Charles Murray and the White Class Divide

Charles Murray has an article in the WSJ outlining America's class divide. Murray notes the emergence of the "Super Zip Codes" that all go to the same elite schools, hold the same elite jobs, live in a very few elite cities, and live a life very different from that of the rest of the country. While at the same time among Whites, a lower class has emerged that is outside the cultural traditions and values of this country. He calls it the "Super Zips" vs. "Fishtown" (a White working class part of Philly). Arguing that both have become hereditary stations, for a number of reasons, and for an informal moral campaign to change that.

While Murray is superb in describing the situation, he shies away (from Political Correctness, ingrained chivalry, or other reasons such as fear) from accurately describing the reason for the emergence of two hereditary classes, and the action needed to break them apart, and increase personal social mobility.

Why the Super Zips Emerged

Murray notes that the United States has always had an elite. But that only recently have the payoffs for being "smart" been so large, and permanent. This is a familiar argument, one made many times in the Financial Times, and one not very intellectually rigorous. Simply because the elites are characterized by heredity, not smartness. Indeed, the dirty secret is that the elites are not very smart at all.

Elites are concentrated in the media, entertainment, the law, politics, government, "activism" and a few other areas where heredity, being born to the "correct" parent(s), personal connections, wealth, and "proper" opinions on a whole host of issues is everything. Not cognitive ability.

You will find almost no elites in professions such as engineering, computer science, entrepreneurship, and the like. Apple Computer, Dell, Starbucks, Oracle, were all formed by non-elites from middle class backgrounds or worse. Microsoft remains the only major technology company arguably founded by a child of the elite. Elites do not work as petroleum engineers, geologists, physicists, electrical engineers, and medical researchers, all highly demanding cognitive professions.

Angelo Codevilla argues in the American Spectator that the Ruling Class of America, Republican and Democrat, all go to the same national schools, share the same interests, intermarry, and form the same social class:

No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class's continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America's upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America's upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and "bureaucrat" was a dirty word for all. So was "social engineering." Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday's upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.

Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America's ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century's Northerners and Southerners -- nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, "prayed to the same God." By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God "who created and doth sustain us," our ruling class prays to itself as "saviors of the planet" and improvers of humanity. Our classes' clash is over "whose country" America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark's Gospel: "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

The Ruling Class, or the Super Zips, are not very smart. They have managed to run America into the ground, while in search of temporary votes to keep out those who they HATE HATE HATE (Average White middle class and working class Americans) of any power, courted disaster. Detroit is 47% illiterate, among adults. Hispanics do little better, and remain like Blacks utterly dependent on money transfered and opportunities taken from White middle and working class people to well, non-Whites.

In other words, the entire Elite political system is dependent on, sustained good times for everyone to smooth over the massive transfer of wealth and opportunities from average White people to non-Whites (and elites). And given those demands, the elites have made economic recovery impossible — no oil drilling, no oil pipelines, green dreams of failed solar manufacturing, strangling business regulations, and crony capitalism. When faced with the obvious danger — a White middle/working class populist revolt, the elites, the Super Zips, the Ruling Class, did little to avert it. Not even allowing victories and military dominance (that gives relief in cheaper oil if crushing the Iranians) to satisfy the pride and desire of the populists. Arrogant over-reach characterizes the elites. Who ran sub-prime into the ground, and with it the Nation, from which state it is unlikely to recover for decades.

Codevilla argues implicitly that Murray's answer to the Super Zips rise is "schlock sociology" worthy of Thomas Friedman and David Brooks:

Who are these rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them? What sets our ruling class apart from the rest of us?

The most widespread answers -- by such as the Times's Thomas Friedman and David Brooks -- are schlock sociology. Supposedly, modern society became so complex and productive, the technical skills to run it so rare, that it called forth a new class of highly educated officials and cooperators in an ever less private sector. Similarly fanciful is Edward Goldberg's notion that America is now ruled by a "newocracy": a "new aristocracy who are the true beneficiaries of globalization -- including the multinational manager, the technologist and the aspirational members of the meritocracy." In fact, our ruling class grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its connection with ever bigger government, and above all by a certain attitude.

Other explanations are counterintuitive. Wealth? The heads of the class do live in our big cities' priciest enclaves and suburbs, from Montgomery County, Maryland, to Palo Alto, California, to Boston's Beacon Hill as well as in opulent university towns from Princeton to Boulder. But they are no wealthier than many Texas oilmen or California farmers, or than neighbors with whom they do not associate -- just as the social science and humanities class that rules universities seldom associates with physicians and physicists. Rather, regardless of where they live, their social-intellectual circle includes people in the lucrative "nonprofit" and "philanthropic" sectors and public policy. What really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government. They vote Democrat more consistently than those who live on any of America's Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Streets. These socioeconomic opposites draw their money and orientation from the same sources as the millions of teachers, consultants, and government employees in the middle ranks who aspire to be the former and identify morally with what they suppose to be the latter's grievances.

Professional prominence or position will not secure a place in the class any more than mere money. In fact, it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the ruling class. Like a fraternity, this class requires above all comity -- being in with the right people, giving the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment's parts.

Codevilla compares the US elites unfavorably to France:

Much less does membership in the ruling class depend on high academic achievement. To see something closer to an academic meritocracy consider France, where elected officials have little power, a vast bureaucracy explicitly controls details from how babies are raised to how to make cheese, and people get into and advance in that bureaucracy strictly by competitive exams. Hence for good or ill, France's ruling class are bright people -- certifiably. Not ours. But didn't ours go to Harvard and Princeton and Stanford? Didn't most of them get good grades? Yes. But while getting into the Ecole Nationale d'Administration or the Ecole Polytechnique or the dozens of other entry points to France's ruling class requires outperforming others in blindly graded exams, and graduating from such places requires passing exams that many fail, getting into America's "top schools" is less a matter of passing exams than of showing up with acceptable grades and an attractive social profile. American secondary schools are generous with their As. Since the 1970s, it has been virtually impossible to flunk out of American colleges. And it is an open secret that "the best" colleges require the least work and give out the highest grade point averages. No, our ruling class recruits and renews itself not through meritocracy but rather by taking into itself people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in. The most successful neither write books and papers that stand up to criticism nor release their academic records. Thus does our ruling class stunt itself through negative selection. But the more it has dumbed itself down, the more it has defined itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority.

Where Codevilla goes wrong in describing the emergence of the Ruling Elite, the Ruling Class, the Super Zips, is describing the emergence in political terms, i.e. being merely the heirs of Wilsonian upper-crust elitism. But the elites of today are nothing like those of Wilson's day, holding attitudes towards race, sexual mores, nationalism, crime, punishment, wars, and everything else that are at opposite ends of the spectrum from the old Progressive Elites. Yes elites have always entrenched themselves in crony capitalism and regulations, tension between them and the ordinary people being as old as the Whiskey Rebellion.

He describes the hatred of traditional religion, of marriage, and the family, and the worship of big government. Which is held to be able to re-order society at will, but never win wars abroad.

There is a word for people who hold such views. The natural basis for the Super Zips. The Ruling Class. The New Elites. We call them ... women.

Specifically, White professional women. A new class, never seen before in America's history. With lots of money, lots of disposable income. Hostile to traditions and values of the "old America" and in particular, the military. Desirous of a New America, multicultural, multiracial, united in opposition to "Dead White Men" and icky, horrible, Beta White males. Fond of eternal apologies (name any elite dominated by men fond of apologizing itself, name any group of women not fond of ritual and thus meaningless abasement).

The growth of the New Elites, the Super Zips, the Ruling Elites, and their attitudes has been one that has been driven by the emergence of women into new territory. It is a fundamental truism that everything has its cost. Liberation of women from drudgework, from early marriage and early deaths (often in childbirth), from non-participation in the nation's affairs, from entering into and being amply rewarded from the workforce, has helped create a modern West (in the US and Europe) that is more robust, more wealthy, and more fair in many ways. But everything costs, and the cost of the emergence of women has been the creation of a hereditary elite, a ruling class of princes, kings, queens, princesses, dukes, and what not. The Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Disney-esque fantasy, complete with adult Oprah-ized "Wise Black Woman" companionship, pushing the interests of White Professional women to the exclusion of everyone else outside the female-Elite coalition.

That is what all that wealth, power, and stability cost — long term instability by a Ruling Class driven entirely by feedback loops of making Upper and Near-Upper Class White women happy. After all, the Ruling class as Codevilla notes, appeals to be "smarter" and more "moral" than the other guys. That's an appeal to female tastes. Name a football coach who pushes that he's more moral than his opposition, or "smarter" in terms of dress, comportment, and so on. Cleverness, devious tricks, and such like (when employed for your side) appeal to men in sports, business, and the military. Appeals to moral authority and general intelligence do not. Which is why Patton ironically meant as a hit piece is popular among conservative men and "the Help" among SWPL, Professional White women. It is why tough old football coaches are beloved by male sports fan and Oprah by White women.

The Super Zips emerged because the class that provided the support, the balance, White professional women, emerged. Yes Welfare made things worse, as did crony capitalism and credentialism. But the key had always been, the post-War emergence of White professional women, newly liberated, hostile to the old ways that kept them out of power, eager to embrace personal sexual liberation, disdainful of male peers who lacked sexiness (nearly all of them, because they were equal) and thus enamored of anything and everything foreign and non-White. "Authentic" came to mean foreign and exotic, and "White" a synonym for "boring" because newly liberated White women found them so, and through massive consumerism driven mostly by their buying decisions, shaped through advertising the culture to what it is today.

In the early 1960's, commercials ran on national television wherein housewives, even of working men at factories, agonized over the quality of their coffee. Today you have commercials where rock-climbing professional women eschew marriage for outdoor adventure. With their "boyfriend." And no one says anything. Because the culture changed so much. Organically, all around the West, all at the same time.

The Super Zip emergence is probably best shown by the old WB/CW television show "Gilmore Girls," and the current CW show "Gossip Girl." Both appeal to young women, the former depicts a glamorous young single mother and her hot young bright daughter, who gets into Yale. The mother dumps her long-time devoted blue collar hunk boyfriend for the guy who got her pregnant at 16, and never did anything for her or her daughter, but is rich and arrogant and an Alpha jerk. The daughter tellingly dumps a younger version of said blue collar guy, who worships her, for a rich and drunk jerk after he humiliates the blue collar guy. The female audience went NUTS for this, and could not get enough of it. They loved the rich, arrogant bastards because they were rich and arrogant. Inherited money too, which was the best kind. "Gossip Girl" does away with even the pretense of small-town-ish life, with glamorous soap opera hook-ups among the spoiled rich kids of Manhattan.

The very things that enrage the mostly White male non-elites, makes the elites extremely attractive to the female White professionals. Who under the elites have done well, to the point where income, education, and other status-markers are higher for White women than men.

Black voters will reliably vote Democratic (Elite) about 98% or so. Year after year. Hispanics vote around 70% for elites. White men and blue collar White women, on the short end of the stick, vote 70% non-elite (or against the most elite candidate). Those who swing, significantly, from elite to non-elite, are White professional women. The good news is that they can be persuaded to vote against Dems (always the elite candidate) some times. The bad news is that they require elite characteristics in candidates to do so: Scott Brown, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush. Handsome and tall are best, at least not "angry" or "ideological" which is a Beta Male turn-off. Women voters outside the White blue collar group want fairy tales, handsome princes, and tales of hierarchy and aristocracy. In real life as in stories of vampire queens, kings, and princes. That is why the elites emerged.

Neither Codevilla nor Murray get that.

The Emergence of Fishtown

Murray notes that "Fishtown" or the hereditary lower class White hangouts have decisively rejected the idea of regular church attendance, marriage before kids, education, and males in the workforce. What Murray does not get, because perhaps he is an older male with attitudes and chivalry formed from another country (the past) is how the sexual revolution impacted all these things.

Just as most White professional women (seriously, lurk about on ANY Television discussion forum, to see the attitude) HATE HATE HATE Christianity because of its cultural limits on female sexuality, so too do lower class women. The modern era after WWII, with cheap and easy contraception, anonymous urban living (less so now with Facebook and Twitter), high personal mobility, radically increased income and freedom for women, meant a sea-change in how women viewed sex, love, marriage, and kids.

Basically, any woman that wants sex, and is half-way attractive, can have sex any time she wants with an Alpha male. Commitment and love is another thing, but sex is not. Sex with the most desirable of men (aggressive, dominant assholes) is there any time. The only threat is Christianity. Islam is a distant fire, limiting only Muslim women (who most White women don't really care about anyway) as they see it. Some pastor saying "don't be slutty and stupid" is a direct threat, because their parent(s) might echo it. No one wants to be shamed like Snooki. The popularity of Jersey Shore is as a vehicle for White women of all classes to laugh at Snooki and how stupid she is. She is the guido version of a minstrel show. Appealing mainly to women.

Of course lower class women don't attend church. Who wants a lecture on staying away from bad boys, when they are so, so sexy?

Marriage for kids is for losers, among White lower class women, not because of welfare (though it hardly helps) but because of sexiness among men. The sexiest of men, are those who are aggressive, dominant, hyper-masculine, and so naturally women want kids by them. There is not enough reason to hold out for commitment (the sexy men won't commit) and the non-sexy men who offer commitment just are not sexy enough. It is not welfare (most White blue collar women in Fishtown work, and quite hard too). It is their own income plus no social pressure (because of anonymity, and independence of income) to stay away from bad boys that drives high rates of illegitimacy (and low rates of church going).

In times past, women would compromise because lowering the bar on acceptable sexiness was the only way to have a family. Now they can earn enough, with marginal government assistance, to have kids by sexy bad boys all they want. That's better, as Roissy notes, than a lifetime of a beta male's devotion. As the proprietor of Heartiste notes, "five minutes of Alpha beats five years of Beta."

Education, and males in the workforce, are directly related to sexual rewards on the lower class. Bad boys who work part time, deal casual drugs, engage in fruitless endeavors to "make it as a musician" and layabout, get the best women. The most beautiful, the youngest, the most fertile, the most willing. Often some of the most intelligent too. Bad boys, casual criminals, are sexier. That is why they dominant fantasies oriented towards women, be they vampires or warlocks or whatnot.

The path to sex, and fatherhood, is based on not life in the work-force and provider beta loser-dom. But rather pure male sexiness. This is the model in the Black ghetto and Mexican barrio. It is how most of the world orders itself sexually and socially. It is how most families are formed, and have been formed, in human history. It optimizes for female satisfaction, at the expense of wealth formation for all but a few.

A man who observes the behavior of the women around him, from an early age, at Fishtown, learns hard lessons. Regardless of what women say, the most beautiful and desirable of them, those who can have any man, give themselves to the casual, bad boy criminal lay-abouts. What you reward, and perhaps no reward is worth more, you get more of. What you punish (dutiful providership and steady blue collar work among men) you get less of.

What Murray misses is the sexual component. Late marriage by a woman in her mid-thirties with many, many sexual partners (between 30 and fifty is not out of the question), kids by another man or men, often ending in divorce, is not the same as the passionate devotion of a sixteen year old beauty, a virgin or near virgin, who only has eyes for you. And will happily bear you a child. Newsflash, young women are more beautiful than the older ones.

This is borne out by Murray's own statistics. The Super Zips live 1950's lives. They might have "only" $10 million dollars, and rest assured the drudge on Wall Street is not sexy, as being sexy takes hard work (George Clooney basically works all the time to be sexy, as does Brad Pitt, and your local drug dealer). There is not enough time for Wall Street mid-level honchos to be sexy, they are busy making money. But as "the Nanny Diaries" showed, "enough" money to buy say, a Summer home in the Hamptons, or at least rent one in the Summer, and all sorts of social settings, can mitigate un-sexiness among husbands. Can cause at least regular church going (the women have already sold out sexy for the Hamptons and society) and legitimate child-birth.

For the super-rich, well the money is no object, so marriages don't last long and like Hollywood demonstrates, illegitimacy is no barrier. The Middle class is increasingly sliding towards the sexy vs. money side of things. The lower class has no hope of upward mobility (here illegal immigration has taken its toll on White blue collar wages). So that's a problem.

Women WILL trade sexy men for men with money. Will sacrifice that sexiness, that thrill of danger, that pure excitement (and even real danger, as Rihanna again pursuing Chris Brown for another Ike Turner style beat-down shows). But it takes money. Real money. Even for the Middle Class, a nice condo is no longer enough. Not even a nice house. All that frenzy over marble and granite counter-tops was really the frustration of the middle class wife or girlfriend over her man's lack of sexiness. Drowned with status consumption.

In the current situation, it takes a house (at least rented, preferably owned) in the Hamptons or about $10 million or so annual income to keep the nuclear family intact. That's the amount of money most, though certainly not all, White women require for monogamy and abjuring sexy men.

[Note, I am sure "not all women are like that." Who cares? I am describing the collective actions of White women as a whole, in society, for both good — such as increased wealth, productivity, resiliency, and stake-holders, and bad — collapse of church-going, the nuclear family, men in employment, and the rise of the elites, the Super Zips in strangleholds on most institutions of this nation. This is not a conspiracy, or the actions of "devious Jews" or "Gramscian Frankfurt School theorists" making a "long march" through institutions, nor even "women are evil." Because they are not. However, neither are women comprised of pure good and supernatural wisdom, collectively. Women, like men, respond to incentives, for either society's good or bad. I would not say a woman pursuing a bad boy and having kids with him outside marriage is "wrong" individually. In a free country it is her choice. But the social cost is horrendous, when normalized and free of stigma.]

Solutions

Murray rightly eschews Big Government solutions to this problem. Though he notes correctly that America should reform Welfare to remove incentives to single motherhood. He is correct for a campaign to make the old, church going, nuclear family, men in the workplace, value education America return to Fishtown. But he leaves Super Zips alone.

Murray is only partly right, in the solutions because again he does not understand the cause — the sexual liberation of women, and the concentration of wealth and power among Upper Class White women, who switch votes based on personal attributes of candidates. Thus, getting their way, more often than not (the power of being the deciding votes).

Fishtown won't embrace those old virtues, unless the sexual liberation of women is matched by social stigma for choices that while maximizing individual happiness for the woman, causes disaster upon society. It must be a campaign directed by women, for women, with perhaps the involvement of a few Alpha males. Beta males must and should stay directly out of it. The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) campaign is a good one. Women respond to this social pressure and stigma very well, perhaps because being part of the group is far more important than for men. Everyone knows "loner" men and they form the backbone of male oriented entertainment from John Wayne to Jason Bourne. Women on the other hand are never depicted as loners in anything directed at them. They might form their own groups, but never set themselves off deliberately and permanently the way loner men heroes in movies do.

The solution is simply on the behavioral front, "don't be slutty. Don't be Snooki." Delivered by almost exclusively women, with a few sexy Alpha guys. That's it. A simple message. But one powerful given women's group behavior. [Which is both a weakness, and strength, forming the backbone of the Temperance and Prohibition and Civil Rights and Feminist and Environmental movements.]

On the incentive fronts, blue collar White guys, and White collar White guys, need to have incomes raised. Women will understandably fight tooth and nail to deny any reduction in their wealth (I would too) so that's a non-starter. But concrete action can be taken to increase earning power of White guys: deport illegal aliens (and their kids); increase military spending particularly ship and plane building; eliminate most legal immigration (and H1-B visas and variants); put import quotas on (increase local factory production); increase the ability to file and make money off patents (money to backyard tinkerers). Oil and energy production must be increased, vastly, and spending on various government make-work stuff killed.

These are all things that are difficult, but achievable. None will happen overnight, but all have the possibility of being enacted.

The most important strategic objective, however, is destroying the Hereditary Super Zips. A few observations are in order. Hollywood used to be filled with guys like Mel Brooks. A guy from nowhere, who rose to fame on writing really funny things, and pushing the envelope, not in just dirty words or taboos violated ,but form. "Get Smart" was the first zany sitcom, based not on a family but a complete idiot who parodied the James Bond smooth spy guy. Don Adams is another out of that mold, a guy who survived Guadalcanal and was a Parris Island Drill Instructor. Nowadays, comedy in Hollywood is very restricted to the Harvard Mafia. Want a job writing for the Simpsons, or Conan O'Brien? Better have graduated from Harvard. Only South Park, created by a couple of guys from Colorado, fits the old Brooksian Hollywood open to new talent that produces.

To destroy the Super Zips, it is necessary to destroy its ecosystem, the female driven consumerism. And all that is needed to do that is frugalism replacing consumerism. Buying only when needed, and on value and price, not status. The dirty secret of the Super Zips is how dependent either directly or indirectly they are on female-driven consumerism. Network and Cable TV, much of the movies, advertising, marketing, and whole swaths of government depend on either direct expenditures or indirect revenues and taxes derived from that. If Americans and particularly American women just bought say, 40% less, entire major portions of the Super Zips would collapse. Others, particularly Hollywood, would rely on entertaining people rather than just a profitable sub-group (see "the Help" the book and movie, and Oprah's career).

For the Super Zips will not go away quietly. They are happy to wreck America to get one more day in power.
...Read more

It's Basically Over For Anglos

The Houston Chronicle quotes a demographer, Steve Murdock, who notes looking at population projections for Texas, "It's basically over for Anglos." The story reports that two out of every three Texas children are non-Anglo (almost all Mexican origin) and that will become even more pronounced in the future. Murdock is a former U.S. Census Bureau Director and is currently the Director of the Hobby Center for the Study of Texas at Rice University. Murdock says that Texas is divided into two: an aging Anglo population and a young, almost entirely Mexican origin population. This sets up the mother of all spoils battles: spend on mostly Mexican kids, or aging Whites. The impact of this spoils battle could conceivably, if it spirals out of control, lead to a break-up of the US along racial lines, at worst. Its been predicted, before, by men who are no fringe figures.

Between 2000 and 2040, the state's public school enrollment will see a 15 percent decline in Anglo children while Hispanic children will make up a 213 percent increase, he said.

The state's largest county - Harris - will shed Anglos throughout the coming decades. By 2040, Harris County will have about 516, 000 fewer Anglos than lived in the Houston area in 2000, while the number of Hispanics will increase by 2.5 million during the same period, Murdock said. The projection assumes a net migration rate equal to one-half of 1990-2000.
…
B y 2040, only 20 percent of the state's public school enrollment will be Anglo, he said. Last year, non-Hispanic white children made up 33.3 percent of the state's 4.8 million public school enrollment.

Of the state's 254 counties, 79 recorded declining population during the past 20 years. All are rural. An additional 30 Texas counties, he said, would have also lost population had they not experienced Hispanic growth.

The state's future looks bleak assuming the current trend line does not change because education and income levels for Hispanics lag considerably behind Anglos, he said.

Unless the trend line changes, 30 percent of the state's labor force will not have even a high school diploma by 2040, he said. And the average household income will be about $6,500 lower than it was in 2000. That figure is not inflation adjusted so it will be worse than what it sounds.

"It's a terrible situation that you are in. I am worried," Murdock said.

Whites are defacto minorities in California, Arizona, Texas, and Nevada. In California, Hispanics outnumber Whites absolutely, while in Arizona, Texas, and Nevada about two thirds of children under 14 are Hispanic, and only about a third White. If one believes in unicorns, rainbows, and fairies (the Tinkerbell kind, not the San Francisco leather-bound kind) then this will be no problem. "Magic" will sprinkle pixie dust on Hispanic children, magically making them achieve the same educational levels, same low levels of criminal activity, same economic levels, as the White populations they are replacing. And everyone will dance around singing Kumbayah and holding hands in one giant post-racial party, happy to have conquered "Whiteness." This is the fantasy of the Puritan-Progressive elite, and post-Quakers, the cultural heirs to the New England Puritans and Pennsylvania Quakers. Who believe in a mish-mash of "elect and damned" and "be nice to others, they'll be nice to you." The latter sound advice when your neighbors are the Amish, not so sound when they are MS-13 or the Zetas.

The reality is likely to be quite different. First, flight. As noted extensively in "Albion's Seed" by David Hackett Fischer, the response of the British Borderers and their "hillbilly" descendants has been first to flee. Then fight when left with no alternative. Fleeing is easier than fighting, and all cultural groups of White people, the New England Puritans, the Virginian Cavaliers, the Mid Atlantic Quakers, and the Appalachian Backwoodsmen, do their utmost to remove themselves culturally, physically, and socially from non-Whites. No group of White people clamors to live in the Ghetto or Barrio, instead they at best in times of high real estate prices urge gentrification, to move those people out of desirable real estate. At other times Whites cluster in exclusively White areas. Appalachian folk tend towards country music, NASCAR, and rural/suburban areas noted for their lack of non-Whites. Mid-Atlantic Quakers and Post Puritan-Progressives enjoy classical music, jazz and the blues (which Blacks have fled from in panic due to White popularity), 80's music, gentrified urban settings and "hip-trendy" outposts like Asheville NC or Austin TX that are nearly exclusively White. [The Cavaliers of Virginia of course are long dead and gone, culturally.] Even the most enthusiastic proponent in Hollywood of "magical Blackness" (that Spike Lee among others complain about) do their utmost to live in lily-White areas: Malibu, Santa Monica, Brentwood, etc. Indeed, at no time has all of White America been so exclusively White, and culturally as well as physically removed from Blacks and Hispanics. You won't find any Whites not even those most enthusiastic about illegal immigration and "the end of Whiteness" watching Sabado Gigante on Univision.

So fleeing will continue, until there is nowhere to flee to, by average Whites. Upper class, more wealthy Whites have already fled to exclusive White urban zones, such as Malibu or NYC's Upper East Side. But flight is not sustainable forever, and the other notable characteristic of the Backwoods folk is their propensity to fight, often to the bitter end, when cornered and their conception of "natural liberty" is infringed upon. Indeed, as the cultural grouping of Backwoods grows, at the expense of the Mid-Atlantic and Puritan-Progressive groupings, the tendency to fight to "protect your liberty" is only going to get stronger, and tinged with pure racial identification.

Being a Puritan-Progressive, or Mid-Atlantic utopianist, takes money and security. Without money to isolate one's self from non-Whites (and those outside your cultural grouping as well) it cannot be sustained. Without physical safety, a strong and efficient police force that crushes any attempt to victimize the White Puritan-Progressive or the Mid-Atlantic Utopian elites, that cultural grouping cannot be sustained. You cannot believe in original racial sin (Whites) and redemption (making Whites minorities in their own countries to get rid of those Backwoodsmen to whom all sin accrues) during a Home Invasion. Or your kid getting beat up at school due to "Whiteness" or any myriad other violent or hostile encounters with non-Whites asserting physical dominance, control, and so on. It is easy to decry the "stupid racism of Hillbillies" in Malibu gated communities and mansions. Much harder to do it when your neighborhood is over-run with MS-13 or the Zetas, and your kids get beat up every day. Or your household income takes massive hits just for private school to keep your kids from a daily beating. Or rising fuel costs force you into daily and bitterly resented contact with hostile non-Whites.

The ascendancy of the Puritan-Progressive and Mid-Atlantic utopian ideals, of pre-destined damned and saved, and magical goodness of non-Whites, depended on constantly rising incomes to produce enough economic margin to grow and convert Whites to that cultural grouping. A sustained downward spiral pushes Whites to nationalism, high rates of physical mobility, intense personal loyalty to a few leaders, and a desire to fight along clan/family/tribal basis for "natural liberty" i.e. the ideal of being left alone, government being merely a means for others, (in this case non-Whites) to oppress ordinary people. Call this the Hillbilly way. The Hillbilly Way tends to grow (a lot) when times turn hard, for a good long spell. [It was the political genius of FDR to pull Hillbillies his way, by deporting every Mexican he could, and preventing Blacks from unionizing or even voting in the same Democratic Primary as Whites, until 1944.]

Cue the spoils fights. There will be a "stuck group" that will not be able to flee to Whitopia, and indeed the Puritan-Progressive and Mid Atlantic Utopianists (motivated by sheer hatred of "the Hillbilly Way" and Hillbillies) have done their best to encourage a "drowning of Whiteness" (and hated cultural rivals) by importing masses of non-Whites, both Mexican illegal aliens, and various non-White refugees, and settling them in places like Idaho, or Wisconsin, or Minnesota, or Maine. Whitopia is no longer so White. Setting up the fight part of flight or fight.

Will an aging White population tax itself basically out of existence, to educate and provide welfare for non-Whites who are as a matter of course, both innately hostile to them and replacing them totally? The answer is no. Nor will a non-White population tax itself, or even devote a smidgen of public funds, to support aging Whites who they both despise and know they will replace. This extends of course to the current budget struggle in California, where Jerry Brown is hinting he'll dump State workers benefits and salaries, already agreed upon, to spend the money on Hispanics: health care, education, and welfare. Even with massive tax increases, the only way to keep spending mountains of money on the California Hispanic population is by gutting the money spent on mostly White state and local government workers.

At its possible worst, this sets the stage for what Igor Panarin predicted: civil war and secession over spoils and public spending. Widely dismissed as naïve and stupid at the time, Panarin (not a fringe figure, rather a respected dean of Russia's academy for diplomats) seems prophetic. While the exact breakdown of a US split and dissolution might be argued, it cannot be dismissed out of hand. Simply because there is no example, in all of human history, of a democratic republic being multi-racial and multicultural. At best, brutal dictators who rule with the help of a favored group, by mercilessly hounding the other out-groups, provide the stability of the grave. Tito, Stalin, Mithridates, Caesar Augustus, Ghengis Khan, all come to mind. Human beings simply are not built to trust and trade resources fairly and freely across racial lines in a republic (rights of minorities and dissenters respected) and democracy (majority rule). It has never ever happened in all of human history and culture, which is considerable. Because, quite likely, the kin-based nature of human evolution has pre-disposed us to cooperate on racial/cultural lines: people who reasonably look, act, sound, and otherwise resemble distant cousins. We certainly do have many examples, as Amy Chua's "World on Fire" show, of democratic majorities constantly victimizing minorities. The difference of course is that in the US, the minorities (Whites) are likely to fight back.

Here is what the man had to say (the map at the top of the post is from the WSJ story):

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

Yes, he sounds at least half-way accurate. Financial, demographic, and economic crisis have all hit the US at the same time. Indeed the crisis are largely driven by demographic trends. Replacing Whites with non-Whites would be problematic (based on human nature) if the replacers were wealthier than Whites. Given that they are in fact much poorer and remain so, this makes conflict of some sort (hopefully only political) inevitable.

Of course, violent secession is not set in stone. But neither is it an unlikely fantasy. Fleeing Whites who were in effect ethnically cleansed out of California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Florida are unlikely to be willing to transfer funds from wealthier White states such as Idaho, or South Dakota, to Texas and the rest of the "Mexico Norte" states. Money to be spent on the very people who ethnically cleansed them out of their homes in the first place. Nor is there any way to construct a "grand bargain" -- Hispanics (mostly all Mexicans) spending money to care for an aging White population in exchange for taxes spent to educate poor Mexicans and provide welfare. First, there will not be enough money to go around, the average income gap per household is about $16,000 of White vs. Hispanic in 2009 dollars according to the US Census Bureau. There has been no narrowing the gap over the last twenty years, instead it has only increased. And socially, Hispanics have had growing maladaptive behaviors to increase income: growing not decreasing levels of illegitimacy, growing not decreasing levels of drop out rates, growing not decreasing levels of Spanish only language skills. Meanwhile the burden of providing health, education, and welfare of a desperately poor population of illegal aliens and one only slightly less desperately poor (the children of illegal aliens and every descendant afterwards) increases exponentially.

There would be barely enough money to provide for White social security and other retirement issues (health care). There is without question not enough money to provide for the "Mexicanization" of much of the United States. The health care, education, and welfare needs are so great that even if no money was spent at all on elderly Whites, there would not be enough to go around. Poor people, it seems, cost a lot.

Which means conflict. This conflict can be done by more peaceful means, through political action that makes decisions stick, by forcing those without means and power to fight back to accept a fait-accompli (basically a re-run of the Trail of Tears, some form of mass deportations of the out-group), or a process that spirals out of control into violence. Given the entrenched interests that benefit from Mexicanization of America, and the sheer hatred of "Hillbillies" by Progressive-Puritans and Mid Atlantic Idealists, a good bet is on the latter. Of course, any such process is likely 15 to 25 years out, but it is highly likely at some point. A good many political analysts predicted the Civil War by 1835, and as note by Panarin, the collapse of the USSR by the 1970's. America could no more remain half-slave and half-free as it can half-Mexican-dominated and half-not-Mexican-dominated. The cultural, economic, political, and mass population conflicts in each case make some sort of total loser/total winner outcome, by whatever means, almost inevitable.

In this case, it is worth noting that the US military already remains in the views of some, dangerously isolated and quite angry at much of Establishment America. This story from Politico touches on the divide between "peacetime America" and the Wartime Military. Columbia Students shouted "racist" at a wounded, wheel-chair bound vet who spoke out for ROTC on campus, while others jeered and laughed at his injuries. Meanwhile US Defense Secretary Robert Gates worries:

A decade of constant conflict has trained a junior officer corps with exceptional leadership skills, he told the cadets, but the Army may find it difficult in the future to find inspiring work to retain its rising commanders as it fights for the money to keep large, heavy combat units in the field.

“Men and women in the prime of their professional lives, who may have been responsible for the lives of scores or hundreds of troops, or millions of dollars in assistance, or engaging or reconciling warring tribes, may find themselves in a cube all day re-formatting PowerPoint slides, preparing quarterly training briefs, or assigned an ever-expanding array of clerical duties,” Mr. Gates said. “The consequences of this terrify me.”

Hmmm … let me see now. An officer corps, almost exclusively White, Southern/Western, conservative, mirrored fairly completely down to the lowest detail of enlisted men? A feckless, and clueless national leadership intent on massively changing the way of life of pretty much everyone in the country that is also innately hostile to the Military itself? Mixed with an economic crisis, fiscal crisis, and political crisis all tracing their origins to what amounts to complete demographic replacement of Whites by Mexicans in the US, all without any vote or constitutional amendment? Where have I seen anything like this before? Add to this the de-industrialization of the North and North East, and growing move of what little manufacturing there is to Southern and Western states, and things look different than in 1860.

Naturally, and often fortunately, the future does not move in straight lines. Something is endurable, until it becomes un-endurable. Various agitators are effective, or not. Crisis that should have been foreseen, sneak up on everyone while distraction over piddling events reigns. Human error or courage, stupidity or wisdom, change events from a certainty to a new course. Sometimes even natural disasters can take a hand in shaping history. The Kamikaze originally referred to the near-miraculous typhoon that sunk the Mongol Invasion fleet that would have easily conquered Japan. The Monguls were near invincible. Save for water.

So it is possible, and hopeful, that Mexican immigration into this country slows dramatically, and is even reversed. That sudden cutbacks in welfare spending provoke a soul-searching and wrenching amount of changes in Hispanic behavior, with norms of marriage before children, educational striving, and low crime being a sudden radical shift. Anything can happen. Perhaps an early encounter, with the "aging Anglo population" getting its way with fiscal policy, can create a rapid desire for assimilation by the coming Mexican majority.

The smart bet based on Human History, however, says greed and stupidity will preclude any rational attempt to settle a division of resources and control, short of violence and brutal coercion, and America will indeed slide into the conflict envisioned by Igor Panarin. Not of course, right away. But inevitably, as the call of the trumpets at Shiloh and Bull Run and Gettysburg were heard even in 1835, so the siren call of war and conflict is being heard already. Driven by fundamental conflicts.

It is all over for Anglos in Texas. Also California, Arizona, Florida, and probably Illinois. Whites are now the functional minority, in the US. While being the target of non-Whites for resource extraction, the White to non-White gap in income being considerable and growing. Amy Chua's model of "market dominant minorities" will probably hold for Bill Gates kids, and Warren Buffett's, and perhaps even Mitt Romney's kids. But for the great rest of the average White guy, flight will soon turn into fight. Because life as basically a third class citizen in Mexico Norte is worth fighting to avoid, everything else notwithstanding. With conveniently, a great deal of military men who got battlefield training (Lee and the other Southern Commanders all had extensive experience in the Mexican-American War, the Union Officer Corps till Grant and Sherman were time-serving non-entities who had no real combat/leadership experience) and find little else to interest them. While a great deal of the current New England/Mid Atlantic elite holds them in mutual contempt and disgust.

Ultimately, a non-White America will resemble Mexico, only slightly better off. The same levels of corruption, violence, and government services will prevail. With an added feature of ethnically/racially driven violence and government discrimination. Good government, security, prosperity, all cost money. They can only be achieved, history shows us, with an ethnically and culturally unitary, large and dominant middling class that controls the government and directs its spending and aims for its own ends. There is a reason the Philippines and places like it are chaotic, violent, and poor. Despite the ability to punish and extract at times resources from Chua's "Market Dominant Minorities."

In any conflict, moreover, the initiative remains with a more unified, disciplined, experienced, and smarter opponent. Sheer numbers can at times overwhelm, but at other times provide only carnage and cannon fodder. Speed, mobility, surprise, and most critical of all, discipline under chaos tend to produce the most winners, in politics and in war. Conflict of some sort is coming, that much is certain. You cannot have population replacement, a welfare state, and legalized racial caste systems (Whites on bottom) and not have conflict in some form. Let us hope and pray the basic resource division: spend on older Whites or younger Hispanics, is settled short of violence with conclusive finality, through political means, avoids a break-up of the US, and restores a racial unity and peacefulness to America.



...Read more

The NFL's Michael Vick Problem

The NFL has a Michael Vick problem. One that won't go away, and is tied to the racialism of the Black population. Michael Vick is viewed as a hero by Blacks, and largely (though not exclusively) badly by Whites. Michael Vick is the most hated man in sports, according to one poll. A full 82% of Blacks think Vick should be playing football, while only 42% of Whites think so, writes Juan Williams in the Wall Street Journal.

The NFL just recently awarded Michael Vick the "Comeback Player of the Year" for 2010. Yet, as we can see in the video below, Vick himself remains the man that he always was. Quite likely, a future (or uncaught) sadistic serial killer. Vick according to sworn testimony drowned, hanged, electrocuted, and beat to death dogs that did not fight (well). He threw a family pet into a fighting ring with dogs and laughed as it was torn to pieces. This is sadism for the point of sadism, nothing less. One that the Black community, largely supports. For nothing less than racial solidarity and racialism (if not indeed racism itself).


Vick was just recently awarded the keys to Dallas by the Black Mayor Pro-Tem, in front of a cheering, adoring crowd of Black attendees.



The NFL has bent over backwards to adopt and endorse Michael Vick, despite his sadism and brutality, writ large, because he is Black. A White player would have been (correctly) ostracized and forbidden to play in the NFL.

The NFL is making two, large and related bets. The first is that the Lockout will not seriously impair either short-term or long-term revenues. With a guarantee of $3 billion out of $4 billion from its TV contracts, the short term part of that bet seems a solid wager, providing that the TV networks don't simply dump the contract or refuse to pay, gambling that they can always go back to the table and get a cheaper deal after the strike. Contracts, after the GM and Chrysler bailouts and forced closures of dealerships (decided by the White House based largely on race and gender) are no longer certain. So the NFL has a risk, however unknown, to its short-term strategy for the lockout.

The other part of their gamble is their Black-courting will not seriously impact their long-term viewership and thus their revenue. Since the largest portion of their revenue is dependent on TV viewership and essentially, the White audience.

The Superbowl had a record number of viewers, 111 million. But it might be the high water mark. As Steve Sailer has noted, the transition of Whites to a minority population, and one that is proceeding rapidly, in a "multicultural" (i.e. Barack Obama's call to Whites to "get to the back of the bus") way, means tribalism among Whites. Including White football fans.

This does not mean a return of the Klan, or a desire for racial punishment, or racial based violence. The White population is too middle class, comfortable, and non-violent for that sort of thing (I am skeptical of any view of "racial enlightenment" or moralism, but middle class people don't engage in street fights). David Duke, with Whites at about 65% of the population, lives in deserved penury in a trailer park in Monroe LA. Not Hell but you can see it from there. Meanwhile Louis Farrakhan is a neighbor of Barack Obama's, and lives in a mansion bigger than Oprah's, with more goons too than the Queen of daytime talk TV. This with Blacks at 12.9% of the population.

What the NFL risks is a steady, race-based erosion of the White fans as the worship and adulation of the Black thugs that increasingly make up its player base gets out of hand. The NBA has a TV contract of around $1 billion or so, in total, so the NFL is risking essentially about $3 billion dollars, in catering to what amounts to 12.9% of the population, and has only 40% of that figure in the middle class.

It is true that a non-trivial portion of White women find the adventures of the Kardashians with various Black athletes fascinating. See also "Kendra" and others of that ilk. But Women make up only 25% or so of the NFL audience. White men are the base, and they find players like Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, and Drew Brees the most likable. TV commercials and endorsements bear this out. The NFL sells "Sunday Ticket" by Peyton Manning, mostly. They don't use Michael Vick. Young White men find Black rappers hyper-masculine thuggery worthy of emulation. But the NFL is largely a middle aged fan-base sport. Younger White male viewers make up a small portion of its audience.

There is no cost to "switch" to another sport for an NFL fan. College Football, Hockey, Baseball, Soccer, UFC, all are broadcast on cable and over-the-air stations. Particularly after a strike/lockout, it is quite likely that viewership will remain lower, and fans can and will migrate to other sports. Baseball experienced this with the lockout/strike and steroid scandal in the 1990's, never regaining its prior popularity. The dearth of White players and influx on a massive scale of Afro-Carribean players however also played a major part in the disappearing audience and fanbase.

Black film-makers complain all the time, accurately, that Black audiences are tired of seeing mostly White leads in films oriented towards White audiences. They argue that White actors and White-themed movies are of little interest to Black audiences. Which seems an eminently logical and sensible position. But the converse would also be true, that White audiences have little interest in Black-themed movies featuring Black actors. The turnout for the "Friday" films and the movies with Tyler Perry would seem to back this up.

There is nothing wrong with, and a good deal right with, Black film-makers creating movies just for Black audiences. A free and open country ought to allow just such things. But no one can force White audiences to go see "Diary of A Mad Black Woman" either. And in a nation where Whites are rapidly becoming a minority, and losing majority status, while meanwhile having the lowest position on the multi-cultural totem pole, the "slack" the White audience is likely to cut racially-based endorsement of thuggery and sadism in the NFL is not very large.

The Superbowl featured a Pepsi Max commercial where a Black woman and Black man, a couple, were sitting on a park bench as a very attractive blonde female jogger passes by, and flirts with the Black man. The Black woman throws the can hard at the Black Man, who ducks, and the can knocks out the White blonde female jogger as the couple runs away. This ad would have been inconceivable with the races reversed. It is an arrow pointing to cultural, social, and political power, as currently positioned by the elites.

Pepsi can make this commercial, but they cannot force the White population to buy it. The most likely outcome is not violence and protest by Whites, but simply a slump in sales by an ever smaller White population. In that sense, Whites in America are becoming "Israeli" in attitudes. Figuring themselves beset by a large, intractably hostile population, a premium on in-group solidarity and matching racialism and race-based attitudes is likely to emerge. As Steve Sailer noted, if White tribalism is a problem, then Whites should not have been made a minority in the US.

Certainly, there are non-trivial portions of elite Whites (I know personally of one) who are older, who find it proper and just in a "eternal damnation" post-Calvinist way, that Whites be punished for "original racial sin" by first "taking the country from the Indians" and then slavery and segregation. That it is right and proper to make Whites a last-class minority in their own country (through illegal immigration). But the whole process of the Tea Party is the throwing off, of the RINO-esque, Media-based, SWPL elites. Including, culturally, Roger Goodell and the NFL. Which itself from the Rooneys and Michael Vick, are part of the Obama political coalition. [One can reasonably predict a full pardon for Michael Vick by Obama after the 2010 Presidential Elections. Because Michael Vick is Black. No other reason.]

A White population that experiences economic growth and is around 80-90% of the population, can tolerate such racialism. Culturally, politically, and socially, it is a minor price to pay to buy social peace, because the burden is light. A White population that is rapidly reduced to minority status, and discriminated (permanently) is guaranteed to become "Israeli" in attitude. Particularly as any residual "White guilt" (always overplayed anyway) ends and elite status-mongering becomes tiresome. Again, the experience of Israel is a guide. Labor and the Left in general simply fell apart, due to demographic pressure by Arab growth inside Israel and the Occupied Territories. Majorities pushed to minority status do not always embrace violence but they always embrace tribalism.

The NFL can call anyone who does not openly admire Michael Vick "a racist" but they can't force the White audience to watch the games. It is certainly unlikely that Whites will abandon the NFL en-masse, but even significant erosion can poison the NFL's prospects for growth, given that the NFL depends entirely on the White male audience in the US (it has failed to expand anywhere else). Even 25% of the viewership simply declining to watch the NFL for other sports or pursuits can impact the bottom line seriously.

Michael Vick may get the keys to Dallas from an adoring Black Mayor Pro-Tem, and adoring (largely) Black crowd, but the reaction to the video (gone viral over the internet, Hotair has it) is likely to be a silent decline in viewership as White guys figure the NFL is simply too Black for them. The net result? A loss eventually of around $3 billion in revenue, as the NFL sinks to NBA level of popularity and support.

Jerry Jones "Jones Mahal" seems pretty stupid now. As Yogi Berra once said, if they don't wanna come out the ballpark, how ya gonna stop em?



...Read more

Obama's Coalition: The Patronage, Stupid!

A fascinating article by National Journal shows how politics in America reflect the patronage that the Democratic (and Republican) party distributes. Whites, except college educated White women, have turned away from Obama, his policies, and Democrats. Meanwhile both Obama and Dems depend on non-Whites, young voters, and college educated women. It's the patronage, stupid, as Clinton might have remarked. Obama's policies create winners and losers among these groups, and the way for Republican victory over Obama and the Dems is to split off the only group they can win: College Educated White Women, by offering them a bigger cut of the pie.


The article covers racial breakdowns of exit polling on Election Day, 2010, purchased by National Journal from Edison Research. The finding were not released previously by media outlets, obviously for fear of illustrating the vast racial divide (and the vast divide in racial spoils). Every political policy creates economic, social, and cultural winners and losers. As federal and state governments have grown, the winners and losers have won and lost ever more in earnings, social power, and cultural attitudes. Coming to a boiling point, likely irrevocably, in Election Day 2010.

First, the core findings. A full sixty percent of Whites nationwide backed Republican candidates for the House of Representatives, only 37% supported Democrats. This is better (for Republicans) than the 1994 landslide. White voters also posted deep unhappiness with Obama's performance, the Democratic agenda, and widespread skepticism about the expanded role of government Obama and Dems have pushed. Non-Whites expressed almost exactly the opposite attitudes than Whites.

In a non-Presidential election, the Hispanic vote for Dems slipped to 60%, compared to 66% in 2008 for Obama. About 73% of non-Whites voted for Dems. Meanwhile Republicans took 60% of White voters, something never before seen in three decades of tracking by race.

Meanwhile, Republicans, with their 60 percent showing, notched the party’s best congressional result among white voters in the history of modern polling. Media exit polls conducted by Edison Research and its predecessors have been tracking congressional elections for about three decades. In no previous exit poll had Republicans reached 60 percent of the white vote in House races. The University of Michigan’s National Election Studies, a biennial pre- and postelection poll, is another source of data on voting behavior dating to 1948. Republicans had never reached 60 percent of the congressional vote among whites in any NES survey. Only in the NES surveys had Democrats reached that 60 percent congressional support level among white voters: in their 1974 post-Watergate landslide and in Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 rout of Barry Goldwater.
…
First among those was Obama’s performance. Exactly 75 percent of minority voters said they approved; only 22 percent said they disapproved. Among white voters, just 35 percent approved of the president’s performance, while 65 percent disapproved; a head-turning 49 percent of whites said they strongly disapproved. (Those whites voted Republican last fall by a ratio of 18-to-1.)

The racial gulf was similar when voters were asked whether they believed that Obama’s policies would help the nation in the long run. By 70 percent to 22 percent, minorities said yes; by 61 percent to 34 percent, whites said no. On election night, much attention focused on the exit-poll result that showed voters divided almost exactly in half on whether Congress should repeal the comprehensive health care reform legislation that Obama signed last year or should preserve or even expand it. But that convergence obscured a profound racial contrast. The vast majority of minority voters said they wanted lawmakers to expand the health care law (54 percent) or maintain it in its current form (16 percent), while only 24 percent said they wanted Congress to repeal it. Among white voters, the sentiments were almost inverted: 56 percent said that lawmakers should repeal the law, while much smaller groups wanted them to expand it (23 percent) or leave it alone (just 16 percent).

The gap was also wide in attitudes about two fundamental tenets. Minorities were almost exactly twice as likely as whites to say that life would be better for the next generation than for their own; whites were considerably more likely to say that it would be more difficult. And on a question measuring bedrock beliefs about the role of government, the two racial groups again registered almost mirror-image preferences. Sixty percent of minorities said that government should be doing more to solve problems; 63 percent of whites said that government is doing too many things that would be better left to businesses and individuals.

Clearly, most Whites do not relish being, as Obama has pushed forward, the numerical minority in their own country, in their own lifetime, and being told, as Obama said recently, to "get to the back of the bus." Just as clearly, Whites can figure that a Government run health care plan will generally, screw them over in order to provide more or better care to non-Whites (principally, illegal aliens, who are uninsured at present and likely make up most of the uninsured in America). Whites (particularly White males) are not likely to be able to get jobs in Government, absent high-level political connections (such as Obama Car Czar Steve Rattner, just recently settling a record fine with the SEC and NY AG office for securities fraud). The transformation of America from a mostly private enterprise, small business oriented nation to one of giant corporations and government, makes life good for non-Whites (who gain massive preferences and privileges) but hurts Whites.

This is "baked in the cake" of Democratic politics, though Obama has pushed it farther than most, including Bill Clinton. You cannot construct a massive government run system controlling most of the economy and have Affirmative Action and other myriad preferences and not hurt Whites, particularly Blue Collar White men and women and White collar men. White women with college educations are another matter, as we'll see, but this is the essence of Democratic policies: helping non-Whites by hurting Whites.

Measured both geographically and demographically, these new exit-poll results show that Democrats maintained openings in only slivers of the white electorate. In House elections, the bottom fell out for Democrats in both the South (where they won just 24 percent of whites) and the Midwest (37 percent). The party remained relatively more competitive along the coasts, capturing 46 percent of white voters in the East and 43 percent in the West.

A separate National Journal analysis of the results from exit polls in Senate elections found similar trends. Edison Research conducted exit polls last year in 26 Senate races; in 19 of them, the Democratic Senate candidate won a smaller share of the white vote than President Obama captured in the state two years earlier. Democratic Senate candidates carried a majority of white voters in just seven races and reached 45 percent of the vote in only two more. Except for West Virginia, those states were all near an ocean (or, in Hawaii’s case, in one).

Democrats have been losing support among blue-collar white voters since the 1960s, but in this election, they hit one of their lowest points ever. In House campaigns, the exit poll found, noncollege whites preferred Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 with virtually no gender gap: White working-class women—the so-called waitress moms—gave Republicans almost exactly as many of their votes as blue-collar men did.

These blue-collar whites expressed profound resistance to Obama and his agenda. Just 30 percent of them said they approved of the president’s job performance (compared with 69 percent who disapproved). Two-thirds of them said that government is doing too many things. An approximately equal number said that Obama’s agenda will hurt the country over the long term. Only about one-fifth of these voters said that the stimulus had helped the economy, and 57 percent wanted to repeal the health care law—even though they are uninsured at much higher rates than whites with more advanced education. [Emphasis added]

Well, color this obvious. The transformation of the Democrats from the FDR/Pat Brown dam-builders, road builders, University of California (aimed squarely at White middle and working class people under Pat Brown) … to Jerry Brown and Barack Obama, pushing paper studies, endless race/gender/gay wars over preferences against what Ace of Spades termed "Straight White Married guys" and a government that only produces paper reports, not actual infrastructure built by and for the White middle and working class, was bound to create a backlash by the Blue collar White demographic.


The Senate races, as the National Journal article points out, were different in only a few places. Barbara Boxer of California, and Michael Bennet of Colorado, won despite carrying only 33% or so of Working Class White voters. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin did as well as Boxer and Bennet did among non-Whites, and better than they did among Working Class White voters, about 40%. What doomed him was that there were fewer college educated White women in Wisconsin. Which is why he is now ex-Senator Feingold, and Bennet and Boxer were returned to office.

Democratic support in the heartland, cratered even among college educated Whites. Along the coasts, and Upper Midwest, the Democrats retained about 50% to 45% (depending on region) of college educated White voters. Everywhere else, Democrats did far worse (under 45% support for college educated Whites).

Critical to this difference was the kind of college educated people in key states. In places where Democrats won Senate races, it seems they had far more college educated White women, who are traditionally far more liberal than their male peers.

White-collar men and women also parted ways much more significantly than their blue-collar counterparts did. College-educated white men backed Republican House candidates and registered negative views of Obama’s job performance as overwhelmingly as blue-collar whites did. College-educated white women, though not immune to these trends, displayed more resistance. Although traditionally the most liberal portion of the white electorate, even these women cooled toward Democrats last year. In contrast to the majority support they provided Obama in 2008, they voted 55 percent to 43 percent for Republicans in 2010 House races. In the exit poll, most of them agreed that government was trying to do too much, and a slim majority of them said they wanted Congress to repeal the health care law.




In key Senate races, however, especially in culturally more liberal states, these women backed Democrats in substantial numbers. Both Bennet and Boxer, for instance, carried about three-fifths of this bloc, which proved essential to their victories. Obama’s popularity among these college-educated women deteriorated, but in the exit polling, 45 percent of them still said they approved of his performance, far higher than the rate among most other whites. [Emphasis added, and note Obama's approval by all Whites was at 35%. meaning College Educated White Women approve of Obama by a full ten points higher than Whites in general.]

As the article notes:

Minorities, most important, more than doubled their share of the vote from 12 percent in 1992 to 26 percent in 2008. In his victory that year, Obama won only 43 percent of the white vote (and merely 40 percent among noncollege whites). Yet he captured a larger share of the overall popular vote than any Democratic nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 by winning 80 percent of that growing pool of nonwhite voters, along with majorities among whites under 30 and college-educated white women.

America is now racially, class/gender, and geographically divided. Non-Whites are growing rapidly, but the growth still remains mostly in the coasts and upper Midwest. College educated White women generally flock to where there are lots of non-Whites, and massive urban centers with lots of wealth and "proper" or "respectable" jobs in fashion, media, finance, corporate HR, government, and entertainment. This is Obama's coalition. The people who vote for him, and Democrats, because they get rewarded. More government (to help pick winners and losers, ala Steve Rattner, or George Soros, or any other Hedge Fund or I-Bank bigshot) that also helps non-Whites, and college educated White women, by hurting White men (both Blue and White collar).

As pointed out in the article:

But Wadhams quickly adds that Obama might be able to persuade some of those voters to support him anyway in 2012 if Republicans select a nominee they find unacceptable, particularly on social issues. Wadhams has painful recent experience with that phenomenon: Despite widespread dissatisfaction with Washington, Bennet won reelection to the Senate last fall partly because so many white-collar Colorado suburbanites (especially women) found Ken Buck, his tea party-infused Republican opponent, too conservative on abortion and other issues. “If our presidential nominee in 2012 … appears too extreme on abortion or gay marriage or some other social issue, there’s a slice of the electorate that clearly could go back to Obama,” Wadhams worries.
…
More specifically—and perhaps more revealingly—Axelrod also has his eye on the Colorado example, where the exit poll found that Bennet lost blue-collar white women by double digits and blue-collar white men by more than 2-to-1. Yet he prevailed by amassing strong support from young people, Hispanics, and other minorities; holding his deficit among college-educated white men to single digits; and routing Buck among college-educated white women. A similar formula, Axelrod suggests, could be available to Obama in 2012, especially if the Republican presidential primary process, as he expects, tugs the eventual GOP nominee toward the right. “The Bennet thing was particularly instructive,” Axelrod said. “They made a big effort there not only among Hispanics but women. The contrast he drew with Buck was very meaningful. That’s why I say the gravitational pull of those Republican primaries is going to be very significant.”

From Axelrod's statements in the article, it would seem that Obama will go all out to cobble together again the anti-White Guy coalition that brought him victory in the first place. More Affirmative Action (to help non-Whites by hurting White guys), more government growth (to help non-Whites and college educated Women by hurting White guys), more importation of Mexico's desperately poor and uneducated, Amnesty, more regulations (more paperwork for the college Educated White women and selected non-Whites to oversee), and more insider picking and choosing of winners (for hedge fund and I-bank windfalls). There will be no move to the center, just re-assembling of what Obama has done all his life: play the anti-White guy card. That is who he is, and it is who the Democrats are.

The battleground will be College Educated White women. They, and they alone, will determine if America slides into a Yugoslavia style ethnic conflict, inevitably, as White voters become more and more tribal as the lose out … on pretty much everything, as numerical minorities in a system designed from the ground up to punish them (for bad things Whites did to Black people fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago).

While seriously difficult, appealing to these voters by conservative Republicans is not impossible. As I've previously discussed, Republicans must go Hunk and avoid female candidates. White women college educated voters have resoundingly rejected the Carly Fiorinas, the Meg Whitmans, the Sharon Angles, and the Christine O'Donnells. RINO, hard right, working class, Ivy League, attractive, unattractive, working stiff, or corporate bigshot, it did not matter. White college educated women don't like these candidates. Avoid them.

Instead, go hunk. College educated White women are still … women. A hunk, with a positive, sunny, Alpha Male attitude of bigshot-ism, is catnip for these voters. Even very conservative, pro-life positions can be swallowed whole (Marco Rubio) if the guy is a hunk, and even better a hunk and non-White (College educated White women voters detest Beta Males).

College educated White women are naturally sympathetic, and like non-Whites, seeing them as allies against their main enemy: Beta Male White guys. The latter acting as both competition for White collar jobs, and lacking any sex appeal while constantly bothering them for dates and such. This SNL skit with Tom Brady illustrates the double standard that exists. [Sorry, can't embed it.] Besides, the cultural clues all point to how lowly Beta Male White guys are: they are the one group that is mocked and disparaged mercilessly. The lowest on the totem pole of Multiculturalism and Diversity and PC.

But beyond mere sex and race appeal (nothing is more undesirable for College Educated White women than Beta White guys, while non-Whites get cultural/social boosts from the better way they are treated), College Educated White women have specific economic interests that are different from, and indeed in opposition to, those of the rest of Obama's coalition: non-Whites.

College Educated White women are at the bottom of the PC/Diversity preference list. They are vulnerable to being pushed out by non-Whites, who have more preference and legal standing our PC caste system. After all, the Supreme Court under Sandra Day O'Connor held under Grutter v Bollinger that is acceptable to discriminate AGAINST Whites (even White women) in the interests of promoting "diversity" and a "critical mass" of non-White students at the University of Michigan Law School, and other places besides. While absolute quotas are out, anything else is pretty much in. Thus, extreme anxiety among College Educated White women about their place and security, and the most rabid support for anti-White guy politics and culture (to affirm their place and beg not to be kicked out for a person of color).

Women are risk averse, generally, compared to men, so offering better opportunities under conservative politics is not going to be a winning hand. Relatively few women played the Dot-Com gamble, after all. Despite the big winnings for those who rolled the dice. Losing was too hard. Instead conservatives and Republicans need to play on the fears of College Educated White women, of losing their place to a person of color. But do so skillfully, so their targets (College Educated White Women) can deny their votes and political actions are taken out of fear (rational in any case) of losing their place to a person of color.

A great way to do this is to use the H1-B visa issue as a wedge between this voting group and Democrats. Conservatives and Republicans should proclaim that Dems and Obama plan to massively increase H1-B hiring in finance, accounting, media, fashion, entertainment, corporate HR, and government, all the places where College educated White women work. To "save money" and pay for ObamaCare with the savings, either direct government expenditure or corporate efficiency (more profits equaling more tax revenues). Republicans can offer then to "save" the patriotic, American worker from the threat of foreign workers "taking their job" and aim it squarely at College Educated White women.

They live in fear, anyway, that they will be found not PC enough, and replaced with someone who is non-White, and thus much more preferred in our complex PC caste system, that has both legal and cultural backing. Make the fear explicit, and cast in terms of patriotism (who can be FOR replacing US workers with foreign ones) that allows this voting group (College Educated White women) to vote their real fears without actually naming it.

Just make sure the Republican Candidate is non-White, and a hunk. Older guys, and women, need not apply. Because College Educated White women will not vote for them. Care also has to be taken not to create fear the other way (the government related employment of College educated White women must not be threatened). Downsizing the government should be carefully positioned as aimed at ObamaCare (which does not yet have massive employment patronage) and various corporate winners-losers picking. Not the "nice White lady" working in education, or some nothing policy department.

A certain loser is going after non-Whites. They'll never vote for Republicans, why would they? They win in a nation where the anti-White guy policies slice the pie to their advantage. No rhetoric will sway them from the reality of a much bigger slice of the pie under Democrats. Meanwhile College Educated White women have rational fears their slice of pie can be taken away at any time. This should be played up as much as possible, with a nice, hunky Alpha Male to sell it.
...Read more

Too Many White Folks on TV

Author and LA Times Entertainment writer Mary McNamara wrote in her review of the NBC-TV show "Undercovers" that there are too many White people on TV. This attitude is common, among the entertainment business. You find it all the time in the pages of the LA Times, and on DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com stories and comments. Partly, this is because people in Entertainment are mind-bogglingly stupid, but it is also a function of the near total dominance of women and gays in the entertainment sector. [That's a picture of Mary McNamara on top.]


McNamara is the author of two chic-lit mysteries, "Oscar Season" and "the Starlet," both about celebrity, gossip, substance abuse, sex, and wealth. In other words, Us Weekly or Star Magazine as a "mystery" novel. Only of course, dumber. And while it is indeed, not only common but dogma among White, female entertainment people to bemoan "too many White people" it is impossible to imagine Asian and female, or Black and female, or Hispanic and female entertainment people to express that there were too many Asian, or Black, or Hispanic people on TV (or in any forum). Jessica Alba, for example, was shocked and dismayed to find out she was only 13% non-White, and 87% White (well, just look at her). She famously said "I'm excited for my baby to be brown. I just have to believe the dark gene is going to survive. Cash and I are like, please!" One can hardly imagine an Asian actress with a White husband saying she hoped her baby would be White. It is unthinkable. Yet the reverse is always true.

Stupidity plays a part in the attitude among White as well as non-White women in having disdain for "too many White people" on TV (and elsewhere) and "White" being equated with "unworthy." But a good part of the disdain for "White" is the lack of power and status and value in "beta provider" that most White men have, with globalization and the hollowing out of male jobs, making a "boring" beta provider man a poor bet compared to exciting, dominant Alpha A-holes. Roissy has a post in which he explains the related phenomena: chicks dig jerks. Or to put it another way, women find beta providers fairly useless, since only the most wealthy can provide enough wealth to allow her to stay home with the kids until they're old enough (early teens) to be on their own for a while.


At least as important as the free and easy availability of contraception, the anonymous urban living, the lack of shame, has been the failure of the male beta provider to mean anything, as women now earn in professional circles, in their twenties, more than men. If a man is not an obnoxious jerk, how could a woman not feel anything but contempt for him? The writer Roissy cites, one Rachel Dickens, is cute but not a face to launch a thousand ships, yet has many explicit sex columns for University of Wisconsin's student paper, that's her above this text) had this to say:

Curiously familiar hypothetical situation: You’re at a bar with your friends when you spot a guy you recently hooked up with. You’re feeling indifferent about him, but you wouldn’t be opposed to giving it another go. You think, “Ehh, no need to say ‘Hi’ right away.” Twenty minutes later, he still hasn’t approached you. You wonder, “Why hasn’t he said anything to me? Does my hair look bad?” But granted you’re not criminally insane, you brush it off and look for someone else to schmooze. Thirty minutes later, still nothing. Well, he did wink at you from across the bar (or was there just something stuck in his eye?), but then he started talking to some girl wearing a tube dress. Your confusion escalates. “Oh god, she’s way hotter than me. I knew I should’ve worn heels.” Suddenly, your neurosis reaches “Girl, Interrupted” levels and you wonder how you got so nuts. To avoid further humiliation, you turn to a friend and ask if she wants to leave and get nachos.

On a scale of 1-10, how pathetic does this sound? If you’re thinking 25, don’t worry, you’re not even remotely off base. But as desperate as it seems, I won’t hesitate for a moment to say we’ve all been there.

Fact: Girls love guys who are, for lack of a better description, total assholes.
…
Most girls are turned off by a guy who showers her with attention. It bores us, it seems desperate and it can be a predictor for a slew of undesirable behaviors lurking beneath the surface. Instead, we gravitate toward guys who give us just enough attention to keep us on our toes. Here’s what I mean:

Socially-unaware-nice-guy: Hi Rachel! I saw you from across the bar. You look pretty. Can I buy you a drink? You look like a G&T gal. So, what are your career aspirations? I love kids. You look pretty.

Asshole: Hey.
…
You know what? It’s a cop-out to say only weak girls go for assholes. Self-esteem aside, many girls crave the thrill of keeping up with a jerky guy, or better yet, putting him in his place. While they might not always be better at flirting per se, assholes have a certain knack for conversation that confident girls can’t wait to provoke. When you’re not looking for anything serious, few things are sexier than a well-spoken, quick-talking guy whose comebacks somehow indicate that he’ll be amazing in bed.
…
Example: If a guy won’t give other people the time of day, but he’s taking a moment of his time to be semi-decent toward you, you might think to yourself “Wow, this guy’s being nice to me. He’s usually such a douche! I must be different.”

What women like McNamara are really saying, is that there are far too many, boring beta White guy provider types, who are socially unaware, not tragically hip, cool, exciting, famous, Tucker Max like A-holes. Yes, she's married, with kids, but the same habits, attitudes, desires, and the beliefs she picked up in her youth, when ordinary, boring White guy beta types were an annoyance, continued as she got older and became an adult.

Black men in particular are not socialized, to be boring beta providers, and Black blogger the Rawness covers some of this in his post the "Myth of the Ghetto Alpha Male." Nevertheless, in entertainment, and in real life, women of all races assume more masculine, aggressive, more "jerky" behavior among Black men, even those who are fairly middle class and "SWPL" in likes and behavior. Coupled with other perceived advantages Black men have over White men, and its easy to see that the disdain expressed is really more of a dissatisfaction with the broad scope of available White guys. Most of them simply too "nice" and boring, not aggressive and jerky enough to stimulate much other than the emotion of disgust among White women.

Yes, it is absolutely true that Harold Myerson in the Washington Post, a White man, wrote:

But the economy is not all; the GOP's last best hope remains identity politics. In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks' party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem. This year, however, whiteness is the only way Republicans cling to power. If the election is about the economy, they're cooked -- and their silence this week on nearly all things economic means that they know it.

But Myserson writes for a mostly female audience, in a medium, "journalism" that is mostly dominated by women. Women make up substantial majorities in most journalism programs, and simply perusing most local papers will show bylines mostly by women. As newspapers have become more and more politically correct, stories on things like Global Warming, i.e. warmed-over PC dogma, appeal more to women than men.

And at the heart, of White women's discontent, is too many "nice guys" who have been wrongly socialized. Who lack confidence, swagger, and indeed, jerk-like qualities and massive A-holeness around women. Believe me, if most White guys acted like total jerks around women, there would be no LA Times female columnists complaining about "too many White people" on TV.

McNamara wrote:

We give points around here for trying something new, and in the Year of Our Lord 2010, there are just too many white folks on American TV, and way too many of them are playing lawyers, cops and parents. The leads of "Undercovers" are spies, and while spies are not unheard of these days, they're also married. Who can resist an action-packed, banter-heavy spy show that also explores modern marriage? "Undercovers" is all that and Paris too.

Of course, Sanford and Son was a massive hit back in the 1970's, and shows as varied as Good Times, the Jeffersons, the Unit, Gabriel's Fire, Frank's Place, Moesha, Homeboys in Outer Space, Homicide: Life on the Street, the Secret Diary of Desmond Pffeifer, and Tenafly have all had Black leads, with varying success and failure. Two Black leads are nothing new, much less two married Black leads (Good Times). What is new is the overt Obama-worship ("What if, like, the Obamas were totally cool, rich, married owners of a catering business, and also really cool spies! But uh, fighting White Russian Arms dealers, or something. Not Muslim Jihadis!") A certain class of woman, White, Upper Class, rich, dissatisfied with her life/romance/family, finds the Obama's a romantic fantasy:

The other night I dreamt of Barack Obama. He was taking a shower right when I needed to get into the bathroom to shave my legs, and then he was being yelled at by my husband, Max, for smoking in the house. It was not clear whether Max was feeling protective of the president’s health or jealous because of the cigarette.

The other day a friend of mine confided that in the weeks leading up to the election, the Obamas’ apparent joy as a couple had made her just miserable. Their marriage looked so much happier than hers. Their life seemed so perfect. “I was at a place where I was tempted daily to throttle my husband,” she said. “This coincided with Michelle saying the most beautiful things about Barack. Each time I heard her speak about him I got tears in my eyes — because I felt so far away from that kind of bliss in my own life and perhaps even more, because I was so moved by her expressions of devotion to him. And unlike previous presidential couples, they are our age, have children the same age and (just imagine the stress of daily life on the campaign) by all accounts should have been fighting even more than we were.”
…
Many women — not too surprisingly — were dreaming about sex with the president. In these dreams, the women replaced Michelle with greater or lesser guilt or, in the case of a 62-year-old woman in North Florida, whose dream was reported to me by her daughter, found a fully above-board solution: “Michelle had divorced Barack because he had become ‘too much of a star.’ He then married my mother, who was oh so proud to be the first lady,” the daughter wrote me.

There was some daydreaming too, much of it a collective fantasy about the still-hot Obama marriage. “Barack and Michelle Obama look like they have sex. They look like they like having sex,” a Los Angeles woman wrote to me, summing up the comments of many. “Often. With each other. These days when the sexless marriage is such a big celebrity in America (and when first couples are icons of rigid propriety), that’s one interesting mental drama.”

The reality of course, is that Michelle Obama is public relations disaster, with a penchant for rubbing luxury in the faces of the have nots (itself attractive to the certain class of Entertainment/Media women) in a deep depression. One constantly making belittling comments about her husband, who is the subject of frequent National Enquirer tabloid headlines alleging gay affairs (and who has suspiciously no prominent woman in his life prior to Michelle). But the glamorous fantasy is important, not the reality, to those in the Entertainment/Media complex.

Matching the White female disdain for boring, beta providers, and the boring, nice-guy behavior that most White men unless rigidly conditioned, fall into as a matter of course, is the sheer stupidity and vast social distance people in the "bubble" exhibit. Rachel Dickens may be cute now (and have a "Curiously familiar hypothetical situation: You’re at a bar with your friends when you spot a guy you recently hooked up with."). But in about fifteen years, she'll be invisible to most men. Who will look past her at the cute twenty something at the Supermarket or Coffee spot. At that point, she'll have nothing to offer a prospective jerk.

Just as clearly, most of the country dislikes the Obamas (and Michelle is at least as unpopular due to Marie Antoinette as a role model as her husband) and finds a fantasy of wealth and power and fabulous spending in Paris to be un-connected to their lives. Nor are Whites, hard-pressed economically, told they are being replaced as the majority race, and less "valuable" finding enough space and comfort to embrace non-White TV leads as clearly they did in the past. Fred G. Sanford was embraced thoroughly by White America, only a few short years after the Civil Rights struggles and massive urban riots by Blacks. Because America was 83% White in 1970, and Whites had little fear of demographic replacement. Besides, Red Foxx was funny. Today, as Harvard University Professor Robert Putnam found, demographic weakness provokes "hunkering down" and distrust not only across racial lines but within them. Creating behavior like a "turtle."

The more Whites are displaced by non-Whites in neighborhoods, states (California will soon by majority non-White), and indeed America, the far less willing will White Audiences be to embrace non-Whites. Meanwhile Blacks remain at about 12.5% of the population, and Black and Middle Class describes about 5% of the population, given that 60% of the Black population is urban core or ghetto. Hispanics live in their own, separate and parallel cultural universe, in Univison and Telemundo.

Like "Outsourced," the feel-good NBC comedy about an Ohio novelty company that shuts down its help desk in the US and sends the jobs to India (no, I'm not kidding), "Undercovers" is doomed to failure. Stupidity (and a vast, social distance from ordinary people's lives by the denizens of Malibu, or Bel Air, or the Upper East Side) plays a part in it, matched by "bubble" disdain for boring beta White guys.

With NBC's sale to Comcast, the back-stop of bubble stupidity may soon cease. Unlike GE, Comcast has more limited financial resources, and customers wanting to dump Comcast for whatever reason can do so easily (as opposed to say, boycotting GE's power turbine business in China). Hulu, or Direct TV, provide acceptable alternatives to cable. Meanwhile the constant repetition of the "noble lie" (ala Plato's Republic) of Blacks as dutiful, middle class consumers in commercial after commercial, is annoying. Given that Whites are acutely aware that only 5% of the nation is both Black and middle class.

Too many White people? Not enough. No matter how beta-boring most White guys are to women, and how much of the "bubble" stupid entertainment people live in, eventually the real world comes calling. It will be fascinating to see how many people line up for "the Starlet" and tales of Hollywood "glamour" when TMZ provides real-life tales of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton "glamour" for free.

And perhaps, ordinary White guys will get the message. Start acting like the jerks White women want them to be. So "White guy" is not automatically equated as "worthless, boring, nice." To make White women act like Asian, or Hispanic, or Black women regarding their valuation of their own men of their own race, White men need to act more like them. Embrace their inner jerk. The most valuable role models around are men like Roissy, or Tucker Max, or even Mystery. Giving women what they want, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken, good and hard. Everyone would probably be happier.
...Read more