Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
Ugh, it's really, really tough when you start off with "white nation". But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
|
What's wrong with saying "white nation". Do you not like white people? Do you not believe that whites, like all people groups, deserve their own countries?
Quote:
|
I understand what you mean by the statment that the United States was a white nation...however was it intended to be a white nation or did it just happen to be one since it was before the creation of modern forms of transportation? In that time, few Euro countries had experienced the sort of influx of immigrants that it has recently.
|
Of course it was intended to be European. What do you think "to our posterity" in the Declaration of Independence refers to.
Furthermore, haven't you read Thomas Jefferson's opinion on blacks? He did not believe that both whites and blacks could be part of the same country.
Quote:
|
For being a white nation, people didn't have much of a problem shipping over a few million black people to give them free labor.
|
It was called slavery. They weren't citizens, but rather property. Political leaders did not consider them equal, and many leaders wanted them removed, including Jefferson, Lincoln, and numerous others.
Quote:
|
As the US moved West, we were taking over territories controlled by the Mexicans. Even in their earliest days as US territories and states, places like Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California were heavily Latin. The real change has been the change of those areas becoming less Latin.
|
This is completely in error. Spain controlled the area that is now the southwestern U.S. for over one hundred years. In that time, very few Spaniards lived there. We're talking less than fifty thousand. Even fewer Mexicans lived in the area, considering it was the northern frontier of Mexico which had a population concentrated much farther to the south. Furthermore, Mexico only held the land for less than twenty years before the U.S. defeated Mexico in battle and signed a treaty to turn the land over to the United States. Some of the cities of the southwest were trading posts created by the Spaniards, hence the Spanish name. However, many southwestern cities were named for a nearby body of water named by the Spanish, or were simply given a Spanish name by American citizens. The general area was not Latin, as most of the area was uninhabited wilderness.
Quote:
|
Also, if you look at the "original" America (the white country you referred to), the Northeast, it's still the whitest part of the country. The only reason the Southeast isn't as white is because Southerners shipped over slaves, as I mentioned before. Still, when you look at the demographics of states and cities in the Southeast, they are largely black & white--with the exception of Miami, which for many reasons has an enormous Carribbean population.
|
The midwest is the whitest primary region of the United States, with subregions of the intermountain west and New England also being relatively high in white population.
That said, prior to the 1970s, practically the entire country was homogeneously white outside the South, New Mexico, Indian reservations, and a few non-white ghettos in some large cities.
Quote:
|
To be fair, our "white nation" only exists because of a genocide of a darker race.
|
No actual genocide took place. Some Indians died from European diseases, while other Indians were later forcibly removed due to their attacks on American citizens. The number of Indians was never as high as many people like to claim.
Quote:
|
Traditionally, white nations have been the wealthiest. The fact that people of other skin colors are moving into these countries is our own fault...at least to a degree.
|
It's the fault of an elite, not the people. The American citizenry didn't desire to have immigration policy changed in 1965. This was the result of decades of pushing the U.S. government, until those doing the pushing were able to make their way into positions of change and subvert the will of the American people. These people also said that the demographic composition of the country would not change. What a joke.
White nations have increasingly been the wealthiest given the high mean IQ relative to most other groups, as well as an innovative spirit. If you don't believe me, consider that over ninety percent of all inventions are the result of white men.
Quote:
|
The globalization of our economy and marketing ourselves as "the land of opportunity" means we're always going to have people from other countries wanting to move here.
|
That's the thing, we're no longer a "land of opportunity" due to out of control spending, regulations on business, run-away inflation, de-industrialization, job exportation, as well as an increasing third world alien population that undercuts the citizenry of the United States.
Quote:
|
Are you referring to the Romans? I'd like you to expand a little bit more on this. If you are indeed referrring to the Romans, they were diverse because they invaded territories which were home to other cultures. As I mentioned before, as the US expanded West (primarily Southwest) we were taking over cultures that were home to others. So to keep these areas white, we'd have to commit another genocide...and I really, really hope you're not suggesting we do that.
|
The Romans both took over lands, but also imported foreign peoples into their midst. Neither results in strength, but rather destruction in any given case. Other examples are found throughout the pages off history.
As I've already said, when the United States gained territories, the land, for all intensive purposes, was wilderness. No governments occupied the land, and very few people even lived there. The relatively small population of Indians were often nomadic that often warred with one another. They didn't believe in ownership of the land. People could go days without seeing an Indian. Those territories acquired from Spain and later Mexico were basically culture-less, considering so few people and no direct (localized) government control of the land. Thus, no cultures were taken over, for all intensive purposes. In fact, the number of Americans living in these lands far exceeded the number of Spaniards and Mexicans. The culture, realistically, was notably American.
As pointed out before, there was no genocide, given the small population which didn't occupy much of any land. In this case, we're talking about preventing takeover of what we have. As it currently stands, white countries, and white countries only, are being inundated with peoples of other races. The same is not the case in non-white countries, such as Japan, South Korea, China, or Nigeria.
Quote:
|
I don't think people are necessarily wanting to increase this diversity. On the flip-side, you appear to be calling for zero diversity, which is dangerous thinking in my opinion.
|
Diversity is dangerous, for it breeds division. By its very nature, that is what it does. Thus, you better believe that I advocate a position of less diversity. The less the better and a more peaceful time will be had.
Quote:
|
Yes, some people do feel this way...however not all.
|
Most feel this way. They may not inherently say it, due to decades of culturally Marxist propaganda, but their actions always reveal what they believe.
Quote:
|
Violence has, does, and always will happen as a result of cultural & religious differences. It doesn't necessarily mean our society will implode.
|
In the long-run, it does. In the least, a weakened state by every possible indicator.
Quote:
|
This is a pretty extreme view if you ask me. I don't know of a specific area of the country which is 60-70% non-white and a single race (meaning a single area which is 60% Mexican).
|
The Rio Grande Valley of South Texas is over 90% non-white, most Mexican. LA County is 70% non-white. There are many cities in the Los Angeles area that are over 90% Mexican. Many rural counties in the south are majority black.
Quote:
|
This is a confusing statement. Are you saying if City X is traditionally: 25% Asian, 25% Hispanic, 50% white shifts to: 40% Asian, 40% Hispanic, 20% white, the Asians and Hispanics are going to fight for power in City X while all of the whites leave?
|
The fact is no such scenerio in this country was ever the traditional demographic, given that a white population with such Asian and mestizo or Indian "hispanic" (a term coined in the 60s) percentages existed prior to sometime in the 1980s, and then only in parts of California.
Secondly, few Asians wish to live in the same area with "hispanics". Even in southern California, you find majority Asian neighborhoods and majority "hispanic" neighborhoods, but most do not live in the same general vicinity. Blacks and hispanics don't like living around one another. The city of Azusa, California paints a truthful picture about hostilities between blacks and "hispanics", in which "hispanics" have pushed blacks out, just as they have in parts of south-central LA County, and declared such "their turf".
However, to directly answer your scenerio, if possible, this is what would happen.
Either Asians or hispanics would leave:
If Asians stay, the least likely scenerio, half of the white population would leave, while the rest would stay. Over time, however, fewer whites will locate to the area, while greater and greater percentages of Asians would flock to the area.
40% Asian--> 60% Asian
40% Hispanic -->30% Hispanic
20% white--> 10% white
However, what is likely, is that given an unmitigated flow from Mexico, the "hispanic" population would increase, while the Asian population would decrease. Almost all whites would leave the area.
40% Asian -->15% Asian
40% Hispanic-->83% Hispanic
20% white--> 2% white
Again, this is natural. The longer this diversity continues, the fewer areas will be available for whites to escape to. It also means non-white groups will also become more competitive for an ever-decreasing social welfare state as revenues dwindle. In the end, it means conflict.
If not, I'd like you to explain more.
Quote:
|
According to this, the US is 72.4% white. Of that, 83.7% are non-hispanic (though the Hispanic growth is astounding over the past decade). That equates to: 60.6% non-hispanic white, or 187,096,091 people. That also means there are 36,435,678 legal hispanics in the US. For fun, let's say there are just as many illegals...so 73,000,000 hispanics in the US. For whites to be overtaken by hispanics, the entire country of Mexico (~112,000,000 people) will have to move here. So I think we're a ways away from the "genocide" you're referring to.
|
You're not thinking about differences in birth rates between the white population, close to replacement in most areas of the U.S. (northeast and west coast excluded) and non-white populations. You're also not considering possible amnesty, as well as immigration laws that allow for family reunification. This also doesn't take into account the millions of people from such countries who have yet to come. Just look how quickly things have already changed. From 89% white in 1960 to about 62% today, in only fifty years. In another fifty years, at the same raw number decrease, that's a 35% white population in a country that was nearly ninety percent white just one hundred years previously. Yet, this is a very conservative decrease, given the law of exponential growth. Thus, you can half the time, twenty-five years, before the white population drops another twenty-seven percent to 35% by the year 2037. This is true genocide.
All of these countries were well over 95% white, most closer to 99% white, as recently as the 1980s. Given the differing birthrates and the law of exponential growth, consider that within three decades, much of Europe and its people will be lost forever, unless things are reversed now.
By the way, the aborigines in Australia never totaled more than one hundred thousand, rather far below it.
Quote:
|
Ultimately, you and others are acting as if we're on the verge of the apocalypse. This isn't to say we shouldn't be weary of the exploding Mexican population, but you're acting as if this country is about to be destroyed when that isn't the case.
|
This country is in the process of being destroyed, and it is now only accelerating. Anyone who can look at trends and the effects to the social, cultural, and economic factors of this country can see it. Those of us who have studied it and are knowledgeable about changes in societies see what many of the pc indoctrinated people refuse to see, many of whom are too young to even know what society was like ten years ago.
Quote:
|
Dude you're a nut. We should put landmines around your yard.
|
What's nutty? Can you prove me wrong? Of course not. Since you disagree with my points of view, all based on empirical research, study, and accounts of history, you want to call me a "nut". This is a tactic of the left designed to silence opposition to their agenda, or the way they want society to be recreated to their own desires. By calling a person a nut, you're attempting to de-legitimize the arguments made by the person. Common textbook propaganda techniques in the information wars.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The better question:Should the US deport itself and leave this land to its native people
