Watching Yellowstone from the Philippines

Season Five Now Available

I enjoyed the first four seasons of Yellowstone.  But after watching season four, I heard Ben Shapiro talking about it.  He pointed out that the writing is abysmal.  And I thought to myself, that is exactly correct, and vowed that I was done with the show.  I have always thought that good writing is the hallmark of good television.  Yet, here I am again, watching season five, and enjoying it.

Why?

Well Taylor Sheridan's writing is a bit better this year.  But not so much better to make a difference.  Hey I get it, Sheridan is a busy man.  But if we, all of us, are not watching Yellowstone for the writing, why are we watching?

The acting?  It's good.  Maybe not exceptional, but certainly well above average.  The casting?  Well with one major exception, the casting is perfection.  The exception?  Kelly Reilly.  I don't find her credible in the role of Beth Dutton.  The Beth Dutton character is a wounded child of uninhibited chutzpah and intellectual gravitas.  Reilly just does not have the acting skills to pull it off.  And it is such an important role.  The role needs a young Jodie Foster type.  Perhaps a young Faye Dunaway.  I don't know enough about today's Hollywood that I can name a suitable alternate actress.  But you get the idea.  The cinematography?  Maybe.  But it's Montana; it's really hard to screw that up.  Overall, the production values are first rate.  In any case, none of this is why we are watching Yellowstone.

No, we watch Yellowstone for the atmosphere.

And what is the atmosphere of Yellowstone?  Well, let's start with what it is not.  It is not woke.  It has no left coast values.  In fact, the show berates Californians at every available opportunity.  It is not politically correct.  It is not vegan or vegetarian.  It is an extremely pro-environment show, but in a way that the so-called environmentalist posers, in their North Face parkas, hate.  The show does not highlight America's supposed racial problems.  Or feminist issues.  Or proper gender ideology.  There are no trans cowboys in the show and no one states their preferred pronouns.  Think Madam Secretary.  It is anti-government and certainly anti-bureaucracy.  The writers seem to understand what no one on the left does:  Government is, at best, a hindrance to the productive.

Yellowstone is pro family, pro private enterprise, and pro rural lifestyle.  Pro Second Amendment.  It is pro rancher, and yes it must be added, pro beef.  No wonder the left hates it.  I am surprised, but glad, to report that there is almost no religion in the show.  It would be impossible to label it Christian television.  It is just not a Christian show by any stretch of the imagination.  If anything, I guess you could call it secular conservative.  I think this is really beneficial because the Hollywood left cannot simply dismiss the show as mere Christian propaganda for the flyover philistines.

There is one other aspect to the atmosphere worth pointing out.  Today's novelists and other writers seem to have lost faith in their protagonists.  Every lead must have flaws and personal demons, and the story is as much about overcoming these internal issues as anything else.  Think House.  No doubt post modernists would describe this as more realistic.  Real life is not black and white.  The best example I have seen of this is the show Homeland, where the lead character is so encumbered with mental illness that she needs electric shock therapy.  Without denying the gray in everything, personally I think this has gone too far.  Sure, no one is truly all good or all bad.  But for Christ's sake it is also not realistic that our CIA operatives undergo ECT between assignments.

Without such nonsense, Yellowstone is just more fun to watch.

In short, it is everything that our contemporary bien-pensants hate.  I think it is a miracle that a production of this type can even be made today.

So I encourage you to watch Yellowstone...for the atmosphere.  You won't find it anywhere else.

𓐵

How We Got Here

Big pharma, a complicit medical establishment, corrupt & incompetent governments, a subversive & irredeemable education system, and a credulous populace with no faculty for critical thought

I have just finished watching the Netflix docuseries, Don't Pick Up the Phone.  It is just amazing to me how many people are willing to blindly follow authority.  Even if the authority is untrustworthy or incompetent or completely fake.  Yes, I am aware that there was a 2012 movie, Compliance, on the same subject.  But I never saw it.  I'm guessing not many people saw it.

Compliance is a choice.  And regarding Covid, most of us chose poorly.  Not all of us.  With much difficulty and some legal risk, my family and I completely eschewed the so-called vaccines.  I wish good luck to the rest of you.  But many of you will never pay for your recklessness.  However, there seems to be an increasing number of people who are paying dearly.

And yet, the mandates continue.  I realize that the world has always known and experienced evil.  Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, the Soviet Union, Jim Crow, etc.  Just to name a few cases from the last century.  But the list is endless.

However, the Covid lockdowns and mandates set a new and disturbing precedent for the breadth of evil.  I think you would be hard-pressed to find a previous example of evil on a scale this broad.  I mean, from the United Nations, to national governments, to state and local governments, to employers and schools, right down to the squawking Karens at the grocery stores.  That is, virtually all of our leadership class, and so many of our friends and family and neighbors and colleagues.  It's widely understood that we have the worst leadership class in generations.  But it turns out, we are surrounded by blind, unthinking, sequacious sheep.

Sure, I blame Biden and Fauci, and the governors, and the medical establishment, and the teachers.  But dear reader, those of you who have shown unquestioning compliance, are every bit as evil as Fauci's capricious pronouncements.  Especially if you have given these untested drugs to your children.

Who does that?

What is that?

Evil is the only word to describe it.

𓐵

Your Government Does Not Care About You

And it is completely naive to believe otherwise

I have heard rumors that there is a small town somewhere in middle Indiana where the mayor, the town councilors, and the town manager, and all the rest of the staff care deeply about their constituents and the community at large.

But it's just a rumor.  And it is certainly not true for any community where I have lived.  Or any town or city that I read about in the newspaper.  Do some of these government officials care?  Sure, maybe.  But only to a point.  They care more about themselves, the road in front of their house, or business, the city contract with their brother-in-law, getting a salary raise for the whole sanitation department in return for their votes in the coming re-election.  And don't forget that city council member whose family owns that large tract of land where they're planning to build the new hospital.

And this is just the sort of nonsense that goes on at the local level.  Your state government is orders of magnitude worse.  And your federal government is orders of magnitude worse than that.  This is true for every government and every level of government.  It's truly frightening to think about the United Nations.

But let's start small:  Your homeowner's association.  Actually your HOA gives us a good illustration as to what happens in government.  Do your neighbors who serve on the board of the HOA care about all the right things?  Many times they absolutely do.  But what happens?  Well, they move.  Or, they have other commitments.  And new people have to be elected to the board.  And here is what is so important to understand:  Sooner or later, the people who are drawn to serve on such boards do not have the communities' interest in their hearts.  No, no they are in it for themselves.  These are the people who always run for these seats.  Sometimes they fail to gain a seat.  But not to worry, they'll run again in the next election.  Over time, they learn to say all the right things to win.  And sooner or later they do win.

And this brings us back to government in general and what is so important that we all understand.  The people drawn to government service, either as elected officials or employees, do not care about you.  They care about themselves.  Their pocketbooks, their families, their agendas.  And let's be honest, many of them just want the power to tell other people how to live.  If you question this, just have a look at the people on your HOA board.

Or your local school board.  Or the teachers they hire.  They don't care if little Johnny learns to read.  Not really.  So what do they care about?  More money, of course.  I've never met a teacher who did not harp on about how little she is paid.  And they care deeply that little Johnny develops the correct worldview.  Their worldview.  So an unholy alliance develops between the politicians who give teachers what they want in return for the teachers' votes.  This is true for all government employee groups.

Where does that leave you?

Well, paying for it of course.  You pay for it all.  You get nothing or worse than nothing in return.  They don't care about you; they only want to take advantage of you.

Now, are some governments worse than others?  Surely so.  But at my advanced age, here is what I have come to understand.  There is no such thing as good government.  They are all bad.  It's just a question of how bad?  I am no longer surprised by any level of ineptitude or greed.  Or greed which masquerades as ineptitude.

Henry David Thoreau said:  Government is best which governs least.  Well, that went out the window with the sixteenth amendment.

So where are we today?  Well we have an ever declining number of people who are paying for everything.  But wait just a minute, teachers pay taxes, right?  So let's not use taxes as the threshold.  As an alternative, I suggest, as an intellectual exercise, we divide the population into Net Wealth Creators and Net Wealth Consumers.

First, admittedly, there's lots of gray.  Sure, teachers are net wealth consumers.  But if they are doing their job, the next generation will have its share of net wealth creators, largely thanks to its teachers.  So the question becomes, are the teachers doing their job?

A functional society needs both wealth creators and wealth consumers.  My point is this:  The balance between these two groups has over the last century shifted, and continues to shift, towards the consumers.  And this shift has been facilitated by government buying the wealth consumers' votes.  This is why so many people tolerate and even celebrate bad government.

So we have corrupt government supported by the wealth consumers.  Where are you in that dynamic?

If you are any sort of government employee or contractor, I guess you don't see a problem.  Same for any private organization largely or entirely funded by government – Say you are in the health care field, or you work for a private university.  Sure, all of you pay a portion of your salary in taxes.  But what we should all understand is that your entire salary is from other peoples' taxes.

And somebody has to create the wealth to keep this pyramid scheme afloat.  Ultimately, all taxes are paid by wealth creators.

So what is the solution?  There's not enough of us to vote them out of office.  This is the constant argument of the left.  If you don't like it, you can vote them out.

But this is just not true.  There are too many of them and too few of us.  The unlimited flow of money (our money) into government coffers has corrupted our democracy with purchased votes.  This is vote buying on a massive scale.  To the point where, I would argue, that our productive democracy is now over.

Remember, at one time, most of us were farmers.  As we moved off the farm, we also moved from wealth producers to wealth consumers.

What we have now is a democracy of looters and moochers and parasites.

At this point, the net wealth creators are simply the slaves of the net wealth consumers.  And believe me, the government elites and their wealth consuming voters will keep this system going for as long as they can continue to milk it.  And it can go on almost indefinitely, but only if the wealth creators allow it.

This is the Scandinavian system we see today.  The capitalists are the slaves of the socialists.  And I don't mean capitalist as in the guy who runs the country's largest bank.  I mean the local plumbing contractor, the vegetable farmer, the restaurateur, and guy who runs the bakery down the street.  The capitalists create wealth and turn it over to the socialists to be distributed as they see fit.  And this goes on because the Scandinavian capitalists allow it.  They have completely capitulated to their wealth consuming masters.

Why?  Why don't they stop the gravy train?  Why don't they flee?  I would argue culture and family and perhaps guilt.  Plus, as you look around the world, the question of where would we go becomes paramount.  If you run the country's largest bank, it might be easy to move to the Channel Islands.  But if you run a bakery?

So, instead, they tolerate the theft.

Do you?

𓐵

How to Deal with Difficult People

Rule:  People who are difficult to talk with are almost always not worth the effort.

I was raised to believe that we should be nice to everyone.  I was later educated to believe that we can learn something from everyone.  I guess if you put these together what you get is that everyone has something useful and interesting inside them, and even if it is difficult, we should tease it out.  We should give everyone the opportunity to demonstrate their inner worthiness.  Think about the crusty academic who never really mastered social skills, but is brilliant in his field.

Do those people exist?  Absolutely.  I have met plenty of people like this, and yes, learned something from them.

But at some point I realized that never really mastered social skills was not some benign little flaw.  The sort of shortcoming that should be overlooked because of their brilliance.  If they have not mastered basic social skills it is because they do not care about basic social skills.  And that almost always means they do not care about...you.

And of course, that is absolutely fine if they are Albert Einstein.  But what if they're not?  What if they are some mediocre academic?  Or your roommate?  Your neighbor?  I mean, how many people are Albert Einstein?  If you live next to Steve Jobs, and he's a jerk, it's understandable, even forgivable.  But if you live next to Fred Smith?  That is something altogether different.  And let's be honest, most of us are Fred Smith.

So if someone is difficult to talk with, you have a cost-benefit analysis to run in your head.  Ask yourself, what are the odds that this person is worth the effort to overcome his or her rudeness to discover their inner light?  If you are the generous type, you might also ask yourself, what are the odds that this brilliant (or charming) person is just having a bad day?  Because of course we all do on occasion.

So will you sometimes answer the question incorrectly?  No doubt.  Sometimes you will ignore a rude brilliant person.  And hopefully less often, you will engage with a rude mediocre person.

We only have so much time.  Personally, I'd rather risk making the first error.

𓐵

Memo to Conservatives

Banana Republic Rules

Just yesterday, the sitting US president approved, and probably ordered, a raid on the home of the immediate past US president, who importantly also happens to be a contender to unseat that same sitting president.  Got that?  When did the US become Paraguay?

On the pretext of looking for classified documents, this was obviously a fishing expedition designed to intimidate Trump, and others.  I mean dear reader, what would they find if they pulled fifteen boxes of documents out of your house?  There'd be something.  What if we could pull fifteen boxes of documents out of the Clinton's house?  And they forced Trump's attorneys to leave.  Why?  So how can we ever be certain the political thugs that we call the FBI did not plant evidence?  How sad it is that, in the past few years, the FBI has tossed its once sterling reputation.

For many years, I have advised residents of blue cities across the US to flee.  This was, and is, the only rational course of action for those residents.  Take your family, your business, your vote, your taxes, even your mere presence, and go somewhere else.  But when the Democrat machine takes over the country, to where is one supposed to flee?

It seems to me that the current situation in the US leads to one of two possibilities.  First, conservatives can submit to lefty rule.  Let's call this the European path.  We will not like it, but it does offer a more leisurely lifestyle.  After all, why work hard for other people, other people's families, and the government power elite?  Sit back and relax.  Retire early, find a hobby.  Take up needlepoint.  Maybe stock up on a few necessities.

Of course, like our European friends, you'll have less children because you cannot afford them.  You'll pay seven dollars a gallon for gasoline, if you are even able to afford a vehicle.  Our open-border country will be swarming with illegal aliens.  Taxes will be confiscatory.  Climate change will become a continuous emergency giving government types every excuse they need to do anything they want.  Oh, and you might want to brush up on modern pronoun usage.

Sound familiar?  Yes of course, this is the default path we are currently on.

But the other path is even less appealing.  It involves fighting for our values.  Here, I do not mean a political fight within our system.  Our system is broken.  Now let's stop for a moment:  How do I know this for sure?  Because the left does not fear the precedent they just set.  Stop and think about that.  Would they take this reckless action if they had any fear that it could, in turn, be used against them?  No, they will never allow, could never allow, a raid on the homes of the Clinton's or the Biden's.

In any case the left is immune to consequences.  After the Hunter Biden laptop farce, and Hillary Clinton's numerous shenanigans, they know a complicit press makes them immune to any consequences for any malfeasance.  Further, they have politicized all agencies of the federal government to do their bidding.  At this point their impunity is comical, but at the same time vital for their continued hold on power.

I think we should carefully consider what it means for them not to fear the precedent.  It means they fully intend to remain in power.  Indefinitely and regardless of what it takes to do so.  They will lie, cheat, and steal.  They will intimidate.  They will raid their opponents homes and offices.  How long before they shut down television networks and political websites?  I mean, that Tucker Carlson and all his disinformation.  Ultimately they will be arresting their political opponents like all self-respecting banana republics.

So what does fighting for our values look like?  Can we not use our constitutional framework to constrain our burgeoning banana republic?  Well, all banana republics have constitutions.  And all banana republics ignore their respective constitutions.  Antonin Scalia reminded us that a constitution is a mere parchment guarantee, easily ignored, especially with single-party rule.  When there is concentration of power in one person or in one party, Scalia says...when that happens, the game is over.  He was referring to the constitutional process.

So here's the real question:  Is our constitutional process over?  You must decide for yourself.  Many good conservatives will argue that of course, it's not over.  The conservative tendency is to follow and fulfill our constitutional mandates.  The problem with this thinking is that it does not appreciate how much animosity there is for the Constitution on the left.  Obama called it a charter of negative liberties.  They hate the constraints it places on government.  And you know, of course, without such constraints, the left could use government to usher in a new utopia.  So, many left-of-center types would be thrilled to scrap it.  You've heard the arguments:  Replace it with a modern, living constitution.  What they really want is a constitution more malleable to their ever-changing whims.

Whims masquerading as policy goals.  But don't make the mistake of assuming that the left cares about policy.  They only care about policy insofar as it helps them achieve and maintain power.  Good policy is not the goal; power is the goal.  Lofty-sounding policy is only a tool.  If they make a policy mess, so be it.  Look at healthcare, look at the economy, look at immigration, look at our foreign policy.  So what the left really wants is a constitution that helps them achieve and maintain power.  A constitution that allows them to do as they please.  Short of this, the left is more than happy to simply ignore the current Constitution.

Here's my point:  The conservative tendency to adhere to a constitution that the left ignores has led us to where we are today.  If the left is in charge of both the executive and the legislative branches of our government, and has fully politicized the Department of Justice, and is willing to use armed government agents as political operatives, all the while provided cover by a complicit press, and if they are willing to simply ignore the Constitution, then yes, the constitutional process is over.

Ignoring the constitution is the hallmark of a banana republic...

All this to ask conservatives this question:  In a banana republic, what is the process for transfer of power?  Because that is how we will have to fight for our values.  That is the only other path.

We must deploy Banana Republic Rules.

Fans of John Le Carré will recognize the terminology.  In his 1979 classic, Smiley's People, Moscow Rules refer to tactics to be deployed in the most dangerous theaters.  Here, I simply mean that if your opponent is the government of a banana republic, you have to fight with a different set of rules.

I'll let the reader define these for himself, but clearly they are necessarily extraconstitutional.

𓐵

The Questions of Our Time

Questions and Consequences

Imagine the morality of compelling everyone to take an untested drug only to later discover that its efficacy is extremely low or even nonexistent.  That would be bad enough if you knew the drug was perfectly harmless.  But what if you have no idea whatsoever.

What kind of people do such a thing?

One argument these people use is that while the vaccines may not prevent one from contracting the disease, they do lessen the severity.  No small thing.  But if the vaccines do little or nothing on the prevention front, no one should care if someone else has taken the vaccine or not – Because the severity of a disease, one may or may not contract, makes no difference to anyone, other than the individual patient.  So this is an argument for individual choice, not compulsion.

And yet, why have so many people wanted to deny others this choice?

I do not for one minute think these people care about the health of strangers.  If they did care in the least, they would want to know more about the drugs they are forcing on others.  So no, let's not pretend they care.  I have made the argument before that this is about simple obedience.

Again, what kind of people are we talking about here?

All of them?  I mean, can it really be all of them?

One final question:  What percentage of Germans supported Hitler's policies?  Whether they actively participated or not, what percentage supported what he was doing?

The totalitarians who enacted these Covid policies should be charged with abuse of office.  That's easy.  As to the argument that they legitimately enacted emergency powers?  I think that is a question for a jury.  What did they know and when did they know it?  These are questions of fact, not law.  Here's another question of fact:  Were their actions driven by legitimate emergency necessity, or simply unbridled lust for power?

Further, it is also clear that many of these so-called emergency actions were unconstitutional.  It matters not what the respective state constitutions or city charters specify.  There is no US constitutional allowance for the suspension of the First Amendment right of freedom of assembly.  If you think such a power is warranted, fine.  You are welcome to amend the Constitution.

The more difficult question is what to do with the rest of you?

If you supported lockdowns and mandates and masking...you should be ashamed.  And you should be shamed.  Because Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom and your local school board did not act alone.  They acted with the support of millions.

Yes, I realize this support ranged from skeptical, to moderate, to enthusiastic, to downright overzealous.  But there needs to be consequences for that support, and any role you may have played in enacting and enforcing these policies.

Some of you committed fraud, some harassment, and some only wrongful termination (which is not a crime as far as I know).  Many of you violated HIPAA privacy rules.  Many of you loudly scolded and shamed your neighbors going about their business at the grocery store.  It is also not a crime to be a vile, reprehensible human being.  Although it is worth knowing.  And the more widely known, the better.

We cannot charge you as mere supporters.  So...we need a sort of truth commission.  And we need to put your names on a list.  Something akin to the Sex Offenders List.  We can call it the Lockdown List or some such.  If it were up to me, I'd call it the Obedience Enforcers List or the Covid Obedience Collaborators List.

Covid Collaborators for short.  That's got an appropriate historical ring to it.

I think what we need is a sort of Covid Collaborators Wiki-like website where we can name individuals and organizations, with photos, and details of their collaborations.  Like all Wiki sites, anyone can add and edit.  But let's get the details out there.  Finally, we should house it in the only country that I know of that behaved rationally during the pandemic, Sweden.  Or better yet, somewhere beyond the reach of the US government and the lefty tech establishment.  So Sweden...or Nigeria.

As for libel laws, I don't think that's a problem if we house it in Nigeria.  But we could head off claims of libel by requiring entries to be confirmed by some number of people.  So for example, perhaps we require three or more people to add an entry.  Three is not enough?  Make it more.  For those of you who acted in a grievous manner, I don't think we will have trouble finding multiple witnesses.  You were so shameless and self-righteous in your actions.

In any case, all of you belong on it.

𓐵

Baxter Black at his Finest

Baxter Black, former large animal veterinarian, died earlier this month.  He will be missed.

𓐵

All-Cause Mortality?

What are the long term effects of vaccines?

Here's a phrase I had never heard:  All-cause mortality.

I had to listen carefully to understand what she is saying.  But it is crucial.  As Christine Stabell Benn explains it, all-cause mortality has never been studied in any vaccination approval process.  Certainly not with the new mRNA vaccines.

Here's how she concludes:

Unknown to most people, none of the vaccines that we use today in vaccination programs globally were assessed for their effects on overall health before they were introduced.  Everybody was so sure at that time that vaccines did nothing but protect against the vaccine disease, so it didn't seem necessary to test them for other effects.  So once it was proven that the vaccines protected against the vaccine disease, well then any kind of assessment stopped.

Since the rollouts, I have wondered why the researchers seemed so cavalier about the long term effects of the Covid vaccines.  Now I understand that they just don't care.  At least they don't have a history of caring.  Trust the science?  Well maybe.  But think twice about the scientists.  And their companies?  Get real.

Like many people before Covid, I used to think of the anti-vaccine types as a bit nutty.  I mean, can it really be possible that vaccines, or at least some vaccine, causes autism?  Or contributes to it?  I would ask also about peanut allergies, which basically did not exist when I was a kid.  My grade school cafeterias served peanut butter sandwiches to everyone round about once a month.  Something in the last fifty years has caused this.  And I don't think it's global warming.  I don't even think it's neurotic parents.

Turns out, no one knows because no one studies this stuff.  That is, vaccine effects on overall health.  We know nothing about the long term effects of any of the Covid vaccines.  Long term, as in beyond, what, twenty months?

I also wonder if the vaccine Nazis will turn out to be worse than the actual German Nazis?  The dynamics are the same.  Would not surprise me one bit.

𓐵

The Islands of Misfit American Men

What type of American man comes to the Philippines?

I used to eat lunch in a small Filipino-American cafe.  Everyday, for years.  It was owned by a Filipina-American who became a friend of mine.  She had quite a few Filipina girlfriends who would also frequent the place.  Pretty ladies, all married to American men.  The owner had met her husband when he served in the Philippines in the US military (I forget the branch).  This was also true for some of the other Filipinas.  But a good number of them had done the penpal, and later internet dating, thing to meet their husbands.

At some point, the future husband had traveled to the Philippines and returned home with his bride or bride-to-be.  Well over time, I also met a number of the husbands.  Like I said, I ate lunch in this place for years.  I don't remember any of the husbands specifically; they were all pretty unremarkable.  But I can tell you that, and this was only my personal sense, they were all a bit awkward, socially awkward.  No big deal, and at the time, I did not give it any thought whatsoever.

After a few years, one of these ladies introduced me to one of her single Filipina girlfriends.  I'll skip the details, but ten years later, this gal, now my wife, and I, moved to the Philippines.

There's a lot to notice living in a foreign country.  I've written here about some of it.  But one thing I noticed for sure was other Americans.  All men.  They do stand out here.  Why?  It's not what you might imagine.

There is something odd about these men.  All of them.  Let me give you the rundown of the typical American man in the Philippines:

• He is socially awkward.  This is the primary characteristic of these men.
• He is not handsome, certainly not in any western sense.
• He is not financially successful.
• He is low status, socially.  Broadly speaking (job, education, family, background, etc.)
• He could not find a wife in the US, or his wife left him.  Basically American women did not want him.

Yet here, these same guys can find a well-above-average looking (by American standards) wife who is kind and loyal.  She is most often younger than the man, sometimes quite a bit younger, and occasionally obscenely younger.  The poor Filipinas don't know any better.  I am not saying they're stupid; they just have no basis of comparison.  That's why the men come here.  They don't have to compete with above average American men.  They don't even have to compete with average American men.  Some of these guys will return to the states with their brides.  But a good number of them stay here.

Look, none of the above make him a bad guy.  I'm not saying that.  But this is such a noticeable reality that there's no sense in denying it.  And there's so many of them.  Yet needless to say, nobody talks about this.

Sure, sure, this cannot apply to all American men in the Philippines, right?  Well when I meet one who does not fall into this stereotype, I'll let you know.

𓐵

The Most Politically Incorrect Piece Ever Posted to the Internet

The West has nothing important to learn from the rest of the world

If you travel to India, you might learn to prepare the world's best curry.  But you will certainly not learn any proper kitchen hygiene practices.  There's nothing wrong with bringing excellent curry to the West.  But that pales in comparison to the importance of western-level hygiene and sanitation.  And we're certainly not about to take civics lessons from India.  They cannot even form an orderly line.

Let's define what we mean by the West.  It is such a limited sphere that we can define it geographically, almost by country.  It is the US and Canada, Western Europe as far east as Germany, Austria, the Adriatic Sea, and Greece.  And it is Australia and New Zealand.  And Israel.  That's it.  Yes, yes, there are some outposts (in the Caribbean, Polynesia, the Falklands, etc).  And some of these are more western than others.  But let's not get caught in the weeds here...

Because the West is not primarily a geographical construct.  It is the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Democracy, capitalism, private enterprise, free markets, common law, an independent judiciary, respect for contracts and private property, due process, civilian military control, individual rights, including equal rights for women and minorities, personal agency, free speech and a free press, etc.  Also, an appreciation for education, literature, and the arts.  The scientific method is a product of the West.

I would also argue that the West has traditionally placed a high value on truth, although this ideal is currently under attack.  But there can be no doubt that truth and integrity are western values.  If you doubt me on this, you just need to do a bit of traveling.

Now, let me add this truly controversial statement:  The success of non-western countries entirely depends on the extent of their adoption of western ideas and practices.  The more western they become, the more successful they are.  The best example here is Hong Kong.  Extremely western until 2000.  And extremely successful.  Now under the thumb of China, it is less western and less successful.  I also believe that Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore offer illustrative examples of this rule.  And look at what's happened in Eastern Europe.  Countries that have enthusiastically adopted western practices have done well.

Let's look at China.  Communism did not make it rich.  Its corrupt government did not make it rich.  Its demographics did not make it rich.  No, it became rich only once it began adopting western practices.  Now think about how rich it could be.

But it is Turkey where we find the most interesting example of this rule.  Mustafa Kemal Ataturk introduced western style reforms in the early 20th century.  Turkey thrived, joining NATO in 1952.  But more recently, and certainly under the presidency of Recep Erdogan, the country has slid back into the clutches of Islamism and authoritarianism.  It's a choice.

This rule applies to all countries, western and non-western alike.

If a society does not want to adopt western ideas and practices, fine.  But they will remain poor.  If a society tolerates a corrupt government, they will remain poor.  One thing I have learned living in the third world is that corruption is not limited to the elites.  It is a cultural phenomenon.  If a society has a culture of dishonesty, it will remain poor.  Again, fine.  They can either adopt western attitudes about corruption, and integrity, or they can remain poor.  Again yes, I am saying it is a choice.

If you doubt my thesis here, just compare the countries I include in the West, and importantly the countries I have listed as adopting western practices, with any other country.  Japan is rich.  Its neighbors not so much.  Japan is richer than China.  Why?  Because it is more western.  Likewise, China is richer than Pakistan for the same reason.

There are a handful of countries where my rule does not apply.  These are the countries that have become rich by chance alone.  Oil.  Saudi Arabia and its ilk.  But these are the exceptions that prove the rule.  These countries are completely dysfunctional.  They cannot even get their own oil out of the ground.  They have to pay westerners to do it.  Dubai may have the tallest building in the world (designed by a Chicago architect and built by a Korean firm).  But they do not have a working sewer system.  Just think about how that works exactly.

I have no time for western academics who argue that the third world is poor for reasons beyond their own control.  Guns, germs, and steel to quote the title of the most famous book on this topic.  Colonialism, they all shout.  Leftist academics will blame everything except for the one true problem:  Culture.

The leftists' motive is clear.  If they acknowledge that third world culture perpetuates poor nations, they would also be forced to acknowledge that western culture produces rich nations.  The horror; the entire leftist world view would collapse.

Finally, remember this rule applies to all countries.  It is interesting to note that as western countries import and adopt non-western values and ideas, they will become less wealthy.  In both absolute and relative terms.  Certainly as they devalue truth, they will become poorer.  Surely today we are seeing this in real time in the US, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.

Again, fine.  It's a choice.

𓐵