"}selected John Herrman posts from The Awl
These outlets [Paula Deen\u2019s, Sarah Palin\u2019s, Glenn Beck\u2019s] share a basic form\u2014online video network\u2014and depend on relatively steep subscription fees (the comparison that always gets used is \u201cmore than Netflix\u201d). They are fundamentally oppositional: to the mainstream media; to political correctness; to godlessness but also a very particular formulation of uptightness. They are nostalgic for a time when certain people could say certain things without worrying about controversy or shame\u2014they feel like public speech is a minefield, so they\u2019ve made theirs a little more private. Among friends, almost. They long for a wholesome past that they feel has been lost. They are not especially cynical. They are, in effect, a white ethnic media, writing and publishing and broadcasting and performing about the experience of American whiteness as understood by people who genuinely feel that whites are becoming a marginalized minority. Race is not addressed directly in these networks\u2019 contents or containers\u2014identity establishment is left to \u201curban\u201d-style euphemisms and the projection of a sensibility that is neither explicitly nor assertively white, just inherently white, familiar to whites, deemed important or compelling or novel because it is no longer the norm elsewhere.
The New Identity Media Manifesto
[On the same, also Roosh\u2019s Reaxxion:]
you could imagine Roosh-like mission statements for all of them: I aim to protect the interests of white Christian families, a category I\u2019m in\u2026
A gaming site for men is absurd and its potential is small; a culture empire for whiteness preservation is absurd and its potential is huge. But both behave in the same way: they respond to criticism by reflecting back victimhood, and adopting a received language of oppression. This was not their idea, they would suggest. It is what they believe the other people have been doing for years.
Everything Except Rap and Country
[On Taylor Swift\u2019s 1989:]
\n[Swift\u2019s] idea of pop music harks back to a period \u2014 themid-1980s \u2014 when pop was less overtly hybrid.
And, in the same quarters, more overtly white!
That choice allows her to stake out popular turf without having\nto keep up with the latest microtrends, and without being accused\nof cultural appropriation.
Avoiding non-white \u201cmicrotrends\u201d isolates Taylor Swift from\ncharges of appropriation, because they have no specific and recent\nnon-white influence to refer to.
[In \u201cShake It Off\u201d] she surrounds herself with all sorts of\nhip-hop dancers and bumbles all the moves. Later in the video, she\nsurrounds herself with regular folks, and they all shimmy\nun-self-consciously, not trying to be cool.
Who, exactly, would interpret those signals as not \u201ccool\u201d but\ninstead \u201cregular?\u201d Not everybody; specifically, somebody.
The singer most likely to sell the most copies of any album this\nyear has written herself a narrative in which she\u2019s still the\noutsider.
You know who else suddenly\nfeels culturally outside of the mainstream? (Besides, as\nalways, anyone over the age of 30?) People who are skeptical of\nAmerica\u2019s demographic progress! Or who, at least, don\u2019t feel\ncomfortable thinking or talking about it. If Jon Caramanica is\nright, the promotional theory and marketing conversations around\n1989, and an overarching influence on its music, can be\nsummed up as: Intentional, Performed Whiteness. It\u2019s an\nartistic manifestation of the old adolescent conversation:
\u201cWhat kind of music do you like?\u201d
\u201cEverything. Except rap and country.\u201d