« Huntsman the MINO? | Main | Woman hates nice-guy boyfriend »

June 23, 2011

Comments

"it will come to be seen as a racist transfer of money from victimized minorities to privileged whites"

Except it doesn't, because what the poor minorities pay to social security in payroll taxes they get back with the EITC. Social security comes out of the hide of the top 50% income group, not the bottom 50%.

Of course the mood is celebratory. This is good news for Post readers, whether liberal or conservative. Most affluent white Post subscribers probably have 2 or 3 children. What they don't want is a lot of competitive smart white children from the middle class trying to take Ivy League spots away from their precious youngsters. Better to fill the country with Mexicans who are fairly docile, happy to do menial jobs and unlikely to pose any threat to the existing social order. It's simply not fair that attorneys and corporate executives in Brazil or India can afford a full household staff, nannies, drivers, gardners etc. while American execs have to pay top dollar just for landscaping. Soon enough America will be a paradise for the upper class just as Argentina or Mexico are today.

I would agree with your prediction, except that there is a good chance some game-changing technology will come along in the next 20 or 30 years which will throw off any reasonable prediction.

Some people don't see this is as a problem because they're confident that things will end up as they have in South America, Hispanic majority with white ruling class.

Though, these numbers could also change as these minorities are more likely to die earlier, receive poorer healthcare, violence, etc..

"Though, these numbers could also change as these minorities are more likely to die earlier, receive poorer healthcare, violence, etc.. "

Blacks has shorter life expectancy than whites due to bad lifestyle choices, violence and the dangers of being an r-selected group.

However, there's mounting evidence that Mestizos/Native Mexicans will actually have LONGER lifespans than whites in the US. They're remarkably hardy, for some reasons. For instance, they are a lot less susceptible to hear-related diseases than American whites.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/us-hispanics-longer-life-expectancy-white-black-americans/story?id=11883156

That doesn't bode well for social security and other entitlements. You're replacing high-income whites with less-educated Hispanics who pay less into social security over a lifetime, but live longer to draw more $$ overall benefits.

Well, the world is clearly coming to an end.

@Camlost

haha oh wow

Then I don't know what to say. I guess SS is going to have to be changed then, or the way entitlements work in general.

"I predict that this will cause the left to turn away from their support for Social Security..."

We'll see about that. Politics is about winning elections today, not 20 or 30 years from now, and the geezers vote more consistently than any other demographic.

Of course, this logic seems not to have penetrated the GOP "braintrust." They're petrified of offending some monolithic Hispanic juggernaut that constitutes, what, 7% of today's voters? They pander and wet their pants over immigrants, when they ought to be going where the low-hanging fruit is: white voters.

The funny thing about these stories about the new majority non-white America is that they all assume the future United States will exist more or less as it does today. I think there's actually a very good chance the competing ethnic factions will self-segregate, with semi-autonomous regions forming, and eventually a sort of slow-motion, relatively peaceful disintegration.

Social Security won't be seen as racist. What will be seen as "racist" will be letting the Mexican have California back and then not throwing trillions of dollars at them as part of the deal.

"This is good news for Post readers, whether liberal or conservative. Most affluent white Post subscribers probably have 2 or 3 children. What they don't want is a lot of competitive smart white children from the middle class trying to take Ivy League spots away from their precious youngsters."

The white population is only decreasing in relative terms, not absolute terms. That means there will be the same amount of white competition for Ivy League spots as there ever was, with additional pressure from the increasing minority population to boot.

All this seems to be happening very fast. Things are getting bad on all fronts (demographic, economic, political ...etc). We know who is going to be the scapegoat.

Have any of you given thought to the topic of emigration? Western Europe is in the same boat but perhaps Eastern Europe or the white nations of South America?

[HS: There's no other country to move to. The state of Idaho. Or make sure you become part of the elite so you can afford to insulate yourself from low-IQ NAMs.]

"the white nations of South America?"

There are no real white nations in South America.

Answers to a few questions will determine where America's racial identification might be heading:
Is the concept of assimilation completely dead, or is there still some life left in the melting pot idea?
Will intermmariage become more common? More specifically, will white/Hispanic marriages have the same extreme gender skew (nonwhite man/white woman) as do white/black marriages
Will more people begin to self-identify as multiracial? On a similar note, will the One Drop Rule apply with respect to Hispanic and Asian ancestry?

The country as we know it will be destroyed within 25 years.

"On a similar note, will the One Drop Rule apply with respect to Hispanic and Asian ancestry?"

As someone of mixed Okinawan/White American ancestry, I can tell you that it's a dead issue for folks like me. There's no advantage to be gained from claiming either heritage (White or Asian) since there's no real "grievance industry" to benefit East Asians.

I know at least 2 dozen other mixed White/Asians like myself and I can remember a single one of us "self-identifying" as either side of the equation.

Meant to say "CAN'T remember a single one of us..."

You guys talk about Europe being "gone" too, but have you actually been there? It is still mostly white. Even London, which people on the net talk about as if it were all African and South Asian is still half-white. And get away from the cities and Europe is almost 100% white.

"the white nations of South America?"

There are no real white nations in South America.

I was referring to Argentina, Chile and Uruguay which are indeed white nations. Much more so than the U.S.

L (ong life expectancies of many Hispanics in the United States can be at least partially explained by two factors:
People in poor health are less likely to come America (and may not be legally able to even if they want, as legal immigrants are subject to stringent health standards); and
Elderly and/or very ill immigrants sometimes return to their home countries to die.

[HS: Why would they return home to die when they can get free medical care here?]

"I was referring to Argentina, Chile and Uruguay which are indeed white nations. Much more so than the U.S."

Not really. Especially considering that "white" doesn't have the same meaning in Latin America as it does in America.

"Amerindian mitochondrial DNA haplogroups predominate in the population of Argentina"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19680675?dopt=Abstract

"African ancestry of the population of Buenos Aires."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15714513

"In Buenos Aires, Researchers Exhume Long-Unclaimed African Roots"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402125.html

"Characterization of admixture in an urban sample from Buenos Aires, Argentina, using uniparentally and biparentally inherited genetic markers."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/03/admixture-in-buenos-aires.html

"the relative European, native American, and West African genetic contributions to the gene pool of La Plata were estimated to be 67.55% (+/-2.7), 25.9% (+/-4.3), and 6.5% (+/-6.4), respectively"

"Not really. Especially considering that "white" doesn't have the same meaning in Latin America as it does in America."

Who cares about the genetics? How do they look like?

Who cares about the genetics? How do they look like?

Posted by: IHTG | June 23, 2011 at 05:33 PM

----

Well, a Sri-Lankan woman would be mistaken for being black in many parts of the country. Does that mean we should just go by what people 'look like'?

This is very likely a cause of what Chomsky calls the stagnation in wages for most Americans. Krugman says Reagan is at fault. It's a simple concept but it makes sense.
So when will we start seeing these Hispanics in the media? Whites have become like Jews in that respect.

I made some HBD comments in this thread. Wasn't well received:

"I lived in and taught at the highest rated school district in the entire world for 7 years, if you would let me replicate the exact same environment in the US I would get similar results (and let me add I am not as impressed with the results, so many students lacked so much in life as far as experiences went, they had virtually no street savvy or creative instincts for self expression)

Now I live in Mexico, terrible students but far more emotionally engaged with the world. It is a much greater pleasure to teach here than there.

As to that chart, you are only looking at the US, it is almost useless to state SAT scores here is dispositive of the human animal.

And we already have had one group over represented in high status occupations for 200 years; white men. To state there will be “increased” tension is silly, when in fact they are becoming less and less represented."

http://www.frumforum.com/census-u-s-babies-majority-minority/comment-page-1#comment-309542

First of all its bad for the White elite, they'll be constant targets ala Mexico and Brazil, with a seething underclass yearning to exterminate them. Secondly, revenues all across the board will collapse, and you'll see a racially based looting spree along the lines of the Visigoths in Rome. Third, places like England are no different, Whites are there third-class legally and facing massive North African/African immigration, along with Pakistan and the like. The cities are where most people live, and dominate the countryside. London is basically Islamabad West, and controlled by Muslims defacto. England is all but a Muslim nation in effect.

There is no place for Whites to go. Nothing. Even if you are part of the Selling New York Elite, you're still a target. All those Reconquista folks need more money, constantly more, ever more, and cannot support themselves. Conveniently, there are all those nice place in NYC to loot. Or Malibu, or whatever.

Basically, every White guy can expect to live ultimately a life of a Black man in Mississippi circa 1930. A richer White guy might live like say, a Jazz star like Louis Armstrong, but he'll still be a third class citizen with little or no rights constantly abused by the dominant non-White majority that will openly hate him and try to take from him everything that can be taken. For the 95% of Whites not in that class, expect to live like a Black cotton hand of that era.

"As reported by the Washington Post, among babies under the age of two, non-whites outnumber whites."

Actually, whites are probably still a slim majority. The numbers are a bit off because the # of Hispanic births (as distinct from the Total Fertility Rate) has shifted downwards very recently and the American Community Survey data which was fused with Census data may not pick have picked that up disruption up.

Increased enforcement and the housing market implosion in late 2008 forced out a number of illegal Hispanics and their children (American born or not).

The most dramatic change in favor of white demographics is going on in Arizona where the housing bust and increased law enforcement has driven out illegals and their children. In 2007 Hispanic children were the plurality of newborns but by 2010 whites were a plurality of newborn babies, a pretty substantial shift in just 3 years. Other Hispanic heavy states have also seen declines in the number of Hispanic newborns in the past 2-3 years. The shift is so fast that the change probably wasn't caught in these estimates.

But regardless of whether whites are 49 point something percent of infants or slightly above 50 percent, Arizona has demonstrated the best way to move American demographics in a better direction is through enforcing immigration laws.

If there have been around 400-500,000 babies born every year to illegal immigrants since 2000, then removing all illegal alien adults would increase the percentage of white infants from 49-52% to at least 58% because those adult illegal aliens would not be able to have children in the United States because they'd no longer be living here.

Also, since the Hispanic population increase has been around 1.3 million year, closing the border would stop illegal alien Hispanics from adding 1 million Hispanics to the Hispanic population (-500,000 anchor babies -500,000 new illegal alien entries).

And this demographic benefit would just come from enforcing immigration laws alone.

If LEGAL immigration were shut down to 250,000 a year and immigrants and naturalized citizens were paid $100,000 (adjusted annually for inflation) per family member to renounce residency and leave America, our demographics would easily improve.

Our problem isn't that current demographic trends cannot EASILY be reversed with a handful of simple policies (deporting illegals + reducing legal immigration + $100,000 citizenship "Buyouts") its that we don't WANT to implement the policies.

"Not really. Especially considering that "white" doesn't have the same meaning in Latin America as it does in America."

I'm not sure if we have enough geographically and demographically representative samples of white Hispanics to say for sure what the overall percentage of non-white admixture is in white Hispanics. The variance in white Hispanics is likely to be wide because non-white admixture is probably not evenly distributed among white Hispanics because many white Hispanics are descended from European immigrants and there are probably regional differences in terms of admixture for historical reasons related to where exactly Spaniards and Portuguese lived).

But regardless of the exact numbers, there are clearly most white Hispanics look to be 90% European or better, especially in Southern Brazil where 70% of Brazil's population is concentrated and where even 15% black ancestry would be visibly noticeable.

Regardless, this small amount of admixture doesn't change the fact Latin America is basically run by white people.

"Not really. Especially considering that "white" doesn't have the same meaning in Latin America as it does in America."

Yes and no. Of course, the U.S. is more Anglo and the South America nations in questions are more Latin. But both are European derived people. Granted, there are some whites in Argentina (and, I assume, Chile and Uruguay though I have never been to those two countries) who are part Indian.

But the fact that they identify as white (and take great offense at being called Indian)says a lot and is the exact opposite of the U.S. (i.e. white people who are obviously not part Indian calling themselves 'Native American.')

When I was in Buenos Aires I saw maybe two blacks the whole time I was there. Blacks are absent from Argentine life.

Buenos Aires is a European city full of European people (not to say it does not have problems). I certainly feel more at home there than in Washington, Chicago, New York or L.A.

Debates over who is and is not white are often pointless. It usually comes down to who you feel is white. I certainly feel that Argentina, Chile and Uruguay are white nations - much more so than the current U.S. though that might not be setting the bar too high.

But that point aside, what do you think about emigration as a solution to the seemingly permanent U.S. decline?

"Our side," whether you define that as whites, Americans, conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians, patriots ...etc., has lost and it figures to get worse. At what point do you admit defeat and give up?

Of course, there are still lots of places to run to in the U.S. And an argument can be made that a slow decline in the U.S. - especially if managed right - is preferable to life in a new nation where you likely have no friends, contacts or family.

Just throwing it out there.

"London is basically Islamabad West, and controlled by Muslims defacto. England is all but a Muslim nation in effect."

You are mentally ill.

"Regardless, this small amount of admixture doesn't change the fact Latin America is basically run by white people."

This doesn't change the genetic data or the fact that "white" doesn't have the same meaning in Latin America as it does in America.

"Granted, there are some whites in Argentina (and, I assume, Chile and Uruguay though I have never been to those two countries) who are part Indian."

The genetic data suggest more than "some": "Amerindian mitochondrial DNA haplogroups predominate in the population of Argentina"

"When I was in Buenos Aires I saw maybe two blacks the whole time I was there. Blacks are absent from Argentine life."

The articles I linked to above explain how blacks have been absorbed into the wider gene pool. They didn't practice hypodescent (i.e. one drop rule).

"Debates over who is and is not white are often pointless. It usually comes down to who you feel is white. I certainly feel that Argentina, Chile and Uruguay are white nations - much more so than the current U.S. though that might not be setting the bar too high."

Debating over this may be pointless, but genetics aren't pointless and they aren't trumped by feelings as far as DNA is concerned.

The US isn't a nation, it's a federal state governing multiple nations within its territory.

"The articles I linked to above explain how blacks have been absorbed into the wider gene pool. They didn't practice hypodescent (i.e. one drop rule)."

So does this mean that white Americans aren't really white since the mean African admixture in white Americans is 0.5%?

Afrikaners are estimated to 5.0% black. Does this mean Afrikaners are not white?

Ethnic Russians are 3-5% East Asian. Are Ethnic Russians white?

Finns have East Asian ancestry. Are Finns white?

White Australians have some Aboriginal DNA. Are white Australians white?

Czechs (as well as other Central Europeans such as Slovakians and Hungarians) have small amounts of Gypsy ancestry.

Are Czechs white?

Factor out babies on public assistance, and see the difference.

The Undiscovered Jew,

You sound just like the whole "there's no such thing as race" crowd. That's exactly how they argue.

It's absurd to say that this:

"Amerindian mitochondrial DNA haplogroups predominate in the population of Argentina"

"the relative European, native American, and West African genetic contributions to the gene pool of La Plata were estimated to be 67.55% (+/-2.7), 25.9% (+/-4.3), and 6.5% (+/-6.4), respectively"

is comparable to Finns, Czechs, Russians, Aussies, American whites, etc.

"Even London, which people on the net talk about as if it were all African and South Asian is still half-white."

I was in London in May and it sure as hell looked more than half non-white to me. Every other guy on the Underground looked like Islamic Rage Boy.

"so many students lacked so much in life as far as experiences went, they had virtually no street savvy or creative instincts for self expression"

What a load of crap. Who has the most "street savvy and creative instincts for self expression"? Blacks. So basically this is saying these kids weren't black, and that's somehow a problem. Personally, I don't want my kids to have "street savvy and creative instincts for self expression", I want them to have office-savvy and the ability to hold down a job.

"terrible students but far more emotionally engaged with the world. It is a much greater pleasure to teach here than there."

Well, that's great for you, but if they don't learn anything what is the point of the exercise?

"what do you think about emigration as a solution to the seemingly permanent U.S. decline?"

Where you gonna go? The same dynamics operate everywhere.

"The West has failed. It shall all go up in a great fire, and all shall be ended. Ash! Ash and smoke blown away on the wind! It is time for all to depart who would not be slaves."

Migration from Mexico wouldn't be an issue if America was importing their more intelligent demographics. However, past presidents of Mexico have encouraged Mexico's underclass to migrate to America, thus exporting their poverty problem to us. If one researches both sides of the issue with an open mind then it is clear to see why undocumented migrants living and working in America isn't a good idea.

Firstly, migrants tend to displace American-born workers and legal immigrants and reduce their wages. Secondly, many are heavily involved with crime, and said crime spills over into America. There are even gangs where one is promoted for raping and beating whites. Therefore, these gangs should be treated like terrorists/enemy combatants. Furthermore, many of these groups hope to have enough children to have sufficient numbers to vote the southwester U.S. back to Mexico, and Muslims in Europe are adopting a similar strategy: take over a democratic, industrialized societies that took centuries for another people to build via high birthrates.

They understand that a country is a reflection of its majority, have a majority that is more backward and less able to maintain an industrialized civilization than the previous majority and said society will move backwards.

"Such counsels will make the Enemy's victory certain indeed"

"the relative European, native American, and West African genetic contributions to the gene pool of La Plata were estimated to be 67.55% (+/-2.7), 25.9% (+/-4.3), and 6.5% (+/-6.4), respectively"

is comparable to Finns, Czechs, Russians, Aussies, American whites, etc.

Posted by: Eli | June 23, 2011 at 11:56 PM"

Ummmmm, you're only looking at Argentinian MITOCHONDRIAL (i.e. Maternal) DNA, not autosomal DNA (i.e. the entire genomic admixture).

Argentinians are much more than 67.55% Europea when Autosomal is factored in.

Did you not know the difference between autosomal and mitochondrial?

"You sound just like the whole "there's no such thing as race" crowd. That's exactly how they argue.

Posted by: Eli | June 23, 2011 at 11:53 PM"

You are the one who claimed having X amount of non-white admixture means somebody is not white, I just wanted to see what your cutoff point was for whiteness.

And the "race DOES exist" crowd would be more convincing if you wouldn't make basic mistakes such as confusing mitochondrial DNA with autosomal.

Especially when you use your subpar knowledge of population genetics to smear other white people ("Southern Europeans have substantial Arab admixture" they don't) or basically white people (The 130-150 million whites in Latin America).

TUJ, you still haven't defined your concept of "white nigger." lol

Is that anyone of European who isn't a Zionist?

"La Plata were estimated to be 67.55% (+/-2.7), 25.9% (+/-4.3), and 6.5% (+/-6.4), respectively"

I read the last link and that study was referring to autosomal (unlike your first link) but its still too low. The study was from 2005 and more recent studies have shown Argentinian autosomal DNA to be 78% European, and there is high variance because many Argentinians are descended from European immigrants.

And your other two links don't prove Argentinians are nonwhite because the estimated black admixture in Argentinians is less than 5%:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-comprehensive-study-on-continental.html

European ancestry in mtDNA (44.3%) and Y-chromosome (94.1%) gives an estimate of 69.2%, compared to 78.6% for autosomal markers. Native S. American in mtDNA (53.7%) and Y-chromosome (4.9%) gives an estimate of 29.3%, compared to 17.28% for autosomal markers. Finally, African mtDNA (2%) and Y-chromosomes (0.9%) gives an estimate of 1.45% compared to 4.15% for the autosomal markers.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/12/how-argentina-became-white/

Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%) and autosomal (78.5%) DNA, but their mitochondrial gene pool is mostly of Native American ancestry (53.7%); instead, African heritage was small in all three genetic systems (<4%). Population substructure in Argentina considering the eight sampled provinces was very small based on autosomal (0.92% of total variation was between provincial groups, p = 0.005) and mtDNA (1.77%, p = 0.005) data (none with NRY data), and all three genetic systems revealed no substructure when clustering the provinces into the three geographic regions to which they belong. The complex genetic ancestry picture detected in Argentineans underscores the need to apply ASDM from all three genetic systems to infer geographic origins and genetic admixture. This applies to all worldwide areas where people with different continental ancestry live geographically close together.

"what do you think about emigration as a solution to the seemingly permanent U.S. decline?"

Where you gonna go? The same dynamics operate everywhere."

Well, in my earlier posts I offered Eastern Europe and Argentina, Chile and Uruguay as white (or mostly-white if you prefer) outposts.

Also, New Zealand, Australia (perhaps on the same path as us but we are much further down that path).

Even Canada. They are much more selective about their immigrants. Better to live among Asians than among blacks.

Even Asia has a brighter future than us. Of course, you would probably not want to raise a white family there but if you are single guy there are many benefits to living in places like Thailand and the Philippines.

In case anyone is interested, a discussion of admixture levels in Brazil:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/02/brazilians-more-european-than-not/

"And your other two links don't prove Argentinians are nonwhite because the estimated black admixture in Argentinians is less than 5%:"

Indeed. In Buenos Aires I did not see people who look like they might be 1/32 black. They were European people and a few who looked like they were mostly white with some Indian admixture.

Look at their national soccer team and you get a pretty good example of the people of Argentina.

"They were European people and a few who looked like they were mostly white with some Indian admixture."

Remember that these genetic studies are mostly sampling the entire country, which includes mestizos (about 20% of Argentina). If you sampled Argentinians who "look European" rather than include mestizo looking people you'd find visibly white Argentinians are 90% or better white compared to the 78.6% European admixture estimated for all of Argentina.

Bernie, regarding your comment about emigration, I would rather get immigrants and their descendents to emigrate rather than move myself.

And it wouldn't be hard to do if you give them financial incentives. I read in Der Spiegel's English edition that a large minority of German Turks would consider leaving Germany because Turkey's economy is booming.

The same economic incentives that make Turkish Germans consider emigrating could also be used to get non-white immigrants and their children to leave in an orderly fashion.

There have been proposals in the Netherlands and Israel to pay their Muslim populations a sum of money to leave for their ancestral lands and if the payments were large enough and the legislation passed I don't doubt that a large percentage of Muslims would leave the Netherlands and Israel, again if the economic incentive is high enough.

The same thing could be done in America ($100,000 per family member to leave the US) pretty easily and we would get rid of many low-IQ immigrants and their children (who mostly came for economic reasons anyway and often don't seek US citizenship) the only problem is lack of will.

"You are the one who claimed having X amount of non-white admixture means somebody is not white, I just wanted to see what your cutoff point was for whiteness."

I never said that nor did I talk about some "cutoff point."

My point was that it's absurd to say that this:

"Amerindian mitochondrial DNA haplogroups predominate in the population of Argentina"

"the relative European, native American, and West African genetic contributions to the gene pool of La Plata were estimated to be 67.55% (+/-2.7), 25.9% (+/-4.3), and 6.5% (+/-6.4), respectively"

is comparable to Finns, Czechs, Russians, Aussies, American whites, etc. That's a big difference in terms of admixture.


"And the "race DOES exist" crowd would be more convincing if you wouldn't make basic mistakes such as confusing mitochondrial DNA with autosomal."

I never confused mitochondrial with autosomal nor did I try to obscure it. That's why I didn't remove the term "mitochondrial."


"Especially when you use your subpar knowledge of population genetics to smear other white people ("Southern Europeans have substantial Arab admixture" they don't) or basically white people (The 130-150 million whites in Latin America)."

I haven't even mentioned Southern Europeans or Arabs here.


"And your other two links don't prove Argentinians are nonwhite because the estimated black admixture in Argentinians is less than 5%:"

I never said that "Argentinians are nonwhite" or tried to prove so. Also, blacks aren't the only nonwhites.


"http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/12/how-argentina-became-white/"

"In case anyone is interested, a discussion of admixture levels in Brazil:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/02/brazilians-more-european-than-not/"

Thanks for those links. They support my main point here that despite appearances and self-identification, there is a good deal of admixture.

TUJ, the immigration revolving door would start spinning like a centrifuge if we paid the bastards $100,000 to leave! If they take the $100K they also have to accept being branded on the forehead and agree that they can be shot on sight if they return. And then they'll just go back to El Salvador and tell all their friends to go up north to get a free $100K from the crazy gringos.

If we've got enough "will" to pay them to leave, we've got enough "will" to make them leave (and keep them out) without paying them.

"Well, in my earlier posts I offered Eastern Europe and Argentina, Chile and Uruguay as white (or mostly-white if you prefer) outposts."

Moving to Latin America to escape the Hispanicization of the United States makes no sense to me at all.

As for Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, eh, maybe, but one might as well just move to a whiter part of the USA. Utah or Idaho, here I come!

"And then they'll just go back to El Salvador and tell all their friends to go up north to get a free $100K from the crazy gringos."

I said "Green card/citizenship buyouts" would be used for LEGAL immigrants, illegals would not be bought out, they would be deported and this would be IN CONJUNCTION with sealing off the border to ensure no more illegal immigrants entered.

Since only legal immigrants would be eligible and the border would be shut down there would be little chance illegals would be able to cash in on the buyout (as far as this hypothetical scenario is concerned).

"I never said that "Argentinians are nonwhite" or tried to prove so. Also, blacks aren't the only nonwhites."

You didn't?

You wrote:

"There are no real white nations in South America.

Posted by: Eli | June 23, 2011 at 02:53 PM"

Since Argentina is a South American country, how can claim that Argentina isn't a white nation if you won't take a position on whether Argentinians are white or not?

Btw, do you agree with the idea that since Latin America is run by elites who are ethnically white that this proves whites are likely to still run everything important in America even if white Americans become a minority?

"Since Argentina is a South American country, how can claim that Argentina isn't a white nation if you won't take a position on whether Argentinians are white or not?"

I don't think the Argentine nation is a real white nation in the same manner as, or as white a nation as the Finns, Czechs, Russians, Aussies, American whites, etc.

"Btw, do you agree with the idea that since Latin America is run by elites who are ethnically white that this proves whites are likely to still run everything important in America even if white Americans become a minority?"

The genetic data show that the Latin American elites aren't "ethnically white" in the same manner as, or as "ethnically white" as the Finns, Czechs, Russians, Aussies, American whites, etc.

The elite in America today is less white than the WASP elite of the past. I suspect in the future it will be somewhat less so than today. Majority white, with admixture. It may be like Latin America where despite appearances and self-identification, there is a good deal of admixture.

"I don't think the Argentine nation is a real white nation in the same manner as, or as white a nation as the Finns, Czechs, Russians, Aussies, American whites, etc."

Then why did you write?:

"I never said that "Argentinians are nonwhite" or tried to prove so."

Continuing,

"The genetic data show that the Latin American elites aren't "ethnically white" in the same manner as, or as "ethnically white" as the Finns, Czechs, Russians, Aussies, American whites, etc."

Uhm, the genetic studies you linked to didn't analyze admixture in Argentine elites.

Those studies analyzed overall admixture in Argentines at the NATIONAL LEVEL of Argentina, not the ELITE segment of Argentinian whites.

Do you have data on ELITE white Argentinians that demonstrate they are not as ethnically white as other European and European derived nations?

If you don't have data on ELITE Argentinians specifically (as distinct from the mean admixture for Argentinians OVERALL) then why did you write, "The genetic data show that the Latin American elites aren't "ethnically white" when you have no evidence for that?

"The elite in America today is less white than the WASP elite of the past."

Do you have genetic evidence that white elite Americans today are less white than elite white Americans of the past?

I don't think the Argentine nation is a real white nation in the same manner as, or as white a nation as the Finns, Czechs, Russians, Aussies, American whites, etc.

And I don't think Argentine (and other Latin American) elites are "ethnically white" in the same manner as, or as "ethnically white" as the Finns, Czechs, Russians, Aussies, American whites, etc.

The overall genetic data show the former, and I think they (along with other things like lack of hypodescent) suggest the latter. It would be great if there were, or if they would do in the future, genetic studies of different segments of the population so we could get a clearer picture.

"If you don't have data on ELITE Argentinians specifically (as distinct from the mean admixture for Argentinians OVERALL) then why did you write, "The genetic data show that the Latin American elites aren't "ethnically white" when you have no evidence for that?"

If you don't have data on ELITE Argentinians specifically then why do you assert that they are as "ethnically white" when you have no evidence for that?

"The overall genetic data show the former, and I think they (along with other things like lack of hypodescent) suggest the latter."

Since visitors to Argentina have noted Argentine elites do not look admixed at all the limited we have evidence suggests white Argentines have low levels of admixture.

"If you don't have data on ELITE Argentinians specifically then why do you assert that they are as "ethnically white"

Because visitors to Argentina who have met elite white Argentinians say they appear fully European (and in many cases Northern European).

Also, I'd like to point out that YOU were the one who challenged the claim the Argentine ruling class is substantially more admixed than in other European and European diaspora nations and that you ended up admitting you have no genetic data the RULING class Argentines has substantial non-white admixture.

I just felt like pointing out this fact.

I agree that admixture probably varies along class lines. That doesn't mean it's wholly absent in certain classes however.

Genetic studies on Latin Americans suggest that appearances belie admixture.

Considering the significant average admixture in the general Argentine population, it isn't that much of a stretch to infer that the Argentine ruling class is more admixed than Finns, Czechs, Russians, Aussies, American whites, etc.

You have no genetic data showing that the Argentine ruling class doesn't have significant admixture.

I just felt like pointing out this fact.

"Do you have genetic evidence that white elite Americans today are less white than elite white Americans of the past?"

Do you have genetic evidence that the elite today is as white as the previous WASP elite?

Today we have people like John Mack (CEO of Morgan Stanley) who is Lebanese, George P. Bush (Jeb's son) who is half-Mexican, Rupert Murdoch married to a Chinese with two daughters by her, etc. In the past it was exclusively WASP.

"That doesn't mean it's wholly absent in certain classes however."

I didn't say there was no admixture at all in elite Argentines.

"Genetic studies on Latin Americans suggest that appearances belie admixture."

Which studies suggest group AVERAGE appearances belie admixture?

I'm aware INDVIDUALS with admixture can have appearances which mask actual admixture but I've not aware that the average appearance of a group can mask admixture.

If visitors to Argentina say that elite white Argentines do not look admixed at all then that should be evidence elite white Argentines are not admixed (or else the non-white admixture would be noticeable after you've met a number of different elite white Argentines to get a sense of what their average appearance is.

Do you have evidence that AVERAGE appearances can hide admixture?

"should be evidence elite white Argentines are not admixed"

should be

should be evidence elite white Argentines are not admixed much at all

"Today we have people like John Mack (CEO of Morgan Stanley) who is Lebanese, George P. Bush (Jeb's son) who is half-Mexican, Rupert Murdoch married to a Chinese with two daughters by her, etc."

Oh.

So does this mean that maybe the difference between the non-white admixture in white American elites is not so great compared to Argentine white elites?

"Do you have genetic evidence that the elite today is as white as the previous WASP elite?"

I was hoping you knew because I had never heard anyone make this claim before.

"If visitors to Argentina say that elite white Argentines do not look admixed at all then that should be evidence elite white Argentines are not admixed (or else the non-white admixture would be noticeable after you've met a number of different elite white Argentines to get a sense of what their average appearance is."

Well then the fact that the Argentine elite has failed miserably for decades in managing their country should be evidence that there is admixture.

Genetic studies on Latin Americans suggesting that appearance and self-identification belie admixture should be evidence that there is likely to be admixture.


"So does this mean that maybe the difference between the non-white admixture in white American elites is not so great compared to Argentine white elites?"

It's possible the American elite could become even less white than the Argentine elite.


"I was hoping you knew because I had never heard anyone make this claim before."

It's not politically correct to make this claim.

Arguing about the genetic background of people from Argentina to see if they really qualify as white = a sure sign of someone with no life.

Arguing about genetic backgrounds is common on HBD blogs. You participate a lot on HBD blogs where arguments about genetic backgrounds frequently take place, so you must be admitting that you have no life.

This is a ridiculous thread; to return to the subject at hand, the plain fact of the matter is that the various ethnic lobbying groups from Third World countries will continue to grow in demographic power, and they will inevitably vote for policies to strip us of everything we own, because that's where the money is, as Willie Sutton said.

In Canada, the Indian and Chinese immigrants are already lobbying for their newly arrived parents to have "access" to Canadian pension funds after just three years in the country--pension funds that native born white Canadians have paid into for two or three decades. They are of course, arguing that it's a matter of "racism" if the native-born Canucks don't approve of this.

In California, some of our wonderful imported "diversity" are actually floating the idea of abolishing one-man, one-vote, to ensure that "non-citizens" are "represented fairly" by the legislature.

Another demographic shift I see happening: The prevalence of new white male/Asian female relationship seems to be dropping like a rock over the last ten years or so. Don't know how much of this is increased awareness (i.e. propaganda from ethnic studies, etc). I'd say the decline in the WM/AF to AM/WF ratio is favorable to race relations, but the decline in the prevalence of Asian/White relationships in general is a sign of worsening race relations.

The comments to this entry are closed.