Some Laughs from FW de Klerk

FW de Klerk, Apartheid-era South Africa's last Prime Minister, recently gave one of the all-time stupid speeches by a former leader. In the speech he called for a non-racial approach to politics in South Africa. That de Klerk, always good for a laugh. Jerry Brown is good for a good for a laugh, he's appointing Goodwin C. Liu to replace California Supreme Court Judge Carlos R. Moreno, 62. Liu has never been a judge, but is reliably hard-left and anti-White. Hispanics are upset because Moreno was the only Latino/Hispanic judge on the court, which will now have four Asian members, and three White judges. Even more good for a laugh, the Pew Hispanic Report which as Steve Sailer notes, shows a huge wealth gap between races.

Add it all up, and America is in for South Africa style laughs. As the have-nots conspire with the have-lots, to get more the only way they know how: take from the have-middle-class.


First, de Klerk's spot of idiocy. The reason Apartheid lasted so long is because everyone, White, Black, Indian, and Mixed Race knew the endgame. Blacks, and Blacks from the most powerful tribe, would take everything, and everyone else would be varying caste levels downwards, with Whites at the very, very bottom considered not even human (and thus, disposable). There would be no place, none at all, for any White in non-Apartheid South Africa. This was the reality. Why such a repressive regime that exacted large costs to its White population (the need to personally bust heads, always an ugly and depressing task, international sanctions and displeasure) lasted long after the writing was on the wall.

de Klerk states:

It is unacceptable to sing songs calling for the shooting of anyone. It is unacceptable for Julius Malema to call whites criminals - and to add that their land should be seized without compensation. It is even more unacceptable for President Zuma to sit on the same platform, smiling, while Malema, as a key office bearer in the ANC, makes such racist comments.

It is unacceptable for Gugile Nkwinti, our Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, to declare that all "colonial struggles are about two things: repossession of the land and the centrality of the indigenous population." He is actually saying that the colonial struggle is not yet over; whites are colonialists whose property must be seized; and only ‘indigenous' South Africans are central to our society. People from minority communities must presumably be content with a peripheral or second-class status.

It is unacceptable for the Judicial Services Commission to ignore unambiguous constitutional requirements regarding the manner in which it should be constituted - and then to refuse to fill vacancies on the Cape bench, despite the availability of eminently fit and proper candidates, simply because they happen to be white.

It is unacceptable for COSATU and the SACP to set as their mid-term vision the utterly unconstitutional goal of “worker hegemony in all sectors of the state and society.”

Can one imagine the outcry that would rightly ensue if a member of the United States government were to call for the re-establishment of the centrality of the white majority?
…
According to the ANC's Strategy and Tactics analysis, the establishment of our non-racial constitutional democracy in 1994 was not the end of the liberation struggle - but only a beach-head on the way to the ultimate goals of the revolution. The struggle has continued relentlessly since then - and it has been directed primarily against our constitutional accord.

The ANC's first priority after 1994 was to shift the balance of forces in its favour by seizing what it calls the levers of state power. These include "the legislatures, the executives, the public service, the security forces, the judiciary, parastatals, the public broadcaster, and so on." This was not just empty rhetoric. Using cadre deployment, the ANC has taken vigorous steps to take over - or to try to take over - all these institutions. In the process it is obliterating the constitutional borders between the party and the state; it is undermining the independence of key constitutional institutions and it is opening the way to large-scale corruption and government impunity.

The ultimate goal of the NDR is a ‘non-racial democracy' - in which all aspects of control, ownership, management and employment in the state, private and non-governmental sectors will broadly mirror the demographic composition of South Africa's population.

Like the communist ideal of the ‘classless society', the non-racial democracy has a superficial appeal - but is equally unattainable. In practice, demographic representivity would simply result in racial domination - what the ANC calls "African hegemony" - in every facet of the government, society and the economy.

To achieve its goal of eliminating what the ANC regards as "apartheid property relations" the NDR would require massive and forced redistribution of property and wealth from the white minority to the black majority. It would also require the disemployment of large numbers of people from minority communities.

Whites, Coloureds and Asians would be corralled into demographic pens in all aspects of their economic and professional lives according to the percentage of the population they represent. The prospects of South African citizens would once again be determined by the colour of their skins - and not by their skills, their contribution to the economy or by what Martin Luther King called the content of their character.

Malema's inflammatory rhetoric, Gugile Nkwinti's land reform proposals, cadre deployment, the failure of municipalities and government departments - can be traced back, directly or indirectly, to the NDR's corrosive and unconstitutional ideology.

The entire speech may be found here.


De Klerk's speech is profoundly stupid, because all of what he is complaining about is EXACTLY what was on order the day Apartheid ended. Black South Africans will never forgive nor forget, not unto a millionth generation, Apartheid. Incapable of generating wealth on their own, and facing the inevitable mismanagement attendant of the leadership of Jakob Zuma. Democratically elected, Zuma has five wives, all of them polygamous, has been on trial for rape (of an HIV-positive woman), has more than twenty children, a number illegitimate, and lacks any education beyond primary school, being primarily a former cowherd. Zuma's predecessor Thabo Mbeki, who was want to expound on how "spores" cause AIDS, and sex with a virgin would cure it, was no better.

Zuma's primary objective is to survive as leader so he can steal as much money as possible, to live a large lifestyle. All those kids and wives cost! He could care less about anything else, and that is exactly why he was elected.

Julius Malema is a rising power, the head of the ANC Youth Wing, who wants boiled down to essentials to shoot all Whites and take their property. He'd like to live that big man life too, and so would his followers. Most Black South Africans feel this would be a fine thing. They don't see any way else to better their lives, they hate White people, and feel Africa is no place for Whites (or anyone else besides Africans).

In "Dreams from My Father: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE," Barack Obama recounts a visit to Nairobi, Kenya, and a lunch with his half-sister. They're enraged by poor service and fawning attention to White tourists (who pay more than government officials) by the Indian proprietors. Obama describes with affection his dead father's plan to nationalize all property not belonging to Africans, and give it to Africans, after throwing all non-Africans out. Africa, Obama Sr. had declared, belonged exclusively to Africans and no non-Africans had any business holding property or doing anything but visiting for a short time there. A sentiment Obama Jr. endorses in the retelling, in his book. As Obama notes, all the monuments and cultural achievement in Europe left him cold. He felt no connection to them, despite being half-White. But the poorest slum in Kenya, he loved.

You can find the same sentiment among Indonesians about Diaspora Chinese, or Whites, or people like Obama. The Malaysians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese all hold similar views. Their nations belong to the ethnic majority, non-ethnic compatriots have no business doing any business there, holding property or even living and working there. This is universal. As soon as the curtain went down on Apartheid it was only a question of when, how, and whom the seizure of all White property and exile/internment of all Whites (and indeed, all non-Africans) would happen in South Africa.

De Klerk should have known this. The price for the end of Apartheid in South Africa was all non-Africans getting out. No example in human history, ever, has had a multi-racial, multi-cultural, peaceful and "diverse" setting without a brutal tyrant killing lots people on a regular basis to enforce his rule and favor certain groups. Humans just are not built that way. No we cannot all get along, the best we can hope for is living apart peacefully.

But De Klerk is good for a laugh.

So too is Jerry Brown. Brown is appointing Goodwin C. Liu, a rabidly anti-White, hard-left lawyer who has never been a judge before, into the California Supreme Court. Latinos are angry:

“It should have been a Latino and somebody who was native to Southern California,” said Victor Acevedo, president of the Mexican-American Bar Assn.

“We are almost the majority of the people of the state of California, and for the governor to say there isn’t one Latino who is qualified to serve on the court is extremely troubling,” he said. “That to me is like the governor turning a cold shoulder to the Latino community in Southern California.”

Of course, Whites are down to only three representatives on the California Supreme Court. And this matters because who you have on the court bench determines how the goodies get sliced up. Given that much if not all of decisions involving who gets what money, justice, special privileges, treatment, and so on come from the court systems, a fight over who is on the bench is inevitable. This is just one of the ways in which a "diverse" society has a huge cost overhead compared to a mono-ethnic one.

Mono-ethnic societies don't fight over division of resources based on race. With a temptation to screw over the losers, permanently. You also don't have cow-herd polygamist clowns like Zuma as President. Even a relative unknown and non-entity like Truman was a far better leader, far more widely read, far more experienced, far more educated, far more able, than a clown put up by a race-based system like South Africa's.


But most laughable is the Pew Hispanic Center data. That Latino demographic juggernaut? It has a median household net worth of $6,325, compared to Whites at $113,149. Blacks are at $5,677, and Asians at $78,066. Or put it another way, more than half of Hispanic households (and Black ones) have almost no money at all.

Blacks of course are not expanding demographically. The Census Bureau reports that Blacks were 12.9% of the population in 2000, and 12% in 2010. All races lost income, during the recession, but Blacks and Hispanics had low starting points anyway. Hispanics have been unable to create wealth, in contrast to Asians who though they lag behind Whites do not do so in the order of magnitude ways that Black and Hispanics do.

A mostly White America, facing a Black population that has no means or hope of any means of being anything other than a Welfare Transfer burden, can probably support that wealth transfer as long as times are good and the burdens not too heavy. There is no way this can happen with Latinos at essentially the same household income as Blacks. There's just too many Latinos.

Latinos are poor, and remain poor. They represent an ever increasing burden on White household income at a time when that income has declined, about 16%. Meanwhile, triumphalist "we are replacing you" rhetoric which is underscored by demographic reality is matched by "give us your money." And, "We have ownership of Supreme Court Seats, and other positions. They are ours!"

This won't end well. Flight first, as the exodus in California becomes a flood. Who wants to pay for illegal alien families, as what amounts to second or third class citizenship in California? Texas and other places will be next. Then fight, but one characterized by intermittent rather than sustained political action. Almost all White Middle and Upper Class women are in favor of mass immigration, open borders and such. As repeated endlessly here on Whiskey's Place, this is because ordinary White Middle and Upper Class guys are Beta Males. Repulsive to women, who want "sexy back." At any rate, they don't like a mono-ethnic culture. Advertising is a window onto the way elites think they can influence the (almost exclusively female) target audience. And anti-ordinary-White-Guy disdain just drips from advertising.

Quite likely there will be an intermittent political action designed to stop illegal immigration, transfer payments to illegals and their descendants, but one that will be fragmented, doomed, and a massive failure. Most (not all but most) Middle and Working Class women WANT demographic replacement. Just look at Househunters International:



A "sexy" and "not boring" life is just what the Doctor ordered to spice things up. It's Eat Pray Love all over again. If the personal is political, the political is personal. Mass immigration means cheap nannys and gardeners, no more "boring" mono-ethnicity, and something exotic right in your backyard. Better than an exotic pet!

Laughs are coming though, as the have-nots (the Latino underclass with a median household income of around $6,000) combine with the have-lots (rich White elites) to screw over the White middle class. Will America turn into Brazil? I think not. More like South Africa, with an explicit race-based class system, rigid quotas, and massively failing infrastructure.

Why not Brazil as the US future? Because the expectations are too high. Brazilians only recently emerged from abject poverty to semi-starvation, and while they expect an improving lifestyle, anything up from a favela likely to be buried in a mudslide is a plus. Just having food to eat most days is a step up. In America, the expectation is that Whites are moved to a fourth/fifth class status, AND the modern Welfare state is kept up. It is quite true that with votes and the monopoly on state power, a Goodwin Liu led California Supreme Court could issue rulings say, dis-allowing White votes in elections in order to achieve "racial fairness" and that such a ruling would meet "Constitutional tests" (because Constitutions don't matter -- they are mere pieces of paper, only people willing to defend them matter). The South African Constitution is a marvel, probably more enlightened than the US Constitution. And like the Soviet Constitution, completely ignored. The US Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court and other judges say it is. That is all.

So yes, undoubtedly Whites have been pushed out of full equality in life, in terms of how justice, taxes, and other goodies are divided. Third or fourth class status no doubt looms for Whites in the US, and probably all of Europe. Camp of the Saints, massive demographic change, and Whites a discriminated, third class minority in places like the UK, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and yes Norway are already inevitable. All those poor people in North Africa want the nice things that Europeans have, they need only get on a boat and take them. Europeans won't stop them, most of the female population would figure it would be a good thing anyway.

But, you cannot make someone work as a serf or slave any more than the whip can lash. The modern Welfare State and the ability to transfer prodigious sums of money to Big Men and a trickle to patronage objects is dependent on a White middle class that makes even bigger sums of money. The nirvana of "post-racial" government merely means Whites as official fourth class citizens, perhaps not even legally considered human.

That outcome will happen, in South Africa and elsewhere, because Big Men get by for the moment making it happen. When the money runs out, they'll think of something else. Meantime, those twenty plus kids and five (and counting) wives need money!

So the last laugh will be on the victors. Sitting in a burnt-out hospital, dying of an infection that would have been routinely cured only thirty years ago. As the lights flicker out all across the Western World. Even the White elites all for a multi-culti, diverse world will be the object of the joke. All that money Soros collected won't do him a bit of good as it becomes basically worthless, and he cannot buy anything more in health care than a dancing Witch Doctor. All Western medical care having been interned along with the White Middle class that supported it.

In the end, it all comes down to money. The new demographic wave just can't create it. And you can't get money from a despised fourth class minority.




...Read more

Unaffordable Family Formation

Regular readers of Steve Sailer know his "affordable family formation" theory very well. Which amounts to Whites having kids when they can afford them. When land is cheap, suburbs all around, and the cost of living is relatively low. But there is a flip-side to that. Which is "unaffordable family formation." I.E. Mexican (mostly illegal) immigrant family formation on the taxpayer dime. New research from The Center for Immigration Research (their Research Director Steven Camarota was a guest on KFI 640 AM's "John and Ken" on Tue April 12, 2011) suggests strongly that immigrants cannot afford their families, and must rely on welfare to support them. This is in stark contrast to the behavior of Whites in America.


First, the raw numbers. The data was compiled from the US Census Bureau "Current Population Survey" done every March, and crunched through databases and spreadsheets (the raw data is made available for download). The US Census Bureau certainly does not release the findings, but does make the data available, which the Center for Immigration Studies used to complete their findings.

The findings include the following highlights:

• In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.



• Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.



• A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.



• Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.



• Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).



• The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).



• We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.



• Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.



• High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.



• An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009.



• If we exclude the primary refugee-sending countries, the share of immigrant households with children using at least one welfare program is still 57 percent.



• Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.



• For all households (those with and without children), the use rates were 37 percent for households headed by immigrants and 22 percent for those headed by natives.



• Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.



• The eight major welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies.

The authors further caution:

Unreported Welfare Use. Although almost all other researchers in this field have relied on self-reporting in the CPS or some other government survey, one limitation of this approach is that it understates welfare use. It is well established that respondents to the CPS tend to understate their use of social services. One reason for this seems to be the survey by proxy methodology used to collect the data, which is discussed in the methods section of this report. While the methodology is practical and generally produces reliable information, it has its problems. One problem seems to be that the person responding to the CPS may not be aware of all of the programs or the size of the payments that are received by every individual in the household.

The problem of under-reporting of welfare is well known by the Census Bureau and has been studied for some time.10 For example, a comparison of administrative data on Medicaid to the results in the CPS shows that the survey reports at least 10 million fewer persons on the program than there actually are.11 Use of cash and food programs is also under-reported in the CPS. This problem, however, should not prevent comparisons between immigrants and natives because there is no clear evidence that immigrant or natives are more likely to under-report welfare use.12 So the undercount should be similar for both groups, making comparisons possible. What this does mean is that the welfare use reported in this analysis is too low, and the actual use rates for immigrants and natives alike are higher. [Emphasis Added]

What stands out is the table, seen to the right, showing welfare use by number of children in the household. Immigrants (the study does not distinguish by legal and illegal, though likely nearly all immigrants are illegal because of the sheer volume of the exodus out of Mexico as it collapses) actually use less food aid than natives when with only 1 child per household (23.6% for immigrants vs 32.3% for natives). For Medicaid, the situation is slightly reversed for household with only one children, 36% vs. 29.6%. [This likely counts Blacks and poorer US born Latinos, as "native" usage and the main drivers of welfare but since we don't have race breakouts we cannot say for sure.] However with 2 children in the household, immigrants use food aid at 41.5%, compared to 25.8% for natives, and for 4+ children it jumps to 69% vs. 47% for natives.

From Table 1, Immigrant & Native Households with Children: Welfare Use 2001-2009, we can see that for all Immigrants, 1+ child, any welfare usage is 71% for Hispanic, vs. only 38.7% for Natives (a category that includes native born Hispanics and Blacks). We can see that since immigrants with only one child do fairly close to natives in welfare usage, the real problem is …

Unaffordable Family Formation.

Which amounts to, basically using welfare to pay for very large (around 4+ certainly) Mexican immigrant families (nearly all of them illegal based). This should not surprise anyone. The welfare industry depends on this large amount of desperately poor, huge-family-size illegal immigrant wave. Subsidized by the White middle class tax revenues.

Which have now just run out. Since all that "White privilege" has not turned into money, and a White middle class effectively cleansed out of much of California, has its own concerns. Like buying both groceries and gas.

Welfare, particularly TANF (formerly AFDC), WIC, food stamps, school lunches, and Medicaid are required to support the ultra-large families that are fueling the "Latino takeover." Mexican immigrants, nearly all illegal, cannot support them on their own. While the White middle class has only the kids it can support, the Mexican illegal class has the kids the Welfare system can support. And then some.

What happens when the welfare is cut off, suddenly because of fiscal crisis? Which at some point will happen because Helicopter Ben Bernanke and company cannot keep inflating the dollar away forever. Nor are the Krugman pushed middle class tax increases to pay for more or even current welfare sustainable. Given stagflation and living standard erosion.

Can even DC force White taxpayers to ante-up for all those ninos who are replacing them? Nope. The House will surely block any new revenue scheme, and while the EPA is busy making life even more expensive and restricted, all the Democratic dancing around can't keep the issue of cost due to Federal intervention off the table, particularly with 2012 nearly here. America is running out of money for Unaffordable Family formation, and the results are going to be catastrophic.

At some point, perhaps not this year, or even the next, but at some point, the Welfare money will be cut off. To pay for things the White Middle Class wants: affordable gasoline, affordable food, jobs at defense contractors. Particularly if there is a populist willing to make it. [Which might or might not be Trump, if he runs ala Perot as a Third Party Candidate say hello to two-term President Obama. There is some suspicion he is a deliberate Obama dirty trick to do just that. Others have speculated his "might run third party" comment as a warning to the Republican National Committee not to anoint Mitt Romney.]

At some point the Welfare will just cease. Probably suddenly rather than slowly, because vested interests will keep running the Welfare machine to keep their K-12, Welfare related jobs until the last possible moment. And then it will just stop.

Meanwhile those ninos still have to eat. All four, five, six, seven of them. So do their parents. Do you think the parents will all just go home to Mexico, meekly? They already know the foreign country they entered illegally does not enforce its laws against people with their skin color and national origin. They know perfectly well the racial caste system that puts Whites dead last. They know they always have a safe haven from which they cannot be realistically extradited, if things get too dicey.

So, yes, I expect mass riots on the scale of the LA Rodney King riots, only larger and nationwide. While Black residents of LA burnt down much of their local businesses, and even some homes, most did not participate in the widespread looting. That was done mostly by Mexican illegal aliens who had little to fear from a compliant, passive, and ineffective law enforcement apparatus. TVs, diapers, even totally useless junk was looted. Even toilet paper was looted. By hordes of mostly illegal aliens. Rule of law ceased, and it became "loot the Gringo." Loot an alien, foreign country that most had nothing but contempt and hatred for, at best. Looting reached all the way up to the fringes of West LA, and around the Sunset area, briefly.

With far more Mexicans in the US, expect it to hit places like Atlanta, or New York City, or Chicago, or Denver, or Raleigh, or Richmond, or Washington DC. Along with Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Tucson, Phoenix, and Knoxville. Something will spark a riot, where the police will withdraw, and then YouTube, CNN, Twitter, Facebook, and all the rest will spread the rioting and looting to other cities. Where police will withdraw, or be ineffective in trying to restrain a massive mob without killing lots of people or putting themselves at risk. Politicians will dither, wasting days or even weeks before calling in the National Guard, which will have to shoot considerable people (including inevitably those innocent of any wrongdoing -- troops are not police nor can they be). Much of the nation's largest cities will be a looted wreck, and the effect on the White population will be very different than times past.

In previous riots, the violence was mostly Blacks against Whites, for which residual White guilt and shame played a part in excusing. Whites response was to ignore commenting on this publicly, and privately moving as far away from Black areas as possible. See, Detroit, death of. The LA Rodney King Riots were different, but not repeated. There, for the first time, widespread looting by Mexican-origin illegals was the main action. The looting was for lootings sake. Often it was all out of proportion to the risk run doing the looting.

The massive amount of illegal alien families will loot because they have to, in order to survive, with welfare cut off suddenly, and will loot because they want to, since they have learned nothing but contempt for an America that does not enforce its borders, nor conserve its traditions or ethnic makeup of its people. [They will not of course simply go home.] Looting will spread, into no doubt previously "safe" White areas. Not just downtowns, but "safe suburban" places like Irvine, or Greenwich.

When people have no more flight available, they always fight. I've seen a bemoaning of the passivity of White America, and the view that White people always just give up and surrender to non-Whites. This would have been a surprise to all those conquered or killed by Whites, or the Black men and women lynched during the Klan's original run from the late 1860's through the late 1870's, and its revival during the teens, twenties, and thirties. In New York City, the NAACP had banners proclaiming "A Black Man Was Lynched Today" during the 1920s and 1930s, and it was true, too. There were, disgustingly, even postcards of the lynchings made and kept as souvenirs. Ugly but true, and done well into the 1930s.

Middle Class and Wealthy people are not inclined to violence, generally. Violence is for the lower classes. You are far safer in Malibu, even at Charlie Sheen's house, than you are in the barrio or ghetto, and this is true for any man or woman of any race. Or the poor districts of say, Moscow or St. Petersburg. Middle class and wealthy people suddenly terrified that everything they have (including their lives) will be taken from them, however, can be inclined to the most horrific and systematic violence. The kind of violence that simply annihilates entire peoples.

The other part of the supposed passivity of Whites is the iron lock that elites have on our nation. The President, Congress, Court System, Media, and Law Enforcement all rest on the savage preservation of near-hereditary offices, open to non-Whites of "good background" but closed to average Whites (like Sarah Palin). Legitimacy of the elites and these institutions rests on both control and a monopoly of violence. But widespread looting, ever growing "White no-Go areas" (like Dodger Stadium, which now and forever belongs to Latino Gangs) and manifest loss of control invite local protectors. In Western Europe after the Roman Empire collapsed in the West, this was called Feudalism. America is running full tilt into what amounts to not a "Second Civil War" but full blown feudalism. There will still be a President, and a Congress, and Judiciary. And they will be total jokes, viewed as not only corrupt but powerless hacks unable to do much of anything. For 150 years after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, the Roman Senate met. The Holy Roman Empire, and Emperor, also come to mind as "dead institutions walking." None of that has to come to pass, but it is likely to come to pass if permanently large portions of America become in effect White no-go areas, the White middle class is not protected from illegal mob looting and violence, and the determination of the elites to summarily punish the White (former) majority is inescapable. Literally as in there is no where for White flight to move next. Power will shift rapidly, to local, and unassailable versions of Pepin the Strong, or such. Local Sheriffs un-handcuffed by PC, or diversity, local mid-size mayors, even governors of some smaller, more Western states. While places like California degenerate into an uglier version of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, but without Lord Humongus.

This will not end well. Peter Brimelow is correct, I think, in predicting unhappy times ahead. The dominant concerns of the 21st Century will be the White population doing whatever it can to stave off oppression and annihilation, much like Jews in the Twentieth, in the face of Unaffordable Family Formation and the sudden shock when the Unaffordable becomes ... unaffordable. For those who wonder why a Scots-Irish likes and identifies with Israelis and Jews, well I can relate.
...Read more

The New Imperialism?

Contrary to popular notions, the world does not run on rainbows, unicorns, and skittles. Modern industrial economies need in particular, oil and gas and coal. With the earthquake in Japan turning Western nations against nuclear power (because of perceived risk), something will have to be done to garner critical resources. Which are not equally distributed among the planet, but concentrated (oil in particular) in the Middle East. Since 1945, the Western powers have been ebbing away from that area, preferring to buy oil at a distance from whoever would sell it, no matter how messy. That is likely to change. Recently on CNBC, Niall Ferguson observed that the likely outcome of the current Middle East turmoil is first, civil war, then Islamist take-over, and finally cross-border wars. All of which are going to make oil shipment nearly impossible, no matter how many eager buyers there will be, there just won't be anyone able to sell.




Ferguson of course is bullish on China, while ignoring China's very real problems. A financial sector that is a house of cards (China's State Owned Enterprises are propped up by constant new loans, to keep employment going -- these organizations don't actually make money, they exist to keep people working). China faces massive resource constraints, a largely illiterate interior population, about 30-40 million young men who will never find wives (gender imbalance due to selective sex abortion and the one child policy), a rapidly aging society before it gets rich, and massive ethnic/racial/religious separatist movements in Tibet, XianXiang (Muslim Uighurs) and in the East (Hui Muslims, ethnically Han but devout Muslims). China is the world's largest manufacturer, but its population mostly does not benefit, suffers from massive corruption and pollution, and is mostly quite poor.

Internally, China depends on an annual growth rate of 8-9%, something almost impossible to keep up much longer. There is only so much growth a nation can do by electrifying, building new roads, and so on. This is what the Soviets encountered in 1970 or so. China is quite likely to spark the new imperialism.

It has a certain logic. China needs ever greater raw materials, particularly oil which it must import from the Middle East. China must be tempted to intervene, militarily, to secure its own oil. And perhaps India will be tempted as well, it also depends on growth which means ready access to imported oil, and cheap oil at that, to fuel economic expansion and prevent its own civil war. Both India and China historically have been plagued by civil wars fueled by resource constraints and falling incomes after periods of growth, and their leadership is acutely aware of this tendency.

Europe too, faces challenges. Italy must at some point intervene in Libya, or it will be overrun by Libyans and Africans, becoming a third world hell-hole no different from Tripoli or Benghazi. Italians certainly don't want to fight and die, but neither do they want to be ruled by the Colonel, or people like him. The same holds true for France, and indeed Northern European nations like Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. If fifteen million Africans and North Africans wash up on Italy's shores, be assured that at least half of them will simply start walking north.

And most of these nations are weak. Libya is a set of tribes with flags, Algeria and Morocco little better, the same is true in the Gulf. Weak nations, with resources China, India, and the West need to run their economies above poverty-civil war levels, unable or unwilling to sell oil and gas because they are gripped by civil wars and cross-border wars? That is a recipe for "blood for oil," with the enthusiastic support of everyone who does not want live like a Santa Cruz hippie in the dirt and mud for the rest of their life. China and India seem already edging into confrontation over who will control the Indian Ocean and perhaps the Persian Gulf oil supplies. China has made massive investments in Africa, most of which have not panned out because … the continent is full of Africans. Which means the usual African level of stupid corruption, fighting, and such to garner ten dollars for a tribal chief who could have made ten million had he agreed to let the mining/resource investment proceed.

All the industrialized nations, from the West to China, are hideously vulnerable to Middle East oil being unavailable at any price, or only massively expensive prices. At which their economies seize up and civil wars of one sort or another break out. Internal peace depends in large part on cheap imported oil. Thus each nation is likely to set out, alone or in concert with others, to intervene, first diplomatically, then economically, and finally militarily, to secure the one resource (oil) that allows their economies to function at strife-avoiding levels.

This is particularly true since the idea is not a permanent colony, in unappetizing lands, but mere resource extraction in good old imperialist fashion. Something that goes back to the neolithic, no doubt. The West, and China too, likes to talk about self-determination, about anti-imperialism, human rights, and all that. If it is a question of permanent oil prices at $200 a barrel because Saudi Arabia is involved in a civil War, Iran has invaded the weaker Gulf states, and Libya is collapsing into constant attrition warfare between the Colonel and his enemies, yes both the West and China will intervene. India might as well.

The desire to avoid internal collapse will simply be too strong. China has no real oil reserves of its own. Like Japan it imports nearly all of its needs. China cannot keep its hundreds of millions of factory workers employed with oil at $200 a barrel. Since its rulers like very much, ruling, they will do anything and everything to get oil down appreciably lower, socialist and anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist rhetoric notwithstanding. The same is true for Europe, and ultimately America.

Indeed, the absence of America in the Med while Libya implodes and the Colonel promises to push most of his eastern population (into Italy, essentially) has been a wake-up call for Europeans on the need for their own navy, air forces, and army. Expect to see some rearmament being pushed by conservative parties arguing that becoming "Camp of the Saints" is not a wise policy. And that keeping hundreds of millions of North African and African refugees out of Europe requires armed forces of real size and capability. Even constrained, an industrialized Europe could build five-ten aircraft carriers and support ships, plus planes and people to run them. They don't have to be world-beating, just better than what Khadaffi will have, or the mass refugees. And from there, well it’s a short jump to wondering just why all that oil is not pumped for their benefit?

Western guilt is likely to end along with post-war prosperity. No one likes to sit in the cold and dark. Even Europeans expect results. Like the power to go on when you flip the switch.
...Read more

Let The Eat Ipad

Seeking Alpha reports that:

When NY Fed's Bill Dudley was pressed by a working-class audience about how he can view inflation as low when grocery prices keep rising, his response: "You can buy an iPad2 that costs the same as an iPad1, that’s twice as powerful." Grumbling ensued, as Dudley is stunned to learn that iPads are more popular at Fed offices than on the streets of Queens.

This is not going to end well. No one at the Fed has a clue. They are isolated in a wealth bubble. They don't understand how people live. An Egyptian or Tunisian style melt-down looks more and more likely. ...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

Oil Prices Enter the Danger Zone

The Financial Times has a scary article detailing how oil prices are entering the Danger Zone.

As the graphic shows, OECD countries are shifting from an average of around 1.4% of GDP for the US (oil import expenditure), 1.0% of GDP for the EU, and 1.8 for Japan, to 2.5 for the US, 2.1% for the EU, and 2.6% of GDP for Japan. For the US this amounts to another $72 billion in money out of the economy, sent to foreign oil producers. Barack Obama is a very stupid man. Whatever temporary economic stimulus he has constructed, out of a two year extension of the Bush Tax Cuts and a one year 2% reduction in the employee payroll tax, will be obliterated by the constant rise of oil prices. In part, due to Obama's own stupidity, in his policies and failures to act. Obama is a man stupid enough to believe in Cloward-Piven (move the system to failure to enact massive changes). As a man widely seen moving the system to failure, he's not likely to be given a free reign to remake America into his cherished ideal of a Black National Socialist Utopia (with cringing, permanently apologetic Whites and a Colors of Benetton style PC/Multicultural society). Quite likely a Reagan-esque figure offering to "take Back America" to prior greatness (and cheap gas) by "whatever means necessary" will be the person with the winning hand. No one is going to die for a Target Ad.


Charles Krauthammer is also profoundly stupid. Unable to see that ordinary people live and die by cheap energy (it was partially the energy/gas shocks that drove the 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis as people could not make both mortgage payments on distant exurb houses and fill up their tanks to go to work). Krauthammer thinks (because he's rich and a clueless elitist) temporary measures in tax reduction will offset massive increases in costs that directly and immediately affect both businesses and consumers alike. Nor can Krauthammer see that the effect in places like China will be even worse (already the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal have been running articles on spiraling prices of such staples as cooking oilrising 27% or more, fueling social unrest). Massive social unrest sparked by massive increases in energy and oil are likely to make China more, not less adventurous abroad (a war can drain social unrest and channel the considerable Chinese nationalism against enemies).

The Financial Times notes:

High oil prices threaten to derail the fragile economic recovery among developed nations this year, the leading energy watchdog has warned, putting pressure on the Opec oil cartel to increase production.

Over the past year the oil import costs for the 34 mostly rich countries that make up the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have soared by $200bn to $790bn at the end of 2010, according to an analysis by the International Energy Agency.

The increase, due to high crude prices, is equal to a loss of income of about 0.5 per cent of OECD gross domestic product, according to the IEA.

“Oil prices are entering a dangerous zone for the global economy,” said Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist. “The oil import bills are becoming a threat to the economic recovery. This is a wake-up call to the oil consuming countries and to the oil producers.”

Oil prices have edged closer to $100 a barrel in recent weeks and Brent crude hit $95 a barrel for the first time in 27 months on Monday as the economic recovery has gathered pace.

The article goes on to note that while OPEC (and the Saudis in particular) favor a price band of $70-$80 a barrel, there will be no further meetings (to increase production) before the scheduled June 2nd meeting this year. OECD account for 65% of all global oil imports. China is not a member of the OECD, but increased demand in China as it modernizes (and hundreds of millions of Chinese switch from walking on foot, to bicycles, to mopeds, to motorcycles, to small cars, roughly in that order) is driving increased demand. OECD demand has remained relatively stable over the past twenty years, as conservation and lower population growth (or negative growth) have sharply cut straight-line increases in oil and energy uses from the early 1990's. Increased immigration however has muddled that picture. According to the IEA (International Energy Agency) in the article, the EU has seen its import bill rise by $70 billion during 2010, more than the budget deficits of Greece and Portugal combined.

Why is this crisis occurring?

First, there has been a failure by the West (and China) to secure rapidly increases in oil production to keep the world economy moving. Far too many have succumbed to naïve and stupid ideas about how the world works, and bet on toothless "development deals" instead of concrete action to increase production. Nigeria remains mired in corruption and open rebellion, in oil producing regions. Iraq's ability to pump oil is constrained by considerable Iranian influence, as is that of the Gulf region as a whole. And the interests of Russia and Iran, net oil exporters, with bankrupt and non-functional economies, are directly opposite the roughly shared interests of the US, China, Japan, and the EU (i.e. cheap oil and gas and energy).

Russia and Iran have regimes in power by means of paying off lots of gunmen and goons. It is that simple. In order to pay off the goons, the only levers the regimes of both nations have is expensive oil. Therefore, when looking at the actions of both, it is important to realize that their survival, depends on making oil as expensive as possible (they cannot increase production to Saudi levels and make a profit at $40 a barrel). This is why Russia has been aiding Iran's nuclear program, and why Iran has basically fought the US in a shadow war in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan, seeking power or actively using its own forces to kill American troops (Iraq and Afghanistan). Against a weak and toothless response from first George Bush and then Barack Obama, neither Russia nor Iran fears any meaningful reprisals in an effort to control Iraq's oil production, and intimidate the Gulf into accepting $100 a barrel oil, and even further price increases.

That the price increases could long-term, destroy the Western economies, is not something the regimes of Iran and Russia care much about. They are gangsters, they care about paying their goons and thugs, not long term prospects. Indeed if the economies collapse around the world, to their thinking, so much the better. More power for them to grab, regionally. To reconstruct fallen empires.

If George W. Bush deserves a good deal of blame for weakness facing Iran (and failure to communicate clearly to Americans why Iran is our enemy: because we need cheap oil and they need expensive oil), Barack Obama's actions are even worse. He's already seen that what Bush did has not worked, and got elected basically because oil was at $140 a barrel, briefly. The Wikileaks fiasco shows that the Saudis wanted him to bomb Iran. A deal could have been made, bomb Iran (and remove a threat to the Saudi regime) in exchange for oil at $40 a barrel (i.e. Saudis pump oil like crazy). Everyone wins (except Iran and Russia). Gas at $1.10 a gallon would immediately jump start the US economy (by making almost everything overnight much, much cheaper).

Even worse has been Obama's failure to act regionally. Venezuela's oil industry is in a mess due to Chavez's meddling and corruption. He's also planning to base Iranian missiles aimed at the US, a clear violation of the Monroe Doctrine, and akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis (except without a nuclear armed Soviet Union backing him up). Toppling Chavez through military invasion to remove any possibility of Iranian nuclear (or otherwise) tipped missiles at the US and make oil cheaper would be quite popular (except among the anti-War left). Indeed a military build up puts people to work, immediately, and puts real money in pockets to stimulate the economy (unlike Obama's failed stimulus measure which bailed out State welfare programs and put money in allies pockets).

But domestically, Obama has been even worse. Wedded to an idiot notion of "green" energy (the man is not very bright), he has delayed drilling permits already in process in the Gulf of Mexico, costing thousands of jobs and significantly slowing US domestic oil production. The permitting slowdown includes shallow as well as deep water drilling. Meanwhile Cuba is drilling off the US coast, in deep water, with Obama's administration doing nothing. Thousands of jobs have been lost, in a deep recession, while Obama sings the praises of "green" energy. In addition, the EPA has been issuing regulations to enact cap and trade by executive order, as the bills pushing sky high energy costs have died in a Democratic led Congress. The cost to the US in radically increased energy bills, as the cost of almost every energy production: coal, gas, oil, increases to the rates (about eight or ten times higher) of solar and wind (themselves not very reliable) is an economy killer all its own, without a massive increase in oil prices.

This idiocy is entirely consistent with Obama's desire, stated in the election of 2008, to see energy prices skyrocket, just "not all at once" and see coal plants put out of business. Is Obama as stupid as say, former South African President Thabo Mbeki, who believed AIDS was caused by spores? Or current President of South Africa, Jakob Zuma, who believes AIDS can be cured by sex with a virgin? Nope. By all accounts the man is even stupider. Obama's election will live or die by the answer to the question "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Sky-high energy costs, by either failure to act to create robust domestic and international supply, or enacting hideously costly energy regulations, will kill his re-election. In a way that the South African Presidents idiot beliefs about AIDS did not threaten their Presidencies.

Obama's model of action seems to be Zimbabwean President Mugabe, who presides over a nation where more people starve to death (around 2,00o a week estimated by Catholic Charities) than are killed in Iraq each week. Held together by ethnic / racial based thugs and such, and milking international donors for payoffs and bribes. This is a model for failure in a nation as big as the US. But one Obama seems to have adopted.

What is likely to happen?

First, Obama is unlikely to back down on his attempt to ramp up energy prices domestically by sticking cap and trade on Americans through the EPA's regulations. He believes in it (not the least of which is that it "punishes" White Americans, a notion central to all his actions). Regardless of the cost, he is determined to push ahead and is likely to be able to outflank Congressional Republicans on this matter (by shifting funds from other agencies to fund this effort, likely from the Defense Budget). Secondly, Iran and Russia, sensing terminal weakness, are likely to pressure OPEC to keep oil prices sky high by further limiting production. Oil is very likely to reach $140 a barrel, or even considerably higher.

China, of course, cannot tolerate these prices. The Chinese will act, in some fashion. First they will encourage allies inside the US political system to remove Obama, and secondly they will be likely to seize oil resources for themselves. This is after all, the main reason besides Taiwan that they have engaged in a massive military build-up.

But the US political response is likely to be impeaching and convicting, President Obama. Clinton was impeached, but not convicted, because of the revulsion people felt over his actions, but the comfort they had with his economy. It is the economy, stupid. Obama does not have that margin. A caretaker President Biden, or perhaps even another figure (if he is medically certified as unfit to serve) muddling through is the likely political response oil at $140 a barrel for an extended period of time. Oil at that price level made Obama President, and it is likely to unmake him. Even the most loyal Democratic Senator would prefer to wait out racially motivated riots over the conviction of President Obama, than lose office entirely in 2012 over rage at being suddenly made poor by unsustainable energy prices, rising in a manner of months not decades.

If the Tea Party was the revolt of the White middle class over unsustainable tax burdens and government control of their lives, particularly medical care, to provide for (essentially) free medical care to illegal aliens, imagine their revolt over gas at $5, or $6 a gallon, courtesy of Barack Obama. All the spin in the world by the media, won't fix that problem.
...Read more

The LA Times and Green Jobs: Stupid, Lazy, or Politically Correct?

The LA Times on its home page had this story, by tiffany.hsu@latimes.com, with the headline "Job growth in California is going green" and the subhead "From January 2007 to January 2008 green jobs increased 5% while total jobs declined 1%."

The SF Gate version of this story noted that "Green jobs just 1% of total in California" and that furthermore, the report cited does not take into account jobs lost during 2008-2009. [SFGate.com is the web version of the San Francisco Chronicle.] The only question is, was the LA Times reporting stupid, lazy, or simply terminally politically correct.


The LA Times story itself, read the whole thing, seems essentially a re-write of the Press Release by Nextten.org. Reporters are notoriously lazy, never more so than in the present day, and the dirty little secret about most of the content in the major newspapers is that most of it is simply re-written (or not) of press releases from politically correct lobbying groups.

The core of the (brief) LA Times report by Hsu is that "green jobs" (which include things like carpentry and electricians) "grew" an astonishing 5% between January 2007 and January 2008, while the overall California economy lost 1% of jobs during the same period. Money quote from the LAT:

The industry is still too small to drag the state out of its jobs slump but could at least nudge the economy toward recovery.

"Green jobs are not a panacea," said Noel Perry, a venture capitalist and founder of Next 10. "But this is the foundation of the green economy, and all the trend lines are up."

In contrast, the SFGate story is solid. Money quote from the SFGate.com reporting:

But taken together, those jobs represent less than 1 percent of employment in the state, according to the report's authors. Green industries have great promise for employment, but they haven't delivered yet.

Reading the SFGate.com reporting, you can learn that report has implications for California's "Green" mandates in counting the jobs that (were) already there, but notes that they could have been destroyed in layoffs during 2008-2009. [They probably were, note how carefully the Next 10 Report avoids any 2008-9 figures, probably because they told a different story.] The Bay Area has mostly energy-generation jobs (7,003), tied to Bay Area research universities, particularly Stanford and Berkeley. The LA area has 1,072 people working on alternative fuels and vehicles. Nearly every job requires massive and continuous federal subsidies, the SFGate article noting that Bay Area solar panel manufacturer Solyndra Inc opened a Bay Area facility after getting a $535 million federal loan guarantee. A careful reader will note that "Green" requires federal "green" i.e. loan guarantees, grants, money to research universities, and employed less than 1% of the total jobs in the State before the recession really hit.

Indeed, the Next 10 report notes that California jobs "dropped" by 1% total while "green" jobs increased by 5%. What neither the LAT nor SFGate note, is that in actual fact, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, California's jobs increased during that period for a total of 183,000 jobs, or 1%. [Without seasonal adjustment. With seasonal adjustment the jobs increased about the same amount, or 241,000 jobs]

Its hard to credit the report's accuracy when the basic data about California's jobs show an increase not decrease (for Jan 2007 to Jan 2008), and further that this can be determined by five minutes reading on the BLS website.

What then, to make of the LAT reporting? Lazy, stupid, or politically correct? Likely, a combination of all three. Reporters are lazy, and will take anything that is perceived as "authoritative" and simply quote it verbatim. You can see reporter Hsu simply quoted the press release, not even bothering to question any assumptions. Because it came from authority, and because the reporter did not bother to think, or even put any effort into the whole thing. SFGate's David R. Baker, at least noted for his readers the obvious (many of the "green" jobs could have been lost during the recession) and that they were in total less than 1% of the total jobs in California during that period. That simply put, "Green Jobs" will NOT employ enough people, ever, to replace the jobs lost during the recession. Indeed, though Baker does not say so (constrained by his own PC-straightjacket), the careful reader can note that the jobs created depend largely on federal funding and consist mostly of White Elephant make-work jobs at research universities out of "Ghostbusters," or unprofitable manufacturing subsidized by taxpayers at enormous expense. Nothing "Green" consists of growth opportunities for high-revenue firms.

Neither Baker nor Hsu ask, moreover, just who is Noel Perry and what does he want from this "report" (which we can see is inaccurate and misleading). A few minutes of Google reveals that Perry is the founder and manager of Baccharis Capital, with interests in various Green Travel and partnerships with REI. A reasonable person might ask, "does Perry have business investments that could gain money by public policy at the Federal and State level directed to Green tax expenditures?" This question was never answered by either Baker nor Hsu.

To be reasonably informed about "green" tax spending (either tax breaks or bonds or grants or all of these in combinations) requires an understanding of how many green jobs there are (answer: 1% of total California jobs, something you would know from the SFGate.com article but NOT the LAT) and what the cause of growth in the "green" job base really is. For the latter, the SFGate article will provide the careful reader with needed information, but only indirectly, so imprisoned are the reporters by PC dogma. Job growth in "green" sectors is almost entirely based on subsidies, and most of it is in various think tanks and universities. Lastly, it is reasonable to enquire just who benefits from the report, particularly the man funding it. Certainly there would be tremendous skepticism from any report issued by the NRA, or Focus on the Family, or Heritage Foundation, by any reporter covering the story. But because the report is politically correct, LAT reporters simply re-run the press release under their byline.

I will note in passing that Baker was not innumerate, quickly grasping that despite the 5% increase in "green jobs" over the period it was a tiny fraction of the overall employment in California. Since neither the report nor the press release itself mention the size of California's jobs during that period, it seems Baker spent a few moments on the BLS site to quickly apprise himself of the number of jobs (about 18 million) in California Jan 2007-Jan 2008. Hsu by contrast seems innumerate, unable to understand that a greater increase in job growth is fairly meaningless with such a tiny fraction of the job market. The "strength" of California's Green economy that she quotes is federal spending to prop up the equivalent of Dr. Venkman in "Ghostbusters." And the LAT wonders why circulation continues to drop like a rock.







...Read more

How Sustainable is the New Girl Order?

The Wall Street Journal on Saturday, August 22, 2009 ran a story "They Know What She Wore Last Night," about the website (and book) WhoWhatWear.com, that allows young fashionistas to find out what designer a starlet wore to some event. Featured celebrities include Rachel Bilson, Kate Moss, and Rhianna (of the Chris Brown beat-down and criminal court case). While garnering only a small following (its weekly newsletter has only 125,000 subscribers, a fraction of what larger sites garner, even in the fashion subsegment), the website gets a commission from sales by users clicking on links to what various celebrities wear. Partners include everyone from Maybelline to J.C. Penney.

But what happens when the money runs out?

Rebecca Ravenna, who describes herself as "a religious WhoWhatWear reader," says she didn't know the site was selling feature names and getting commissions from the purchases of its readers. But she's not bothered. "It's a time for all of us to get creative financially," says the 23-year-old real estate broker from Chicago.

What happens when the 23-year-old real estate broker from Chicago can't afford to buy the latest fashions, and adopts a "use it up, wear it out" type of attitude? Particularly if she is not a real estate broker any more, and has to scramble for money?

Much of the new girl order is discretionary spending, on things such as fashion and cosmetics than can be stretched out, or used up. Belmont Club has links to various economic predictions of either inflation on a massive scale, debt repudiation, or perhaps both. Regardless, states like California, can no longer afford to simply keep government employment up, particularly when the stimulus money runs out in 2010. The the female-friendly employment in Health, Education, and Welfare, will be hit along with the far more sensitive resource extraction, construction, transportation, and manufacturing sectors that generated most of the layoffs, ala the Mancession. Government employment does not generate its own income stream, and depends on the larger economy for tax receipts. The current economic picture does not look good.

Inflation, of course, eats away at discretionary spending, which is the heart of the New Girl Order. Much of the "fabulous" excitement seeking in all areas, regardless if it's fashion, or politics, or relationships, in the New Girl Order has been based on bubble wealth. WhoWhatWear.com has the uncomfortable ring of Pets.com or Etoys.com. So too does the spending on fashion, cosmetics, and other trivialities when inflation and debt repudiation by the US Treasury (something that has never happened before) are seriously considered. This is particularly true if real estate brokers in Chicago lose their jobs, and have to struggle to find work and pay bills. Website visits and spending on fashion can quickly go to zero. Eventually, if Jeffrey Rogers Hummel is correct, and most democracies will run out of money fairly quickly to fund most social programs, this will include the growth sectors of Health, Education, and Welfare that are and were, female-friendly.

It is not merely froth, bubble websites like WhoWhatWear.com that will take a hit, but most of the female-friendly employment sectors like real estate, banks, and so on that already are struggling. Commercial real estate is already reaching high levels of empty, unleased spaces, and tenants have far more leverage to negotiate deals. Maguire Properties are warning of defaults to loan terms. All of the non-governmental office jobs that helped support discretionary spending on cosmetics and fashion (or X-boxes and Playstations for men) are at risk and likely to disappear at least in part in the next few years. Men got hit first in terms of employment, via exposure to sectors vulnerable to initial layoffs, but women are sure to follow.

This means quite likely, an end to the "New Girl Order," which could only survive, briefly, amidst economic expansion, and assured physical safety for women.

A reader, anonymously, sends in a series of links to what Britain is dealing with. These are (mostly all young men) who are deemed "not in education, employment, or training" aka "NEETs" who form a menacing, looming semi-criminal class, at least 1 million strong, in the UK. Not connected politically or socially, they seem intent on lounging around like Somali warriors in Mogadishu, waiting for opportunities, and whiling the time away in fairly poor circumstances (Britain's welfare state is not generous to natives). Meanwhile, young females in Britain remain at least, underemployed if not fully employed. But have understandable concerns for their safety.

Indeed, the death-knell for the "New Girl Order" is likely to be the twin factors of safety and economic security. Attractive young women will certainly find somewhat older men who have financial security more winning than they used to, if not for marriage then certainly co-habitation. There promises to be relatively few of these men who are unattached, but "soft polygamy" of the John Edwards variety is gaining acceptance, and indeed it's probable that Edwards career is not over. The other issue is of course safety. Increased risk of crime and gangs of young men with nothing to do are not generally associated with young women out and about on the streets at night, or even the daytime.

For most women, however, their lives promise to be radically different. Bars and nightclubs promise to be rare events, if nothing else because every penny has to be watched. Longer cohabitation with parents or family, or room-mates promises to be a factor for both men and women. Discretionary spending for both sexes promises to crater.

But likely the biggest factor is the collapse of the whole entertainment-media complex built around the "New Girl Order." While male discretionary spending certainly exists, it tends to be oriented around specific sectors: video games, cars, trucks, motorcycles, and entertainment centers and electronics. In other words, big ticket items. More and more men live on their own, and do spend on a wide variety of consumer items, but marketers still inhabit in one sense the world of the 1950's when women do all the shopping. You can still find sites such as she-conomy.com asserting that 85% of all consumer purchases are made by women. Intuitively with high divorce rates, and delayed marriage rates, and chaotic cohabitation rates (couples rarely stick together) this figure does not make sense. Nevertheless, marketers believe it.

What we are likely to see, and in some instances already are is the substitution of online games for pay, console games, and the fairly rapid erosion of the video game industry, along with huge declines in auto, truck, and motorcycle sales. For "New Girl Order" sectors such as fashion, cosmetics, and the like, similar declines are a certainty as female consumers face inflation eroded paychecks or layoffs. It is not merely a question of WhoWhatWear.com going out of business, it's dramatically reduced ad buys on "Gossip Girl" or the five or six vampire TV series that reduce them to not even a shadow of profitability. It is women forgoing seeing "Sex and the City Part Two" on release in favor of a cheap pay-per view or download from Netflix or Amazon or rental at Redbox a few months later. Its the entire edifice of everything from Oprah to the View to Today to the CW to Entertainment Tonight collapsing under ad revenues that simply cannot support the cost structure.

Much of the female-dominated media-entertainment rests on the simple fact that with huge margins, fashion houses, cosmetics manufacturers, and the like were willing to pay large sums of money to reach the inhabitants of the "New Girl Order." With neither the economic pay-back (their consumers are likely to be pinching pennies for years) and an expectation of an ever-growing market, this is likely to change significantly, and in short time spans too.

Quite likely, we are going to see a broader, more mass-oriented culture, and one that is no longer youth-obsessed. We've already seen the start of that with the annoying Viagra and Cialis ads, and it's likely that since the few remaining consumer dollars will be in middle aged hands, that is where the advertising dollars and revenue will move.

With younger women constrained both physically (risk of danger in the streets with our own "NEETs" about) and more importantly, economically (there will always be "some" safer areas), it is quite likely that younger cohorts can receive radically different cultural messages. Messages more attuned to the innate conservatism of middle age, when there is much yet to lose, than the risk-taking of the young. In particular, it is likely that the current wave of vampire fiction and television shows and movies will be the last, as young women find risk-taking in relationships less than appealing with a large dose of daily risk in their own lives. This would not necessarily mean "the return of the Beta Male" but he won't look as bad as he did when the good times were rolling and fashionably dressed young women from Warsaw to Westchester did not need to worry about where the next paycheck will come from. Financial and physical insecurity tends to create a more conservative outlook.
...Read more

Obama’s Economy: Men, Women, and the Welfare State

Recently, Business Week had a story on how Male Unemployment has reached post-War highs. Richard Florida (the “creative class” writer) has written about the subject also in the Atlantic. Both Business Week and Richard Florida wondered about the policy challenges this gap creates. Quite likely they were afraid to ponder the implications.

Which is bluntly that men have no investment whatsoever in Obama’s Economy or his Welfare State, and men are guaranteed, most of them, to want to destroy it. Completely, root and branch.



The Business Week story has the following graphs, illustrating the gap between Male and Female Unemployment (most Male age cohorts are at or near post-War highs).


[Click Image to Enlarge]


[Click Image to Enlarge]

This is nothing new. Older Americans who remember the Depression knew that Male unemployment was far higher than female unemployment, as employers would pay women less than men, and many occupations even then were considered “female” such as retail clerking, book-keeping, and other occupations where some part-time labor was needed. Meanwhile male-dominated manufacturing and resource extraction (mining, timber, etc.) were cut to the bone as inventories went unsold. The old photos of breadlines and unemployment lines had nearly all men. Women could and did get by, often as principle breadwinners for families, although their reduced wages made this a highly stressful proposition.

The danger for Obama and Democrats, however, is that the rising Welfare State, is unsustainable without benefits for men. Bluntly put, men need to receive enough advantages for them to support Welfare Spending, and higher taxes. Now they receive nothing, and in fact are positively hurt by Obama’s Economy, which is roughly the Welfare State super-sized. What neither Obama nor most Democrats understand is that the “cushion” of the 1990’s is gone.

As this Real Clear Politics story from 2007 makes clear, the 1990’s were not all a bed of roses, particularly for men. Wage growth was outpaced significantly by economic growth, until the boom times of the late 1990’s around 1995, where employers desperate for workers, bid up wages and various bubbles including the Dot-Com bubble pushed up wages significantly.

But the 1990’s were different for men than for women. The Real Clear Politics link, citing US Census Bureau data on “Usual Weekly Earnings” (basically all income but capital gains and benefits) produced the following graphs:


[Click Image to Enlarge]


[Click Image to Enlarge]

Men up to the 75th Percentile (low/middle wage earning men) showed significant declines in Usual Weekly Earnings from 1993 to 1995. For 2002 to 2006, the same low/middle wage earners had declines that were much lower than the early 1990’s. While men in the 75th Percentile and higher (high income men) had modest gains in the 1990s, but won REALLY big in the 2000’s under George Bush. This is particularly true for the 75th Percentile men who had very little earnings gain under Bill Clinton but very good gains under Bush.

Meanwhile, only the 10th Percentile (the bottom income earners) among women lost wages in the period 1993-1995. Women showed modest gains (25th and 50th Percentile) to spectacular gains, on the order of nearly 9% (90th Percentile, the super-rich) under Bill Clinton. Women did slightly less better under George W. Bush, across the board, excepting the 25th Percentile (just under the middle wage earners, but not the poorest) which did quite better under George W. Bush.

What does this mean? That for most men, and particularly middle income and upwards earning men, George W. Bush and his economy did better for them than Bill Clinton. While for women, the effect is reversed but not quite as strong.

Structurally, the economy has only “worked” to increase men’s wages in boom times. Which would describe the 1990’s, and the period 2002-2006 (to a lesser extent). Women’s employment and wage growth seem to occur best in Welfare Spending eras, when job and wage growth is confined to things Democrats and Liberals spend on, such as Education, Welfare, Health Care, Social Services, and the like. In short, men “win” when they economy is oriented towards boom-stimulated exports, construction, manufacturing, where workers are needed “now” and training is done on the fly, with an emphasis on flexbility in getting the job done. Women win when the economy is based on qualifications, crucially including gender and race preferences, in female-dominated social services, funded by tax revenues.

This puts forward the big risk to social spending: men don’t win by it, and will only put up with it if the general economic environment is so favorable that it’s easier “not to make waves” while times are good.

Welfare Spending of course degrades the ability of the “beta provider” to compete with other men for the exclusive sexual access to a woman. One of the driving factors in single motherhood and illegitimacy (rising from 17% in 1980 for Hispanics to over 50%, from 4% for Whites in 1965 to 28% or 41%, depending on whose numbers you use, or 24% in 1965 for Blacks to over 70% nationally and over 90% in the Black Urban Core today) has been the inability of a “beta provider” male to compete with either Welfare spending outlays (poor Blacks and Hispanics) to income growth (generated by Welfare-Social Service employment) for White professional women. If a White Woman, of professional social-economic status, makes enough money as a “creative class” worker or through social spending (Health, Education, Welfare, Environment, etc.), she does not need the income of a “beta provider” who is at any rate likely to earn less than her, nor does she need his services. Which can be replaced by the stereotypical nanny from El Salvador, or other places sending many illegal immigrants.

[This is why women fare more than men support Open Borders/Amnesty. Not only do White Women find no competition in the “creative class” category but very little in the social spending employment jobs. Meanwhile, lots of illegal aliens means lots of cheap nannies and other labor to replace a husband or boyfriend in child care and household tasks.]

But Barack Obama’s Economy is more than just a structural imbalance tilted towards women. It positively punishes most men, with wage losses and declines, particularly on high-end men, making powerful enemies. Machiavelli advised to kill enemies before making them poor, and that a man might forgive the murder of his father quicker than impoverishment. Obama’s economy, with high taxes, sluggish job growth, no booms in anything requiring male workers “right now” and thus competition for workers driving up wage growth, promises to take men who made a lot of money and make them poor.

What this means is that men who competed for the most important thing in their life: women, went from ordering $200 bottle service at some nightclub to impress women, to hanging around dateless and poor. While the story about “Dating a Banker Anonymous” was indeed a hoax (and the NY Times fell for it), the general outlook expressed by the women (their men were not desirable after losing jobs/income) is nevertheless broadly accurate.

Men from the 50th Percentile upwards used spare wealth from real wage growth to pay for signaling devices like Iphones, Macbook Airs, bottle service at clubs, and other displays to compete for women who no longer need merely “beta providers” of steady, faithful income and companionship, but flash, excitement, wonder, and greater wealth and social power than their own. These men have suddenly become poorer under Obama, as 82% of Obama-era layoffs are men. With little prospect that any will be hired, much less at wages equalling or exceeding their old jobs, in Government sponsored spending such as Social Services, or the Environment.

Indeed, Robert Reich on his own blog, and in testimony before Congress (and Nancy Pelosi who approves).




No money will be spent in ways that benefit “White Men” according to the Obama Administration. It will all go to White Women, unsurprising since Single Women voted for Obama 70-29.

But this imbalance creates a large mass of opposition towards Obama. Men who were middle wage earners or better, who find declining wages, or no wages, no help for them from Obama, continued preference for Women and non-Whites, and most importantly, lack of success in the dating/mating market. Even putting aside Robert Reich’s words, when was the last time anyone saw a Straight White Male working at the DMV, the local Library, or any government office?

During the Depression of the 1930’s, FDR made move after move that only made the Depression worse. He was re-elected to massive majorities because he took care of patronage, and specifically male patronage. FDR ordered the deportation in massive scales of anyone who might be in the country illegally. Non-citizens were excluded from all social benefits and programs. Blacks were suppressed in unionizing and largely excluded from government programs. White males, the most important demographic group and the only one capable of explosive action (witness the Bonus Army) threatening FDR’s rule, were “taken care of,” in the sense that they got a very public “first call” on benefits even if the net result of FDR’s policies was continued massive male unemployment.

Moreover, the society of the 1930’s was not what today’s is, in terms of male-female relations. Women still preferred the “beta provider” who would be steady and reliable, rather than a series of exciting bad-boy playboys. Women shared the apprehension of a society on the brink of chaos and the threat, very real, of revolution.

Today, most women’s lives have not been affected at all. Most women today are single, not married, a change seen first in 2007. Without an unemployed husband, most women are not affected by either layoffs (focused mainly on men) or wage losses (so far not affecting women much). Since women no longer need or want a “beta provider” the economic downturn has reaped benefits, winnowing out the non “Alpha” or socially dominant men from their lives.

But this creates a false sense of security. Men who made good money, and through that money had a girlfriend, now find themselves with neither. Obama offers not only no hope, but hostility expressed daily to the formerly well off White men who now have little hope of recovery. What does this dynamic create?

It creates a whole class, with no connection at all to the Welfare State, who would instead wish to destroy it. Destroy it on the upper end, so that the economic basis for women’s preference for bad boys is erased. Few men of middle to upper income can quickly turn themselves into thugs as happened to the men in the Black Urban Core, or low-income Hispanic men, or the White British Underclass (the latter famously chronicled by Theodore Dalrymple “Life at the Bottom” and other books). Becoming a violent thug as the only way to compete for women absent the beta male provider is certainly a strategy that works. But it has too many costs (the very real possibility of ending up dead or in prison) that most will not take it. However, all the time and energy (the men will not be dead, as Obama merely made them poor) men who used to have “lives and women” and now have neither will be focused somewhere. Very likely on the destruction of the Welfare State. Taking away women’s economic independence and forcing a choice between bad boys and poverty, or exclusivity to beta providers.

At the very least, we will see pretty much all White Men except those who remain very, very rich become Conservative voters, mostly Republican. Kerry won 38% of the White Vote. Obama slightly less. But even with Obama’s 70-29 edge in single women’s votes, if his share of White Male voters goes to say, 4%, neither he nor Democrats remain in office.

Men don’t have a stake in the Welfare System. Indeed since they pay for it in taxes but get nothing for it (but payment to women to enable the bad-boy selection), they are better off without it. Without the Welfare System, and with a low-tax, high boom/bust economy, they at least have the chance to ride another boom wave and create a life that includes women. Obama offers men nothing but poverty and sexless isolation from women.

Men are likely to reject both Obama and Democratic policies en-masse, and dismantle as much as possible the Welfare State.
...Read more