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

Will K-12 H1-Bs Peel Off Obama's Support?

As noted here, Obama still has some core White support: College Educated White women. Who alone benefit from Affirmative Action (non-College White women have the highest disapproval rates for all Whites). And are a good cultural fit for Obama as First Rockstar, the Celebrity to rule Celebrities. But the Center for Immigration Studies has a new report that suggests a wave of H1-B usage is breaking upon Education, particularly K-12, and could spread to other areas. Which might finally put College Educated White women in the same boat as their male counterparts, and non-College Whites of both sexes.


As noted in the report, H1-Bs have been used with great success in the Computer Science area in replacing older, more expensive American workers with visibly cheaper Foreign ones, who are younger besides (lower health care costs, perceived "hipness" etc.) The report for the Center for Immigration Studies notes:

n FY 2010, the Department of Labor certified 6,578 new K-12 jobs to be filled by H-1B workers, about 10 percent of the new certifications within the 65,000 general purpose ceiling; many other H-1B workers were approved for the 20,000 ceiling for those with advanced degrees, and others who came into the system outside of the numerical ceilings (primarily people in higher education.)

The H-1B K-12 educators were thus a small minority within the H-1B program, and a much smaller minority within the universe of kindergarten, elementary, and secondary teachers, but what did the use of this program by some school districts show?

My sense, after pouring over the detailed DoL data on this single year’s worth of K-12 certifications, is that some of the implications of this limited database are troublesome (in two different ways), some are bizarre, and others are puzzling.

[The report author notes that the Dept. of Labor, unlike other Federal Depts, makes their raw data available. The link to the Dept. of Labor data, sadly all in Microsoft Access files is here. For those unable to run MS Access directly, and needing a dump into CSV or directly into MySQL, there are instructions here that have been known to work. From the reports by users at the link it seems the best/safest way is to make a CSV dump of each table, and then import them manually into manually created tables in a new MySQL database. Tedious but effective.]

Among the findings were: the employers using H1-Bs in K-12 were concentrated in Texas (1,426 certifications), California (247), and Louisiana (313), besides Maryland with 632 certifications. Houston and Dallas accounted for most of the Texas certifications. Baltimore most of Maryland. For occupational breakdowns, most of the certifications were for special education teachers (305) , or bilingual teachers (664).

The implication is that K-12 is transitioning to H1-B visa employment. These holders are significantly cheaper, younger, and most of all, compliant. They can't fuss to the Union, because they can be replaced at any time and sent home with near unlimited manpower in other places. So far this usage of H1-B visas in K-12 is limited to the bigger city school systems. But the advantages for hard-pressed school boards (cheap teachers who can be easily replaced without union fuss) is obvious. So long, "nice White lady" from "Teach For America!"

Interestingly enough, bilingual teachers form a large portion of the H1-B visa pool in K-12. Suggesting that school boards (and charter schools) want cheap, compliant non-natives brought over on the H1-B visa rather than native Spanish speakers. This is quite interesting because it kicks a major prop out from under school system support -- local Hispanic patronage. Most Latino majority school districts are not oriented towards teaching students but maximizing job patronage. Since the school is often the city's biggest employer. Even Latinos can get hurt by diversity, a useful point to make. As Machiavelli noted in the Prince, a man will forgive the murder of his parents sooner than being made poor.

H1-B visas mean only one thing for wages: considerably lower ones. Essentially we are seeing teaching being lowered to Third World levels, and probably quite rapidly. Because we have a Third World population, particularly with K-12 students, but demands for a First World education system. Something has to give, and that will be, first, teacher salaries. Those hanging on to their jobs will do so at H1-B visa rates, just like in computer programming and the like.

Also notable is that Charter Schools are the worst offenders in participating in H1-B visa programs, and have the most complaints against them (for teacher abuse, fees, and the like) lodged against them with the Dept. of Labor. Bizarrely, there is a fellow named Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish Islamist of mixed reputation foolishly granted a green card by the US State Dept. after first being denied, who has gamed the US Charter school system.

Essentially what Gülen is doing is gaming the Charter School system. He sets up a Charter School, gets federal money (a lot of it, with very little oversight) and imports lots of teachers, on the H1-B visa program to ostensibly teach Turkish. The demand for which is near zero. It is basically a corrupt scam to create a massive kick-back and patronage system. Once again an ethnic, nepotistic network scams a government system set up for trustworthy Calvinist New Englanders.

There are also massive pay differentials among the H1-B visa holders, in places right next door to each other (New York and New Jersey, Elgin and Chicago IL) amounting to as much as $30,000 or more. Could there be … kickbacks?

Yes Obama's education bubble, with massive amounts of federal stimulus money (now expiring) shoveled into schools, created the same kind of exploitation and crook-dom that the housing bubble, and its no-document loans did. Not surprising.

Essentially, the market as it existed for K-12 teachers, employing "nice White ladies" and men, would not and did not last. We are seeing its dying already. Regardless of "mean Republicans" cutting state budgets, local districts and shady businessmen, running "regular" and charter schools respectively, are sure to pick up on the ability to create cheap and compliant labor forces. Not just for teachers, but every type of administrative function except the top. For the Charter School operators, most being "not-for-profit" (but that's a mere bagatelle) the ability to kick-back a portion of above market salaries that are paid for by federal and state funds must be an overwhelming temptation. Particularly since Education is not built on the assumption that people operating it are mostly crooks. Rather, it is built on the trust that nearly everyone involved sincerely loves teaching, education, and a better future for the students.

People vote their pocketbooks. College Educated White women are overwhelmingly employed in places like K-12 Education, the media, health care, corporate finance, human resources, and the like. Instilling bare, naked fear that they could be replaced by a person younger, more subservient (conservatives cannot stress this enough), and CHEAPER than themselves … and will be, unless a nationalist approach is taken through conservatism, is probably the most productive action conservatives can take against Obama. Obama's great weakness is that his coalition is prone to fighting amongst themselves over the limited spoils. White Women with College Education can be made to fear. Know the fear that their male peers in Engineering, or Finance, or Accounting, have already felt: replacement.

Particularly if "subservience" is stressed, the idea that say, a "fat and brassy" White College Educated woman will be replaced by a "meek and mild" Vietnamese girl at half the cost, and with deference to (beta) White males at the very top, is something that will go over like gangbusters. There's nothing White women hate more than being told they're being replaced by a younger, more subservient (to beta males) model. Since most of the top management at most places resembles a cross between Tim Geithner and Don Knotts, rather than say Charlie Sheen or Russell Brand, this wedge has some power.

Already, nursing save the ER staff is mostly H1-B. You can't visit a hospital room or floor (save perhaps ICU or CCU) and not find mostly or all H1-Bs (now from Vietnam or the Philippines). Trust me on this, I know. The same can be true, for HR people, or media ad buyers, or really almost any office work. While it is true that Mexican-origin illegal aliens from Chiapas or Cuidad Juarez won't be good fits, women and men from India, or the Philippines, or Vietnam certainly will. Many of them already are, in occupations like Radiology, or dental assistance, or even now K-12 education.

Yes, the usage of K-12 H1-Bs is small now. So is the first trickle of water bursting through a fractured dam or dike. Eventually it will be a tidal wave. With nowhere for College Educated White women to go. What will they do? How will they work? How can they support themselves? They can't. They won't. And this is precisely the argument conservatives should make to this target. Obama is bad for their bank account because he'll replace them with H1-B visa holders. Younger and more subservient, and definitely cheaper.



...Read more

James Cameron, 3D-TV, and Buying a Clue

James Cameron continues to show that while he's the master of intermittent, hideously expensive movie spectacles, he's completely clueless about the world outside of epic movies made every ten years. Cameron aims to bring 3-D content to TV, Reuters reports. In the article, Reuters notes that despite big bets by Sony and Mitsubishi, 3-D TV has failed to catch on. The Financial Times notes that Best Buy had a disappointing Christmas selling season, largely due to the failure of 3D TVs, as did Wedbush Morgan Securities, an analyst firm. Price, glasses, limited viewing angles, and content are all major factors for consumers saying no. The WSJ reports that Samsung is predicting that glasses-free 3D TVs will not appear in the next 5-10 years because of technical hurdles revolving around price. [Nintendo's 3DS gaming system uses very small screens, with limited viewing angles OK for single users. Many have meanwhile found the 3D effect to be nauseating and have turned it off.]


The Financial Times article predicts 2010 3D TV global sales will total 3%, the WSJ predicts that 2010 will have 3D TV sales around 5% of global totals. Gary Shapiro, head of CES thiks 3D TV is over-hyped. Direct TV thinks 3D TV will be a niche service.

So why doesn't Cameron get it? For three reasons.

He's rich. He's not that old. And he has relatively good eyesight.

Let's take the last first. Relatively good eyesight is required, for all 3D TV variants, glasses-based or not, because it works by fooling the brain that each eye gets a shifted image. Much like the old Stereoscopes of the 19th and early 20th century. Particularly as people age, they tend to have better eyesight in one eye than in the other. Extended 3D viewing tends to produce headaches and eyestrain, and for those with fairly limited eyesight in one eye, 3D TV can be viewed for only a short time. Other people find 3D screens, regardless of glasses or passive systems, nausea inducing.

Cameron has good eyesight. He can't understand those who don't, and find 3D image viewing a strain.

Cameron is still relatively young. He has yet to suffer the infirmities of age. Leaving him unable to grasp the reality, that an aging White America (and a very poor Mexican one) will be unwilling to part with money to buy a new TV when their old one works perfectly well, is paid for, and is easier to view to boot!

But the dominant factor in Cameron not understanding that it is not lack of content, but the technology itself, limiting 3D TV adoption, is his wealth. His vast amount of wealth has left him simply unable to comprehend life on a budget. Carefully parsing what is spent and what is not, particularly in a recession, particularly with stagflation, rising gas and energy and clothing and food prices, and stagnant wages. If 3D TVs were $10 in today's money, then yes, people would mostly buy them. Even at $200, replacing a fairly workable TV, with one that only does 3D images, and thus suffers from limited viewing angles, most likely glasses, and is uncomfortable for those with less than robust vision, would be a questionable decision for most consumers.

Probably not even porn will drive adoption of 3D TVs. Sports and movies, are just not that compelling in 3D to drive considerable outlays (it is likely that 3D TVs will be more towards $2,000 than $200) for … what amounts to 3D viewing of say, "Celebrity Apprentice" and the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

SCTV had it best:



Cameron has no equal in spending ten years to bring a stunning spectacle from conception to screen. His scripts however might as well be written in crayon. Nevertheless the man has amazing visual talent. But his visual talent no more transcends that narrow boundary than programming talent makes one a business genius. For all his ability in one narrow area, Cameron is no Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. His failure in making 3D TV a dominant force in consumer video is assured.

Cameron recently signed an open letter advising against early release by studios of Video on demand.

“I do feel it’s not wise to erode your core business,” said Mr. Cameron. The problem, he said, is not that on-demand offerings will overlap with the theatrical run, since most films are out of most theaters within a month. Rather, he said, many potential viewers might skip the theatrical experience, knowing that a movie would soon be available at home.

Earlier this week, Jim Gianopulos, a co-chairman of Fox Filmed Entertainment, defended the on-demand plan as a tool that would help bring viewers to certain movies that, like his own company’s “127 Hours,” were well reviewed, but didn’t fully connect with an adult audience that is hard to get out of the house. Mr. Gianopulos, in an interview, made clear that Fox had no intention of diminishing the impact of big event films like Mr. Cameron’s “Avatar,” but needed more revenue from movies that were being swept off screens anyway.

“For me, it’s enlightened self-interest,” countered Mr. Cameron, who voiced concern that early video-on-demand would weaken the theater industry, making it harder to release even films as grand as his own. [Emphasis Added]

Well yes of course. Consumers want lower quality but more convenient music. First Cassette Tapes instead of LPs, then CDs, and finally MP3s, which are very convenient but lose quality. Consumers want cheap and easy e-books, instead of finely bound hardbacks. Consumers prefer McDonalds or Taco Bell or KFC, to fine dining experiences.

And movies and serial entertainment will be the same. Amazon has released its cheaper, ad-supported Kindle (on the home page and screen savers) because that is the wave of the future. Eventually the devices will be even cheaper.

The business model that supports Cameron's every ten years epic is slipping away. People would rather watch on even a non-High Def TV through Netflix or some other service, for a very modest fee, than pay expensive prices for movies. And withdrawal from public spaces is part of the fruit, the harvest of diversity. Robert Putnam's Harvard Study confirms, that with more diversity, people go out to public spaces less. Who wants to go to movie theaters over-run by the equivalent of those who kicked in the head of Bryan Stow?

Cameron may make one more spectacle, and that's it. Movies are rapidly moving towards what happened in books and music. Cheap, ad supported content aimed at economically stressed consumers, who avoid public spaces like the free-fire zones (against vulnerable targets like Whites) they have become.
...Read more

Hunger City

In a stunning move indicating total incompetence, the USDA is considering cutting crop reports. The USDA crop reports and forecasts are important, because they reduce volatility in the agricultural commodities markets. Making beef, pork, chicken, corn, wheat, oranges, and everything made with them not subject to huge price fluctuations. This makes food prices stable in the US. Obama has decided this is a bad thing, and wants to re-introduce widespread hunger back to the US. You didn't think the First Black President wasn't going to cost, now did you? Along the lines of "you might want to think about a trade-in" to a citizen complaining about high gas prices, Obama is not even trying to provide any economic buffers or patronage beyond his core group of College Educated White voters. Part of that is incompetence. The other, his corrupt Chicago way, with no pretense at ever giving up office.


Men are what they are, in terms of experience, character, behavior, and more, by their late twenties certainly. Obama is what he is, and he's not going to change. Not going to moderate his behavior, move to the center, or do anything but double down on all the things that have been rewarded in his life: White-baiting, race-card playing, corrupt deal-making, and more.

The WSJ reports:


The U.S. Department of Agriculture may eliminate a range of crop reports watched by farmers, commodity traders and foreign buyers to gauge supplies coming from the world's largest grain producer.

An agency official confirmed the USDA may cut its weekly progress reports that track the development of corn, soybeans and other crops, among other possible cutbacks. Some form of cutbacks is a forgone conclusion, with department officials scheduled to meet Thursday to discuss a list of reductions, said Jacqueline Moore, head of the field crops section for the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, in an interview.

Driving the expected cuts in USDA data is a broad push in Congress to reduce government spending. Funding issues already have led the U.S. Census Bureau to announce it will stop publishing closely followed soybean processing data.

Less data from a government source could mean increased volatility in prices and greater power for the large grain companies that have a unique view of supply and demand most farmers, traders and analysts can't replicate. Prices for agricultural commodities have swung wildly in recent years, with corn surging more than a 100% since last summer to set record highs this week.

The crop progress report that is being considered for elimination gives details on planting rates, crop development and harvesting. The USDA also is looking at cutting back on its June crop report, which gives a clearer picture of how many acres farmers planted of various crops. It follows a March report that also gives plantings estimates.
For the June report, the USDA might curtail the amount of surveying it does to reduce costs, Ms. Moore said.

...

Still, Dan Basse, president of advisory firm AgResource Co. in Chicago, said the USDA reports provide vital data for a breadth of market participants. Without such reports, the market would revert "back to the 1970s, when three or four major grain companies had all the information, and the rest of us are on the outside looking in."

Mr. Basse and other analysts are lobbying the USDA not to cut the reports. He said in an interview that the USDA was considering cuts to a variety of other reports as well, including cattle, pigs and nuts.

Angry about high gas prices? The man chauffeured everywhere by the Secret Service says buy a new car. Let them buy Prius! Don't like high food prices? Maybe you're just too fat, a starvation diet would be good for you! No one should be surprised by this.

Obama has no experience with executive patronage. People expect results, out of executives. For coaches, its wins. Even the most respected and long-tenured coach can get canned when he does not produce wins (see Tennessee Titans ex-coach Jeff Fischer, formerly the lengthiest tenured NFL coach active). That requirement to produce results holds for mayors (low crime, good quality of life are musts), governors, and yes, Presidents. The President is expected to win wars as quickly and as decisively as possible, with as little loss of US life as can be managed. The President is expected to keep gas and food prices low, and job creation and wages high. Why? Because these more than any other affect the quality of life for Americans. Loss of a great many young men, even volunteers, leaves an aching void never filled for family and friends. Rising costs of living, and stagnant or worse job creation and wage increases mean regressing into poverty, and real hunger.

Obama does not know many ordinary White people. He is hostile, invariably, towards them, when he gets away from his teleprompter. Think Joe the Plumber, or Cambridge cops, or guys complaining about high gas prices. Obama further, acts like a wealthy Black rapper, ostentatiously displaying wealth, consumption, and glitz. Like Jay-Z touting Courvoisier or J Crew. This display goes over very well among Black audiences, whom Obama has courted his entire political career. It means "I made it, and I am more powerful than average Whites." It certainly is understandable for a group historically denied any real achievement, and before that enslaved. But the attitude of a Black rapper displaying his wealth and power compared to average Whites is not a fit one for a President. Yet Obama does that, constantly. Like let them buy Prius.

His action in cutting USDA crop reports and forecasts is typical pique. Certainly something you'd expect from Maxine Waters. But what works for Maxine Waters, or Jessie Jackson Jr., fails for a President still presiding over a White-majority America. Average White people don't like being both hungry and insulted by a Black Marie Antoinette.

Since when has Obama embraced budget-cutting? Shrinking government (besides Defense?) Cutting government jobs?

This is merely another fit of anger aimed at White voters. His people were warned, amply, and further government efforts to increase transparency are what Obama and his Congressional allies touted in Dodd-Frank regulation of financial companies and transactions. Considerable effort has gone into regulating specifically commodities trades, and contracts. Yet here, Obama and his people propose to make the market more volatile, more opaque, and more expensive to the end consumer who will be voting in 2012.

Already Obama has provided the Republican slogan: "You Might Want To Think About a Trade-in." He does not care.

If Obama can keep the margin to around, say 15% points, then he can cheat his way to victory. This is the guy who got elected first by using lawyers to disqualify his mentor from the ballot. Who used lawyers again to open up Rep. Ryan's divorce records, to reveal he wanted to go to swing clubs with then-wife, actress Jeri Ryan ("Seven of Nine" on Star Trek Voyager). Obama was making corrupt deals with then Gov. Blagoyevich even as he was President-Elect. Obama's house was paid for in a corrupt deal involving a former Saddam Hussein bagman. His political advisers include Rahm Emmanuel (current Mayor of Chicago) and the brother of the previous Mayor. Meanwhile Obama's entire being is wrapped up in being President. He can no more be an average person (his whining to the Press to the contrary) than Jay-Z wants to give up being famous and go work on ranch in Wyoming. Obama lives for giving big speeches with lots of applause and laughter, for celebrities fawning over him, for jetting around in Air Force One and riding in armored limos and Marine One. His wife's entire purpose is to be both the national scold (Chief of the Food Police) and Substitute Oprah. Taking glamor vacations every month on the taxpayer dime.

Obama doesn't plan to even attempt to produce favorable results for the American people. He doesn't know how, is uninterested in learning, and could not anyway learn enough to do anything significant. So he'll be more of what he was before he was President. All Presidents (even or especially Lincoln) are that way. Andrew Jackson was merely more ornery, FDR more social-engineering, grand-alliance building, JFK more skirt chasing (see Clinton, William Jefferson). Carter was more of a Captain Bligh-esque bumbler with respect to people, LBJ more of a wheeler-dealer fixer, Nixon more a paranoid man uncomfortable in his own skin, and Obama is more Louis Farrakhan light. All the corruption and White-baiting, half the calories!

Think of this way. In what looks like a tough election battle, Obama chose to speak in front of Al Sharpton's National Action Network, to kick off his re-election campaign. Rather than say, announcing we are staying in Iraq and will be taking Iraqi oil now as payment for liberating Iraq (he's Obama, the Press will eat it up) to make oil cheap now! Obama has near unlimited range of action, given the press overt worship of him as a god that walks among us. Yet he's chosen Al Sharpton as his re-election opener.

Get ready for Hunger City.
...Read more

Will Obama Destroy Israel?

Longtime Obama advisor and hard-core lefty Samantha Power, who famously called for the Invasion of Israel to destroy the nation and install Hamas, has pushed the "R2P" concept ("Responsibility to Protect") civilian populations. That was the concept she pushed in order to get Obama to order the bombing of Libya (to "protect" the AQ-affiliated rebels against Obama). Her dreams may come true. The Arab League has demanded a no-fly zone over Gaza and Israel. For those not following it, Gazans have launched thousands of rockets at Israel from Gaza, and the Israelis unsurprisingly have responded with air strikes.


By Obama's own logic, the UN, the Arab League, and "R2P," the US "must" destroy Israel's air force to protect Gazans from the consequence of ... rocketing Israel (and launching anti-tank weapons at school buses, something forbidden by the Geneva Accords, and the UN, oh well never mind, they're just "Jews.") Obama probably is salivating at the opportunity to launch a series of air strikes against Israel as of this writing. It fits with his Muslim background, and also his African ethnocentricity. His hatred of White people, and no one is Whiter than Jews. Just ask noted "expert" Louis Farrakhan, a neighbor of Obama's who he calls "Minister Farrakhan" and a frequent guest at the White House.

Would this impact Obama's re-election strategy? Nope. It does not matter. Obama figures he only needs College Educated White women, plus non-Whites. That keeps things close enough so he can fraud the rest. Would that simply sink Obama with every other group of Whites? Sure. White Americans have an affinity for Israel. For the simple reason they see themselves as Jews, and identify with Zionism. After all, America was founded not in "diversity" but by Europeans, who could not stay in their own home countries. As America becomes increasingly non-White, and is destined to become non-White majority fairly rapidly, particularly among the young, support for Zionism only increases because those non-elite Whites identify. With an oppressed White people, battling those intent on exterminating them, and finding security only by strength of arms against a dysfunctional set of enemies who are profoundly non-Western.

A man who tells someone complaining about the high price of gas "You Might Want to Think About a Trade-in" (the new Republican campaign slogan) and "Let them buy Prius!" is not concerned with winning re-election. He figures, its in the bag. And the character of Barack Obama is not someone who will go the Clinton route, speechifying in front of rich audiences. He needs the adulation, the White House, the celebs bowing to him, and most importantly the ability to stick it to Whitey.

Farrakhan's warning to Obama over Libya ("Who the hell do you think you are?") is the only risk Obama is concerned about. He needs about 98% of Blacks to turn out and vote for him, to keep the totals close enough (around 15% points) to have the dead vote, throw out White votes, etc., in the usual Chicago way. Hey it worked for Kennedy, didn't it? That's why the New Black Panthers were set free. Why Eric Holder indignantly told Congress it was "an insult to my people" to assert Whites have civil rights.

Destroying Israel (sure to follow if their air force and tanks are destroyed) would make Obama's Black supporters deliriously happy, probably enough to forget their economic troubles for a moment. Farrakhan could be mollified too, his man Khadaffi is being allowed to stay after he rebuked Obama (note Farrakhan is the ONE PERSON who can criticize Obama without a White House response, or one from famously thin-skinned Obama). A make-up present would be the destruction of Israel.

As a bonus, Obama gets to make the US military, currently admired by the White population, hated by much of it. Nearly all Democrats, would be happy to defend the action. They are the party of Blacks and Hispanics, neither group known for their charity towards Jews (quite the reverse, both hate Jews). Samantha Power's steady advancement in the Democratic Party before Obama, working at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government as a professor, and married to Cass Sunstein, shows there really is no penalty in Democratic wonk-politics for anti-Israeli views wanting the destruction of Israel. Probably most Jews in the US, are so deeply assimilated (and basically debased Calvinists instead of Jews, viewing "Whiteness" as the original racial sin in a parody of Calvinist Christianity) they would not really object to even their cousins in Israel being annihilated. The Jewish population of America voted for Obama, knowing of his background and open hatred of Israel, Muslim heritage, and radical Palestinian pals like Rashid Khalidi, by the proportion of 70% over McCain.

Ironically (and to the chagrin of paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanon) most White Americans like Israel more than most American Jews, who find Israelis existence an embarrassing relative they wished would go away. From Michael Chabon, to Sarah Silverman, most famous Jews in entertainment would prefer that Israel not exist, no matter how bloody. Because all the fashionable people prefer it, and because of "Original Racial Sin." [US Jews have become so assimilated they've adopted debased New England Puritanism.]

This does not make Israel's destruction on Obama's order a done deal. But Obama is not even trying to get re-elected the old fashioned way. Rather, he's planning openly to cheat. The Media fell all over itself to support his Libyan disaster. Republicans foiled his hopes of painting them as "un-patriotic" by largely staying silent on the folly of the Libyan Time Limited, Scope Limited, Kinetic Military Action. Destroying Israel would be opposed by the Republican Party, because their base likes Israel and Jews (Fox News has many commercials for some charity that touts its aid to elderly Russian Jews). Opposing the destruction of Israel over "R2P" orders from the Arab League and the UN (the same criteria Powers pushed Obama on with respect to Libya) would allow Obama to position Republicans as "unpatriotic."

I don't think anyone understands Obama. He's completely alien to our way of life, thinking, and heritage. He grew up Muslim in Indonesia. He drank deeply of hatred of Whites, America, and Western Civilization. Obama is worshiped openly by the Media as a living God, and worse, believes it. He's basked in adulation for being "brilliant" all his life. He is perfectly capable of ordering a no-fly zone which would result in Israel's destruction, and basking in the glory by the Muslim world and among his core constituents.

It would not surprise me at all to see Obama order a no-fly zone, and destruction of Israel's air and tank forces to "protect" Gaza and make sure Hamas takes over Israel (and massacres every Israeli they can find).
...Read more

Obama Still Holds (Some) White Women

National Journal's Ron Brownstein has a story on a new poll out showing that Obama still has a considerable hold on educated White women. The Pew Poll, surveying 1,500 adults from March 30 to April 3, had Obama losing support among younger White voters. Obama is doing poorly with College educated White men, only 38% of them approved of Obama (down from 42% in 2008). Meanwhile, 56% of College educated White women approved of Obama (as opposed to 52% in 2008), a gender gap of 18%! Obama actually improved among College educated White women, from the 43% who backed Democratic candidates for the House in 2010. [College educated White women, Brownstein reports, provided substantially more support for SENATE races in Colorado, California, and Wisconsin.] Obama still holds some White women. The implications are that he will do everything to hold them.


Among the so-called "Waitress moms," White women without a College education supported Obama by only 34% (down from 41% in 2008). White men without a College education supported Obama by only 35%, down from 39% in 2008. This despite heavy union mobilization. Obama has only 38% approval among White seniors, and 35% from those 50-64 (the most likely voting bloc). Obama is only at 40% among Whites 30-49. Only 41% of Whites under 30 approved of Obama's performance (in 2008 it was 54%).

Obama then, has to either win these groups back (unlikely) or bet it all on educated White women and non-Whites. But the question is, why are White college educated women the only significant White group to not just retain, but slightly increase approval for Obama?

The answer has to do with how educated White women function in America, both economically and culturally.

Economically, educated White women are pressed as much as anyone else with static wages and increasing prices. But they face less wage erosion, being concentrated more in government, education, corporate finance, human resources, advertising, marketing, and the like. These are all areas where H1-B competition, outsourcing, and the like play far more limited roles than in engineering, computer science/programming, and the like. Also, College educated White women are somewhat protected by Affirmative Action. They can always allege discrimination and/or sexual harassment. Therefore when making firing decisions, College educated White women will be kept while College educated White men are fired, to the greatest extent possible. Of course, this protection is limited compared to non-Whites, but College educated White women do enjoy a whole set of advantages that Democrats and Obama are committed to preserving and indeed, expanding.

Obama has increased the size and scope of government, offering many opportunities for College Educated White women to find profitable employment, regulating fast food, Happy Meals, light bulbs, internet content, and the like. Support for him among this group is natural. Increased illegal immigration, is also a plus for College educated White women. Cheaper nannies, housekeepers, and the like are a plus. As is a shift away from "icky" Defense spending (think Michael Douglas in "Falling Down" with the glasses) that favors nerdy engineers, never sexy, to "important" things like saving the Delta Smelt. The National Organization of Women famously got Obama to shift his infrastructure spending away from burly White guys with shovels into social spending on education, welfare, and government, favoring ... College educated White women.


But culturally, College Educated White women are among the most hyper-liberal groups in existence. This is because they function in a fairly closed, feminine-dominated social setting, among elite power centers in DC, New York, and Los Angeles, with a smaller outcropping in satellite cities such as Seattle, Chicago, and the like. This site showing college degrees is illustrative. Women are more concentrated in major metro areas than men. More than men, College educated White women must get social approval, for advancement or even retaining their positions, given the non-performance nature of their jobs. A regulator or position paper writer is judged basically by the strength of their social network, not a direct count of money they brought in (as a salesman might). This makes agreeing with elite opinion the safest and most productive route for career advancement in such professions.

But College educated White women are also in direct competition with College Educated White men, and find few of their competitive peers sexy or attractive. This colors their culture, and thus their political choices. Everything from "the Vampire Diaries" to "Gossip Girl" to "Twilight" to "Sex and the City" screams of competition from seriously unsexy, White men. And the desire to push down these competitors (with no worries, they are not sexy anyway) so that College Educated White women can move up. Women are generally risk averse (there are relatively few female entrepreneurs) and removing the competition is culturally a better fit than taking on a wild risk by growth through any means. Better thus to reduce oil drilling in the Gulf (as Obama has done) while not admitting it directly, and simply improve the lot of College educated White women by firing White male defense workers. Everyone wins!

Delayed marriage, makes this attitude even stronger. A woman married to and depending on a man for significant amounts of family income (to support Junior's piano lessons sure to get him into Harvard for example) will reliably vote her economic interest. Hubby probably is not sexy (and neither is she but female-oriented culture tells her she is) but he assures her kid has a better chance of getting into Harvard. Thus her own reproductive success, long term. Delayed marriage means fewer kids, and more child-less couples. Or even, divorce if the woman simply could not stand the husband's lack of sexiness, before the recession, or if there are no kids. No kids equals no role for a sexless but reliable husband. Re-orienting Western societies to cater to women's demands for sexy men has had serious consequences. Among them, the seemingly innate liberalism of College educated White women.

This cannot be emphasized enough. Non-College educated White women disapprove of Obama relative to their College educated peers, by about 22% points [56% for the College women vs. only 34% for "waitress moms."] College and non-College White women alike crave sexy men. College and non-College White women alike find most of their male contemporaries unsexy. Marriage and divorce rates, and illegitimacy rates, suggest that College educated women live personally more conservative lives (though this may change over time as the current College-attending hookup-culture cohort enters the workforce), with fewer illegitimate children, fewer divorces, and higher rates of marriage, than their non-college educated White female peers. Why then the preference for hyper-liberal Obama? And Dems generally?

Because non-College educated White women cannot afford to play to their desires for sexy men, and find no real competition for jobs among their male peers. Meanwhile, they have groceries to pay. Obama has not made non-College educated White women the object of sustained patronage. They remain on the outside of the government expansion bubble, the stimulus, and so on. These women are not preparing or evaluating lengthy studies of the effects of global warming on the Bay Area salt water pocket mouse. They are hit hard by rising gas, grocery, and electricity prices. They have no payoff for voting Obama, since their peers are not competing with them to fill the same jobs. Rather, the blue collar men inhabit entirely different classes of jobs.

Social welfare would seem to loom large for blue collar, non-College educated White women. But "no Whites need apply" policies that exclude working White women (the vast majority of non-College educated White women) to provide maximum patronage to the Hispanic and Black (and to an extent, Asian) populations works to create no real incentives for this class of women. Generally little aid is provided for them. School lunch programs, for example, benefit illegal aliens who declare no income, but discriminate against White working women with actual, real tax returns.

Let us be clear, the success of Obama and Democrats with White women stems directly from the patronage they offer, in the job sphere, and the social pressures therein to advance. In other words, its all about the money. It usually is.

Obama and his political team likely know quite well they won't be winning back those Whites who have deserted them. White seniors, White men (both College and non-College educated), and non-College educated White women are likely far beyond his grasp. Obama's likely strategy to get re-elected is to keep as much of his coalition of Educated White women, and non-Whites as possible. To do this, he must increase his patronage, considerably, and do it by those who won't be voting for him anyway: White men!

This means cutting Defense spending, to push more social work, make-work government paper pushing and studies, and education. All dominated by the College educated White women bloc. It means more Affirmative Action, and more Big Man posturing. More celebrities, more glamor events, more pushing the Obama's as America's First Rockstar family. To create a social atmosphere where College Educated White women would rather be seen with a Beta Male by their girlfriends than not support Obama. Since support for Obama is tied directly to their prospects. Coupled with of course direct patronage.

This is why Obama spoke at Al Sharpton's National Action Network, and why he rejiggered his stimulus plan to favor College Educated White women. It is why Obama has "hispandered" pushing amnesty and open borders, and more, in front of Latino groups. Obama plans to get close enough, then cheat. It worked for JFK. With Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago, surely a few hundred thousand dead can rise to vote for Obama!

Will this work? Anything is possible. Non-Whites are likely to turn out in the same numbers, and vote for Obama. All he needs is enough Whites to tip the scales to cheat if it is close. The only question is if College Educated White women can be peeled off by direct appeals to their economic interests, i.e. gas prices at the pump every week. They buy gas too. A successful Republican will make the argument that their jobs will be gone, in favor of non-Whites, as the PC/Diversity hierarchy works out in government layoffs, and that the only way to keep their jobs is to vote Republican.

This implies, by the way, that the Paul Ryan/Chris Christie/Paul Walker "shrink government" strategy is a LOSER. A loser because it will simply push College Educated White women (who mostly work in government or know friends who do) to vote for Obama. Rather, the group must be made to fear that Obama will simply result in their being laid off to preserve the jobs of non-Whites (they understand the Diversity hierarchy very well, using it effectively themselves). While a Republican will "save their jobs" by growing the economy by reducing gas prices.

Donald Trump's call to simply take Iraqi oil fields is canny. Most White voters would support it (it could directly lower gas prices) and it could be sold as a government saving job move that Obama could not answer. All those nervous College Educated White women looking at Wisconsin and New Jersey moves could be easily sold on $2 a gallon gas saves their job.







...Read more

Viva Los Dodgers: Hispanicization and Culture

Diversity has its price. Giants fan Bryan Stow was beaten by two Latino gang members, in the parking lot of Dodger Stadium, on Opening Day. He remains in a coma in critical condition with permanent brain damage, if he survives. Stow, a paramedic, had saved for over a year to attend Opening Day at Dodger Stadium. Dodger Stadium, under the original owners, the O'Malleys, was the jewel of West Coast ballparks. Clean, orderly, affordable, and filled with middle class White baseball fans as late as the mid 1990's, with little advertising plastered around the stadium, Dodger Stadium was representative of "old Los Angeles." Staid, White, and very middle class. Now, Dodger Stadium is a gang-filled war-zone, considered by fans to be more dangerous than attending an Oakland Raiders game in Oakland. In part this transition was understandable, but the Hispanicization of America will not turn out to be Brazil or Mexico. Something more akin to the Balkans is in the works, and in particular entertainment will be the first casualty of this Hispanicization. Everyone in media and entertainment will have to adjust to radically different shifts (and less money) as culture finally reflects the undeniable changes adding half the population of Mexico has wrought.


A short history of the Dodgers. There have been many owners, but the O'Malley family (the owners who moved the Dodgers West from Brooklyn in 1958) has been the most famous group of owners. From 1950 till 1998, when the team was sold to Fox Group/News Corp. for $311 million, the O'Malleys ran the Dodgers as, well a family oriented, White middle class baseball tradition. During the Fox Ownership era, from 1998 to 2004, investment in the Dodgers declined, and the stadium was filled with ads on every available surface. Fox was so desperate to unload the Dodgers that they loaned $145 million. McCourt is estimated to be $430 million in debt, according to CBS Sports, and the Dodgers have marketed heavily towards the Latino market, and the young Latino (read: gang member) segment inside Latinos generally.

2010 saw "Viva Los Dodgers with celebrations of Hispanic Heritage.


In addition to Viva Los Dodgers Day, the Dodgers will celebrate the Hispanic community throughout the 2010 season: Cinco de Mayo (May 5), Dodgertown Venezuela (May 25), Dodgertown Cuba (June 6), Dodgertown Fernando Valley celebrating Dodger Legend Fernando Valenzuela (June 13), Dodgertown Puerto Rico (July 25), Dodgertown Dominican Republic (September 5), Dodgertown Mexico (September 19), and the 13th annual La Gran Fiesta Viva Los Dodgers festival (September 19).

Since 1958, the Dodgers have championed Hispanic market outreach. More than 40 percent of Dodger fans are of Hispanic descent and more than 7 million Hispanics call Los Angeles home. Each season the Dodgers attract more than 1 million Hispanic fans. Fifty-two years ago, the Dodgers instituted the first and now longest-running Spanish language radio broadcast. Currently it runs on KHJ/LA Ranchera 930 AM and features Hall of Famer Jaime Jarrín, Pepe Yñiguez and Dodger legend Fernando Valenzuela.

Doyer Dogs (so named for the Mexican pronunciation of "Dodger Dogs") catering to Latino fans are a new addition to ballpark fare. All in all, the Dodgers have been quite successful in attracting lots of Latino fans.

In part this is necessity. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, in 1960 Whites were 80% of the population, now only 40%. From 2000, to 2010, Whites declined to 40% from 47%. Meanwhile Hispanics make up 38% of the population. Hispanics are surging in number in California, while Whites are fleeing.

This is significant, because as the Freakonomics blog points out, Baseball is not the NFL. Whereas 80% of NFL revenue is shared among the owners, less than 25% of MLB revenue is shared among baseball team owners. Team revenue depends not upon national TV contracts, mostly, but local attendance, local TV deals, and local team luxury boxes.

As such, about 80 percent of the nearly $7 billion of the N.F.L.’s annual revenues are divided evenly among all 32 teams. Before the New York Giants or Kansas City Chiefs ever play a game, they’re each entitled to about $150 million in annual revenue. According to a Forbes estimate, all but one N.F.L. team brought in between $182 and $255 million in 2006 (only the Redskins exceeded $300 million). With the Jets and Giants in the middle of the pack, earning less revenue than Tampa Bay, Carolina, or Denver, it is clear that market size has little impact on the revenue base of an N.F.L. club.

By contrast, an M.L.B. team is essentially a local business. Less than 25 percent of all revenues are distributed evenly among the 30 teams. More than three-quarters of the $6 billion in annual revenues are earned and kept at the local level, with a disproportionate share going to teams in large markets with strong team brands and greater on-field success. Unlike the stable, “money-in-the-bank” revenues of an N.F.L. team, the primary revenues of a baseball team – attendance, ticket price increases, luxury suite rentals, and local broadcast ratings and subsequent rights fees — can rise and fall with winning and losing seasons. (I discuss these nuances in depth in my book, Diamond Dollars.) I’d estimate the 2007 Yankees generated nearly $400 million in annual revenue, while the Tampa Bay Devil Rays barely generated $100 million.

We need only to look at broadcast ratings of the two leagues’ respective championships to underscore this local-national dichotomy between baseball and football. The Super Bowl’s broadcast ratings have virtually no connection to the participating teams, while World Series ratings rise and fall with the size of the market of the N.L. and A.L. champs. Whereas both leagues have seen solid appreciation in franchise values in recent years, the lower variability associated with N.F.L. revenues and costs yield a more favorable risk adjusted return than the up-and-down fortunes of an M.L.B. owner.

Under first Fox, and then Frank McCourt, the Dodgers were hammered, revenue-wise, by the demographic tide hitting Los Angeles. White, middle class fans were leaving. Those entering Los Angeles and largely replacing them, were mostly working class or lower Mexican immigrants. Desperate to keep up revenues, and likely blinded by PC nostrums, the Dodgers made an appeal to the Latino community, over and above what the O'Malleys had done. The appeal to Latino fans was amplified by what amounted to, ethnic cleansing of Whites by Latinos. Not by armed Balkan militias, grim men with AK-47s, but the relentless tide of illegal immigration making Los Angeles a very pricey place to live a middle class lifestyle.

What is notable about LA, is how little cross-cultural adoption has occurred between the declining White population and the surging Mexican one. Hip neighborhoods remain the same as in the 1980s: Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, and parts of Venice. Gentrification even of places like Echo Park are now fading away, as the real estate bubble turned to dust, and Echo Park has come under gang-related assault. Meanwhile, despite the huge population of Mexican immigrants, Los Angeles film-makers and writers live in a separate cultural universe. There are more famous Spanish film-makers working in Hollywood than Mexican ones. Steve Sailer noted that in popular music, Mexican influence seems to have peaked with Los Lobos in the 1980s. Mexican culture remains, for the most part, relentlessly lower class. Cock fighting has become a major problem in Southern California. Shows such as "Sabado Gigante" not Spanish language versions of "Nurse Jackie" are popular among Hispanic audiences.

The Hispanic fan base that the LA Dodgers transitioned to from the late 1990s to today, is radically different from the old, White middle class fans the Dodgers used to draw. They are significantly lower income, far more inclined to fight, and tend towards harassment of anyone deemed "weak." Bryan Stow texted his wife that he was afraid in Dodger Stadium. Stow, a fit paramedic, did not use that term lightly. Hispanic fans, particularly older ones complaining about abusive behavior, have been attacked in the same pattern: security did nothing, and the abusive fans, young with gang tattoos and attire, follow the complainers out to the parking lot where they are beaten. One unfortunate elderly Latino man, suffering from leukemia, was attacked in this manner. His leg was broken, and never healed, requiring amputation. The assailants were never arrested. Callers to local radio stations covering the story report that women, children, the elderly, and especially White fans are routinely harassed, and sometimes beaten, in the parking lots. [Anti-White racial slurs shouted by groups of Latino men at any White fan foolish enough to sit in most seats save the field level were reported as routine, and something security did nothing about.]

Stow himself was visiting with friends, fellow firemen, all fit and tall. They tried to save him, to no avail. Stow was hit from behind, in the head, and pitched face first onto the pavement, likely unconscious. His friends tried to shield him with their bodies, throwing themselves in front of the two gang members (out of a crowd of nearly a dozen) who were kicking the prone, likely unconscious Stow in the head. I cannot emphasize how shocking this is, a fit, robust White man attacked and possibly killed, while with a group of friends. In Dodger Stadium!

All of this flowed inevitably from the changing demographics of Los Angeles County.

Fox had found that the Dodgers, far from being a sports-centered "synergy" that would add to the bottom line, was a drag on revenues. The corporation did something unheard of, they lent the buyer (McCourt) the money to purchase the team, they wanted to unload the Dodgers that much. Revenues were matched to the local fanbase. Which was in transition from a White, middle class population able to pay top dollar for tickets, and souvenirs, and food/beverage, to one largely unable and unwilling to pay anything close to top dollar. Advertising rates on local TV dropped, as the middle class population was replaced by one largely speaking Spanish, significantly poorer, and unwilling to watch much English language TV at any rate. Thus, local TV revenues were dropping. Demographic changes have consequences, the Dodgers unlike the Yankees, are in a revenue trap. The team's fanbase is essentially that of Tijuana, with the disposable income to match. No wonder McCourt did everything he could to court the Latino fanbase, hoping to make up in volume what he lost in every transaction. A fallacy common to those entranced by the "New Latino Dawn."

It is quite true that Hispanics are now an increasing part of the population. But, marketers and in particular, sports teams must realize that this population is and remains, generation after generation, significantly poorer than Whites. Which means less disposable income, meaning lower margins for everyone. The population growth of Latinos does not offset the revenue advantage of a declining White middle class. For example, Hispanics are major users of pre-paid cellphones, and often don't have bank accounts. Less than 25% of Mexicans in Mexico have bank accounts, so this is not surprising.

Or, put it this way. Yankee Stadium, with high prices (main level seating for a Monday, 7:05 start time against the White Sox, is running $150 per ticket plus a $10 convenience charge on the Yankees Website), can generate a lot more revenue from fans in the ballpark or watching at home, than can the Dodgers. The Dodgers charge $90 for an equivalent ticket (Loge Box) plus a $7.35 convenience fee. That amounts to about $62.65 for the equivalent (second row from the field, before first/third base) seat. Or nearly 70% on a per-game ticket basis for the equivalent seat. TV revenue is likely higher as well. New York City has become Whiter (and richer) while Los Angeles has become more Mexican and poorer.

This has profound implications. Major League Baseball is likely to collapse significantly, with a number of franchises in major Metro areas simply unable to draw a middle class fanbase needed to create winners. Meanwhile, supposedly "minor market" teams like the Seattle Mariners have the revenue potential to compete, as do the Washington Nationals (the DC area is also being gentrified, with Whites pushing out Blacks). Teams in places like Detroit, or even Miami, are likely doomed. Everyone can see Detroit's decline, but Miami lacks a middle class foundation for a long-term path to financial success. Unless baseball's owners embrace revenue sharing, teams in "diverse" (read: poorer, transitioning to majority non-White) areas are likely to suffer the harvest of replacing a middle class White population with one largely non-White and significantly poorer. Which is lower margin with the same high operating cost. Losing money, in simple terms.

Revenue-sharing sports like the NFL, apart from their thug issue, are better positioned to survive longer in their current form, because most of their revenue derives from a national TV audience, and is shared relatively equally, among teams. The NBA (with the Maloof family wanting to move from Latino majority Sacramento to Latino majority Anaheim), Major League Baseball has the same problem, while the NHL (a revenue sharing sports league) does not. College football, to a large degree, generates revenue from national TV audiences, not local ones.

And it is on the local level that cultural change will be felt first. The Dodgers are unlikely to be the only team to slide into irrelevancy and perhaps dissolution. The Angels, the Padres, the Arizona Diamondbacks, the Texas Rangers and Houston Astros, are all on a path to destruction, because of their fanbase demographic changes. It's All Over in Texas for Anglos, or so it goes.

The gang banger based thuggery that has driven the remaining Anglo fanbase in Los Angeles away from attending (along with high ticket prices) is the fruit of diversity. To Whites who were long-time fans of the team, diversity means in effect one more public institution they've been ethnically cleansed from. It is not likely to generate positive feelings or goodwill regarding the population shift. The same is true, in the end, for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, of Southern California, of the Western Hemisphere. Or the LA Lakers. Or the Clippers, Kings, and Ducks. Indeed the arc of the Anaheim Ducks, originally owned by Disney, and sold off when the team could not generate money, despite the synergy (of ABC-ESPN), goes directly to middle class Whites being replaced by poor Latinos. Who knew, poor people don't have much money?

This has happened with shopping malls (in Orange County, the Block and Mainplace come to mind). It is happening with baseball, and basketball teams. [Hockey has not appealed much to Latinos, rather the cleansing of the White fan base erodes ticket/food-drink revenue.] The "deal" offered the average White person is ... ethnic replacement and a whole lot of "no-go" areas and institutions that are "taken over" by a Mexican underclass. Accompanied by a relentless need to secure good housing in good (read: non-Minority) school districts. In the Los Angeles metro area, that requirement is quite expensive. LA being constrained by both mountains and the sea.

California is about $26 billion dollars in the red, with the current budget. Jerry Brown, the new governor, seeks to impose about $14 billion in new taxes, by referendum, and about $12 billion in cuts. Brown is basically asking an aging, ethnically cleansed out of Dodger Stadium (and elsewhere) White middle class to fund schools for Mexican kids, welfare for Mexican kids and their mothers, and so on. The spending won't be on people like the (bare) majority White taxpayer. The spending will be on people who've just put the boot on their proxy, a White paramedic who saved up for nearly a year to attend opening day at Dodger Stadium.

The tax revolt is about who pays, for whom. Coercive taxes are always evaded, and the legitimacy of government itself is in question once ethnic cleansing becomes routine. This is why, after being AWOL on the whole issue, for days, the LAPD has decided to swarm Dodger Stadium (and bill the Dodgers for the cost) during the next home stand. The issue is too explosive for those developers foolish enough to have sunk money into Downtown, which risks becoming a White no-go zone itself (as Lakers championship riots, almost exclusively Mexican, have shown). Some money can always be extracted from the remaining White population, but human nature and history suggests that any tax that can be evaded, will be evaded or minimized, if the taxpayers feel they are being victimized and targeted. Robert Putnam's work on diversity shows the results: an angry, isolated and distrustful populace that avoids anything to do with public life.

The Hispanicization of Dodger Stadium, has been accompanied by the cleansing of historically White communities by a tidal wave of Mexican immigrants. A "hunkering down" effect means a more tribal, "White Zionist" attitude among Whites both cleansed to other areas, and those remaining. This does NOT mean a White Supremacist, or White Nationalist attitude. Whites ethnically cleansed or remaining in areas that switched to Hispanic dominance (with former White public institutions like baseball teams or Universities) are NOT in the mood for cross burning or street fights. They merely wish to be left alone, are angry and resentful, see no meaningful place for themselves in society, and avoid any and all civic engagement. Volunteering in America ranks ultra-White Utah as the #1 volunteering State, and California #42. The top 15 states are all ultra-White. The bottom 15 all heavily non-White.

And culture, both sporting and entertainment, are part of public life. A White population subject to constant no-go areas, and relentlessly ethnically cleansed, is already exhibiting tribal behavior. In the 1980's, alternative music fans embraced groups like Los Lobos or artists Tish Hinojosa. Now alternative music is pretty much exclusively White, both ethnically and musically. Latinos might be the dominant ethnic group in California, but on TV and in movies, they are invisible. Even Black actors and actresses have found the largely White audience, indifferent. Black lead "Undercovers" on NBC was canceled, and "the Event" seems fated to follow. TV commercials seem to depict a 70% Black majority population (instead of the actual 12%), but then TV commercials are made not to sell products and services, but win advertising creators awards. Meanwhile Hollywood suffers fewer and fewer people buying tickets (and limited ability to charge premium prices to an increasingly poorer Latino audience wanting endless Fast and Furious sequels), and TV fewer and fewer viewers.

The "winners" are likely to be those sports that fully embrace a White tribal identity, a "Zionism for Gentiles." Beleaguered Whites are unlikely to embrace (save educated White women) non-White dominated institutions or mediums. The losers will be those sports that retain high operating costs while deluding themselves that they can make a profit based on lots of poor fans who are non-White coming through the turnstiles. The same is true for entertainment, particularly given the move away from communal spaces (where some Latino Gang member may decide to kick your head in, even if you are a fit and active 41 year old paramedic). Instead, diversity implies lonely consumption of video, and books, in electronic format. Social isolation is the fruit of diversity. As is tribalism and the longing for a "space of our own" articulated by Theodore Herzl. This process is likely to be organic, and although informed by inflection points, driven largely by interactions on the personal level, multiplied by a million. As Yogi Berra once pointed out, people don't wanna come out to the ballpark, how ya gonna stop em?

That doesn't mean a call to hatred, or even violence. Rather, the social landscape is likely to be smaller, more intense (where it exists in Whitopia, places like Seattle, or NYC, or New Hampshire) or moved away from public spaces entirely, which makes it incidentally free from the PC censors and pressures. Most White people take a dim view of being ethnically cleansed out of their own country, and the notion of collective racial punishment, for sins past. White people are likely to respond to a White fan getting his head kicked in by Latino Gang Bangers, because the fan was White, with a simple response. Not going to Dodger games, or even watching them. Even, abandoning baseball altogether. In favor of something else.
...Read more