Among the highlights, Orange County lost about 14.6% of its White population from 1990-2010, or about 227,000 people. In return, it gained about 363,000 Hispanics (almost all Mexican) and about 165,000 Asians over that period. Hispanics increased by 64.37%, over the period, and Asians increased by 68.58%. If the dreams of multiculturalism were true, and everyone danced around holding hands hating "White Hegemony" or something, and income and demand on government services were all the same among populations, and household sizes were all the same, and ethnic groups did not resent being pushed out of places they had lived in for a long time, well then everything would be roses. But it is not.
From the US Census Bureau Factfinder, we can find out that household sizes are 4 for Mexicans/Hispanic (Any Race), 3 for Asians (Any Race), and 2 for White (Alone).
That is a significant difference. Hispanics/Mexicans have much larger families, and that alone puts a bigger burden on schools, on welfare, on health systems. Even disallowing for median income differences and percentages in poverty. Asian families are more akin to Hispanic/Mexicans than Whites.
Then there is Median Household Income. The Census Bureau reports that in 2009, the median household income for Whites alone was $54,461 (shared by two people, or $27,231 per person, median income). For Asians, it was $65,469, or $21,823. For Hispanics, it was $38,039, or only $9,510 per person. Now, obviously this is merely the median (midpoint) income of households. Without knowing the shape precisely of the income distribution per household by race, this is merely back of the envelope, ball-park estimation. Pretty rough stuff. Nothing to bet the house on. But the same press release by the Census Bureau tells us that 12.3% of Whites were at or below the poverty line in 2009, 12.5% of Asians, and a whopping 25.3% of Hispanics (Any Race). For Native Born Americans, the poverty rate was 13.7%, for Naturalized Citizens it was 10.8%, and for "not a citizen" it was 25.1%
Therefore we can make the following rough assumptions and not be completely off-base: Whites are wealthier, and have smaller households, making them ideal from a tax perspective because they contribute taxes and don't use much social services. Asians have higher per household incomes, but also bigger households, implying both bigger expenses (more people to feed, clothe, house, etc.) and more usage of social services. Worst of all, from a tax base/usage perspective, are Hispanics who have large households (remember at least half have MORE than 4 in a household) and very low household income. Asians and Whites have about the same levels of poverty, but Hispanics far more.
What places are nice to live in, based on how the government acts? Why, places that don't spend all their money on the desperately poor, and have money for parks, or libraries, or efficient and well trained police, who keep order without being thugs or goons. Where animals are treated well, and those in need get comprehensive help, not a lick and a promise. An orderly, safe, secure, well mannered society requires at an absolute minimum a population that produces wealth (that is taxable) and does not make huge demands on that taxable wealth. The kinds of nice places to live (weather aside) that people think about are Switzerland, or New Zealand (Christchurch was perhaps the nicest, safest, most serenely secure city I had been to, pre-Quake days). Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City, Boise Idaho, Sun Valley Idaho, would also qualify.
What places are not very nice to live in? Why, very poor places, where public services are a joke. Where what little tax money there is, is promptly consumed by corruption or the mass demands of the very, very poor. Such places would include Egypt, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil, Haiti, the Congo. Haiti has nice weather. Would you live there, or Switzerland, if you could afford both?
But ethnic cleansing of Whites out of Orange County (a quarter of a million Whites did not suddenly up and die, they all moved out) has more than just a fiscal impact on the government. Replacing low-usage populations that generate taxes with high-usage populations that don't generate much taxes. Ethnic cleansing of Whites does two things, little noticed among the media, conservative commentators, and the like.
First, ethnic cleansing generates resentment among Whites who are "stuck" and switch from a situation like in Orange County, which went from almost 65% White in 1990 to 44% White today. "Diversity" brings what exactly to the White population that remains? E-X-C-L-U-S-I-O-N. That is what it brings. The White population is essentially transported into Mexico, as an alien and discriminated minority, or perhaps China or Taiwan. [Irvine went from 73% White to 45% in the same time frame, with Asians increasing from 18% to 39%. Hearing nothing but Mandarin or Cantonese in much of Irvine and seeing no faces like your own is not a particularly positive experience.]
There are those who argue (I've had this told to me personally, by older White men) that "Whites stole America from the Indians" and so deserve minority status. "Making things right" by punishing later generations of Whites. As John Dortmunder, the character created by Donald E. Westlake (one of America's great authors, and no I'm not kidding either), noted, "What's in it for me?" While older White men might think it right and proper to punish younger ones for sins past (note they don't volunteer to punish themselves by moving to the barrio), for almost everyone else the experience of being a minority fairly suddenly, and experiencing exclusion and isolation, is not positive. "Diversity" is touted all the time, but all it involves for Whites (particularly White men) is being made into a numerical minority, facing exclusion and third-fourth class treatment. Arguments about "moral payback" for the Edmund Pettis Bridge, or Segregation, or Slavery, generate only resentment for the Whites stuck as minorities. Almost none of them had anything to do with it, and they are being punished (and punishment it is) for sins of men long dead.
But the other aspect is the experience of those who leave. If you're pushed out of your home, because the schools are suddenly crowded with Mexican kids who speak little or no English, form gangs, beat up White kids, and demand nearly all the resources of the school district (for ESL, remedial math/science/reading instruction, Special Education, teen mother programs, and so on) leaving none for you, the effect is akin to that of the Enclosure movement or the pushing off the land of the British Borderers, on both sides of the border, or those forced off the land in Ireland. What this forced early ethnic cleansing did, was cement inside those made victim to it, of attitudes about government and other peoples.
As Fischer makes clear in Albion's Seed, the Scots-Irish believed that government was a means by outside, distant people to oppress them, take what little they had, and in general treat them like servants in bondage. Leaving a widespread, and deep distrust that lasts to this day, of government. As something that only oppresses, and never does any good. That is inevitably in the hands of evil outsiders intent on eradicating them from the land. The attitude persists because it was based soundly in fact. Distant governments did indeed force people off their land, and government was used only to punish the people for existing, never to help them in any way.
Essentially, the ethnic cleansing of Whites out of Orange County has created a quarter of a million Whites moved out by pressure from both Hispanics and Asians. On the Hispanic side, a crowding out of schools, and heavy public service usage, with declining quality of life, while on the Asian side, pressure from high-achieving minorities (who have the added benefit of not being White, thus having at least some preferential treatment above native Whites). And for both, constant exclusion with Asian or Hispanic dominated local radio stations, business with signs not in English, and physical minority status. Race riots and lynchings do not need to occur, as in Malaysia, the Philippines, or Indonesia (against the Diaspora Chinese) to push populations out of places, including those they've live in for years.
And along with the negative attitudes towards government, comes negative attitudes towards those of different races. Lectures, moralizing, speechifying, a good dose of "anti-racism," and the like are not going to change beliefs or behavior of people ethnically cleansed out of their homes by pressures from Hispanics and Asians. Populations of Whites are well-disposed to other races, when they are specifically rewarded for being so, and face no real penalty for holding and acting on those beliefs. By contrast, screaming about "racist White people who like Whiteness" ala NPR and PBS executives, is like beating a mule. The beating might make the one giving out the beating feel better, in expressing his anger, but it won't change the mule's mind. He'll just get more … mulish. Stubborn. And angry on his own account.
Essentially, to provide for Hispanics and Asians, about a quarter of a million Whites had to be moved out. About half a million combined Hispanics and Asians moved in, and the Whites were moved out. Roughly a two to one ratio. To provide for (likely almost entirely non-citizen) Hispanics and Asians, every two meant displacing one White. And what reward did the displaced Whites get? Better weather? A better standard of living? More income?
Indeed, while Hispanics openly talk of "Reconquista," the actual mechanics of White ethnic cleansing in Orange County (which again, was not violent, but done by economic/social/exclusionary pressure) means only that there will be a sizable amount of people thinking of their own "Reconquista," their own "recovery," their own "Next Year in Irvine" type of sentiment. As yet, this is likely deeply unexpressed. But you cannot imagine that that all those people were real happy about moving from one of the best climates, and one of the best places in California, to someplace where snow is on the ground six months of the year.
Serbian desire to recover their lands were driven by a constant influx of refugees who were fairly brutally ethnically cleansed out of their homelands. It is certainly true that death squads did not operate in Orange County, but those who were forced out are hardly likely to thank the Hispanic and Asian populations that in effect, moved them out. And as Whites are forced out of: California, Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia, all the nicer places to live, all that will be created is a desire, given expression by the first person to tap it, to "recover" the lost lands by re-conquering them. By kicking basically, Hispanics and Asians out. Little love or loyalty is created by the Asian entrepreneur or "Red Princeling" from China who moves his family to such nice places and flaunts his wealth and power over the natives, secure that being non-White gives him legal, social, and political power over ordinary White people (against White elites is another matter). The same holds true for the exclusionary power of very poor, and rough, dangerous, and often anti-White Mexican immigrants, nearly all of them illegal. Santa Ana's White population went from 23% down to 9.2%, over the past twenty years, and in Anaheim, from 57% to 27.5%. While Hispanics grew in Santa Ana from 65% to 76%, and from 31% to 52% in Anaheim over the same period.
Diversity, for Santa Ana, Anaheim, and Irvine Whites means just another word for ethnic cleansing of people like them. While the elites plow forward, with Utah poised to open itself completely to illegal aliens (the Mormon Church wants mass illegal immigration to make converts), the Republican delegates have threatened the governor, sure to sign the bill, with defeat in re-election.
It is quite likely, however that the time for political solutions has ended. The example of the Union mass disobedience, thuggery, intimidation, threats, violence, mobs, and so on have probably not gone un-noticed. As Whites are more and more ethnically cleansed out of nice climates into snowy places they'd rather not live, they'll have less to lose and more anger, and more desire to recapture a lost paradise. Their "Jerusalem." Call it "White Zionism" if you will, this the natural and inevitable outcome for a White America made suddenly into a non-White majority nation.
America is not South Africa. Whites are still the majority, and don't feel much (if any) racial guilt. They have in any effect nowhere else on the planet to run to, and lack the extensive financial resources that allowed most White South Africans to in effect, cut and run for other places. Flight is the dominant mode now, because it is easiest. Eventually, that flight will cease and fight begin.
Congress believes that the US Military is too White and Male, apparently because a White Male dominated institution, that can get things done, is widely respected, and has extensive fighting experience along with well, control of the US military, simply cannot be allowed to stand in a non-White run/majority nation. Others can read the tea leaves. An angry, displaced populace dreaming of recovery of lost territory. Feeling betrayed by a government that they do not trust, and disliking intensely (with sound reasons) other peoples? With the military firmly in their control, and as Steve Sailer points out, a non-White and non-wealth generating majority voting punitive taxes on a White minority to fund a massive welfare state, one that amounts to nothing more but a massive transfer of wealth of already ethnically cleansed Whites to non-Whites? Well that's a recipe for a "Whiskey Rebellion Plus." A supersized fiscal Fort Sumter.
One obviously not likely to happen today, or ten years from now. But inevitably.
[The attempt to make the US military a female and non-White dominated institution is destined to fail. The US will not cease to fight in places, if for no other reason than to secure oil -- oil at $200 a barrel, gas at $10 a gallon, will not generate the windfall for Obama's cronies and himself, invested heavily in electric cars. It will generate an impeachment and conviction on whatever matter can be conveniently found. Americans might have more margin than poor Egyptians, in terms of revolt when daily living becomes unaffordable, but they are only marginally different, not people on another planet with fundamentally different behaviors. Raise the price of gas and oil that much, and Obama and company will be tossed out, and the military unleashed to generate plenty of blood for oil. What, you think America's men and women are longing to bike to work in August, 40 miles each way, or January for that matter? Living in houses with no heat or air conditioning? Please. Besides, folks who find jumping out of airplanes, blowing stuff up, or living in cramped quarters on ships and subs a good time, with the risks of combat added on top, are always going to be almost exclusively White and male.]
America is embarked on a goal that has never ever been done in history: replace one population with another, markedly poorer, and manage that with no conflict or violence whatsoever, and maintaining a high standard of living. This has never been done before because it is impossible. So it is destined to fail in the way that the US debt has already failed: Pimco's Bill Gross has dumped all US government debt. Pimco of course being the world's largest hedge fund. Wow, what a surprise! A nation destined to become Mexico Norte, without changes, has no possibility of paying off its debt, and widespread inflation is killing what little economic recovery has occurred.
Failure of Diversity is inevitable. And so, therefore, is "White Zionism." In one form or another, it is coming, inevitably.
Posts
9 comments:
And yet again, you ignore the Jewish role in all of this.
I don't see any way Whites will 'rebel' or fight back. We've been lulled into passivity and meekness by bread and circuses. Aldous Huxley was right.
There will be no victory against the Jewish-Black-Hispanic alliance.
I was a foreign visitor to California back in the late 90's. I remember standing in a long line at Disneyland - a good place for a quick anthropological study. People were talking candidly to each other and were easily overheard. In front of me were three Anglo teenagers, a minority in that line. The older boy gestured toward the unruly non-Anglos in front of him and said, "That's what we're up against." The two younger boys nodded glumly. It struck me as rather foreboding.
I grew up watching Speedy Gonzales cross the border to steal El Gringo's cheese. When I first went to California I was surprised to discover that Slowpoke Rodriguez and family had taken over the state.
Whiskey, while your characterization of the browning of America as ethnic cleansing is essentially correct (the "powers that be" are using the state, corporate, media, etc. apparatus to replace white culture and white people, physically), I'm not so sure that I can foresee any kind of serious white rebellion or a desire for their own reconquista in the future. One primary reason I'm skeptical about this: where is the precedent? You're very familiar with how whites were pushed out of cities by similar poverty-prone, violence-prone peoples (otherwise known as white flight, urban sprawl, whatever). The only real pushback we saw to that kind of stuff was what, resistance to forced busing and school "integration". Maybe the election of more "conservative" politicians, like Nixon, who then betrayed the same whites and actually entrenched all of these liberal anti-white policies like affirmative action (Nixon also gave us the EPA, among a grab-bag of other liberal stuff). Or Reagan, who as you noted, launched a gigantic amnesty. Some pushback that was.
To take the example of other countries, look at South Africa. I know their situation isn't entirely comparable to ours, but whites were at least 50% of the South African population in the past. They're now at under 10% and are being ethnically cleansed and really, genocided, the white farmers in particular (they are apparently the world's most murdered group). Taking all these precedents in mind, it seems whites merely flee and little more when things get bad. They'll throw an effete kick or two and just keep moving away from the encroaching ethnic cleansing. Unless the pain comes fast and quick, instead of gradually (which has been the case), I just don't see how whites are going to resist in any meaningful way. They are the frog in the slowly boiling water, and it looks like they're going to get pretty well cooked.
Theres' little realistic expectation for Whites fighting back and halting this invasion. As long as there are still places to flee to (Utah, Idaho, Montana etc) thats how Whites will deal with it.
Whites are already less than 50% of births. Going by the public schools in my area, they are filled with Blacks and Mexicans. With high birth rates and never ending immigration, expect to see White children become only a third of all kids in 20 years. Since wars are fought by young men, we are already outnumbered.
I figure any such movement for a White Zion will only take place until we are in minority status.
Any good countries to aim for?
i am not american born, but as i can see, 50% of those born in us are white, no one realy know what can hapen in the future. but if u pay attention, u will see a corelation betwen the aceptance of femininsm, homosuxualism and the the lower birth rate and lower white population over the years.
a woman there made an impressive coment, south africa used to be 50% white, now is less than 10%, what the europeans think aboult that?
how about, hispanics,black,asians, get california,new mexico,texas & arizona, and white people get the other 46 states that are ritfully ours and kick anyone who is not white out, thats right 46 states are ours the other 4 our anyone who isnt white, we dont go there you dont come here, if non-whites come into 1 of those 46 white states theyll be executed on the spot, thats fair, diversity doesnt work mexicans are proof of that, we givem an inch they take a mile, so whites only in the 46 states, and non whites in the 4, and then there will be peace.
From what I have seen the realization is not allowed to see nationalist. You have what you call white America and Mexican Nationalist. If you are a Mexican born in the US and for the USA you are a white American as per geography and other issues. However, if you are a Mexican Nationalist who wishes for the USA to be taken over by the Mexican Military you are considered a non White American. The reality is that in Southern California the majority of Citizens are Mexican heritage as they have pushed out the European which you call white, even though the majority of Mexican immigrants can be traced to European Spain. So the idea then is really about Nationalism. What Mexico Espionage wishes to invade the US and take back lands. Even though their people hate their own government so much they run for it and their own people so much they would rather be part of the so called White America, which is really just a proper civilized world. So in reality what you are talking about is not ethnic cleaning. As a ton of Mexican heritage where part of the Klan and still are, yet but what you are talking about is Nationalism. What you like about the US government and dislike about the Mexican government. In the US Mexican's of US heritage are considered white, however, if you are an illegal or if you consider yourself a nationalist you are a Mexican or Latin. Simply stated it is not race but nationalism you are dealing with.
A Non
The anonymous poster who stated it isn't about race, it's Nationalism, is a fool.
Most of the "mexicans" now in the US are indios, not Caucasians. The rest are for the most part mestizos, a mix of White and indio, but in fact, majority indio blood in most of them.
It's all about race. And yes, I agree with the post from Collapse, you ignore the jewish role. The Immigration Act of 1965, written by jewish politicians (Ted Kennedy merely 'sponsored' it, likely under threat) made it LAW that 90% of immigrants to the US must be non-whites. Of course jews were given refugee status, no matter where they are from or what they have done. And that refugee status is renewed constantly. Think about that. And then think about jewish "refugees" being counted as part of the 10% of Whites allowed to enter the US, in order to further keep the number of Europeans down.
There will be a civil war. Those who say there is no precedence do not know their history or are agents provocateur.
If you think any of this is silly, look at which groups are always there fighting for the poor, downtrodden illegals from every non-white country on Earth. The same folks who endlessly profess to be eternal victims while behind the scenes networking and practicing the most incredible form of ethnic nepotism ever seen, using these elements against a White population that is atomized. Whites are independent. However, they are being forced into a corner. And once enough Whites are uncomfortable, the bomb will go off. The fuse has already been lit, by the zionists who never, ever are able to stop their overreaching. Every time they take over a country, it collapses.
Post a Comment