Friday, April 15, 2011

Unaffordable Family Formation

Regular readers of Steve Sailer know his "affordable family formation" theory very well. Which amounts to Whites having kids when they can afford them. When land is cheap, suburbs all around, and the cost of living is relatively low. But there is a flip-side to that. Which is "unaffordable family formation." I.E. Mexican (mostly illegal) immigrant family formation on the taxpayer dime. New research from The Center for Immigration Research (their Research Director Steven Camarota was a guest on KFI 640 AM's "John and Ken" on Tue April 12, 2011) suggests strongly that immigrants cannot afford their families, and must rely on welfare to support them. This is in stark contrast to the behavior of Whites in America.


First, the raw numbers. The data was compiled from the US Census Bureau "Current Population Survey" done every March, and crunched through databases and spreadsheets (the raw data is made available for download). The US Census Bureau certainly does not release the findings, but does make the data available, which the Center for Immigration Studies used to complete their findings.

The findings include the following highlights:


  • In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.


  • Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.


  • A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.


  • Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.


  • Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).


  • The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).


  • We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.


  • Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.


  • High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.


  • An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009.


  • If we exclude the primary refugee-sending countries, the share of immigrant households with children using at least one welfare program is still 57 percent.


  • Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.


  • For all households (those with and without children), the use rates were 37 percent for households headed by immigrants and 22 percent for those headed by natives.


  • Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.


  • The eight major welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies.


The authors further caution:

Unreported Welfare Use. Although almost all other researchers in this field have relied on self-reporting in the CPS or some other government survey, one limitation of this approach is that it understates welfare use. It is well established that respondents to the CPS tend to understate their use of social services. One reason for this seems to be the survey by proxy methodology used to collect the data, which is discussed in the methods section of this report. While the methodology is practical and generally produces reliable information, it has its problems. One problem seems to be that the person responding to the CPS may not be aware of all of the programs or the size of the payments that are received by every individual in the household.

The problem of under-reporting of welfare is well known by the Census Bureau and has been studied for some time.10 For example, a comparison of administrative data on Medicaid to the results in the CPS shows that the survey reports at least 10 million fewer persons on the program than there actually are.11 Use of cash and food programs is also under-reported in the CPS. This problem, however, should not prevent comparisons between immigrants and natives because there is no clear evidence that immigrant or natives are more likely to under-report welfare use.12 So the undercount should be similar for both groups, making comparisons possible. What this does mean is that the welfare use reported in this analysis is too low, and the actual use rates for immigrants and natives alike are higher. [Emphasis Added]



What stands out is the table, seen to the right, showing welfare use by number of children in the household. Immigrants (the study does not distinguish by legal and illegal, though likely nearly all immigrants are illegal because of the sheer volume of the exodus out of Mexico as it collapses) actually use less food aid than natives when with only 1 child per household (23.6% for immigrants vs 32.3% for natives). For Medicaid, the situation is slightly reversed for household with only one children, 36% vs. 29.6%. [This likely counts Blacks and poorer US born Latinos, as "native" usage and the main drivers of welfare but since we don't have race breakouts we cannot say for sure.] However with 2 children in the household, immigrants use food aid at 41.5%, compared to 25.8% for natives, and for 4+ children it jumps to 69% vs. 47% for natives.

From Table 1, Immigrant & Native Households with Children: Welfare Use 2001-2009, we can see that for all Immigrants, 1+ child, any welfare usage is 71% for Hispanic, vs. only 38.7% for Natives (a category that includes native born Hispanics and Blacks). We can see that since immigrants with only one child do fairly close to natives in welfare usage, the real problem is …

Unaffordable Family Formation.

Which amounts to, basically using welfare to pay for very large (around 4+ certainly) Mexican immigrant families (nearly all of them illegal based). This should not surprise anyone. The welfare industry depends on this large amount of desperately poor, huge-family-size illegal immigrant wave. Subsidized by the White middle class tax revenues.

Which have now just run out. Since all that "White privilege" has not turned into money, and a White middle class effectively cleansed out of much of California, has its own concerns. Like buying both groceries and gas.

Welfare, particularly TANF (formerly AFDC), WIC, food stamps, school lunches, and Medicaid are required to support the ultra-large families that are fueling the "Latino takeover." Mexican immigrants, nearly all illegal, cannot support them on their own. While the White middle class has only the kids it can support, the Mexican illegal class has the kids the Welfare system can support. And then some.

What happens when the welfare is cut off, suddenly because of fiscal crisis? Which at some point will happen because Helicopter Ben Bernanke and company cannot keep inflating the dollar away forever. Nor are the Krugman pushed middle class tax increases to pay for more or even current welfare sustainable. Given stagflation and living standard erosion.

Can even DC force White taxpayers to ante-up for all those ninos who are replacing them? Nope. The House will surely block any new revenue scheme, and while the EPA is busy making life even more expensive and restricted, all the Democratic dancing around can't keep the issue of cost due to Federal intervention off the table, particularly with 2012 nearly here. America is running out of money for Unaffordable Family formation, and the results are going to be catastrophic.

At some point, perhaps not this year, or even the next, but at some point, the Welfare money will be cut off. To pay for things the White Middle Class wants: affordable gasoline, affordable food, jobs at defense contractors. Particularly if there is a populist willing to make it. [Which might or might not be Trump, if he runs ala Perot as a Third Party Candidate say hello to two-term President Obama. There is some suspicion he is a deliberate Obama dirty trick to do just that. Others have speculated his "might run third party" comment as a warning to the Republican National Committee not to anoint Mitt Romney.]

At some point the Welfare will just cease. Probably suddenly rather than slowly, because vested interests will keep running the Welfare machine to keep their K-12, Welfare related jobs until the last possible moment. And then it will just stop.

Meanwhile those ninos still have to eat. All four, five, six, seven of them. So do their parents. Do you think the parents will all just go home to Mexico, meekly? They already know the foreign country they entered illegally does not enforce its laws against people with their skin color and national origin. They know perfectly well the racial caste system that puts Whites dead last. They know they always have a safe haven from which they cannot be realistically extradited, if things get too dicey.

So, yes, I expect mass riots on the scale of the LA Rodney King riots, only larger and nationwide. While Black residents of LA burnt down much of their local businesses, and even some homes, most did not participate in the widespread looting. That was done mostly by Mexican illegal aliens who had little to fear from a compliant, passive, and ineffective law enforcement apparatus. TVs, diapers, even totally useless junk was looted. Even toilet paper was looted. By hordes of mostly illegal aliens. Rule of law ceased, and it became "loot the Gringo." Loot an alien, foreign country that most had nothing but contempt and hatred for, at best. Looting reached all the way up to the fringes of West LA, and around the Sunset area, briefly.

With far more Mexicans in the US, expect it to hit places like Atlanta, or New York City, or Chicago, or Denver, or Raleigh, or Richmond, or Washington DC. Along with Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Tucson, Phoenix, and Knoxville. Something will spark a riot, where the police will withdraw, and then YouTube, CNN, Twitter, Facebook, and all the rest will spread the rioting and looting to other cities. Where police will withdraw, or be ineffective in trying to restrain a massive mob without killing lots of people or putting themselves at risk. Politicians will dither, wasting days or even weeks before calling in the National Guard, which will have to shoot considerable people (including inevitably those innocent of any wrongdoing -- troops are not police nor can they be). Much of the nation's largest cities will be a looted wreck, and the effect on the White population will be very different than times past.

In previous riots, the violence was mostly Blacks against Whites, for which residual White guilt and shame played a part in excusing. Whites response was to ignore commenting on this publicly, and privately moving as far away from Black areas as possible. See, Detroit, death of. The LA Rodney King Riots were different, but not repeated. There, for the first time, widespread looting by Mexican-origin illegals was the main action. The looting was for lootings sake. Often it was all out of proportion to the risk run doing the looting.

The massive amount of illegal alien families will loot because they have to, in order to survive, with welfare cut off suddenly, and will loot because they want to, since they have learned nothing but contempt for an America that does not enforce its borders, nor conserve its traditions or ethnic makeup of its people. [They will not of course simply go home.] Looting will spread, into no doubt previously "safe" White areas. Not just downtowns, but "safe suburban" places like Irvine, or Greenwich.

When people have no more flight available, they always fight. I've seen a bemoaning of the passivity of White America, and the view that White people always just give up and surrender to non-Whites. This would have been a surprise to all those conquered or killed by Whites, or the Black men and women lynched during the Klan's original run from the late 1860's through the late 1870's, and its revival during the teens, twenties, and thirties. In New York City, the NAACP had banners proclaiming "A Black Man Was Lynched Today" during the 1920s and 1930s, and it was true, too. There were, disgustingly, even postcards of the lynchings made and kept as souvenirs. Ugly but true, and done well into the 1930s.

Middle Class and Wealthy people are not inclined to violence, generally. Violence is for the lower classes. You are far safer in Malibu, even at Charlie Sheen's house, than you are in the barrio or ghetto, and this is true for any man or woman of any race. Or the poor districts of say, Moscow or St. Petersburg. Middle class and wealthy people suddenly terrified that everything they have (including their lives) will be taken from them, however, can be inclined to the most horrific and systematic violence. The kind of violence that simply annihilates entire peoples.

The other part of the supposed passivity of Whites is the iron lock that elites have on our nation. The President, Congress, Court System, Media, and Law Enforcement all rest on the savage preservation of near-hereditary offices, open to non-Whites of "good background" but closed to average Whites (like Sarah Palin). Legitimacy of the elites and these institutions rests on both control and a monopoly of violence. But widespread looting, ever growing "White no-Go areas" (like Dodger Stadium, which now and forever belongs to Latino Gangs) and manifest loss of control invite local protectors. In Western Europe after the Roman Empire collapsed in the West, this was called Feudalism. America is running full tilt into what amounts to not a "Second Civil War" but full blown feudalism. There will still be a President, and a Congress, and Judiciary. And they will be total jokes, viewed as not only corrupt but powerless hacks unable to do much of anything. For 150 years after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, the Roman Senate met. The Holy Roman Empire, and Emperor, also come to mind as "dead institutions walking." None of that has to come to pass, but it is likely to come to pass if permanently large portions of America become in effect White no-go areas, the White middle class is not protected from illegal mob looting and violence, and the determination of the elites to summarily punish the White (former) majority is inescapable. Literally as in there is no where for White flight to move next. Power will shift rapidly, to local, and unassailable versions of Pepin the Strong, or such. Local Sheriffs un-handcuffed by PC, or diversity, local mid-size mayors, even governors of some smaller, more Western states. While places like California degenerate into an uglier version of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, but without Lord Humongus.

This will not end well. Peter Brimelow is correct, I think, in predicting unhappy times ahead. The dominant concerns of the 21st Century will be the White population doing whatever it can to stave off oppression and annihilation, much like Jews in the Twentieth, in the face of Unaffordable Family Formation and the sudden shock when the Unaffordable becomes ... unaffordable. For those who wonder why a Scots-Irish likes and identifies with Israelis and Jews, well I can relate.

32 comments:

Lockeford said...

Whiskey, I assume you are writing to be dramatic. It's more than a little hard to see that the pleasant shopping areas, low crime rates, video game playing, porn surfing, and stuff buying USA is going to generate this kind of response.

Hey, if you're right, you're right, but why is it the AltRight is always predicting collapse and nothing so extreme remotely happens? People don't want to go to jail on either side of the racial divide. They want their toys and gadgets and chips and drinks and TVs.

I think it's more likely you get dragged into some horrible war and end up with conscription than the civil war scenario.

Also, why is it if one knows Americans most report everything is fine in their cities?

Brazil didn't descend into the chaos you describe when their economy and currency tanked. Chaos, sure, but you're describing mass extermination via civil war.

Sure, clearly parts of the US are worse than it was, but most systems are functioning fine and there's no end in sight. You've still got fancy cars, factories, lots of guns, plentiful housing, lots of food. I mean, come on. Would you put money on this scenario of yours? And if so, then call a date for outbreak of conflict.

Rollory said...

"Hey, if you're right, you're right, but why is it the AltRight is always predicting collapse and nothing so extreme remotely happens?"

It depends on the money.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=962

The economy should have taken a 30%-40% contraction in the wake of the housing bubble. That didn't happen because the government is borrowing madly from the rest of the planet - Obama's trillion-dollar deficits are not just games. That is what is keeping things going: constant influx of, effectively, tribute, from everyone else. Tribute because the money is not going to get paid back. The breaking point comes when the purchasers of Treasury bonds decide to believe it: that every cent they spend on a treasury bond is effectively gone. Probably this does not happen until the actual interest payments on the debt start looking iffy. But the CBO is predicting that those very interest payments will reach 20% of federal revenues by 2020. The CBO is always massively optimistic with things like this, but even that estimate - 20% of tax income going to debt interest payments - is historically unprecedented and in other nations has tended to be strongly correlated with revolution and war and political/social collapse.

It is likely that before 2020, we will reach a point where the interest payments can not be made in full, because either there is simply not enough money, or because the Treasury buyers are not stepping up to the plate any more. Once that happens, it turns into a vicious circle, anybody holding Treasuries wants to get out before they get robbed of their interest payments. Result, total collapse of the bond market.

At this point the government has two choices: accept that result, accept the 50% contraction in the overall economy (yes really), and try to rebuild things on a relatively stable platform. This is what happened in Iceland. They had a very harsh, very deep, very short economic crisis. Now things are mostly back to normal. The other choice is to continue doing what Bernanke has been doing already: have the Federal Reserve buy up all the Treasury bonds. This is effectively monetizing the debt. It massively inflates the dollar. It is NOT a Weimar style hyperinflation scenario, because there is no mechanism to translate the inflation into wages - there is no wage-price spiral. So the middle class spends a month's budget in a week. The lower class hits the wall much much faster.

This is exactly what happened in Egypt. The Egyptian pound is pegged to the dollar, as are multiple other Mideastern currencies. The sudden American inflation of the past year (entirely due to Bernanke's Quantitative Easing 2) resulted in unaffordable food in North Africa, which translated directly into revolution and war. It has not started here because Americans have more of a margin for error before they get hungry, but it's just a matter of mathematics - once it DOES get high enough, you get the same result.

It's going to be the most avoidable crisis in world history.

Camel Feet said...

@Lockeford: Hah! I'm glad you've called Whiskey on his fear mongering. I appreciate his views and often agree with specific details, but I have to roll my eyes when he goes off the deep end with his civil war and Obama-is-the-Devil rants.

I would like to point out how society was poised to collapse due to German/Irish/Italian, Chinese, and Mexican immigration before. Different scenarios, to be sure, but hit the history books and old media and look at the words and laws during previous immigration waves. Am I saying we shouldn't be concerned and shouldn't work towards enforcement of our immigration laws? Absolutely not.

(Just for amusement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen%27s_Agreement_of_1907
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

http://news.change.org/stories/10-historical-anti-immigrant-quotes-that-sound-familiar)

One thing I think gets overlooked is the self-correcting nature of immigration. There comes a point when 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants have raised themselves above what their parents/grandparents had and have come to enjoy the benefits of what the US can offer them. They become true citizens, voters, taxpayers and work to change their communities and actually become advocates against further dilution of their privileges. Am I saying the process is going to be clean and easy and won't leave behind many legacy issues, such as barrios, overcrowded schools, a language divide, etc. No. Do I think that Mexican Americans will eventually face the same internal social struggles immigrants and Black Americans have faced before, definitely. Do I think the rest of American will struggle right along with them and that lower-grade, less-than-violent versions of the conflicts Whiskey has described will ensue, quite possibly.

Rollory said...

"One thing I think gets overlooked is the self-correcting nature of immigration. There comes a point when 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants have raised themselves above what their parents/grandparents had and have come to enjoy the benefits of what the US can offer them."

This is a deliberate lie that gets repeated all too often. It is a false comparison. The experimental result is that the 2nd and 3rd generation Mexican immigration is _poorer_ and has far more social pathology (divorce, single teen mothers, high school dropouts, gang affiliation, etc) than the initial wave.

Repeating liberal lies will get you nowhere.

sestamibi said...

Camel Feet, if we had stopped the tide about 20-30 years ago I might agree with you, but for every assimilated second-generation type (and they aren't assimilating all that fast these days), there are two to be escorted over the border by coyotes to take his place.

Whiskey, I agree with you for the most part, but it is also possible that we may avoid the worst case scenario. For one thing, the birth rates in Latin America has tanked as they have all over the world, so in the years to come there won't be as many to export to what is still known as the United States of America. Second, I take issue with your characterization of "four, five, six ninos". They actually don't have that many, but they do have them a whole lot younger than our typical white American feminists (if in fact those even bother to have them at all). Thus, the growth in their numbers comes from shorter generations, rather than a lot more kids.

johnsal said...

Thanks for a very interesting article. It's particularly useful in conjunction with the recent lecture (April 4th) at AEI by Charles Murray (social scientist and author, most notably of The Bell Curve) entitled The State of White America. Murray, in his 45 minute presentation, touches on some of the social issues addressed here. Essentially, he looks at the upper and lower classes of white America in terms of changes within each group to the, what he calls, Founding Virtues - industriousness, honesty, marriage and religion. In short, the news is not good. I suggest everyone supplement the info in the study addressed here with a view of the lecture video. Here's the url: http://www.aei.org/video/101414

kurt9 said...

Milton Friedman said that you can have a welfare state or mass immigration, but you cannot have both.

Whiskey said...

Lockeford -- I would say the collapse will happen within the next thirty years or so. Basically IMHO we are at 1837, when the Virginia Assembly narrowly defeated a bill to outlaw slavery. After that, the die was cast. America would be all slave, or all free. And the fight was over labor rates (in the North) or retaliation (by freed Blacks on poorer Whites in the South, the ex-slave Masters would be secure in their mansions). Everyone could see it coming.

In fact, the system is NOT functioning. California is $26 billion in the whole and climbing. Illinois is even worse. Most states face serious deficits -- they have a massive Mexican influx and the appetite for a First World Welfare State.

Whiskey said...

In California specifically there is a move to raise taxes by more than $50 billion a year, which will if enacted drive the last remaining middle class Whites like me out of California. Making California exclusively Latino/Asian plus Steve Jobs and David Geffen.

Brazil is a bad comparison because it did not transition from overwhelming White Majority to discriminated Whites as a minority. That's a recipe for active civil conflict. Particularly as White guilt such as it is erodes with precipitous and permanent standard of living declines, as "diversity" (Whites in the minority) increases.

In my own lifetime I've seen California go from near-paradise to Tijuana North. Dodger Stadium from Baseball Paradise to White-no-go.

Whiskey said...

Blogger kills longer responses, sorry for the break-up.

As to assimilation, that is not happening. It's not 1870, or even 1910 any more. No empty continent, or factories to be filled, amidst a culture that DEMANDS assimilation and punishes severely those who don't conform absolutely to White middle class norms. Heather McDonald and Steve Sailer both note that fourth generation Mexicans (their grandparents were immigrants) have more illegitimacy (poverty generator, tax burden), lower educational levels, and lower income levels than second generation (their parents were immigrants).

Anecdotally which is not of course data, I see five-six kids spaced a year apart with their mothers here in SoCal among Latinos. The CIS data suggests families among Hispanic immigrants are "4+" and the WSJ yesterday reported Hispanic TFR at 3.0. I suspect among illegals it is substantially higher -- what you subsidize you get more of.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

On a somewhat related note, I just saw a liberal complain that Europeans are "horribly backwards when it comes to racial equality." The reason? Germany, France and Austria threatened to reinstate border checks to stop Italy from sending them Tunisian refugees on temporary visas.

National sovereignty is racism if it has an adverse effect on non-white foreigners.

Anonymous said...

What will happen once the Whites leave with the Asian population? I doubt they like high taxes to support Mexicans any more than Whites do.

Civil War 2 Predicts the formation of three ethnic states a White North,A Black South East as well as a Mexican South West after what happens in your prediction

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-rlHqUBtPqk/S0PNz_e6EnI/AAAAAAAAAgM/ri_1m4mhYgg/s400/usabreakup-2.gif

Also there will also be Black on Hispanic violence for "right to loot" as both rely on the same welfare that is ending and they hate each other.

Anonymous said...

So as productive unmarried men slack off, the state will still take what taxes they can take, to fund welfare.

However, these same productive men will see no reason to marry and support a typical Ameriskank, leaving white women out in the cold, hoisted by their own petard.

The liberal feel-good welfare state that so appealed to the logically-challenged American woman will be their undoing.

I am working very hard to go Galt.

No support for you, American skanks.

Anonymous said...

The government isn't "broke" until there is no more money to take from the citizens, i.e., all citizens have no more than the bare necessities to sustain life, and everything else goes to the government. We're a long, long way from that point.

Dragon Horse said...

Yeah although the 1992 L.A. Riots were supposedly "black" riots by the media, over half of all arrest were Hispanic, something not covered by the mainstream media. I am glad Whisky set the record straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#The_riots

Anonymous said...

Texas is somewhat different than most of the USA in that overt, take-no-prizoners race war went on here for many, many decades and it was never denied or sugar coated.
It was calmly accepted that this sort of thing is just what happens when Scots Irish Puritans are thrown into a fighting pit with commanches and mestizos and the nearest law enforcement agency is a 6 week ride away..
Sometimes you can get along with the other tribe and some times you cannot. Sometimes you can hold hands and sing kumbaya and sometimes ...(I should stop).

Anonymous said...

quote:
"The government isn't "broke" until there is no more money to take from the citizens, i.e., all citizens have no more than the bare necessities to sustain life, and everything else goes to the government. We're a long, long way from that point."

I have a better theory.
A government becomes broke when the beta males of a society revolt against the unfair system and refuse to work hard to produce surplus economic wealth which would only feed the system which exploits them.

At the rate the USA is going I say give it another 20 years.

E

Anonymous said...

quote:
"I am working very hard to go Galt.

No support for you, American skanks."

Same here. I'm literally putting away one third of my gross income. How do I save so much? Simple, no wife, no kids, no big fat stupid home mortgage. I don't tell people IRL how much money I'm saving because they'd raise an eyebrow. Obviously any man saving that much money must be up to some type of plan and I don't want people asking me about it.

IMHO the best way to say F*** YOU to feminists and this unjust system is to work hard, become successful, and keep the money all to yourself.

Commander Shepard said...

A collapse is coming but for the reasons others have stated. The insults, humiliations, and abuse society joyfully heaps on beta males will be it's undoing. This spreads across all racial and demographic lines.


http://reasonradionetwork.com/20101103/the-stark-truth-interview-with-dennis-mangan-2

njartist said...

@ Anon: IMHO the best way to say F*** YOU to feminists and this unjust system is to work hard, become successful, and keep the money all to yourself.

There is one more step no-one seems to be considering: passing your wealth to male relatives only.

Nine-of-Diamonds said...

"I would like to point out how society was poised to collapse due to German/Irish/Italian, Chinese, and Mexican immigration before."

Vox Day made an excellent case several months ago that, contrary to what pro-immigration advocates think, successive waves of legal White immigration had a negative impact on the American polity. Machine politics, ethnic "bosses", substance abuse, and the development of the urban/macho culture that Blacks & Latinos would coopt in the 20th Century - all side effects of mass immigration between the early 1800's and the turn of the 20th Century. In fact, practically all of the quasi-Marxist grievance mongering minorities today (gays, Black nationalists, & so on) modeled their strategies using the sort of minority agitation that early White Catholic immigrants (Irish, Germans, Italians) pioneered.

I have to say I agree with Lockeford when he says that there's probably not going to be any sort of Mad Max scenario after the crash, at least for much the White Middle Class:

1) Whites still vastly outnumber minorities in most areas. At least most of the areas likely to have resources worth fighting over. Blacks are still only 13-15% of the population. Hispanics will not manage to become the majority nationwide before the collapse comes.

Due to "just in time" logistics & other factors the average city is not self sufficient. It will take a few days before predominantly Black/Latino areas are dark, hungry, and in ruins. In two weeks' time they will simply lack the food and fuel to seize any "whitopias", other than perhaps a few urban suburbs.

2) Neither Hispanics nor Blacks have much of a martial tradition; this has shown repeatedly in conflicts all over the world. Keep in mind the experience of Whites in Rhodesia/Namibia/South Africa, who maintained a lopsided kill ratio against vast Black armies. IIRC the South Africans usually had less than 10,000 white men in the field on deployment, along with maybe a few tens of thousands of loyal Black auxiliaries. Well-armed Whites in the United States, coming from a much larger White population, will quickly form vigilante groups that will make short work of any NAM gangbangers. With or without police help.

3)Most minorities would rather prey on each other. As has been emphasized before, there's no love lost between Blacks and Latinos, so they will be at each other's throats right away. Even within the racial groups there are many factions (Bloods/Crips, Northern/Southern Mexicans, etc.) When faced with taking on either well-armed rural Whites or their poor, malnourished bretheren, who failed to get out of Dodge in time, I think I know which target the gangbangers will go for.

The idea of black & brown hordes swarming White America just doesn't wash. Yes, there will be lots of pain & tears before it's over, but it will be more along the lines of, say, "Bleeding Kansas" pre Civil War, with maybe a few hundred or couple thousand more fatalities than normal in each state. Not some horrific "Resident Evil"/"Judge Dredd" scenario.

Anonymous said...

I work and live in the belly of the beast and I assure you if anything Whiskey's understating the case.
Just wait until these contemptuous and spiteful immigrants get to grow up and vote about diminishing benefits like Medicaid and Social Security, which will for a few decades primarily have the white recipients who paid into it the most.

Anonymous said...

Note to Whiskey's Place writer:

Outstanding piece! I really enjoyed reading it, and thanks for your commitment to activism.

Anonymous said...
The government isn't "broke" until there is no more money to take from the citizens, i.e., all citizens have no more than the bare necessities to sustain life, and everything else goes to the government. We're a long, long way from that point.
April 15, 2011 4:22 PM

Not really! Read this chilling analysis by Charles Hughes Smith in which he demonstrates that only 20% of Americans' now really qualify as members of the middle-class which he quantifies as actually owning real assets.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-middle-class-americans-most-of-you-are-debt-serfs-with-zero-assets-2010-10

The epic bankster heist that continues unabated really has almost completely wiped out the middle class in this country. The entire "broad middle-class" has been based on a mirage of endless debt and spending and assault by our federal Leviathan in the form of insidious, hidden massive inflation.

For the most exquisitely crafted criminal case against the central bankers and their Granddaddy of the private banking cartel, The Federal Reserve System, see the courageous, brilliant financial analyst, James Quinn’s following pieces. His ironclad forensic evidence against the Banksters demonstrate and validate unequivocally the wholesale theft from the devastated middle classes and take down of the mighty Goliath:

Fed Sugar Daddy Providing Free Money to the Banks

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article28421.html

FISTFUL OF DOLLARS PART II

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=15003

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY PART III

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=15246

OUTLAW JOSEY WALES PART IV

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=15909

UNFORGIVEN PART V

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=16575

More bailouts for banksters are on the way. Vampire Barney Frank ensured it by slipping in a 4 Trillion dollar forthcoming "gift" in the phony finance reform bill.

Bankers Get $4 Trillion Gift From Barney Frank: by David Reilly

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2009-12-29/bankers-get-4-trillion-gift-from-barney-frank-david-reilly.html

Stephanie

Lee Shin said...

spot on with this write-up, i like the way you discuss the things. i'm impressed, i must say. i'll probably be back again to read more. thanks for sharing this with us.

Lee Shin
www.trendone.net

sarah lee said...

I really enjoyed reading your article. I found this as an informative and interesting post, so i think it is very useful and knowledgeable. I would like to thank you for the effort you have made in writing this article.


edupdf.org

fearless said...

after doing some reading of this article, i feel like i can't wait to read more of your work and also make sure i added you to my bookmark so i can go back later.

www.n8fan.net

ilovelatte said...

great piece of work! very interesting. keep posting.

www.joeydavila.net

lee woo said...

Love it! Very interesting topics, I hope the incoming comments and suggestion are equally positive. Thank you for sharing this information that is actually helpful.


matreyastudios
matreyastudios.com

Leslie Lim said...

You have done a great work. Thanks for making this blog. You helped me a lot on my research topic. Keep it up guys!

Jax
www.imarksweb.org

andrea chiu said...

Thanks for sharing your article and for giving us the chance to read it. It is very helpful and encouraging. Visit my site too.

triciajoy.com

www.triciajoy.com

Blogger said...

Did you know you can shorten your urls with AdFly and get $$$$ from every visit to your short links.

Blogger said...

Register on EverydayFamily now and you will receive stage based pregnancy and baby email newsletters, promotions and weekly coupons as well as access to free baby samples, baby coupons, baby magazines and much more.

All New Members Can Win Free Diapers for a Whole Year!