With the Supreme Court gearing up for oral arguments over affirmative action, I'm reminded for the umpty-umpth time that everybody loves to debate whether African-Americans deserve quotas. Personally, having been following these debates for 40 years, I know all the arguments on both sides and understand that both sides have their points.
What's fascinating / snooze-inducing is that almost nobody on either side of the quota issue is interested in arguing whether immigrant groups should continue to be eligible, even though they are rapidly becoming vastly more numerous than blacks and American Indians.
To quantify this, I took a look at the Census Bureau's 2008 projection of the makeup of the population in 2050. (In 2009, the Bureau followed up with multiple projections based on varying assumptions, but for simplicity's sake I'll just use the 2008 projections as the federal government's last attempt at a single best guess.)
Assume that whites and Asians are not eligible for preferences (and of course Asian businesspersons are eligible for a lot of obscure minority privileges, but let's ignore that for the moment.) Assume that all Hispanics remain a protected class, as well as all non-Hispanic blacks, American Indians, and Pacific Islanders, and half of non-Hispanic multi-racials (i.e., half will be white-Asians and thus ineligible, half something else and thus eligible).
I come up with just under 196,000,000 people in 2050 who will be eligible for race/ethnic preferences, with the great majority of the beneficiaries neither black nor American Indian.
Shouldn't we be having a discussion of how the country is going to function under those circumstances?
Posts
70 comments:
Okay, let's give all the jobs to blacks and browns and make them produce all the wealth so all white folks could just sit back and live off welfare.
Preferences and quotas can carry on until the last Caucasoid dies or moves away. South Africa continues under those circumstances, with open discrimination against whites. So does Zimbabwe.
The country WON'T function very well, or even exist, and NOBODY wants to mention that because THEN all the current false assumptions and lies would rapidly be revealed and demolished. It's when the leftist traitors' are closest to being debunked that freedom of speech is most severely curtailed. The U.S. needs to be a White country again. It's really that simple.
The solution is to limit affirmative action to 13th Amendment (ending slavery) and Indian Treaty Clause.
AA should be narrower and deeper. If only descendants of freed slaves and enrolled Indians are considered "socially disadvantaged" for the purposes of ethnic preferences, it will be a much smaller pool (for example, the President wouldn't qualify since his father wasn't African-American), so even broader use of AA would be less onerous to rest of the country.
For example, using explicit quotas means employers could screen candidates by IQ. Being able to hire highest percentile (from both general pool and AA pool) would be a vast improvement over our present BS credentialism system.
Unlike the 14th Amendment, the 13th Amendment's obligation to eliminate "badges of slavery" can be enforced against private parties (no state actor requirement) but is narrowly targeted to protect slaves and their descendants. Its impossible to construe its language to cover immigrants from anywhere (Indians are sui generis. Courts have allowed the Federales to provide them treaty rights that aren't offered to other citizens).
No, we can't have a discussion. You ain't got nuthin' to say to us.
Aaaargh! YOU ARE A RACIST! This is precisely the stuff that should NEVER, EVER be discussed.
Any public policy that deals with race should be forbidden to discuss. In fact, all discussion of this sort should be banned as hate speech.
Of course, by 2050, that will mean just about all public policy.
So we just need to shut up. Or somebody might get offended.
The preceding message was co-sponsored by the Dem. and Rep. parties, the MSM and Conservatism Inc.
Can anyone interpret the latest birth data that indicates the Hispanic birthrate continues to decline rapidly in the U.S., for the fourth straight year? What does that mean for all the demographic projections about a majority Hispanic nation?
2 points, Steve -
1. What is the projected total U.S. population that you were working with?
2. Your estimate is too low anyway. Current (and almost certainly future) discrimination law protects all women (black, white, hispanic, asian, etc.) with the same intellectually indefensible "disparate impact" insanity.
I'm not kidding. I had to write a paper on Home Depot's sex discrimination settlement with the EEOC. Home Depot payed out over $100,000,000 because too many men had jobs selling plumbing, hardware, appliances, etc. and too many women were cashiers. I'd put a link but I'm too lazy and anybody who cares can google for info.
I think the system will be reformed radically because the number of citizens applying for special treatment will be much greater than Mr. Sailer predicts.
People will start inventing "diverse" heritage for themselves and their children. Actually, it's being done already, but this practice will only spread.
Take Steve Sailer, for example. Who is to say he is not really a partial Sephardic Jew, in roots?
If interested, watch this Obama 2005 Harvard address, and ask yourself if what he's angry about is that success is the result of "blind luck" or if he knows...I mean KNOWS what almost all people know, that some people are too dumb to succeed to the degree others do. If it's the latter, is the depth of his anger the result not of believing in "blind luck," but in believing what Rushton, Murray, and others believe about race?
The Hispanic woman president and her 5 wives will run the country and ensure maximum wonderfulness for everyone.
In the long run, we are all dead.
"AA should be narrower and deeper. If only descendants of freed slaves and enrolled Indians are considered "socially disadvantaged" for the purposes of ethnic preferences, it will be a much smaller pool "
Sure. And I think that the descendants of slaves would also have to become "enrolled", and also based on definite genetic markers. The "one drop rule" would have to be binned. Still, leeches like Eric Holder will be able to benefit by lying about their heritage because they share a lot of their genetic make up with the descendants of the American.
The elites are Anti-White. They just are. You guys keep scratching your head, acting all dumbfounded as to why no one discusses this or that.
The aim is to flood this country with as many non-Whites as possible and give them preferences over Whites. And guess what? The non-Whites (including Asians) love it.
End of story.
"If interested, watch this Obama 2005 Harvard address, and ask yourself if what he's angry about is that success is the result of "blind luck" or if he knows...I mean KNOWS what almost all people know, that some people are too dumb to succeed to the degree others do. If it's the latter, is the depth of his anger the result not of believing in "blind luck," but in believing what Rushton, Murray, and others believe about race?"
Why would that make him angry? Obama is intelligent enough to know that whatever turns out to be true for the black race, as a whole, it won't change his individual experience. Also, it's not particularly painful to accept the truth about genetics as a sonof two academically gifted parents.
And most importantly, Obama doesn't seem to be invested into his blackness on a personal level. It's a career gimmick.
And most importantly, Obama doesn't seem to be invested into his blackness on a personal level. It's a career gimmick.
What surprised me about the debate was most black men Obama's age are pretty damn cool. High verbal skills, lots of presence and generally unflappable. I used to get the same impression about Bush as well, with his strange toadying to older men below his rank. Deomocracy is not producing good leaders.
White people need to get over themselves and simply advocate for their own interests in a who...whom manner. Allowing things to be presented on a bogus universalist plane simply means you'll get finessed every time. Neutrality is effectively impossible, even for those of reasonably good will. Somebody WILL be favored. The only question is Who...Whom.
This nonsense about saying...we would support affirmative action but it's 'damaging to its recipients due to mismatch effects'/degrading to black people/etc is just plain disgusting. The reason to oppose it is because...drum roll...
It is contrary to the interests of non-elite white people. Period, end of story. God curse all the 'nice white ladies' that force the discourse into such a mendacious sewer and force the laundering of wholesome group and self-interest through the skirts of token minority totems like Sowell.
You guys still think this insanity we call America is going roll on happily?
Wait until the EBT cards run out. Going to be a lot less talk about expoliating birthrates 100 years out and a lot more talk about what territories are safe and what are still overrun with savages.
"I know all the arguments on both sides and understand that both sides have their points."
C'mon Steve, what valid points do the other side have? Enough is enough already. How many billions of dollars has the US government spent on programs to uplift the American black? As a white man, I'm tired of being discriminated against in jobs and promotions that go to less qualified blacks. I would never go to a black doctor because I know he was held to a lower standard than a white or asian. AA does not work, from the presidency on down.
What is the fatal alliance of the GOP?
Think of WWI. France, Germany, and Russia all had fatal alliances. WWI would have been bad for all three, but they stuck with their fatal alliances.
It would have been better for France to stay out but it had the fatal alliance with Russia.
It would have been better for Germany to stay out, but it had a fatal alliance with Austro-Hungarian Empire.
It would have better for Russia to say out but it had a fatal alliance with Serbians and the pan-Slav thing.
The fatal alliance prevented them from doing what would have been best for them. If France had broken the alliance with Russia, it could have just let Germany fight Russia. If Germany had broken the alliance with Austro-Hungs, it would have been just Austros vs Russkies.
And in the 30s, Mussolini made a fatal alliance with Hitler. He could have sat out of WWII and remained in power--just like Franco. But he made the crazy alliance even though it could bring him down.
Fatal alliance prevents a group or nation from doing what is in its best interest.
So, what is the fatal alliance of American conservatism? Neocons maybe?
There is no fatal alliance with blacks or Hispanics or with gays. But there may be a fatal alliance with neocons.
Why is it fatal?
The most powerful enemy of American conservatism is American Jews, but because of the fatal alliance with neocons, American conservatives are afraid to be critical of Jewish power. American cons are so afraid of losing their neocon allies--who might get angry at any criticism of Jewish power(even if it's liberal)--that they dare not say anything about the fact that most Jews are liberal and anti-white and anti-Christian. This fatal alliance with neocons handcuffs us in the conflict with liberal Jews.
Also, this fatal alliance has made the GOP too close to Wall Street Jews. Though Wall Street globalism is bad for White America, the fear of offending Wall Street globalist Jews silences the GOP. Instead of being a white middle class party, it is the party of Wall STreet financiers.
Also, the fear of offending neocons means they get to do as they please inside the GOP. Though neocons pose as moderates who call for A BIG TENT conservatism, they've been purging all conservatives who are not into globalism, Zionism, financialism, open borderism, 'anti-racism', and even gay-stuff-ism.
Neocons are two-faced hypocrites. They call for BIG TENT but demand that everyone like Buchanan and Ron Paul should be expelled from the party. They are like Trotskyites. Indeed, if Stalin had not gotten rid of the Trotskers, the Trotskers would have gotten rid of the Staliners. GOP has been purged by ex-neo-Trotskers. They used 'big tent-ism' to take over the GOP and then kicked everyone they disagreed out. They really into OUR TENT-ism. It's like the Jewish God said He is the one and only God. Neocons have the same mindset and say their conservatism is the one and only conservatism.
As long as this fatal alliance with neocons exist, American conservatives cannot say or do what really needs to be said and done. We are so busy sucking up to neocon Jews and doing everything to please them that we dare not do or say that might offend their Jewish sensibilities--even though most Jews are liberal and using their vast power to destroy white America.
It's like Mussolini became so close to HItler that he was afraid to ever say NO and pull out of the alliance when Hitler got crazier and crazier and more aggressive.
And what happened to Mussolini as the result of the fatal alliance?
In the future, everyone will be black for 15 minutes. Except for white men.
I came from planet Zorgon which Earthlings destroyed long ago. I demand reparations.
What whites need to do is create their own victim narratives.
Polish-Americans would pose as victims of Russians and Germans.
Italian-Americans would pose as victims of Austrians, Germans, and Muslims.
Greek Americans would pose as victims of Turks and Germans.
Irish Americans would pose as victims of Anglos.
Anglo-Americans would pose as victims of Romans and Vikings.
Finnish Americans would pose as victims of Russians.
Russian-Americans would pose as victims of Mongols and Germans.
German-Americans would pose as victims of Romans/ancient Italians.
Etc. In our globalist era, it doesn't matter where the victimization took place. WE are all global citizens and we are all victims. I want my slice of the pie now.
I read an article in The Atlantic today about AA and it was quite reasonable in explaining the pit falls of AA including putting unqualified individuals in elite universities. The article was not bombastic or mean but the nuts that read the article responded with their usual well reasoned racism accusations and screaming of "legacy admissions!".
AA will never go away. As the Atlantic readers say "AA will end when we are all equal (in outcomes)". This will never happen.
Are we trying to give government jobs to blacks so that blacks won't be clamoring so much for more demanding private sector jobs?
If blacks are working as mailmen, bus drivers, firemen, government social workers, teachers, militarymen, and etc, they won't be aksing for more private sector jobs that may require more competitive skills.
So, even though blacks are actually vastly overrepresented in many government jobs, we don't complain cuz we feel it's better to have them work OVER THERE than over here with us.
Jehu wrote:
"White people need to get over themselves and simply advocate for their own interests"
The problem is, certain subgroups of 'Whites' believe they are advocating for their interests by advocating against White interests.
(Or, against White-NW-European-Protestant interests, to be specific).
How to deal with that problem is a crucial problem.
I don't think America is going to be around in 2050. Such dramatic changes must have serious consequences for the country.
The reason to oppose it is because...drum roll...
It is contrary to the interests of non-elite white people. Period, end of story.
It's even more contrary to the interests of elite Whites. They're the ones who suffer most from AA.
There will be no America in 2050...
"The problem is, certain subgroups of 'Whites' believe they are advocating for their interests by advocating against White interests... crucial problem".
Divide and conquer. There's no getting around AA for blacks. So own that and build your firewall on the 13th Amendment.
Also, there's no question that the EBT cards will never run out. It will always be cheaper to pay for the poor to sit on their couch than to pay for them to sit in jail.
Uncle Sam isn't running out of money, in fact it can't run out of money. Economist Jamie Galbraith once explained the monetary system so succinctly, its worth quoting in full.
"The common thread tying these themes together is simplicity itself. It's that modern money is a spreadsheet! It works by computer! When government spends or lends, it does so by adding numbers to private bank accounts. When it taxes, it marks those same accounts down. When it borrows, it shifts funds from a demand deposit (called a reserve account) to savings (called a securities account). And that for practical purposes is all there is. The money government spends doesn't come from anywhere, and it doesn't cost anything to produce. The government therefore cannot run out."
http://www.correntewire.com/money_spreadsheet
Congratulations you now know more about the monetary system than President Obama (I suspect Mitt Romney already knows all this).
Jehu;"The problem is, certain subgroups of 'Whites' believe they are advocating for their interests by advocating against White interests.
(Or, against White-NW-European-Protestant interests, to be specific).
How to deal with that problem is a crucial problem."
actually, self-hating "White-NW-European-Protestants" form the core of the problem; go to any SWPL liberal arts college, and you will run into hordes of WASPS who loathe their culture and heritage and who will expatiate on the superiority of Hispanic culture, African-American culture, Amerind culture, ...
Anonymous:"What whites need to do is create their own victim narratives.
Polish-Americans would pose as victims of Russians and Germans.
Italian-Americans would pose as victims of Austrians, Germans, and Muslims.
Greek Americans would pose as victims of Turks and Germans.
Irish Americans would pose as victims of Anglos.
Anglo-Americans would pose as victims of Romans and Vikings.
Finnish Americans would pose as victims of Russians.
Russian-Americans would pose as victims of Mongols and Germans.
German-Americans would pose as victims of Romans/ancient Italians.
Etc. In our globalist era, it doesn't matter where the victimization took place. WE are all global citizens and we are all victims. I want my slice of the pie now."
A Kilkenny cats strategy; Whites turn on other Whites while non-Whites (Mestizos, Blacks, Amerinds, etc)continue to focus all their ire on the White man.
Article in the Atlantic The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action
I come up with just under 196,000,000 people in 2050 who will be eligible for race/ethnic preferences
Do you really think the United States will still be around by that time?
"This nonsense about saying...we would support affirmative action but it's 'damaging to its recipients due to mismatch effects'/degrading to black people/etc is just plain disgusting. The reason to oppose it is because...drum roll...
It is contrary to the interests of non-elite white people. Period, end of story. "
Well, there is a third angle you are leaving out; competitiveness/efficiency.
We start out significantly dumber than East Asian nations, on average. But then our racial spoils system makes that competitive disadvantage even worse.
And sooner or later, people may notice that our governments are incredibly inefficient and bad at nearly everything they try to do. There are a number of reasons for this, but the fact that we don't hire the most qualified people is probably a significant factor.
Once you really start to grasp how terrible average people are, you will probably become reluctant to replace them with people who are sub average.
How the USA will function when "protected minorities" become majority? By tacitly, de facto, abolishing the whole system. Life is stronger than all the laws. It is happening already.
I doubt seriously that what will remain of our country in 2050 will even remotely resemble the United States of 2012. After all, does what remains of our country now, in 2012, resemble our country of just thirty-eight years ago, our country of 1974?
One would guess that whites would finally wake up nd refuse to accept it.
But on second thoughts, extrapolating from the treachery of white elites, general apathy and a fragmented white population, one has doubts.
Possibly one outcome would be a shrinkage of the state, as whites under the guise of 'libertarianism' generally refuse to fund a state that discriminates against them, but tehn we must remember by that time whites will be out-voted, so any poltical attempt to return to a 'basic' state (ie 18th century like bare minimum), will fail.
Perhaps there will be a move towards 'state rights' with white held enclaves and entire states doing all sorts of things to ensure a de facto segregation and quasi independence - but the hawks at the EOOC will swoop and rip it apart.
Short answer, I don't know, it's unpredictable in the way of these things and such unknowns as charismatic leaders, political movements etc 'springing up from nowhere' can change everything, perhaps formal secession cannot be ruled out.Look at Catalonia in Spain.
There is analogy here with Britain.
Basically, he plan of he British political class (both Tory and Labour wings), is to abolish all immigration controls whatsoever and allow completely free immigration because of ideological reasons.
Both parties will flat out lie and deny this, but a little digging will reveal my statement to be true. Anyhow, the upshot is that Britain will be a majority non-white nation by 2066 (ironically, the millenium of the Battle of Hastings).
The indigenous British people have hated, resentedc and reviled this policy since its inception, but because of the structure of British politics, they have never found a voice. The unsatisfactory and unelectable Nick Griffin of the BNP was the closest that came to that voice, so far so bad.
But lately, a completely ne development, a game changer has come over the horizon, namely UKIP and its charismatic, popular leader Nigel Farage. UKIP are a non racist anti immigration party, formed to oppose the EU.
The EU has been seen to fail and fail bigtime (despite incessant propaganda for the past 40 years that it is the road to prosperity and wealth). This has given UKIP its chance and big moment. They will undermine the Tories on the right and force the Tories to compromise.
So, it's time to drop the pretense. AA is not about redressing past wrongs but addressing current 'imbalances'.
No. Its about nothing more than dispossessing whitey.
The question is:
What's gonna happen when the EBT cards and section 8 programs stop?
i think you guys all WAY underestimate just how bad it actually will be in 2050. you think the united states will come to a grinding halt?
has south africa come to a grinding halt with this demographic profile:
40 million africans
4 million europeans
4 million mixed race peoples
1 million south asians
in south africa, europeans are outnumbered TEN TO ONE by africans, RIGHT NOW, yet the nation continues to function.
you're all deluded thinking (hoping, actually) that anything is going to break down, collapse, grind to a halt, come to a head, fracture, or dissolve. you want that to happen, but what's actually going to happen is that the US will become more like brazil, with south african politics.
anybody thinking there are going to be states ceceding or that there might actually be a civil war, you could not possibly be more wrong.
european americans are defeated and are going to TAKE IT. they're going to TAKE becoming an outnumbered, politically harrassed, physically assaulted, taxed to death, worked to death minority.
they are NINE PERCENT of south africa, and keep the country going. you think they can't do that at 50% of the united states? what about 40%? 30% what if european americans were just 20% of the united states population? guess what - NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!
reality is that we already know that just 4 million europeans are productive enough to sustain a population of africans 10 times larger. which is EXACTLY what will be happening in the united states in 2050. europeans will be the abused, hated workhouse that the majority demands work harder, pay more taxes, and shut up and like it while we move ahead of you in line for the good jobs thanks to 29th amendment, which permanently enshrines affirmative action into the constitution of the united states of america.
If diversity is such a hit, why do they need heavy fines and onerous regulations to enforce it? Try and set up an all-White school or neighborhood, and the full force of the law comes down on you. Reminds me of the old USSR, where they shot people who tried to leave the "worker's paradise".
If diversity is so grand, why do they destroy you if you try to escape it?
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. -- Adam Smith
The money government spends doesn't come from anywhere, and it doesn't cost anything to produce. The government therefore cannot run out.
You think three millenia of governments haven't already tried this? When an empire starts printing money to buy its own debt, the doom clock is ticking.
Like J said, life is stronger than all the laws. Multi-culturalism is an indulgence of prosperous times. The Fed is already buying 60% of UST's, and the numbers are apparently so bad they're buying $40B a month of private debt as well. This does not end well.
People are mentioning Brazil and South Africa; both are inapt models. For all its relative diversity, Brazil remains integral enough to function. South Africa on the other hand is a failing state. Thank God the Afrikaaners dismantled their nukes before they handed over the keys to the place.
"Shouldn't we be having a discussion of how the country is going to function under those circumstances?"
The same way it has for the last fifty years: screwing middle-class white people.
in south africa, europeans are outnumbered TEN TO ONE by africans, RIGHT NOW, yet the nation continues to function.
Is it functioning better/same/worse than it used to? Do you think it will be functioning better/same/worse in another five years when the white fraction is smaller still? We are looking at a process not an event.
And how is Zimbabwe working out for ya?
"europeans will be the abused, hated workhouse that the majority demands work harder, pay more taxes, and shut up and like it while we move ahead of you in line for the good jobs"
So basically whites in the US will take the role that Jews had throughout most of European history.
I read that Atlantic article. It ignores the HBD bear in the room. If AA makes unprepared black students who want to become engineers feel bad, and "reinforces stereotypes", then shouldn't "historically black" colleges with decent academic reputations like Howard and Morehouse be turning out perfectly adequate black engineers and scientists? Is there any evidence this is happening?
Polish-Americans would pose as victims of Russians and Germans.
Italian-Americans would pose as victims of Austrians, Germans, and Muslims.
Greek Americans would pose as victims of Turks and Germans.
Irish Americans would pose as victims of Anglos.
Anglo-Americans would pose as victims of Romans and Vikings.
Finnish Americans would pose as victims of Russians.
Russian-Americans would pose as victims of Mongols and Germans.
German-Americans would pose as victims of Romans/ancient Italians.
Now just try getting Komment Kontrol to allow you to add these two items to your list:
Ukrainian-Americans as the victims of the __________
Spanish-Americans as the victims of the __________
Basically, he plan of he British political class (both Tory and Labour wings), is to abolish all immigration controls whatsoever and allow completely free immigration because of ideological reasons.
Both parties will flat out lie and deny this, but a little digging will reveal my statement to be true. Anyhow, the upshot is that Britain will be a majority non-white nation by 2066....
Much, much sooner than that. Perhaps 2036.
The Catalonia situation happening right now in Spain is interesting.
First things first - basically thre is no real difference between a Catalan and any other Spaniard - the exceptionalism is all a lot of bullshit cooked up people with a chip on their shoulder because Catalonia happens to have industry, and is closer to France - hence Europe's white core - than it is to Africa.
But the Catalans have a group identity and since Spain is falling apart (thanks, EU and oh, don't mention the 6 million immigrants Spain took in last decade - How is that working out Mr. WSJ Economist?), they have started flexing their muscles and started to resent their poorer bretheren (yes, bretheren).
Secession should not be ruled out.
So tell me Steve? What are all these benefits Asians are getting in business?
Or is this just another one of your straw man arguments?
Two days ago we had a demonstration of waht I call - Affirmative Action Disease.
Barrack Obam is a hot house flower who had been sheletered his entire life from confrontation with equals (or betters).
I was the captain of my collge debate team. Had Obama been a member he would have been a better, stronger, tougher debater the other night. Why? Because he would have experienced the "agony of defeat". Today I imagine that the debate team from George Mason has a winning record - not mine. We routinely lost to bigger schools who had better organized programs.
Obama has been sheltered from the chastening and strenthening experience of defeat. He has Affirmative Action Disease.
He's like the James Earle Jones character in Conan who meets Arnold in the last scene and gets his head handed to him - literally. He had spent to much of his life being surrounded by worshipers. Makes you weak.
Albertosaurus
""europeans will be the abused, hated workhouse that the majority demands work harder, pay more taxes, and shut up and like it while we move ahead of you in line for the good jobs"
So basically whites in the US will take the role that Jews had throughout most of European history."
Uh, in many places Jews were tax farmers -- the peasantry paid taxes to them (acting on behalf of the nobility).
In pre-modern Europe virtually everyone faced huge restrictions on their movement, occupational choice, etc. See 'serfdom'. If anything, Jews had more freedom than did 95% of the Christian population of Europe.
"So tell me Steve? What are all these benefits Asians are getting in business?
"
Google is your friend -- took me about 1 min to find this, no doubt just one of thousands of programs wherein white taxpayers help finance their competition.
Anonymous wrote:
"Self-hating "White-NW-European-Protestants" form the core of the problem"
Go back to the time when NW-European-Protestants were a supermajority of the population and dominated opinion-shaping media. (Let's say, a century ago).
By your reckoning, the USA would have been much, much worse off with these kinds of Whites having so much power. Absurd. Things started turning seriously for the worse only as NW-European-Protestants lost power to more recent immigrant ethnicities and religions. ("But I repeat myself" for one notable group, one that ought not be mentioned in polite company).
With any luck, the Arab-Americans who are so pushy to be classified as non-Whites will get their wish. We can have a whole new category for people who have homelands in the Middle East. Jews, as they are fond of pointing out, are a middle eastern people, and would get to be counted into the 'Semitic' category. Even if white-whites wouldn't get AA, at least non-Whites would displace Jews instead of white people.
"Now just try getting Komment Kontrol to allow you to add these two items to your list..."
It's Whim.
Best thing would be US to be divided in half. Instead of elections, every 10 yrs people move to conservative side or liberal side.
Conservative side: limited government, small taxes, no affirmative action, no amnesty, no 'gay marriage', no political correctness. And guns.
Liberal side: affirmative action, high taxes, big government, amnesty, gay stuff, hate speech laws, etc. And extremely strict gun control.
If America were to be divided this way...
Con-America would have
60% of white population, 3% of black population, 15% of Jewish population, 30% of Hispanics, 30% of Asians, and 20% of gays(who don't like 'gay agenda').
Lib-America would have
40% of whites, 97% of blacks, 85% of Jews, 70% of Hispanics, and 705 of Asians, and 80% of gays.
Lib-America would have one decisive advantage in having lots of smart Jews. Otherwise, I'm not so sure.
Anyway, every 10 yrs, people of both sides, instead of electing president, would choose to stay where they are OR go to the other side. But if they go to the other side, they MUST live by its rules. So, if someone in Con-America goes over to Lib-America, he has to live by Lib-American rules. If someone in Lib-America goes to Con-America, he must live by Con-American rules. NO COMPLAINTS!! So, if a negro in Lib-America comes to con-America, he cannot ask for AA and that shit. If he wants such stuff, he should go back to Lib-America.
This way, EVERYONE gets what he or she wants; everyone wins.
I's going to and staying in Con-America.
"in south africa, europeans are outnumbered TEN TO ONE by africans, RIGHT NOW, yet the nation continues to function." - In the middle of the biggest commodity boom in history, which hit just shortly after the end of apartheid. America would not be able to benefit from such things due to a concept that should be obvious to all of us: Scale.
hailtoyou:"Go back to the time when NW-European-Protestants were a supermajority of the population and dominated opinion-shaping media. (Let's say, a century ago).
By your reckoning, the USA would have been much, much worse off with these kinds of Whites having so much power. Absurd. Things started turning seriously for the worse only as NW-European-Protestants lost power to more recent immigrant ethnicities and religions. ("But I repeat myself" for one notable group, one that ought not be mentioned in polite company)."
It was the "Northwest-European-Protestants" who allowed Catholics and Southern Euros to immigrate to the USA; they lacked the will, the patriotism, the self-regard, etc, to preserve what they had inherited. They committed suicide.
It was the "Northwest-European-Protestants" who allowed Catholics and Southern Euros to immigrate to the USA; they lacked the will, the patriotism, the self-regard, etc, to preserve what they had inherited.
More specifically, Jeffersonian Republicans. Other Anglo-Prots, specifically the Federalists under Adams, would have essentially prevented this sort of immigration. It annoys me that it was acceptable to discriminate against Catholics after they had arrived or even become citizens, but not to limit their numbers as immigrants. It seems informal and dishonest. Would have been quite straightforward to funnel all of a small number of Catholic immigrants into Maryland and Florida; the First Amendment was designed to allow states to have different state churches.
Has one republican mention this issue since 9,11? Seriously it's as if there not allowed.
beowulf:
Okay, but the stuff the government has to buy with those dollars is not created costlessly, and a lot more dollars in the same sized economy means that prices will go up. We're on the hook for Grandpa's dialysis treatments three times a week, and if the number of dollars in the economy doubles, so will the price of the treatments. (Nor can we fix the cost of the treatments by law, because all the inputs--machines, disposable tubing and filters, skilled labor--also costs more. And *their* inputs cost more--force the tubing provider to sell below cost for too long, and he will go broke and close down. And so on.). Similarly, doubling the number of dollars doesn't double the number of fighter jets or tanks or helicopters we can build, and continuing our current bloated military and bomb-the-peasants foreign policy means we need those things, which will more or less double in price.
A big chunk of the government's budget is in inflation-adjusted payments to employees and retirees. Creating more dollars won't save money there, except in the transition periods before the inflation adjustments get applied.
We run a deficit every year, and we have a big pool of debt to roll over every year. (That is, we have financed our big debt as a lot of 1 year and 10 year and 30 year bonds, and every year a certain fraction of the debt has to be paid off to those lenders. To pay it off, we borrow the same amount from new lenders.). If the lenders expect inflation, they will not be willing to lend us or anyone else dolars unless they get a high enough interest rate to compensate them for the loss they will take from inflation. So once we start inflating, our pool of debt gets smaller in terms of our economy and tax base, but our cost of borrowing for our deficit and to roll over our debt goes up.
Right now, dollars are effectively the world's reserve currency--most everyone feels safe investing in US treasuries, since they're not going to default and we seem to care about inflation. If we get a reputation for inflating our way out of debt, those willl become a lot less desirable, and our interest rates will go uo a lot, as people start finding other things to be their default safe outside-their-country investment.
The result of all this is that inflation can help the USG somewhat, but not nearly as much as you might think, and it can have costs that go on for a long time.
The Atlantic article is the result of a lot of smart people, like Charles Murray and Steve, being willing to point to data and talk about its socially-unacceptable implications, and suffer namecalling and and negative impact on their careers. Because the MSM cannot squelch this discussion, it leaks around the edges, and becomes stuff that is more and more included in the mainstream.
"t was the "Northwest-European-Protestants" who allowed Catholics and Southern Euros to immigrate to the USA; they lacked the will, the patriotism, the self-regard, etc, to preserve what they had inherited. They committed suicide."
I guess they didn't pay that much attention to immigration back then because it was still a very underpopulated country where people didn't have to associate with others.
Once they realized what was happening, they had the 1924 Immigration Act.
We couldn't do that now,which shows how far gone this country is.
@Peter A
Black engineers don't stay in America. Having a degree in any form of engineering (mechanical, civil, chemical, whatever) makes black men in America virtually sexless (never mind the fact that the pay is sub-par.)
Overseas, however, there are plenty of companies that will take on a B-grade black engineer for propaganda purposes (in Europe, especially) or for want (Nigeria has plenty of African-American petrochemical specialists.) Their pay is larger, their skin colour makes them more attractive to the natives (darker skinned engineers in Europe get the "smart black guy" bump, lighter-skinned engineers in Africa get the "He's part white" bump), and those companies are more likely to accept "growing pains" with new graduates.
Interestingly enough, I met more than a dozen AA engineers when I lived in Germany (propaganda hires, mainly). Their most common reason for staying overseas was the women (white American women want thugs, black American women want guys who can "keep it real".) European women, OTOH, saw them as the best of both worlds (smart enough to provide a good living, "cool" enough to negate the Nerdy engineer stereotype.) They're the cross-racial equivalent of the shy and unattractive white guy who teaches English in Asia.
Anonymous 10/4/12 2:31 PM:
As long as most elite Jews push policies that hurt white gentiles
But what about all the white gentiles who support policies that hurt other white gentiles? Ted Kennedy pushed for the 1965 immigration reform, and there is no shortage of non-Jewish white liberals who support affirmative action. They're not blameless or unimportant, and the policies you dislike will still hurdle onwards even if you "get even" with the Jews.
Jews, as they are fond of pointing out, are a middle eastern people
Ashkenazi Jews are partly of Middle Eastern origin, but the population genetic data indicates European admixture roughly in the 40-60% range. "Semitic" is more useful as a linguistic descriptor than a racial one. Sudanese Arabs and Lebanese Arabs both speak Arabic, but they are racially rather different.
Beowulf suggested "The solution is to limit affirmative action to 13th Amendment (ending slavery) and Indian Treaty Clause."
I think that nails it. I imagine it's pretty much how AA was originally intended. I always suspected those pols and officials who continuously extended it were trying to undermine it.
May I suggest campaigning for another descent-based preference: for everyone whose ancestor served in the armed or medical services of the Union in the Civil War. It doesn't matter what the prefernce would be, I believe just campaigning for it would be beneficial. As a side benefit, it would infuriate people like the "Sons of Confederate Veterans", which is always good. But the main purpose is to argue that long-established American families deserve consideration for themselves, when and only when they can also show a record of loyalty to the United States. The ultimate purpose is to change the assumptions against which the debate on present-day immigration is conducted. Restrictionist arguments are stifled by the celebratory treatment of past immigration in the conventional narrative: "immigrants built America". No they didn't. The sort of people who made up the Union army (White, Black, Native American and Hispanic) did. And if immigrants didn't build America, more immigrants aren't needed to keep building it.
Post a Comment