In Stage Army of the Establishment news, the New York Times trumpets "A Generation Gap Over Immigration" to demonstrate that only fuddy-duddy racists (such as, presumably, Lakers coach Phil Jackson) are concerned about illegal immigration:
Meaghan Patrick, a junior at New College of Florida, a tiny liberal arts college in Sarasota, says discussing immigration with her older relatives is like “hitting your head against a brick wall.”Cathleen McCarthy, a senior at the University of Arizona, says immigration is the rare, radioactive topic that sparks arguments with her liberal mother and her grandmother. “Many older Americans feel threatened by the change that immigration presents,” Ms. McCarthy said. “Young people today have simply been exposed to a more accepting worldview.”
Forget sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll; immigration is a new generational fault line.
In the wake of the new Arizona law allowing the police to detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally, young people are largely displaying vehement opposition — leading protests on Monday at Senator John McCain’s offices in Tucson, and at the game here between the Florida Marlins and the Arizona Diamondbacks.
Meanwhile, baby boomers, despite a youth of “live and let live,” are siding with older Americans and supporting the Arizona law.
That's an elaborate way of explaining away what the NYT doesn't like: polls show the Arizona law highly popular with voters. Sure, you evil racists may be in the majority for now, but you are demographically doomed, doomed we tell you! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
Then to prove that Resistance Is Futile, the NYT trots out the following graph of metropolitan areas with the biggest difference in race between seniors and children. Please look at this listing carefully and see if the names of these wonderful Cities of the Future remind you of very different news stories from just one to two years ago:
Do you get the joke?
The NYT sure doesn't.
This list overlaps hilariously with lists of the metropolitan areas with the worst home foreclosure rates in the country. With the exception of Dallas, these are all Sand State cities (California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida -- still, even in 2010, the four states with the worst default rates). These Cities of the Future are, to a close order of approximation, the places that crashed the economy in the Mortgage Meltdown.
Out of the 203 Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the country, seven of the NYT's favorites were on RealtyTrac's Q1-2009 list of the Worst Ten foreclosure rates: Phoenix, Riverside-San Bernardino, Bakersfield, Modesto, Cape Coral, Stockton, and Las Vegas. Two more of the NYT's favorites (Fresno and San Diego) were in the Worst Twenty.
On RealtyTrac's Q1-2010 listing of highest foreclosure rates, the NYT's darlings rank numbers one through five worst. RealtyTrac's entire worst 20 are in the four Sand States.
Out of the 203 Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the country, seven of the NYT's favorites were on RealtyTrac's Q1-2009 list of the Worst Ten foreclosure rates: Phoenix, Riverside-San Bernardino, Bakersfield, Modesto, Cape Coral, Stockton, and Las Vegas. Two more of the NYT's favorites (Fresno and San Diego) were in the Worst Twenty.
On RealtyTrac's Q1-2010 listing of highest foreclosure rates, the NYT's darlings rank numbers one through five worst. RealtyTrac's entire worst 20 are in the four Sand States.
Posts
75 comments:
A junior and a senior in college?
I was stupid when I was a junior and a senior in college too.
I hadn't begun working for a living yet, hadn't bought a house and accumulated all the bills that come with one, hadn't yet settled down to contribute to making my community a better place, hadn't had kids and worried about all the things that come with that.
Yeah, I remained stupid for a while after college too, just like those brats will.
They are two good reasons that we ought to up the voting age.
The media has made the AZ Immigration into a much more divisive issue than it actually is:
Az Immigration Poll and Its Implications
Many of these are on Business Insider's list of 13 markets that will never recover:
http://www.businessinsider.com/thirteen-housing-markets-that-will-never-recover-2010-5
Mexican Immigration is the future -- the future of unemployment and permanently depressed economies!
It's ironic that generally increased age is associated with increased knowledge and experience; a setting aside of fanciful ideals in favor of a sometimes grudging acceptance of reality. However, when youths embrace leftism their youth and inexperience only proves they're more noble and tolerant.
The NYT assumption is that the white youths who are for illegal immigration today won't learn a thing or two in the next decade - like, say, when they go to buy their first house, possibly in a neighborhood overrun by illegals who leave Christmas decorations up until July. Or when they go to take their 6-year-old to his first day of class, in a school so overrun with Mexicans that teachers care little about native-born Americans.
The NYT also fails to explain that the age gap is a demographic gap. Young people are more pro-illegal than older people because they're more Hispanic.
But worst of all, the NYT assumes that as the Hispanic voting population increases that they'll be more pro-illegal, not less - completely unlike the people of Mexico, who despise illegals in their own country.
Legal Hispanics in California are slowly waking up to the realization that El Norte is not a bottomless pit of money for the Bronze Race. California is getting ready to end cash welfare benefits, and other programs will soon follow, school class sizes will increase, and public colleges may even have to close their doors. Hispanics amnestized 20 years ago are realizing that they've shot themselves in the foot by supporting continued mass immigration (legal or illegal) from the homeland. The handouts we gave them were only sustainable so long as there were only a few of them. Now we can't afford them at all. They might as well have stayed in Mexico.
Anyhoo, this is off-topic, but Michael Kinsley posted an "intersting" question over at The Atlantic Wire today:
"Now that the sex lives of Supreme Court justices have become grist for commentators, we are finally free to discuss a question formerly only whispered about in the shadows: Why does Justice Antonin Scalia, by common consent the leading intellectual force on the Court, have nine children? Is this normal? Or should I say 'normal,' as some people choose to define it? Can he represent the views of ordinary Americans when he practices such a minority lifestyle? After all, having nine children is far more unusual in this country than, say, being a lesbian."
It's satire, of course, but it's inane, stupid satire. That a guy who has a healthy relationship with his wife and a healthy-sized family of nine children is somehow as questionable as a lesbian (assuming Kagan is a lesbian).
Scalia has 9 children - 9 reasons to care about the America he leaves behind; very little reason to feel contempt for or victimized by the society he is being asked to rule. The single, childless, Jewish, lesbian(?) Kagan, though she is a Harvard grad and a millionaire, is every bit the kind of person inclined to feel the victim, even though she has no legitimate reason to be; even though she's been afforded every advantage by our society.
All in all, I'll take the guy who feels himself part of society over the chick who feels oppressed by it. I'll take the guy who's invested in the future over the childless career-obsessed socialist.
Anyway you slice it, those figures are bad bad news.
I'd say the Austrian economists are right that the Depression was caused by the Fed inflation of the 2000s (and still going on), which caused a classic boom/bust cycle. The housing part of the boom boomed more in the Sand States, as you describe, so the housing bust was bigger there, too.
The real problem, now, is that there's no real recovery. The government numbers are phony. The $14 trillion debt, the continuing devaluation of the dollar (against gold), the immense expense for the ongoing wars and Obamacare, and the tax increases coming in January, combined with a European Crash that will smash us, too -- all make the coming year an even worse Depression, independent of the played-out mortgage-bubble crash.
The solution -- the gold standard, massive tax cuts, and massive spending cuts, bringing one year of misery then prosperity, which worked for Harding in 1921 -- are not being embraced. Just the opposite.
Nothing is being done right on the economy except, for now, no protectionism.
That's an elaborate way of explaining away what the NYT doesn't like: polls show the Arizona law highly popular with voters. Sure, you evil racists may be in the majority for now, but you are demographically doomed, doomed we tell you! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
I think that's now known as "rubbing the Right's nose in diversity".
It's satire, of course, but it's inane, stupid satire.
No, it's pure, unadulterated nihilism.
You have no idea how much these nihilists lust for China's 1-Child policy.
Although, if given half a chance, they'd one-up the Chinese and go with a 0-Child policy.
[Which is basically what Kinsley (like Lindsey Grahamnesty) did in his own personal life, by marrying a beard with a barren womb.]
Si se puede!
They are tricking us using the composition effect.
Minorities are younger than whites. The “youth-vote” is therefore to a large extent just another name for the minority vote!
In the 2008 election Obama won the youth vote by 34 point. However, the only won the *white* youth vote by 10 point.
Don’t let Pravda discourage you. There is still 15-20 years left to fix immigration.
The present average IQ of the world is around 89 and should fall in subsequent decades. The New York Times editors advocacy of an open borders immigration policy is nonsensical and financially untendible.
Gee, I wonder if youth correlates with unrealistic expectations in any way? If so, I'm going to have to stop taking investment advice from my 7 year old.
Also, as Tino said, the younger generation is more skewed toward immigrants or children of immigrants, so there's that as well. But all things considered, it's just generic NY Times spin control. I think their staff writers could crank out these articles in their sleep, which often seems to be the way they're written.
You have no idea how much these nihilists lust for China's 1-Child policy.
But only for special over-priviledged groups of course.
waiting for the NYT to have a similar article about young college students and their view of israel/foriegn policy and why (by implication) that means the old fuddy duddies are wrong.
Funny in both cases a clear application of the law would mean an end to the current trends - in israel's case the violation of the nuclear proliferation treaty in the case of immigraiton, applying the law on the books...
the NYT was always bad, but their lying and agenda driven 'news' is something of a sad joke in the days of the internet. why do people even listen/? who are all those people reading that piece of crap?
Forget sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll; immigration is a new generational fault line.
I'll believe that when there's an illegal immigration-theme 'Woodstock'.
Geeze, I hate the Lakers and Phil Jackson but after reading what he said and seeing "Los Suns" on the Phoenix jerseys, I may have to root for one of my all time bete noires. And I can't root for Steve Nash after his clueless comments and stance on the Arizona law. Hey Steve, since you're a Canadian, maybe you can use your wealth to ship about a million Mexicans north of the border. Bet your fellow Canadians would be thrilled with that! No way I'm rootin' for this Ivory Tower dwelling, out-of-touch-with-common-man disposed, aging point guard. (But it's going to be tough to root against a white guy who can actually compete in the NBA)
Why would Carlos Slim want to promote using the US as a relief valve for Mexican fecundity? Is it because he's a Gen-Xer?
Sorry, OT perhaps...
Kids' test answers on race brings mother to tears
A 5-year-old girl in Georgia is being asked a series of questions in her school library. The girl, who is white, is looking at pictures of five cartoons of girls, all identical except for skin color ranging from light to dark.
When asked who the smart child is, she points to a light-skinned doll. When asked who the mean child is she points to a dark-skinned doll. She says a white child is good because "I think she looks like me", and says the black child is ugly because "she's a lot darker."
As she answers her mother watches, and gently weeps.
...but interesting nonetheless.
In the article, only 44% of the *older* generation favors reducing immigration, and only 24% of the under 45 year olds. They didn't break that out by race. However, among my college friends, in the older bands of the younger range, there is little thought about immigration, and I don't doubt many would answer they don't want to reduce levels.
The New York Times has long since lost any credibility as a great metropolitan paper. It has become a criminal organization, nothing more , nothing less!
The percentages in the table suggest something that I have pondered at length: the immigration die has already been cast. All the Arizona laws and illegal immigration bans in the future cannot change the present reality. Forty-five years of legal and illegal immigration have effectively created a new, majority non-white society. The question now is: What is to be done? If the situation is unacceptable then some sort of re-patriation program is in order but I don't see that happening with our present form of government. There is no easy way out folks - no law or policy that is a deus ex machina.
You know the old saying, "Anyone who's not a socialist at 20 has no heart, anyone who's still a socialist at 35 has no brain."
Many of these young people will change their tune when they suddenly have taxes to pay, property values to protect and lose the invincibility of youth when it comes to worrying about crime.
More importantly, remember that the culture wars of the 1960's not only gave us liberal yuppies, they gave us the Religious Right. I predict that today's immigration debates is creating a whole new generation of racially aware, middle-class white kids that will finally shed the white guilt of their parents.
Think about it: a new generation of white kids growing up as minorities in their schools, being oppressed by their teachers for wearing US flags on May 5, and seeing their NAM classmates favored in college admissions and job applications.
Watch out!
Meaghan Patrick, a junior at New College of Florida, a tiny liberal arts college in Sarasota, says discussing immigration with her older relatives is like “hitting your head against a brick wall.”
Hey, I remember when I was a sophisticated, "infinitely wiser and more experienced than my thick, backward older relatives" college student, too! Good times, good times.
However, unlike Megan - oh excuse me, Meaghan, I was earning a non-dingbat degree that rendered me employable, and, perhaps not coincidentally, my "more accepting worldview" eroded. (I guess college is like Head Start for us natural thickos - all those gains in serfistikation start evaporating as soon as we're removed from the intensive training programs.)
Best of luck to you, Miss Meaghan - I'm sure with your degree from that "tiny liberal arts college", you can look forward to a secure and remunerative career somewhere on the diversi-tay gravy train.
Wait, I take back my pessimism! Perhaps our lords and masters will make living in America so unpleasant for most people that those with a plausible alternative will re-patriate themselves voluntarily.
These two bits jumped out at me:
First, behold the oblivious or severely irony-challenged NYT writer:
Still, in interviews across the nation, young people emphasized the benefits of immigrants. Andrea Bonvecchio, 17, the daughter of a naturalized citizen from Venezuela, said going to a high school that is “like 98 percent Hispanic” meant she could find friends who enjoyed both Latin music and her favorite movie, “The Parent Trap.”
Pricelss. So, um, the "benefits of immigration" mean that Andrea can enjoy what all those racist, xenophobic, hidebound "white flighters" run away to obtain - a racially homogenous environment where she can enjoy her own culture.
Second:
Immigration, which census figures show declined sharply from the Depression through the 1960s, reached a historic low point the year after Woodstock.
Which apparently the writer wants the reader to believe just, you know, happened, one of those inexplicable historical forces, just like the record high levels of today's immigration. After all, as Miss Meaghan is quoted later in the story saying, this represents “the natural course of history." And as a college student, she ought to know.
The NYT article practices the usual slight of hand. The important point remains:
In the poll, a majority of Americans in all age groups described illegal immigration as a “very serious” problem.
No group likes illegal immigration. All we have are differences in degree, not kind. There's no real gap.
As for the "random" interviewees, their selection has all the spontaneity of of a paint-by-numbers picture. There was one funny line, though:
Still, in interviews across the nation, young people emphasized the benefits of immigrants. Andrea Bonvecchio, 17, the daughter of a naturalized citizen from Venezuela, said going to a high school that is “like 98 percent Hispanic” meant she could find friends who enjoyed both Latin music and her favorite movie, “The Parent Trap.”
Wow, "like 98% Hispanic"! How is this "diverse" or "multicultural"?
Well said, Jack Aubrey. That post summed up the general uneasiness I felt about her nomination quite well.
My interpretation, in short, was she probably feels like an outsider (deservedly or not) and would agitate from an outsider's view of the law, which would most likely be inimical to the interests of the "silent" majority. Such is life in the day of legislation from the bench.
Let the NY Times consider this:
The white and black kids in the diverse high school in which I taught do NOT see things the way those college interviewees do because their personal experiences have shown them the downside of this flood of illegals--the crowded classes for them versus the special classes and attention for those that shouldn't even be here; the packed hallways and cafeterias and the anonymity that comes with such over-crowding; the violence, including fights and the yearly drive-by or two; the locker searches, metal-detectors, the gang logos engraved in their desks, and on and on.
LA? Nope. A formerly white and functional working class community of the East SF BAy ARea turned into a mess.
These kids don't see things the way the NYTimes thinks they do. The Times--they are a'changin.'
@Seiler says: "Nothing is being done right on the economy except, for now, no protectionism.
Wrong. Protectionism is taking place on a massive scale, it's just that it's only being done by, and for the benefit and interests of, China and other Asian and European countries.
My grandmother rants and raves against illegal immigrants. When she does this, I remind her that her mother was, in fact, an illegal immigrant, who came from Ukraine using a forged passport.
I read the article.
Carlos Slim is getting the agitiprop he paid for. The NYT reporters had to burn some shoe leather to find these "examples" to shoe-horn in this prefabricated piece.
Your earlier thoughts on the matter are more correct Steve. Indicating that you are "fabulously unconcerned" about immigration is status-signalling your gigantic peacock feathers. After all, those nice little brown people would never vote to end tax-subsidies that underwrite your non-profit's foundation or the Dept. or Whateverwasteoftaxmoney you work for, would they?
Welfare-recipients aren't are only tax-sucks. Many people employed for government agencies/non-profits are basically on "sophisticated welfare". They create little value, but are well paid by the taxpayer. They are required to show up at offices and execute ineffective initiatives that spread cultural marxist-nonsense, and the taxpaying public would give their jobs the axe in a heartbeat if they could vote on it individually, but they can't. These are the kinds of white people who don't mind high levels of immigration.
The "stage army" is probably the mindset of those way up the totem pole, who are aware of things like red state/blue state birthrate disparities, but the average college-leftard is unaware of these things.
We live in a country where the media is fundamentally totalitarian and doesn't allow democratic debate on important issues like immigration. The numbers for them would be even worse if they allowed democracy to break out. And it should be remembered that the "Times" is a prostitute rented by Carlos Slim. It says something about the rottenness of debate in this country that a major newspaper can be bribed by a hostile foreigner to advocate what amounts to a "lebensraum" program against the American nation and nobody raises an eyebrow.
Jack
You said it! I'm (almost) of the opinion that the franchise should be limited to those who have (or have had) children, are net taxpayers (or have been until retired), and do not hold non-elected gov't. employment (except as members of the military).
Not practical, I know, never going to happen--but it sure is gratifying to wish for!
Steve, are you ever going to get around to reviewing Crossing Over? I don't know if it's supposed to be more of an indie film, but it does star Harrison Ford. The trailer we saw for it on DVD hits all the liberal erogenous zones- Ford as a border agent asked to deport Hispanic (and, of course, now Muslim) kids who at some point I guess bucks the system and so gets to achieve rapture sitting next to his former target at a swearing-in ceremony to the sound of a swelling orchestra.
@Dutchboy
The situation is not as dire as the tables suggest. What is fueling the rapid increase of the Mexican population is immigration--not natural increase. Shut off the immigration and repatriate the illegals and Hispanics would drop from 15% to 11% of the population. Even with their higher birth rate it would probably take them a century to get back to the levels where they are today. The liberals advance two arguments for their race replacement project. 1) It is all going to be wonderful, and 2) It is already too late to stop it. Both arguments are wrong.
Think about it: a new generation of white kids growing up as minorities in their schools, being oppressed by their teachers for wearing US flags on May 5, and seeing their NAM classmates favored in college admissions and job applications.
Who can barely read or count, have never had any real responsibilities leading to real self-respect, are surrounded by tasty shiny distractions, and the only paths to self-improvement available to the best of them require submitting to racialized Maoist self-criticism sessions. I know these kids, you obviously don't. No hope there.
Michael Kinsley--an example of why I, an American woman, long for the re-emergence and ascendency of the pre-Vietnam American male.
Figgy,
Totally agree with you. I am a Laker hater, but now, can't root for either the Suns or Nash.
I love, however, the latest--Arizona's threat not to sell water to LA for LA's boycott, even though SoCal already takes more than its fair share of water from us up north.
The welfare fraud is the issue you never hear either party discuss as it pertains to illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America.
There is this repeated line about how illegals "come here to work."
Uh, some do, but once here in CA, a huge percentage discover how easy it is to go to the county welfare office, lie, and get freebies. Of course, American citizens do that too, but it hurts even worse to know the line is endless.
Wow, "like 98% Hispanic"! How is this "diverse" or "multicultural"?
"Diversity" is essentially just another math problem, and journalists and liberals tend not to think mathematically. Diversity is the measure of the disparity between elements within a set, but the left-wing media and Democrats in general seem to think that "diversity" is the difference between elements within a set against the elements without the set.
Honest to God, there are liberals claiming the Kagan nomination will add to the diversity of the Court because she's "an ethnnic minority," never mind that her education (Harvard), upbringing (New York), and ethnicity/religion (Jewish) all add to the Court's uniformity, not it's diversity.
what's interesting to me is why young whites like Meghan Patrick wouldn't intuitively see the problem posed by runaway immigration. Why isn't the simple problem of crowding, entirely aside from other issues, obvious to these kids? Maybe I'm underestimating the power of the brainwashing re brown-skinned "goodness."
Well Noah, unless you are four (some posters here might be), your great grandmother probably came here before the era of massive social entitlements like welfare and Medicare/Medicaid. And dollars to donuts she probably passed at leasr a cursory health exam upon landing, fake passport or no.
We don't even demand for that bare minimum any more.
Maybe I'm underestimating the power of the brainwashing re brown-skinned "goodness."
Maybe.
Tough to say.
Jury still out.
When looking at the population figures for Arizona you need to remember that a large fraction of the state's population is composed of retirees from Northern states and California. These retirees are one of the reasons that Arizona consumes more Federal tax revenue than it pays into the Federal treasury, since these retirees earn their social security credits someplace like Michigan and then go on to collect said credits here in Arizona.
Incidentally, if you want to get an idea of how White Arizona once was, and how little the Spanish colonization added to AZ you need to go look at the First World War memorial in front of the AZ state capitol with the statue of the AZ WW1 flying ace on the top of it. Almost all of the names of AZ's war dead from the First World War are Northern European, with very few Hispanic names included.
Despite all of the blather about how Arizona has always been inhabited by 600 million wise Latinos who were conquered by the Evil Whites there were almost none of them here when WW1 broke out. Only once sufficient water management infrastructure had been built, farms established, and industry developed was Ted Kennedy able to hold open the door for his fellow Catholics.
If you are curious you can view the names of Arizona's WW1 war dead that are listed on the base of the Frank Luke Memorial statue in front of the AZ State Capitol here. If you scan the list quickly you shouldn't find too many Hispanics on it.
Yes Youth = non-Whites. The birth dearth among Whites means that the older generation is far bigger, still, than the younger one. Eventually this will change but there is a twenty year window.
Moreover, support among Whites for "diversity" or lots of non-Whites is mostly among White women. White men find non-White men more competition for the few attractive women, mostly White and Asian, with a smattering of fairer skinned Latinas and Black women. While women of all races find on average Black men, and then Hispanic men, quite attractive based on the "dark men, fair maiden" examples, and perceived at least masculine advantage, higher testosterone, and so on, White and Asian men find themselves at a frequent disadvantage, as perceived less masculine.
For example, Conan O'Brien jokes constantly about his fair skin and red hair making him less masculine.
White women benefit from diversity (fewer Whites). More masculine men, fewer icky beta White guys (who are pushed out by more aggressive, masculine competitors and Affirmative Action) leaving the remaining White guys as clear Alphas, no testing required. Also, nannies and gardeners and such make single motherhood easier. By contrast, other than simply beta agreeing with women, most White men even younger ones find themselves at a disadvantage. Fewer attractive women, (Black and Hispanic women are more likely also to be obese than White women, reducing attractiveness) and more masculine competition, with defacto "off-limits" for attractive Black and Hispanic women, and "open season" on attractive White women. "If you don't agree, you're racist!"
Young women, support lots of "diversity" and illegal immigration. Young White men, not so much.
----------------
Israel has not signed the NPT. Neither has China. North Korea signed but withdrew. Iran has not signed. Neither has Pakistan. Or India. Why single out Israel alone among all these other nations? Oh yes, Jews live there.
If Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Peru, Chile, Australia, and New Zealand had nukes, the world would not be a bit less safer. Possession of nukes is not a problem: the nature of the regime that has them is. At any rate, the NPT became a dead letter the moment the US in 1969 vetoed the prospective Soviet strike against the Chinese nuke program. Nuclear monopolies require military force to maintain them. Nukes being expensive but not impossible to get: see Pakistan and North Korea, not exactly world powers.
Do you ever wonder if massive third world immigration could be part of some Morloch-Eloi scheme?
Sure, you all come up, north of the border. We'll give you free food, free homes, free education, free health care...then when everyone least expects it - BAM!
That's an elaborate way of explaining away what the NYT doesn't like: polls show the Arizona law highly popular with voters. Sure, you evil racists may be in the majority for now, but you are demographically doomed, doomed we tell you! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
Yeah, I saw this same them a few days ago and immediately thought the same thing. And a second after that I thought, no, guys, kids are just dumb. They've been dumb throughout history. Given similar circumstances, one day they'll be acting just like their parents.
You said it! I'm (almost) of the opinion that the franchise should be limited to those who have (or have had) children, are net taxpayers (or have been until retired), and do not hold non-elected gov't. employment (except as members of the military).
I could get behind that, except for the part about the military. Sorry, they're at the gubmint titty too.
Anonymous said...
"Do you ever wonder if massive third world immigration could be part of some Morloch-Eloi scheme?
Sure, you all come up, north of the border. We'll give you free food, free homes, free education, free health care...then when everyone least expects it - BAM!"
Oh yes, I've thought about it. The callous wannabe-Stalinist plutocrats who rule us hate humanity in general. Can the "Stage Army" of today prevent itself from becoming the kulaks of tomorrow? Seeing how the elites in their home countries treat them like garbage and get away with it, I don't get my hopes up for any sort of backlash.
Remember 1984, when O'Brien said that the future of humanity would be a face forever stamped by a boot? That face could just as easily be brown, yellow, or black as it could be white; the boot is not all that picky. For the modern power elite, all lives are equally worthless in the long run.
i usually ignore whiskey but for some reason i read his post in this thread and it made me crack up. i don't know where he gets this stuff but it's funny.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. If 10 million more illegals can't get my mortgage back above water, nothing can!
:-)
"@Seiler says: "Nothing is being done right on the economy except, for now, no protectionism.
Wrong. Protectionism is taking place on a massive scale, it's just that it's only being done by, and for the benefit and interests of, China and other Asian and European countries."
I heard Trump on Larry King and he said his Chinese friends laugh at us for our policies. Trump says we should have tariffs and crack down on illegal immigrants. How many elite business men would say that. Larry kept trying to stick up for the immigrants like an idiot.
Whiskey,
Upper class white women are the ones who hate diversity the most. Look at how white women refuse to go to universities with too many minorities. How they join all white sororities and play whites that only white women play. White women will not live in a neighborhood heavy in minorities. Look at how white women avoid career fields with too many minorities.
White men can function in a world or area with large numbers of minorities, white women cannot. That is why in the future, white women will be packing themselves into smaller areas where they will feel safe.
How'd you like Felipe Caleron's Newspeak for illegal immigration= "migration"!
Is there anything Orwell didn't predict?
I rather doubt Whiskey’s assertion that White women find on average Mexican men attractive, since on average White women are taller than Mexican men.
It is so dirty for NYT to turn this into an issue of inclusiveness vs exclusiveness. The boomer generation was very welcoming of non-whites and all sorts of immigrants from all over the world. Indeed, good many of them would still be okay with immigration as long as it was gradual and assimilationist.
Most boomers were not bothered--and still not bothered--about American cities having people from all over the world.
What pisses them off is that SO MANY come illegally, come from poor countries like Mexico and don't contribute much--and indeed have done much harm--, have become huge burdens to tax payers, march in the 100,000s for their 'rights' with arrogance and hostility, and keep coming and coming without end.
But NYT ignores all that and just turns it into an issue of younger kids are more enlightened and progressive than the boomers.
Furthermore, there is no discussion in the article as to the real reason why so many young ones are supportive of crazy policies such as open borders and 'gay marriage'. It's not because they've really thought about these issues or know much about them but because their impressionable minds have been indoctrinated and warped by PC teachers and MSM, of which NYT is a major player.
Liberal MSM and Pop Culture mold the minds of young people, but then tell the whole country that we should listen to young people since young people are so fresh, open, idealistic, without prejudices, represent the new, and think for themselves. (!!!)
In fact, young people have NEVER thought for themselves. They've always taken their cues from older people manipulating the forces that shape young minds. Of course, older people with the real power have been growing ever more skillful in filling young people with ideas, fashions, and agendas but then making the young dolts believe it's their own ideas.
When liberals try to win support for certain policies, they either preach sermons about the CHIIIIILDREN--how we must spend more to help those innocent little darlings--OR point to the idealism of young people--as if young people came up with fresh brand new ideas all on their own--without the prejudices and cultural baggage carried by old people.
But did young ones really come up with ideals and agendas such as 'gay marriage', 'end global warming', or support for illegal immigration(or else you're a 'racist')? Of course not. Just as 60s generation got all their ideas from older people, today's young people get most of their ideas from liberal boomers who control MSM, schools, and pop culture industry.
It kinda reminds me of Mao's CULTURAL REVOLUTION. In order to destroy his rivals in the communist party, Mao called on young people to 'bombard to headquarters'.
An outside observer might have thought young people spontaneously came up with their own ideas to carry on the revolution... when in fact, the youthful masses had been whipped into a frenzy by the propaganda apparatus controlled by Mao and his henchmen.
Whiskey, I wish we had let the Soviets strike the Chinese nuclear program and I agree with you on Israel.
Whiskey: "Moreover, support among Whites for "diversity" or lots of non-Whites is mostly among White women. White men find non-White men more competition for the few attractive women, mostly White and Asian, with a smattering of fairer skinned Latinas and Black women. While women of all races find on average Black men, and then Hispanic men, quite attractive based on the "dark men, fair maiden" examples, and perceived at least masculine advantage, higher testosterone, and so on, White and Asian men find themselves at a frequent disadvantage, as perceived less masculine."
You always peddle the same false agenda. The average Mexican guy is a short, squat roofer, not Antonio Banderas. You are getting Mediterranean whites (the ruling class of Mexico) confused with Mestizos. The average Mexican guy is America has at least 50 percent indigenous ancestry. Thus, they are typically about 5'3 and somewhat overweight. White women are about 5'5 on average. So how on earth do they find Mexican men more "masculine" if they are taller than them? You're full of nonsense.
Ha ha ha.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7742456/Arizona-threatens-to-cut-off-LA-electricity-supply.html
OK, so the list of diverse cities hilariously overlaps with the list of high-foreclosure cities. Haw, haw, that is funny.
But it doesn't alter the fact that these cities are demographically doomed.
A new phrase for this kind of article:
"Astroturf journalism"?
This piece was obviously half-formed (at least) in an editor's mind, with only the quote gathering to be done by a prompting reporterette. It really bothers me because people will do what they think everyone else is doing, or what is "cool". Whats "cool" is always what the young people with the highest replication value ("hot" people in their early 20's) are doing. Notice how even older people these days want to be seen listening to music that is manufactured for the 15-28 demographic? Its really sad, but its the way people are.
God Im getting cynical.
"Cicero said...
Remember 1984, when O'Brien said that the future of humanity would be a face forever stamped by a boot? That face could just as easily be brown, yellow, or black as it could be white; the boot is not all that picky. For the modern power elite, all lives are equally worthless in the long run."
And the boot is now likely to be a Bruno Magli.
The NYTimes to the American people: be more like teenagers.
It´s curious to see how the generation that will be blighted by mass immigration is most favourable to it.
They (us, actually) deserve every bit of it.
Well, the article is partly true: old white people tend to be racists.
Younger whites are more prone to date other races and have friends of another race.
"what's interesting to me is why young whites like Meghan Patrick wouldn't intuitively see the problem posed by runaway immigration. Why isn't the simple problem of crowding, entirely aside from other issues, obvious to these kids? Maybe I'm underestimating the power of the brainwashing re brown-skinned "goodness.""
For young women, political views are a form of fashion accessory.
And the boot is now likely to be a Bruno Magli.
You know, I was able to laugh at that, but it dawns on me that some of the younger readers at iSteve might not know what it is you're talking about [at least I assume that's what it is you're talking about].
Children and teens are the most easily manipulated sectors of society.
Im sure this goes back a long way but certainly the real twist seems to date from the '60s. Tell them what to think but flatter them that they are speaking truth to power, standing up to The Man. That their parroting of of various elite sponsored memes is being "outspoken".
Packaging conformity as rebellion, that was the really clever part. Maybe now with the internet that seam is getting to be mined out though.
>I'll believe that when there's an illegal immigration-theme 'Woodstock'.<
The same kind of people who planned and financed the first one likely have another one ready to go. If so, it will be front page news in the NYT - and will be billed as "spontaneous."
>Well, the article is partly true: old white people tend to be racists.<
But Hispanic activists are not racially minded. And illegal immigrants never think of their race. And no non-white is ever racist, eh?
A good bit of context is here.
Do you ever wonder if massive third world immigration could be part of some Morloch-Eloi scheme?
Uhh, I think you just summed up - in a single rhetorical question - the very raison d'être of the iSteve-osphere.
Whatever would we girls do without Whiskey to tell us what we think every week? He's absolutely right in what he says, of course. Personally, I can't get enough of those dusky hunks. Entering a Saturday night dog fight with my arm resting comfortably on top of a Mexican guy's head is my idea of date heaven.
>Whatever would we girls do without Whiskey<
You aren't a girl.
Post a Comment