an insightful tweet: What Democrats really wanted from Mueller is evidence Clinton was a good candidate. Let me now unpack what he was talking about. See.. the peculiar obsession of partisan democrat types with the bullshit “collusion with Russia” narrative, to the exclusion of far better ways to nail the orange buffoon, make sense only if you consider the possibility that it is about validating their belief that HRC was the better candidate and destined to defeat Trump in 2016. Yep.. they desperately want validation for their comic belief that Hillary was meant to win in 2016 and the victory of Trump was due to some mysterious and nefarious actions by “Russia” and “Putin”. But why would they want to believe such tripe, especially given how democrats lost in mid-western states which were considered democrat strongholds during presidential elections for over two decades. Well.. it is both easy and complicated.

As I have written in more than one previous post (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5 and two short series- link 6 and link 7) the democratic party is increasingly led and organised by “credentialed” white liberal professionals who believe in the religion of neoliberalism. But what does this have to do with their obsession about HRC being the “better candidate” who was “destined to win” in 2016. As it turn out.. everything. HRC, you see, is an embodiment of the ultimate neoliberal political candidate. She checked all the right “diversity” boxes, employed advisers and interns from “elite” universities, constantly talked in empty platitudes and gave false hope through carefully chosen words, indulged in constant triangulation on contentious issues, pretended to care about “social justice” issues and generally embodied everything which people in 2019 find repulsive and loathsome about CEOs and other corporate critters.

But it was not always like that and between 1980 and 2009, many in USA (especially middle-class baby boomers and older Gen-Xers) actually believed in neoliberalism. That is why people born before 1970 (like MikeCA?) were far more supportive, if not downright enthusiastic, about HRC’s candidacy in 2016. To be more precise, people above a certain age, income level and living in coastal states saw HRC as their perfect candidate. That is why support for the “Trump colluding with Russia and Putin” bullshit narrative was so high in coastal democrat strongholds but almost absent in parts of the country which have been devastated by decades of neoliberalism. But how does this translate into a singular focus on the bullshit “collusion” narrative while ignoring all the other shitty things Trump has done in the past and is doing right now.

Well.. it comes down to what particular narrative promises and covers up, at the same time. In comparison, blaming the rise of Trump on the effects of neoliberal policies pursued by republicans and democrats since 1980 (or earlier) implicates politicians and presidents from both parties. The “collusion” bullshit narrative allows establishment types to present the victory of Trump in 2016 as an anomaly, one which they can recover from and restore the old status quo. The alternative explanation, namely that Trump’s victory in 2016 as a sign of the old order collapsing, seems to be too frightening and depressing for them to contemplate in public. Blaming Trump’s victory in 2016 on “Russia” and “Putin” allowed establishment democrats to pretend that there is no need for fundamental change while covering up the complete lack of sustained public enthusiasm for their corporate-approved candidates. And they believe they can get away with it.

So why were many coastal partisan democrat voters eager to drink the koolaid of “collusion”? To better answer that question, let talk about the other political figure who is also disliked (if not outright hated) by the biggest lay supporters of the bullshit “collusion” narrative. Does the name, Bernie Sanders, ring a bell? Yes.. there is a very strong overlap between partisan democrats who believe in the bullshit “Trump-Russia-Putin collusion” narrative and those who proudly voted for HRC in the 2016 primaries. And guess which states Bernie had many upset victories during the 2016 primaries? Yep.. many mid-western states which voted for Trump in the general election. Also remember that Bernie won far more votes from people below 40, than those past 50. The thing is, lay supporters of the “collusion” narrative are (in many ways) similar to the last generation who worship a dying religion- which in this case is neoliberalism.

Might write another post in this short series.. but not sure.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Initial Thoughts on Principal Conclusions of the Mueller Report

March 26, 2019 3 comments

I would have preferred to post on topics more consequential than an initial public summary of the now infamous Mueller Report, but it seems (based on the comments section) there is a demand for this sort of writing. And this is fine by me, because posts like the current one are much easier to write than carefully thought ones about issues which actually matter. So, let us first talk with a bit about how it all started. While the exact incident which started this sadly comic endeavor is a matter of some dispute, the timing is much clearer. What we today know as “RussiaGate” started in the summer of 2016, but its origins go back a few months before that to the time when the DNC or somebody associated with that organization paid a certain Christopher Steele to write a damming dossier about Trump. FYI- this part of the origin story is no longer controversial.

The DNC, as some of you might remember, is the same stupid organization who conspired with the corporate media to highlight buffoons such as Trump and Carson (pied-piper candidates) to make it easier for HRC to win in the general election. I wonder how that “strategy” worked out. Anyway, the dumbfuck known as Christopher Steele was hired because he pretended to be a “Russia expert”. As it turns out, Steele was talking out of his behind, because other than a few years of being posted in Russia many years ago- his grasp on his alleged area of “expertise” was non-existent. And you do not have to just believe me on this.. read the dossier. To make a long story short, the entire dossier is full of speculation, hearsay, made-up bullshit and just plain lies. Some readers might wonder.. how can I be so sure that dossier is full of bullshit.

Well.. because if even a fraction of its most salacious accusations were true, at least half the Trump family would have been jailed over a year ago and Trump would have resigned or been impeached by now. But they are not and Trump has neither resigned or been impeached. In case you don’t have time to read that “dossier”, some of the accusations included such gems such as: Trump aide Carter Page had been offered fees on a big new slice of the oil giant Rosneft if he could help get sanctions against Russia lifted, Trump lawyer Michael Cohen went to Prague for “secret discussions with Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers.” and Kremlin had kompromat of Trump defiling a bed once used by Barack and Michelle Obama by “employing a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘golden showers’ (urination) show.” It turns out that these accusations were either totally made up or were wild exaggerations.

Michael Cohen was found guilty of perjury, lying to banks, tax evasion and violating campaign finance laws but not of going to Prague or conspiring with any “Russians” to influence the 2016 election. Did I mention that the Mueller investigation did not file any indictment against Carter Page? And there is no proof of the “Kremlin” or “Putin” having sexual Kompromat on Trump. So.. the whole dossier was largely full of bullshit. At this stage, I expect MikeCA to tell me how a few of the accusations in that dossier could be interpreted as correct. Well.. it does not take a genius with expertise in “Russia” to do a few internet searches that point to Trump’s interest in building or licensing his brand name to a few luxury condo complexes in Moscow. Trump being interested in making a fast buck and sticking his name onto architectural abominations is as predictable as dogs sniffing the behinds of other dogs. In any case, he did not expect to win in 2016.

I am not going to bore you with all the details of how things went down after that initial dossier was shopped around various news outlets and senators (including John McCain) once it became obvious that Trump was going to win the republican party nomination. Matt Taibbi has written a far more detailed account of how this bullshit drama unfolded. Aaron Maté has a pretty good analysis of the how the whole “collusion” theory has fallen apart. Branko Marcetic has a good piece about how “RussiaGate” helped rehabilitate previously discredited necons and the national “security apparatus. It is also telling that some corporate media outlets, like Vanity Fair,who were cheerleading the Mueller investigation as late as last week are now starting to publish posts which are far more somber about the Mueller Report and the future of similar investigations.

Heck.. even NYT is now starting to publish pieces which talk about the long-term deleterious effects of the media’s role in hyping RussiaGate on the national psyche. And before I forget, here is a piece by Michael Tracey about how democratic politicians and sympathetic media spent all their energies fanning this fake scandal when they could have put that same effort in uncovering the numerous real scandals of the Trump administration. I am sure that readers will see many more pieces such as these in coming weeks, as corporate media outlets try to back-paddle from their previous positions on Russiagate. FYI- Michael Tracey, Aaron Maté, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and a handful of others were among the very few who consistently maintained that RussiaGate was a fake scandal which would not result in Trump being impeached or resigning.

They also correctly predicted that RussiaGate would end up vindicating Trump’s rants about how the “Deep State” was trying to screw him over- in addition to making it far harder for subsequent real charges of malfeasance to stick to him. And that is where things seem to be headed. It is very likely that all those investigations of Trump and his family by SDNY and a few other DAs sympathetic to democratic establishment will be seen as continuation of the ‘witchunt’ against Trump. WSo.. what has this investigation achieved thus far, apart from making Trump seem sympathetic and justified in his paranoia against establishment types?

Well.. for starters, it has done wonders for the bottom line of cynical cable news networks such as MSNBC and CNN. Con artists such as Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon (and many others) owe a good art of their recent viewership numbers to peddling this scam. Many NeoCons such as David Frum, Bill Kristol, Max Boot and many others who were relegated to dustbin of history after the Iraq war turned out to be a disaster have now been rehabilitated. Incompetent sociopaths such Comey, Hayden, Clapper and Brennan have also been rehabilitated as senior public intellectuals. And it gets worse. Gullible partisan democratic voters have been swindled out of billions by montebanks who sold them fiction masquerading as investigative journalism. Late-night “comics” cannot make “jokes” which do not involve fantasies of Trump getting arrested or impeached.

In summary, the Mueller investigation and the artificial hype surrounding it have done a lot of long-term damage to the credibility of american journalism.. well.. whatever was left of it after 2003. In the next post on this topic, I will show you how establishment democrats peddled and promoted RussiaGate to avoid any self-analysis after their anointed candidate was defeated by that orange buffoon in 2016. As somebody on Twitter quipped- What Democrats really wanted from Mueller is evidence Clinton was a good candidate.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Mar 25, 2019

March 25, 2019 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual tomorrow.

Amateur Soapy Cuties: Mar 7, 2019 – Soapy amateur cuties in the shower.

Busty Selfies: Mar 16, 2019 – Busty amateurs taking selfies.

More Busty Selfies: Mar 25, 2019 – More busty amateur cuties taking selfies.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

End of Mueller Investigation and ‘Trump-Russia-Putin Collusion’ Bullshit

March 23, 2019 10 comments

Unless you have been living under a rock since Friday morning, you must have read or heard that the Special Counsel investigation aka Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump’s alleged collusion with ‘Russia’ and ‘Putin’ during the 2016 presidential election is finally over. While an executive summary of its findings should be available sometime this weekend, it is noteworthy that there are no new open or “sealed” indictments. Which is a fancy way of saying that the Special Counsel has not been able to indict one single person from Trump’s presidential campaign, including the orange buffoon himself, of collusion with “Russia” or “Putin”. Every single person who has been indicted by Mueller’s team has landed in that position because of criminal actions unrelated to 2016 campaign or committing perjury. In other words, the establishment democrat/s desire to see Trump impeached has taken a massive and unrecoverable hit.

Even worse, they have finally validated Trump’s defense of this investigation being unfair and a ‘witch hunt’. Way to go, dumbfucks! Of course, there are still tons of dead-enders who keep babbling about “SDNY” and other similar bullshit. But let us get real.. the majority of people will now no longer believe in the results of any future investigation of Trump. In fact, just over 50% of Americans were seeing it that way before the Mueller investigation wrapped up– without a single indictment for collusion with Russia. It is now increasingly likely that Trump will use the report as an important plank of this campaign for re-election in 2020. And you know what.. if establishment democrats are stupid enough to rig their primaries (like they did in 2016) for a corporate-anointed loser such as Biden, Beto or Kamala- he might actually win in 2020.

Matt Taibbi has written an excellent post about how Russiagate is contemporary equivalent of the WMD fiasco of 2002. In it, he goes into considerable detail as to how a bullshit “dossier” written by a greedy British hack and paid for by the DNC started one of the most darkly comic chapters in recent american history. I would strongly suggest you read his entire post- even if it is a bit on the longer side. While the circumstances surrounding the start of this investigation, which began around June 2016, are almost too comical to be real- it keeps getting better and more absurd. Taibbi also skewers all the national news outlets, “respectable” journalists, cable news anchors, talking heads, Twitterati and “celebrities” who got into the act- if only to make a quick buck. Once again, I strongly suggest you read his post- preferably more than once.

Moving on.. the obsession of establishment democrats with ‘Trump-Russia-Putin’ is now going to get much harder to justify. But don’t worry, I am sure that they will find a few new ways to fuck themselves by focusing on something which the majority see as hacky partisan bullshit with no connection to the worsening quality of their lives. Between this pile of bullshit, renewed calls for “gun control” and mouthing empty platitudes which deceive nobody in 2019, they will find a way to lose to that orange buffoon in 2020. And let us be honest about something.. establishment democrats would rather lose to Trump than defy their corporate masters and campaign on popular policies such as universal single-payer healthcare, student loan forgiveness, higher minimum wage etc which might actually get the majority of voters to elect them.

I might write another post about this topic soon, preferably after reading the executive summary of the Mueller Report. Till then, have a look at the hysterically comic bullshit which was being passed off as real journalism by cable news networks- narrated by the always funny Jimmy Dore.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Peculiar Connection between Systemic Racism and Feminism: 1

March 21, 2019 31 comments

Regular readers know that I have written many posts about the intersection of racism and dating. In fact, that is why entire series such as Why Escorts are Always a Better Deal than Relationships or Marriage, Escorts are a better deal than ‘real’ women and How to Use Escorts exist in the first place. But what does any of this have to do with the intersection between racism and feminism? Well.. for starters, systemic racism by women in western countries is the main reason behind their vastly differing rates of having “unpaid” sex with men of various racial groups. However, as you will soon see, it goes much further than that and in ways you probably never appreciated. Let me start by asking you a simple question: Why is Feminism as we understand it today, in all its forms, largely restricted to Anglo, and perhaps Scandinavian, countries. Odd, isn’t it?

At this point, some of you might try to counter my suggestion that feminism is largely an Anglo and Scandinavian phenomena by pointing out that almost every single country in the world seems to, nowadays, have equal legal rights for men and women. And I do not disagree that the majority of countries today do have laws and, in many cases socio-economic systems, which do a good or at least decent job of treating men and women equally. Notice something peculiar about the wording of previous two sentences? See.. ensuring legal equality of the sexes is not the same as feminism- which is really about white women gaining primacy over all other men. While feminism did come into existence, as a movement, to ostensibly ensure that women were legally equal to men- that was never its initial nor ultimate goal.

Instead, feminism in Anglo countries started a project to gain primacy for rich and bourgeoisie white women. Don’t believe me? Did you know that luminaries of the suffragette movement were super racist white women? Also this fact is really well known in addition to causing a host of practical problems in the past. But it gets worse, if you can believe it. White suffragettes were into stuff like eugenics and forced sterilization, seriously racist views about black and asian men and a whole lot of other stuff which would get them labelled as a hate group today. All of this does however bring us to the next logical question: Why were Anglo, and to a lesser extent Scandinavian countries, such hotspots for Feminism? Why were other European countries full of equally racist losers, such as Germany or Italy, never that much into Feminism?

To better understand what I am going to talk about, let me ask you another seemingly unrelated question. How many male admirers will post comments on Instagram shots of an attractive woman in a thong bikini if she was from Germany, Spain, Brazil versus if she was from USA or UK? In my experience, there are between 10-40 times more positive comments from guys if the women in question is from Anglo countries than if she was from non-Anglo countries. And this has nothing to do with the degree of Instagram use in those countries. You can see the same pattern on social media networks more popular in non-Anglo countries than their Anglo counterparts. Leaving worshipful comments in response to photos of attractive women is just not that common outside the Anglosphere. But why is that so? What is going on?

Here is something else to think about.. Say a woman accuses some guy of date rape (a he said, she said situation). What percentage of men not related to the accuser will unconditionally believe her story in countries such as Germany, France and Italy versus USA? Why is it far higher in USA than in non-Anglo countries? What makes men in Anglo countries far more willing and eager to go along with any bullshit a white woman will say as compared to their counterparts in other (still) white-majority countries? Note that women in developed non-Anglo countries are no more (often less) likely to be suffer violence than their counterparts in Anglo countries. Nor are women in those countries likely to be poorer, unhealthier or worse off than their counterparts in Anglo countries- in fact, the converse is more likely. Once again, what is going on?

Then there is the issue of sex, both paid and “unpaid”. Why are white women in non-Anglo countries more likely to have a sexual relationship (than Anglo women) with a non-white guy, given the opportunity? Why are escorts born outside USA, or are early second-generation types from non-Anglo countries widely recognized as far more reasonable and generally way more fun than their Anglo counterparts? Why do people like RooshV and Matt Forney keep saying that women outside North America are far better than those within it? Why are the laws surrounding prostitution in some Anglo countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada more reasonable than those in USA or UK? And what does any of this have to do with the topic of this post?

In case you have not noticed the trend, let me state it explicitly. Male support for feminism in western countries correlates quite well with the size of empire it has or had and whether it was a society based in racial-apartheid (USA). That is why Feminism always has, and had, a far bigger presence in countries such as UK and USA than others such as Italy, Germany or even France. This is also why Feminism, SJW-ism and other white women-first movements are bigger in USA and UK than ex-colonies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand- who seem to largely copy whatever occurs in USA. Now you know why otherwise rich western countries such as Netherlands and Switzerland have far fewer vocal feminist activists or public support for such ideas than countries like UK and USA. But why would the size of ex-colonial empires or erstwhile global influence create fertile grounds for Feminism?

It all comes down to the myths which people, who get lucky, have to invent to justify their newly found fortune. In the case of UK, its success at gaining overseas territory during the 19th century was largely due to factors beyond its own control. Whether it was the slow decline of French imperial ambitions after Napoleon or being present at the time of large-scale internal civil strife in countries such as India and China- they just got lucky. But human being do not like to admit (especially to themselves) that they owe their fortunes to luck. Hence the need to believe that they were, as a race, somehow inherently superior. You can see where this is going.. Also, the empire was mostly staffed by young men who lived in lands with very few white women. That is why inter-racial marriage was pretty common in many older colonies until the early 1800s. However this changed once the British empire started consolidating.

Placing white women on a pedestal makes sense only if it somehow translates into maintaining racial purity. Colonialism lead to the need for maintaining racial hierarchy and hence purity which lead to pedestalling white women which then lead to Feminism. And that is why a lot of early Feminism were rich racist white women who came from either the ruling or bourgeoisie class. This is also why most pre-1960s Feminists had an obsession with maintaining racial purity and the status quo. Let us now turn to USA aka the country built on theft of land from its original inhabitants, their subsequent genocide and wealth created through race-based slavery. While the USA was not, technically, an extra-territorial empire until the 1890s- this had much to do with it being not necessary. Westward expansion until early 20th century was just way easier.

As far as Scandinavian countries are concerned, things took a different route. While they gave up the idea of competing with UK, France and Spain for overseas colonies quite early, they benefited greatly from supporting colonialism through involvement in commercial activity in colonies and the process of colonization. So ya.. that is why systemic racism and Feminism have, historically, been joined at the hip. Feminism can only thrive in countries with a strong previous legacy of pedestalling white women due to a desire of maintaining racial purity. There is, of course, more to this story than Feminism being the end-product of delusions about intrinsic racial superiority. Will explain more in an upcoming post.

What do you think? Comments?