Monday, March 31, 2014

Who Pushed Women's Suffrage 100 Years Ago?

Who pushed women's suffrage 100 years ago? It was not Woodrow Wilson in 1912. It was not the Democrats per their platform in 1912. The Democrats' 1916 platform has a small entry for women's suffrage way down at number 20 on their platform list (same rights as men, different from later British law). The media sure liked the idea. Of all items to make a political cartoon about in 1912 with the looming challenges ahead, this cartoonist showcased women's suffrage. After all, they would be the ones informing women on how to vote and what issues to support.



Hundred years later, elections swing on single women grabbing for their taxpayer paid birth control pills, their substitute provider and the safety of having abortions on demand and subsidized by taxpayers. Who cares about the ruins around them? Clutch at those gimmedats! Same media is around to tell everyone there is a "War on Women" so vote Democrat because they support lighter criminal sentencing and enforcement of law, wait, what? Shhh, conservatives are evil men.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Winter Olympics Paralympian Ad

The Winter Olympics was full of terrible advertisements. Chevy led the way with thirty seconds of cultural Marxism during every commercial break. One advertisement that some of my friends liked but bothered me was the AT&T Paralympian ad.





Paralympian Heath Calhoun has a rough training session on the slopes. He is upset. Then he gets a text. It's a video text from his son saying he can't wait to see him win gold. Narrator finishes with the there when you need it tag line.

Whatever creative came up with that ad idea is childless. This guy needs to hear that his kid looks forward to seeing him win as the pick me up. Important distinction is seeing the win, not just seeing him at the Paralympics. With the follow up narration, it is like the guy needs to know his kid wants the win just as he, the dedicated skier, does which is why he's handicapped and a father yet out on the ski slopes rather than spending time with his kid... and for what? An AT&T spot. It's kind of like all the time people spend away from their family for work that has no real rewards. In reality, a dad would just have to get the message from his kid saying "I love you" and that is the pick me up to get dad smiling. "My kid loves me, I can't wait to see him after being on these ski slopes all day. Life is tough but worth it." The joy in this ad is not that your kid loves you, but that your kid is dedicated to your career goals just as much as you are.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

What Dystopia Are We Heading For

People throw out the dystopia word or concept often now. Thinking what we are "in" now or where we are going to is a fun discussion over drinks. If you live in the West, we're living in a soft "Brave New World" now. If trends continue, the real battle is if the corporate crowd can win out and solidify the BNW setting, if the social justice warrior idiots win out and we get "Harrison Bergeron", or if those two groups are swarmed by the dum-dums and we get "Idiocracy". Who would have thought that "Robocop", which was a satire of trends in 1980s America, would turn out to be the most accurate dystopian movie ever? Detroit in "Robocop's" 2029 is crime infested to the point where a corporation wants robot cops to restore order and gut the city to rebuild a new corporate city. It is not just the decay physically but small tidbits like the TV sitcom within the movie where a wife gets her husband a new woman as a pet for a birthday gift, and it's just a standard sitcom punchline joke. There is a small dystopian world that feels like it could be a long shot entry on the Vegas odds board for where we're going, the world of American Flagg.

American Flagg was an independent comic in the mid '80s. It is the source from which I borrow the STD cure all idea and term "maƱanacillin". Here's the dystopia: after a series of economic calamities and government overthrows, a conglomerate of corporate and government interests rule America from their main base on Mars and affiliate on the moon. Sometime in the early 21st century the phone company bought the government, and all media consolidated to one entity built into the government. Americans are dumbed down, overentertained and herded into giant metropolitan complexes. Social bonds have broken down, people act feral, sex is unrestrained. Crime is everywhere and a police state (protagonist was porn star becomes Plexus Ranger) tries to enforce the law... secretly holding everything together long enough for the elites to leech off the nation to become self sufficient. Wait, this feels familiar. It was good for twelve issues, then went bad, unlike Judge Dredd that stayed good long enough to become a mediocre, '90s action film. There are wonderful nuggets in the first twelve issues.

Howard Chaykin was the mind and force behind American Flagg. If conspiracy theorists could dream up a subversive, anti-Christian Jewish comic book creator, it's Chaykin. He is that guy; no embellishments necessary. Chaykin had substance abuse issues, constantly wrote of giant Christian-WASP conspiracies (avoiding any Jewish involvement), attacked Catholics at all turns, sex was a constant feature (and often deviant), every lead was a tall, handsome, strong brunette Jewish guy (hahaha), and women were always drawn curvy and sexxed up. By the time I was 16 checking his limited run works in the '90s as he bounced around the industry, I was thinking "Jeez, Howard, blonde WASPs running an evil conspiracy as plucky Jewish guy tries to fix things AGAIN". As stated in my post on Chaykin's Black Kiss, I loved the '50s pin up look of every women in his made up universes. They look like old Hollywood women. He had his strengths and weaknesses.

Where I am meandering with this towards is that American Flagg was a ridiculous fantasy world and over the top satire aimed at a slightly more adult comic reading audience but it does not seem absurd now. I'll give Chaykin credit that his ability to look up the socioeconomic ladder and recognize rent seeking leeches detached from the masses is matched by his ability to look down the ladder and see a mob, growing more feral and easier to manipulate. His dystopia is one I do not want. Give me "Neuromancer" or "Snow Crash". I discount the possibility of those dreams compared to the absurd police state ones due to the civilizational requirements to reach the technology in Gibson's and Stephenson's worlds. Chaykin's world of just enough media, just enough dope, and just enough sex as the blurry mass of humanity cracks up while the elite try to save themselves seems far more plausible. There just won't be a handsome, strong Jewish guy saving the day.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Media's Progressive Goals Ruin Sex Worker Stories

The Miriam Weeks/Belle Knox story has not caused any reflection on the media's part about the widespread availability of pornography and its effects on 21st century sex in America. With her first scene being a rougher scene with a distributer that prides itself on pushing the edge and has nooooo storyline or artistic value, it might be a perfect opportunity for the media to evaluate what has happened to the industry and its wider effects. The only evaluation of porn stories in recent history have been "more women should be watching porn, and not just soft couples porn". It's barbaric porn for all in media land. Was not the whole reason the pornos in the '70s met the Supreme Court's rules of obscenity that they had basic plots for artistic value? The media does not do this because pushing pornography is on their agenda. This behavior colors every article that involes anything, but especially gender relations and sexual topics. An article on prostitution in the New York Observer in January suffers from the same problem as the failed pornography discussion. The article focuses on what the men are looking for and glamourizes the life of an escort. Missing is the breakdown in what a relationship used to provide men, the devolution of modern women and the risks of marriage for men.

Genetic dead ends
The article plays up the johns being classy guys looking for classy experiences. The really handsome lead john in the article doesn't even want to sleep with his escorts most of the time. There is the deliberate use of a married john, "those pesky married men that use hookers, grrr". One john even says "I love you" to an escort, and she says it back. How sweet. The data bit on the escort review site mentions that it gets 350,000 visitors a day, is mostly men between the ages 35 and 55 and men with a median income of $80,000 annually. Guys who make money are the type who would research their hookers. The steady theme is looking for sex without the emotional commitment, the love experience but without the baggage, and escorts who are well read, can cook and are sensual and feminine lure the johns in repeatedly. Men are looking for all around women who won't be high maintenance harpies who change on a whim. This is news to the media.

Nowhere in the article does the writer challenge the men or why the "feeling" is not there in a city (NYC) with millions of single women. If these guys can get any woman they want in a city with millions of women, why are they paying hundreds if not thousands per experience upwards of thousands a year for escorts? Falling birth rate for the West, why not ask financially secure men without kids why they are not thinking about kids and not the "love experience? That growing segment of irreligious that oftentimes dive into hedonistic pleasures today because there is no God and no afterlife so live for now and screw society's future would agree with these guys. Marriage and companionship? Bah, who needs it, and anyway, I can just rent it. The media would never broach the subject of live for today at the expense of societal continuity, since they are actively pushing it.

Little nuggets reveal more to the problem of what modern women provide men in this article. Why are hookers working on their culinary skills and receiving compliments for being engaging listeners? Modern women lack cooking skills and just blabber on with no pause to stop and listen to their men. That complaint is common from men. Women have reduced relationships to keeping men using their multiple orifices and the lure of sex. If relationships are going to boil down to a sexual element with little to no companionship or emotional bonding (that's the Iphone's domain), they why would a man, still expected to pay, shell out money for meals and activities for the possibility of sex if the woman does not have a fickle moment when he can shell out money for a guaranteed attractive woman and know sex is happening. Besides the romanticized experiences of these few johns in the article, the other thousands if not millions of men using escorts are looking for someone who will be attentive to them if only for an hour. On advertisements they call it the king treatment because no one wants to advertise the 1950s housewife treatment your grandmother gave your grandpa. Grandpa walks in the door from a long day of work, gripes about work that your grandmother did not care at all about, and eats a meal cooked for him with his favorite drink in hand. Cooking a meal was a sign of love or care. Your grandmother did not have to, but she did it. How many women today are doing that? It is like the psychiatry patients who talk to shrinks not for therapy or a mental illness but because they think that for forty five minutes someone, anyone, is just listening to them.

There will be no article on the death of 1950s mom, but we get these articles on high end johns and escorts. They cannot mention the decline of home life because they push its breakdown. They also have to avoid the awful bargain marriage can be. The smartest commentary on modern America in the article was not in the article but in the comments. Reader Kevin Michael Reily comments.
If the marriage doesn't work out, the woman gets the house the kids, the car, and alimony. I see all these married men with wives who complain, spend their money and then talk all about what a man has to do for a woman. A lot of American men are "just alimony slaves" who are controlled by their wives. Of course not all marriages are like this but MILLIONS of them are. That is what women fail to accept. The man pays for everything..and all they do is show up. Of course they love this system.
That obvious rules of the game reality was missing in the article. He is right. Broken men screwed over in divorce court number in the millions and dwarf the number of guys using high end escorts. This is a disincentive that men respond to by not marrying or even looking for a long term relationships when they can get sex from many women for free or high class ass for a fee. Michael Strahan's ex accused him of being gay, hitting her and cheating, which made it into the newspapers. She also received $15 mil of his $23 mil in wealth. I am unsure if that included the 50-50 split of their home when it sold for $3.3 million. That was despite a prenup that put 20% of his earnings in a secure account for her. Prenup was tossed. Strahan lost. What wealthy guy wants to walk into that divorce racket? If Strahan cannot protect himself with a prenup, will you? Contracts between consensual adults are the rage, so why not pay a college girl to cary your kid to pay off some of her student loans? The media will not mention the landmine that is family law because it is a system they foster. The divorce fantasy programming they broadcast is constant whether news segments or the latest Julia Roberts movie product. As the commenter said, women get what they want and it is on their whim. In our dark corner of the Internet, we know the game is rigged in their favor with financial rewards even if they are at fault, but this cannot be discussed in broad daylight because more people are noticing and angry.

Funny thing is, they never come out and discuss the idiocy of prostitution's illegal status in comparison to pornography nor other nations' licensing rules. If the media will push Weeks/Knox why not push legalization of prostitution? Safe, legal, rare? Is this the one sexual endeavor that can remain puritan in spirit? It was a national scandal of the week when a Zumba fitness instructor was found to be running a brothel (she was the lone employee) in Maine. Did anyone discuss the stupidity of prostitution laws since the thing that got her jail time was filming men having sex without their knowledge? No. Just tabloid coverage, and the hypocrisy hand wringing as whispers spread of what high profile men in southern Maine might be on the client list. The local NBC weatherman had to make a statement that he was not on the list. No discussion of what is behind the law when a clearly business savvy woman and male partner are running a six figure escort service with no advertising and no harm done to her.

This is another sex positive, pro-sex worker media piece. Like the Weeks/Knox story, the media can dip into the story only where it wants to dig to push the progressive agenda. The Observer can inform us of these Secret Diary of a Call Girl fantasy escorts, who do exist but in small numbers. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by the strippers going the extra mile, meth/crack/coke addicted hookers and foreign women being trafficked around the nation. Stay at a decent hotel in a major metropolitan area, and downstairs in their bar is a pretty girl tapping her foot and nursing a drink who approaches you and comes with her own menu. It's the sexual black market; pure capitalism and growing. A deeper discussion might persuade Americans to legalize prostitution if it meant more resoruces fighting trafficking. Soon to be joining those numbers of escorts are 20-somethings with student loans to pay off but no jobs, redefining the old term white slavery. These top shelf johns are just so romantic and dreamy. They just need a quick fix of a wonderful experience. Don't bother asking what they will do in thirty years. I'm sure retired escorts attend the funerals of their dearest clients. The article can only go so far in discussing why these men seek high end rentals because to do any deeper digging or pontificate on the family law system would be to inflict wounds on the very system the media has enabled.

Monday, March 24, 2014

What do China, Russia and Saudi Arabia Have in Common?

The USG empire is looking a bit hollow right now. The Afghans are kicking us out after a half-hearted surge five years ago. Assad stands triumphant with an option to stay or walk away on his terms, holding power behind the scenes if he wants. The Iranians are toying with the West in their six month window of relaxed sanctions. Russia is pushing their claims in the Crimea with India and China supporting them. The Saudis just sent the crown prince to China to talk shop, and tiny Belgium now holds $300 billion in US Treasuries. The USG system is calling Russia isolated. Projection. Has the USG diplomacy crew stopped to think about what Russia, China and the Saudis all have in common? They all are natural enemies of the USG system with corresponding strengths and weaknesses.

What does the USG have in common with the Saudis? We just need them to pump oil and keep buying dollars. The Chinese? We need them to provide cheap labor and keep buying dollars. The Russians? We need them to buy some dollars and pumping oil helps keep the spot oil price lower. The USG is about spreading democracy, gay rights, 21st century marketed feminism and the progressive buffet. Those three countries do not sound like willing recipients of such garbage. Putin has been pretty open about not following the West down its suicidal path. The Saudis are only still a monarchy and in charge of the peninsula because of their oil reserves, and China is not budging on "moar political freedoms". These three also hold hoards of dollar denominated assets that they accrue in exchange for commodities. No one has to be an ally, only have a shared interest. What are they going to do with all of those depreciating dollars?

As Zero Hedge notes, China has an appetite for natural resources as the manfuacturing hub of the world. Russia needs buyers for its oil and gas, and the Saudis need security. The moves are being made to set up a petroyuan with heavy exchange of commodities and gold. Who will protect the Saudis? China and Russia should be able to do enough. Why do the Saudis need protection? External threats? Who would the Saudis need protection from if the Iranians are also a client of the Chinese and Russians? Saudi Arabia is well armed, but already seeks arms diversification. It would be regime stability and internal control, correct? China and Russia are two votes on the UN Security Council if they have to suppress any internal strife that the US State Department and CIA cook up. The Israelis? Shhhh, but some pundits think the Israelis and Saudis have a silent agreement (I do, too). Regardless, if Sailer is onto something, what if the Russians make inroads with Israel while the American left abandons Israel as the American public grows more isolationist and duskier (less pro-Israel) by the year.

The key for the Russia-China axis is to provide a believable physical and financial security system for other nations. China has beaten the drum on respecting other nations' internal governments as long as the minerals and resources flow. Russia can point to the West toppling the Ukrainian government, which looks horrible outside the US-EU zone, and sudden IMF leeching of the people. Magically, pensions are cut in half for seniors, the gold is gone and new billions in debt are being thrown onto the future taxpayers of the Ukraine. Putin can sit back and let the Western banking interests be the best PR he can buy, but do it for free. While the debt is being piled on, China is going to grab a few billion the Ukraine owes it. Steadily since the American financial crisis, China and Russia have made moves to build a system outside the USG system or force enough pressure to have a seat at the table in the IMF-World Bank system. The latest being Russia stating China's yuan could be a third reserve currency. Each time the USG plays RISK over a piece like the Ukraine, Syria or Libya and leaves a shattered nation in its wake, the Russia-China advertisement for a potential "fair" system, even if it is a mirage, looks more appealing.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Masha Gessen, Gollum

Steve Sailer had a nice post on Masha Gessen's confirmation of Putin's suspicions about the West which George Soros called paranoia. World War G is the way to gin up the US natives to fight the Russians over scraps of backwater nations like the Ukraine. Masha Gessen is a lesbian political activist with a warped worldview. She also has pull. She is published in papers, earns speaking fees and helps subvert other nations. She is a government employee of sorts with extensive contacts to our State Department. One item that is not published often is her malicious intent to destroy the family.

Gessen has been recorded saying gay marriage is a sham, but that the real goal is to destroy the traditional family. In the dystopian world that is modern America, her words were not met with silence or boos, but with applause. This is just another step in destroying all bonds between individuals and molding people down to individuals with no connections whatsoever to anyone else. This should be stamped next to any byline, but it is not. It is thrown down the memory hole because to pull the curtain back on these freaks and psychotic progs might cause middle of the road voters to pause. As easily as Americans were molded to accept gay marriage, they could be molded to see these sick freaks for what they are. It only takes using the megaphone for other means. Throw in Gessen's Jewish heritage, and whoa, the flyover folks might start wondering about other things.

She also is the gay Gollum. Seriously, look at pictures of this woman in her mid 40s. She looks 60. Does she use soap and shampoo? Reviewing her Google Image results, she probably has gender identification issues as well. She wears suits, has her hair super short, and looks like Ezra Klein's older brother. Just how much of her activism is her own struggle with her mother's early death and her mental issues? Work those out first before ruining eons old institutions like marriage and starting world war three. Besides Gessen's personal demons fueling her political activism, the other problem we have is giving a microphone and therefore granting authority to fools like this about geopolitical events without full disclosure. How different would every readers' opinion of Gessen's anti-Putin screed be if they knew she lied about same-sex marriage as a means to destroy traditional marriage? This happens with them all, like Matt Yglesias having worked in Chuck Schumer's office in his undergraduate days, but a dose of transparency would be healthy for the system. The media would rather us read the wise words of a lesbian who lived in Russia, was born in Russia and wants to free Russia. They cannot let us know she is a woman (barely) who wants to destroy marriage, enabled Pussy Riot for political purposes and would drop bombs on Russia for gays in a heartbeat.

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Old Hollywood - Sophia Loren and Jayne Mansfield

Thanks for all the online pimping this week, causing my sales to quitruple and katrople. I will leave you with a few classic pictures from old Hollywood, when the women looked like women.

Everyone knows this picture of Sophia Loren and Jayne Mansfield.

Mansfield = Monroe Supersized
Jealousy, right? That is how it has always been framed. I doubt it. What did Sophia Loren have to be jealous about; the dinner was in her honor. Look at this picture from earlier in the night and tell me what Sophia Loren was looking out for with her sneak peek in the other picture?

Mansfield's curves = Legendary
She was worried Mansfield was going to have a nipple slip out. Take a look at that hip/rear curve on Mansfield. Pay attention Jezebel, that is an hourglass! Hollywood had multiple women of those dimensions back then: Loren, Mansfield, Monroe, Mamie Van Doren, and Jane Russell. Russell inspried Howard Hughes to design a new bra to boost her ample assets for the movie "The Outlaw". They were thin but curvy. Look at the pictures posted. Thin but no sinews of muscle visible. A soft thin look. I am missing a few, but I'll take any of them over what we regularly get shoved our way now.

I'd look surprised too

Friday, March 21, 2014

An Architect of Our World, Robert Strauss, Died

Robert Strauss died Wednesday at age 95. Strauss was a Jewish lawyer from Texas who was connected with their Democrat machine, working with Lyndon Johnson and Governor John Connally. He was a "moderate" member of the party. More a business wing of the party strategist than a policy wonk. Strauss was also a prime mover in the change in American government as the business forces of the US struck back at the New Left and even environmental zealots. Strauss was an architect of the system we have today.

Strauss' crowning achievement is said to be the 1976 Democrat convention. He was chairman of the party going into the convention of '76. The prior two conventions had been a mess, first on the streets in '68 and then on the convention floor itself in '72. This march of the New Left hoodlums from streets onward would continue until a protyege would win the presidency in '08. Strauss knew in '76 that he had a weak field of candidates, a party with a bad reputation and a nation disgusted by what it saw the prior two elections. In 1976, allt hat was needed for a Ford win was a switch in 20,000 votes in Wisconsin and 6,000 votes in Ohio. This all despite the lingering aftertaste of Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon. Strauss tightly worked the convention to symbollically show the resolution of the Wallace wing and McGovern wing with Carter's outsider, Southern boy nomination. Now it's the McGovern wing, Hispanics tipping the scales in swing sand states and the Wallace wing is the evil enemy.

Strauss' real achievement was in setting the Democrats up well to take advantage of the switch in the '70s of a lot of GOP men to the Demcorats and the rise of corporate political invovlement. Guys like Leon Panetta who swtiched sides were Strauss men. Strauss had a rolodex anyone would envy. His soft power was so strong that he helped former Democrat but now Republican and dear Strauss friend, John Conally, get a puff piece profile in Fortune magazine in the late '70s, explaining why he should be the GOP's presidential nominee and not the Goldwater conservative Reagan. The money is what mattered because in 1976 unions were politically outspending corporations in donations. In 1971, future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote to businesses to get more involved or watch the communists take over and kill the golden economic goose. Strauss was a well connected lawyer, and his political involvement pushed international affairs and engagement. Surprise surprise, his law firm was a powerhouse in legal advice for international mergers and acquisitions. The Washington Consensus and neoliberalism always has a payoff.

Strauss had an even bigger achievement that affects us today that is left out of his NY Times obituary. A simple bit of advice that set a ball into motion that still rolls. I only discovered Strauss years ago because of a line in Robert Rubin's memoir about how he became involved in politics. In the early '80s, Rubin was interested in becoming politically involved. The Democrats had just lost the presidency to Reagan, 30+ seats in the House and lost control of the Senate. Strauss did not recommend Rubin run for anything, but he told them that if you really want a seat at the table, you have to raise a lot of cash. Rubin raised $1 million at a dinner, which in 1982 was a gigantic haul, and began his slow, but thorough, conquest of the Democrats. There are no bankers in jail. The Too Big to Fail banks still live. Stanley Fischer, IMF goon who plundered Russia and Asia in the '90s, worked for Rubin at Citigroup in the 2000s. The same vampires who orchastrated the ground conditions for the crisis still walk free. Strauss and Rubin are why.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Everything is Rotten With Miriam Weeks/Belle Knox

Things don't add up on the Duke filmed hooker porn performer story. The elevation of her tiny participation in a salacious industry is man bites dog territory but reeks of self-promotion. Alec Baldwin asked in the TNT Sunday afternoon rotation, neo-noir film Malice if Bill Pullman would cut off a finger for a million dollars or maybe just a digit. Think of this like Kris Jenner using Kim Kardashian's sex tape with a no-name rapper as a sacrifice for greater fame and fortune or de Blasio's wife saying she was a lesbian in the early '70s to carve out a niche in the growing black feminist crowd. Here's my take: Miriam Weeks performed in her few porn scenes as a way to sacrifice and earn streed cred for credibility, publicity and carreerism in the Jezebel realm of the media and the media is using her right now to further normalize porn for women.

1. Miriam Weeks enrolls in Duke and sets self up as women's studies major, also openly stating she is a libertarian.
2. Mixed race, half-Asian Indian, Miriam Weeks shoots porn as Belle Knox. Does kinky site known for rough stuff first, and within first few scenes is banging James Deen who is hot ticket right now in porn that has received plenty of good mainstream PR. Is this the ultimate American Born Confused Desi move?
3. She is outed by guy in fraternity. Story is he identified her from her kink performance... her first flick is how he spotted her. Later, the story is changed to she confided in him of her porn work.
4. OMG the media picks up on it! She gets an essay in Cosmopolitan, interview on CNN and then an appearance on The View. Guy who outed her supposedly has a $1,000/month porn habit and gets the second wave of outrage for being a hypocrite (I don't know how it's hypocritical. I like alcohol but criticze alcoholics and some elements of that industry).

Guess the next step in normalizing porn for American women is to have a top tier college girl do it and then say how awesome and empowering it was. She fights the patriarchy through self-objectification and getting throat fucked on film. Sounds like the patriarchy won. Any deep investigative segments before or after interviews where the reporter discusses the rampant dysfunction of countless performers. Remember when Janeane Garafolo and other women were ripping men liking barely legal porn which they defined as barely legal because women had waxed their pubic hair off? Weeks/Knox is doing barely legal porn with the school girl/teen imagery. Side note: Have you seen her dad? She got dad's nose. Tight body if you like stick thin, but a giant nose attached to her small face. The media gets to discuss porn not being bad. The media also gets to discuss the hypocrisy of the guy who outed her as a user. This is tailor made for progressive ends. The hypocrisy of an upper class, two parent home, military brat girl doing what we associate with the lower classes being first. For an industry that sucks in 5,000 new perforemrs a year, they were bound to pull in one kid from a top notch university. America, and it's media, has devolved significantly because nearly 20 years ago Asia Carrera was the first big Asian crossover porn star who had a MENSA level IQ and was a classically trained painist who performed at Carnegie Hall as a kid (check her broken sounding story in the documentary "After Porn Ends"). She was not invited to talk on CNN or daytime television. The narrative has changed now. In the current media's narrative, the doofus who outed her is key. Turn eventual focus and anger on the patriarchy since there is a war on women going on folks. Pay no attention to the media institution supporting her.

Nothing feels solid with her story. She says she watched porn since age 12, and performed research on the industry, yet when she performed in her scene, she said the guy was being paid more than her (.70 cents on dollar feminist narrative vs. porn's 5-1 pay ratio reality). It was to help her family pay for Duke's outrageous tuition? Unh-hunh. Duke is expensive even for a military family where dad makes $200,000 annually but no health insurance burdens like us civilians, but what were her handful of scenes going to net her? The boy-girl scene was $1200 before agent cut and taxes, the girl-girl was much less, and maybe some glamour photo still money, but after taxes, that is what, $4000. Duke's expenses total up to $50,000+/- annually. To tack onto her flimsy cover story, did she shoot a bunch of scenes in December to rack up revenue? Was she running a pay site? Can you buy autographed photos of her? She had a Tumblr and a Twitter. Wait, she must not have done more scenes because if she did the studio would be packaging those with good girl gone bad marketing. In a month, she could have shot daily and earned $1200 a scene each day as much as she wanted if she pushed herself and was looking to pay for Duke. Filming one scene takes hours, so every other day and she could have earned $10,000 on her back.

Think of the reveal. It gets picked up and debated by the media mandarins as a boundary in the sexual realm to bend for young women. She was not ashamed of her choice yet used stage name, and told one guy to not tell anyone. The guy she happened to tell (Thomas Bagley) also has a porn habit of $1,000/month. Not so fast. How did they find that one out? They are taking the word of the distributor of that site. That distributor has a history of making outrageous offers to critics of porn. Why was Bagley paying for porn? It is 2014. Tube sites stream everything and anything for free. A double major is not paying for porn. I looked up the Brazzers and Bang Bros website networks costs; $9.99/month for 30 sites for both networks. Kulich's kink site is similar a month. Nowhere near $1,000/month, but it is Prog 101, smear the other side. Media fail on purpose. Bagley, if the habit is not true, sue Kulich and the papers for libel to cover your tuition costs. The story changing from recognizing her onscreen to being told by her is interesting, and sounds like amateur hour in storyland to cover for implausibility of recognizing her. With the flood of porn released a month, how would this one guy at her specific school (14,600 enrolled students) see her first scene out of all the smut released? That is finding the Holy Grail in a room of 10,000 cups. Even the pervs fans at the incredibly NSFW adult dvd talk had first posted about her on January 10th (NSFW). For a laugh, read that thread to get to the porn media interviewer who will ask her about anal but not interracial because he doesn't want her to get branded a racist if she says no. Porn performer = okay. Won't bang black guys = Racist = bad reputation. Consider how the status of the guy who outed her helps the tale: nerdy looking frat boy at Rapey White Privilege Duke University tells his frat, and oh the patriarchy shamed her. Oh no the patriarchy!!!

She is so shamed by society that she showed up on CNN and The View. Who flew her there for interviews? Who is paying? Maybe it is her bookign agency, Matrix Models, which is not the premier agency, so she is their star they can push now to pick up new clients. Cosmo gave her an outlet to express her tale. This all stinks of a set up. Will she get a book deal or will she just be a Jezebelsphere writer? The XO Jane writing gig probably pays crap, but it's a supplement to porn work that is not escorting. Think of the idiocy of Jezebel types working as strippers in nice strip clubs for one week then claiming they have sex worker experience and can speak for the sex workers, normalizing their acts. She just one upped all of them. The national exposure will boost her porn fees from the standard $1200 per boy-girl scene to potentially $4000 (depends on how publicity sticks). She headlined a NYC strip club two nights ago. Huffpo SWPL-loser writer Alanna Vagianos called Belle Knox, notice she did not use Weeks' real name, a "badass feminist" who owned it onstage and thought the strip club would be full of ashamed men. Vagianos stereotyped about strip clubs and straight men before ever going to one. Can you imagine a straight guy writing about a gay club in the same manner? Nope, but this is negative society. Every time they call her Knox and not Weeks they are helping kill the person she was before and assisting her run from her old life.

The scary part of Weeks/Knox is she is just taking behavior we (in this corner of the net) know to be common: freakier sex, sexting, naked selfies and now putting it out for public consumption. Saying she was probably abused is too easy of a cop out. This blatant cutter might just be what passes for the edge of normal now. It is unrestrained female sexuality being supported through the media. Shhh, even Wikipedia deleted her enry that had a cleaned up timeline of events. Here is something even more disturbing. Weeks is a freshman and started to shoot porn a few months ago. She had already imbibed enough of the modern feminist claptrap to parrot the views, perform mental gymnastics in print online and even regurgitate those buzzwords when she shot a porno scene. Talk about a mind virus. Her 15 minutes will be up soon enough, but the women's studies major former porn star will probably earn speaking fees to talk to your kids about sex positivism and be seen on a Jezebel byline in the future. She never has to perform again. Think of her sacrifice to the altar for a helping hand up the media ladder. In 2018, you will see her book after she leaves Duke and porn behind with a title, "An Adult Education". Pornography gets normalized a bit more. "It was just sex with a guy on camera, and she got paid for it. So what?", say a growing segment of devolving young women across America. It's just another mile marker on America's devolution highway.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Illinois 2010 Election Oddity + the Gangs That Run Chicago

Seems nowadays potential job offers should come with data sheets on cities as well as their ten and twenty year projections. The scourge that is the democratic system of one man, one vote has a bad habit of turning cities into dumps due to the importing of reliably dependent voting blocs. Chicago is caught in a delicate act right now of wanting to clean up like New York and DC have done, but needing that pool of dependent voters. Chicago also lacks that unique anchor that NYC (Wall St) and DC (FedGov) have. Illinois is a horror show of the modern democratic system. The best description of Illinois is a red state held hostage by a blue metropolis full of illiterates. One of the oddities, if not the biggest oddity, of the 2010 elections was the weird way Illinois voted in statewide elections. Senator Kirk (R) enjoyed a victory while candidate for governor Bill Brady (R) lost despite polling better than Kirk all through 2010. Looking at incentives and the alliance in Chicago itself, it is easy to draw conclusions about the Chicago and Cook County numbers that point to tinkering with the final vote.

Kirk did not poll as well as Brady consistently in the run up to November yet Kirk won and Brady lost while both were republicans in Illinois. In the 2010 Tea Party energized base year, somehow the moderate Kirk rode the wave to a victory while the better base guy lost. Kirk outperformed Brady in Cook County by pure vote count as well as percentage of vote. More people voted in Cook County in the US Senate race than the governor race in their state. That was the difference between Kirk's win and Brady's loss. If Brady tracks slightly better as Kirk did, he wins. If Cook County citizens of Illinois vote for governor of Illinois in the same number as their US Senator, he wins. Democrat Quinn won the governor's race and delayed and caved on attempting any pension reform, which benefits Chicago's entire patronage system. Just now the state has set up a reform that is already under attack in the courts. These state reforms came years after new taxes were put in place. How different would Brady have been compared to Quinn with pension reform and the taxes that were quickly passed? We will never know, but I doubt hypothetical Gov. Brady moves lockstep with real Gov. Quinn. Great analysis here, which mentions 3rd party candidates stealing votes more from Brady in Cook County. The article is nicely written but operates under the assumption that the system is honest when it has no incentive to be honest.

In reality, what mattered more to Mayor Daley? What had a more direct effect on Chicago? The governorship mattered more through the patronage system and had a greater effect on Chicago's finances. One distinct difference between Brady and Quinn was Quinn's drive to raise taxes to protect spending, which he did after being elected, versus Brady's desire to help the long term fiscal picture in Illinois through pension reform and spending cuts. Daley's Chicago is home to over 500,000 health care industry jobs. There are nearly 100 hospitals. Hospitals can set up their funding through specific channels. In the post-2008 landscape, hospitals that set funding mostly or entirely through federal grants and money maintained payrolls. Those that set funding through private means or state and municipal funding were immediately affected due to states needing to hit annual budgets. A simple difference in maintaining current spending would have sent plenty of Chicago health care employees home. That is just one industry for a city strapped for any tax revenue.

The senate race was different from Daley's point of view. The US Senate seat was going to slide pork Illinois' way whether Democrat or Republican, plus Kirk is incredibly moderate. One former politician who is now a writer of fiction theorized that Brady lost from straight line D vote stuffing that needed to swing a county election to one candidate (link later). It is just so striking that Brady outpolled Kirk yet trailed his performance on election night. Brady had a 5% lead going into the election vs. Kirk's within the margin of error lead in the Senate race. Brady did run as a touch more conservative and did run a so-so campaign in the eyes of analysts, but how did Rasmussen nail so many of the 2010 midterm elections and fail on that one? It is a mystery. Chicago is the deal breaker, as Daley abandoned his potential challenge of Quinn in late 2013 once current Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel said Quinn was a good guy. Message: I'm not tilting Chicago your way Daley.

Even dirtier than the mechanics of whatever fraud went on in Chicago to swing that election point is the problem of city governance motivations. Who exactly has the upper hand in the gangs and Democrat politicians alliance? Have a good laugh at the white politician photo and gang photo being a white guy with tattoos and a wife beater on (reader mental association: Aryan Nation) compared to the actual gangs named as well their their unified group's name in the article.

Baskin isn’t a slick campaign strategist. He’s a former gang leader and, for several decades, a community activist who now operates a neighborhood center that aims to keep kids off the streets. Baskin has deep contacts inside the South Side’s complex network of politicians, community organizations, and street gangs. as he recalls, the inquiring candidates wanted to know: “Who do I need to be talking to so I can get the gangs on board?” 
Baskin—who was himself a candidate in the 16th Ward aldermanic race, which he would lose—was happy to oblige. In all, he says, he helped broker meetings between roughly 30 politicians (ten sitting aldermen and 20 candidates for City Council) and at least six gang representatives. That claim is backed up by two other community activists, Harold Davis Jr. and Kublai K. M. Toure, who worked with Baskin to arrange the meetings, and a third participant, also a community activist, who requested anonymity. The gang representatives were former chiefs who had walked away from day-to-day thug life, but they were still respected on the streets and wielded enough influence to mobilize active gang members. 
The first meeting, according to Baskin, occurred in early November 2010, right before the statewide general election; more gatherings followed in the run-up to the February 2011 municipal elections. The venues included office buildings, restaurants, and law offices. (By all accounts, similar meetings took place across the city before last year’s elections and in elections past, including after hours at the Garfield Center, a taxpayer-financed facility on the West Side that is used by the city’s Department of Family and Support Services.) 
At some of the meetings, the politicians arrived with campaign materials and occasionally with aides. The sessions were organized much like corporate-style job fairs. The gang representatives conducted hourlong interviews, one after the other, talking to as many as five candidates in a single evening. Like supplicants, the politicians came into the room alone and sat before the gang representatives, who sat behind a long table. “One candidate said, ‘I feel like I’m in the hot seat,’” recalls Baskin. “And they were.” 
The former chieftains, several of them ex-convicts, represented some of the most notorious gangs on the South and West Sides, including the Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples, Black Disciples, Cobras, Black P Stones, and Black Gangsters. Before the election, the gangs agreed to set aside decades-old rivalries and bloody vendettas to operate as a unified political force, which they called Black United Voters of Chicago. “They realized that if they came together, they could get the politicians to come to them,” explains Baskin. 
The gang representatives were interested in electing aldermen sympathetic to their interests and those of their impoverished wards. As for the politicians, says Baskin, their interests essentially boiled down to getting elected or reelected. “All of [the political hopefuls] were aware of who they were meeting with,” he says. “They didn’t care. All they wanted to do was get the support.”


Normally, cynics view the gangs as the progressive Brownshirts, but it is not so clear. Read that whole link if you can stomach the idea of gang leaders interviewing politicians for support who sought them out. These are the supposed leaders of one of our nation's largest cities, and they have to audition in front of gang leaders. It sounds more like gang leaders are warlord chiefs with the city pols acting as bankers and administrators. Chicago has a murder problem. Chicago has a gang problem. Chicago is the national hub of the Sinaloa drug cartel's American distribution system. I read the above alderman beauty pageant show and do not see a solution to Chicago's problems. How can you solve the Chicago murder problem that the police blame on the Gangster Disciples when they are the political muscle? Dysfunction like this should incite hangings, not just prosecutions, and a total reorganization of the city of Chicago and its political system. It can't because it is our cherished system.

This is democracy. Regardless of the potential value of the prime real estate of Chicago, nothing can be done. The city cannot clean up the streets. They need the gangs because without the gangs they do not have the electoral foot soldier support. They need the dysfunction to provide a demand for the social welfare state and patronage system that they supply. The very criminals and network of support they should be putting behind bars are the men they have to curry favor with to win in our voting system. They also need the bodies present in those areas to act as a voter slush fund (scroll down here). They can fiddle with turnout when needed (like in the 2010 governor race) to make sure they have a reservoir of votes to secure power. This is not conspiracy theory as this Heritage report on the 1982 governor's race shows, but rarely mentioned fact as the link shows widespread fraud. That fraud was 100,000 votes to potentially swing a governorship. Brady lost by roughly 30,000. How could the GOP enforce anything in voting districts run by gangs let alone partisans in Chicago? The GOP in Chicago and Illinois as a whole has grown weaker since 1982 (corruption scandals, immigration + the national social drift leftward). This is why Obamacare enrollment automatically enrolls you as a voter. You become a potential reservoir vote to be called upon if the fudge margin needs you.

The 2010 elections were interesting as I noted a few posts back not just for the wins but the losses. Minnesota elected Mark Dayton as governor, who promptly enacted new taxes in the middle of a depression, by 9,000 votes or what I call "the Somali margin". Chicago's governance as well as its effect on national politics is a prime example of the perverse mechanisms and incentives of democracy. We do not have incentives to properly administer city governments to create safe, secure cities. The incentive is for the river of meat on election day to secure power. The voter banks of many cities become cushions for the left in statewide and, every four years, presidential elections. This is great for progressives but after a while, you get electoral victories amongst the ruins of a city long since destroyed. It may lead to a stranglehold on power but over what? Empty stone buildings that become standing testaments to the once prosperous region you killed. Detroit stands ruined for all of us to see. It is not just economics or race but the system itself that is the problem.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Monarchy, SovCorp + Legitimacy

Note: This post was intendedto be right after Oddblots SovCorp post, but I had to finish the NW European Outbreeding work because it fits into this.


Spengler would look at us and see our current predicament as the late stage of democracy before order restoring Caesarism rises from the ruinous remains of voters voting themselves goodies, forgetting what truly created order, security and safety. Is not NRx a symptom of this awareness that democracy is garbage and trying to determine the best way to configure the coming Caesarism? There are many assets to strip to support the current regime and many lies that need to be continued before a social and cultural crack up can occur. We do have some time. What comes next or what could come next? As Foseti writes, the bureaucracy will always exist but how is it controlled. Whether it is reading too much Neal Stephenson, my AnCap leanings, or living in different areas of America that are completely different nations, ethnically, culturally and politically, I am a fan of pan-secession and the ability of different regions to form whatever governments they determine is best for them. Exit and competition amongst the states will help. With my writing on Irvine, I am a fan of trying neocameralism, for profit government or the SovCorp idea.

Monarch as sovereign sounds pretty straightforward and has a long history of working for different people. "Bah criticism always uses 400 year old examples!" or "Illiterate barbarians warriors figured it out" (to switch to kingship), "Where's my Paxil!" or "Live under a man who's goal is earning coin >snort< morons", to paraphrase what I see on Twitter. I will not go back 400 years. If the monarch is sovereign and the right to rule transfers to the first born (reading these tweets, a first born son), could we easily find problems after the revolutions of 1848? Yes. How does one train the next monarch? Who makes that call? If the monarch is sovereign, cannot he overrule the training program of his successor? It is his power is as father first and then as fully sovereign monarch second? Do we codify that or is that an admission to a faulty system since constitutions are garbage? Did not Alexander III run into this problem with Nicholas II? Alexander brushed off calls to get Nicholas involved in the machinery of the state and concepts of ruling. Who could argue with the monarch? He is the tsar. It did not go so well for Nicholas, his line or Russia. Nicholas played passive man as his stronger wife (read biographies, dragon lady) brought Rasputin into the elite clique with disastrous results (in Heartiste terms, Tsar Cuck). A member of the extended family but with a different problem, Kaiser Wilhelm II became kaiser as eldest son. Awesome selection process there. He was born three years before Prince Henry. Anyone read a biography on Wilhelm II and wonder exactly how mentally off he was under the pressure of being the next in line with his wrecked arm and odd personality? They forced handicapped Wilhelm to learn to ride a horse with his messed up arm bawling his eyes out as a toddler. He is like the Rex Ryan of monarchs where the media caricature is unfair, but only because its degree of exaggeration not inaccuracy. He was a Sonny, not a Fredo, but Henry strikes me as a possible Michael (Godfather references). Might German history go a bit different with Henry running the show rather than Wilhelm? We cannot know because rules are rules, order of birth, get over it.

This is being a bit pedantic, but that does not stop others from refusing to take a step back and think rather than just attempt to score points. Technology makes monarchy a more stable thing now. IVF, gene therapy and a set training program could help design a good sovereign as well as secure succession (heir and a spare). This is all workable from a mechanics standpoint, but what will give these guys legitimacy? As I wrote yesterday, those illiterate barbarians made the transition from warlord to king by using a gigantic network and sociopolitical infrastructure known as the Catholic Church. Coronations imbued them with the Holy Spirit as sacred figures who were defenders of the faith as well as sovereigns of their people. Are you going to bring back the Church in full Middle Ages glory? By Church, not just the ritual and forms of the Church, but its true strength, the believing parishioners. I'm asking because throwaway statements about the ease illiterates had making the transition are childish and downplay the centuries of work put into that status change and the use of a gigantic "other power" to make that transition. One possible way is to rally around and base legitimacy and identity on blood, which a certain German tried last century. King Obama? Progressives might deal with Obama for a third term, but I doubt it, and it is just Winter of 2014. Imagine them dealing with him for 25 more years. No way. I do think he could be a king though, but white progressives would not buy into it. I doubt king is working with white progs, but give them their own area to come up with Progtopia.

King Obama would work perfect with a black state. If you have any black acquaintances on Faceborg, check to see if they've already wistfully posted wishing Obama could run for a third term. I've seen those posts. They are church going and could easily be sold on a king. How many black public figures have cracked a smile and said "He goin' go black on they ass in his 2nd term!" Forever disappointed. Sub-Saharan African nations have found a post-colonialism groove of Big Man tribal politics that becomes one man, one vote, one time, leading to lifelong despots. Similar genetics at play, and looking at how Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton worked for decades as unofficial Presidents of Black America, this is not much of a change. Historical tendencies of absentee fathers, LBJ's welfare state, the crack wars and dysgenic breeding have created a huge vacuum for any large public figure to fill in the lives of a majority of blacks. Carve out the black belt down south, and give it to the blacks. In no time, the talented tenth aristocracy would set up a nice King Obama with accompanying myth (my guess is a true descendant of slaves, ex-military/police guy). The Bos-Wash corridor Progtopia would end up funding that state through white guilt third world aid. Hell, if I were in charge of the Bos-Wash corridor, I'd set up filmed, fake assassinations every decade of his evil advisors that keep preventing King Obama from doing what the loyal subjects keep waiting for him to do if only they'd get out of the way while simultaneously stripping the natural resources of the area. The English had rebellions multiple times not directly at the king but at his wicked advisors who were manipulating him. Blacks already believe this about Obama. Set up a kingdom, and you could repeat the cycle with faked television executions of bad advisors every five to seven years. Watching Obama, sometimes it appears he thought the presidency would be like being king with his only requirement being speeches and ceremonies.

Religion is key, and who knows what will come with the looming conflict. In Vico's analysis, the men who restore order from the prior chaos and conflict are the ones who hold legitimacy to set up the rules for the new order. Take a step outside your safe middle to upper class bubble and visit places like Anderson, Indiana. Anderson was once a mid-sized manufacturing town with a university located there full of middle class families. Now it is a rundown meth village of government dependents surrounding the university. Across America, we will probably have to hang meth heads, drug dealers and corrupt officials by the thousands, maybe millions, within 25 years. It is possible that security and safety becomes such an issue through tribal conflict that security minded warlords become leaders who could start dynasties. Yes, but we're dealing with 21st century human beings. Maybe heartland traditionalists could rally around a king because they are true believers, so the concept that the Holy Spirit is guiding the king can work with them. King of Texas, Archon of Dixie, King of Midwestopia... I can see that. The Mormons would gladly make Mitt Romney Archon of Deseret (admit it, he'd be the perfect administrator). Are middle class, irreligious types going to do so? Not likely. Are the strivers or davos man wannabe types going to? No. It would take amazing cultural and social engineering. As an aside that ties into this, it is incredibly interesting to me that a group of people who believe in nature over nurture and/or human biodiversity think that because churches changed people stopped coming and not the other way around. Yes, some churches changed in ridiculous ways and people left (Episcopalian Church), but people changed. Northeastern Boomer Catholics are the biggest offenders. The media did not help, but the people changed. An evangelical megachurch I know has scrapped their traditional service for the contemporary "Rock Concert with Jesus" service. It used to be the traditional srvice had the huge crowd and the rock concert had a small crowd. It flipped, and now the traditional service is gone. They pack them in. There is a similar type of government but cloaked in modern terms that could be sold to the irreligious and the types who would not go for the ceremony or pageantry of kingship yet act the same: SovCorp/neocameralism.

Oddblots had a great post on this hypothetical style of government, and I envision the Irvine the set up, but another way I like to describe it avoids Irvine. Stock company might be the wrong for profit comparison because of the modern stock market casino connotations. If you think you can train the irreligious to accept a king, I definitely can teach them about corporate structures removed from FIRE era bubble economy machinations. Consider for profit government like a privately held mutual insurance company. That company serves its customers directly with payout dividends and its employees, but the mission statement is always directed at the dividend receiving customers. I conceive a man in an executive position like Mayor Giuliani or Bloomberg but with the power to fire teachers and public employees. Think of what they did to restore law and order but then allow them sovereignty over the entire administration and disbursement of public funds (if any). Bloomberg reformed the schools, but he only ever fired one teacher from the rubber rooms. They cleaned up the city but could not design a fire fighter exam that met media and social justice warrior approval. The left, and black agitation groups, can call them dictators or say they were running a plantation, but in reality, they just ran a tough police force. Like Giulinai and Bloomberg (mayors with a wide metro effect), I see this as an issue of scale and push for pan-secession to set up Orange County sized domains or possibly US state sized domains. I can dream for a replica of 1980s Maine for my grandchildren to enjoy.

A Public CEO is head of SovCorp the entity. Public CEO is picked from the SovCorp entity. There would be a lifetime of work to evaluate. Stop thinking of modern CEO hatchet men with the short term compensation packages that executive recruiters draft up for labor agreements. Public CEO is not paid in stock options but in a share of receipts from the region's profits. What are the profits but the excess of taxation vs. expenditures. Suddenly, the Public CEO has to run a state that is stable enough security wise and enticing enough financially to pull in businesses and citizens. How are cities designed and run now? To maximize the political power of the progressives in charge using dysfunctional and degenerate residents. Why else would they fight gentrification? Imagine the cities having to compete to pull in businesses and productive citizens to contribute to the excess in revenues. Those cities would also not want long commutes so they could reduce the cost of participating in said city for its residents that they screen. How hard is it to build a Hong Kong or Singapore in America? We do not know, but I'll drive through 30 blocks of unlivable areas with nightly gunfire on my way home tonight. Transform those blocks into areas of productive citizens again, because the goal will not be voting power, ghost voter registrations for national elections and creating new ways to spend government revenues to secure more political power, and watch a Singapore take shape (with slightly higher crime and lower math scores).

These are all hypotheticals and dreams, but I like the Public CEO option better because removing a poor performing or corrupt Public CEO sounds easier mentally than a corrupt king, especially when there is the pomp and circumstance of kingship granting him legitimacy. The mechanics still need to be worked out. Having witnessed transition between CEOs at publicly traded and private firms, transition can be smooth. I understand why Hoppe cites insurance companies in his work (long tiem horizons, hold mortgage debt, mutual company formation). How cheapened does the ceremony of the king's coronation become if rotation in and out occurs? Not all historians follow Gibbon's line that Christianity sunk Rome, but that complexity killed it or instability of the emperor role hurt the greater society. Irvine California keeps teasing me, and I know it is a special situation due to the geographic location, but it seems close to that neocameral concept. These dreams may never reach fruition. The coming conflict might be so horrible that tribal leaders will have to fight and viciously enforce security setting up dictatorships that morph into kingdoms. Sometimes South Korea's military junta-dictatorship sounds good or even a timocracy. We do have time, and the time may never come anyway, so let's hash everything out and leave every door open to explore.

Monday, March 17, 2014

Hypothesis on Why Northwest Europe Began Outbreeding

Cousin marriage. The phrase evokes images of backwoods types in Appalachia. That is the media representation for modern Westerners. It also gives people the heebie jeebies. There is a revulsion to it. In reality, cousin marriage is still common in certain spots on the globe like the Middle East and southwest Asia. It was common a 1000 years ago for much of Europe. There is one area that stopped cousin marriage rather early: northwest Europe. While the Roman Catholic Church banned cousin marriage at the very end of the 6th century under Pope Gregory I, many areas did not enforce the law or drop old customs for centuries. What we would call the Low Countries, southwestern England and far northern France did take to outbreeding rather quickly. Why? If we look at the nature of their communities at that time as well as the nature of their forms of civil and social authority, we can see a pattern. Enforcing bans on cousin marriage and encouraging outbreeding was a social and political project undertaken by conquerors who wished to become rulers, by illiterate warrior barbarians who wished to legitimise their authority and become kings. It was not just the product of kings and the Church, but of the land, war and basic survival of England itself that cultivated the outbreeding process.

Before getting to the ban and the machinations of different kingdoms and individual men, it is worthwhile to look at the land, people and government. Early in the 5th century, the Romans withdrew from England, which at the time was a province called Britannia. While geographically on the far western and northern edge of the Roman Empire, it is a point to note that Constantine was proclaimed augustus in 306 in the city of York. The Romans were successful at bringing their civilization to England as they were elsewhere on the continent, with vinyards showing up on cue. The island's relatively gentle climate made agriculture productive there. The Romans were drawn to crossing the channel by the knowledge of coinage on the island in Julius Caesar's time. Coinage signified that trade was advanced enough for a medium of exchange to rise and an area worth plundering. The Romans spent several centuries on the wonderful island. In the early 5th century, the Romans packed up and withdrew to the continent as the Empire itself was collapsing. The Romano-Britains and, who we call, Welsh were left behind, but gone was the Roman way of administration, security and conversion to Christianity had been limited in nature.

That power vacuum was filled shortly thereafter, in the mid 5th century, by Angles, Jutes and Saxons from the Low Countries. This was not a friendly arrival and not small in numbers. After the Romans left the isle, the island's population stood at roughly 2 million. Over 200,000 Anglo-Saxons would wash up on the shores of Britain. These were warrior barbarians come for land to raise crops and multiply. The social structure of the invaders was relatively flat with fewer social distinctions between the seafaring immigrants. Multiply they did on the island. Men made up 2/3 of all arrivals. These are conservative numbers as it possibly was as high as 500,000 in total and more male with an upper limit of female migration at 20%. We do not have matrilineal DNA data, but we do have Y chromosome DNA to show that displacement of the original inhabitants was up to 90% in some regions. There is no DNA evidence to back it up, but with 2/3 of arrivals being men, burning the villages and taking thousands of women as prisoner-brides would be a safe assumption. This was ethnic cleansing mixed with a long tradition of marry the locals on the back end. Henry V would attempt to link his French conquests closer to England by having the soldiers garrisoned in France marry locals. That classic strategy requires time.

This was not an instantaneous event, taking decades to set up. After the Romans left, small chiefdoms popped up with local warlords who were no match for the invaders. Over a century of clan warfare and growing in numbers in relation to their opponents, the Anglo-Saxons gained the upper hand on the inhabitants and assumed the status of the former Roman overlords. Consider the population being 2 million for the island at the time of invasion and 200,000 new inhabitants settling mostly in the south. Over the centuries, they developed a situation on the island (south of the Hadrian Wall) that was called by historians, but is now out of favor, the heptarchy. It is out of favor because modern historians, needing to earn their PhDs, say heptarchy does not recognize the level of control and autonomy some smaller chiefs had (full academic autism). There were sub-chiefdoms within the kingdoms, and there was constant warfare between them. These lands were also led by men who were warrior chiefs.

These chief-kings were from a slightly different concept from what we would view today as a king and were products of Germanic kingship. These kings were not simply born into the role but elected. Tacitus remarked on the elective monarchy and the concept that the king or chief needed the consent of his people. An even earlier form of this leadership is briefly mentioned in Julius Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" writing where he mentioned that the tribes east of the Rhine chose their leaders for war and decision making. The chronicler of early England Bede also noted how the invaders' kings were chosen. This concept of picking their leader still held as the tribes that migrated from this same northwestern Germany-Low Country area became the Anglo-Saxons kings, the Merovingian kings of Austrasia (later France), and later the Carolingian kings. These kings conquered areas formerly under Roman rule to rule as usurpers. There is an important distinction that dates back even to Greek days with the split between a tyrant and a king. The play Oedipus Rex is sometimes called Oedipus Tyrannus. In the play, Oedipus is a tyrant because he was not born the king but became the king through defeating the sphinx. The play can be called king because we learn through the great reveal of the play that he actually was born the king of Thebes. The Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic tribesmen conquered and consolidated their positions, but what did they have for authority? They were warrior chiefs, but had conquered what they wanted. They were also just men. The Roman autocrats had been revered as gods on earth with the idolization and deification process beginning even when they were living. The Byzantines had a process whereby they were imbued with the Holy Spirit, made a sacred vessel and an earthly king and considered on par with the apostles.

Even as the Anglo-Saxons settled into their island, they still had the customs of Germanic kinship chipping at individual kings' authority and legitimacy. The Anglo-Saxons carried with them traditions of the moots from their Germanic tribal days that developed into the witenagemot. This witenagemot was a cadre of secular leaders that helped legitimise the king as well as keep that connection between the concerns of the king and his people. That issue of consent of the governed pops up again here, as these kings were not autocrats. One could argue that the Germanic kingship tradition is the underlying tension that ebbs and rises through centuries of English history between powerful and wealthy land owners and kings. Henry II subdued the land barons and grew wealthy, yet decades later the land barons would force John to sign the Magna Carta. Magna Carta being a document that explicitly listed the need for the King to have the consent of the elite to govern, as well as the common man. One could also argue that the other end of the pendulum's path in that battle was the Rule of Henry VII and Henry VIII, which amassed fortunes for the men and culminated in the 1534 Act of Supremacy making Henry VIII king and head of the church.

The Anglo-Saxon problem was an issue of being outsiders and consolidating rule. Henry Kissinger wrote that legitimacy only comes from acceptance. It cannot be imposed. These were illiterate, barbarian warlords ruling over foreigners. The concept of succession in England was something that would not be settled for hundreds more years after the Anglo-Saxons invaded England. They did not have the numbers to completely eliminate the natives. Fortunately for them, there was an infrastructure and society in place that they could use to legitimise their rule that their people could coalesce around in their lifetime and in the next generation: the Church. Aside from creating institutions and a society within the crumbling Roman Empire for people to exist in and exit Roman society in the West, the Church held sway. It was the source for scholars, educated men and able administrators. The Church was also a revenue generating machine and had wonderful rituals with plenty of flash and sizzle that barbarian chiefs might want to associate with or borrow for prestige. The Church was set up in a wonderfully hierarchical system from Pope on down through cardinals, bishops, priests etc. The Pope was like a king himself. The bishop of Rome's transformation from bishop to pope was a long process that was actually helped by the elimination of the Western Emperor. Locals elevated the Pope's symbolism and power in Italy, and the Anglo-Saxon kings wished for a similar transformation.

The Merovingians were earlier than the Anglo-Saxons to convert to Christianity. This is most likely due to the geographic location of their continental Europe domain versus the island across the channel. Vestiges of Rome and the footprint of the church were in northern France. The Merovingians also consolidated power before the Anglo-Saxons kings. The Merovingians used the infrastructure of the church to secure their hold on the newly won lands. Their model though was important for the Anglo-Saxons kings to view as they settled into England. At the roughly contemporary site of Merovingian consolidation but in England is the burial site Sutton Hoo. The ruler Raedwald of East Anglia is buried there. While reminiscent of Scandinavian burial sites, it contained many goods from across Europe, signifying contact with a wide area. The burial site also does not contain a crown but a helmet for the buried chief-king. The warrior chief idea still held. Raedwald was also a pagan chief who was baptized, yet his baptism was hotly contested by his community and even his family. The pagan-Christian divide could be best displayed by these warrior-chiefs who would boost their claims to authority by attempting to trace their family line back to Wotan. It resembles the attempts centuries later by Christian kings to link their families to Adam (Alfred the Great did this). From the individual leader's perspective, how could they change that so that they linked their legitimacy and right to rule not simply by the sword.

In the 6th century, an English ruler rose who was involved in the island wide games of supremacy and considered a ruler of the entire island: Aethelberht of Kent. He was one of these warrior-chiefs of the Germanic kingship mode, attempting to elevate himself and protect his line. Aethelberht of Kent had contact with the northern coast of France, which is where the Merovingians had controlled territory the longest (Austrasia). Aethelbehrt could see the advantages to aligning with the Church as the Frankish kings enjoyed legal codification (Salic Law), competent administrators, and papal titles, support and recognition. Aethelberht engaged in a strategic marriage that changed the island as well as western history when he married the Frankish princess, Bertha. One condition: she had to be allowed to practice her religion, Christianity, unlike the pagan Aethleberht. Aethelberht, a bretwalda over England, now had a wife who would change the political, social and religious game on the island.

The tradition of Anglo-Saxon rulers had been that they had consorts. Bertha was considered a queen. Bertha was pretty connected to continental culture being Frankish, a princess and a Christian of high status. It was through her correspondence (as well as her personal chaplain) with Pope Gregory I that the pope sent Augustine of Canterbury on a mission to preach the Gospel and convert the pagans. Aethelberht was not dumb nor inactive. Possibly aware of the issue Raedwald faced with his conversion, Aethelberht was patient. Aethelberht was a shrewd man and watched to see how Augustine's work affected the people of Kent. It was a success as Aethelberht did convert to Christianity by 600 AD since Pope Gregory I wrote to him as a Christian King in 601 AD. How did conversion and Christianity help Aethelberht? He immediately laid down laws, which were written in Old English and are the oldest laws written in a Germanic language. They also resembled the Salic Laws of the Frankish kingdom with levies for offenses. There were not just benefits of the machinery of rule for Aethelberht. As a baptized man imbued with the Holy Spirit, he was a man of God. The ritual for coronation involving the Church was another entity deeming him legitimate and the ruler of the land. The ceremony showed a community their religious leader making one man a sacralized figure of leadership. With proper ceremonies for children, his sons would have the same sense of legitimacy without the need to be a warrior-chief winning legitimacy through battle. It was not just martial valor but a sacred, spiritual effect that the ruler had

The idea of the Church having the higher authority than the earthly authorities might sound odd to 21st century Americans, but even as recently as 1960, some Americans worried a presidential candidate may take orders from Rome. In 600 AD, Europe had experience with a couple of centuries where the Church had the legitimacy of authority and supreme status. The state within a state had survived to become a continent wide network as the Roman Empire had crumbled. This authority and status even goes back to the late 4th century AD and Theodosius. The emperor Theodosius was a Christian convert in 380 AD. Ten years later, he had performed a brutal massacre in revenge, and despite being Emperor, he had to repent. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, would not allow Theodosius, the Emperor, to enter a church for mass. He had to repent. The emperor could not brush it off, and the population aligned with Ambrose. The emperor of Rome had to repent like any common man. There was a higher power that even the Emperor had to serve. There was a higher law than the emperor's will and whim. Theodosius' humbling was merely decades after Constantine's death bed conversion. This in itself was momentous for the development of the West. A ruler was answerable to God, and the threat had credibility. The Church had the supreme credibility as God's representative in the earthly realm. Fast forward over 200 years, and the Anglo-Saxon kings were using this credibility for themselves.

The process was not simply with coronations and aligning with the Church, but in picking up goals of the Church. At this time, the Church was engaged in some social more and custom massaging. Banning cousin marriage was one of them, but not the only one. Penitential books were focused on multiple sexual issues. They actually had rules against amore canino. The book Sex in History covers the Church's crackdown on sex, which banning cousin marriage was just a part of a wider campaign. The Church went so far as to ban way beyond just first or second cousins. The author Taylor makes the classic 20th century tsk-tsk of the elders, mocking their superstitious belief that sex could mentally or spiritually infect someone or have negative consequences. My response would be that it is superstitious of modern people to think sex has no effect or that the effect is simply positive. The Church did have honest motivations. The Church might have been reacting to the fall of the Roman Empire, which tracked well along debauchery and decadence amongst the Roman population. The Church may have been looking at another goal that would align with the Anglo-Saxon kings, consolidating and securing its power.

Augustine's mission, the Gregorian Mission, was part of Pope Gregory's reassertion of the papcy's power projection in western Europe. The fall of Rome had hurt the Church as well, with areas, like Britannia, having seen Christianity make an appearance but then lose significance as Roman institutions and administration decayed or disappeared. Britannia was a bit of a special case due to its island settingoff the continent, which made maintaining contact more difficult than the remnants of the Church still in what is now northern France. The area of Spain that Germanic tribes brought under their heel waffled between Catholicism and Arianism, which Popes, like Gregory, reached out to curry influence. The Church was hungry and hungry at a time when the last reignition of the Western Roman Empire fizzled with the loss of Italy after Justinian's death. The great general Belisarius' work was for naught, and the Church and Pope Gregory saw an opportunity. An interesting phenomenon happened where both the missionary work in England and the missionary work in Ireland created a stable of later missionaries to help strengthen and spread the Catholic church on the continent. It is as if the Church went "out" in order to come back "in" with vigor.

This entire hypothesis is a response to HBD Chick's post on the Anglo-Saxon outbreeding with her last key question of "why". Her posts are great tracking the how and when not just in Anglo-Saxon communities but in other spots in Europe. The Merovingians converted to Christianity earlier than the Anglo-Saxons and had consolidated their power before the Anglo-Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons outbred more and slightly faster than the northern Franks because they had secular laws that backed up the Church's law that banned cousin marriage. The secular law involved enslavement as a punishment. The early kings who converted and wished for legitimacy would find an ally in a Church. Enforcing the Church's will would be a way to help curry support for legitimacy of rule. Even better is the social and political engineering involved, using the laws and infrastructure of the Church. The Church wanted support and extension of its rule in Western Europe with converting a relatively untouched island of pagans.

Some modern observers look at the practices of modern welfare states in the last half century and see a progressive party modifying family law, creating social welfare programs and attacking organized religion through the media as a way to break the traditional family down. You have no link but to the state. The "Life of Julia" concept has a woman who is forever tied to the state through programs but not to a husband, and her child becomes a means for more money from big daddy state. Attacking churches softens or destroys bonds between individuals that are outside the state. The state, the progressive state, is your main relationship. It is the conduit for money. Political activity becomes the only reason for why people come together: a protest, a rally, voting, fundraising. No community bonds except bonds managed and maintained by political actors for political purposes.

Rewind to Anglo-Saxon England, and outbreeding becomes a means to achieve something similar. The Church would break down bonds of clans that as pagans had their different collections of gods to all submit to the Christian God under Catholic jurisdiction. Anglo-Saxon warrior-chiefs looking to transition to kings and cement their rule in a foreign land could use outbreeding and the Church to mold their land. The first outbreeding secular law (tucked into the Law of Wihtred) was not until nearly a century after Aethlebehrt's conversion in 690 AD. There had to be a period of converting enough people to make application of the Church's decrees palatable to society. Outbreeding softened the ties of clans by forcing people to marry outside their family. The Church could be the kings' agents in enforcing this program. The Church sees it's will be done with the fierce threats of a king applying a harsh secular punishment to what was a unique and new Church decree, and the king sees individual connections and bonds between groups step outside the family to the concept of his people. Rather than clan identification, the identification can become as a man of Kent, of Sussex or of Wessex. From this change in identification, the thede concept may slowly switch people from thinking of a member of their specific clan to a member of their specific area and part of the Church. Who are the authorities of that area? The king and the Church. The Church is the club that all (as conversions picked up) belong to, so if the Church declares a man your sovereign, the community can accept that as legitimate. It is not one warrior imposing his rule on little peasants.

This might be reading too much into the Law of Wihtred's goals, but there was much more to it than just secular laws against unholy matrimony. The laws were mostly of ecclesiastical matters. Holy days were to be recognized and pagan practices curbed, which was a boon to a Church only brought to the island 90 years earlier. There were multiple laws written into that code that elevated the Church to the level of the king. The Church enjoyed similar privileges as the king enjoyed, whether it was a bishop's oath being considered uncontrovertible, like the king's, or the compensation for violence done to the Church's men being on par with the king's compensation for attacks on his dependents. These were not the only laws of that exact era that had a similar reinforcement of the new faith. The Laws of Ine were written around the same time and were the first outside of Kent. Similar to Wihtred's laws, they were focused on pushing the new religion. These laws also revealed the relatively flat social structure still in place with Kent households serving no lord but the king himself, and Ine's men were required to serve in the fyrd and the king was required to settle disputes. Multiple rulers were viewing the Church as a means for control.

There was another benefit to the kings that outbreeding could help. Anglo-Saxon England's heptarchy era was rife with warfare and different men claiming suzerainty over other kingdoms. This warfare is tracked in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It was brutal. It was tribal. Massacres and burnings, but for a ruler seeking expansion and security in his power, he would need these men to go beyond their home borders to terrorize others really for the cheif's gain. The War Nerd had an interesting post on Syria's civil war being problem of tribal warfare. Civil war is a problem, but the odd thing about Syria was the clan issue was causing intense fighting but over their block, their neighborhood, or their city. Rallying the troops to continue on gains and then advance into new territory to topple Assad was a problem as these men, who engage in high rates of cousin marriage, had little motivation to fight beyond their home areas. He called it fractal. Beyond the heptarchy, with even smaller units within the kingdoms, fractal seems like a good word to use for Anglo-Saxon England rule. While separated by 1300 years, one can see where the motivation to expand a fight beyond provincial concerns would be an issue more with leadership than with the grunts. Leadership wanted to secure power whereas the grunts just want secure their living space and land for farming.

This was not an overnight change. The events in England itself point to failures and success and paint a picture of the outbreeding taking time to create a national identity. Shortly after the decree in 690 AD banning cousin marriage in Kent (southeastern England), a ruler who would mint coins with rex on them was Offa of Mercia. Offa was an ambitious leader of middle England who eventually dominated southern England. The succession issue was an awkward one that hung around due to the Germanic kingship tradition, creating succession issues over 250 years later in the era of Aethelred, Cantue and their sons. Kent was split into two kingdoms. Offa rolled through most of southern England and became a ruler of all of England, enjoying the suzerainty Aethelbehrt held before him over a century earlier. To show the intense urgency and importance that these warrior kings placed on legitimacy, Offa was a fierce advocate of having his son crowned as the heir and future king. The Church eventually complied with the request, and Offa's son enjoyed the first full ceremonial anointing of a ruler in England. We may laugh at Offa's sense of urgency on a showy ritual, but per Rituals of Royalty by David Cannadine and Simon Price, the pageantry and spectacle of the coronation ritual as well as other events between the king and religious figures were an actual instrument and projection of power for early European rulers. Shortly after Offa's death, the land he had taken and kingdom he had built devolved back into pieces. The heptarchy did not return in pure form, as Kent had been absorbed by Wessex and was used as a place the kings of Wessex would place their sons to rule in training and to placate competing sons. Offa's ambition imposed his will on the island, and his imperium faded as it was not accepted.

Outbreeding continued in the southern regions of England, and made its way around the island. One could argue, Offa was too early to take advantage of a people thinking "englisch" and not Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc. After the 800s and Offa's death, the kingdom of Wessex consolidated power in the south under Egbert of Wessex. Reading a bit of history, the Kings of Wessex seemed to have an ability to hold off invaders from dominating them and retaining sovereignty. Egbert was a Christian and a warrior. Through his efforts, Wessex swallowed Kent and Sussex, setting the stage for the rise of his son and grandson on the island. Keep in mind, his areas of control were the outbreeding early adopters. His reign ended in 839 AD, a half century after Offa and a couple generations more of outbreeding. Egbert's son would send his sons, Alfred the Great being one of them, to Rome. An interesting bit in Alfred's trip to Rome, supporting this hypothesis, is that on his trip there was the ceremony of Alfred's baptismal honoring by Pope Leo IV. As W.A. Chaney's "The Cult of Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England: the transition from paganism to Christianity" (hint hint, professional version of this post excluding the outbreeding issue) states, Alfred was made a spiritual son of the pope, receiving a cingulum and consul's clothing as an honorary Roman consul. Alfred was five years old. After Egbert's reign, the raids of the Danes that began around 800 AD picked up in severity and strength, which would change the island and offer future kings opportunities to tweak the process of nation state crafting that had begun with the Kent outbreeding and religious conversion project.

When the Danes came, they had the advantage of setting the parameters for battle. After wintering, the fight was wherever they took it. Their numbers could swarm an area and destroy the overmatched and outnumbered local inhabitants. The Danes spent over a decade beating the Angles, the Saxons and whomever in battle after battle. The last remaining Anglo-Saxon kingdom was Alfred the Great's Wessex. It looked so lost for Alfred that he had to retreat to a winter hideout in a swampy area deep in Wessex to protect himself. Alfred emerged from the swamp stronghold in the spring similar to the king of kings resurrection celebrated on Easter. Alfred's West Saxon army won a decisive victory in spring of 878 at the Battle of Edington. That was just the beginning. Following multiple victories, Alfred received the Danish ruler Guthrum as his now baptized spiritual son in London, replicating the ceremony Alfred went through with the Pope, and set up the split in the country between Wessex controlled Aenglaland and the Danelaw. An important change to Alfred's view of his rule was that he considered himself king of the Angles and Saxons not just the West Saxons.

His victory and the treaty with the Danes was not the end of his concerns or the Danish threat. Alfred started a new form of state craft that reinforced his legitimacy and the concept of the nation. Alfred created a system of burhs that were fortified towns. This Burghal Hidage was a network of fortified towns where people could engage in trade, the king could collect taxes, the townspeople could lodge complaints or whatnot to the king's representatives, and townspeople could feel safe and secure. An important distinction about these towns that further weakened the clannishness of the southern English was that the burhs were the king's towns. These were not the property of a large land magnate. There was no castle. They were built on the ruins of old Roman forts. They were the king's responsibility. Combined with outbreeding, this burh idea was joining people cross clans and in entirely new locations. The very concept of the burhs created a safe meeting space outside the protection and comfort of the clans. Created in the late 800s, the burhs would have created actual space to help mix populations and reinforce the opportunities for outbreeding. The burhs were the evolution of the Anglo-Saxon concept of the hundreds. The hundreds were administrative districts where king had representatives to hear complaints, juries were gathered for administering justice, and similar to the burhs, were not run by local magnates. This hundreds concept, which morphed into the burhs, gave Anglo-Saxon kings and later Alfred great flexibility with reaching the people in their era of war and insecurity. England's flat geography made these towns easier to travel between for trading.

The flat land also made England easy prey for fast moving Viking raids. Looking at the map of how the Danelaw and Wessex fit together, if the Vikings were the ones taking the initiative since 800 AD to 878, then how could Alfred create a system of defense that would rally the people to his cause, retain their loyalty and legitimise his power as king of an even greater number of people and new groups? The burhs were his answer as they could act like a defensive net. The Burghal Hidage could act like a net catching a dropped ball rather than using one's hand. Fielding a proper force of men along the island to meet a Viking advance or march would be difficult before the Vikings had terrorized many towns. With the burhs, Alfred always had a pool of men in any area who had to answer the call at anytime. The burhs were spaced in a manner where a short march could bring together enough forces to slow or stop the Vikings rather than watch a giant Viking force pounce on small Anglo-Saxon forces one after the other. Even slowing an advance with a moderate sized force from burhs would allow Alfred enough time to muster more men to meet the Vikings if the Vikings did win an initial battle. By the time they were fully formed, no one was more than a day's march from a burh. This was basic survival of not just his regime but of the Anglo-Saxons and their 400 years history on the island. The Vikings did not leave after Alfred's win, menacing Wessex and its dependencies from the eastern half of the island.

Alfred's social and political engineering were not limited to geography and building burhs. Alfred also made a move that the Franks did not do and commissioned the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and had it written in the native vernacular, not Latin. At the time of Alfred's victory and split of the nation, all Angles and Saxons are under direct Wessex rule or a dependency. They are living in their small farmsteads, but if worried or a tradesman, can live in the king's burhs. Bans on cousin marriage have been enforced both by the Church, but more importantly and severely, by the king's law for roughly 200 years, and the nation has an "other" to fear and to fight right next door. New familial connections, in new fortified towns with new laws and a language endorsed and pushed by a new leader. At the helm of this new nation, stands a man as king who emerged from a swamp fortress when all looked to be lost and began his steady push back on the foreign invaders.

Decades passed with the burhs in place and a steady advance of the Wessex monarchs (Alfred took, occupied and rebuilt London in 886, huge symbolic victory) until they could claim rule over the entire island with Edgar roughly 70 years after Alfred's victory at Edington. Did the outbreeding work with legitimising the monarchs of the island? Yes, since after Alfred's victory, what we know as England was not broken into different kingdoms ever again. Even in their era, the fruit of the outbreeding could be seen in the actions of their people and their elites. The Battle of Maldon was a defeat for the English, but in the defeat, one can see the power of their national identity. The poem The Battle of Maldon cites men from all over the island, even as far away as Northumbria, coming to fight the Danes down on the far southeastern coast. These were not just East Anglian and Kentish forces uniting to fight invaders. The battle was in 991 AD, as many men all over Europe were ruled by smaller state kings with allegiances to local, large land owning magnates. Roughly two decades after the loss at Maldon and years of Danegeld payments, the Danes, avenging the massacre of Danes in England, completed their conquest but their king, Sweyn, died. Does the island break up into old fiefdoms? Does a man from the witenagemot rise up to grasp power? No. The council calls back Aethelred the Unready to rule again. Difference this time is that he rules, in what the chronicles say in word, deed and compact. His rule was to be a two way street. The elite's identity was in being English, and they called him in from Normandy to be the king. A last example of the development of the English nation within short distance of the outbreeding project is from 1051. Edward the Confessor was engaged in a power struggle with the craftiest of the earls of the era, the Earl of Godwin. They were preparing for war, when the elites of the island stopped them. While Edward wanted a fight and was targeting a man of a specific region, Wessex, the elites would not fight. They did not want to destroy the prosperous nation they had with an internecine war, exposing the nation to the whims of foreign raiders. From the decree of 690 AD on cousin marriage to the near civil war of 1051, roughly fifteen generations of outbreeding had worked its way to create a nation state concept as strong as England.


Via HBD Chick - Hajnal Line
Why did not other areas take to outbreeding as quickly? If you lay a map of the many maps HBD Chick has of the early adopters of outbreeding and other positive traits, they line up extremely well with a map that would overlay the kingdoms of the Germanic tribes that had the Germanic kingship tradition (Anglo-Saxon, Merovingian, Carolingian). The first map here is the hajnal line map with her green circle for core Europe. The next few maps will be different Germanic kingship empires after the Church's cousin ban, excluding England because you know what England looks like and where it is. Keep in mind England's Germanic leadership of the same era and its place within the hajnal line. As HBD Chick has stated in multiple posts, the familial structure and organization known as manorialism was also present in those regions. The Germanic rulers fought and took over the role of old Roman leadership. The Anglo-Saxons happened to be the earliest of adopters, which has to do with the secular reinforcement of the Church's wishes in 690 AD. The extreme north of the Iberian peninsula had early outbreeding and other positive traits associated with it, but not the south. That might be due to the Islamic invasion of 711 AD. If the Muslims are attacking you, converting your people to Islam and rolling you back, you may not have time for the enforcement of the Catholic Church's projects. That early outbreeding area in Spain lines up well with the area the Muslims did not conquer.

Remnant's of Spain's Gothic kingdoms after Muslim conquest

The Merovingians and Carolingians did conquer and expand and were early adopters of outbreeding. My hypothesis for the difference between the Anglo-Saxon speed and the Frankish-Germanic speed of outbreeding is the mutual need for power between the Church and Anglo-Saxon leaders in England and that critical 800-1000 space. The continental area did not have as strict secular laws backing up the Church's religious wishes. The Church also had a deeper history and more authority already in place come Carolingian rule (even Merovingian rule in the south) than in the contemporary Anglo-Saxon era. They also did not see the reorganization of the physical arrangement of their nation like the English did with Alfred's burhs. The Carolingian Empire after Charlemagne's death in 814 saw power struggles and fragmentation between his heirs and entered decline in the late 800s. Whereas the Carolingians were dealing with break up and decline of their rule, the Anglo-Saxons were slowly advancing and consolidating control over the entire island, expanding the burghal system. The Carolingians and their successor states also had a couple of problems that the Anglo-Saxons never faced: the Muslim threat and Hungarian invasions. In the grand scheme of things, the Anglo-Saxons enjoyed relative peace and prosperity with one main opponent compared to the disintegration of authority and multiple threats on the continent. The legitimacy of a regime and enforcement of rules and customs could be easier for a growing, stable power than for a declining and unstable power. Consolidation has an edge over fragmentation. The extra bonus strengthening the link between the Church and the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in England in 600-900 AD was both units being outsiders seeking authority and legitimacy with potentially hostile natives to later face an outside pagan threat.
Carolingian Empire

It could just be coincidence that the outbreeding areas that coincide with other positive hajnal line traits were also lands conquered by men from tribes with the traditions of Germanic kingship. These kings were illiterate barbarians seeking legitimacy and thinking long term at the security of their line ruling. It is easy to laugh at this, but keep in mind that Europe in this era had multiple rulers (Otto II, Vladimir) who would marry Byzantine princesses in an attempt to boost their prestige and proclaim their status as equals of the Byzantine emperors among other mechanisms. This is a hypothesis, but the position these rulers were in was one of new conquerors in foreign lands. They needed to create and encourage loyalty in the natives as well as find a way to secure their individual line as king in a manner that was different from what their people, the conquerors, were accustomed to. The Church, an institution eager for power in a new area as well, offered an opportunity to import a political infrastructure and change the social make up of their new lands. Even moreso in England than the rest of core Europe, the Church and the elite's motivations and goals overlapped perfectly. Christianity was new to them and new to the Britains, but as conversions mounted, it was a shared trait amongst them all. That shared identity was the warrior-chiefs' way to have rule and kingship legitimized. That shared identity made the natives and newcomers men of Kent or East Anglia, later England, and not of the clan. As a lasting reminder, those decisions and centuries of application of both familial, social, religious, geographical and military engineering, created an island that we call England and not Britannia.