Ruling majority underclass

Following the British riots (which have not exactly ended, but have diminished to merely routine levels of violence, robbery, and arson) the British Labor Party went trolling for looter and arsonist votes, while the conservative party tried to get the votes of those members of the underclass that were worried about being robbed or burned out of the homes – the parties acted as if taxpayer votes were irrelevant since they could be taken for granted, the objective was for the conservatives to split off enough underclass votes.

The ideology of entitlement is the orthodoxy in Britain. Those that work and operate businesses are supposedly bad people, so deserve to have their stuff taken and given to good people. The government is failing to adequately confiscate stuff, so supposedly it is understandable that the oppressed masses must rise up and do it themselves. The conservative party objects to this theory, but is not quite prepared to reject it altogether. Perhaps they are arguing that rioting, looting, and arson is wrong because the conservatives are doing a good enough job in taking money from the sinfully employed and giving it to the virtuously unemployed, but it is hard to tell what they are saying because their mouths are full of cotton wool

How big is the underclass?

British illegitimacy is 41%, and you can add to that exceeding brief marriages with last long enough only for the wife to get pregnant with her welfare entitlement and her claim on the husbands income as well as assets, so that she can set to screwing random thugs without the encumbrance of a husband. Not all underclass members are illegitimate, and not all illegitimate children and their mothers are underclass, but the groups are likely to be of very roughly comparable size.

Income and power, or lack thereof, is not an indicator of underclass status, for some welfare recipients get a lot of welfare. Consider Professor Lionel McIntyre, “professor” at the American Ivy League University of Columbia. He sucker punched a female colleague in a discussion of “white privilege”, giving her a black eye, and then punched out a male who politely remonstrated him. The bouncers did not throw him out. He did not lose his job. When he repeatedly failed to show up in court, the court hearing got repeatedly postponed. If you fail to show up, you will get a hefty sentence and warrant made out for your arrest – even if you failed to show up because they gave you the wrong hearing date. He was eventually sentenced to three days community service. His behavior demonstrates that though a well paid Ivy League professor, he was still underclass. Getting a “job” by affirmative action has the same detrimental effects on character as living on welfare, because affirmative action employees frequently do little or no work, seldom show up, and so on and so forth. Affirmative action is just a more generous welfare package. The same is true of much government employment. You don’t necessarily need to show up. Observe that those looters in the British riots that had jobs, had government jobs.

Interestingly, Professor Lionel McIntyre does not appear to give any classes at Columbia University. How is that for white privilege! Similarly, the British National Health, the nations largest employer, mostly employs people whose supposed jobs do not involve any form of patient contact. I suppose some of them do something, but I suspect that for most of them, their primary job is voting for more national health service.

Affirmative action employment, and government employment is, in large part, thinly disguised welfare and crime, and as a result the recipients frequently show underclass behavior and underclass attitudes, even though they get better welfare and commit more lucrative crime than most of the underclass.

Consider that in the US a very large proportion of female university students take “women’s studies” courses, and a very large proportion of black university students take “black studies” courses. In most cases they are taking on serious debt to go to university, so these courses are costing them serious debt without them learning anything useful. The implication is that they believe that they will get a job without being expected or required to produce value, that they will get an affirmative action pretend job – a better class of welfare, one that does not require them push their welfare tickets out of their bellies.

So what this adds up to is that if you are a British taxpayer, you are well and truly outvoted, and if you are an American taxpayer, you are outvoted and it is going to get worse. The state takes money from group A, and gives it to group B, and also favors group B in regulation and law enforcement. In the US, Professor McIntyre can punch a woman. You cannot. In Britain, the rioters can attack people, and you cannot defend yourself. The police and the courts and so forth are not on your side. They are on the side of the likes of Professor McIntyre, who, if he was in Britain, would probably be found helping himself to a free plasma television set while white professors teach classes.

The underclass has been legalized, and the middle class has been illegalized.

3 Responses to “Ruling majority underclass”

  1. […] Charmer does a nice job giving an overview. Jim also has related thoughts. So does […]

Leave a Reply