NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7559996.stm

US whites 'to be minority sooner'

White people are projected to no longer be in the majority in the United States by the year 2042 - eight years sooner than previous projections.

The US Census Bureau's latest figures - based on birth, death and immigration rates - predict that minorities will soon make up 55% of the population.

Hispanics who now make up about 15% will, it says, account for 30% by 2050.

It is projected that black people will make up 15%, a small increase, while Asians will grow from 4% to 9%.

White non-Hispanics currently make up about two-thirds of the population, but only 55% of those younger than five.

'Aging baby boomers'

It has long been said that the US is a nation of immigrants but in the past the influx has mainly come from white Europeans, the BBC's Jonathan Beale reports from Washington.

By the middle of this century, that group will be in the minority for the first time, he notes.

It is likely that the demographic changes will be experienced right across the country - and no longer confined to urban areas as in the past.

Overall, the US population is expected to rise from 305 million people to 439 million by the year 2050.

The white population will also be ageing. The number of people over 85 years old will triple in the next 40 years.

"The white population is older and very much centred around the aging baby boomers who are well past their high fertility years," William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution think tank, told the Associated Press.

"The future of America is epitomised by the young people today. They are basically the melting pot we are going to see in the future."

The Census Bureau points out that its projections are subject to big revisions, depending on immigration policy, cultural changes and natural or manmade disasters.
Story from B

This is certainly interesting. Within my lifetime, I will (probably) see something that has been a constant of my country's history change, possibly forever.

But it's not really much beyond that. I'm not sure it'll really even change things all that much, except perhaps make us more left-wing, which is hardly a bad thing, all things considered.

i has an idea! how about we make a political party whose major focus is on stoking white resentment and hating darkies. we could very quickly have a permanent majority if we act now!

Minority majority, actually. The article should clarify that. Caucasians will still be the majority population in the country (45% versus 15%, 15%, etc.), but will no longer be an absolute majority over the whole population.

I don't know what impact, if any, it will have when white people are not > 50% of the population, but I bet you'll get at least one white supremacist in here.

You can't predict something like that, 30 years down the line. In my opinion, it'll happen much sooner, but that doesn't change the fact that any number of variables could change the number, and that it shouldn't be considered anything more than a guess.

You can't predict something like that, 30 years down the line. In my opinion, it'll happen much sooner, but that doesn't change the fact that any number of variables could change the number, and that it shouldn't be considered anything more than a guess.

by the same reasoning, you can't say the sun will rise tomorrow. it could explode!!

by the same reasoning, you can't say the sun will rise tomorrow. it could explode!!

There's not much you can predict accurately 34 years before the fact. Nothing that human beings have any say over, at least.

Heh, the Mexicans are taking back the southwest from the 1840s war, one immigrant at a time. XD

Oh well, I wouldn't mind a more diverse America by the time I am 55. I think it'll be more important to focus more on what everyone has in common as opposed to going around fear-mongering about how "minorities" (majorities?) are taking over.

We're all people. :)

Alright, Sounds like its time to revitalize the White Race...

Hey Baby, want some of Skalvia's Penis?

Well, after the California Purchase splits back off into it's own country, the rest of America'll be white majority for a lot longer.

Well, after the California Purchase splits back off into it's own country, the rest of America'll be white majority for a lot longer.

Not if we beat you too it, We're gonna Rise Again anyday now, i can feel it, lmao...

Well, after the California Purchase splits back off into it's own country, the rest of America'll be white majority for a lot longer.

The California Purchase would be too after our armed forces were done with bringing it back in to the fold...

There's not much you can predict accurately 34 years before the fact. Nothing that human beings have any say over, at least.

even so, extrapolating from demographic trends still isn't just guessing

even so, extrapolating from demographic trends still isn't just guessing

Thats what they told me about Decreasing Pollution....

Now they tell me that its actually INCREASING Global Warming.....

I just dont trust Extrapolations these days...Hell, they told me after Katrina we were gonna have these Massive Hurricanes like every year...ive yet to see the Category Five since then...

Well, after the California Purchase splits back off into it's own country, the rest of America'll be white majority for a lot longer.

"California purchase"? There never was a "California purchase."

"California purchase"? There never was a "California purchase."

Not the way i played it, lol

Is it weird that my first thought upon seeing this was something along the lines of, "Hooray, my grandchildren will probably be pretty like Halle Berry!" :tongue:

But in the end human beings will still be in the majority.

But in the end human beings will still be in the majority.

http://don.smugmug.com/photos/305993656_rDF8S-M.jpg

I think that may be debatable......

But in the end human beings will still be in the majority.

Nah. The beetle will always be #1.

http://don.smugmug.com/photos/305993656_rDF8S-M.jpg

I think that may be debatable......

Thanks for the laugh. It's done me good. That robot has a very happy / wicked smile.

Not if we beat you too it, We're gonna Rise Again anyday now, i can feel it, lmao...

Yeah...not so much. Did you ask the 37% of Mississippians who are black about this plan? :eek:



I just dont trust Extrapolations these days...Hell, they told me after Katrina we were gonna have these Massive Hurricanes like every year...ive yet to see the Category Five since then...

...Wait a second, he's right. Where the heck is our next Camille? Why is Mobile still above Sea Level? Damn slow global warming...[mumbles something about beachfront land in Hattiesburg.]

Yeah...not so much. Did you ask the 37% of Mississippians who are black about this plan? :eek:


Dont worry, we promised them Reparations in return for three years of Service, lol...

Dont worry, we promised them Reparations in return for three years of Service, lol...

notes location...

...starts looking for warm-weather climates outside the south. :)

But it's not really much beyond that. I'm not sure it'll really even change things all that much, except perhaps make us more left-wing, which is hardly a bad thing, all things considered.

Way to be racist. Apart from that it is a bold prediction to make.

But when the "white race" becomes a minority will we see a push to make the minority have the same equal rights as the majority?

Way to be racist. Apart from that it is a bold prediction to make.

But when the "white race" becomes a minority will we see a push to make the minority have the same equal rights as the majority?

We will nevar give teh minority teh vote!

(after all, everyone knows its the majority in heaven that counts, and we all also know that only whites go to heaven. Thus, whites'll still be in the majority. Or something.)

This is certainly interesting. Within my lifetime, I will (probably) see something that has been a constant of my country's history change, possibly forever.

While I know intellectually that white people make up most of the country, I still never quite believe it until I go to places where there are only white people. I went to Geneseo (upstate NY) and in 11 days I only saw TWO Asian people. It was kind of unsettling being surrounded by that many whites.

Heh, the Mexicans are taking back the southwest from the 1840s war, one immigrant at a time. XD

"Gave me? Shit, I stole that like they stole Mexico." --my (latina) college roommate

In a better world, this wouldn't matter.

"Gave me? Shit, I stole that like they stole Mexico." --my (latina) college roommate

If we do lose California to Mexico, we should bulldoze all of the freeways, bridges, and houses. Leave the shit the way we got it in the 1840's.

Way to be racist. Apart from that it is a bold prediction to make.

But when the "white race" becomes a minority will we see a push to make the minority have the same equal rights as the majority?

White people will still be the majority, they just won't be >50% of the population.

So, in other words, fail.

If we do lose California to Mexico, we should bulldoze all of the freeways, bridges, and houses. Leave the shit the way we got it in the 1840's.

I think a California free of Hwy 101 would make for a significantly better world.

I could be down with returning to Mexico. They've got good food, good beaches and good baseball. But we all know that California's actually going to secede and then break into two countries, only all amicable-like, like the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Because we don't really hate each other so much as we get a kick out of antagonizing each other.

We will nevar give teh minority teh vote!

(after all, everyone knows its the majority in heaven that counts, and we all also know that only whites go to heaven. Thus, whites'll still be in the majority. Or something.)

:D

White people will still be the majority, they just won't be >50% of the population.

So, in other words, fail.

Or in other words, you take things to seriously. Unless you were referring to my first sentence in which case it makes no sense.

I think a California free of Hwy 101 would make for a significantly better world.

I could be down with returning to Mexico. They've got good food, good beaches and good baseball. But we all know that California's actually going to secede and then break into two countries, only all amicable-like, like the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Because we don't really hate each other so much as we get a kick out of antagonizing each other.
SoCal is the shallow end of the pool.

SoCal is the shallow end of the pool.

SoCal is like the three-legged cat we have. She's a total dick, and it's funny making fun of her, but you can only take it so far cause, dude, she's only got three legs. You've gotta feel a little sorry for her. So every once in awhile you try to be nice to her, and then she throws up on the carpet, and you're like, wtf, this is why no one likes you, gimp.




It's possible I'd benefit from sleep. Or NSG would.

Hmm.

Old, but still disturbing news.

SoCal is like the three-legged cat we have. She's a total dick, and it's funny making fun of her, but you can only take it so far cause, dude, she's only got three legs. You've gotta feel a little sorry for her. So every once in awhile you try to be nice to her, and then she throws up on the carpet, and you're like, wtf, this is why no one likes you, gimp.
I'll never forgive their aggression!!!! (http://www.insmogandthunder.com/)




It's possible I'd benefit from sleep. Or NSG would.
Pfff, you could sleep. But thanks to a rain out on the softball game they're actually showing womens team sabre fencing, and they look like space women of the future! This may be the coolest thing I can watch on the Olympics until the BMX races...

But we all know that California's actually going to secede and then break into two countries, only all amicable-like, like the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Rather like North California and South California, and the South being annexed by Mexico...
...
The rest is on the screen.

Rather like Northern California and Southern California, and the South being annexed by Mexico...
...
The rest is on the screen.

Isn't that what I said? Maybe I am delirious.

I've always said that California ought to be two states, north and south. We'd get a bit more respect here in the south, that way. :tongue:

SoCal is the shallow end of the pool.

Care to guess where you'd all be if the water wings were taken away? Down here with all the producing, tax-paying saps, I wager. I'll take manufacturing, transportation and the port of Long Beach over tofu eaters and software any day. :wink:

I've always said that California ought to be two states, north and south. We'd get a bit more respect here in the south, that way. :tongue:



Care to guess where you'd all be if the water wings were taken away? Down here with all the producing, tax-paying saps, I wager. I'll take manufacturing, transportation and the port of Long Beach over tofu eaters and software any day. :wink:

While us here in the central valley would keep all the food. Oh, and water....

You guys get all of your water piped down from northern CA, how would you like to live without it? :)

While us here in the central valley would keep all the food. Oh, and water....

You guys get all of your water piped down from northern CA, how would you like to live without it? :)

Nuts and grapes are *kinds* of food, but not the only kind. ;) But like I said, there ought to be north and south California as states, not north, south and central - that's important. :tongue:

To make a serious point, though, it really is a shame the way we're wasting the water that's taken from the Colorado. The fact that we only let 10% of it flow into Mexico where it would naturally end up is a crime in itself, but wasting much of the rest on agriculture in Imperial County is insanity. I guess the Salton Sea is our reward (can't wait to see what the clean-up will cost when *that* disaster becomes too much of an eyesore). But of course, the capital of Southern California, being in (let's say) Pomona, would at least be several hundred miles closer to the problem, and perhaps more likely to finally address it so we can finally drink it rather than piping it all in. Yeah.

"California purchase"? There never was a "California purchase."

Yea, I think he means the Mexican Cession. Although I think we did pay them a pittance for it, after forcing them to sell it to us.

Anything new?

the "white race" will NOT be less than 50% of the population

it will gradually come to be accepted that non-black hispanics are white and VOILA! the white race is supreme again.

We're all people. :)
Not in America, commie.

You're gonna regret not being nicer to wetbacks

In my opinion, when this happens, we will either: become too multicultural like South Africa and it would lead to unstoppable racial/ethnic tensions and social friction where no group will want another ruling each other like in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.....OR, we will have so many latin immigrants that parts of our country will be brought down and begin to resemble the shitty countries south of the border that they left to come to our country, which offers them a better life.

This is an Anglo-Country. There is nothing wrong with a smaller, steady stream of immigrants coming into the country to spice it up and add some new blood, ideas and faces to it...but there is a problem when so many begin to come that they bring the country down under their weight.

Pim Fortuyn said it best. It can not be that the guest takes over the house.

In my opinion, when this happens, we will either: become too multicultural like South Africa and it would lead to unstoppable racial/ethnic tensions and social friction where no group will want another ruling each other like in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.....OR, we will have so many latin immigrants that parts of our country will be brought down and begin to resemble the shitty countries south of the border that they left to come to our country, which offers them a better life.

This is an Anglo-Country. There is nothing wrong with a smaller, steady stream of immigrants coming into the country to spice it up and add some new blood, ideas and faces to it...but there is a problem when so many begin to come that they bring the country down under their weight.

Pim Fortuyn said it best. It can not be that the guest takes over the house.

Given that the entirety of American history is basically the history of immigration, I don't give a damn. To consider the nation to have reached any sort of greatness, you have to admit that it did so through mass immigration, often of groups that were distinctly unpopular. The Irish, for example, faced similar discrimination, and have ended up being one of the most important.

Basically, there's no logical reason, and I don't think that racist fantasies are a particularly good reason for opposing something.

Is it weird that my first thought upon seeing this was something along the lines of, "Hooray, my grandchildren will probably be pretty like Halle Berry!" :tongue:
:eek: The future will be awesome!:D

In my opinion, when this happens, we will either: become too multicultural like South Africa and it would lead to unstoppable racial/ethnic tensions and social friction where no group will want another ruling each other like in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.....OR, we will have so many latin immigrants that parts of our country will be brought down and begin to resemble the shitty countries south of the border that they left to come to our country, which offers them a better life.

This is an Anglo-Country. There is nothing wrong with a smaller, steady stream of immigrants coming into the country to spice it up and add some new blood, ideas and faces to it...but there is a problem when so many begin to come that they bring the country down under their weight.

Pim Fortuyn said it best. It can not be that the guest takes over the house.

Yeah. Them damn darkies will come over here and ruin our superior white culture! :mad:

If we do lose California to Mexico, we should bulldoze all of the freeways, bridges, and houses. Leave the shit the way we got it in the 1840's.

Yah, and don't forget to put all the gold back too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7559996.stm



This is certainly interesting. Within my lifetime, I will (probably) see something that has been a constant of my country's history change, possibly forever.

But it's not really much beyond that. I'm not sure it'll really even change things all that much, except perhaps make us more left-wing, which is hardly a bad thing, all things considered.
My guess is that there will be almost no change, save for the burden on society's achievers. The net earners in the country will still be generally Caucasian and the net consumers will still generally be of some other race or sub-race. The pols will be able to pander to the net consumers more easily and the net earners will have less and less incentive to earn.

Pim Fortuyn said it best. It can not be that the guest takes over the house.

That's a little hypocritical, because to be fair, illegal immigration started in 1492. :p

That's a little hypocritical, because to be fair, illegal immigration started in 1492. :p

Why do you hate America?

Commie.

Yah, and don't forget to put all the gold back too.

and the trees....why nobody thinks of the trees!!!1!:mad:

That's a little hypocritical, because to be fair, illegal immigration started in 1492. :p
Was it really illegal? Did the Native Americans have laws against undocumented migration to the new world? I doubt it, I'd be surprised if they got further than bashing each other's heads in as a way of solving disputes!

Anyway, I'd say that the example of the colonisation of the Americas is all the more reason to prevent immigration. Don't want to end up like the natives, do you?

i has an idea! how about we make a political party whose major focus is on stoking white resentment and hating darkies. we could very quickly have a permanent majority if we act now!

Till 2042, anyway. Then the party would suddenly lose every seat it has.

White people will still be the majority, they just won't be >50% of the population.

So, in other words, fail.

No, that's not what majority means. Majority means "greater than 50%," anything less is not a majority. Whites may still be a plurality, which is just the greatest percentage.

Hey Baby, want some of Skalvia's Penis?

*200-pounds woman holding a knife and a fork* Sure! *Drooling*

Time to prepare the Panic Room.

Was it really illegal? Did the Native Americans have laws against undocumented migration to the new world? I doubt it, I'd be surprised if they got further than bashing each other's heads in as a way of solving disputes!

Anyway, I'd say that the example of the colonisation of the Americas is all the more reason to prevent immigration. Don't want to end up like the natives, do you?

Your lack of knowledge about aboriginal law is not a good argument. All it shows is that you are ignorant. Look up the Iroquois confederacy for a start. Many historians acknowledge that the Iroquois constitution was one of the inspirations for the US constitution.

Also, modern immigration is not even remotely comparable to the process of colonisation, unless you are implying that Mexican immigrants are infecting whole white villages with smallpox and other new diseases, while simultaneaously waging a war wherein they have a nearly overwhelming technological advantage.

In my opinion, when this happens, we will either: become too multicultural like South Africa and it would lead to unstoppable racial/ethnic tensions and social friction where no group will want another ruling each other like in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.....OR, we will have so many latin immigrants that parts of our country will be brought down and begin to resemble the shitty countries south of the border that they left to come to our country, which offers them a better life.

This is an Anglo-Country. There is nothing wrong with a smaller, steady stream of immigrants coming into the country to spice it up and add some new blood, ideas and faces to it...but there is a problem when so many begin to come that they bring the country down under their weight.

Pim Fortuyn said it best. It can not be that the guest takes over the house.

Non-whites will be the majority, and there's NOTHING you can do about it, even if your utter delusions were true! Isn't that fun?

Non-whites will be the majority, and there's NOTHING you can do about it, even if your utter delusions were true! Isn't that fun?

There seems to me (at least anecdotally) at least in my area of the US, to be quite a few people who don't seem to care which "race" they are mating with (my parents are a good example), and I have continued the trend myself.

You don't end up with a society that is "this much white, this much black, this much asian".

Whites are not one monolithic culture or race, and neither are blacks or asians. They are intermarrying and interbreeding all the time, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Over time, it will be difficult to find a "classic" example of a "white" or "black" or "asian" person, because we're all going to blend.

This also means that the poster above who claims that this will result in a "more left" world is probably wrong. People are not right-wing as a result of being "white" or "racist".

Non-whites will be the majority, and there's NOTHING you can do about it, even if your utter delusions were true! Isn't that fun?

He listens to a guy named Pim. Is that even a guy?

But... OMG ITS FINALLY HAPPENING! THE DAYS OF RECKONING ARE AT HAND IN LESS THAN 40 YEARS SOMEONE PINCH ME!1!!1!111111111

There seems to me (at least anecdotally) at least in my area of the US, to be quite a few people who don't seem to care which "race" they are mating with (my parents are a good example), and I have continued the trend myself.

You don't end up with a society that is "this much white, this much black, this much asian".

Whites are not one monolithic culture or race, and neither are blacks or asians. They are intermarrying and interbreeding all the time, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Over time, it will be difficult to find a "classic" example of a "white" or "black" or "asian" person, because we're all going to blend.

This also means that the poster above who claims that this will result in a "more left" world is probably wrong. People are not right-wing as a result of being "white" or "racist".

Well, the demographics are there...

Regardless, you're mostly correct. However, TAI is... a troubled individual. And I like to remind my opponents of how powerless they are in this kind of situation. That I'm powerless to stop it doesn't bother me as much as it certainly bothers him; I don't want to.

He listens to a guy named Pim. Is that even a guy?

But... OMG ITS FINALLY HAPPENING! THE DAYS OF RECKONING ARE AT HAND IN LESS THAN 40 YEARS SOMEONE PINCH ME!1!!1!111111111

*Pinches Bann-ed with a pair of pliers*

And this is good/bad how?
It simply is.

Over time, it will be difficult to find a "classic" example of a "white" or "black" or "asian" person, because we're all going to blend.

That's true. Just look at how nativists have responded to immigrants that we would consider "white" today. In the 1840s the Irish were an inferior "race," later it was the Poles and Italians. Over time, though, these differences diminished. No one reads Robert Novak's column and thinks he should be deported. (Well, maybe they do. But not because he has a Polish last name.)

*Pinches Bann-ed with a pair of pliers*

Harsh.

Those better have been made in America. By White Americans.

I could care less as long as everyone is here legally and everyone speaks at least basic english. If they start putting signs in english/spanish, I'm moving to Canada.

I could care less as long as everyone is here legally and everyone speaks at least basic english. If they start putting signs in english/spanish, I'm moving to Canada.

You'll find English *and* French useful to know when you're in Canada...

I could care less as long as everyone is here legally and everyone speaks at least basic english. If they start putting signs in english/spanish, I'm moving to Canada.

You're kidding, yes?
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=83469&rendTypeId=4

And this is good/bad how?

if nothing else, it will (to paraphrase nazz) make pat buchanan crap himself. which is always a good thing.

It'll be nice when the white supremacists have officially lost.

It'll be nice when the white supremacists have officially lost.

Are you that naive?

They'll just fight even harder, the closer to 2042 we get. I wouldn't be surprised if there are several wars inside the US before 2042...people are getting pissed- not about whites losing majority status (though some are), about everything- culture, politics, etc. Things are gonna explode probably within the next 10-20 years.

This is an Anglo-Country. .

Apart from the Italians, Irish, Jews, Hispanics, Afro-Americans, Native Americans and Arabs, etc.

Yeah. Them damn darkies will come over here and ruin our superior white culture! :mad:

You're in Athens, Georgia. What culture do you have besides a poultry science research building?

Are you that naive?

They'll just fight even harder, the closer to 2042 we get. I wouldn't be surprised if there are several wars inside the US before 2042...people are getting pissed- not about whites losing majority status (though some are), about everything- culture, politics, etc. Things are gonna explode probably within the next 10-20 years.

the people most pissed are also the oldest. in 10 to 20 years they'll be stuck in homes, demanding matlock.

damn kids these days love the hippin' and the hoppin' with their bippin' and boppin'...

"US whites 'to be minority sooner"

And?
So what? why does it matter that there would be less whites than blacks or latinos?

He listens to a guy named Pim. Is that even a guy?
He's not just a man, he's...
http://scifipedia.scifi.com/images/thumb/c/c2/Ant-Man-4.jpg/250px-Ant-Man-4.jpg
ANT MAN!


ooops, wrong Pym...

You're in Athens, Georgia. What culture do you have besides a poultry science research building?
Don't they have a thriving indie rock scene there, or used to, or something?

You're in Athens, Georgia. What culture do you have besides a poultry science research building?

*Blinks*

Did... did you think I was being serious there? :confused:

(Though, to answer your question, we have one of the best college towns in the country, an excellent local music scene, a variety of good restaurants and bars, and a couple of very good sports teams, just off the top of my head.:tongue:)

Given that the entirety of American history is basically the history of immigration, I don't give a damn. To consider the nation to have reached any sort of greatness, you have to admit that it did so through mass immigration, often of groups that were distinctly unpopular. The Irish, for example, faced similar discrimination, and have ended up being one of the most important.
Indeed this country has grown and been built up upon immigration. The huge difference is that we were much more nationalistic back then and demanded assimilation and unity. So when we had all these people coming in, we integrated and assimilated them to the best of our ability and made them Americans. Out of Many, One, and all that. United We Stand Divided We Fall. Ring any bells?

I already happily stated, immigrants are not bad. The diversification and balkanization of a country is, however, bad.
Yeah. Them damn darkies will come over here and ruin our superior white culture! :mad:
What an important addition to our thread.:)
That's a little hypocritical, because to be fair, illegal immigration started in 1492. :p
Did it? I don't think so.... That was wars of conquest for land. While looked upon today as unacceptable and unfortunate, these were, for all of human history, natural and normal means of a civilization to enlarge itself and expand.
Non-whites will be the majority, and there's NOTHING you can do about it, even if your utter delusions were true! Isn't that fun?
Your emotion-filled immature rants and attempts to get under my skin over the internet are having little effect....
However, TAI is... a troubled individual. And I like to remind my opponents of how powerless they are in this kind of situation.
Oh I'm hardly troubled. In fact I'm quite happy with myself. And I'd like to remind you that I can simply choose where I want to live, and who I want to associate with. And you are powerless to stop that.

Anyway, who knows what will happen, maybe Mexico will show more stability with more and more economic investment there, so many people will move back to be in their home land with their families. Maybe Black people will decide they actually do want to move to Liberia. The future is filled with suprises. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

I've been growing up in South Florida and Southern California, and so, except for maybe 1 year of my life, have personally lived in the multicultural future of this nation. This type of society is not pretty, sparks ethnic and racial tensions, totally destroys the concepts of unity and community, but hey! Atleast we can "have strength in our diversity!"

Well, I've done my part for miscenegation by spreading my mongrel seed into the North American gene pool. Not much of an impact, I'll admit, but that's why it's taking us until 2042.

Oh I'm hardly troubled. In fact I'm quite happy with myself. And I'd like to remind you that I can simply choose where I want to live, and who I want to associate with. And you are powerless to stop that.

Anyway, who knows what will happen, maybe Mexico will show more stability with more and more economic investment there, so many people will move back to be in their home land with their families. Maybe Black people will decide they actually do want to move to Liberia. The future is filled with suprises. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

I've been growing up in South Florida and Southern California, and so, except for maybe 1 year of my life, have personally lived in the multicultural future of this nation. This type of society is not pretty, sparks ethnic and racial tensions, totally destroys the concepts of unity and community, but hey! Atleast we can "have strength in our diversity!"

1- So can they. And THEY want to be THERE. Against YOUR wishes. You're welcome to come to Brazil, if you like, but with all those icky, mixed people we are, I don't know that you'd want to.

2- You'd make a white mess in your pants if you ever saw black people going to Liberia or, in short, things that make the US anything but a white Aryan nation vanish, I know, but these things are quiiiiite unlikely.

3- Yeah, that's what living in a multicultural society does to people, turn them into xenophobic racists because they "dislike what they see". That's right. So much so that people all over SoCal, just for one example, are just like you. Oh, wait, they aren't. In fact they're pretty liberal, and SoCal itself is also home to many major companies. Companies that didn't "leave because of the racial tensions" (or, rephrasing from your language, "leave because of those dirty brown people").

Do you want to stop the argument now? I'm giving you one chance to quit while you're behind.

*Blinks*

Did... did you think I was being serious there? :confused:

(Though, to answer your question, we have one of the best college towns in the country, an excellent local music scene, a variety of good restaurants and bars, and a couple of very good sports teams, just off the top of my head.:tongue:)

Um no. I was trying to be funny and must have failed horribly.

Maybe Black people will decide they actually do want to move to Liberia. The future is filled with suprises. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.



Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Fuck Liberia. My family's been here since the early 1800's. The black people here are more American than a lot of the whites.

If we do lose California to Mexico, we should bulldoze all of the freeways, bridges, and houses. Leave the shit the way we got it in the 1840's.

Are you so resentful that you'd be willing to spend that kind of money on it?

I'd recommend that you see my psychiatrist, but he's in the loony bin now and I haven't found a new one to break...er... see yet.

Eh, this will largely just mean we "rediscover" Latino's white roots. Sort of like how the Irish are now considered ultra-white instead of off-white or these-aren't-the-whites-we-were-looking-for.

Did it? I don't think so.... That was wars of conquest for land. While looked upon today as unacceptable and unfortunate, these were, for all of human history, natural and normal means of a civilization to enlarge itself and expand.


Hmmmm. Weren't they all Spanish, back in 1492...? Then there was the French. And of course before any of them, the natives, poor bastards....Then in the 1600s, there was the "Anglos".....Then the Italians, paddys, Jews, Arabs and the rest.......

Hmmmm. Weren't they all Spanish, back in 1492...? Then there was the French. And of course before any of them, the natives, poor bastards....Then in the 1600s, there was the "Anglos".....Then the Italians, paddys, Jews, Arabs and the rest.......

....Here on Gilligan's Island!!!

Oh I'm hardly troubled. In fact I'm quite happy with myself. And I'd like to remind you that I can simply choose where I want to live, and who I want to associate with. And you are powerless to stop that.


You'd be surprised how many hurdle you have to get through to immigrate. Even if you're WASP. Some places will ship you right back. I might be powerless to stop empty boast but reality will do me a favour and show you how wrong you are if you ever want to live elsewhere than the USA.

....Here on Gilligan's Island!!!

Ahhh yes, the Lyonese of America.


Never seen it.

Who cares?

you for one, should welcome your new Mexican overlords.

you for one, should welcome your new Mexican overlords.

Yó, por mi, oferezo la bienvenida a nuestros nuevos señores mexicanos.

you for one, should welcome your new Mexican overlords.

Pfft, only if you're American.

Don't they have a thriving indie rock scene there, or used to, or something?
R.E.M. and the B-52s both came out of Athens. That's good enough for me.

Your lack of knowledge about aboriginal law is not a good argument. All it shows is that you are ignorant. Look up the Iroquois confederacy for a start. Many historians acknowledge that the Iroquois constitution was one of the inspirations for the US constitution.

Whoo! My 1/16th of Mohawk blood is proud. :D

There seems to me (at least anecdotally) at least in my area of the US, to be quite a few people who don't seem to care which "race" they are mating with (my parents are a good example), and I have continued the trend myself.

Point. Look at the D.R. and surrounding countries as an example--a combination of all three "races" as often defined in anthropology. My "black" ex is descended from natives of Africa, Ireland, Mexico, and Florida.

I've already lived as a minority in Los Angeles - It wasn't bad at all. I preferred it that way, in fact. I'm much more comfortable there than in majority white areas.

I've already lived as a minority in Los Angeles - It wasn't bad at all. I preferred it that way, in fact. I'm much more comfortable there than in majority white areas.

But, but... TAI said it was bad!!! TAI said SoCal was hell! :eek::eek2:

Probably because he couldn't find many people that shared his hatred of the brown

Don't get me wrong... I've had run-in's with gang members and have had people talk shit about my whiteness, but all in all, I loved the variety in cultures and their food and music and made some of the best friends ever.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Fuck Liberia. My family's been here since the early 1800's. The black people here are more American than a lot of the whites.

Certainly more American than those Irish posers.

R.E.M. and the B-52s both came out of Athens. That's good enough for me.

If that's not a reason to hate Athens, I don't know what is.

You're kidding, yes?
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=83469&rendTypeId=4

Oui, mais je parle francais. Je ne parle pas espagnol (sp?).

Again, this is really a non-issue to me. People are people, and I should hope I wouldn't care even if 99% of the population was non-white.

I'm much more concerned by the possibillity of living in a nation where the majority of citizens denys the possibillity of evolution, or would vote for a Republican after the last eight years, or who drink Coca-Cola, for that matter.

Judge people by their choices, we should.

Way to be racist. Apart from that it is a bold prediction to make.

I did say perhaps. That qualifier was there for a reason.
While I know intellectually that white people make up most of the country, I still never quite believe it until I go to places where there are only white people. I went to Geneseo (upstate NY) and in 11 days I only saw TWO Asian people. It was kind of unsettling being surrounded by that many whites.

Whereas I've mostly been in White Town, White State, USA places.

Again, this is really a non-issue to me. People are people, and I should hope I wouldn't care even if 99% of the population was non-white.

I'm much more concerned by the possibillity of living in a nation where the majority of citizens denys the possibillity of evolution, or would vote for a Republican after the last eight years, or who drink Coca-Cola, for that matter.

Judge people by their choices, we should.

Exactly my point. EXACTLY my point.

(Except for that Coca-Cola thing. Don't be mean.)

I read some stuff from Amnesty International about Coca-Cola hiering paramillitary thugs to abduct and kill union workers in their Columbian bottling plants. I've been boycotting them for about 4 years now.

I read some stuff from Amnesty International about Coca-Cola hiering paramillitary thugs to abduct and kill union workers in their Columbian bottling plants. I've been boycotting them for about 4 years now.

How trustable is the source?

Who cares, I will be dead by then.

How trustable is the source?

Amnesty International is a fairly recognized and respected group which protests violations of human rights world wide. If you wish to know more, try Googling them. I'm sure you'll get lots.

Let us raise a rebel yell and we'll drive them Yankees straight to hell.

Did it? I don't think so.... That was wars of conquest for land. While looked upon today as unacceptable and unfortunate, these were, for all of human history, natural and normal means of a civilization to enlarge itself and expand.

Ah, the double standard. Well, Mexico is enlarging and expanding, although culturally and not politically. Why cry about it now? Why not just embrace what our neighbours in the south have to offer as opposed to looking down upon them thinking that America is superior than all other nations in the world?

Ahh... this influx of Asians will definitely improve our education ranking.

j/k

Ah, the double standard. Well, Mexico is enlarging and expanding, although culturally and not politically. Why cry about it now? Why not just embrace what our neighbours in the south have to offer as opposed to looking down upon them thinking that America is superior than all other nations in the world?

To be honest, he probably would rather have Mexico launch a military assault on us for our land. At least that's a fight we could win.

How can one fight the culture? Tacos, tacos, and tacos. Honestly, it isn't even a battle.

In my opinion, when this happens, we will either: become too multicultural like South Africa

Your attribution of the problems of South Africa to "too multicultural" is simplistic, unsupported, and to be honest, stupid.

OR, we will have so many latin immigrants that parts of our country will be brought down and begin to resemble the shitty countries south of the border that they left to come to our country, which offers them a better life.

Wow. I can still hardly believe you deny racism when you make absurdly bigoted arguments like this.

This is an Anglo-Country.

No, it isn't, and there's nothing you can say that would make such a grossly false and disturbingly racist statement like this true.

There is nothing wrong with a smaller, steady stream of immigrants coming into the country to spice it up and add some new blood, ideas and faces to it...but there is a problem when so many begin to come that they bring the country down under their weight.

There's a bigger problem when people like you bog down the raft of reason with your incessant intolerance and ill-concealed racism. Historically, when people like you get your way, what follows is leaky boat-fulls of immigrants being turned away from every port, internment camps and mass graves.

On the other hand, history shows that this country is *built* on immigrants, by immigrants, and for immigrants, and that this has actually been one of the key factors in the US's successes.

So your supposed 'problem' is American strength, and - well, I don't even want to know what your proposed 'solution' to it is.

Pim Fortuyn said it best. It can not be that the guest takes over the house.

Yeah, I'll be sure and tell my native american grandmother that that's how "it can not be."

Like I said, this country was FOUNDED by immigrants. I guess however, you think the whole United States of America was a bad idea. Sorry pal. I don't.

And if you don't think I'm "Anglo" enough to live here, that's too bad. You can always go back to whatever Utopian fantasy fairyland you live in where your pathetic arguments make sense to anyone but other racist xenophobes.

Whereas I've mostly been in White Town, White State, USA places.

Weeeird. I can't imagine living in a place like that. It's funny, 'cause where my mom grew up, people of different races (if there were any--unlikely) were black, Asian or Hispanic, whereas everyone else was Italian, Irish, Polish, Czech, German, British, etc. Where I grew up, those people were just white, but everyone else was Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, Hmong, Filipino, Indian, Bangladeshi, Punjab, Iranian...

Amnesty International is a fairly recognized and respected group which protests violations of human rights world wide. If you wish to know more, try Googling them. I'm sure you'll get lots.

I know about AI, but did you get this from its page or?

I guess I've always considered hispanics and asians to be whites that just talk funny. I think we should just reclassify them as whites and that will ensure our supremecy for another couple hundred years. They're also pretty hot - which is a plus.

I guess I've always considered hispanics and asians to be whites that just talk funny. I think we should just reclassify them as whites and that will ensure our supremecy for another couple hundred years. They're also pretty hot - which is a plus.

A good number of asians nowadays are more culturally black than white, though, by my observation. Maybe it's just a vocal few who are tired of the "model minority" positive stereotype. But it's funny either way. :tongue:

I also haven't ever lived in a town that was white, now that I think of it. My current town is about 30% white, which is more than where I've lived in the past. So, like some others who've mentioned this, I guess I'm already well used to being in the minority. It's not a big deal.

Ah, the double standard. Well, Mexico is enlarging and expanding, although culturally and not politically. Why cry about it now? Why not just embrace what our neighbours in the south have to offer as opposed to looking down upon them thinking that America is superior than all other nations in the world?

it silly to worry about it. normally by 4th generation they are fully assimilated into our culture. and cinco Demayo is just an excuse to get drunk (like saint Patricks day for the Irish).

Wait...aren't the blacks a part of American culture now? Sure they got oppressed by the capitalist pigs (lol) and had their true hip hop culture stolen from them, but I consider them to be part of America. They helped built it (Not of their pure free will of course) but none-the less they have made a huge mark on its history.
(Muhammad Ali anyone, or how about Martin Luther King and Malcolm X?)
Whites shouldn't worry, they will still rule the country with all those "WASPs" of theirs :)

To be honest, he probably would rather have Mexico launch a military assault on us for our land. At least that's a fight we could win.

How can one fight the culture? Tacos, tacos, and tacos. Honestly, it isn't even a battle.

Also burritoe, quesadillas, and ...damg, I'm hungry.

Ah, the double standard. Well, Mexico is enlarging and expanding, although culturally and not politically. Why cry about it now? Why not just embrace what our neighbours in the south have to offer as opposed to looking down upon them thinking that America is superior than all other nations in the world?

Does this mean that we get to have whorehouses and drug wars in all of our cities like in North Mexico?

heres a question for all of you that want unlimited migration

How many people can America support? There will be a limit of water, food and land at some point. When is this?

Continued growth of a population leads to problems. By 2050 the UN prdicts 2/3rds of the world will experience water shortages. It may be nobel to accomidate these people but it is really pointless. Allowing too many migrants in will just make you die yourself due to lack of resources.

but moving on

OR, we will have so many latin immigrants that parts of our country will be brought down and begin to resemble the shitty countries south of the border that they left to come to our country, which offers them a better life.

Wow. I can still hardly believe you deny racism when you make absurdly bigoted arguments like this.

As unskilled people enter a country they are unable to create or find jobs for themselves. Too many unskilled workers results is a lowering of the wages as people attempt to outbid each other. This causes the rich to get richer in a country and the poor to get poorer. If the levels are too low the country suffers from a lack of new input and willingness of people to work the shit jobs. There is a right level. Too high or low is bad for the economy thus leading it in a third world direction.

This is an Anglo-Country.

No, it isn't, and there's nothing you can say that would make such a grossly false and disturbingly racist statement like this true.

Well America was invaded by anglosaxins. And they make up the largest portion of the population. I dont think this matters but America is anglosaxin country.

There's a bigger problem when people like you bog down the raft of reason with your incessant intolerance and ill-concealed racism. Historically, when people like you get your way, what follows is leaky boat-fulls of immigrants being turned away from every port, internment camps and mass graves.

Well now your on a crazy rant. Saying "stay in your own country" is very different then killing them. Its to make sure the your own country can grow sustainably that migration must be limited. Well thats unless you think that America would be fine if the population suddenly double within a few years.

Yeah, I'll be sure and tell my native american grandmother that that's how "it can not be."

Like I said, this country was FOUNDED by immigrants. I guess however, you think the whole United States of America was a bad idea. Sorry pal. I don't.

And if you don't think I'm "Anglo" enough to live here, that's too bad. You can always go back to whatever Utopian fantasy fairyland you live in where your pathetic arguments make sense to anyone but other racist xenophobes.

again on a crazy rant. America was invaded by "white settlers" then built of the backs of slaves. Its a bad history. The current people in the country question what groups and how much of them should be let in. It a very important question.

I'm surprised this won't happen sooner. But then, I live in DC, so I probably get a skewed impression of the racial make-up of the country.

A good number of asians nowadays are more culturally black than white, though, by my observation. Maybe it's just a vocal few who are tired of the "model minority" positive stereotype. But it's funny either way. :tongue:

I also haven't ever lived in a town that was white, now that I think of it. My current town is about 30% white, which is more than where I've lived in the past. So, like some others who've mentioned this, I guess I'm already well used to being in the minority. It's not a big deal.

You mean living in close proximity to a large number of people whose skin is a different shade than yours is no big deal?! *gasp!* :D

Race is a side-effect of too many people fucking their neighbor. :)

Certainly more American than those Irish posers.

Hairy arsed savages, the lot of them.

Race is a side-effect of too many people fucking their neighbor. :)

I'm always stumped when I have to fill out a government form (the US is famous for this aspect) and I have to specify my race.

The categories are too vague, and too stupid for words. On the national census a while back, they allowed you to specify as many as you liked, and allowed you to fill in others (I imagine that they just discard the data if it doesn't fit their pre-conceived and political notions of race).

Whites aren't the only ones who get upset. During the last census, the fact that you could specify more than one race, and add others, really got some black and hispanic organizations up in arms, because they felt that their numbers would be "diluted" (i.e., lower numbers might mean less political clout) and they made strenuous objections.

If a white person had made the same assertions, they would have been called racists - and that would be correct. But it's evidently OK for anyone else to be a racist.

I find the whole idea of government mandated racial categories to be heinous and obnoxious.

I'm always stumped when I have to fill out a government form (the US is famous for this aspect) and I have to specify my race.

The categories are too vague, and too stupid for words. On the national census a while back, they allowed you to specify as many as you liked, and allowed you to fill in others (I imagine that they just discard the data if it doesn't fit their pre-conceived and political notions of race).

Whites aren't the only ones who get upset. During the last census, the fact that you could specify more than one race, and add others, really got some black and hispanic organizations up in arms, because they felt that their numbers would be "diluted" (i.e., lower numbers might mean less political clout) and they made strenuous objections.

If a white person had made the same assertions, they would have been called racists - and that would be correct. But it's evidently OK for anyone else to be a racist.

I find the whole idea of government mandated racial categories to be heinous and obnoxious.
well they want to know and its the only time they can really ask.

but what a freaking can of worms it opens up eh? the census form is crazy in its efforts to both be accurate AND be politically sensitive.

well they want to know and its the only time they can really ask.

Since I didn't think the census form was anything except a political toilet wipe, I selected every race, and then in the optional area, I wrote "Fuck You".

Does this mean that we get to have whorehouses and drug wars in all of our cities like in North Mexico?

That's a fairly racist thing to say. It's not like America doesn't already have those things anyway. Detriot anyone?

That's a fairly racist thing to say. It's not like America doesn't already have those things anyway. Detriot anyone?

Is it racist? Probably.

Is it true? Absolutely.

And Detroit is bad, yes. But I'd take the criminality of Detroit over Nuevo Laredo anyday.

heres a question for all of you that want unlimited migration.

How many people can America support? There will be a limit of water, food and land at some point. When is this?

Speaking as a British man living in London; who cares?



Continued growth of a population leads to problems. By 2050 the UN prdicts 2/3rds of the world will experience water shortages. It may be nobel to accomidate these people but it is really pointless. Allowing too many migrants in will just make you die yourself due to lack of resources.

Bwahahahah. Shit man we are all migrants, or ancesters of migrants, migration is the first right for all, the right to move freely is well worth protecting.



but moving on

As unskilled people enter a country they are unable to create or find jobs for themselves. Too many unskilled workers results is a lowering of the wages as people attempt to outbid each other. This causes the rich to get richer in a country and the poor to get poorer. If the levels are too low the country suffers from a lack of new input and willingness of people to work the shit jobs. There is a right level. Too high or low is bad for the economy thus leading it in a third world direction.

Two words for you 'open borders'. If all borders where truely open then all people could relocate to places where their skills would command a premium, and those unskilled would relocate to places where work for them was high.


Well America was invaded by anglosaxins. And they make up the largest portion of the population. I dont think this matters but America is anglosaxin country.

Man and I always though the word was Anglosaxon. Also before that time, wasn't it a native American conutry? So your are fine with the idea of invasion , conquest, and colonisation, as long as you are white?


Well now your on a crazy rant. Saying "stay in your own country" is very different then killing them. Its to make sure the your own country can grow sustainably that migration must be limited. Well thats unless you think that America would be fine if the population suddenly double within a few years.

Wrong on so many levels, in fact after the war it was prescily mass immigration that put Britian's grow back on track. As for 'stay in your own country', who owns a country and by what right?



again on a crazy rant. America was invaded by "white settlers" then built of the backs of slaves. Its a bad history. The current people in the country question what groups and how much of them should be let in. It a very important question.

It is an important question, and the only correct answer is 'open borders'.

Is it racist? Probably.

Is it true? Absolutely.

Right on the first, horribly, horribly wrong on the second. I'll go ahead and use size 10 because I don't want this to be missed:

WHITES ARE NOT BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE! DEAL!

Oh, and, for the record? I'm white. Also for the record: They're not worse than anybody else. The same goes for religions, like, yes, Islam and Christianity. And so on. It's an undeniable truth I'm riting here, go ahead and take it.

Is it racist? Probably.

No 'probably' about it. But I sense that you're one of those people who believe you're too cool to care about evil PC things like racism.

Is it true? Absolutely.

Untrue. We have whorehouses and drug wars in the US. In fact, we're the ones who coined the phrase, "War on Drugs." We cultivate gang violence and large-scale corruption. We invade countries and nuke civilians. So don't give me that delusional shit that you like to lap up, cuz I ain't eating it.

And Detroit is bad, yes. But I'd take the criminality of Detroit over Nuevo Laredo anyday.

Right. You'll be dead either away, but it's better to be killed by an American.

As unskilled people enter a country they are unable to create or find jobs for themselves.

Patently untrue. In fact, immigrants are more likely in the US to start a successful business.

Too many unskilled workers results is a lowering of the wages as people attempt to outbid each other.

Yeah... a lowering of wages for unskilled work.

Are you complaining because this is a problem for you?

Regardless, it's the fault of employers, not immigrants or immigration.

This causes the rich to get richer in a country and the poor to get poorer. If the levels are too low the country suffers from a lack of new input and willingness of people to work the shit jobs. There is a right level. Too high or low is bad for the economy thus leading it in a third world direction.

You know, you seem like an educated fellow, so perhaps you can tell me exactly what the economics of being headed "in a third world direction" are.

While you're at it, you can define for me exactly what the "right level" of immigration is.

Well America was invaded by anglosaxins. And they make up the largest portion of the population. I dont think this matters but America is anglosaxin country.

I'd take your position a lot more seriously if you either knew how to spell, or how to use a basic spell-checker.

Being the largest portion of a population doesn't mean it's "an Anglo country."

Water makes up the biggest portion of a soup, that doesn't mean it's "water soup."

Well now your on a crazy rant. Saying "stay in your own country" is very different then killing them.

Not really, if staying in that country means death.

If you think my rant is "crazy" I'm going to hazard a guess that this is because you have no clue what I'm talking about.

again on a crazy rant.

Again the point goes over your head and you label it crazy as a result.

The current people in the country question what groups and how much of them should be let in. It a very important question.

Oh, no disagreements here. Any question which leads to answers like racial persecution and stereotyping, bigotry, generalizations, ignorant and bias tends to be very important to me - if for no other reason than I'll be in the first cattle cars when you guys finally decide the answer.

Right on the first, horribly, horribly wrong on the second. I'll go ahead and use size 10 because I don't want this to be missed:

WHITES ARE NOT BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE! DEAL!

Oh, and, for the record? I'm white. Also for the record: They're not worse than anybody else. The same goes for religions, like, yes, Islam and Christianity. And so on. It's an undeniable truth I'm riting here, go ahead and take it.

On the contrary, whites are more reflective.

If I had to construct a signal mirror out of people, I'd use white people. *nod*

On the contrary, whites are more reflective.

If I had to construct a signal mirror out of people, I'd use white people. *nod*

And if I had to construct a solar energy receiver out of people, I'd use black people... :D

Does this mean that we get to have whorehouses and drug wars in all of our cities like in North Mexico?

You mean you don't already? What part of the U.S. do you live in?

Admittedly, some places don't have drug "wars", exactly. They're more drug "suicides", like when that meth lab in the back of a guy's station wagon blows up.

On the contrary, whites are more reflective.

If I had to construct a signal mirror out of people, I'd use white people. *nod*

*checks untanned bit of arm, blinds herself* Check.

I for one welcome our mocha colored overlords.

I for one welcome our mocha colored overlords.

Obama?

Obama?

/threadwin

We could always move to other countries and multiply so there the minority there instead couldn't we?

Like Sudan with a white majority. I mean that would make all the BNP lot and such happy wouldn't it?

And if I had to construct a solar energy receiver out of people, I'd use black people... :D

Right on, brotha! Black Power!

Right on, brotha! Black Power!

Can I adopt your kids?

Right on the first, horribly, horribly wrong on the second. I'll go ahead and use size 10 because I don't want this to be missed:

WHITES ARE NOT BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE! DEAL!

Oh, and, for the record? I'm white. Also for the record: They're not worse than anybody else. The same goes for religions, like, yes, Islam and Christianity. And so on. It's an undeniable truth I'm riting here, go ahead and take it.

I never said whites were better than anyone else. That would be ridiculously stupid of me to say so, given that I'm black, with tinges of Cherokee, Creek, and Scot/Irish. I said that solely to back up the statement that in the one latin country I've actually visited (Mexico), I saw a lot of drugs and hookers. Any idea beyond that, I don't really know enough to support or not support.

No 'probably' about it. But I sense that you're one of those people who believe you're too cool to care about evil PC things like racism.

I was told that because I was black, I could never be racist. :p

Untrue. We have whorehouses and drug wars in the US. In fact, we're the ones who coined the phrase, "War on Drugs." We cultivate gang violence and large-scale corruption. We invade countries and nuke civilians. So don't give me that delusional shit that you like to lap up, cuz I ain't eating it.

Whorehouses...maybe. Actually, I've seen dopehouses converted for that same puropes. But to compare a ....... Wait a minute, why the heck am I arguing against whorehouses?

We cultivate violence: Please explain how you can make that claim.

We cultivate large-scale corruption: Not as large as Mexico. They have the 11th GDP in the world but their people live in a second world environment, due to endemic corruption. At least when we commit corruption, we only skim enough off the top to ensure that the original task still gets completed. :p

We invade countries: True. I voted Demodrat in 2000, and 04, but I live in
Alabama so my vote got swallowed by the electoral congress.

We nuke civilians: Not since 1945. My parents weren't even born then, don't put that one on me.

Right. You'll be dead either away, but it's better to be killed by an American.

I dunno...dead is dead. But at least I might be able to beg for my life with the guy from Detroit. Plus, if you can get to the tunnel out of Detroit, wham! You're in the N. American paradise of Ontario, where everything goes right, and no one's ever sick or sad (except for when the leafs lose.)


You mean you don't already? What part of the U.S. do you live in?

My city's bad, but not N.L. bad.

"In Nuevo Laredo nearly 200 people were murdered in 2005, and other victims simply vanished. The statistics for 2006 are already mounting. What is just as appalling is that nearly 20 police officers, including a chief of police, plus a Nuevo Laredo city councilman have been gunned down in a city of around 335,000 people. Armed violence that actually resulted in the closing of the U.S. Consulate for a brief period of time."


In per capita (so you can compare it to your own town on city-data or some other website) that number equates to 59.70 murders per 100,000 people.

My hometown of Anniston, Alabama has almost 4 times the American average of criminal acts per capita. The murder rate, even for a violent community like Anniston was 20.9/100,000 in 2005...

...

looks at more statistics...

Ok, point conceded. In murders per capita Anniston was actually worse than N.L. in 2006, and Birmingham, the nearest town of similar population has had their murder rate spike from around 25-30/100000 to roughly 45 murders/100,000 in both 2005, and 2006. (Resists urge to blame the spike on New Orleans.)

I never said whites were better than anyone else. That would be ridiculously stupid of me to say so, given that I'm black, with tinges of Cherokee, Creek, and Scot/Irish. I said that solely to back up the statement that in the one latin country I've actually visited (Mexico), I saw a lot of drugs and hookers. Any idea beyond that, I don't really know enough to support or not support.

Not all hispanics are Mexican. I'm half Puerto Rican and from several visits I can tell you that Puerto Rico has exactly the right amount of drugs and prostitutes. :)

Does this mean that we get to have whorehouses and drug wars in all of our cities like in North Mexico?

Get implies that we don't already have them.

i has an idea! how about we make a political party whose major focus is on stoking white resentment and hating darkies. we could very quickly have a permanent majority if we act now!

Help secure a future for white children today!

I for one, do not give a fuck. "Whites" (a very empty, non-descriptive term) are already a minority in California. That's normal to me.

I like that in the title, "white race," is in quotes, since it's an ambiguous and changing term of little usefulness.

While I know intellectually that white people make up most of the country, I still never quite believe it until I go to places where there are only white people. I went to Geneseo (upstate NY) and in 11 days I only saw TWO Asian people. It was kind of unsettling being surrounded by that many whites.

You'd have been creeped out by my hometown. Out of a population of 10,000 there were 2 families of Indians, one family of Ojibwe, one black family and one Vietnamese family. In my graduating class there was only one Asian girl, although culturally she was as white and quasi-Canadian as these people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GTsGfh_PTA) as she'd been adopted by French-Canadian Yoopers.

Indeed this country has grown and been built up upon immigration. The huge difference is that we were much more nationalistic back then and demanded assimilation and unity. So when we had all these people coming in, we integrated and assimilated them to the best of our ability and made them Americans. Out of Many, One, and all that. United We Stand Divided We Fall. Ring any bells?

Yeah, those Irish certainly assimilated well. Left their culture at home and embraced ours. You wouldn't even know they were Irish, would you?

http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/img/gallery/stpatricks_06mar_01.jpg

Anyway, as to the thread topic itself, I really don't give half a damn. As to immigration, just like with every other wave of immigrants they'll become more like us, we'll become a bit more like them. In practical terms this means that the immigrants will get fatter, drink shitty beer and cheer for NFL teams. For the US this means that overall standards for tacos will improve.

Right on the first, horribly, horribly wrong on the second. I'll go ahead and use size 10 because I don't want this to be missed:

WHITES ARE NOT BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE! DEAL!

Oh, and, for the record? I'm white. Also for the record: They're not worse than anybody else. The same goes for religions, like, yes, Islam and Christianity. And so on. It's an undeniable truth I'm riting here, go ahead and take it.

While I would agree with the racial bit, I most emphatically disagree with the part about all religions being equal.

What race you are born into has little if any direct effect on the development of your intellect, personality, or character. In short, the things that determine how useful, pleasant, or decent one is as a person(ie, the things that matter). One's religious beliefs have a great deal of impact on all of the above, and what's more are a matter of choice (excepting indoctrination/brainwashing).

Refusing to judge someone on their beliefs is foolish. If all beliefs are equal, then what values you have are meaningless. Politics, law, the basis of an organized society, are largely about judging the merits of other people's world views. I would never argue that someone should be persecuted or denied their legal rights because of a philosophy I considered false. As long as they don't force it on or harm another, I'm fine with it. But don't expect me to personally accord every idea equal merit. That's not tolerance, its intellectual laziness and cowardess.

While I would agree with the racial bit, I most emphatically disagree with the part about all religions being equal.

What race you are born into has little if any direct effect on the development of your intellect, personality, or character. In short, the things that determine how useful, pleasant, or decent one is as a person(ie, the things that matter). One's religious beliefs have a great deal of impact on all of the above, and what's more are a matter of choice (excepting indoctrination/brainwashing).

Refusing to judge someone on their beliefs is foolish. If all beliefs are equal, then what values you have are meaningless. Politics, law, the basis of an organized society, are largely about judging the merits of other people's world views. I would never argue that someone should be persecuted or denied their legal rights because of a philosophy I considered false. As long as they don't force it on or harm another, I'm fine with it. But don't expect me to personally accord every idea equal merit. That's not tolerance, its intellectual laziness and cowardess.

I meant religions in general, not interpretations thereof, or the insane ones (Looking at you, Hubbard) - The moron that claims Allah will send people from other religions to Hell isn't at all different from the one that says the same about YHVH. However, the moderate Christian and the moderate Muslim are equal.

Last I checked, caucasians were already the minority -- ants or something are the closest to being the majority. :p

Whoo, lower civilization's albedo!

Last I checked, caucasians were already the minority -- ants or something are the closest to being the majority. :p

I guessed that it was beetles earlier in the thread, but, more accurately, the bacteria and nematodes and the like have an advantage even on the beetle. :tongue: The beetle's still #1 in number of species, though *waves pennant*. :)

Anyway, as to the thread topic itself, I really don't give half a damn. As to immigration, just like with every other wave of immigrants they'll become more like us, we'll become a bit more like them. In practical terms this means that the immigrants will get fatter, drink shitty beer and cheer for NFL teams. For the US this means that overall standards for tacos will improve.

They have the shitty beer part covered pretty well.

I guessed that it was beetles earlier in the thread, but, more accurately, the bacteria and nematodes and the like have an advantage even on the beetle. :tongue: The beetle's still #1 in number of species, though *waves pennant*. :)
Only because no one can define a bacterial "species". Those things will have "sex" with anything and everything! Even spare bits of DNA just lieing around aren't unviolated...

I guessed that it was beetles earlier in the thread, but, more accurately, the bacteria and nematodes and the like have an advantage even on the beetle. :tongue: The beetle's still #1 in number of species, though *waves pennant*. :)

Few remember the nematodes.

They have the shitty beer part covered pretty well.

It can't possibly be worse than the Unholy Trinity of Bud, Miller and Coors can it?

*is scared*

Yeah, those Irish certainly assimilated well. Left their culture at home and embraced ours. You wouldn't even know they were Irish, would you?

http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/img/gallery/stpatricks_06mar_01.jpg


But look how pale they are! They obviously assimilated!

Only because no one can define a bacterial "species". Those things will have "sex" with anything and everything! Even spare bits of DNA just lieing around aren't unviolated...

In otherwords, they're like people that commit bestiality, but at a much lower level?

But look how pale they are! They obviously assimilated!

These days they follow mainstream society, and trim the hair on their asses.

It can't possibly be worse than the Unholy Trinity of Bud, Miller and Coors can it?

*is scared*

Well, let's just put it this way... Bud is like the puddle in a public restroom. Tecate is much the same, also like a puddle in a public restroom. But this restroom is in Tijuana.

It can't possibly be worse than the Unholy Trinity of Bud, Miller and Coors can it?

*is scared*

Oh please. The americans have shitter beer than Bud. Ever tried "Natural Light"? Or the various types of malt liquor... Hell, "Bud Ice" is worse than "Bud light", and theres worse than that.

And Tecate isn't as bad as the ones I listed above. Its... drinkable.

Only because no one can define a bacterial "species". Those things will have "sex" with anything and everything! Even spare bits of DNA just lieing around aren't unviolated...


:D

*Violates gently*
:fluffle:

I love how this discussion turned from "race" to beer. XD

But yeah,

In practical terms this means that the immigrants will get fatter, drink shitty beer and cheer for NFL teams. For the US this means that overall standards for tacos will improve.

That is so true.

Speaking as a British man living in London; who cares?

actually im not British. I have German, Chinese and English heritage and I currently live in Australia. But OH so close. I still see you miss giving a number for migrants or your own heritage.

Bwahahahah. Shit man we are all migrants, or ancesters of migrants, migration is the first right for all, the right to move freely is well worth protecting.

So you believe in a world without borders? Without countries too? Or do you expect people to be able to walk in wherever and demand all services. Still I see you are not fazed at all by 2/3rds of the world at deaths door. Better to share it round right? That way we can all die a slower death.

Patently untrue. In fact, immigrants are more likely in the US to start a successful business.

Their children are. Not the migrants themselves.

You know, you seem like an educated fellow, so perhaps you can tell me exactly what the economics of being headed "in a third world direction" are.

While you're at it, you can define for me exactly what the "right level" of immigration is.


third world direction means leading the economy to recession or/and lowering the minimal wages.

As for the right level I still note you refused to state that. I guess that no level is too much for you. As for me I would limit the number to unfilled jobs that the American population are unwilling to fill. This would be a moving number that would be currently lowering as the economy is getting worse.

Still no need for you to worry. Your wealthy enough right? It makes a difference if your steeling to put food on your table, someone else’s table doesn’t matter. How is your budget looking as the global recession looms?

Yeah... a lowering of wages for unskilled work.

Are you complaining because this is a problem for you?

Regardless, it's the fault of employers, not immigrants or immigration.

No im complaining because I dont believe people should work 12+ hours a day to keep food on the table. To me that amounts to slave labour. Altho you seem fine with an idea of people holding about 3 jobs, with little working rights as they are replaceable and thus making the rich even richer while there at it. That should benefit you after all. Not so much for the retail and factory workers currently putting in hard work

I'd take your position a lot more seriously if you either knew how to spell, or how to use a basic spell-checker.

Being the largest portion of a population doesn't mean it's "an Anglo country."

Water makes up the biggest portion of a soup, that doesn't mean it's "water soup."

Water is the main part of soup yes. Thats what the composition is. Altho I see you are not happy with the fact that the largest share of Americans are anglo-saxin. A different way to judge the composition for a country could be wealth, working public or registered voters.

Not really, if staying in that country means death.

If you think my rant is "crazy" I'm going to hazard a guess that this is because you have no clue what I'm talking about.

Do you really think that allowing a few thousand people in will make a difference in the long run? There is a factor that keeps the population dying. The population will build up again and the matter will be repeated constantly. Most of the time there is a reason why mass death occurs in a country. Why not tackle that reason directly? You would save sooo many more lives.

Oh, no disagreements here. Any question which leads to answers like racial persecution and stereotyping, bigotry, generalizations, ignorant and bias tends to be very important to me - if for no other reason than I'll be in the first cattle cars when you guys finally decide the answer.

I follow that part at least. Anyone who disagrees with you is generalizes as a bigot and/or other derogatory terms. That just screams of tolerance and understanding dosnt it?


So at least I got some answers. You dont believe that a country should decide what people enter it under any circumstances. Anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. And the idea that there is a correct level of migration is a joke as resources, jobs and the minimal wage dont matter for the current citizens.

And Tecate isn't as bad as the ones I listed above. Its... drinkable.

So? Bleach is drinkable. It'll kill you, but you can drink it.

I meant religions in general, not interpretations thereof, or the insane ones (Looking at you, Hubbard) - The moron that claims Allah will send people from other religions to Hell isn't at all different from the one that says the same about YHVH. However, the moderate Christian and the moderate Muslim are equal.

So all religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others?:D

Ten bucks to whoever first spots the reference.

So all religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others?:D

Ten bucks to whoever first spots the reference.
Animal Farm, obviously.

So all religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others?:D

Ten bucks to whoever first spots the reference.

Four legs good. Two legs bad.

Animal Farm, obviously.

Correct. I assumed most would get it, but one must never underestimate human ignorance.;)

I would actually venture that 2042 is about 40 years too late. From my experiances and the experiances of most brothers and sisters in the US, the time is already come. The government census is notoriously bad and they tend to ignore low-income areas, most large cities already have a Original majority (Black, Brown, Red and Yellow) and cities account for most of the population in the US anyway. If the Whites still have a majority, it is slim and by 2042, rather than singing "we are a minority now" they will be asking "Where have all the White people gone?"

So all religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others?:D

Ten bucks to whoever first spots the reference.

:p

You know what I meant.

Oh please. The americans have shitter beer than Bud. Ever tried "Natural Light"? Or the various types of malt liquor... Hell, "Bud Ice" is worse than "Bud light", and theres worse than that.

And Tecate isn't as bad as the ones I listed above. Its... drinkable.

Tecate is like bud with slightly more flavor. Natural Ice or its variants, and Keystone are worse, that is true. Basically, if it's advertised during the super bowl or on billboards, it's shitty beer. People should pay the extra buck to get something that doesn't taste like piss.

I refuse to drink pretty much anything mentioned in your post and mine. I'd honestly rather be sober than put that stuff in my mouth.

Their children are. Not the migrants themselves.

Even if you're right, this still contradicts your 'drain on society' nonsense. Children of migrants come from migrants, you see.

third world direction means leading the economy to recession or/and lowering the minimal wages.

I don't see a minimum wage decrease. Do you?

And really, you equate "recession" with "third world?" That's like equating "feeling sad" with "insanity."


As for the right level I still note you refused to state that.

Well. I asked you what the 'right level' was, because you were the one (not I) who believed there was a 'right level' beyond which immigrants should be tossed out on their asses. So no, I didn't answer a question I addressed to you, but so fucking what?

As for me I would limit the number to unfilled jobs that the American population are unwilling to fill. This would be a moving number that would be currently lowering as the economy is getting worse.

And do tell what the "number of unfilled jobs" that the population is unwilling to fill?

I bet you can't, because it's a bullshit number.

Still no need for you to worry. Your wealthy enough right? It makes a difference if your steeling to put food on your table, someone else’s table doesn’t matter. How is your budget looking as the global recession looms?


What are you going on about here?

No im complaining because I dont believe people should work 12+ hours a day to keep food on the table.

...because you blame immigrants for your hypothetical potential 12+ hour work days.

You blame them for your imaginary lowering of minimum wage.

To me that amounts to slave labour. Altho you seem fine with an idea of people holding about 3 jobs, with little working rights

...and you blame them for the imagined taking away of basic rights.

Water is the main part of soup yes. Thats what the composition is.

Water being the main part of soup doesn't make the statement "soup is water" true.

Similarly, "Anglo-Saxins" being a majority do not make the statement "it's an Anglo country" true.


Do you really think that allowing a few thousand people in will make a difference in the long run?

Gee, since you seem to think allowing immigrants into a nation can

a) Trash the nation's economy
b) Remove worker's rights
c) Lower your minimum wage
d) Force you into slavery

It seems that you have the answer to your own question, even from your own rather strange point of view.

There is a factor that keeps the population dying. The population will build up again and the matter will be repeated constantly. Most of the time there is a reason why mass death occurs in a country. Why not tackle that reason directly? You would save sooo many more lives.

What you're essentially saying here is that there's no point in letting the Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in... it won't make a difference! Just go attack Nazi Germany directly.

Which doesn't make sense since you were just now complaining about the economy. Foreign wars are more expensive than even your most delusional of estimates about immigration.

I follow that part at least. Anyone who disagrees with you is generalizes as a bigot and/or other derogatory terms. That just screams of tolerance and understanding dosnt it?

If you're going to argue a bigoted point and support a proven bigot you can't really complain about becoming associated with bigotry.

So at least I got some answers. You dont believe that a country should decide what people enter it under any circumstances.

I never said that.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a racist.

Never said that either.

And the idea that there is a correct level of migration is a joke as resources, jobs and the minimal wage dont matter for the current citizens.

No, the idea that there is a 'correct level' implies that you're actually thinking economically and that you have solid reasons why, and where exactly this 'correct level' would be. But you aren't, and you don't, because all you're doing is the same old blame-the-immigrant game.

:p

You know what I meant.

Your saying the mainstream religions are roughly equal right? Well, perhaps, but that varies a lot from denomination to denomination, as you pointed out. Also, you could argue that at least in the tolerance of other faiths area, Islam was far superior to Christianity during the Middle Ages. I'm sure you could find other examples.

On the other hand, Islam was founded by a prophet who is an admitted pedophile. Though he's hardly the only "holy man" to engage in such activities.

"In Nuevo Laredo nearly 200 people were murdered in 2005, and other victims simply vanished. The statistics for 2006 are already mounting. What is just as appalling is that nearly 20 police officers, including a chief of police, plus a Nuevo Laredo city councilman have been gunned down in a city of around 335,000 people. Armed violence that actually resulted in the closing of the U.S. Consulate for a brief period of time."

*snip*

While that would probably work for most cities, I live next to Oakland and Richmond. 2006 was a big murder spike--I forget exactly how many homicides there were, but it was somewhere around 220 in a two-city area with about 500,000 people. Not quite as bad, but bad.

Even if you're right, this still contradicts your 'drain on society' nonsense. Children of migrants come from migrants, you see.

Initially tho there is a decrease in suitable employees. This is where the problem remains.

I don't see a minimum wage decrease. Do you?

Yes I do. The bottom class in numerous first world countries are finding it harder and harder to afford food. Thus they are heading in a third world direction.

Well. I asked you what the 'right level' was, because you were the one (not I) who believed there was a 'right level' beyond which immigrants should be tossed out on their asses. So no, I didn't answer a question I addressed to you, but so fucking what?

Actually I did. The number of unfilled jobs should be the number of migrants. It moves. You still havnt stated your number tho.

And do tell what the "number of unfilled jobs" that the population is unwilling to fill?

I bet you can't, because it's a bullshit number.

There are certain jobs that employees find hard to fill. The government has the best data on this. Factory workers and farm hands are amongst the worst. It is difficult to get a precise number as it keeps on moving. But the point to fill the unwanted jobs should be the number. Not unlimited migration

What are you going on about here?

rich people dont know starvation. Try deciding wether you want warmth or food tonight. Or an even worse case is you cant choose either. A low wage can force that choice upon you. I dont expect you to understand as I assume your wealthy.

...because you blame immigrants for your hypothetical potential 12+ hour work days.

You blame them for your imaginary lowering of minimum wage.

I blame people who allow too many migrants in. They set the economy going in a downward spiral. The migrants themselves are doing what comes naturally. They just want a better life.

and you blame them for the imagined taking away of basic rights.
Low wages follow with low working rights. Again I blame the policy makers and those that support large numbers of migrants.

Water being the main part of soup doesn't make the statement "soup is water" true.

My full quote said it. One way of determining what something is, is by looking at the largest portion. Your method would say that there is no chinese land or even no contaminated water as it would still just contains water and compounds normal water does.

The fact is the largest section of Americans are Anglo-Saxin

Gee, since you seem to think allowing immigrants into a nation can

a) Trash the nation's economy
b) Remove worker's rights
c) Lower your minimum wage
d) Force you into slavery

It seems that you have the answer to your own question, even from your own rather strange point of view.

I meant to the country where they come from. world migration wouldnt even account for 1% of all those living in horrible conditions. In the big picture there is no difference caused by migration
What you're essentially saying here is that there's no point in letting the Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in... it won't make a difference! Just go attack Nazi Germany directly.

Which doesn't make sense since you were just now complaining about the economy. Foreign wars are more expensive than even your most delusional of estimates about immigration.

you seem to have war on your mind. I never mentioned it

As for nazi germany early action could have prevented the loss of millions of lives. But I never mentioned war

Teaching them to create a sustainable environment, sustainable jobs, giving them the basic blocks to build employment, clean water and so on. That is a far better method to fix suffering then lowering your own country towards third world standards.

If you're going to argue a bigoted point and support a proven bigot you can't really complain about becoming associated with bigotry.

Still name calling. Ill add my own. SMELLY :p
Two words for you 'open borders' and
Quote:
So at least I got some answers. You dont believe that a country should decide what people enter it under any circumstances.
I never said that. [ QUOTE]
Open borders means that the country cant decide who enters. The borders are “OPEN”
[QUOTE]
Anyone who disagrees with you is a racist.
Never said that either.
But everyone who has disagreed you have accused of being a racist. Is there one person who disagrees with you and isn’t a racist?
No, the idea that there is a 'correct level' implies that you're actually thinking economically and that you have solid reasons why, and where exactly this 'correct level' would be. But you aren't, and you don't, because all you're doing is the same old blame-the-immigrant game.
No I state the fact that migration at high levels brings wages down. I have never blamed the migrants. I blame people like you who support open borders.

While that would probably work for most cities, I live next to Oakland and Richmond. 2006 was a big murder spike--I forget exactly how many homicides there were, but it was somewhere around 220 in a two-city area with about 500,000 people. Not quite as bad, but bad.

Heh. My family's from Vallejo, so I realize that Oakland's a special case.
But looking at the statistics, Oakland had 145 murders in 2006, for a city of 400,000 (36.4/100,000 people)
Richmond had 42 murders for a city slightly above 100,000 (40.7/100,000). Still not Laredo bad, but bad enough to make the point I ended up having to admit, which is that residents of inner cities can't really complain about the level of crime in Mexico.

And for those who claim that immigrants do not lower the wage for unskilled workers. Look at the meat-packing industry. Jobs that were unskilled 10-12$ an hour job are now 6$ an hour jobs. They're still above minimum wage, but the pressure from undocumented immigrants have pushed the wage rate of these jobs down to where they're unworkable for most Americans. Because of this, according to a lot of people these jobs are some of the jobs that "Americans won't do". Not true. Americans will do those jobs, just not at non-living wages.

And before anyone asks. Yes, I did have a job that was being threatened by such labor practices. I was a truck driver for the last five years, and Nafta has a provision allowing Mexican trucks to be allowed to drive on American roads, but it still hasn't been enacted past a pilot program (thanks Sierra Club!). An American trucker making 35-50 cents per mile isn't going to be able to compete with a Mexican making 10-15 cents per mile. I'm going back to school to get an engineering degree because of the changes that I see happening in that field down the line.

On the other hand, Islam was founded by a prophet who is an admitted pedophile.

Really? Did he write that he spent hours online looking for kiddie porn or was he in a time period in which the concept was different, if existent at all?

I look forward to admiring post-2042 society. A whole lot of gorgeous brown people. A cafe-au-lait-skinned nation of hotness. I say bring it on.

Really? Did he write that he spent hours online looking for kiddie porn or was he in a time period in which the concept was different, if existent at all?

He is known to have had a child bride who he slept with, I recall. I'm no expert on the medieval middle east, but I believe this was perfectly acceptable at the time. That doesn't make it ok in my mind, or any less disgusting a custom, but I suppose if that was the case he would have been acting with in the norms of his society at the time, so it would be harder to condemn him for those actions.

Its like the Aztec human sacrifices, or the Roman or US slavery. Evil, repulsive, but totally legal and normal at the time. We can't argue that everyone involved in such practices was a monster. Having been brought up in that culture, they wouldn't know it was wrong. It just wouldn't occur to them. At least that's how I see it.

Whites a minority by 2015. You're barely clearing a majority right now, and that is assuming the Census Bureau is correct and that you really don't have over 12 million illegals in the country.

The reality is, you have over 35 million illegals and more flooding in every day.

That's about 6% of the nation in difference - dropping white % from 66 to 60%.

Considering the 1 million illegal influx per year and the exploding mexican birthrate of existing mexican breeders and anchor-moms, you will lose majority just due to the mexican invasion in less than 10 years.

Also consider the welcome by the US government to the massive resettlement influx of muslims and african blacks.

You should be at the tipping point in about 6 years. All this assumes a static status quo - none of the increases Obama was planning. As we all know, these things only accelerate.

I would agree with Hachihyaku despite his calling it a "Mexican invasion."

The land, to be fair, was native territories, that is, land belonging the Original People rightfully. This included the Moors and possibly even Chinese who arrived here before the Whites came. When the Whites did come, they came with conquest and bloodshed. It is estimated that 121 million people lived in the Americas in 1492 and yet in 1592 this number is estimated at 1 million. The White people, who in the main have never worked this land rightfully, but have always had to bring others as slaves or wage-slaves to keep them alive do not have a right to this land. The Native people as well as all Original people, Black, Brown, Red and Yellow do have a right to this land.

This land is being re-taken, just as Europe is being re-taken, and it isn't being re-taken by bloodshed or chaos, it is being reclaimed because of the White Petty-Bourgeois attitudes and society, which frowns upon Women being Women and having and raising children. It prefers women to be wage-slaves as well and it is too uncivilized for a woman to simply raise children. This is why indeed, due to the Black/Latino/Arab immigration to the US and Europe and the fact that Whites don't have children, that the world is being retaken by the Original man and woman.

I would agree with Hachihyaku despite his calling it a "Mexican invasion."

The land, to be fair, was native territories, that is, land belonging the Original People rightfully. This included the Moors and possibly even Chinese who arrived here before the Whites came. When the Whites did come, they came with conquest and bloodshed. It is estimated that 121 million people lived in the Americas in 1492 and yet in 1592 this number is estimated at 1 million. The White people, who in the main have never worked this land rightfully, but have always had to bring others as slaves or wage-slaves to keep them alive do not have a right to this land. The Native people as well as all Original people, Black, Brown, Red and Yellow do have a right to this land.

This land is being re-taken, just as Europe is being re-taken, and it isn't being re-taken by bloodshed or chaos, it is being reclaimed because of the White Petty-Bourgeois attitudes and society, which frowns upon Women being Women and having and raising children. It prefers women to be wage-slaves as well and it is too uncivilized for a woman to simply raise children. This is why indeed, due to the Black/Latino/Arab immigration to the US and Europe and the fact that Whites don't have children, that the world is being retaken by the Original man and woman.

NEOLITHIC AGE

As climatic conditions improved, so occurred what is called the Neolithic revolution. Again, this is a fancy term indicating only a change in living style. Neolithic means the establishment of farms and crops and even more settled lifestyles.

Although there are isolated examples of proto Nordics having established farms at the beginning of the Neolithic period in Northern Europe, the fact is that the climatic conditions were not ripe for large scale farming. The proto Nordics, Alpines and darker Mediterraneans who were living in the more climatically favourable Middle East were the first to start with large scale farming and settlements. Cereal crops were planted in the Middle east 10,000 years ago.

The cereal grain farmers spread their skills westwards, penetrating central Europe about 8000 years ago - when these crops first started appearing in Italy and the Balkans.
SEMITES AND MONGOLS

Here we must of course bear in mind that the inhabitants of the Middle East at this period in history were not the same people who inhabit that region now! The Semites and Mongols (who lived further east) were still migrating North and West from ancient homelands in the South and East.

The people who lived in the Middle East at the time we are talking about now were a mixture of proto Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans, with Mediterraneans being in the majority. Although they do not predate the Upper Paleothic settlements in Europe - they can most certainly be said to have provided much of the impetus for early White civilization.

Having said that, it was so that almost without fail the leadership elite of these Middle Eastern inhabitants were Nordics. A few examples: the first Egyptian societies were clearly White. The majority of the population were Mediterraneans, while the leadership elite was Nordic. The mummified remains of numerous pharaohs and common folk from the first great Egyptian civilization have these undeniable racial characteristics, while the first written reference to blond hair is made on the wall of the tomb of the pharaoh Cheops - his daughter, Queen Hetep-Heres II, is identified as having blond hair. Cheops was of course the builder of the great Pyramids we still see today outside Cairo.

These racial types dominated in the Middle East for nearly 10,000 years, eventually being displaced and intermingle with massive waves of Semitic and Mongoloid invaders.
SUMERIA

The first great White Egyptian civilization was in fact predated by about some 3000 years by the great Sumerian civilization - another population whose racial make up was predominantly Mediterranean with a Nordic ruling elite. This civilization, founded between the two great rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, even built pyramids - called Ziggurats - of their own long before the Egyptians apparently stole the idea from them.

The Sumerian civilization was the first truly literate civilization, and was established as late as 3000 BC - some 5000 years ago. The most famous city state of the Sumerians was Babylon, which later became one of the wonders of the ancient world because of its beautiful hanging gardens.

The first great novel - a recreational work of fiction, was written down in Babylon - The Epic of Gilgamesh (which interestingly enough has as part of its story line the flooding of the world - clearly this was from where the later Hebrew religionists took the idea of Noah's Ark and the flood.)

The first written law statutes also date from this Sumerian civilization - the Law code of Hammurabi, which dates from 1 760 BC.

A number of other smaller White civilizations sprang up at this time in this region as well, each of them contributing in their own way to the advancement of civilization.
CARTHAGE

Amongst them were the Phonecians, a people originally of Greek origin who established our modern alphabet and through trade established themselves as a powerful nation in the Mediterranean. The Phoenicians founded the city of Carthage, in present day Tunis, just opposite the bottom of the Italian peninsula. Carthage was of course to become one of the Roman empire's greatest enemies.
OLD EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION

The neolithic (farming) revolution slowly spread through Europe, first along the Grecian peninsula, Italy, up the Danube River and reaching Northern Europe about 7000 years ago.

These civilizations are what is know as the "Old European civilization" and included such places as Crete (the palace at that island's capital city, Knossos, had by the way, the first running water toilets - this about 4500 years ago!)
MODERN NORDIC

By this time the modern day Nordic racial type had fully developed, and it may come as news to some of you that original large Nordic concentrations were not in fact in Scandinavia, but in modern day Ukraine and South Eastern Russia (hence Whites are mistakenly called Caucasians - after the Causacas mountains - by those who don't know better).

The town of Kiev, was for example one of the biggest Nordic cities, dating from about 7000 years ago, and had a population of 20,000 - huge by standards of the time.

These Nordics slowly crept westward, invading and re-invading Western Europe for a period of nearly 6000 years, finally resulting in the establishment of a new Nordic heartland in Northern Europe.

These people developed a linear script and their own language. Very little of this language remains, although there are those who argue that the Hungarian language - which is exclusive and bears no relation to any other European language except to a Baltic dialect - is the purest surviving example of this language.

These original Nordic tribes had stone buildings and worked bronze and copper. How much of this metal working skill was passed South to the Middle Eastern civilizations remains a matter of debate.

However, what is for sure is that successive waves of Nordic tribes started invading central and Southern Europe in earnest about 6 400 years ago, and caused the Mediterranean civilizations (the "Old European" civilizations) to topple. Nordic tribes occupied large regions of Turkey, Crete, Greece and Southern Europe and Italy.

The invading Nordics did not kill the largely Mediterranean populations of these areas - obviously feeling some type of racial kinship, but instead just ruled over them.

Some Nordic tribes migrated into the Far East - as far as China, where some Nordic remains have been found in burial chambers. The details we have about this is too sketchy to speculate on what effect this may have had on the undeniably advanced Chinese culture.

These Nordic tribes also invaded Egypt, but were in turn occupied by a Semitic invasion - the Hyskos, who wee only expelled after 100 years of their rule.
GREECE

It was some of these invading Nordic tribes, around the year 2100 BC - some 4000 years ago - laid the basis for the great age of Greek culture. From this period we owe much in terms of philosophers, mathematicians and great soldiers. This flowering of Greek civilization lasted till just after the founding of the greatest empire the world has known, in Rome.

In 1595AD - some 3500 years ago - the city of Babylon was captured by these Nordic invaders. Another invading tribe was called the Philistines by the Egyptians - and these people established what is believed to be a harsh rule over the increasing number of Semites in the Middle East. The Semites developed a fanatical hatred of the Philistines, which they developed into their religion.

This was developed to the point where today anyone who has been raised a Christian knows that to call someone a Philistine is to insult him, even though the person using that insult may not even know who the Philistines were.
INDO-ARYANS

Around the year 1500 BC - say 3500 years ago - Nordic tribes, who were sun worshippers, and who used the sanskrit (or Sumerian) language and their symbols, invaded central Asia and occupied territory as far as the North of India. These invaders were what is known as the Indo-Europeans, or the original Aryans. In fact, all of those countries spanning their age of conquest bear names directly related to them - India, Iran, Iraq are all corruptions of the original word Aryan.

One of the symbols the Aryans had was the sunwheel, representing the sun and well being, which later developed into the swastika. This symbol was taken up in to the Indo-Aryan's religion, and transported over into the Hindu religion, which sprang from a corruption of the Indo-Aryans' beliefs. To this day you will find swastikas in Hindu temples across the world.

Up until this time then, the development of White race's territorial expansion was such that they were a majority in Europe and Western Russia. Nordics ruled as an elite over a largely Mediterranean population into the Middle East. In areas further East, that is Iran and Northern India, the population grew steadily darker and less White, till at the furthest outpost in India the Nordic invaders were a distinct minority.
TURNING POINT

At this stage in history the first great turning point in White civilization came about. The White Egyptians started using Nubian - or Black - labour to provide the manpower needed to build their great pyramids, while in other Central Eastern countries the Semitic or Arabic populations began to increase as they too were increasingly used as labour by the ruling Whites.

Herein lies the key to understanding the rise and fall of all civilizations - as long as a race maintains its territorial integrity and does not start to rely on others to provide its labour, that civilization will stand intact. Once it starts to allow large numbers of other races into its midst, to do the labour, then that civilization falls.

A civilization stands or falls by the homogeneity of its population, and nothing else.

To digress for one minute to explain this another way : no-one will argue that the Chinese people have built a civilization in China. If however the Australian aborigines had to immigrate to China in their millions, then in a few years the character of Chinese civilization would changed to that of an aboriginal one.

Those who occupy the territory, not those who own the territory, determine the nature of that society. This is an immutable law which cannot be escaped.
INDIA

In India, for example, the Indo- Aryans established a strict segregation system to keep themselves separate from the local native population. This system was so strict that it has lasted to this day as is today known as the caste system. However, even the strictest segregation (and punishments such as death for miscegenation) did not prevent the majority population from eventually swallowing up the ruling Nordics till today when only a few very high caste Brahmin Indians could still pass as Europeans.

Now exactly the same thing happened in central Asia, Egypt, Sumeria, and to a lesser degree, Turkey. Slowly but surely, as these civilizations relied more and more on others to do their work for them, their population became darker and darker. Today Egypt is not populated by the people who built the pyramids - and the same applies to any other original site of White culture in that region.
GREECE

The Nordic civilizations in Greece also fell prey to this trap, and the last great Grecian leader, Pericles, actually enacted a law in the year 451 BC limiting citizenship of the state by racial descent. However, some 400 years later this law was changed as the population shifts had become more and more evident. Today there are significant genetic differences between many inhabitants of Greece and the original inhabitants of that country, although this change is not as complete as in a place such as Egypt.

Thus, only the Nordics who invaded Eastward into Europe, have left any significant genetic heritage today, mainly because the original inhabitants of this region were genetically compatible with the Nordic invaders.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT

Possibly one of the best known rulers of the period leading up the Christian year 0 was Alexander the Great. His tribe of Nordic invaders had settled the land known as Macedonia - just to the north of present day Greece. Alexander set about invading the already struggling Greece and eventually most of the known world, including poor old Egypt once again.

Alexander was however an exponent of multi culturalism, and established his new capital at Babylon. He even forced his army's senior officers to take Asiatic wives!

Upon Alexander's' early death at Babylon, virtually all of his senior officers who had been forced into these multi racial marriages renounced their Asiatic wives, and Alexander's empire was split up amongst his generals.

The most famous one of these generals was Ptolemy, who established the Ptolemic reign in Egypt. The best known Ptolemic Egyptian queen was Cleopatra, who was of course born in Macedonia and not in Egypt at all. This Ptolemic reign provided a new short lease of life to Egypt, but soon the by then overwhelmingly Arabic population took over once again.

I would agree with Hachihyaku despite his calling it a "Mexican invasion."

The land, to be fair, was native territories, that is, land belonging the Original People rightfully. This included the Moors and possibly even Chinese who arrived here before the Whites came. When the Whites did come, they came with conquest and bloodshed. It is estimated that 121 million people lived in the Americas in 1492 and yet in 1592 this number is estimated at 1 million. The White people, who in the main have never worked this land rightfully, but have always had to bring others as slaves or wage-slaves to keep them alive do not have a right to this land. The Native people as well as all Original people, Black, Brown, Red and Yellow do have a right to this land.

This land is being re-taken, just as Europe is being re-taken, and it isn't being re-taken by bloodshed or chaos, it is being reclaimed because of the White Petty-Bourgeois attitudes and society, which frowns upon Women being Women and having and raising children. It prefers women to be wage-slaves as well and it is too uncivilized for a woman to simply raise children. This is why indeed, due to the Black/Latino/Arab immigration to the US and Europe and the fact that Whites don't have children, that the world is being retaken by the Original man and woman.

So you justify the genocide of the white race simply to have other races be populous?
White people make up 8% of the current worlds populations, in 1939 they made up a distinct majority, even if you combined all other races.

And since you are disillusioned about the original inhabitants here are some links to help you:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/mummies_06.shtml A white, Peruvian mummy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/chinamum/taklamakan.html A white body found in the Chinese desert, 3000 years old.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=52602&mailtofriend=1
A 2,500 year old white mummy in Mongolia.


The same White racial mummies found in Western China are the same as that of the Kenniwick man found in n.w. U.S. showing that our people did migrate to the Americas or did we long ago go from the Americas to Asia and Europe or just inter continential trade and travel. The Incans knew of Asia and those who ate rice in their accounts. Motiff carvings in Americas is that of basic Scythian design which is of animals fighting or man fighting an animal.

The age old dragon design motiff on even ancient Phoenician to Viking ships is also carried over to the dragon Aztec stone designs as to the Chinese from the Scythians and other White influence. The old ancient Chimu designs, like the ship drawings are also have the Phoenician-Viking like dragon head boats. The only place our designs are not seen is among the blacks in Africa who have their own dark errie forms of carvings, nor the fair red haired mummies.

Even a red haired White racial mummy was found near Cayuga Ontario Canada around a 100 years ago, so they were here as well and most likely for the copper trade source to take back to Egypt and other old World White countries. Some of the White Indian tribes discovered here by post Columbus explorers were reddish hair, fair complexion, but wiped out by the new Europeans. They were very tall as well, some giants as 12 foot tall mummies found in some of the mounds. Lot of them are hidden away in the Smithsonian along with other priceless artifacts that would give our White heritage back its suppressed history.

I look forward to admiring post-2042 society. A whole lot of gorgeous brown people. A cafe-au-lait-skinned nation of hotness. I say bring it on.

:eek: You mean where the country has collapsed and white people are hunted down? (Take South Africa and Zimbabwe as prime examples of what happens when white people loose control)

That and well, mixed race people look quiet horrible in my opinion... (Then again so do black people, but I don't really know anyone who claims to like the appearance of black people, I know black people who hate the appearance of black people)

The earliest realistic record of White people is 5000 years ago Hachihyaku, you promote the same "Aryans set up all civilization" that has been promoted for the last 600 years as an excuse to colonize, destroy and wipe out other civilizations. Egypt was a Black civilization and the Black man of Africa-Arabia was the original man on Earth, he settled Amexem (Africa), Asia and migrated to the Americas. All original civilization thus descended from this. The first real record of Aryans is their invasion and slaughter of the Indian civilization. This first record was but one of many later conquests and slaughters.

I do not support the elimination of all Whites, but I support the return of all land to the Black, Brown, Red and Yellow man and woman. White scientists have always tried to invent White people, during the Nazi era, it was common doctrine that all major civilizations had to have been White, so Nubia, Egypt, Great Zimbabwe, the Tahuantansiyu etc. were all made "White" according to official "science". This trend continues today. It is a fundemental goal of White scientists to wipe out and eradicate the history of the Original man, to discourage him from finding pride in himself and thus to keep him enslaved with white pseudo-culture and white pseudo-science.

As for physical appearance, I find the Black, Brown, Red and Yellow beautiful, it is natural and not artificial.

I take Zimbabwe as a good example, despite the Western aggression to destroy her economy, which she has indeed done, the Whites have been kicked off of the land they stole. If Whites in Africa are made to return the land they took through force and oppression, so what? Chickens coming home to roost never made me sad, it only made me glad.

The earliest realistic record of White people is 5000 years ago Hachihyaku, you promote the same "Aryans set up all civilization" that has been promoted for the last 600 years as an excuse to colonize, destroy and wipe out other civilizations. Egypt was a Black civilization and the Black man of Africa-Arabia was the original man on Earth, he settled Amexem (Africa), Asia and migrated to the Americas. All original civilization thus descended from this. The first real record of Aryans is their invasion and slaughter of the Indian civilization. This first record was but one of many later conquests and slaughters.

I do not support the elimination of all Whites, but I support the return of all land to the Black, Brown, Red and Yellow man and woman. White scientists have always tried to invent White people, during the Nazi era, it was common doctrine that all major civilizations had to have been White, so Nubia, Egypt, Great Zimbabwe, the Tahuantansiyu etc. were all made "White" according to official "science". This trend continues today. It is a fundemental goal of White scientists to wipe out and eradicate the history of the Original man, to discourage him from finding pride in himself and thus to keep him enslaved with white pseudo-culture and white pseudo-science.

As for physical appearance, I find the Black, Brown, Red and Yellow beautiful, it is natural and not artificial.

I take Zimbabwe as a good example, despite the Western aggression to destroy her economy, which she has indeed done, the Whites have been kicked off of the land they stole. If Whites in Africa are made to return the land they took through force and oppression, so what? Chickens coming home to roost never made me sad, it only made me glad.

you barely read my post at all, and Egyptian civilisation was WHITE, look at the mummy's from ancient Egypt, look at the artwork - it depicts mainly white people, look at pictures and mummies of most, if not all the of the pharoah's, they where white!
Northern Africa was a white land, black people where separated from the north by the Sahara desert, they only truly came to be in North Africa when the Arab slave trade brought them over.
No black people weren't the first people, no they didn't travel the world and inhabit it first (there is no evidence at all for that, whereas there is for the white people).
If you read my post you'll see their are different records.
And no, they don't try to say central Africa was white, it is common knowledge that black people where the inhabitants there, no one has tried to say otherwise.
Science doesn't try to say that white people where first, these days it says the opposite, that's when they're not trying to say race doesn't exist at all :rolleyes:

Zimbabwe was a well lead and prosperous land until the white people lost power in it, and where forced out. Zimbabwe's economy is in shambles because of its inability.

And are you saying the white race is "artificial"? as opposed to other races? I'm quiet sure that's classed as ignorant bigotry, at least if it was the other way round.

So how about you provide some evidence and argue your point, and read my posts? As I have done to you, so we can have a proper debate.

Also I don't use the term Aryan to describe white people, the instances that I have are unintentional.

No, the Egyptian civilization was not, African civilization and thereby, all civilization started in Arabia/East Africa and through migrations moved to all corners of the earth.

This was far before 3000 years ago. Whites only appeared around 5000 years ago anyway.

Depends on which "scientists", some try to say race doesn't exist, which is a White Nationalist way of eliminating race entirely to justify the status quo, while some say it does exist and the Original man never had any civilization, which also justifies the status quo. Regardless, reality says that the White time is at its end-game. Within 50 years the White man won't have Europe or North America and he certainly won't have South America or Asia or Africa. The world will be back to its original state.

Zimbabwe was never "prosperous" to its people, only to the colonizers. The people never had anything, their slavemasters did. The economy is only doing badly because of European and US economic sanctions and embargoes. Zimbabwe is doing, at all costs, what must be done in all of Africa. There can be no freedom, nor independance while the colonizers and slave-masters still own your land and your industry. I hope that Comrade Jacob Zuma will follow in Brother Mugabe's footsteps.

Yes, I am saying very much they are artificial, as in, they are a created race, created by man. They are the products of a Eugenics movement around 10,000 years ago. The White traits are all recessive, naturally they disappear. It is estimated by 2100 blonde hair and blue eyes won't exist anymore. The way they came into being was simple, an exiled community around a man named Yakub, who had discovered by genetics the traits he sought after began a eugenics process whereby they bred the lighter skinned individuals and killed any babies who had undesirable traits, hence creating over the course of several thousand years a race with blonde hair and blue eyes. Yakub obviously never saw his dream come to light. However, that race does exist currently and as all people do, were given their allotted time to rule. Their rule has lasted about 600 years and has seen the elimination and enslavement of the Native peoples of the America's and Oceania, the enslavement of the African people's, the colonization of Arabia and Asia. It has seen countless lives lost, numbering in the billions for "civilization" to be built.

We need a world without the loss of billions of lives, without racial injustice, where the land is restored to the people who rightfully own it. Within 100 years this will only be a memory, in Europe, in Corduba people will laugh at how the Moors lost in 1492 and won 600 years later. In Germany, men and women will joke about how the Osmanli Khalifate lost in 1683 and won through migration. Europe will be an African-Arabian land. The US will be a land belonging to the Black/Native/Latino man and woman and Africa, Asia and all other territories will be restored. This will not come with bloodshed, as Brother Qadhafi pointed out, Islam does not spread by the sword and is not spreading by the sword today, it spreads naturally. The post-Christian Europe will be an Islamic Europe, not because of a war or conquest, but because of simple demographics. I do not doubt the US will be the same.

note: I have no problem if you call White people Aryan, that is what they are frequently referred to as and are. I classify the Celtic peoples and the Basques as Non-Aryans, because they are from Africa and Anatolia and thereby Original. However, for most of Europe, Aryan does suffice.

tl;dr.

:eek: You mean where the country has collapsed and white people are hunted down? (Take South Africa and Zimbabwe as prime examples of what happens when white people loose control)

That and well, mixed race people look quiet horrible in my opinion... (Then again so do black people, but I don't really know anyone who claims to like the appearance of black people, I know black people who hate the appearance of black people)

Wow. At least you make no attempts to veil your blatant racism. I like the appearance of Black people, mostly because I like the appearance of people. They's ugly Blacks, they's ugly Whites and they's ugly everything else. Attractiveness knows no race. If it does, it's a preference based solely on race and not objective characteristics. For the most part, mixed-race folks can be just as beautiful or ugly as the average, but in my experience, I see more to allure than repulse.

But I'm not you. And I thank every God you can name and science as well for that relieving fact.

No, the Egyptian civilization was not, African civilization and thereby, all civilization started in Arabia/East Africa and through migrations moved to all corners of the earth.

This was far before 3000 years ago. Whites only appeared around 5000 years ago anyway.

Depends on which "scientists", some try to say race doesn't exist, which is a White Nationalist way of eliminating race entirely to justify the status quo, while some say it does exist and the Original man never had any civilization, which also justifies the status quo. Regardless, reality says that the White time is at its end-game. Within 50 years the White man won't have Europe or North America and he certainly won't have South America or Asia or Africa. The world will be back to its original state.

Zimbabwe was never "prosperous" to its people, only to the colonizers. The people never had anything, their slavemasters did. The economy is only doing badly because of European and US economic sanctions and embargoes. Zimbabwe is doing, at all costs, what must be done in all of Africa. There can be no freedom, nor independance while the colonizers and slave-masters still own your land and your industry. I hope that Comrade Jacob Zuma will follow in Brother Mugabe's footsteps.

Yes, I am saying very much they are artificial, as in, they are a created race, created by man. They are the products of a Eugenics movement around 10,000 years ago. The White traits are all recessive, naturally they disappear. It is estimated by 2100 blonde hair and blue eyes won't exist anymore. The way they came into being was simple, an exiled community around a man named Yakub, who had discovered by genetics the traits he sought after began a eugenics process whereby they bred the lighter skinned individuals and killed any babies who had undesirable traits, hence creating over the course of several thousand years a race with blonde hair and blue eyes. Yakub obviously never saw his dream come to light. However, that race does exist currently and as all people do, were given their allotted time to rule. Their rule has lasted about 600 years and has seen the elimination and enslavement of the Native peoples of the America's and Oceania, the enslavement of the African people's, the colonization of Arabia and Asia. It has seen countless lives lost, numbering in the billions for "civilization" to be built.

We need a world without the loss of billions of lives, without racial injustice, where the land is restored to the people who rightfully own it. Within 100 years this will only be a memory, in Europe, in Corduba people will laugh at how the Moors lost in 1492 and won 600 years later. In Germany, men and women will joke about how the Osmanli Khalifate lost in 1683 and won through migration. Europe will be an African-Arabian land. The US will be a land belonging to the Black/Native/Latino man and woman and Africa, Asia and all other territories will be restored. This will not come with bloodshed, as Brother Qadhafi pointed out, Islam does not spread by the sword and is not spreading by the sword today, it spreads naturally. The post-Christian Europe will be an Islamic Europe, not because of a war or conquest, but because of simple demographics. I do not doubt the US will be the same.

Give me evidence to disprove my point, I have given evidence which disproves you argument about North Africa.

Zimbabwe was prosperous in the sense that, infrastructure and superior industry was created after it was colonized, far superior to what the original inhabitants created/had. And It seems that only when a white man is present in Africa it can become truly successful.

You just disproved your point, you just told me how white people where naturally created through course of nature that means they are not artificial, by saying that they are artificial you are saying that ever other race is artificial.
White people has ruled for many thousands of years, and have been the most successful race in terms of culture, civilisation and inventions.

You don't seem to notice or care that, Arab's did far more damage to Africa then White people did. White people (As in governments) left Africa in far better state than when they came in. Africa literally thrived under their rule in comparison.

If you want a world without racial injustice then the easiest way to solve that is racial segregation and an end to multiculturalism, through this white people are the victim of genocide on a humongous scale.

note: I have no problem if you call White people Aryan, that is what they are frequently referred to as and are. I classify the Celtic peoples and the Basques as Non-Aryans, because they are from Africa and Anatolia and thereby Original. However, for most of Europe, Aryan does suffice.

I'd rather not call white people Aryans due to the mixed meaning behind aryan.

Wow. At least you make no attempts to veil your blatant racism. I like the appearance of Black people, mostly because I like the appearance of people. They's ugly Blacks, they's ugly Whites and they's ugly everything else. Attractiveness knows no race. If it does, it's a preference based solely on race and not objective characteristics. For the most part, mixed-race folks can be just as beautiful or ugly as the average, but in my experience, I see more to allure than repulse.

But I'm not you. And I thank every God you can name and science as well for that relieving fact.

I wasn't trying to be racist, I only said my opinion on how they look (From my experience) and if you deem that racist then whatever, but when it comes to "rating peoples attractiveness" I find mixed race people and black people quiet ... of putting, and I don't mean that in a racist way, its just how I found their appearance.

And if that's racist then I'm not going to hide it, I am not embarrassed or ashamed that I find black people and mixed race people (Not so much mixed race people) unattractive. Its not different to saying "I find morbidly obese people un attractive" other than it is based on a different appearance characteristic.

Wow. At least you make no attempts to veil your blatant racism. I like the appearance of Black people, mostly because I like the appearance of people. They's ugly Blacks, they's ugly Whites and they's ugly everything else. Attractiveness knows no race. If it does, it's a preference based solely on race and not objective characteristics. For the most part, mixed-race folks can be just as beautiful or ugly as the average, but in my experience, I see more to allure than repulse.

But I'm not you. And I thank every God you can name and science as well for that relieving fact.

There's no such thing as 'objective characteristics', it's all subjective.

Minority majority, actually. The article should clarify that. Caucasians will still be the majority population in the country (45% versus 15%, 15%, etc.), but will no longer be an absolute majority over the whole population.

I don't know what impact, if any, it will have when white people are not > 50% of the population, but I bet you'll get at least one white supremacist in here.

Quoted for renewed relevance.

I wasn't trying to be racist, I only said my opinion on how they look (From my experience) and if you deem that racist then whatever, but when it comes to "rating peoples attractiveness" I find mixed race people and black people quiet ... of putting, and I don't mean that in a racist way, its just how I found their appearance.

And if that's racist then I'm not going to hide it, I am not embarrassed or ashamed that I find black people and mixed race people (Not so much mixed race people) unattractive. Its not different to saying "I find morbidly obese people un attractive" other than it is based on a different appearance characteristic.

"I'm not racist, I just think white people are more civilised, more developed, and deserve to run the world."

Puh-leaze.

Quoted for renewed relevance.

Just as a note, I am not a white supremacist - I do not think whites are superior overall to any other race. I do not believe in the typical white supremacist ideology or any other form of white supremacy.
But I do believe races are different genetically, i.e a black person has a more developed lower body while a white person has a more developed upper body. Therefore a white person is not superior to a black person - and that is what I believe.

Each race has developed separately to other races and in different conditions, therefore no one race is superior for all conditions.

Give me evidence to disprove my point, I have given evidence which disproves you argument about North Africa.

Zimbabwe was prosperous in the sense that, infrastructure and superior industry was created after it was colonized, far superior to what the original inhabitants created/had. And It seems that only when a white man is present in Africa it can become truly successful.

You just disproved your point, you just told me how white people where naturally created through course of nature that means they are not artificial, by saying that they are artificial you are saying that ever other race is artificial.
White people has ruled for many thousands of years, and have been the most successful race in terms of culture, civilisation and inventions.

You don't seem to notice or care that, Arab's did far more damage to Africa then White people did. White people (As in governments) left Africa in far better state than when they came in. Africa literally thrived under their rule in comparison.

If you want a world without racial injustice then the easiest way to solve that is racial segregation and an end to multiculturalism, through this white people are the victim of genocide on a humongous scale.

You gave me no evidence, only propaganda from European sources, anything I give you, you would call propaganda from the other side.

When the people have nothing, a country is a failure, regardless of what pseudo-statistics can be brought up to say otherwise. There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Africa had great and noble civilizations from the Mali Empire to Great Zimbabwe to Egypt. The Whites set up no civilization and are the cause of the economic and political injustices in Africa today. It is still the case that African land, resources and industries are owned by White people and White corporations. This is a problem that must be and will be fixed.

Nature is something that happens naturally, there does not have to be murder or systematic planning to do so. The Black, Brown, Red and Yellow men and women are not a product of experiments, the White race is.

It is with the help of Arab brothers and sisters that the Fatimid achievements, the Moorish achievements and others were achieved. Arabs did great services as opposed to seeking to divide up and conquer the entire continent systematically playing tribe and man against man. Whites can do a service in Africa by leaving and restoring all land and industry to the people.

You and I both know how things will end up, in 100 years there will be an Islamic Europe and the US will be a Black/Latino/Native land. So-called cosmopolitanism and multi-culturalism will be ended because there will be a return to the Original culture of unity, equality and progress.

What I find very interesting is that in Tahuantansiyu as well as most African, Arab and Asian cultures there was and to a large degree still is a natural way of life, I call it natural Socialism. It bases itself out of the community, from the community and to the community. It is based on mutual equality and shared wealth. This however, was never a natural occurance in Europe, but was a dreamt utopia. There was never an Ujaama in Europe. If you have ever read the writings of the Arab scholar Zaki al-Arsuzi, a founder of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party. He postulates that the differences between Aryan and Semitic people, or White and Original people are not simply any racial differences, but a fundemental difference in natural thought. This thought manifests itself in language, philosophy, society and mythology. European societies always based themselves on the material and the individual. While other societies based themselves on the spiritual, and the community.

"I'm not racist, I just think white people are more civilised, more developed, and deserve to run the world."

Puh-leaze.

I never said white people are more civilised, I said they had been in many aspects, I never said they where more developed and I never said they deserve to run the world! (I just said they did a better job in Africa than what you can see other races doing, though I guess you must of misunderstood that:rolleyes:)

And Hachihyaku, you should just call yourself a White Nationalist. I would respect that, just be honest and I have no problem. I have no problem with most White Nationalists, they want to seperate from us and we want to seperate from them, so we have mutual goals and mutual responsibilities to our peoples. I am a Black Nationalist, an Arab Nationalist, a Latino Nationalist, an Asian Nationalist. I am an Original Nationalist. I am not ashamed to admit that, you should not be ashamed to admit you are a White Nationalist.

You gave me no evidence, only propaganda from European sources, anything I give you, you would call propaganda from the other side.

When the people have nothing, a country is a failure, regardless of what pseudo-statistics can be brought up to say otherwise. There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Africa had great and noble civilizations from the Mali Empire to Great Zimbabwe to Egypt. The Whites set up no civilization and are the cause of the economic and political injustices in Africa today. It is still the case that African land, resources and industries are owned by White people and White corporations. This is a problem that must be and will be fixed.

Nature is something that happens naturally, there does not have to be murder or systematic planning to do so. The Black, Brown, Red and Yellow men and women are not a product of experiments, the White race is.

It is with the help of Arab brothers and sisters that the Fatimid achievements, the Moorish achievements and others were achieved. Arabs did great services as opposed to seeking to divide up and conquer the entire continent systematically playing tribe and man against man. Whites can do a service in Africa by leaving and restoring all land and industry to the people.

You and I both know how things will end up, in 100 years there will be an Islamic Europe and the US will be a Black/Latino/Native land. So-called cosmopolitanism and multi-culturalism will be ended because there will be a return to the Original culture of unity, equality and progress.

What I find very interesting is that in Tahuantansiyu as well as most African, Arab and Asian cultures there was and to a large degree still is a natural way of life, I call it natural Socialism. It bases itself out of the community, from the community and to the community. It is based on mutual equality and shared wealth. This however, was never a natural occurance in Europe, but was a dreamt utopia. There was never an Ujaama in Europe. If you have ever read the writings of the Arab scholar Zaki al-Arsuzi, a founder of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party. He postulates that the differences between Aryan and Semitic people, or White and Original people are not simply any racial differences, but a fundemental difference in natural thought. This thought manifests itself in language, philosophy, society and mythology. European societies always based themselves on the material and the individual. While other societies based themselves on the spiritual, and the community.

Its propaganda, its scientific findings.
Its not lies and its not false statistics, its the cold hard truth. I am not denying that Africa may of had successfully civilisations I am just saying that white people built up the nations and brought them into the "global theatre", allowed them to become truly industrious.

I know that as it stands most likely we'll see the extinction of the white race and the "white cultures" due to multiculturalism but I hope that the white race can survive it and thrive. As I do think so for other races, it would be rather hypocritical of me to believe that the white race should survive while all others don't.

I look forward to admiring post-2042 society. A whole lot of gorgeous brown people. A cafe-au-lait-skinned nation of hotness. I say bring it on.

I think I'd have to marry a Somalian man to have kids that are cafe-au-lait, such is the blinding whiteness of my skin. Which is fine with me, if most Somalian men look like the Olympic team. :D

Considering the 1 million illegal influx per year and the exploding mexican birthrate of existing mexican breeders and anchor-moms, you will lose majority just due to the mexican invasion in less than 10 years.

This is so true. If only we had some backwoods trailer-dwelling white people to crank out 10 or 12 kids... *looks meaningfully in the direction of extended family in Kansas*

Also consider the welcome by the US government to the massive resettlement influx of muslims and african blacks.

Who we've already established are the most academically successful ethnic group in the United States, and one of the most financially/professionally successful, despite being paid lower average wages than white counterparts.

That and well, mixed race people look quiet horrible in my opinion... (Then again so do black people, but I don't really know anyone who claims to like the appearance of black people, I know black people who hate the appearance of black people)

I appreciate your opinion, because if nothing else it means that your genes will likely be mixed with a significantly smaller portion of the population, and that can only be a good thing.

I can understand, though, why most people you know would find Jessica Alba, Salma Hayek, Johnny Depp, Jake Gyllenhaal and Scarlett Johansson are so hideous.

tl;dr.

/thread

Just as a note, I am not a white supremacist - I do not think whites are superior overall to any other race. I do not believe in the typical white supremacist ideology or any other form of white supremacy.
But I do believe races are different genetically, i.e a black person has a more developed lower body while a white person has a more developed upper body. Therefore a white person is not superior to a black person - and that is what I believe.

Each race has developed separately to other races and in different conditions, therefore no one race is superior for all conditions.

You can claim to believe whatever you wish, my friend, but I fear your previous statements have betrayed your image. One cannot post something along the lines of:
You mean where the country has collapsed and white people are hunted down? (Take South Africa and Zimbabwe as prime examples of what happens when white people loose control)

That and well, mixed race people look quiet horrible in my opinion... (Then again so do black people, but I don't really know anyone who claims to like the appearance of black people, I know black people who hate the appearance of black people)

then reasonably claim to not believe in white supremacy. I'm sorry. You've painted yourself with this brush. I know you will maintain that you do not believe whites are "better" than other races, just "different", but when one of the areas that you indicate whites are superior to other races is ruling over other races, it makes it a little difficult to believe you.

I'm sure you will go on to list the areas in which you feel blacks, or Asians, are superior to whites, but in reality this will just reinforce the perception of your racism. You will most likely indicate features of other races that make them good at being subjugated and used; i.e. black people being better at manual labor, etc.

Really, you've already stuck yourself with the racist tag, and I doubt it's going to be unstuck.

Just as a note, I am not a white supremacist - I do not think whites are superior overall to any other race. I do not believe in the typical white supremacist ideology or any other form of white supremacy.
But I do believe races are different genetically, i.e a black person has a more developed lower body while a white person has a more developed upper body. Therefore a white person is not superior to a black person - and that is what I believe.

Each race has developed separately to other races and in different conditions, therefore no one race is superior for all conditions.

So you're not racist, you just don't believe in the mountains of scientific evidence that say this is a load of crap. Gotcha.

And Hachihyaku, you should just call yourself a White Nationalist. I would respect that, just be honest and I have no problem. I have no problem with most White Nationalists, they want to seperate from us and we want to seperate from them, so we have mutual goals and mutual responsibilities to our peoples. I am a Black Nationalist, an Arab Nationalist, a Latino Nationalist, an Asian Nationalist. I am an Original Nationalist. I am not ashamed to admit that, you should not be ashamed to admit you are a White Nationalist.

Well a white nationalist believes in the preservation of the white race and its cultures while not advocating racism but the media has portrayed them as "white supremacists" so I'd rather not call myself that because of the stigma attached and of course it would be hard not to be discriminated against because I am pro white.
I am not ashamed of what I believe, I take pride in my race and I believe that it should be preserved and if that means separating the races in the sense of keeping a "white nation" mainly a white nation then yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean total separation, if a member of another race is happy to work and be a good citizen then they are welcome to live amongst us, the same as, if a white person doesn't want to do that, they want to be say a criminal, then they are not welcome in our society.

So to cut it short I believe that white nations should stay white, but other races are allowed in the society provided that they follow the rules of that society, and those who don't (regardless of race) are not welcome.

I wasn't trying to be racist, I only said my opinion on how they look (From my experience) and if you deem that racist then whatever, but when it comes to "rating peoples attractiveness" I find mixed race people and black people quiet ... of putting, and I don't mean that in a racist way, its just how I found their appearance.

And if that's racist then I'm not going to hide it, I am not embarrassed or ashamed that I find black people and mixed race people (Not so much mixed race people) unattractive. Its not different to saying "I find morbidly obese people un attractive" other than it is based on a different appearance characteristic.

Wow again. You were racist without even trying. Congratulations?

"quite" and "off-putting" if you please. If you're going to be a racist (intentional or not) in my language, do it the courtesy of at least spelling it correctly.

Also, the bolded part? Contradiction. And sorry, but "not attractive" is MUCH different than "off-putting". You're trying to backtrack. Why bother? You've made your stance quite clear. One last idea, and I'll gladly leave you to your racism: have you met many mixed-race people? Or even just other-than-white people in general?

There's no such thing as 'objective characteristics', it's all subjective.

True. However, social scientists, psychologists and physiologists have identified general precepts of perceived attraction (everything from body proportions regardless of weight or size to facial feature distance proportions). But yeah, humans are infinite in variety in both appearance and for each one, there are those who favor it.

So you're not racist, you just don't believe in the mountains of scientific evidence that say this is a load of crap. Gotcha.

Scientific evidence that says what is a load of crap?

Wow again. You were racist without even trying. Congratulations?

"quite" and "off-putting" if you please. If you're going to be a racist (intentional or not) in my language, do it the courtesy of at least spelling it correctly.

Also, the bolded part? Contradiction. And sorry, but "not attractive" is MUCH different than "off-putting". You're trying to backtrack. Why bother? You've made your stance quite clear. One last idea, and I'll gladly leave you to your racism: have you met many mixed-race people? Or even just other-than-white people in general?



True. However, social scientists, psychologists and physiologists have identified general precepts of perceived attraction (everything from body proportions regardless of weight or size to facial feature distance proportions). But yeah, humans are infinite in variety in both appearance and for each one, there are those who favor it.

Erm so you call me racist for not liking the appearance of black people and most mixed race people? Meh I can live with that, It doesn't bother me, and it shouldn't bother them, its just a preference.

You can claim to believe whatever you wish, my friend, but I fear your previous statements have betrayed your image. One cannot post something along the lines of:


then reasonably claim to not believe in white supremacy. I'm sorry. You've painted yourself with this brush. I know you will maintain that you do not believe whites are "better" than other races, just "different", but when one of the areas that you indicate whites are superior to other races is ruling over other races, it makes it a little difficult to believe you.

I'm sure you will go on to list the areas in which you feel blacks, or Asians, are superior to whites, but in reality this will just reinforce the perception of your racism. You will most likely indicate features of other races that make them good at being subjugated and used; i.e. black people being better at manual labor, etc.

Really, you've already stuck yourself with the racist tag, and I doubt it's going to be unstuck.

You really don't pay attention to what I say, your just determined to label me a racist, well go on then.
Just because I think races are different genetically, and have been different historically doesn't make me a supremacist.

And you fail to actually failed point out how I was racist, so rather than whining at me, tell me how I was racist.

You really don't pay attention to what I say, your just determined to label me a racist, well go on then.
Just because I think races are different genetically, and have been different historically doesn't make me a supremacist.

And you fail to actually failed point out how I was racist, so rather than whining at me, tell me how I was racist.

You are a racist. This cannot be avoided.

How are you actually a racist? I quoted it. Your implication that white people are inherently superior at ruling over other races than other people, based on a couple of examples of states poorly run by non-whites, while completely ignoring several examples of nations that are successfully run by non-whites, AND several examples of white people mismanaging nations. Your attempt to equate what has occurred in Zimbabwe with some all-encompassing truth that white people run nations better than other people; this is what makes you racist.

Scientific evidence that says what is a load of crap?

That humans evolved separately, that there are significant genetic differences between people of different races.


Reports about such studies commonly fall prey to three confusions: they conflate DNA markers of ancestry with markers of race. They mistake the fact that some gene variants are more common in some populations than others as signs of racial "difference" between those populations. And they assume that disparities in group outcomes can be attributed to inborn, or genetic, differences between races.

The idea of biological race assumes traits come packaged together, even color-coded for our convenience, as anthropologist Jonathan Marks jokes. In otherwords, if biological race were real, we'd find that skin color or other "racial" markers would correlate with a suite of other genetic traits. Knowing an individual's "race" should enable us to predict his or her other genes and traits.

But the DNA sequences studied by Rosenberg and his colleagues are not genes. Known by geneticists as "microsatellite short tandem repeats" (and more colloquially as "junk DNA"), they do not code for proteins, but just sit there taking up space in our DNA. Mutations in DNA sequences that don't code for anything are not affected by natural and sexual selection. They are neither selected for nor against but are simply passed down, generation to generation. Comparing these accumulated mutation patterns can provide clues to ancient population movements. But they have no effect on physical traits such as skin color or hair form or blood type.

...

That's because most human variation falls within, not between populations. About 85% of all genetic variation can, on average, be found within any local population, be they Swedes, Kikuyu, or Hmong. About 94% can be found within any continental population, consistent with what the Rosenberg Science study found. In fact, there are no characteristics, no traits, not even one gene that turns up in all members of one so-called race yet is absent from others.

Whites brought no-one into the industrious age. It was through the enslavement and immigration of other peoples that they brought themselves into that age and certainly, nobody else. Science is, like all things only as valuable as its manipulator, in this case, it is as worthless as the Aryan-supremicists who say it.

Whether Whites still exist in 200 years or not is not up to me to decide. It will in the end fall to Allah alone (each and every Black, Brown, Red and Yellow man and woman). We will see how history turns out.

If you are proud of being White and are a Nationalist, then call yourself a White Nationalist. For every logical man or woman I have heard espouse your line proudly calls themselves such. Do not pretend to be unbiased or not racist or a friend to the world. Be a friend to your own people and speak honestly your views and then we can get along.

I believe the "White Nations" are quite few. The US certainly is not White, because the rightful owners are not White. Some of Europe is, but certainly not all of it. Whether some White territories remain White or not will be decided by time and people themselves.

In an Original Nation, Whites who accept Original culture, values and traditions would be accepted. I know few who have a problem with Bosnia or Albania; they are White, but they have adopted Original culture and values, so they are us and we are them.

That humans evolved separately, that there are significant genetic differences between people of different races.

Human races are genetically different. Otherwise humans wouldn't be separated into categories. and just to disprove your entire point that races aren't different, If races are at all different, then why do say, white people have less developed skin to black people? And why do black people have more sweat glands?

These simple examples completely disprove your notion that all races are the same.
Unless I've misunderstood and your not arguing that races aren't different (In which case I'm gonna look like an idiot :) )

You are a racist. This cannot be avoided.

How are you actually a racist? I quoted it. Your implication that white people are inherently superior at ruling over other races than other people, based on a couple of examples of states poorly run by non-whites, while completely ignoring several examples of nations that are successfully run by non-whites, AND several examples of white people mismanaging nations. Your attempt to equate what has occurred in Zimbabwe with some all-encompassing truth that white people run nations better than other people; this is what makes you racist.

Game, set and match.

Whites brought no-one into the industrious age. It was through the enslavement and immigration of other peoples that they brought themselves into that age and certainly, nobody else. Science is, like all things only as valuable as its manipulator, in this case, it is as worthless as the Aryan-supremicists who say it.

Whether Whites still exist in 200 years or not is not up to me to decide. It will in the end fall to Allah alone (each and every Black, Brown, Red and Yellow man and woman). We will see how history turns out.

If you are proud of being White and are a Nationalist, then call yourself a White Nationalist. For every logical man or woman I have heard espouse your line proudly calls themselves such. Do not pretend to be unbiased or not racist or a friend to the world. Be a friend to your own people and speak honestly your views and then we can get along.

I believe the "White Nations" are quite few. The US certainly is not White, because the rightful owners are not White. Some of Europe is, but certainly not all of it. Whether some White territories remain White or not will be decided by time and people themselves.

In an Original Nation, Whites who accept Original culture, values and traditions would be accepted. I know few who have a problem with Bosnia or Albania; they are White, but they have adopted Original culture and values, so they are us and we are them.

Well white people where the first to enter the industrial age, and during this they colonized places like Africa and began to "industrialize" their economies.

I hope that the white race will survive though, through miscegenation and general being "out breed" by other races the chances are looking slim. white people make up 8% of the worlds population and that is hugely dropping every day.
I would call myself a white nationalist but that would alienate me from "normal society" I mean look at how NSG has reacted to me claims that races are genetically different, look at how NSG reacted to me saying I don't find black people attractive, through that allow they have branded me with buzzwords.

And then most people here do not understand what a white nationalist is, they simply believe that it is a racist under a different name.

You are a racist. This cannot be avoided.

How are you actually a racist? I quoted it. Your implication that white people are inherently superior at ruling over other races than other people, based on a couple of examples of states poorly run by non-whites, while completely ignoring several examples of nations that are successfully run by non-whites, AND several examples of white people mismanaging nations. Your attempt to equate what has occurred in Zimbabwe with some all-encompassing truth that white people run nations better than other people; this is what makes you racist.

I may of implied it, but that was unintentional, I was arguing that white people did a better job of ruling Zimbabwe and South Africa, which they did, I did not say they are destined to be teh mighty overlordz as you are claiming.
White people are far from being the best rulers, look at the western world now, it is corrupt and a failure in many sense, while being under the rule of white people.

So once you accept that I am not saying whites are superior then you will realize that I am merely comparing examples and that is not racist.

Game, set and match.

To me, since I disproved his point, and since I disproved his argument that I am racist then I am not racist.

Human races are genetically different. Otherwise humans wouldn't be separated into categories. and just to disprove your entire point that races aren't different, If races are at all different, then why do say, white people have less developed skin to black people? And why do black people have more sweat glands?

These simple examples completely disprove your notion that all races are the same.
Unless I've misunderstood and your not arguing that races aren't different (In which case I'm gonna look like an idiot :) )

All "races" aren't the same because all people aren't the same. If you'd bothered to read the article I quoted, you'd see there's more genetic variation WITHIN a race than between races. You'd also see that the visible differences between races, such as skin color and hair type, are not encoded in genes and are not selected for or against, they are simply "accumulated mutations"--the longer a certain population remains isolated in a certain place, the more likely certain characteristics, such as brown hair, will become dominant. However, these are individual traits that vary from person to person more than they do from race to race.

They entered the industrial age by the exploitation and enslavement of other peoples, though either direct slavery or wage slavery. The exception to this, is Russia because it primarily industrialized in the 1930s.

Most African economies were not industrialized but made dependant on single crops or resources and exporting them. This was true of most everywhere. From Cuba to Angola, countries were made dependant on their colonizers economies. This is classic Imperialist method. This is why the Soviet Union and the US both during the Cold War encouraged their client-states to produce single products or crops or industries and export them to the overlord.

I respect White Nationalists. If it makes you feel any better, many of these people will be White Nationalists in 10 years as contradictions build which threaten to overrun white culture. I respect White Nationalists because they are honest, as opposed to the generic Petty-Bourgeois liberal who is a racist, but they do not speak it. They speak of great progress and equality, but they only want the status quo with more healthcare and education for their white breathren. I can't trust a White petty-bourgeois liberal, but I can trust a White Nationalist, because he will tell me he doesn't like me and not hide it.

I may of implied it, but that was unintentional, I was arguing that white people did a better job of ruling Zimbabwe and South Africa, which they did, I did not say they are destined to be teh mighty overlordz as you are claiming.
White people are far from being the best rulers, look at the western world now, it is corrupt and a failure in many sense, while being under the rule of white people.

So once you accept that I am not saying whites are superior then you will realize that I am merely comparing examples and that is not racist.

Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

It says "usually" involving that idea, not "always". While I think you fit that too, even if you don't believe white people are "superior", you're still racist.

Also, I will argue anyday that Brother Mugabe did what he had to do in Zimbabwe and in the long run, Zimbabwe will be better off because of him and his reforms. Azania needs to adopt similar reforms if they wish to get free from colonialization and its legacy.

All "races" aren't the same because all people aren't the same. If you'd bothered to read the article I quoted, you'd see there's more genetic variation WITHIN a race than between races. You'd also see that the visible differences between races, such as skin color and hair type, are not encoded in genes and are not selected for or against, they are simply "accumulated mutations"--the longer a certain population remains isolated in a certain place, the more likely certain characteristics, such as brown hair, will become dominant. However, these are individual traits that vary from person to person more than they do from race to race.

All races aren't the same due to base attributes, and all people aren't the same as well.
Well you agree that there are difference between the races? so then there is no need to argue for that was my point. Though I agree that differences very more between people then between races.

Also, I will argue anyday that Brother Mugabe did what he had to do in Zimbabwe and in the long run, Zimbabwe will be better off because of him and his reforms. Azania needs to adopt similar reforms if they wish to get free from colonialization and its legacy.

Whether it will be better I do not know, and I cannot claim to be in perfect knowledge of Zimbabwe or its future prospects, but if it is for the best then congratulations to them.

A quick recap:

I look forward to admiring post-2042 society. A whole lot of gorgeous brown people. A cafe-au-lait-skinned nation of hotness. I say bring it on.

To which your enlightened ass responded:

You mean where the country has collapsed and white people are hunted down? (Take South Africa and Zimbabwe as prime examples of what happens when white people loose control)

Now, praytell, why would the nation have collapsed and white people be hunted simply because white people fell from the majority? Why would the nation collapse just because white people lost power? I know! Because look at what happened in two of the 192 nations in the world when white people lost power! Anarchy! Clearly, this is exactly what will happen in the USA when those darkies gain control.

Backpedal some more please.

A quick recap:



To which your enlightened ass responded:



Now, praytell, why would the nation have collapsed and white people be hunted simply because white people fell from the majority? Why would the nation collapse just because white people lost power? I know! Because look at what happened in two of the 192 nations in the world when white people lost power! Anarchy! Clearly, this is exactly what will happen in the USA when those darkies gain control.

Backpedal some more please.

I am using African nations as a model for what I said, and well other races on white racism massively outnumbers white on other races racism (taking American crime statistics for that) so why is it so hard to believe that white people will not be hunted and persecuted? As they have done in other countries and in a country where racist attacks and crimes against white people is prevailant.

So you know, what I'm saying is based of observations of similar cases and of current statistics, not of racism.

You know. I think this is an excellent thread to point out the ridiculous hypocrisy of NSG. Indeed, Hachihyanu is a White Nationalist and indeed that is a brainwashed and backwards political ideology to have, quite out of touch with reality, BUT, he has, nonetheless, at least stated some correct facts when it comes to anthropology (if you take out the racial superiority behind his post, the facts are still correct). For example, about North Africa, Egypt, Greece and the general eastern Mediterranean being noted in anthropology as racially different than how they are today, and indeed more fair skinned. (Also about the Aryan invasion to India, the caste system and their legacy on Iran-Pakistan-India).......

At the same time, Karuchea, has gone on an anti-White tirade calling for the destruction of Europe and North American societies, calling White people an artificial race and blaming them for all things wrong in the world. He has filled his posts with false "anthropology" that could only be described as anti-White propoganda and has used to back up his hate speech and hate posts against White people and White societies everywhere. If you read his posts you will see he is not denying this.

So what does NSG do? Typical, left-leaning anti-racist NSG? Jump down Hachihyanu's throat because he says he finds Black people ugly and because he says colonial rule brought industrialization and that was ultimately best for Africa. Controversial? Yes. Possibly rude in the way he aesthetically finds Black people? Yes. Anywhere near as bad, racist or extreme as what Karuchea has posted? NO!

Let's recap and let's use what Karuchea has been preaching, but instead see what it looks like being used against non-Whites.

"Non-White societies deserve to be erased off the map. Indeed, this is the natural way and if you look, Africa and and Latin-America will become White societies again. It's only natural. Non-Whites are responsible for all the troubles brought on to the White people. Non-Whites are artificial races, anyway. They are not original, natural and beautiful."

Indeed, speech you'd expect to hear from Stormfront! Terrible stuff! So why is it, then when directed against White people, it is not attacked and nobody raises an eyebrow against it?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the hypocrisy of NSG.

I am using African nations as a model for what I said, and well other races on white racism massively outnumbers white on other races racism (taking American crime statistics for that) so why is it so hard to believe that white people will not be hunted and persecuted? As they have done in other countries and in a country where racist attacks and crimes against white people is prevailant.

So you know, what I'm saying is based of observations of similar cases and of current statistics, not of racism.

It's racism as soon as you attempt to extend the events that have occurred in two nations (South Africa and Zimbabwe) to all non-whites everywhere. The motives of those in control in those two nations are not representative of all black rulers everywhere, and they are certainly not representative of all non-white rulers everywhere, which is how far you are attempting to extend this relationship. By your logic, I could say that because white-controlled Nazi Germany and the USSR engaged in mass murder and genocide, all white people in power everywhere commit genocide and mass murder.

To me, since I disproved his point, and since I disproved his argument that I am racist then I am not racist.

I see. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Okay. I say you've not proven anything. You've used no links, no demonstrable statistics and nothing but your racist interpretations of two poorly-run African nations to surmise that non-whites are inferior. I urge you to read the Jared Diamond book Guns, Germs, and Steel in order to see how assumptions about race and civilization are woefully inaccurate. Geography and availability of domesticable plants and animals had a hell of a lot more to do with civilization advances (and the concomitant ability to explore and potentially subjugate other people) than any inherent racial characteristics (real or, more usually, imagined).

I am using African nations as a model for what I said, and well other races on white racism massively outnumbers white on other races racism (taking American crime statistics for that) so why is it so hard to believe that white people will not be hunted and persecuted? As they have done in other countries and in a country where racist attacks and crimes against white people is prevailant.

So you know, what I'm saying is based on a mind-bogglingly narrow interpretation of observations of similar cases and of current statistics, not of racism.

Emphasis mine.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the hypocrisy of NSG.

Or, rather, it's an example of your own impotence. If you take such great offense to what he is saying, how about you post rebuttals, instead of expecting other people to argue for you?

I'm not here to argue your viewpoints for you.

At any rate, what's his face isn't denying his anti-white racism. Hachihyaku maintains he is not racist, and that is my problem with him.

I don't deny or take back anything I've said, but I can say that I spoke my opinion and I stand by everything. I am proud to be an Original Nationalist.

My problem is that Hachihyanu needs to be real, he needs to be honest and a lot of these Petty-Bourgeois White liberals need to be as well. Hachichyanu believes in his heart, what most Whites believe, he needs to be out and out and call himself a White Nationalist. I dispute a lot of his lies and pseudo-science, but I respect his goal of seperation. A lot of "Anti-Racist" White Petty-Bourgeois liberals will criticize him today for what he says and 10 years from now, they will side with him. The same thing happened in the 1930s and 1960s. All of these White Petty-Bourgeois students who were for civil rights went into Rightist, Reaganite politics the second they realized equality may eventually become a reality and not a dream.

I respect Hachihyanu because at least he will speak most of what he really believes. But, give it a while, there is a reason that white nationalist groups like the NSM are gaining members very rapidly right now, it is because there is a common white-fear of cultural change in the US and Europe. Combined with the rise of China, it is a feeling that the world is changing and not in their favour.

You know. I think this is an excellent thread to point out the ridiculous hypocrisy of NSG. Indeed, Hachihyanu is a White Nationalist and indeed that is a brainwashed and backwards political ideology to have, quite out of touch with reality, BUT, he has, nonetheless, atleast stated some correct facts when it comes to anthropology (if you take out the racial superiority behind his post, the facts are still correct). For example, about North Africa, Egypt, Greece and the general eastern Mediterranean being noted in anthropology as racially different than how they are today, and indeed more fair skinned. (Also about the Aryan invasion to India, the caste system and their legacy on Iran-Pakistan-India).......

At the same time, Karuchea, has gone on an anti-White tirade calling for the destruction of Europe and North American societies, calling White people an artificial race and blaming them for all things wrong in the world. He has filled his posts with false "anthropology" that could only be described as anti-White propoganda and has used to back up his hate speech and hate posts against White people and White societies everywhere. If you read his posts you will see he is not denying this.

So what does NSG do? Typical, left-leaning anti-racist NSG? Jump down Hachihyanu's throat because he says he finds Black people ugly and because he says colonial rule brought industrialization and that was ultimately best for Africa. Controversial? Yes. Possibly rude in the way he aesthetically finds Black people? Yes. Anywhere near as bad, racist or extreme as what Karuchea has posted? NO!

Let's recap and let's use what Karuchea has been preaching, but instead see what it looks like being used against non-Whites.

"Non-White societies deserve to be erased off the map. Indeed, this is the natural way and if you look, Africa and and Latin-America will become White societies again. It's only natural. Non-Whites are responsible for all the troubles brought on to the White people. Non-Whites are artificial races, anyway. They are not original, natural and beautiful."

Indeed, speech you'd expect to hear from Stormfront! Terrible stuff! So why is it, then when directed against White people, it is not attacked and nobody raises an eyebrow against it?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the hypocrisy of NSG.

As I said I do not class my self as a White Nationalist, but rather some one who believes that the white race should be preserved and that I have pride in my race. Also as I have stated any "white supremacy" in my posts were unintentional, because I believe that "white supremacy" is utterly ridiculous.

and indeed Keruchea has spouted generally quiet a lot of rubbish, but it was fun to try and disprove his points.

And well I pretty much guessed NSG would jump down my throat but, I won't change what I think just to appease them, and if that makes me racist so be it.

And well people are in a society that turns a blind eye to the bias against white people :( Yet at the hint on any kind of pride in the white race or anything un PC people are ripped apart by a mob (not literally of course)

And actually the times I've been on Stormfront its not a lot of racist red necks bitching but rather intelligent discussion, and not just about race but pretty much anything. And on Stormfront using racist slang/epitaphs stuff like that is actually banned, and post supporting over all white supremacy are disproved and people calling for racial genocide and just plain racism are generally classed as trolls and told to go away.
Though Stromfront simply has a bad reputation because it has a lot of conversations about race which aren't PC and they do have some racist members being openly racist in a un constructive way (though most aren't)

You know. I think this is an excellent thread to point out the ridiculous hypocrisy of NSG. Indeed, Hachihyanu is a White Nationalist and indeed that is a brainwashed and backwards political ideology to have, quite out of touch with reality, BUT, he has, nonetheless, at least stated some correct facts when it comes to anthropology (if you take out the racial superiority behind his post, the facts are still correct). For example, about North Africa, Egypt, Greece and the general eastern Mediterranean being noted in anthropology as racially different than how they are today, and indeed more fair skinned. (Also about the Aryan invasion to India, the caste system and their legacy on Iran-Pakistan-India).......

At the same time, Karuchea, has gone on an anti-White tirade calling for the destruction of Europe and North American societies, calling White people an artificial race and blaming them for all things wrong in the world. He has filled his posts with false "anthropology" that could only be described as anti-White propoganda and has used to back up his hate speech and hate posts against White people and White societies everywhere. If you read his posts you will see he is not denying this.

So what does NSG do? Typical, left-leaning anti-racist NSG? Jump down Hachihyanu's throat because he says he finds Black people ugly and because he says colonial rule brought industrialization and that was ultimately best for Africa. Controversial? Yes. Possibly rude in the way he aesthetically finds Black people? Yes. Anywhere near as bad, racist or extreme as what Karuchea has posted? NO!

Let's recap and let's use what Karuchea has been preaching, but instead see what it looks like being used against non-Whites.

"Non-White societies deserve to be erased off the map. Indeed, this is the natural way and if you look, Africa and and Latin-America will become White societies again. It's only natural. Non-Whites are responsible for all the troubles brought on to the White people. Non-Whites are artificial races, anyway. They are not original, natural and beautiful."

Indeed, speech you'd expect to hear from Stormfront! Terrible stuff! So why is it, then when directed against White people, it is not attacked and nobody raises an eyebrow against it?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the hypocrisy of NSG.

Oy gevalt.

There's a difference between disputing facts and disputing conclusions. Nobody's acknowledging Hachy's assertions about history because they themselves are irrelevant. What is relevant is the conclusions he draws from them. That's what's being tackled. Your usual reactionary response is meaningless because you're moving the goalposts. I don't see how it's "left-leaning" to dispute someone coming to racist conclusions based on a microscopically narrow interpretations of historical assertions.

Or, rather, it's an example of your own impotence. If you take such great offense to what he is saying, how about you post rebuttals, instead of expecting other people to argue for you?

I'm not here to argue your viewpoints for you.

At any rate, what's his face isn't denying his anti-white racism. Hachihyaku maintains he is not racist, and that is my problem with him.

Its a hypocrisy no doubt about it.

Or, rather, it's an example of your own impotence. If you take such great offense to what he is saying, how about you post rebuttals, instead of expecting other people to argue for you?
I was reading the thread....when I got the end, I was so shocked that nobody has responded to it, just let it go, and was attacking Hachihyakdu, that I had to post that for all to see. I'm not expecting anyone to argue for me, I'm expecting NSG to do what it does. Argue againt racism and racial-superiority-politics, even those held by a non-White poster. That's what I'm waiting on.
I'm not here to argue your viewpoints for you.
I wouldn't expect that. But as you are arguing against Racism, I'd expect you to argue against someone who has posted way more racist content, by text, and way more extreme racism, by content. That'a ll.

I see. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Okay. I say you've not proven anything. You've used no links, no demonstrable statistics and nothing but your racist interpretations of two poorly-run African nations to surmise that non-whites are inferior. I urge you to read the Jared Diamond book Guns, Germs, and Steel in order to see how assumptions about race and civilization are woefully inaccurate. Geography and availability of domesticable plants and animals had a hell of a lot more to do with civilization advances (and the concomitant ability to explore and potentially subjugate other people) than any inherent racial characteristics (real or, more usually, imagined).



Emphasis mine.

I haven't used links to my points about other race on white crime rates because they are damned easy to find, or any links to the situation in say South Africa or Zimbabwe because its common knowledge how poorly those countries are fairing.
And my arguments where not about the overall superiority of races, but I was simply saying white people did a better job of running those nations.

It's racism as soon as you attempt to extend the events that have occurred in two nations (South Africa and Zimbabwe) to all non-whites everywhere. The motives of those in control in those two nations are not representative of all black rulers everywhere, and they are certainly not representative of all non-white rulers everywhere, which is how far you are attempting to extend this relationship. By your logic, I could say that because white-controlled Nazi Germany and the USSR engaged in mass murder and genocide, all white people in power everywhere commit genocide and mass murder.

I know they are not representative, but I am on about those to nations, not every other.
And of cause white people have engaged in genocide, correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't every race done so at one stage? (I am on about members not everyone in it)

I don't deny or take back anything I've said, but I can say that I spoke my opinion and I stand by everything. I am proud to be an Original Nationalist.

My problem is that Hachihyanu needs to be real, he needs to be honest and a lot of these Petty-Bourgeois White liberals need to be as well. Hachichyanu believes in his heart, what most Whites believe, he needs to be out and out and call himself a White Nationalist. I dispute a lot of his lies and pseudo-science, but I respect his goal of seperation. A lot of "Anti-Racist" White Petty-Bourgeois liberals will criticize him today for what he says and 10 years from now, they will side with him. The same thing happened in the 1930s and 1960s. All of these White Petty-Bourgeois students who were for civil rights went into Rightist, Reaganite politics the second they realized equality may eventually become a reality and not a dream.

I respect Hachihyanu because at least he will speak most of what he really believes. But, give it a while, there is a reason that white nationalist groups like the NSM are gaining members very rapidly right now, it is because there is a common white-fear of cultural change in the US and Europe. Combined with the rise of China, it is a feeling that the world is changing and not in their favour.

I believe in the preservation of the white race and its cultures, I don't care for much else about race because race isn't that important, it only becomes important when you obsess over it.
I am real in the sense that I accept that white people are becoming extinct.

I haven't used links to my points about other race on white crime rates because they are damned easy to find, or any links to the situation in say South Africa or Zimbabwe because its common knowledge how poorly those countries are fairing.
And my arguments where not about the overall superiority of races, but I was simply saying white people did a better job of running those nations.
Good luck trying to convince this crowd about the failure of South Africa under the ANC.....I've created a few threads comparing White-rule over ZA and Black rule of ZA, and showed/argued that White rule was more advantageous for ZA, yet it get's drowned out in "You're a NAZI!" every time, unfortunatly...:rolleyes:

I was reading the thread....when I got the end, I was so shocked that nobody has responded to it, just let it go, and was attacking Hachihyakdu, that I had to post that for all to see. I'm not expecting anyone to argue for me, I'm expecting NSG to do what it does. Argue againt racism and racial-superiority-politics, even those held by a non-White poster. That's what I'm waiting on.

I wouldn't expect that. But as you are arguing against Racism, I'd expect you to argue against someone who has posted way more racist content, by text, and way more extreme racism, by content. That'a ll.

Why are you expecting NSG to do what you're not doing? Why am I beholden to argue what you think I should be arguing? Frankly, I'm not interested in arguing with what's his face because of how extreme he is. There's no function in that. The Russia-Georgia conflict thread has gone 50 something pages of bashing-head-into-wall fun because Soviet KLM is so thoroughly undebatable. It's tiring.

But you're a fairly intelligent person, I presume. If you take offense to what what's his face is saying, and you feel the rest of us aren't doing an adequate job of taking his arguments apart, then what is preventing you? Step into the discussion and debate what's his face, instead of crying foul about "typical, left-leaning NSG". Or is crying about an injustice easier than doing something to rectify it?

I haven't used links to my points about other race on white crime rates because they are damned easy to find, or any links to the situation in say South Africa or Zimbabwe because its common knowledge how poorly those countries are fairing.
And my arguments where not about the overall superiority of races, but I was simply saying white people did a better job of running those nations.

Then why take those two isolated examples to derive white superiority as a viable philosophy?

Good luck trying to convince this crowd about the failure of South Africa under the ANC.....I've created a few threads comparing White-rule over ZA and Black rule of ZA, and showed/argued that White rule was more advantageous for ZA, yet it get's drowned out in "You're a NAZI!" every time, unfortunatly...:rolleyes:

I know :( Apparently if you say a white person did something better than a person of a different race your a filthy racist pig zomg.

Well I've hung around this forum for years, not posting till recently. I know that the people here are so determined to believe that whitey is evil and hasn't done anything right and anyone who says otherwise is a Neo Nazi white supremacist but I wanted to give it a try anyway, but I'm literally being drowned by posts (not surprising)

*snip*

I was in debate with Hachihyaku. I didn't read what Karuchea said. I have no idea what race Karuchea is. I don't care, I was not engaged in debate with him/her.

Then why take those two isolated examples to derive white superiority as a viable philosophy?

My whole point is that I didn't!

I was debate with Hachihyaku. I didn't read what Karuchea said. I have no idea what race Karuchea is. I don't care, I was not engaged in debate with him/her.

Keruchea is saying a lot of anti white stuff but in a reasonable tone of voice.