Post: #51

California sucks anyway

Post: #52

(07-10-2015 02:27 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  I used to live near MacArthur Park in Los Angeles and when I told a Mexican-American that my area was full of Mexicans he got visibly angry and said that that most of those people are from Honduras and El Salvador.

Quote:I’m 5’10”and I’m only a few inches taller than the average Mexican. I’ve worked with Mexicans who are taller than me. I tower over central Americans.

They must have absorbed some of that forward-modern american culture.

Post: #53

(07-10-2015 02:17 AM)Easy E Wrote:  "Where L.A. goes is where the rest of the state goes and where the rest of the country goes," he said. "We announce, demographically speaking, the future for the rest of the country."

Without even getting into the race topic, that statement is kinda frightening. L.A. is cool but I shudder at the thought of America being one giant Los Angeles.

(07-10-2015 02:34 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  I thought in the USA Latinos counted as white anyway due to Spanish ancestors. So the article is really saying California had more white people???

Well if Hispanics are only slightly ahead of non-Hispanic whites, that still means that technically whites, as in people of overwhelmingly European ancestry are still a somewhat majority. Because there actually is a significant number of Hispanics that are white or near white. I alone have a number of Hispanic friends in LA that I'd say are white, or very light skin mestizo. Not every Hispanic out there is a short dark brown Mayan.

Post: #54

Quote:Without even getting into the race topic, that statement is kinda frightening. L.A. is cool but I shudder at the thought of America being one giant Los Angeles.

All the major cities which are big draws for immigrants in a way show some aspect of how we will go in the future. Not that it will all be like L.A. necessarily, but Miami, New York, Chicago, New Orleans, D.C. all offer glimpses of what the future of America will be like demographically.

Post: #55

(07-10-2015 02:34 PM)Professor Fox Wrote:  [quote="AP"]

San Francisco status as 'sanctuary' criticized after slaying

What a tragedy. Dude killed the only bangable woman in San Francisco.

Based on that picture, that dude looks more of a white Mexican with a bit of a tan. His features look Caucasian to me.

Post: #56

(07-10-2015 10:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  What a tragedy. Dude killed the only bangable woman in San Francisco.

No greater truth ever spoken.

Post: #57

(07-10-2015 05:14 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  There's a time coming in America...I'd say about 20+ years from now.

When as a guy with "all American" looks (tall, blond, blue-eyed), you'll walk down the street and not see a SINGLE person that looks like you.

You won't even hear your language being spoken.

It's kinda fucked up. But there's nothing to be done about it And I won't be here to watch the decline...

No such thing as an American look. America is not an ethno-state. We're not like Korea where ethnicity and nationality are one and the same. We're more like Brazil where people of various hues share the same nationality. I resent the idea that being white, blonde and blue eyed is what a "real American" looks like. This isn't Norway. As a black man my ancestors have been here for 400 years. Why can't my look be considered all American as well?

And stop being paranoid. It'll be a very long time before there's no whites in America. And even if they do eventually make up less than 50% of the country, they'll still be a significant number of people. Outside of the major cities it's like all white people for the most part when you drive across country. Like someone else said, if the the white decline bothers you, are you having a bunch of kids to make up for it? If not, then you can't really complain as you're part of the reason it's happening.

Edit --

Wasn't trying to sound overly PC or anything. If someone is white and grew up in South Florida, I can see why they'd feel that way. But keep in mind there are lots of places in America that feel nothing like that.

Post: #58

America WAS historically an ethnostate in every practical sense: laws against race-mixing, pro-white immigration policy.

It would be like saying Israel (which does both as well) is not an ethnostate because it's not 100% Jewish.

Post: #59

(07-10-2015 11:11 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  America WAS historically an ethnostate in every practical sense: laws against race-mixing, pro-white immigration policy.

It would be like saying Israel (which does both as well) is not an ethnostate because it;s not 100% Jewish.

Racial demographics have been all over the place. Native Americans and blacks made a huge share of the population early on. Natives were killed off, and whites began immigrating in mass after the civil war. They were from various European ethnicities. Many still hung on to group identity such as Jews, Italians, Irish. When I say ethno-state, I mean places like China where one group has overwhelmingly dominated the population for hundreds or thousands of years and they have deep ancestral ties to that land. To the point that a foreigner could never move there and be considered one of them even if they assimilated. Much of Europe still works like this even despite immigration. A Chinese man is never going to be seen as Italian, even if it was born there.

Post: #60

(07-10-2015 10:57 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:14 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  There's a time coming in America...I'd say about 20+ years from now.

When as a guy with "all American" looks (tall, blond, blue-eyed), you'll walk down the street and not see a SINGLE person that looks like you.

You won't even hear your language being spoken.

It's kinda fucked up. But there's nothing to be done about it And I won't be here to watch the decline...

No such thing as an American look. America is not an ethno-state. We're not like Korea where ethnicity and nationality are one and the same. We're more like Brazil where people of various hues share the same nationality. I resent the idea that being white, blonde and blue eyed is what a "real American" looks like. This isn't Norway. As a black man my ancestors have been here for 400 years. Why can't my look be considered all American as well?

There is/was a stereotypical American look that's exactly as I describe. Think Captain America. At the time, that was considered a good representation of your average American. Even today...when you're talking about somebody with "all-American good looks", it's a guy like Chris Evans, not The Rock.

Up until 1970, the U.S was 90+% European...pretty homogeneous in the grand scheme of things. It was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that opened the flood gates.

But for 400 years we were essentially a European colony/nation within North America. We were never a Brazil. The fact we're becoming one today is a shame frankly. And looking at Brazil..it doesn't bode too well for us.

Post: #61

(07-10-2015 11:26 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 10:57 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:14 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  There's a time coming in America...I'd say about 20+ years from now.

When as a guy with "all American" looks (tall, blond, blue-eyed), you'll walk down the street and not see a SINGLE person that looks like you.

You won't even hear your language being spoken.

It's kinda fucked up. But there's nothing to be done about it And I won't be here to watch the decline...

No such thing as an American look. America is not an ethno-state. We're not like Korea where ethnicity and nationality are one and the same. We're more like Brazil where people of various hues share the same nationality. I resent the idea that being white, blonde and blue eyed is what a "real American" looks like. This isn't Norway. As a black man my ancestors have been here for 400 years. Why can't my look be considered all American as well?

There is/was a stereotypical American look that's exactly as I describe. Think Captain America. At the time, that was considered a good representation of your average American. Even today...when you're talking about somebody with "all-American good looks", it's a guy like Chris Evans, not The Rock.

Up until 1970, the U.S was 90+% European...pretty homogeneous in the grand scheme of things. It was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that opened the flood gates.

But for 400 years we were essentially a European nation within North America. We were never a Brazil. The fact we're becoming one today is a shame frankly. And looking at Brazil..it doesn't bode too well for us.

Try Portland or Maine if you want to be around nothing but Europeans.

Post: #62

(07-10-2015 11:30 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 11:26 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 10:57 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:14 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  There's a time coming in America...I'd say about 20+ years from now.

When as a guy with "all American" looks (tall, blond, blue-eyed), you'll walk down the street and not see a SINGLE person that looks like you.

You won't even hear your language being spoken.

It's kinda fucked up. But there's nothing to be done about it And I won't be here to watch the decline...

No such thing as an American look. America is not an ethno-state. We're not like Korea where ethnicity and nationality are one and the same. We're more like Brazil where people of various hues share the same nationality. I resent the idea that being white, blonde and blue eyed is what a "real American" looks like. This isn't Norway. As a black man my ancestors have been here for 400 years. Why can't my look be considered all American as well?

There is/was a stereotypical American look that's exactly as I describe. Think Captain America. At the time, that was considered a good representation of your average American. Even today...when you're talking about somebody with "all-American good looks", it's a guy like Chris Evans, not The Rock.

Up until 1970, the U.S was 90+% European...pretty homogeneous in the grand scheme of things. It was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that opened the flood gates.

But for 400 years we were essentially a European nation within North America. We were never a Brazil. The fact we're becoming one today is a shame frankly. And looking at Brazil..it doesn't bode too well for us.

Try Portland or Maine if you want to be around nothing but Europeans.

Nah, I'm good right here in sunny Florida.

Just wish immigrants had the courtesy to learn the local sprache.

Post: #63

This email just came in from Rand Paul his new initiative is to compel so called sanctuary Cities and States to comply with the law.

[email protected] <[email protected]>
4:32 PM (9 hours ago)

to D2

D2:

Not one penny.

I am introducing legislation that will stop the flow of taxpayer money to sanctuary cities.

Will you stand with me in the fight to end sanctuary cities once-and-for-all?

For decades, politicians connected to the Washington Machine have mouthed words about securing our borders.

And they've broken every promise.

Last night I appeared on Fox News Channel's Off the Record to introduce my plan to end sanctuary cities.

I hope you will take a few moments to watch my interview.

D2, the culture of lawlessness President Obama created over immigration in America MUST end.

As constitutional conservatives, we believe in the rule of law.

But sanctuary cities make a mockery of this concept when they morph into magnets for illegal immigrants.

Criminals and gang members who have been deported multiple times know they will be safe as long as they stay within the cities' borders.

And we know terrorist organizations are looking to exploit our porous southern border to gain entry to the United States.

The liberal media will reach into their well-worn playbook to hurl smears at me.

I'm going to be called every name in the book.

I know it could get ugly, but I'm prepared to make my stand.

But I need to know if you are with me.

So please take a few moments to watch my interview and sign your "Enforce Immigration Laws Now" petition right away.

And after you sign your petition, please chip in a contribution of $20.16 so my campaign can take my message of ending sanctuary cities to the voters in the early caucus and primary states. http://randpaul.com/f/end-sanctuary-citi...the-border

I am leaning towards chipping in another $20.16 for the 4th time now...

Post: #64

(07-10-2015 02:56 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:I thought in the USA Latinos counted as white anyway due to Spanish ancestors. So the article is really saying California had more white people???

Mexico is a shitty place because it's filled with low-IQ Aztecs, while those with Spanish ancestry occupy positions of power in government and media and are simply pushing the native peasantry north for their own benefit. This goes back centuries; Mexico has historically been structured (legally, socially) in this order:

1. Castillans
2. Mestizos (mixed Spanish/native blood)
3. Natives / Aztec descendants

Just have a quick look at Mexican television and compare the appearance of anchors/personalities with immigrants entering the U.S. It's not slender mocha babes with big brown eyes filling up California, it's 5'2 oompa loompa shaped farm peasants. The "white" label was attached to Latinos before the 1970's immigration wave, when those entering the U.S. were typically wealthy, educated, and coming from the upper tiers of Mexican society. The description is outdated.

It's exactly this hypocrisy Donald Trump is pointing out. We are not receiving the best from Mexico, we're receiving the worst in terms of criminality and general intelligence, all to the benefit of Spanish-blood Mexicans in positions of power. We are literally Mexico's trash bin.

"Mexicans in California being Aztecs"

"5'2" ompa lompas"

If you are so mad about the Mexican immigration towards California, then you should look no other towards the mirror and of Anglo-Americans who didn't do shit about Mexican immigration. Anglo-Americans wanted cheap labour and they got it. Now we have dumbfucks like you making a tantrum because you want to eat your cake as well. Guess what buddy. Life doesn't work like that. Now live with the consequences.

(Btw, Mexican immigration has pretty much ended since the late 2000s. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20.../21056155/ )

Signed by a 5'8" Chicano "ompa lompa from Northern California.

Post: #65

(07-10-2015 10:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 02:34 PM)Professor Fox Wrote:  [quote="AP"]

San Francisco status as 'sanctuary' criticized after slaying

What a tragedy. Dude killed the only bangable woman in San Francisco.

Based on that picture, that dude looks more of a white Mexican with a bit of a tan. His features look Caucasian to me.

LOL! I hate to laugh about that chick's death but I very much agree with Speakeasy about that chick.

Btw, the dude looks what the average Mexican looks like in Northern and parts of Central Mexico.

Post: #66

(07-11-2015 12:57 AM)Bones707 Wrote:  



"Mexicans in California being Aztecs"

"5'2" ompa lompas"

If you are so mad about the Mexican immigration towards California, then you should look no other towards the mirror and of Anglo-Americans who didn't do shit about Mexican immigration. Anglo-Americans wanted cheap labour and they got it. Now we have dumbfucks like you making a tantrum because you want to eat your cake as well. Guess what buddy. Life doesn't work like that. Now live with the consequences.

(Btw, Mexican immigration has pretty much ended since the late 2000s. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20.../21056155/ )

Signed by a 5'8" Chicano "ompa lompa from Northern California.

That's a pretty anticlimatic closing line, dude... 5'8'' is still pretty short for non-Mexicans, you can take off the quotation marks.

Post: #67

(07-10-2015 08:40 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  California sucks anyway

^i very much agree with this statement. The state has been ruined by the stupid policies that have been voted by SWPL politicians in Sacramento or by the idiot populace that lives in the Coastal metro areas. California has for years been losing people but has been masked by mass migration from East Asian and Latin America.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142412...8?mobile=y

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/...aCzJ1JHbCT

Evidence for my statements.

Post: #68

(07-10-2015 11:26 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 10:57 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:14 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  There's a time coming in America...I'd say about 20+ years from now.

When as a guy with "all American" looks (tall, blond, blue-eyed), you'll walk down the street and not see a SINGLE person that looks like you.

You won't even hear your language being spoken.

It's kinda fucked up. But there's nothing to be done about it And I won't be here to watch the decline...

No such thing as an American look. America is not an ethno-state. We're not like Korea where ethnicity and nationality are one and the same. We're more like Brazil where people of various hues share the same nationality. I resent the idea that being white, blonde and blue eyed is what a "real American" looks like. This isn't Norway. As a black man my ancestors have been here for 400 years. Why can't my look be considered all American as well?

There is/was a stereotypical American look that's exactly as I describe. Think Captain America. At the time, that was considered a good representation of your average American. Even today...when you're talking about somebody with "all-American good looks", it's a guy like Chris Evans, not The Rock.

Up until 1970, the U.S was 90+% European...pretty homogeneous in the grand scheme of things. It was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that opened the flood gates.

But for 400 years we were essentially a European colony/nation within North America. We were never a Brazil. The fact we're becoming one today is a shame frankly. And looking at Brazil..it doesn't bode too well for us.

That stereotypical "American" look is nonsense. Would you be as worried if speakeasy was the only person with African-American features and cultural traits in a crowd of people? Would be as worried if there was only one full-blooded Navajo, or one average Mestizo Mexican? Speakeasy's ancestors have been here for at least three hundred years, while the Mexican's counterparts lived in the American West and South for just as long, to say nothing of the Navajo or other Native Americans, who have lived in the contemporary U.S for tens of thousands of years. All of these groups have lived there for as long or longer as white people, but this in itself is a moot point, since the definition of white people has repeatedly changed over the past two hundred years.

The U.S didn't start as a "European" colony. Please point out the genetic/cultural influence wielded by the Polish, the Serbs, the Lithuanians, the Austrians, the Russians, and the Macedonians. In their inception, "white" Americans largely claimed ancestry from north-western Europe, and this perception continued for several decades. Italians and other southern/eastern Europeans were actively discriminated against and prevented from entering the country in large numbers. To suggest that the U.S was ever intended to become a melting pot for various European ethnicities demonstrates a truly simple-minded view of history.

And what exactly is the issue with "becoming like Brazil?" Are you telling me that you don't want lots of attractive, feminine women from traditional cultures? You really telling me you really prefer a stale, consumeristic culture, an unbelievable obesity rate, and millions of fat mentally ill snarky tattooed libtard bitches? Because if anything THAT is the current "all-American" look. Not your imaginary blonde-haired Aryan god, which, if anything, represents a history of racism towards eastern Europeans, southern Europeans, and a whole host of other ethnicities.

Fuck this passive-aggressive nonsense. If anything, the "decline" isn't the fault of a bunch of Mexicans whose homelands have been ruined by the illegal drug trade(almost entirely the fault of OUR OWN politicians) and are making the completely rational and understandable decision to flee the murderous shitholes they came from. In my experience, I've seen these people working unbelievably hard, preserving religious family values, and producing attractive feminine daughters for the me to fearlessly rawdog. Yeah, it's a real shame that these people are becoming more numerous, while a bunch of fat blonde sluts forsake motherhood in favor of multiple abortions and a lifetime of alcoholism. Don't blame the decline on people fleeing the prospect of getting chainsawed to death.

Post: #69

(07-10-2015 11:19 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 11:11 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  America WAS historically an ethnostate in every practical sense: laws against race-mixing, pro-white immigration policy.

It would be like saying Israel (which does both as well) is not an ethnostate because it;s not 100% Jewish.

Racial demographics have been all over the place. Native Americans and blacks made a huge share of the population early on. Natives were killed off, and whites began immigrating in mass after the civil war. They were from various European ethnicities. Many still hung on to group identity such as Jews, Italians, Irish. When I say ethno-state, I mean places like China where one group has overwhelmingly dominated the population for hundreds or thousands of years and they have deep ancestral ties to that land. To the point that a foreigner could never move there and be considered one of them even if they assimilated. Much of Europe still works like this even despite immigration. A Chinese man is never going to be seen as Italian, even if it was born there.

That strikes me as rather specific, as I say it discounts Israel because Israel is also a hodge podge.

Post: #70

Imagine if you were asked to describe what an "All-Chinese" person looked like, and you said something like "black hair, black eyes, flat face, epicanthal folds" only to have an Uyghur getting their panties in a twist because there are size-able Chinese populations ("ethnic groups") who don't look like that.

That's how ridiculous you guys sound getting indignant over the possible stereotype of an "All-American" look being a white person, particularly blue-eyed and blonde.

The U.S. is a majority-white nation, and within our lifetimes, over 80% of people in the United States were white... so it makes sense that the "All-American" look that pops in people's minds is white, since the stereotype can lag reality.

The blonde and blue-eyed part is a bit more curious, since most whites are not blonde and blonde-eyed in the U.S. However, Germany, Eastern European, and Scandanavian countries have a similar blonde reputation, even though they all have size-able non-blonde populations, if not outright non-blonde majorities in some.

The modal American being white, and a possible stereotype of the "All-American look" being white/blonde/blue-eyed, doesn't make any of us who don't look like that less American, nor would someone like Chick Magnet (ha) claim that. However, if you went around the U.S. and the rest of the world with photos of the actors of the casts from Street Kings and Sunshine, and asked people to correctly identify the American for $100 or pick the most "All-American-looking" individual (assuming/pretending people don't know the actors), Chris Evans would be chosen in a landslide.

It's not uncommon for me in parts of the world to be the only non-white guy but the only American in a group (most recently in Bogota), to the bewilderment of random girls. It's actually quite amusing.

Post: #71

(07-11-2015 02:37 AM)Kabal Wrote:  Imagine if you were asked to describe what an "All-Chinese" person looked like, and you said something like "black hair, black eyes, flat face, epicanthal folds" only to have an Uyghur getting their panties in a twist because there are size-able Chinese populations ("ethnic groups") who don't look like that.

Like I said, it's not the same thing. In East Asian countries, there's basically no separation between ethnicity and national identity. Meaning someone that isn't Korean by blood ancestry will never be considered Korean even if they are born there 3rd generation and fully assimilated into the culture. You'd be a permanent foreigner. America on the other hand even if it does have a white majority has not defined itself as an ethnic state where blood ancestry defines who is or isn't a part of that society. Thus Oprah Winfrey or Bobby Jindal are just as American as Donald Trump and nobody thinks a thing about it. Or having an Indian descent woman winning Miss America doesn't raise an eyebrow(as long as she's hot). This is a nation of immigrants, not indigenous denizens with thousands of years of homogenous population. This makes us more similar to the Latin American model of national identity where a white Mexican, mestizo and indigenous Mexican see themselves as all equally Mexican.

I get what you're saying though. That the majority population will be perceived as the representative of what that country is. But at the same time just realize how a term like "all American" being associated with white, blonde and blue eyed is going to come across if you're black and you've been here as long as whites have. I'm not saying that dude that said it is racist by any means. I realize it's something of a figure of speech. Sometimes I just like to discuss shit if it's interesting.

Quote:The U.S. is a majority-white nation, and within our lifetimes, over 80% of people in the United States were white... so it makes sense that the "All-American" look that pops in people's minds is white, since the stereotype can lag reality.

The blonde and blue-eyed part is a bit more curious, since most whites are not blonde and blonde-eyed in the U.S. However, Germany, Eastern European, and Scandanavian countries have a similar blonde reputation, even though they all have size-able non-blonde populations, if not outright non-blonde majorities in some.

Blondes are even a minority in Scandinavia. Contrary to public perception.

Post: #72

(07-10-2015 05:27 PM)Tex Pro Wrote:  [quote='Chick Magnet' pid='1062511' dateline='1436566447']
However, with more and more immigration coming from non-white countries to the USA, in the future white people will be a much smaller percentage of the total population.

As myself and others have said, the definition of white will change. I'm not saying that people who look like this, will be considered white:



But people who look like this, will, and already are provided they don't have a Spanish surname:



Remember that 100 years ago James Gandolfini wouldn't have been considered white either. And to whoever said becoming like Brazil would be a bad thing? That would be a great thing for the States! I wouldn't want Europe to become that way, because the populations here have been settled for millennia, but for the States - would it really be a bad thing? Less fatties, almost zero racial tensions, less hyper-capitalism etc.

Plus. if you're concerned about whiteness...the largest ethnic group, contrary to average American beliefs, in Brazil are whites.

Post: #73

I notice many popular misconceptions in this thread.

1. California doesn't belong to the Mexicans. The Mexican's took it from Native Americans before the White settlers arrived. And those guys took it from someone else most likely as well. Land only belongs to the strong.

2. The Mexicans who believe they are "taking back" California did not build any of it. It was the Whites who built the infrastructure, the electric grid, etc. Whites in general have invented all of the world's technology today and modern economic system. The invading Mexicans are getting something 1000x greater than what was there before they were kicked out. In this sense the Whites have proven themselves to be far better managers of the land than the original Mexicans were.

3. The idea that things are going to continue along hunky dory in America when the Whites drop in number is laughable. How can it if the people who built and created everything go away? It makes no sense. The people who say America will be like Brazil are more right than they realize: Brazil went bankrupt 10 times last century and was bailed out by White Americans (those guys who pay the taxes) every time. Who's going to bailout America if the demographic collapse of its richest inhabitants occurs?

4. Speakeasy made the objection, "Whites should have more babies," which is a bad objection when one thinks about it:

a.) Non-Whites wouldn't exist in such great numbers that they do today without White medicine, technology, and economics to support them.
b.) Whites are routinely taxed more and given less benefits than non-Whites. Most of the economic transfer from Whites to non-Whites are due to SJW Whites who betray their own kind for their own political advantages.
c.) Thus if the reason non-Whites are able to be so fecund today is because of what SJW Whites provide to them, what reason is there to believe the population of non-Whites will sustain itself in the face of White demographic collapse?
d.) More importantly, take away the SJW betrayal of Whites (feminism, affirmative action, welfare, etc.) and White men would be able to support having families again. The decline in White birthrates is entirely due to politics.

5. Teedub said, "the definition of White will be changed in the future," but this is beside the point. It's not that the White race itself is important. It's that Whites represent the strongest K selected elements in the world today, and that's why they're the ones making all the cool shit we take for granted. Should the White population decline, it means there won't be enough K selected people to keep the gears of civilization running and the world falls into the Second Dark Age. Should such an event occur, most of the non-White population that is unable to take care of itself without welfare is dead. And out of these ashes the next K selected population will be born.

Post: #74

Quote:Signed by a 5'8" Chicano "ompa lompa from Northern California.

Post: #75

(07-11-2015 10:12 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I notice many popular misconceptions in this thread.

1. California doesn't belong to the Mexicans. The Mexican's took it from Native Americans before the White settlers arrived. And those guys took it from someone else most likely as well. Land only belongs to the strong.

2. The Mexicans who believe they are "taking back" California did not build any of it. It was the Whites who built the infrastructure, the electric grid, etc. Whites in general have invented all of the world's technology today and modern economic system. The invading Mexicans are getting something 1000x greater than what was there before they were kicked out. In this sense the Whites have proven themselves to be far better managers of the land than the original Mexicans were.

3. The idea that things are going to continue along hunky dory in America when the Whites drop in number is laughable. How can it if the people who built and created everything go away? It makes no sense. The people who say America will be like Brazil are more right than they realize: Brazil went bankrupt 10 times last century and was bailed out by White Americans (those guys who pay the taxes) every time. Who's going to bailout America if the demographic collapse of its richest inhabitants occurs?

4. Speakeasy made the objection, "Whites should have more babies," which is a bad objection when one thinks about it:

a.) Non-Whites wouldn't exist in such great numbers that they do today without White medicine, technology, and economics to support them.
b.) Whites are routinely taxed more and given less benefits than non-Whites. Most of the economic transfer from Whites to non-Whites are due to SJW Whites who betray their own kind for their own political advantages.
c.) Thus if the reason non-Whites are able to be so fecund today is because of what SJW Whites provide to them, what reason is there to believe the population of non-Whites will sustain itself in the face of White demographic collapse?
d.) More importantly, take away the SJW betrayal of Whites (feminism, affirmative action, welfare, etc.) and White men would be able to support having families again. The decline in White birthrates is entirely due to politics.

5. Teedub said, "the definition of White will be changed in the future," but this is beside the point. It's not that the White race itself is important. It's that Whites represent the strongest K selected elements in the world today, and that's why they're the ones making all the cool shit we take for granted. Should the White population decline, it means there won't be enough K selected people to keep the gears of civilization running and the world falls into the Second Dark Age. Should such an event occur, most of the non-White population that is unable to take care of itself without welfare is dead. And out of these ashes the next K selected population will be born.