From VDARE.com:
Now They Tell Us!
By Steve Sailer
Typically, the two most important factors influencing the long-term success of an organization are the quantity and quality of people involved.
This is particularly true for a country. Yet there has been barely any discussion in the U.S. prestige press on the implications of the demographic change imposed by immigration. We're constantly lectured by the New York Times on the long-run impact of carbon emissions and by the Wall Street Journal on the difficulties posed for Social Security by the changing ratio of workers to retirees over the next several decades. But the basic factor driving these issues is almost off-limits.
That's why there is a VDARE.com.
In forecasting the U.S. population, the wild card is always the Hispanic component.
For example, on January 13, 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau released population projections stating that the number of Hispanics resident in the country would grow massively, from 32 million in 2000 to 98 million in 2050.
When the Bureau conducted the decennial census on April 1, 2000, however, it found out that there were already over 35 million Hispanics within the borders—ten percent more than the government had previously imagined.
So in late 2001, the Census Bureau released "interim" projections incorporating the 2000 Census findings and projected that the number of Hispanics would hit 103 million in 2050.
Now, the Bureau has released its first full-blown set of projections in 8.5 years,. And they're a doozy. The key figure: 133 million Hispanics by 2050, an increase of almost 100 million in half a century.
Is adding 100 million Latinos to the U.S. population a good idea? Will it "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"?
We the people are supposed to have a say in such things. But how can we have a say when we're not supposed to talk about it?
The well-worn responses of Establishment figures to public unease about adding 100 million Hispanics usually start with the words "All we have to do is …"
- All we have to do is fix education. Once we just figure out how to get Hispanics and blacks to stay in school and learn as much as whites, we're all set!
- All we have to do is create more good jobs.
- All we have to do is solve the illegitimacy crisis and get the Hispanic out-of-wedlock birthrate back down below 50 percent.
- All we have to do is solve the housing / health care finance / carbon emission, energy / infrastructure / and crime crises!
In reality, we don't know how to solve any of these problems. And we are unlikely to discover and implement workable solutions any time soon. I've been following social science and public policy for 36 years now. I’ve learned that fixes for social problems are rare.
In recent decades, we did finally make some progress against crime. But we did it through the brute force method of throwing a couple of million people in prison.
And there has been little change in the racial disparities in crime rates. Racial and ethnic differences of all kinds have been strikingly stable since the 1970s. In particular, the word that best sums up Latino America is inertia. Things just sort of keep on keeping on in the general direction that they were already moving.
What we do know is that all of these troubles are exacerbated by the mass immigration of people with low human capital.
Now They Tell Us!
By Steve Sailer
Typically, the two most important factors influencing the long-term success of an organization are the quantity and quality of people involved.
This is particularly true for a country. Yet there has been barely any discussion in the U.S. prestige press on the implications of the demographic change imposed by immigration. We're constantly lectured by the New York Times on the long-run impact of carbon emissions and by the Wall Street Journal on the difficulties posed for Social Security by the changing ratio of workers to retirees over the next several decades. But the basic factor driving these issues is almost off-limits.
That's why there is a VDARE.com.
In forecasting the U.S. population, the wild card is always the Hispanic component.
For example, on January 13, 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau released population projections stating that the number of Hispanics resident in the country would grow massively, from 32 million in 2000 to 98 million in 2050.
When the Bureau conducted the decennial census on April 1, 2000, however, it found out that there were already over 35 million Hispanics within the borders—ten percent more than the government had previously imagined.
So in late 2001, the Census Bureau released "interim" projections incorporating the 2000 Census findings and projected that the number of Hispanics would hit 103 million in 2050.
Now, the Bureau has released its first full-blown set of projections in 8.5 years,. And they're a doozy. The key figure: 133 million Hispanics by 2050, an increase of almost 100 million in half a century.
Is adding 100 million Latinos to the U.S. population a good idea? Will it "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"?
We the people are supposed to have a say in such things. But how can we have a say when we're not supposed to talk about it?
The well-worn responses of Establishment figures to public unease about adding 100 million Hispanics usually start with the words "All we have to do is …"
- All we have to do is fix education. Once we just figure out how to get Hispanics and blacks to stay in school and learn as much as whites, we're all set!
- All we have to do is create more good jobs.
- All we have to do is solve the illegitimacy crisis and get the Hispanic out-of-wedlock birthrate back down below 50 percent.
- All we have to do is solve the housing / health care finance / carbon emission, energy / infrastructure / and crime crises!
In reality, we don't know how to solve any of these problems. And we are unlikely to discover and implement workable solutions any time soon. I've been following social science and public policy for 36 years now. I’ve learned that fixes for social problems are rare.
In recent decades, we did finally make some progress against crime. But we did it through the brute force method of throwing a couple of million people in prison.
And there has been little change in the racial disparities in crime rates. Racial and ethnic differences of all kinds have been strikingly stable since the 1970s. In particular, the word that best sums up Latino America is inertia. Things just sort of keep on keeping on in the general direction that they were already moving.
What we do know is that all of these troubles are exacerbated by the mass immigration of people with low human capital.
Posts
45 comments:
And the high capital people content themselves with calling their pets "children", criticizing China, and constantly remembering the goodest War--the lessons from which prevent them from making the necessary changes you desire. The rot is within.
But immigrants bring culture and vibrancy to our cities.
Just look at this one small example.
.
"All we have to do"
There won't, or course, be anymore "we".
oh right. lets kick all the immigrants out b/c they're all hopeless.
The complete disregard for the effects of increasing the population just baffles me... i have heard neocons like Norman Pod say we can take another 300 milllion immigrants with no problem...
Is this a jewish urban thing, they just have no grasp or have a fear of ruralness, nature, open spaces??( I ask this question seriously)
If Dara Torres is Sephardic, then it's likely that she is Hispanic. Same with Matthew Yglesias.
I recently visited Miami ("where America's future has arrived first", according to the Back to Blood billing and the non-hispanic white population is 11%, according to wikipedia) and was surprised at the English fluency of the hispanic and cuban population. I attempted to start conversations in Spanish several times, being used to the zero or broken English of Mexicans in the Southwest, but, even in Little Havana and other downscale places, the other person inevitably shot back more or less perfect, more or less accentless English. I also found that upper strata Cubans were very receptive to me--an obvious WASP--in a variety of social situations, rather than being circumspect or closed-off. Historically, the US benefited from the difficulty of European immigration selecting for change-tolerant initiative takers, and this selection process may explain some of the difference between the walk-over-the-border hispanic population of the southwest and the one in florida. Not to overstate the quality of the florida hispanic population, but there was an evident difference.
Not to overstate the quality of the florida hispanic population, but there was an evident difference.
Heh. The Cubans I know would never speak to you again if you called them "hispanic." They are Cuban. Period.
--Senor Doug
It's is a good thing the Catholic hierarchy has nothing to do with this.
I've found the same thing in Miami. No one under 40 speaks Spanish primarily unless they just got here. But that's the only place in America where the Hispanic population has such a high proportion of European ancestry.
Most of the Hispanic immigrants in the last 15 years have been Indians.
The first anonymous who commented on this thread couldn't be more right. At this point all it's about is documenting our decline and eventual eradication - and even that documentation stays within "acceptable" limits set by, in essence, our parents. What children we are, scared to be "good" or "bad", according to the dictates of those who sneeringly dominate us. Do any of the cream of the crop who read Steve ever think about what it's like to be a manly race - a people who decide what's best for themselves, a people who don't crawl on their stomachs licking boots of those who thoroughly despise them.
CVCarter, laconic and smart as usual, is only half-right in his comment this time. It's not that there won't be anymore "we" - it's that there isn't a "we", and the one time it formed in modern history, nearly every WASP in the world was gung-ho to murder it, and did, and now scratch their heads about how they got here, falling off a cliff.
A hundred million of our best murdered in an eighty year time period (the 1860s-1940s) doesn't bode well for survival in the next eighty. Show me one example in the history of the worlds of lands akin to ours, with the population's mindset as is ours, reversing a history of colonization such as we've undergone.
We're through, and for those of us with kids, or with nieces/nephews or what-have-you, it's more than demoralized chat on message boards, it's more than an intellectual badminton game about IQ relevancy or nature vs. nurture or public policy - it's utterly, utterly devastating.
re: anon
"Is this a jewish urban thing, they just have no grasp or have a fear of ruralness, nature, open spaces??( I ask this question seriously)"
You are correct: 99% of Jews have no true concept of nature and the rural life because they have always lived in or near cities and thus have never been pioneers or stewards of the natural world. Agriculuture is anathema to their worldview because it implies a population which is settled/rooted and stable, something which Jews are proudly not. They bask proudly in superficial and decadent urban values like materialism, artificiality, and dependence.
Stalin and other Soviets were entirely correct when they called them "rootless cosmopolitans" in the late 40s-50s.
More immigrants to them just mean more wage slaves for their corporations/tax collectors and more eager eyes for their mass media.
If you want an increase in the number of White Christians in the US, I know a country that, as a result of very recent events, has at least a hundred thousand White Christian refugees.
And the interesting thing is, all the people complaining here about the lack of White Christians in the US would resist the entry of a single one (after all, isn't their Minister of Defense Jewish?).
Hope I'm around in 2042 when all the paleos moan and ask, "Gee is there anything we could have done? Can't think of anything-we did try and stop immigration, didn't we?"
(Other suggestions: Have babies, support those who have large amounts of babies.
Nah, I'm just kidding. Nobody here would ever do that.)
Florida Hispanics are more heavily South American, as opposed to Mexicans who populate the Southwest. South America has a much larger population of Euro-Hispanics than Central America.
If just 13% of Hispanics (That might be a little low - Mexico is 15% white) in the US are European, then there are over 6 million Euro-Hispanics in the US. If the Euro-Hispanic birthrate is the same as the white American birthrate of 12 births per 1000 people, then there are over 70,000 Euro-Hispanic babies in the US.
Subtract the 6 million Euro-Hispanics and 12 million illegal Hispanics from the US Hispanic population and you have a legal non-white Hispanic population of only 30 million (At least 400,000 Hispanic anchor babies are born each year. Subtract them by removing their illegals of childbearing age, and under 5 year olds would be over 60% white in the US).
Simply changing our legal immigration policy to an Australian points system would shift our immigration policy away from uneducated Central American Amerindians and towards educated white, or mostly white mestizo, South Americans and possibly avert disaster.
LOL. euro-hispanics?
this charade with the word "hispanic" is just about the dumbest thing on this entire website. steve tries to be precise and accurate on the details, yet continues to use "hispanic" in it's modern american definition. yet that version of "hispanic" has to be one of the least accurate, least useful words in the entire english language for the purposes of this site. not to mention that integration destroys anything that was "hispanic" about a person, so that talking about later generation "hispanics" is nonsensical.
i just don't know what's so hard about calling latin americans latin americans, and then correctly identifying them by race, instead of lumping all of them into one big nonsensical group. not that many latin americans are actually hispanic.
mestizos. american indians. that's what we're talking about here. euro-hispanics? LOL. just call them white people.
i'm interested to see what happens when asians from south america start coming to the US. will chinese and japanese people magically become "hispanic" the way africans have?
Another off-topic comment, but to get back to the racial/Olympics debate, I just watched the famous Men's 4 x 100m Freestyle Relay.
http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/player.html?assetid=0812_HD_MUL_AU_CE493
Phelps had the US ahead of France after the 1st leg, and the US anchor man famously caught up and defeated the French world record holder in the final leg. So how did the US come to be behind in the race?
Turns out the 3rd leg was swum by an African-American. There was just some discussion here about whether African-American lack of success in swimming was due to genetics or to a lack of access to swimming pools.
The US African-American swimmer was clearly much slower than his compatriots and competitors. He lost a solid lead and seemed to have left the US an insurmountable deficit, until the anchor leg came up with his miracle finish.
I assume that there is no affirmative action involved here? Was this guy really the 4th fastest 100m swimmer in the US? Was there something more than meets the eye in getting this guy onto the Olympic relay team?
After all, if you wanted to point to an African-American Olympic gold medal in swimming, than sneaking one onto a relay team would be the best way to go about it.
It would have been a pretty safe bet too, if the French hadn't "come out of nowhere" in the past year to challenge US dominance in the event.
P.S. Some commenters here are able to post live links that actually work. How do they do it?
Jody,
Hey, what can I say? Us HBD nerds can't help ourselves - we MUST divide all of humanity into different ethno-cultural groupings. It's in our genes to be huge ethno-curious dweebs.
:)
maxmillion cullen jones - the black swimmer is also one of the HIGHEST PAID swimmers in the US behind phelps castefootball.us
our elite are blatently anti-white..it's to the point wher e it just baffles me...
Actually, the black man in the relay earned his spot in the relay because he fastest time in the earlier relay. The US has a lot of elite swimmers, and for the preliminary heats of relays, the 4th-7th fastest swimmers are used, with the swimmer who has the fastest time earning a spot in the final.
Cullen Jones swam a 47.61 in his leg of the relay in the preliminary heat, the fastest split on that team (the WR before the Olympics was 47.50). Once he was on the final team, he swam third and swam 47.65. The French swimmer he swam against, swam an absolutely phenomenal 46.65. Jones swam well, but he was lined up next to an amazing swim.
"Is this a jewish urban thing, they just have no grasp or have a fear of ruralness, nature, open spaces?? (I ask this question seriously)"
As far as I know, the only large group of Jews that ever lived as rural agriculturalists were in Morocco. Even Israel today is one of the world's most urban nations.
I read somewhere that Irving Kristol & Gertrude Himmelfarb lived for years in a Manhattan apartment overlooking Central Park. Not once, in all the years they lived in this apartment, did they ever step foot in Central Park.
I find it interesting, when one considers the tendency of the vast majority of Jews to lean left, the only leftist movements not to have much Jewish involvement are the environmentalist and the animal rights movements.
"I assume that there is no affirmative action involved here? Was this guy really the 4th fastest 100m swimmer in the US? Was there something more than meets the eye in getting this guy onto the Olympic relay team?
After all, if you wanted to point to an African-American Olympic gold medal in swimming, than sneaking one onto a relay team would be the best way to go about it.
"
It wasn't AA, Cullen Jones is ranked third in the 100 m freestyle from the Olympic trials in July.
http://www.omegatiming.com/swimming/racearchives/2008/Omaha_b_2008/C73A1_Res1Heat_114_Finals_1_Men_100_Free.pdf
re: 4x100 relay. I've been wondering about that too. A few searches proved unfruitful.
re: Mexican immigration. It's depressing, but at least (based on their track record) Mexicans aren't likely to slaughter us and/or chase us out of our country. Which would be a much greater danger if we were being flooded with Blacks or Muslims.
Instead, barring technological advances, the US is on track to end up like Brazil. Not a terrible place to live, but a lot of inequality. More crime (including drunk driving) but not an overwhelming amount. Plenty of minifaldas and tangas. And still plenty of white-majority areas.
Added bonus: Mexicans hate blacks and don't suffer from white guilt. So the extreme negative influence of blacks will be blunted and buffered.
Anyway, my opinion is that this will all be moot by 2040 because new technologies and wealth will allow us to solve a lot of our social problems.
Maximilian, I've seen several people make similar assertions, but they're unfounded.
Cullen Jones, the black guy, swam in the semifinal for that event. The semifinal was used to decide who would fill the final spot on Phelp's relay team, and Jones swam the fastest.
I agree that his swim seemed slow in comparison to the French guy, but that's only because the French guy swam the fastest relay leg in history.
Well, the fastest in history before Lezak, the fourth American, swam even faster.
I find it interesting, when one considers the tendency of the vast majority of Jews to lean left, the only leftist movements not to have much Jewish involvement are the environmentalist and the animal rights movements and when they do like that guy who gave money to the serria club its for some ulterior, non-environmental motive. Jews particularly don't like the animal 'rights' movement or even the humane treatment of animals because it often sheds light on some of their cruel practices - like ritual slaughter.
That's funny about kristol though...
OK, cullen jones 'defenders' why is he the highest paid swimmer in the sport? (besides phelps) just google swimming diversity and find out..
If you want an increase in the number of White Christians in the US, I know a country that, as a result of very recent events, has at least a hundred thousand White Christian refugees.
Assuming you mean the Georgians, sure what the hell, let's take a few hundred thousand. They'll assimilate in half a generation, especially if we make an effort to scatter them around instead of letting them form one big ethnic enclave.
Obviously I'd take all 4.5 million of them in a heartbeat if it meant 4.5 million less immigrants from other continents.
How about you, Testing99?
to z and anon:
You are correct: 99% of Jews have no true concept of nature and the rural life
a) why not 98.23% or 72.81%? Who calculated it?
b) each people does its job in the hive. There is no intrinsic goodness in loving urban or rural living. The only intrinsic goodness is in loving people.
re: Stalin and other Soviets were entirely correct when they called them "rootless cosmopolitans" in the late 40s-50s.
Let's see who Stalin himself was. An immigrant from Georgia. Wouldn't this make him a "rootless cosmopolitan" too? And as far as I know his biography, I don't see that he had a proclivity for rural living and agricultural labor himself.
Laocoon -- I have come to the same conclusion. As a mathematician, I have some hope for the future of mathematics at least, given Asia. The white nations which might survive and regroup after those-who-shall-not-be-named decamp en masse for China (just as they fled Russia and South Africa and so many other places) are those in the frigid north. That's where I'd move...let raw biology shield somewhat against ideology.
You can also look at this as a selective event. Whites are being selected for immunity to an egalitarian mind virus that has green around for centuries, carried by both Europeans (the French revolution, early Christianity, the Civil War) and more recently by our friends the non-Islamic Semites (Communism, Boasian anthro, the whole ball of wax). The survivors, if they survive, will be hardened and unstoppable.
Maximilian -- I thought the same thing at first, but if you google "4 100m relay swim splits" you'll see that Cullen Jones had a time that was only .14 second slower than Michael Phelps...though it was the slowest on the team.
One would want to look at some old races to see if jones was always the slowest...and whether there's a white who would have ben faster.
Thanks for all the feedback re. the 4 x 100m freestyle relay. The commenters were correct that Cullen Jones earned his spot on the relay team. It was not affirmative action.
However, it's not quite true that he swam a good race but was just next to someone swimming great. Wikipedia has all the split times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics_-_Men's_4_x_100_metre_freestyle_relay
Cullen Jones swam slower than his own time in the preliminary that qualified him to be on the team, slower than all the rest of the Americans, slower than all the French (except the first leg who has a time disadvantage), slower than 3 of the 4 Australians, and slower than 5 other swimmers in the heat.
After reading the feedback from commenters, I googled him, and it turns out something similar happened last month at the trials. He set the American record in the 50m freestyle preliminary, but then didn't qualify in the top 2 spots the next day.
So he is a genuine world-class swimmer, but so far he hasn't performed at his peak at the right time, and his sub-par performance would have cost the US the gold medal and cost Phelps his perfect record if it weren't for the miracle finish of the anchor leg swimmer Jason Lezak (whose time was an astounding 1.59 seconds faster than Cullen Jones).
It's also true what someone commented, that the Frenchman swimming next to Cullen Jones swam an amazing race, beating Cullen Jones by a full second and breaking 47 seconds for the first time, until the 2 anchor-leg swimmers did so as well.
rast sed:
"Obviously I'd take all 4.5 million of them in a heartbeat if it meant 4.5 million less immigrants from other continents. "
That's about the number of whites left in South Africa. I'm sure many of them would come to the US given the chance, although the more astute ones would prefer to go to Europe, seeing that the US is heading for a similar situation as South Africa in about 25 years. I doubt that any South African whites are relishing the thought of going through the trauma of involuntarily losing one’s sovereignty again.
mestizos. american indians. that's what we're talking about here. euro-hispanics? LOL. just call them white people.
Reminds me of the Brits calling everyone east of the Jordan River who isn't from Russia "Asian." I mean, wtf--Bengali, Pakistani, Mongol, Han Chinese, Turks, Turkmen, Hmong, and on and on.
I think I've even read "Eurasian" in some of their newspapers.
--Senor Doug
Hey, what can I say? Us HBD nerds can't help ourselves - we MUST divide all of humanity into different ethno-cultural groupings. It's in our genes to be huge ethno-curious dweebs.
But Jody is right; "Hispanic" is a nonsensical grouping.
We're through, and for those of us with kids, or with nieces/nephews or what-have-you, it's more than demoralized chat on message boards, it's more than an intellectual badminton game about IQ relevancy or nature vs. nurture or public policy - it's utterly, utterly devastating.
An interesting comment, given that probably the only thing we can do to alter that dark vision of the future is to have more kids. There is just about zero chance we are going to reverse government immigration policy anytime soon, and even if we do the US population will not revert to the status quo ante.
Thus whenever I meet a newly married white person the first thing I tell them, joyfully, is to have lots of children.
Changing the future means changing attitudes towards child rearing.
Other suggestions: Have babies, support those who have large amounts of babies. Nah, I'm just kidding. Nobody here would ever do that.
I think quite a few people here would support that. It's simply a matter of determining the best govt policy to support those people. John McCain's suggestion that we give $7,000 tax credits to people who have a baby is way off base. Such a credit - especially if it's a refundable credit - would juice birthrates mostly among the poor. A tax deduction would have greater actual impact on people further up the income ladder, who actually pay taxes and who would get a greater actual savings from, for example, a onetime $20,000 deduction.
Actually, I think the artificially inflated birth rate for U.S. Hispanics has something to do with the underestimate of illegals in this country. Most mainstream estimates put them at 11.5 million or so... but there's no guarantee it is in fact that low. If it's in fact 30 million, the TFR would be about the same as Mexicans in Mexico. (At least there's ONE benefit to free medical care for illegals -- we can count their babies.)
The Center for Immigration Statistics claims that the illegal population fell by a million in the past year... BUT... remittances are down only about 4%.
So, basically, even though Mexicans are being thrown out of work all over the place, they somehow manage to send MORE money per capita than before??
What makes more sense: a massively underestimated Mexican illegal population (and massively underestimated Mexican GROWTH), OR, the fact that Mexicans somehow get more charitable to the back-homers during a downturn?
OK, cullen jones 'defenders' why is he the highest paid swimmer in the sport? (besides phelps) just google swimming diversity and find out..
Wow - eye-opening and mind-numbing all at once.
USA Swimming actually has its own "diversity specialist," John Cruzat. You can take a gander at his resume here.
Washington State University, a second rate, third tier public university also has a "diversity office" with 55 employees and a budget of over $3 million. And then, of course, there's Barack Obama's wife.
Diversity offices (not to mention entire university departments) are little more than make work efforts for activists and blacktivists, who get paid to (and get credentials to) engage in political agitation, while we conservative tax-paying schmoes have to do it in our ever more scarce free-time.
corvinus: "CIS claims that the illegal population fell by a million in the past year... BUT... remittances are down only about 4%. So, basically, even though Mexicans are being thrown out of work all over the place, they somehow manage to send MORE money per capita than before??"
Who sez the distribution has to be uniform? Perhaps the 1M (8%) who left were the least successful, the ones who were barely scraping by and who were sending the least $ home anyway. Remove them, and the per capita average remittance would rise.
(By the way, here in northern Calif we were treated recently to the amusing spectacle of "activists" arguing that DUI checkpoints should not be placed in/near illegal neighborhoods. http://www.marinij.com/ci_9823728 )
SF Guy
oh right. lets kick all the immigrants out b/c they're
If you're going to use the Irish to make your point, might I suggest you're a bit tone deaf to the other side's arguments?
These rural 'farmers' everyone seems to like, aren't they the ones hiring vast numbers of illegals to do their harvesting?
Apparently farmers are good when you're bashing Jews, but bad when you're bashing Mexicans.
Good on isteve-bad on vdare.
Reminds me of the Brits calling everyone east of the Jordan River who isn't from Russia "Asian." I mean, wtf--Bengali, Pakistani, Mongol, Han Chinese, Turks, Turkmen, Hmong, and on and on.
Is Oriental still acceptable or one of those now off-limits terms? To me it was always a good way to separate slant-eyed Asians from the round-eyed ones. I used the word "Chinaman" once and it was a raist term.
As you say they will make up a lot of different excuses for bringing in mor non-whites. "All we have to do is..."
This really boils down to what is called solving the race problem.
It is said that there is this RACE problem. They say this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Hi Steve
Do the comments here represent the kind of readers you wanted?
To svigor
Re: "Jews have antipathy for rural people, which becomes pretty obvious once one stops fawning and starts paying attention."
How the f*** do you know? It's just a sweeping generalization. On the contrary, all the Jews I know love simple villagers, the more savage the better. Yet, their love goes unrequited more often than not.
So let's change your statement around: "Rural people have antipathy for Jews, which becomes pretty obvious once one stops fawning and starts paying attention."
Actually as far as Im aware its not us Brits who call everybody east of Jordan Asian but our American cousins.
We dont really use the term Oriental anymore, we dont even have a term anymore. We call Chinese well, Chinese and so on.
To a Brit; Asian pretty much means Indian/Sri Lankan/Pakistani and not Japanese/Korean/Chinese. If talking to an average Brit I referred to a Chinese person as Asian, they wouldnt have a clue what I was talking about.
John of London said
Hi Steve. Do the comments here represent the kind of readers you wanted?
I dunno, certainly they are not nearly neo-con enough, not enough of them shilling for war with Russia on behalf of Georgia. Not appreciative enough of high IQ non-Europeans displacing them. Really how crass of them.
They certainly wouldnt fit in at jolly old biased-bbc.blogspot.com now would they.
Post a Comment