Revolt of the Country Class Part 1: Drawing the Battle Lines

A recent article in the American Spectator by Angelo Codevilla outlined the division in America between the ‘Ruling Class’ and the ‘Country Class’, which has already been discussed to some degree on this site.  The Ruling Class, which transcends party lines, was described thusly:

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government’s agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about “global warming” for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust.

Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct.

More on ‘Using the right words’ and ‘speaking the “in” language’, and how it serves not only as a badge of identity but is a key point in upward social movement is discussed in ‘The Tea Party vs. the Intellectuals’ by Lee Harris and my response ‘Breaking the Grip of the Jewish Intellectual Cultural Hegemony Machine’.  Learning to ‘use the right words’ might not even be enough if you’re from the wrong background.

A recent study found that whites from rural and lower income backgrounds have significantly lesser chances.  Not only are “white Christians and ethnic Catholics, though two-thirds of the U.S. population one-fourth of the student body,” but:

Though elite schools give points to applicants for extracurricular activities, especially for leadership roles and honors, writes Nieli, if you played a lead role in Future Farmers of America, the 4-H Clubs or junior ROTC, leave it off your resume or you may just be blackballed. “Excelling in these activities is ‘associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds on admissions.'”

As Kevin MacDonald points out, this is part of the vast overrepresentation of jews in elite universities, of the type that allow mediocre individuals such as Elena Kagan to rise to the top.  The jews set up a system which favors not only themselves, but the whites closest to them in culture and attitudes, which combines to form the ‘ruling class’.  ‘Country class’ whites need not apply.  Infiltrating the elite intellectual establishment to any significant degree seems nigh impossible.

Luckily, white people have a better idea: burn down the whole rotten apparatus.  Like the Germans bypassing the Maginot Line in WWII, white people are now ready to bypass the whole ‘elite establishment’ mind control machine.  I’ve frequently seen in recent comments in here that “it didn’t work for George Wallace, so it certainly won’t work now.”  Well, times have changed.  One longtime activist who I talked to recently was a supporter of Wallace and was with him within a day of him being shot, and told me that “the Tea Parties are more radical” than anything back then.  Not to mention, it’s more of a nationwide than regional phenomena, and the media is much harder to control these days than back then.

More from Codevilla:

Whereas in 1968 Governor George Wallace’s taunt “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference” between the Republican and Democratic parties resonated with only 13.5 percent of the American people, in 1992 Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency (at one point he was favored by 39 percent of Americans vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton) simply by speaking ill of the ruling class. Today, few speak well of the ruling class. Not only has it burgeoned in size and pretense, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans’ conviction that the ruling class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the right thing. The rest expect that it will do more harm than good and are no longer afraid to say so.


Who are these rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them? What sets our ruling class apart from the rest of us?

The most widespread answers — by such as the Times’s Thomas Friedman and David Brooks — are schlock sociology. Supposedly, modern society became so complex and productive, the technical skills to run it so rare, that it called forth a new class of highly educated officials and cooperators in an ever less private sector. Similarly fanciful is Edward Goldberg’s notion that America is now ruled by a “newocracy”: a “new aristocracy who are the true beneficiaries of globalization — including the multinational manager, the technologist and the aspirational members of the meritocracy.” In fact, our ruling class grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its connection with ever bigger government, and above all by a certain attitude.

Our old jewish friends Friedman and Brooks from the NY Times, plus this Goldberg haughtily informing us that we are now ruled by a ‘new aristocracy’.  Pages 2-4 of this article contain an excellent description of this ‘ruling class’, much of which we already know to some degree, but is still worth the read.

Now, for the Good Guys: what Codevilla describes as the ‘Country Class’.  He’s a bit off the mark, describing everything in terms of ‘Christianity’, whereas we all know that this ‘Country Class’ consists of ordinary white people.  The blacks and Hispanics would be completely lost without their civil service jobs and welfare, which is why nearly all blacks and the vast majority of Hispanics support this ‘ruling class’.  This, of course, is why the ‘ruling class’ wants to bring more of them into not just the U.S., but all western countries.

The one spot where this racial blindness makes him hit off the mark the most is when he says that “This class also takes part in the U.S. armed forces body and soul: nearly all the enlisted, non-commissioned officers and officers under flag rank belong to this class in every measurable way.”  The military now pays more than private jobs of the same skill level, not to mention the benefits and full pension after 20 years.  Not to mention, the military is a jobs program for blacks, especially black middle/upper class.  Whereas the average family income of white enlistees is below the white average, the average family income of the average black enlistee is above the black average.  These people will likely resist any removal of the ‘ruling class’, and as we’ve seen in North Korea, ruling classes tend to indulge their militaries until the bitter end.

This ‘Country Class’ has its own culture, which we tend to call ‘American’, or better yet ‘real Americans’.  It’s commonly been alleged that ‘conservatives are losing because they don’t challenge liberals on an intellectual and cultural level’, as well as similar allegations regarding white nationalism specifically on this site.  I’ve always been highly skeptical of this argument, and Codevilla describes, it simply isn’t true: ordinary white folks have built their own culture outside Hollywood and broadcast TV:

Some parts of the country class now follow the stars and the music out of Nashville, Tennessee, and Branson, Missouri — entertainment complexes larger than Hollywood’s — because since the 1970s most of Hollywood’s products have appealed more to the mores of the ruling class and its underclass clients than to those of large percentages of Americans. The same goes for “popular music” and television. For some in the country class Christian radio and TV are the lodestone of sociopolitical taste, while the very secular Fox News serves the same purpose for others. While symphonies and opera houses around the country, as well as the stations that broadcast them, are firmly in the ruling class’s hands, a considerable part of the country class appreciates these things for their own sake. By that very token, the country class’s characteristic cultural venture — the homeschool movement — stresses the classics across the board in science, literature, music, and history even as the ruling class abandons them.

Although these are not ‘explicitly white’, they generally fall into the ‘implicitly white’ category.  Also, white Nationalists have also have developed our own cultures.  There was the friendly neighborhood Klan we met deep in the mountains of southwest Virginia.  There’s the skinhead punk, Hatecore, and NSBM music scenes; Christian Identity and Folkish Heathenism.  Sites like Facebook and NewSaxon allow us to connect with fellow nationalists from all over the world, not to mention the joy everyone derives from this site.  We’ve even got our own comedy shows.

This country class is where the ‘Tea Party’ comes from.  They have noticeably healthier racial attitudes:

Those who embrace the Tea Party movement are much less likely than others to see discrimination as a threat to the nation’s future and a hurdle for minorities. More than three in four say racial minorities have equal job opportunities; only half of non-Tea Party supporters agree. They overwhelmingly reject the notion that economic disparities between blacks and whites are mainly the result of discrimination.

Nearly half say blacks lag in jobs, income and housing “because most African-Americans just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty.” Only one-third of non-supporters agree.

And Tea Party supporters are much less sympathetic than others to illegal immigrants. By 4-to-1, they say illegal immigrants in the long run cost taxpayers too much by using government services rather than becoming productive citizens. That view is hardly out of the mainstream, though — it’s also held by 52% of non-Tea Party supporters.

“The Tea Party (gatherings) are not some radical meetings; it’s just average folks,” says Tim Brazil, 54, a small-business owner from Chesterfield County, Va., who has attended several local meetings. He says Tea Party members are agitated about the way things are going in the country, and for good reason: “Washington doesn’t hear us, and the Tea Party is waking them up.”

Ready to Rumble

Better yet, they’re not just going along with some intellectual nonsense supplied by the ruling class, and they’re on to the fact that the GOP bigwigs are part of the ‘ruling class’

Even so, the movement is less a party than an anti-party, with no clear consensus about whom its national leaders are and a generally dyspeptic view of organized political power.

“It’s a party opposed to the idea of parties,” says Jill Lepore, a Harvard historian whose book about the movement, The Whites of Their Eyes, is scheduled to be published in October. The Tea Party reminds her more of a religious revival than a political movement. She compares it to the Second Great Awakening in the 1830s, a religious resurgence that helped fuel temperance and abolitionism.

… And she’s not enamored with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who is a hero to some in the movement. “I don’t like her folksy sayings,” Jones says. “She’s just a politician like the rest of them.”

Former House Majority leader Dick Armey, who describes himself and his group FreedomWorks as “mentors” for the movement, calls the lack of a centralized structure a defining characteristic and an asset. “It is baffling to the left because it’s a group of people who are not centrally organized,” the former Texas congressman says, chortling. “There is nobody running the Tea Party movement.”

Jim Sagray, 63, a retired high school science teacher from Roseville, Calif., and Tea Party supporter, agrees.

“I don’t believe there are any real Tea Party leaders; I don’t believe there’s any real national leadership,” he says. “It’s largely just independent groups fed up with how things are going in our nation.”

Armey calls them “the biggest swing movement on the field.”

The growing conservatism hasn’t rebounded to the benefit of the Republican Party, however: 28% of Americans identified themselves as Republicans in 2008; 28% do so now. In 2004, the year Bush was re-elected president, 34% did.

Some Tea Party supporters who might have moved back toward the GOP express disappointment with Bush’s backing of the Wall Street bailout and Medicare prescription-drug initiative. They describe those as just more big-government programs that blurred the differences between the two major parties.

“Basically, Democrats and Republicans are screwed up, and the Tea Party is the only group that has their act together,” says Greg White, 23, an Army soldier from Ashburn, Ga. “Democrats are trying to be Socialist, and the Republicans aren’t far off.”

“The Tea Party is trying to change the country around because the Republicans and Democrats — I don’t think anyone knows what they’re doing in Washington anymore,” says Ed Bradley, 54, a retired police officer and judge from Lebanon, Ind.. “The Tea Party is trying to change this country to what it used to be.”

Where do White Nationalist fit within the greater ‘Country Class’ rubric, and what do we do about this information?  Can we prevent healthy attitudes from once again being hijacked by elites?  To be continued in the next episode.


  1. The hijacking of the culture was a one-off thing that happened post WWII, owing to a massive hike in prosperity. They won’t be able to pull that off again.

    The culture of revolt is here to stay, because economic decline is here to stay. People were bribed to turn a blind eye to degeneracy. Now it will be the opposite of a bribe — just as we had a high tide of hallucinated prosperity, now we are going to have a low tide of real poverty.

    This is forcing the opposite of “turning a blind eye,” namely, scrutiny and introspection. By the way, Rush Limbaugh is talking about the Codevilla article constantly, and he know uses the terms “country class” and “ruling class.” We can use those terms now too, as “code”

    “Well, most of the ruling class have dual citizenship with other countries . . . like Israel. A lot of them are dual citizen Israelis, like Rahm Emanuel, who actually enlisted in the Israeli defense forces during the first Gulf War, instead of the US military. The ruling class has no loyalty to this country, and never did, for example, did you ever hear of the attack on the USS Liberty?”

    As for what do we do? I say we try to find how to make a living in post-America doing something resilient and sustainable, where we do not answer to anyone but ourselves. Something that puts us out among the People of the Country Class, where we can speak freely, and they can too.

  2. As for the military being a jobs program for blacks and browns, which service? The NatGeo channel had a hour long documentary of two Marine outfits, and honestly America has not had such a white expeditionary force since the Corps of Discovery.

    Secondly more than half the blacks in this country are mentally unfit to join and at least half the browns as well are unfit in the IQ dept..

    As for the ruling class, my best guess is that their pool of talent is very shallow since the ones I run across have the mentality of a college aged student who never, ever will grow up.

  3. The phrase “the country class” is an excellent one. It matches how we have long identified our adversaries (enemies by ethnicity and by treason) with the phrase “the urban-coastal class.” It actually makes a great deal of sense.

  4. Our old jewish friends Friedman and Brooks from the NY Times, plus this Goldberg haughtily informing us that we are now ruled by a ‘new aristocracy’. Pages 2-4 of this article contain an excellent description of this ‘ruling class’, much of which we already know to some degree, but is still worth the read.

    Um, yes, and this is why “HBD’rs” and “race realists” so vituperatively and incessantly push the meme of a supposed Jewish “brilliance” — so as to “justify” their domination of this ‘ruling class’ and ‘new aristocracy’.

  5. H. Rock White: “I’ve frequently seen in recent comments in here that “it didn’t work for George Wallace, so it certainly won’t work now.” Well, times have changed.”

    I’ve been the main commenter making the Wallace point lately, so I’ll respond. You are misunderstanding the position. The point isn’t that white resistance “won’t work now,” the point is that we can’t repeat the mistakes of the past. The problem with all of the white energy of the Wallace era is that it was misdirected. It did not seek to create our own land or break free of the System. It sought to resist the System, that much is true, but ultimately to work within it and accept its legitimacy. This was a critical error. The result was that all of that energy was wasted, and not a single enduring victory was achieved. In 2010, it’s obvious that we lost on every singe point, which is pretty amazing.

    It is our job to make sure that the next cycle of “white energy” is not misdirected. It must be animated by a true revolutionary spirit, and possess a worldview capable of replacing the Leftist, anti-white paradigm. Our struggle must manifest itself at all levels, the spiritual, economic, intellectual, cultural, physical. The white resistance of the 50’s and 60’s, impressive though it was in many respects, ultimately lacked breadth and depth. It lacked a compelling worldview that could have seen it through to an enduring victory. It tended to be anti-intellectual, for example, completely ceding the world of ideas (and control of academe) to the Left. If the last few decades haven’t confirmed what a disaster ceding that field turned out to be, I don’t know what would. That much should be obvious, but apparently it’s not.

    We must have our own land and control our own institutions. Nothing less will do. The earlier outburst of white resistance did not understand this, it lacked intellectual and spiritual leadership, and so it was defeated – utterly.

    Today, many bemoan the degeneracy or whites and their unwillingness to stand against their own dispossession. I admit, it is a truly disturbing thing to witness. However, unlike during the 50’s and 60’s, the System has been massively bleeding legitimacy. It commands nothing near the respect that it once did, and this results in a tremendous opportunity for a revolutionary movement. Tremendous opportunity. So that’s it in a nutshell: whites have deteriorated, but so has the System (in certain critical respects, though it has grown more powerful in others). Perhaps, figuratively speaking, it will come down to the last battalion left standing. We deteriorate, but the System deteriorates even faster, that sort of thing. We’ll see.

    I’m more optimistic than ever before. We are clearly going to get another bite at the apple, but it will perhaps be our last. Let’s make it count this time. The errors of the past are clear, there is absolutely no reason to repeat them.

  6. Man, the great work just keeps on coming from OD’s staple of talented writers. Good job.

    Like I said the other day, despite a few minor (in my mind) problems, Codevilla’s piece is highly subversive stuff packed with penetrating insights and valuable information for our cause.

    Codevilla is an example of a real intellectual, the kind that no longer exists in the rotting corpse of American academia — a man very advanced in his learning, with a keen, analytical mind and a talent for synthesizing ideas to reach original and important insights directly applicable to real world problems.

    Codevilla’s “ruling class” versus the “country class” conceptual framework, like the idea of the Overton Window, is a very useful tool for analysis.

    I agree that infiltrating the ruling class via ruling class institutions like the elite schools is hopeless, although I’m not sure it’s necessary to burn down, bypass, or ignore the whole structure.

    In terms of outreach to disaffected young Whites in the “country class,” in order to keep these young Whites from being hijacked by the “ruling class,” I’ve often wondered if WN activism and outreach efforts narrowly focused on the lower Tier 1, Tier 2, and maybe Tier 3 universities might be an angle worth pursuing.

    I mean think about it.

    For every laughably unqualified Black or mediocre Jew admitted into Harvard or other “elite” school, there has to be a significantly more intelligent and probably disaffected young White person who had to settle for UGA (or wherever) because of anti-White discrimination. Moreover, there have to be millions of such young White people all over the country, people smart enough to be in the ruling class, but denied entry because they are Whites from the country class.

    Because we are now in 2010 and hostility toward Whites in the country class has reached truly deranged and unprecedented levels, at least a few people in today’s crop of high school and college age White people have to be ripe for the picking compared to years past.

    So with proper outreach efforts, maybe through on the ground activism combined with pushing our most important ideas through facebook and twitter, we might be able to bring a number of White folks on the right side of the bell curve into our corner — young, smart, and energized White folks who are fuckin’ fed up and tired of this shit.

    Of course, it is important to keep as many country class Whites as possible from getting hijacked by the ruling class, but I think it is especially important to keep potential members of our side’s cognitive elite from being hijacked by the ruling class.

    Many of today’s young White people even the country class will be so hopelessly propagandized that no outreach efforts will make a difference. But even if we can get a few it won’t hurt.

    Two of our side’s most important and influential intellectuals, William Pierce and Sam Francis, both had Ph.Ds but not from ruling class institutions.

    How many WNs were heavily influenced by one or both before crossing the Rubicon into WN? I bet a quite a few. I know I was.

    So if we can pick up the next Sam Francis, along with a some young engineers, computer scientists and physicists who have to be more fed up than most for being driven to the margins by the ruling class’s preference for Asians, it might be worth it.

    Just a thought.

    I am a Gen Xer, but I get the feeling that many of you here are much younger than I am so you probably know better than me if serious outreach efforts on college campuses is an approach worth considering or a likely waste of time.

    Also, there is another (I think) extremely important point to keep in mind about the Tea Party.

    While the Tea Party movement is definitely expressing some healthy attitudes that can probably can be exploited to advance our goals, it is also primarily an “over 40” phenomenon.

    This is a problem because many of the Tea Party folks might not be around or be able to do much within the time frame that matters (unless radicalization occurs very soon).

  7. “Elites’ preference for Asians….”. Not really: under-
    represented at Ivy League schools: whites + Asians. Overrepresented at same: Jews + Darks. Think it through. We need allies.

  8. “Elites’ preference for Asians….”. Not really: under-
    represented at Ivy League schools: whites + Asians. Overrepresented at same: Jews + Darks. Think it through. We need allies.


    This is not completely the case.

    For one thing, “Darks” are hardly overrepresented at Ivy League schools.

    Secondly, East Asians are very, very overrepresented in those institutions, making up, on average, nearly 20-25 percent of the student bodies (whilst being approximately 4 percent of the US population).

    “Gentile” Whites, while making up about 75 percent of the population, account for 25 percent of the student body of Harvard, for example (and this was back in 1998 when Ron Unz did the research and Pat Buchanan published, or rather popularized, his findings on the matter) –

    According to Unz, today at Harvard College, Hispanic and black enrollment has reached 7 percent and 8 percent, respectively, slightly less than the 10 percent and 12 percent of the U.S. population that is Hispanic and black. This has been a cause of protests at Harvard, as Hispanics and African-Americans insist on more proportional representation.

    But Unz does not stop there. He goes on to report that nearly 20 percent of the Harvard College student body is Asian-American, and 25 percent to 33 percent is Jewish, though Asian-Americans make up only 3 percent of the U.S. population and Jewish-Americans even less than 3 percent. Thus, 50 percent of Harvard’s student body is drawn from about 5 percent of the U.S. population!

    When one adds foreign students, students from our tiny WASP elite and children of graduates, what emerges is a Harvard student body where non-Jewish whites — 75 percent of the U.S. population — get just 25 percent of the slots. Talk about underrepresentation! Now we know who really gets the shaft at Harvard — white Christians.

    The same situation, says Unz, exists at other elite schools like Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Berkeley and Stanford, where Chelsea Clinton goes. As Hispanics, Asians, African-American and Jewish-Americans also vote overwhelming Democratic, the picture that emerges is not a pretty one. A liberal elite is salving its social conscience by robbing America’s white middle class of its birthright, and handing it over to minorities, who just happen to vote Democratic.

    Harvard does not keep enrollment statistics by religion, but it is clear Evangelical Christians, Catholics, Mormons and Muslims are the victims of a bigotry so embedded Harvard cannot see it right in front of its eyes. As for the ethnic identity of Harvard’s rejects, it must include many kids of Scots-Irish, Irish, Welsh, German, Italian, Greek, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slavic, Scandinavian, Russian, Croatian, Serbian, Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian descent.– and dozens of other small ethnic groups.

  9. Sometimes our foes drink their own poison. I went to a party tonight, and saw a young Jewish Harvard grad come in holding hands with her Black boyfriend. Better one of them than one of us.

  10. Discard,

    Oy vey, what would her rabbi say! Maybe if he dons beanie on fro, he’ll become a Jew! Yay! LOL.

  11. @CompassionateFascist:

    A very astute observation about the need allies. I agree 100%.

    When I mentioned the ruling class’s preference for Asians, I was thinking of H1B visas and the outsourcing of tech jobs in India and other places, which ruling class members in the government and media have done little to oppose.

  12. I don’t think ‘ceding academia to the left’ is as bad a choice as Trainspotter thinks. First off, as the MacDonald article shows, along with the Buchanan article and related study, they already have full control over academia anyways.

    More importantly, academia is coming more & more to be seen not as a meritocracy, but as part of the ‘liberal establishment’, and this is a fairly mainstream view within the right wing, and even parts of the left. Basically the same deal as the NY Times, Washington Post, and the Broadcast Networks.

    Going around this system, and delegitimizing it, is by far the better choice.

    Also, since they have flooded the educational system and inflated grades, it is no longer the key to good jobs and economic success that it was in the latter half of the 20th century, so that’s one more thing counting against academia.

    The Tea Party I think is mainly the awakening of the politically dormant baby boomer generation. They’ve been labeled liberals and degenerates, but that’s partly because it was more the ones we saw politically active who were like that. Now, the ones who just minded their own business and worked jobs to support their families are getting active, and others are seeing the error of previous ways after experience.

    I think we’ll eventually see the same sort of awakening in the Generation X (I was born in 1979, at the tail end of Gen X, and generally have the attitudes and mannerisms of this class), who I think has far healthier attitudes.

    The main thing making the clock run is white demographic replacement.

    I’ve seen a number of jew/black couples. However, their main breeding class so to speak is the Orthodox Jews, who do not mix.

Comments are closed.