The NBA Is Dead

The NBA is over, as a serious sport. Oh, it can continue to decline, slowly but surely, but two events cement its end as anything other than a rap-fashion showcase. The first is Khloe Kardashian and Lamar Odom's reality show on MTV, and the second is La La Vazquez and Carmelo Anthony's reality show on VH1. [Note: until reading about this in the Wall Street Journal I was unaware of the existence of La La Vazquez.]


The two reality shows, appealing to tween girls (MTV's audience) and teen-young adult women (VH1's audience) pretty much cement the end of the NBA as a sport. As a platform for junk reality, fashion, and NBA-related rap thuggery, well that is a different matter. But the male-oriented aspects of basketball have either long died out (team work, coaching, selflessness) or are actively dying (athleticism, performance) in a cult of rap celebrity and posturing.

Yes, the NFL has had its reality shows: Hard Knocks (relating the tales of guys struggling to make the team during training camp, each season with a different team featured) comes to mind. But the focus is not on female-centered glamor, glitz, spending, and conspicuous consumption and fame. Football itself remains a game (though thuggery and a dominance of Black rap-influenced players threatens this) of teamwork, discipline, and coaching. For all the Superbowl hype, the influx of the Jessica Simpsons, and Giselle Bundchens and the like has been resented and mocked by fans. It remains a male preserve (though one threatened by over-thuggery and slipping into rap thug celebration).

With the NBA likely to slowly, but steadily decline in ratings, middle class White enthusiasm, and therefore, money, there are opportunities for other sports to gain a foothold. Hockey, never really capturing the imagination of White Middle class America, has an opportunity should the NFL go into a lockout and the NBA continue its rap-celebrity descent into irrelevance. The game of Hockey after all relies on strength, skill, teamwork, and endurance. It is played by mostly Middle class White guys (though the prevalence of foreigners is a problem) and has a fairly large league. Hockey season mostly overlaps that of the NBA, and partially that of the NFL. Rugby, and its appeal to teamwork and toughness, has possibilities as well.

But no sport can maintain a male audience while catering to female desires for "reality"-inspired tales of princesses and princes, able to whisk them away to a fantasy of Cinderella and the ball. The NBA has already trod down this road, and is unlikely to retrace it. The NBA is dead. Long live any other sport.
...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

NBA Groupies and the Death of the Possible Dream

GQ has a fascinating article on NBA groupies. Fascinating on several levels, not the least of which is the rather shocking point that the women interviewed are all lower middle class/blue collar Black women with "respectable" jobs and their preference is not so much for NBA players but Rap hanger-on thugs. But far more shocking is the matching death of a "possible dream" of slightly better upward mobility. The women profiled, don't even have any vague plans to better themselves or their children even slightly.


A few things are predictable.

There are the fights at the front desk—"no, we ain't payin' no $400 a night; no, that ain't what you said on the telephone!"—between large pissed-off women and the cowering staff bearing nametags, chocolate-chip cookies, and a list of special additions to the in-room dining menu (buffalo wings and jalapeño poppers). On All-Star weekend, guests of the Doubletree are asked to sign a "no-party policy" form ("If we learn that a party is in progress…we will reserve the right…to IMMEDIATELY evict the occupants"). At the lobby bar, an enormous sign has been erected: welcome nba all-star fans. A few feet beside it, a plaque: firearms are prohibited on these premises.

The women are Black blue-collar/lower middle class:

Renee, the bubbly, vivacious one, used to patrol housing projects in Queens but just got promoted. Now she works with kids as a youth officer. She's also the single mother of a 9-year-old girl. Danielle—the "proud to be extra-large" girl whose penchant for talking has earned her the nickname Diesel ("for the diesel heavy gas," says Renee, "because when she starts running she never stops")—is a New York City subway conductor. Vellesha, another extra-large woman, drives a bus. And has the don't-fuck-with-me-or-I'll-smack-your-white-ass attitude we've come to appreciate in New York City bus drivers. They call her Snacks, for obvious reasons. Then there's Chermaine, the baby of the litter at 23, pretty, slender, and terribly shy (until she puts on a bustier). She works as a 911 operator.

They have their rules:

If one of them should deign to bring a man ("or a nice thug," says Renee) back to the room, the others cool their heels in the hotel-lobby bar until she's finished. And if it takes all night? "It never takes all night," says Danielle. "We're from New York City. We're not here to cuddle."

And if they go to his hotel room? "Doesn't happen," says Vellesha. "Unless we see his driver's license first and get his license-plate number. We ain't stupid."

Renee, the cop, imposed the license-plate rule. No one goes off with just any old dude unless the other three have seen his credentials.

There are rules as well for being on the road and interacting with NBA people:

1. Pony up. "You gotta pay to play," says one Fly Girl I meet over drinks at Dave & Buster's in Houston who does not wish to be identified. Paying to play means spending a small fortune on the appropriate accoutrements: designer clothes, shoes, bags, and hair extensions from the right salon. You want a look that says, "I'm available, but I ain't cheap." Even if you are.

2. Be good-looking (but not too skinny). "You can't cross over to Fly Girl unless you got it goin' on," says Brenda. "But a lot of black men like them fat. I can't tell you how many times I've heard guys say, 'I don't want to be hittin' no bone.'"

3. Travel in pairs. "One girl is not a big deal now," Brenda says. "But two women working them over?" Much preferred.

4. Reserve a table at the Four Seasons, unofficial crib of the NBA. "Dear God," one high-level Four Seasons employee told me, "you can't imagine what it's like when the lobby is filled with these…hooker-looking women." But to really have a chance at an encounter there, you can't arrive en masse. "Spring for dinner in the main dining room," Brenda says. "Be there waiting with a girlfriend who is equally fine, for when the players walk in." (Memo to wannabe Groupies: It's always the visiting team that's looking to get laid. The home team often has wives or children lurking around, cramping their style. Also: Players rarely use the front entrance of the hotel; to make contact, wait by the side door.)

Curiously, the women profiled are not there primarily for the NBA players, but the hangers on and the Rap stars and would-be stars. The preference for thugs is very, very strong:

In fact, they're not even here for the players!

On the ride back to the hotel, I ask them if they're interested in the game this weekend. The game? They don't go to the games. Their favorite team? Who cares! It's not like they'd throw Allen Iverson out of the rack, but they're really here for the rappers. Or the rappers' assistants. Or the rappers' bodyguards. Or the rappers' bodyguards' assistants. Real thugs. Good thugs.

This is the deep, dark secret of the NBA. The first sport to embrace hip-hop has essentially been hijacked by hip-hop. What keeps the girls coming back is not the sport, for Lord's sake. It's the proximity to their guys, their peeps. NBA All-Star weekend is like the Hip-Hop Summit, with a lot more cocktails.

The players the women love the most are the thugs. The ones who have a thuggish attitude, and penchant for out-of-control behavior. Interestingly, the women assert that NBA players (nearly all Black) are now less likely to marry White women, due to social pressure from their mothers/family back home. Though they acknowledge that the players generally prefer the "superbabe" types such as Eva Longoria.

But what is interesting is how tough and brutal the women's lives are, and yet they express a continued preference for thugs and dangerous bad boys. The cop has to deal with depressing crime among children when she returns, the 911 Operator a man who murdered his own infant, the subway driver with suicides. One would expect a preference for "softer" more supportive men, and one who could contribute their own income to family formation.

Yet, the woman show a great deal of pride on being independent, on paying their own way, and pursuing the sexy, "thug" bad boy. Who they find exciting and compelling. Sex is very public, with not much privacy or discretion. For some of the women, in their thirties, the spending on sex-related items (clothes, expensive trips, expensive lodging and meals and club attendance, with valet parking alone running often to over $200) seems almost designed to prevent accumulation of capital and moving up to a higher social status/earnings rung. Money is not invested in children, or property, or anything else that might generate wealth or power or status. It is spent in a hook-up environment that seems to last well into the thirties.

And mind you, these are all respectable women with blue collar to lower middle class jobs. Police officers earn respectable amounts of money in New York City. So too do bus drivers, subway operators, and the like. Yet culturally, the women remain mired in a ghetto mindset. Low future time orientation, little effort to save money, little time spent on moving upwards. The daydreams that do exist about moving upwards all center around a baby by an NBA player and child support. Something the women themselves acknowledge is unlikely in the extreme.

What is depressing about this profile, which is fairly interesting reading, is the death of the possible. It is certainly possible for a police officer to move upwards. So too, a NYC subway operator. There is no studying for exams, no desire to march upwards in civil service, or side operations like buying distressed property, that might be fixed up and provide an income. It seems an arrival in the blue collar lower middle class is an effort that proved exhausting, and no further attempt to move upward is made.

Hypergamy, unrestrained tends to stratify upward mobility. By killing the "possible dream" in favor of sex as long as possible with thug bad boys. As exciting and dangerous as it might be for the women, they would be better off by investing time and money for advancement, given that they have a short shelf life of attractiveness.

This article is of interest, not the least of which is the reality that White British Chavs have followed the same cultural path, and that White middle class women are (more slowly) on the same path. Currently, the upper middle class and middle class puts more emphasis on credentialism and education, than the Blue Collar Black (and White and Hispanic) sections of America. But the same thing, an unlimited expression of hypergamy and desire for fairly brutal dominance, has its own cultural way among White and Hispanic girls. Every bit of Gossip Girl, or Twilight, or other such desire for dominance and hierarchy leads inevitably towards a preference for thuggery. Simply because thuggery is the only way most men can compete. Only a few men can be ungodly good looking, famous, and powerful, but any man can pack a Glock in a night club and threaten to start shooting. This is generally why most societies that are successful limit the expression of hypergamy and push women into "respectable" choices of men who are not bad boy thugs, no matter how exciting the latter may be.

It certainly will take a good deal longer for the White population to arrive to where the Black Blue Collar population has arrived (arguably the Hispanic population by measure of illegitimacy and crime rates has already arrived, at least in part), but Whites will get there eventually. The payoff in mating success by men to appeal to women's hypergamy pretty much guarantees it in the end.

After all, what is holding back White women from embracing thugs? The fear of looking bad, mostly, among their peer group. Not much else. That's a thin reed to base civilization on, since it depends on an utter ruthlessness and power among White female peer groups to exclude and punish women who prefer thugs. Particularly since thuggery is a way for Joe Average to finally, become attractive to Jane Average, and compete with Alpha males. This sort of mating pattern had become habitual in the British borders, and much of Northern (and even Southern) Ireland. Violence and chaos tends to produce very, very short-term mating habits, based on sexual attraction and nothing else, with little long term investment.

A shift in the ability of White female peer groups to enforce anti-thug views can easily lead to rapid (and catastrophic) social declines for Whites to the level of the Blue Collar Black community. The Death of the Possible Dream may come soon enough to the White population, with catastrophic results.
...Read more

Wisconsin and the Wages of Diversity

The mini-riots, union buffoonery, and run-away tactics in Wisconsin, Indiana, and now reportedly Ohio, in response to austerity budgets and restrictions on Union bargaining for things other than wages/benefits, obscures the reality. Diversity means States (and the Federal government) can afford only rock-bottom wages and benefits. Why? Because when you import a goodly portion of Mexico's poor, you get the tax base and as a result the government of Mexico. A non-diverse, mostly White middle class population can afford to pay for an expansive government that does many things (the Puritan/Progressive model of government from New England, as described by David Hackett Fischer). One comprised mostly of poor Mexicans will get, inevitably, the government of Mexico. File this under obvious. But a reality that has been kicked down the can as far as it can go, under the Quaker/Friends "one world" post-Christian utopianism of all peoples being all the same, in every particular dimension.


Wisconsin is about $3.6 billion in deficit, over the next two year budget cycle. California is even worse, with about $26 billion in debt looming for the next budget cycle. This is due to the tremendous influx of very, very poor Mexicans. The Census Bureau reports in 2009 that the median household income for Whites was $54,461 (White, not Hispanic). For Hispanic (any race) it was $38,089. That is a difference of $16,372. Hispanics are a full 30% less wealthy than Whites, by Household measurement, in the Census Bureau estimates from 2009. When taking into account non-measured illegal aliens, by any means a large proportion of Hispanics, the numbers will be even worse.

Illegal aliens pay on average, about $1,000 to $5,000 per person, to smugglers (coyotes) to cross the border. The money is often borrowed, at usurious rates (sometimes 100% interest or more) and must be payed back on cost of reprisals (like cutting off of heads) of family members in Mexico. Then, there is the paltry amount of wages that illegal aliens earn. The LAT reports that many illegals are paid as little as $3.50 an hour, far below state minimum of $8 an hour. Finally, a full $30 billion or more is sent back to Mexico in the form of remittances (the largest amount of foreign earnings Mexico has, outstripping petroleum exports) from the US. This suggests strongly that illegal aliens have little money in the US, what little they have goes to coyotes and family members back home, with living conditions and (taxable spending) being very, very low.

You cannot build a first class government workforce on the backs of illegal aliens earning $3.50 an hour. You cannot do this even on their descendants, who remain mostly mired in poverty and earn at least 30% less than Whites based on household income (likely the figure would be worse with Cuban-descendants stripped out). America now has substantially a good deal of Mexico's population. And with it, the ability to pay only for a slightly higher level of government than Mexico itself.

This sets up inevitably a spoils battle. As the scenes from Wisconsin show, most of the striking workers are White. Teachers remain mostly White in places like Wisconsin, but they are in direct conflict with an influx of poor illegal aliens (mostly from Mexico and Central America). Wisconsin can pay for the union members and wages and benefits it has, but only at the expense of deporting in some manner the tidal wave of very poor people who consume social spending like sponges and have little taxable activity to pay for it. Or Wisconsin can accept "diversity" and embrace what Washington Post writer Harold Myerson cited as the "end of Whiteness" (no state has been historically more White than Wisconsin) and have government including wages and benefits only marginally better than Mexico.

It cannot have both high wages, benefits, and government services, and diversity. There just is not enough money to pay for diversity.

Diversity COSTS MONEY. It costs reduced services, reduced government wages, reduced benefits, and thus guarantees only the most corrupt and venal government employees (good government requires expensive wage/benefit packages and constant monitoring -- cheap government defaults to the corrupt model seen in Mexico).

White union workers thus have a stark choice. They can either join in some coalition to deport illegal aliens (and their dependents) and thus reduce government outlays to afford their current level of wages and benefits, or accept mass layoffs AND wages and benefits far, far below current rates as the price for diversity. Having lots of poor people is never "free" and the White union workers are bearing that cost right now, in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

Wisconsin, and states like it (California under Pat Brown, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota) were able to afford a large, effective, and professional government. One that built massive highway/freeway systems, state of the art higher education institutions, and efficient fire and police systems. Call this the middle class utopia. All that depended on a large pool of Middle Class taxpayers. Diversity means replacing that Middle Class (which has always been, and always will be, overwhelmingly White) which was willing to tax itself to pay for things it directly consumed, with very poor illegal aliens and their descendants.

Will a very small pool of Middle Class White voters tax itself into oblivion to serve "first in line" (i.e. Whites "get to the back of the Bus" per President Obama) non-Whites, mostly illegal aliens and their descendants? So far, the answer has been no. That likelihood is even less in rapidly rising prices and stagnant wages, with price shocks of oil and other disasters already occurring. This is particularly true for a White Middle Class that has already priced in the probability of ever getting any social security ten or twenty years down the road. White middle class voters don't have much confidence on either the ability or will of non-Whites to pay for older Whites retirement and health care. Even less in a legal system of caste-level group rights, with enshrined discrimination against Whites in employment, government contracting, education, and other areas of life.

White identity-spoils politics, has already begun. Amy Chua's World On Fire (yes, "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" Amy Chua) model of "market dominant minorities" who despise and remove themselves from their majority competitors (think Diaspora Chinese in Southeast Asia) accurately describes SWPL. Who for all their rhetoric do the utmost to stay away from non-Whites, and exhibit separatist behaviors (Apple Computer, Trader Joes, Whole Foods, Jazz and Classical Music, PBS, etc, all things no Black or Hispanic person would be caught dead engaging in, shopping at, or listening to) radically different from that of non-Whites.

But for those not of the highly skilled, upper cognitive levels, who are not Harvard or Yale professors (like Chua and her husband), the alternative is "borderer" identity politics. Along the lines of the Scots-English border country, where fighting, feuding, clan-identity politics have been a way of life for almost 4,000 years. White union workers who are descended from this culture or shaped by it, are unlikely to be shopping at Trader Joes and figuring out ways to cheat or manipulate the new non-White majority. But they are likely based on their history in this country and Britain, to engage in a long running series of feuds in politics and by other means. A culture based on continual fighting with the Picts, Romans, Irish, Scots, Danes, Normans, English, and Scots again, is unlikely to choose either peace or surrender.

That same desire for pugilism, for in-your-face action, for "get bloody" rhetoric and goon-ishness, can be put against non-Whites in a spoils battle. History and culture suggests that it will, given that there just is not enough money to go around. Today the conflict is against Gov. Walker. Tomorrow, it could be La Raza.

Yes, the objections are that history goes only one direction. That the arrow of progress cannot be reversed. As Mark Steyn has pointed out, the pictures of Egyptian women graduating from the University of Cairo in 1959 and 1979-onwards bely this. The entire Middle East has rejected modernism and all its contents, in favor of various forms of Islamism. The fall of Mubarak, of likely Khadaffi, of perhaps even the Saudis, will only ensure more Islamism and less of even the minor trappings of modernity.

I find it extremely unlikely that White union members will simply decide to "give up their jobs so other people can have them" as Obama's Diversity Czar suggested. Their culture, background, and very sudden desperation makes a series of conflicts guaranteed. With naturally, the spoils battles tending towards taking money from non-White interest groups, given the constraints on raising taxes that exist. The public employee union groups are likely to be joined by the far greater non-government White workers, who lack the skills and connections to form a "market dominant minority" and don't like being made suddenly poor. Machiavelli advised it would be better to kill a man's parents than make him suddenly poor, as he would forgive the former before he would the latter. That should a man be made poor, he should be just as well killed, to secure the rule of the Prince.



...Read more

Where Have All The Good Men Gone: Why Conservative Women Don't Get It

Older conservative women just don't get it. While writers like Kay Hymowitz may generally be culturally conservative, they are at their hearts, feminists. Their model of what is right with the world is (young women) and what is wrong with the world is (young men). Hymowitz's latest book, an excerpt featured in the Wall Street Journal blames an epidemic of slackerdom among young men, mostly due to the failure to "man up" for the dearth of marriage and children all across the West.

Updated!

[Update: over at the comments on Roissy's post on Emotional Pornography is the link to a post at Huffington Post, of all places. Called, Why You're Not Married by TV Writer (Mad Men, United States of Tara) Tracy McMillan. The reasons include: You're a Bitch, You're Shallow, You're a Slut, You're a Liar, You're Selfish, You're Not Good Enough. As one person responding noted, a man writing that would have been crucified. There are some folks, even liberal ones, who understand the driver of late marriage, few kids, mostly single motherhood.]

What Hymowitz cannot understand (and because she's an older conservative woman, is constitutionally incapable of understanding no matter how many times it is explained to her, no more than a cat could understand calculus) is that it is the condition of women, not men, that caused the great drop in fertility, the great increase in single-motherhood, and the great delay in marriage and adulthood by most men. Simply put, women for the first time ever, can widely choose sexy men instead of responsible ones. And they choose SEXY EVERY TIME just about. Leaving really, zero incentive for men to "man up" as she puts it. There are other factors at play, including a re-jiggering of the economy to put most jobs done by men by outsourced or H1-B visa holder cheaper replacements, the growth of female-dominated (and White male unfriendly) government, fashion, advertising, media, and corporate jobs. But the heart of the reason most White men in their twenties remain slackers is that women choose sexy men over responsible men. And only a very few men (usually less than 10% of the population) can be sexy.

Hymowitz approvingly quotes author/comedienne Julie Klausner, author of "I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Felons, Faux-Sensitive Hipsters and Other Guys I've Dated" on how there are just not that many good men around:

"We are sick of hooking up with guys," writes the comedian Julie Klausner, author of a touchingly funny 2010 book, "I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Felons, Faux-Sensitive Hipsters and Other Guys I've Dated." What Ms. Klausner means by "guys" is males who are not boys or men but something in between. "Guys talk about 'Star Wars' like it's not a movie made for people half their age; a guy's idea of a perfect night is a hang around the PlayStation with his bandmates, or a trip to Vegas with his college friends.... They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home." One female reviewer of Ms. Kausner's book wrote, "I had to stop several times while reading and think: Wait, did I date this same guy?"

Here is my prior take on this, from 2010.

Historically, leading men, at least in comedy, have featured either the feckless or the boorish: the Fred Flintstones and Bullwinkles and then useless beta males. In my book, I say date guys like Rowlf and Fozzi and not Kermit. Let me think about it.
…
It's the teenage boys I'm worried about. They're not going to college in numbers. They're going to be angry -- depending on who's coming back from the war. There are charities for girls and I'm all for that, but ultimately, the real problem is the epidemic of inferior men - which is basically what my book is about.

Klausner is no great beauty. Not even heavy photoshopping on her book cover can make her look like a great beauty. She's promiscuous, making her a poor choice for a man with options. And she prefers, like all women, the top few men. Who will bed her but never marry her. After all, she was the one having sex in bathroom stalls, alleyways, and other tawdry, semi-public places with felons, indie rockers, and trustafarians. She could have married an accountant. But that would be BORING and not SEXY. Now a woman aging rapidly out of her attractiveness, she's not even a good mate choice for an accountant. Who could probably do better with straight out porn and X-boxes than a woman with proven poor judgment and a spectacularly bad sexual past. Yes, men DO make judgments about a woman's likely sexual past, which is generally well revealed in casual interaction. A woman with many partners is a poor long-term girlfriend much less potential wife and mother. Promiscuous men and women tend to remain so, behavior does not radically change with a wedding ceremony. [See Charlie Sheen.]

Klausner's complaint is the same as Hymowitz's. The universe of men from which they have to choose from does not consist of men like George Clooney (or Charlie Sheen). Instead, its mostly boring accountants, real estate salesman, and other desk jockeys. Not a bit of sexy danger, dominance, and excitement among them. They don't look like Josh Duhamel (never mind that the women don't look like Fergie or Katherine Heigl either), and frankly bore women who have had exciting, sexy, dominant, bad-boy bed partners. And now want those men to marry them.

Well, they won't. Those men can have any woman they want, and they might want to slum it around a bit (see Sheen, Tiger Woods, John Edwards, and so on). But they end up marrying women like Giselle Bundchen (Tom Brady's wife), or Elin Nordgren (Tiger Wood's ex wife) or Denise Richards (Charlie Sheen's ex wife) or Catherine Zeta-Jones (Michael Douglas's wife). They don't marry ordinary women of ordinary attractiveness.

For women to be really, really happy, the solution is to be born very, very beautiful. More beautiful than 99% of all women. Be a Swedish supermodel, or a Brazilian, or a German one. Or a beautiful Hollywood actress, or as near to it as you can be born. Otherwise, a woman of ordinary beauty should not fool herself. Tiger Woods or Charlie Sheen or George Clooney might sleep with an IHOP waitress. But they won't marry her.

Women want the men other women want. Its preselection. Here's the CW promo for "Hellcats" showing it in action:



Preselection is why a wedding ring is a useful pick-up prop in bars. It is why women in college compete over the top top 10%-20% of men and ignore the rest.

Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said.
...
Indeed, there are a fair number of Mr. Lonelyhearts on campus. “Even though there’s this huge imbalance between the sexes, it still doesn’t change the fact of guys sitting around, bemoaning their single status,” said Patrick Hooper, a Georgia senior. “It’s the same as high school, but the women are even more enchanting and beautiful.”

Now, this situation, where women can choose sexy men over reliable men, has at its roots the highly mobile, atomized society of post-War Western society. Which in turn has little penalty for women riding the carousel of hot, sexy and dominant men in their late teens and twenties and into their thirties. Add into this the lowering of men's standards of living (men had a higher standard of living in the 1970's, when the average man of thirty could afford a house on his own) and the deliberate erasure of most of male-oriented jobs and the relative power differential (women despise men their equals in status and power, and find only more powerful men than themselves sexy) makes things even worse for men.


Throw in the destruction of in particular, the White male production and knowledge jobs, from skilled craftsmen in factories and production lines, to engineers, and manufacturing and engineering were either outsourced overseas or insourced via H1-B visas (Microsoft went from mostly nerdy White guys in the 1980's through mid 1990's to majority non-White, and non-US citizen, via the H1-B Visa employment programs), and the situation gets even worse. More men drop off the sexy list, because they don't make more money, than their equivalent average Jane, and don't throw around more social and cultural power either. Those are the original Microsoft Employees above right. You'd be hard pressed to find their like (absent hair styles) at any Microsoft office today. As Steve Sailer notes, you find White male employment at Silicon Valley declining. And as he also notes, the Valley itself does not employ many people compared to old industrial companies. Facebook has about 3,000 employees. That's not even a shift at a GM factory. Women and Blacks and Asians are complaining in various media outlets that their share of employment at Valley companies has not increased, yet they have no issue with the decline of White male employment.

In addition, the growth of government, non-profit, and related health/education/welfare jobs, has meant in effect a female-gay-non-White ghetto, where males fear to tread. Education is notorious for being male-unfriendly, as is health care, non-profits (places for trustafarians to hang out acting "respectable") and so on. Take a look at your local DMV. You won't find too many (straight) White males. Same with your public library. That pattern generally holds as well with most corporate jobs (as parodied in "the Office") and particularly finance, HR, and the like. The growth in media, advertising, and so on has created a gay-female ghetto, almost exclusively.

The dynamic is that White men and women are in competition for the same limited amount of jobs in the White-collar, middle class work environment. For most White women, most White men are the "enemy" and an open alliance with gays, non-Whites, and other women to drive them out has emerged. You'll find this characteristic of most educational institutions, non-profits/NGO's, and particularly government. Wise Latinas and the like are accounted better than the average White guy. To be White and a male is generally, to be a loser. Unless you are a dominant, sexy, obnoxious A-hole.

Which leads directly to the role that men play in their twenties that Hymowitz finds so annoying. Embrace responsibility for … what exactly? The women around them are too busy sleeping with felons, trustafarians, indie-rockers, and hipsters to even notice them. Indeed, about 80-90% of all men are sexually invisible to their female counterparts. As Roissy recently posted, women indulge in stuff even worse, "emotional porn" that plays to their hypergamous desire to snag (for themselves, exclusively) that dominant Alpha A-hole they dream of. Edward Cullen from Twilight, Dr. McDreamy-McSteamy, Charlie Sheen, the various rich guys on Gossip Girl, the Black professional Athletes of the Kardashian clan (there is apparently 112 Kardashian sisters and cousins, all entwined with Black professional athletes of some fame), all play to destructive fantasies by ordinary women.

No man the average Jane can possibly marry will be as immortal and powerful and devoted as Edward Cullen. None will be McDreamy or McSteamy (or even a Doctor). They won't be rich heirs to fortunes in NYC, or Black pro athletes. Oh sure, sex will be on offer. But not marriage, and even there, the most beautiful women get cheated on by the Alpha A-holes they marry. Because, well they can cheat. That's the consequence of the skewed female marketplace.

Hymowitz proposes to shout real loud at slacker men, to get married. Because "its all their fault" that women are sleeping with trustafarians and felons, or choosing artificial insemination and single motherhood. She can't understand, literally, that the men only respond to those who do the choosing: WOMEN.

To change this state of affairs, it is therefore necessary to change women's behavior. First, male dominated jobs must be brought back: eliminate outsourcing, insourcing, H1-Bs, remove Affirmative Action, and demand companies instead prefer White men for hiring. Push status and social and cultural power to engineering, production, and the like. Not awesomely fabulous designer shoes or awesomely fabulous media jobs.

Second, women need penalties to change their preference for sexy men over responsible ones. That means a stable, relatively non-mobile and deeply connected (not atomized) society where female friends, relatives, moms, and so on harshly criticize and penalize "slutty" behavior such as sleeping with felons, trustafarians, indie rockers, etc. Men are not going to line up to propose to women like Julie Klausner, so it is absolutely essential that society (and most societies have done so) put limits on the unfettered and unlimited female sexual expression. [Joe Average Beta Male is about as desirable to women as a cold bowl of oatmeal, so that in and of itself limits his expression outside of prostitution or porn.]

Third, women must face penalties for staying on the sex partner carousel too long, and benefits for getting off it with early marriage. Society must consider grad school and other things a woman does to further her career something done AFTER marriage and child-care, with women facing no penalty for marrying relatively young (age 22-25) and having kids in their twenties, going back to school in their mid thirties or so. Meanwhile, women need to be socialized to the effect that, if they delay marrying too long, all they'll get is the losers as other women picked off all the good guys. Again this needs a tight social network of other women constantly re-inforcing this message and using ostracism/pressure to penalize those who flout it.

This can be done but is very unlikely to be done. Because it would take away the ability of women to have sex with sexy bad boy men in their twenties. Which they are trading off the possibilities of husbands and good fathers, more or less. Even women who understood clearly (and most remain in denial about their loss of attractiveness due to age and bed partners) the costs of sexy bad boy men in their twenties, would almost invariably choose sexy, 90 times out of 100, instead of responsible. Women have their own money, their own earnings. Face no social pressure. Don't face unplanned pregnancies. Why wouldn't they choose sexy bad boys?

This is why Conservative Women like Hymowitz are useless when it comes to social issues. They either live in 1955 (where a considerable number of conservative men also live) or reflexively side with women because, dammit, those bad boys are just so sexy! We live in a society optimized to give the most women sexual access to the top 10% of men, the sexy bad boy dominant Alpha A-holes (women love). That optimization is deliberate (by well, women and the sexy bad boys) and for the now, irreversible. Women are not going to stop having sex in alleys with felons (like Klausner, read her book) unless forced by social structures to do so. They'll fight every step of the way demand access to the top sexiest men, and then support from Beta Males after a decade or more of Klausner like escapades. The Duke F-List powerpoint is a flashing red arrow to women's preferences. The young women in question who exclusively had sex with athletes and rated them in powerpoints is unlikely to find Joe in Accounting much of a catch. Even though her appearance is utterly average.

So we are thus, for the foreseeable future, resigned to single motherhood and the ills that follow. But women would not have it any other way, it is just too sexy!

The one "bright spot" is that a huge shock, nuclear attack by Iran or AQ, cyber sabotage taking down infrastructure, massive oil shocks due to a widespread Arab revolt, all promise to create massive instability and financial destruction. In which women would spell Beta Males (who are willing to fight, and can do so effectively) P-R-O-T-E-C-T-I-O-N. Think the LA Riots. Or any third world disturbance. Of course X-box playing guys are probably limited in their usefulness in fighting, but one looks for silver linings where ever one can.
...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

House Hunters International Egypt and the Romance of the Third World

Anyone watching "high end" reality TV, the "upscale" stuff designed to appeal to upper income viewers such as pretty much anything on Home and Garden TV or Food Network knows that the programming, aimed at a mostly female audience (just watch the ads), has certain ideas it caters to that reside in the hearts of its audience. Among them, the "romance" of the Third World which is seen as "authentic" (because its crowded, noisy, stinking, polluted, and most of all non-Western). Much of the self-hate for Western culture comes from a combination of spoiled boredom and a desire for more "masculine" men (i.e. sexy-dominating guys who boss them around) by an upper class female audience. HGTV is no exception, and its "House Hunters International" has run episodes on Western women moving to places like Bombay, and Cairo.

Mamdouh and Laura Raafat now live with their two children, Tarek and Hannah, in a nice, quiet neighborhood in California. They have a great house, nice careers and an easy-going lifestyle most people would envy. So why are they looking to leave all that and move to the to the busy, bustling city of Cairo, Egypt? Well, it depends on who you ask. Mamdouh wants his children to experience part of their cultural heritage while they are still young and Laura is up for the adventure of living in the ancient city by the Nile, the Triumphant City of Cairo, Egypt. But just because they've got the ambition to move doesn't mean they know where to live. So to help them navigate the real estate scene in this hectic city they've hired realtor Soaad Abd Elsalam. The Raafats have asked her to find them a family friendly condo that's near a good school. Let the house hunting begin.

Yes, a nice quiet neighborhood in California just pales in comparison to the "multicultural" and "diverse" environment found in Cairo. Even more, the show's producers figured their audience would love the episode. And they were right!

For too long, much of the Western world has labored under a delusion that life is "better" in other places. Particularly Third World places. You'll often see comments by men bemoaning Western women, and extolling the virtues of Third World women (and environments). The reality is quite different. Third World places have no real law, safety, predictability, decent hospitals and medical care, safe and uncontaminated food and water, or working sewer systems. In short, they lack all the reasons why people come to the West in the first place. They lack them, moreover, because the people of the Third World are completely incapable of constructing them. Japan and South Korea were flattened by war, with much of their people dead or displaced, yet built modern nations that whatever their faults, do not lack for: safe food, clean water, working sewers, modern and efficient hospitals and medical care. Even, functioning legal systems that while not "fair" keep anarchy and street chaos at bay.

But as much as the typical male attitude towards the compromises inherent in having a functioning nation with modern technology and all the benefits it implies, tends towards belittling Western ways (and Western women) and extolling the virtues of Third World anarchy and (presumed, the reality is much different) more deferential women, it is the media empires aimed at women that contribute most of the romanticizing and idealizing of failed peoples and nations.

HGTV has much of its programming predicated on the "romance" of dirt poor and fairly ugly Third World nations, with the network running episodes on searching for houses in the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Belize, Tonga, Tahiti, Mexico. But HGTV is not alone. This attitude, of glorifying Third World failure as success, is something that you can see on almost any TV show, reality or otherwise, on the broadcast networks or cable networks. The specifics are usually, the Third World is more colorful (less dreary stability needed to keep the power on). More spontaneous too, a fiesta (or an anti-American riot) can break out any time. A "slower pace of life" contrasted with the West (where the water is not loaded with fecal bacteria, straight from the tap, and the police don't routinely shake you down). Indeed, one memorable HGTV episode in Nicaragua featured a "suicide shower" with an electric water heater plugged right into the wall and affixed inline to the shower's pipes. It was noted as typical for the region.

Naturally, the congruence with Western women's desire for a "type" of man, i.e. one colorful and amusing and dominant, with bouts of unpredictability, is no accident. Both speak clearly to a sense of wealth, power, and security. Able to trade off security and safety for "excitement" and thrills.

This seems destined to come to an end. The Third World has been coasting on (relatively) cheap energy and food that has come to an end. China's insatiable demand, loss of Western farmland to housing/development, and biofuels all signal an end to cheap food. Cheap energy being laughable even with the economic crisis, given China's own demands on the global market, and Western fantasies of "green" energy from biofuels, wind, solar, unicorn farts, and rainbows.

Cairo is a seething mass of violence now (likely the entire family is desperate to move back to California), and likely to remain so for some time. Not only Cairo, but other areas featured on HGTV: Lebanon, Dubai, and Jordan. To say nothing of Central America and Mexico.

And the impact of all the strife in the Middle East is a guarantee re-run of 2008's $4.50 a gallon for gas. A price that ensured economic meltdown as people could no longer afford to fill up their cars and pay their mortgages. The entire West has had a long run of safety, affordability, predictability, and security. If 9/11 was the wake up call, that this dominance had ended, the Cairo riots and Egyptian mess (prompted largely by fallout from Tunisia, itself a victim of food riots), is the alarm clock blaring loud rock music.

The Romanticizing of Third World failures is likely to stop. While you can't smell the tear gas and blood through the TV screen, its hard to project a romantic image of the Third World when much of it is flames. And the US looks threatened as well, in different forms. Idealization of failed peoples is likely to be stopped by reality, and America and the West's own virtues pushed larger by simple comparison.

After all, even the most bored upscale yuppie would rather live in suburban California than Cairo.






...Read more