Given the rampant crime and social decay, how much longer will those who “work for a living” tolerate those who “vote for a living”? Will people subject to anarcho-tyranny finally say, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more!”?

Directly on point to this is Richard Spencer’s contribution, yesterday, to American Renaissance’s America in 2034, “The Howard Beale theory of history. He identifies a “Howard Beale” manner on the American Right, but also how it never goes anywhere:

And conservatives of all varieties seem to think like Beale, too. According to their logic, as time goes on, things keep getting worse: taxes, gays, illegal immigrants, philandering politicians, race hustlers, und so weiter. . . . One day, it is assumed, a tipping point will be reached: Decent folks will get fed up, and they will . . . they will . . . we’re never told exactly what they’ll do. Restore the Constitution? Kick the bums out? White Revolution?

Later, he identifies the cycle by which the system can and does “absorb and assimilate negativity, and thus maintain the hegemony of the status quo.”

1. White America begins in a state of passivity and uneasy contentment. (In Beale’s words, “Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won’t say anything. Just leave me alone.”)
2. At some point, a shock to the system occurs–something surprising, new, or exogenous: Wall Street Bailouts, Barack Obama, Benghazi, etc.
3. White Americans are then presented formal ways of venting: voting for a political party, joining a mass protest movement like the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street, etc.
4. The shock dissipates, and whites are frustrated by the failures of activism. They return to where they started: passivity and uneasy contentment.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. This circle is continuous, predictable, and, possibly, endless. In other words, we’re mad as hell and we are going to take this anymore!

I agree with Mr. Spencer. To answer your question, those who “work for a living” will continue to tolerate those who “vote for a living” for a very, very long time to come.

It’s tough to take it all the way, though, because there are a couple main problems: the city government is the mafia (there is not much distinction in a lot of departments), and the rich property owners adopt a pseudo-moral posture that limits new construction, like organizing landmark preservation groups and pro-diversity organizations. What makes it so durable is that the property owners don’t see it as acting in their own self interest: they see it as their primary religious duty.

Additionally, the Federal government rewards the city with lots of money for coddling NAMs. Each warm dependent body is an income stream for the city that comes at least partly from Washington. No one with political influence cares that much about murders in the projects as long as they’re bottled up and white people don’t get shot or mugged.

This is a good summary of the city’s problems from the perspective of someone trying to settle there. I don’t think it’s that feasible unless you inherit property, and even then you’d get killed on property taxes and/or co-op and maintenance fees unless you rented out most of it. Basically, corruption is killing the city, and people who should know better are beginning to lose their grip on maintaining whatever gains occurred since the 1970s.

Indeed, genetics play a much stronger role than environment in determining behavior.

That may be true, but it doesn’t follow from the example you cite. People with statistically poor genetics are still largely being raised (a la environment) by people with statistically poor genetics, even if they live in closer proximity to people with statistically strong genetics and attend the same schools. If you really want to run the experiment properly, “steal” the kids out of that environment (poor housing, parents, crime & all) and give them to upper middle class whites to raise into upper middle class white culture. Genetics will still, obviously, play a role, but it will I think be far less obvious which factor is dominant. Anecdotally, I know a number of NAMs adopted into high functioning white families and the results are impressive, tho’ certainly not dispositive of strong genetic influence. My guess is that genetics and environment count “about the same” (50-ish/50-ish) over a range of psychological fitness traits.