Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
White Males are US Majority, Says CIA-Trainee Blogger Conference
Share: 
by francislholland | August 17, 2009 at 04:13 pm
919 views | 0 Recommendations | 8 comments
Photos
Today, I received a Facebook message from a member of Young Democrats of America, reporting on her participation, and the "information" she received, at NetRoots Nation, an onstensibly "progressive," "liberal," "leftist" bloggers conference that was founded by Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas, the owner of DailyKos. (Moulitsas admitted in an audiotape, recorded at the Commonwealth Club on June 2, 2006, that he spent two years training at the US CIA offices in Washington simultaneous with starting his DailyKos Blog.)
The Facebook message says,
Research proves that women, Hispanics and African-Americans use mobile differently than the general population. This session is designed to engage participants in a discussion about mobile technology and how it can be best used to reach women and minorities. (Emphasis added.) Netroots Nation
Women = 51% of population
Blacks = 13% of population
Latinos = 15% of population
Total women, Blacks and Latinos = 79% of population
According to US Census QuickFacts, white non-Hispanic Americans constitute 66% of the population, while women within that group outnumber men. Therefore, white men cannot possibly constitue more than 33% of the US population. Indeed, If you add up the "minorities" specified in the message, you discover that together we comprise 79% of the United States population. We comprise and we are the "general population".
The above statistics aren't perfect because of overlap between women and minority populations, but the female population alone shows that white men are not the "general population." So who is the "general population" referred to in the study? Obviously it's white men, because they are the most prominent and relevant minority not included in the list of those who use the Internet differently.
Yet, when women alone constitute a majority in the United States, how can white men ever be referred to, logically, as "the general population"? The study's result would make much more sense demographically and statistically (studies are about science, right?) if the study announced,
"Research proves that white men use mobile differently than the general population".
Meanwhile, the only way the announcement as written can be interpreted is according to the premise that, although white men are perhaps 30% of the US population, they nonetheless are "the general population". The strategic advantage of trying to convince women and Latinos and Blacks of this errant nonsense is that it encourages us to try to act like white men instead of demanding that institutions craft themselves according to the habits of the female, Black and Latino majority.
Also, setting white men up as the reference group for effective networking is part of convincing the public that white men control the country because their professional behavior is more effective, and not because they endeavor to act like a political majority when they statistically are not. (See the assertion above that white men are the "general population".)
On what basis would that be true? Only according to the "white male supremacy" paradigm that holds that in a room of twenty people who are not white men, one white man constitutes a quorum and "the majority" and the "general population" simply because he is a white man and the others are not.
It's easy to see how one could go to Netroots Nation and end up feeling like a part of the minority, even when simply as a woman one is part of the majority, statistically, in the United States. Some white men, particularly Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga, who, by his own admission, was trained for two years by the CIA while starting his DailyKos blog, are masters of disinformation. They are arrogant people who believe and assert they white men will ALWAYS constitute a "majority" in the USA, even when their numbers shrink to 20% of the US population.
Their attitude is similar to that of the Afrikkaners during South African Apartheid, who insisted that only white opinion mattered in a country where whites were outnumbered by a factor of five to one. Only with an apartheid-like mentality a group of white men that constitutes 30% of the population nonetheless refer to themselves as "the general population". http://truth-about-kos.blogspot.com/2007/08/indictment-of-markos-ca-moulitsas-ziga.html
Don't get brainswashed by WhiteMaleRoots Nation, but instead read, "The Indictment of Markos C.A. Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA by Justice and History (Updated with Additional Information and Counts)" Their most basic statistics don't add up and tend to value white men while marginalizing others. God help us if they ever succeed in "Crashing the Gates" of the Democratic Party and declaring themselves the "general population" of the party's membership.
Advertisement
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (8)
at 17:15 on August 17th, 2009
Source: my.nowpublic.com
Francislholland: Sounds like a conspiracy to me, but I'm not quite sure who heads the conspiracy! Any thoughts on the matter? White folk, like me, are obviously not part of your "we", but we're willing to learn what it's like to be part of your "we". I hope that you can accept us as human beings someday! Believe it or nor, white folk are people too! In any event, thanks for your insight and your thoughts on what those that are not part of "we" have in their heart and soul . . . .
at 20:47 on August 17th, 2009
Rory, you don't need a conspiracy theory to understand that you cannot blithely exclude white women from the "general population" while including white men. On what basis would you make such a spurious decision?
The fact is that the study was premised on the basis that white men are "the general population", even though there is no basis in demographics or mathematics for that spurious premise. The opposite is true. If white men are doing something that no one else is doing -not even white women - then white men are diverging from the general population with respect to that behavior and are creating a minority behavior.
at 20:47 on August 17th, 2009
Rory, you don't need a conspiracy theory to understand that you cannot blithely exclude white women from the "general population" while including white men. On what basis would you make such a spurious decision?
The fact is that the study was premised on the basis that white men are "the general population", even though there is no basis in demographics or mathematics for that spurious premise. The opposite is true. If white men are doing something that no one else is doing -not even white women - then white men are diverging from the general population with respect to that behavior and are creating a minority behavior.
at 15:05 on August 18th, 2009
Rory, I didn't put white men into an "them" box. It was the study that did that by it's terms. By saying that white women, Blacks and Latinos use the Internet different that "the general population", they implicitly required us to ask ourselves, "If you disinclude all of those people from 'the general population,' then who is left?" Who does the study define as "the general population"?
Maybe they were referring to Asian people as "the general population" without saying so. But, considering that the Washington Post has visited this particular conference and concluded that the majority of participants are white men, I think it's safe to assume that "the general population" they were referring to was white men.
When ONE GROUPof white men (DailyKos white men) are so arrogant as to define themselves as "the general population", the fact that they are trying to "Crash the Gates" of the Democratic Party and bring make their brand of politics the Democratic Party brand is something that we all should be concerned about, including white male Democrats. Because if they ever succeed at marginalizating white women, Blacks and Latinos as they're language does today, it would doom the Democratic Party to the same sort of hinterlands that the Republicans are headed toward. It would neuter all of the gains that the Democrats are making by being the party of white women, Blacks and Latinos, without whom President Obama could have been elected and Democrats could not have won majority control of both houses of Congress.
So, this is no rant against white men in general. It's a targeted report on Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ) and his cohorts. Listen to this audiotape in which MAMZ acknowledges that he spent two years training to be a secret agent for the CIA.
The "study" revealed at the conference, and particularly the declaration that white women, Blacks and Latinos are NOT part of "the general population" smacks of the kind of disinformation and media manipulation for which the CIA is known. The CIA didn't spend two years training MAMZ for nothing.
at 17:30 on August 17th, 2009
at 20:56 on August 17th, 2009
If you take women, Blacks, Latinos and Asians and put them into one group, as the study did, it becomes apparent that white men would be listed much further down the list then they are on the above chart. Simply as between white women and white men, it has to be acknowedged that white women are the majority of white people, and so any characteristic that white women have as a group is inevitably more "generalized" than anything that white men do.
If every white man bought a new Toyota and every white woman bought a new Honda, the majority behavior as between those groups would be the purchase of new Toyota's,simply because there are more white women in the population than white men. This isn't a color-aroused or angry observation. It's a simple observation about the demographics of the United Staes. White men are NOT the majority, even as between white people, and white male behavior is NOT "the general population" behavior simply because white men do it. To believe that everything white men do is "general population behavior" simply on the basis is their white male gender and skin color, while ignoring actual demographics, is arrogant in the extreme.
at 23:58 on August 17th, 2009
You are mixing Apples with Oranges.
You can not put White Male in a separate group against All Woman with out taking White Woman into account as well.
Check the facts today the White Population of the US is the Majority and tomorrow it will most likely be the Hispanic population.
51% of the US are Woman and in other Countries it is even more. Only China has more Males then Woman today and this due to politics.
Further if you start up dividing up like this you have to count some twice, since their are of mix race, such as Obama, who is both White and Black Male.
at 20:43 on August 17th, 2009
When the "study" says that women use technology in a way that is different from the "general population", the study doesn't disinclude white women. Therefore, we have to assume that the study is disincluding the single largest demographic group in the country -white women- from what they consider to be "the general population".
On what basis do they decide that white women are not part of "the general population"? On what basis do the determine what white men ARE part of the general population but white women are not?
I'm not talking about conspiracies here. I'm talking about reading what their "study" says from the four corners of the document. Since demographically the study is nonsense, we have to wonder how they came to the illogical conclusion that white men are part of "the general population" while white women are not!
It's obvious that they are positing that white men's use of technology is the gold standard while everyone else's use of the technology is outside of "the general population."
That's like me saying Francis Holland is the best writer in "the general population" of the United States. However, the white women, white men, Blacks, Latinos, Asians and Native Americans have failed to adopt the attitude of "the general population," which is comprised entirely of ... Francis L. Holland.
I don't think you have to be a conspiracy theorist to assert that "the general population" has to include more than the 32% of America comprised of white men. General certainly means something "more than half", while the word "generalized" means existing everywhere, throughout the entire population. A "General" in the Army is responsible for all of his troops, not just 32% of them.
Here's how Merriam Webster's online dictionary defines then adjective "general," making quite clear that a 32% minority of white men cannot possibly be "the general population" of the United States, while disincluding white women, Latinos and Blacks from the same: