78 US counties have become minority White in just 13 years.
by Steve Goode • April 19, 2015 •
-
Pew Research Center have released statistics showing that from 2000 to 2013, 78 US counties have went from being majority White to a White minority.
-
This new data reveals the shocking extent of White Genocide across America in the last decade.
-
Pew Research Center says this is happening “from California to Kansas to North Carolina”, but is “concentrated in California, the South and the East Coast, bypassing much of the country’s middle section.”
-
The state of Georgia had the most dramatic changes, with the White population being pushed down by 20% to 30%. This is entirely due to increasing non-White immigration.
-
Interestingly, Calhoun County in South Carolina and West Feliciana Parish in Louisiana actually went from being minority White to majority White. No doubt the country’s finest “diversity” experts will be dispatched to these areas to solve this terrible crime.
-
Not only is this happening in America, it’s also happening in Europe and Australia – anywhere White people are the majority.
-
When “anti-racists” are screaming at White areas demanding they become “diverse” and “multicultural”, they’re not being entirely honest.
If they were honest they’d call themselves anti-White and they’d openly call for White genocide.
White Americans are Being Targeted for Extermination
-
Benjamin Bice
Re: White Americans are Being Targeted for Extermination
Thought Catalog: White People are a cancer
-
-
Thought Catalog is ranked by Alexa as being one of the top 1,000 US websites. So when that website publishes an article calling for the genocide of the entire white race, people should take notice.
The article, written by Emily Goldstein, is titled “Yes, Diversity Is About Getting Rid Of White People (And That’s A Good Thing).”
The article contains quotes like:
“White People are a cancer”
“I’m extremely glad that the white race is dying, and you should be too.”
“White people do not have a right to exist.”
“Whiteness is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and heteropatriarchal capitalism.”
“that the only way to really eliminate racism is to eliminate whiteness.”
“Thankfully, white birthrates are indeed very low, while the birthrates of minorities are much, MUCH higher.”
“Whites are finally getting their just desserts – and it’s about time.”
The most disturbing quote is :
“When I teach my students about human rights, critical race theory, and the role of whites in worldwide oppression, my white students often ask me how they can “atone” for the evils of whiteness and how they can make up for centuries of white oppression. And I tell them: you can do that by not having any children and ensuring that the white race does not live to oppress anyone ever again in the future.”
Someone out there Emily Goldstein is a teacher. We are trying to track down where she teaches at. There is a Emily Goldstein who is a grad student at Princeton. There is another Emily Goldstein who works at Harvard. This webmaster has made phone calls and e-mails to try to find out if either of them wrote the article.
http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/ ... -a-cancer/
-
-
Thought Catalog is ranked by Alexa as being one of the top 1,000 US websites. So when that website publishes an article calling for the genocide of the entire white race, people should take notice.
The article, written by Emily Goldstein, is titled “Yes, Diversity Is About Getting Rid Of White People (And That’s A Good Thing).”
The article contains quotes like:
“White People are a cancer”
“I’m extremely glad that the white race is dying, and you should be too.”
“White people do not have a right to exist.”
“Whiteness is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and heteropatriarchal capitalism.”
“that the only way to really eliminate racism is to eliminate whiteness.”
“Thankfully, white birthrates are indeed very low, while the birthrates of minorities are much, MUCH higher.”
“Whites are finally getting their just desserts – and it’s about time.”
The most disturbing quote is :
“When I teach my students about human rights, critical race theory, and the role of whites in worldwide oppression, my white students often ask me how they can “atone” for the evils of whiteness and how they can make up for centuries of white oppression. And I tell them: you can do that by not having any children and ensuring that the white race does not live to oppress anyone ever again in the future.”
Someone out there Emily Goldstein is a teacher. We are trying to track down where she teaches at. There is a Emily Goldstein who is a grad student at Princeton. There is another Emily Goldstein who works at Harvard. This webmaster has made phone calls and e-mails to try to find out if either of them wrote the article.
http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/ ... -a-cancer/
-
Benjamin Bice
Re: White Americans are Being Targeted for Extermination
What's the worst thing you can call a black person, starting with N and ending with R?
-
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspo ... black.html
-
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspo ... black.html
-
Benjamin Bice
Re: White Americans are Being Targeted for Extermination
Destroying Dixie: Mainstream Media Explains Southern Genocide
-
By Hunter Wallace
The American Left has a plan to deal with White Southerners, who have long been the biggest demographic thorn in the side of the progressive agenda, and the leftwing media has recently gone on record to articulate its plan to marginalize and destroy Dixie in order to seize absolute power in Washington.
In The Washington Post, Michael Lind writes in his July 4th article “How The South Skews America
“The United States would be much less exceptional in general, and in particular more like other English-speaking democracies such as Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were it not for the effects on U.S. politics and culture of the American South …
Minus the South, the rest of the U.S. probably would be more like Canada or Australia or Britain or New Zealand—more secular, more socially liberal, more moderate in the tone of its politics and somewhat more generous in social policy. …
The northern progressives who joke about the U.S. jettisoning “Jesusland” and merging with Canada will not get their wish. But there is hope: A combination of demographic change and generational change is weakening the ability of the old-fashioned South to skew American politics and culture in the future. Peripheral Southern states like Florida and Virginia are increasingly competitive, and the Deep South may join them in time. In Texas once-reactionary cities like Houston and Dallas are competing with Austin as tolerant meccas for transplants who prefer the Sun Belt to the Old South. Immigration into the South from other countries and American regions is breaking down local oligarchies and old folkways.
The decline in Southern exceptionalism in time may lead to more of a convergence among the U.S. and other modern democracies. Let us hope so. We have had enough of the wrong kind of American exceptionalism.”
-
The plan articulated by Michael Lind here is straightforward: flood the South with Northern transplants and foreign immigrants in order to weaken the social fabric, target symbols of Southern distinctiveness like the Confederate Battle Flag or Confederate monuments for eradication, and demographically change the composition of the Southern population to make the troublesome region more politically amenable to “progressive” Democratic candidates.
In The Atlantic, Peter Beinart writes in his article “How Views Like Trump’s Became Socially Taboo”:
“If cultural elites helped render certain left-wing views unacceptable in the 1940s, 1970s, and 1980s, economic elites are helping render certain right-wing views unacceptable today. David Brooks foresaw this phenomenon fifteen years ago when he wrote Bobos in Paradise, arguing that corporate America was embracing the liberal-cultural ethos of the 1960s. In 2003, Intel, Merck, and Boeing all filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action in college admissions. Earlier this year, Goldman Sachs, Google, and Coca-Cola urged the Court to legalize same-sex marriage. In South Carolina, the state’s chamber of commerce and manufacturer’s association lobbied Governor Nikki Haley to remove the Confederate flag. And since Trump’s comments about undocumented Mexican immigrants, he’s faced harsher retribution from many of the corporations he does business with than from the Republicans he’s running against. If Democratic Party leaders once needed liberal intellectuals to marginalize Wallace and McGovern’s views about communism, Republican leaders need corporate America to marginalize the anti-gay rights, anti-Mexican, pro-Confederate flag wing of their party today.
Eventually, they’ll probably succeed. By 2020, it’s hard to imagine a Republican nominee who doesn’t back gay marriage, comprehensive immigration reform, and an end to government displays of the Confederate flag.
So what happens to the millions of Americans who have suddenly found their views deemed beyond the pale by America’s political, economic, and cultural elites? If history is any guide, they’ll go underground. In the late 1940s and 1950s, the Old Left that had sympathized with the USSR crumbled. But a clandestine-radical tradition remained. And when the New Left erupted during Vietnam, it included many “red-diaper” babies—children from families that, quietly, had always opposed the Cold War. Something similar happened after the invasion of Iraq, when a new generation of progressive “netroots” activists began looking admiringly at the McGovernites who had turned the Democratic Party against the Vietnam War.”
-
As David Brooks wrote in Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, the key to transforming the South and politically and culturally marginalizing the millions of conservative White Southerners who live there is to appeal to the cartel of New South economic elites who control the Republican Party to “render certain right-wing views unacceptable” like supporting the Confederate Battle Flag, opposing “comprehensive immigration reform,” opposing gay marriage, etc. This is why you have this parade of Republican lapdogs attacking The Donald for drawing attention to politically incorrect topics like violent crimes against Americans committed by illegal aliens. In the brave new world of the 21st century, White Americans will be expected to doff their hats and bend the knee before these “Bobos in Paradise.”
In The New York Times, disgraced former NY Times editor Howell Raines penned the longest Op-Ed spelling out the details of the planned Southern genocide:
“But the more intriguing story is that Mr. Bentley is among the Southern Republican officeholders who, despite the smart occasional concession, do not fully understand that their dominance will not be a feature of the region’s two-party future. They still act as if tomorrow will be exactly like today, their tenure assured by unbendable evangelical Christians and testy white suburbanites.
But, as in the time of Henry W. Grady, the post-Reconstruction journalist who popularized the term “the New South,” inexorable forces will in a few decades reshape Southern society, this time in a more progressive direction. Witness the flood of gay weddings in Mobile and the mounting alarm of evangelicals across the region, the latter being the driving force behind the former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s retro presidential campaign. …
Even more dramatic changes in voter attitudes will shift the region’s party balance, to the detriment of the Republicans. This won’t come about because current Republican voters and their elected officials now in office will somehow be converted, but because they will be overwhelmed by new voters in the burgeoning Hispanic and Asian communities, who will join the black minority. Over half of the nation’s 40 million blacks live in the South.
For the time being, however, a traveler through the South can’t help but notice that its affluent, suburban whites remain myopic about the obvious signs, like the multiracial families to be seen among Walmart shoppers on any given day in any shopping mall. …
A survey of demographic and polling data in what the Brookings Institution demographer William H. Frey calls a New Sunbelt, stretching across the Southern Rim from Miami to Los Angeles, makes an ironclad case for this huge recalibration in political and cultural attitudes. Yet, for example, in the Florida Panhandle the same whites who cheer the new Hispanic stars at high school soccer matches deliver a bloc vote for the most conservative-sounding candidates at local, state and national levels. Anecdotal evidence indicates that affluent Southern Republicans continue to believe that minority voters can be attracted with punitive polices based on the Paul Ryan model.
The statistical evidence shouts otherwise. “Demography is destiny” is the theme of Mr. Frey’s new book, “Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics Are Remaking America,” and another recent book, “The Next America: Boomers, Millennials and the Looming Generational Showdown,” by Paul Taylor and his colleagues at the Pew Research Center. …
“Demographic transformations are dramas in slow motion,” Mr. Taylor writes, an implicit warning to Republicans who believe that all they need to do is reinforce the beliefs and prejudices of the suburban South …
It will take awhile for Southern and national Republicans to understand that, as Mr. Frey put it, “Demographics is destiny.” The longer they take to get it, the greater the odds that multiethnic Democrats will finally break the Republican lock on the solidly red South.”
-
I can’t find anything that I disagree with in Howell Raines’ analysis.
The American Left’s plan here is to wipe out the ethnic and cultural core of the White South with a tidal wave of Northern transplants and Third World immigrants, target symbols of Southern distinctiveness in the public landscape to wipe out Southern memory, politically neuter the conservative White South by appealing to New South economic elites to marginalize their voice within the Republican Party, and ultimately replace the Southern population as a whole at the demographic level in order to make the region more receptive to “progressive” Democratic candidates.
There’s a word for that … it is called “genocide.” These attacks on Southern monuments and historical symbols, which are tolerated and encouraged by the ruling elite, are just proxy attacks on a distinct ethnic group. It hasn’t descended to the level of Zimbabwe or South Africa yet, but we know what to expect is coming down the pike.
http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/ ... -genocide/
-
By Hunter Wallace
The American Left has a plan to deal with White Southerners, who have long been the biggest demographic thorn in the side of the progressive agenda, and the leftwing media has recently gone on record to articulate its plan to marginalize and destroy Dixie in order to seize absolute power in Washington.
In The Washington Post, Michael Lind writes in his July 4th article “How The South Skews America
“The United States would be much less exceptional in general, and in particular more like other English-speaking democracies such as Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were it not for the effects on U.S. politics and culture of the American South …
Minus the South, the rest of the U.S. probably would be more like Canada or Australia or Britain or New Zealand—more secular, more socially liberal, more moderate in the tone of its politics and somewhat more generous in social policy. …
The northern progressives who joke about the U.S. jettisoning “Jesusland” and merging with Canada will not get their wish. But there is hope: A combination of demographic change and generational change is weakening the ability of the old-fashioned South to skew American politics and culture in the future. Peripheral Southern states like Florida and Virginia are increasingly competitive, and the Deep South may join them in time. In Texas once-reactionary cities like Houston and Dallas are competing with Austin as tolerant meccas for transplants who prefer the Sun Belt to the Old South. Immigration into the South from other countries and American regions is breaking down local oligarchies and old folkways.
The decline in Southern exceptionalism in time may lead to more of a convergence among the U.S. and other modern democracies. Let us hope so. We have had enough of the wrong kind of American exceptionalism.”
-
The plan articulated by Michael Lind here is straightforward: flood the South with Northern transplants and foreign immigrants in order to weaken the social fabric, target symbols of Southern distinctiveness like the Confederate Battle Flag or Confederate monuments for eradication, and demographically change the composition of the Southern population to make the troublesome region more politically amenable to “progressive” Democratic candidates.
In The Atlantic, Peter Beinart writes in his article “How Views Like Trump’s Became Socially Taboo”:
“If cultural elites helped render certain left-wing views unacceptable in the 1940s, 1970s, and 1980s, economic elites are helping render certain right-wing views unacceptable today. David Brooks foresaw this phenomenon fifteen years ago when he wrote Bobos in Paradise, arguing that corporate America was embracing the liberal-cultural ethos of the 1960s. In 2003, Intel, Merck, and Boeing all filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action in college admissions. Earlier this year, Goldman Sachs, Google, and Coca-Cola urged the Court to legalize same-sex marriage. In South Carolina, the state’s chamber of commerce and manufacturer’s association lobbied Governor Nikki Haley to remove the Confederate flag. And since Trump’s comments about undocumented Mexican immigrants, he’s faced harsher retribution from many of the corporations he does business with than from the Republicans he’s running against. If Democratic Party leaders once needed liberal intellectuals to marginalize Wallace and McGovern’s views about communism, Republican leaders need corporate America to marginalize the anti-gay rights, anti-Mexican, pro-Confederate flag wing of their party today.
Eventually, they’ll probably succeed. By 2020, it’s hard to imagine a Republican nominee who doesn’t back gay marriage, comprehensive immigration reform, and an end to government displays of the Confederate flag.
So what happens to the millions of Americans who have suddenly found their views deemed beyond the pale by America’s political, economic, and cultural elites? If history is any guide, they’ll go underground. In the late 1940s and 1950s, the Old Left that had sympathized with the USSR crumbled. But a clandestine-radical tradition remained. And when the New Left erupted during Vietnam, it included many “red-diaper” babies—children from families that, quietly, had always opposed the Cold War. Something similar happened after the invasion of Iraq, when a new generation of progressive “netroots” activists began looking admiringly at the McGovernites who had turned the Democratic Party against the Vietnam War.”
-
As David Brooks wrote in Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, the key to transforming the South and politically and culturally marginalizing the millions of conservative White Southerners who live there is to appeal to the cartel of New South economic elites who control the Republican Party to “render certain right-wing views unacceptable” like supporting the Confederate Battle Flag, opposing “comprehensive immigration reform,” opposing gay marriage, etc. This is why you have this parade of Republican lapdogs attacking The Donald for drawing attention to politically incorrect topics like violent crimes against Americans committed by illegal aliens. In the brave new world of the 21st century, White Americans will be expected to doff their hats and bend the knee before these “Bobos in Paradise.”
In The New York Times, disgraced former NY Times editor Howell Raines penned the longest Op-Ed spelling out the details of the planned Southern genocide:
“But the more intriguing story is that Mr. Bentley is among the Southern Republican officeholders who, despite the smart occasional concession, do not fully understand that their dominance will not be a feature of the region’s two-party future. They still act as if tomorrow will be exactly like today, their tenure assured by unbendable evangelical Christians and testy white suburbanites.
But, as in the time of Henry W. Grady, the post-Reconstruction journalist who popularized the term “the New South,” inexorable forces will in a few decades reshape Southern society, this time in a more progressive direction. Witness the flood of gay weddings in Mobile and the mounting alarm of evangelicals across the region, the latter being the driving force behind the former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s retro presidential campaign. …
Even more dramatic changes in voter attitudes will shift the region’s party balance, to the detriment of the Republicans. This won’t come about because current Republican voters and their elected officials now in office will somehow be converted, but because they will be overwhelmed by new voters in the burgeoning Hispanic and Asian communities, who will join the black minority. Over half of the nation’s 40 million blacks live in the South.
For the time being, however, a traveler through the South can’t help but notice that its affluent, suburban whites remain myopic about the obvious signs, like the multiracial families to be seen among Walmart shoppers on any given day in any shopping mall. …
A survey of demographic and polling data in what the Brookings Institution demographer William H. Frey calls a New Sunbelt, stretching across the Southern Rim from Miami to Los Angeles, makes an ironclad case for this huge recalibration in political and cultural attitudes. Yet, for example, in the Florida Panhandle the same whites who cheer the new Hispanic stars at high school soccer matches deliver a bloc vote for the most conservative-sounding candidates at local, state and national levels. Anecdotal evidence indicates that affluent Southern Republicans continue to believe that minority voters can be attracted with punitive polices based on the Paul Ryan model.
The statistical evidence shouts otherwise. “Demography is destiny” is the theme of Mr. Frey’s new book, “Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics Are Remaking America,” and another recent book, “The Next America: Boomers, Millennials and the Looming Generational Showdown,” by Paul Taylor and his colleagues at the Pew Research Center. …
“Demographic transformations are dramas in slow motion,” Mr. Taylor writes, an implicit warning to Republicans who believe that all they need to do is reinforce the beliefs and prejudices of the suburban South …
It will take awhile for Southern and national Republicans to understand that, as Mr. Frey put it, “Demographics is destiny.” The longer they take to get it, the greater the odds that multiethnic Democrats will finally break the Republican lock on the solidly red South.”
-
I can’t find anything that I disagree with in Howell Raines’ analysis.
The American Left’s plan here is to wipe out the ethnic and cultural core of the White South with a tidal wave of Northern transplants and Third World immigrants, target symbols of Southern distinctiveness in the public landscape to wipe out Southern memory, politically neuter the conservative White South by appealing to New South economic elites to marginalize their voice within the Republican Party, and ultimately replace the Southern population as a whole at the demographic level in order to make the region more receptive to “progressive” Democratic candidates.
There’s a word for that … it is called “genocide.” These attacks on Southern monuments and historical symbols, which are tolerated and encouraged by the ruling elite, are just proxy attacks on a distinct ethnic group. It hasn’t descended to the level of Zimbabwe or South Africa yet, but we know what to expect is coming down the pike.
http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/ ... -genocide/
-
Benjamin Bice
Re: White Americans are Being Targeted for Extermination
White Genocide is discussed eloquently by Mr. Jared Taylor
Below is the talk Jared Taylor delivered at the National Policy Institute conference, hosted at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, February 27, 2015, followed by an audio recording.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The theme of this conference is “beyond conservatism,” and I’d like to start with a few things that are beyond both conservatism and liberalism, that is to say, some things people agree on whatever their politics. What I am thinking of is related to conservatism since it has the same root. It is the idea of conserving or conservation.
There are some things that essentially all people–no matter what their politics–are conservative about. The planet, to begin with. There are probably some misanthropes who would like to blow it up, but most folks, across the political spectrum, want to conserve it.
Most people also want to keep the planet livable so we can conserve the people who live on it. Mark Twain used to say, “Sometimes I’d like to hang the whole human race, and finish the farce,” but most of the time, people don’t feel that harshly about our species.
And we want to conserve animals. We’d be sorry to see giraffes or baboons die out.
Take the case of the Cuban crocodile. He’s a relative of the American crocodile and said to be a noble beast. But the Cubans are interbreeding with the Americans and could be genetically swamped. As one scientist explains, “the two crocodile species interbreeding may pose a major threat to Cuban crocodiles. In a worst-case scenario, one crocodile lineage can cause the extinction of another.” Scientists are fretting about how to prevent this tragedy.
The United States government worries about conserving species you’ve never heard of–the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle, the spruce-fir moss spider. If you buy land, and one of these guys turns up on it, you might not be able to develop it.
And most people want to conserve the different places where people live, and the different ways that people live in those places. We’re happy for Uruguay or China to remain distinctive countries. We all want different languages and cultures to flourish. In that respect we’re all conservative.
We are sad when the last speaker of an obscure language dies out or when a distinctive way of life comes to an end. That’s why Brazil now has an official policy of leaving untouched tribes alone if that’s at all possible. People living in the stone age should have the choice of staying there if that’s what they want.
Conserving these things literally does go “beyond political conservatism.”
However, there are things you are not allowed to want to conserve. Hardly anyone will oppose you if you say that the primitive tribes of New Guinea have the right to maintain their customs and their way of life, undisturbed by outsiders. But you better not say the same thing about the French or the Swedes.
If you say that the French have the right to keep their country Catholic and European, you’re not a conservationist. You’re a hatemonger. You’re not beyond conservatism, you’re beyond the pale.
According to current thinking, the French absolutely do not have the right to live undisturbed by outsiders. On the contrary, people from all over the world should be encouraged to move there.
This is astonishing, really. I can’t think of a single thing that New Guineans have contributed to the world. And yet their way of life will endure. That of the Europeans, who have immensely enriched the world, may not.
Not even conservatives argue that France is a distinctive biological and cultural entity that should be conserved. That’s not the way we are supposed to think about white countries. Korea? Yes. Ghana? Pakistan? Paraguay? Fine. Those places, like all other non-white nations, have the right to maintain their identities and ways of life.
And what about conserving white people biologically? They are a small minority of the world population–7 or 8 percent–and some of them are breeding with other groups, just like the Cuban crocodile. But anyone who says maybe we should think about the long-term prospects of white people–kind of like the way we do with the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle–is no longer a conservationist. He’s a white supremacist.
And so there is not one politician in America–even among the ones who claim to be deeply conservative–who says he wants to conserve the founding stock of this country, who wants to conserve a majority-white United States.
The funny thing about all this is that it’s the Lefties who act as if they had the corner on conservation. They love government power, and they love to boss us around for our own good in the name of the conserving the environment. Why aren’t they all in a flutter about the prospects for white people exactly the way they are in a flutter about the ozone layer? I can see them browbeating us: “Now, you white people have to live over here, and you have to marry among yourselves.” “Remember: it’s for the children.” That’s just the busy-body sort of thing they love. Where’s Hillary when we need her?
For most of the history of this country, of course, the idea of the United States as an explicitly white country was taken for granted: It was beyond debate, neither liberal nor conservative. It’s well known that the very first immigration law, passed by the very first congress that was called after the ratification of the Constitution, restricted naturalization to “free white persons.”
Until 1965, we had an immigration policy designed to keep the country European.
There is nothing about the idea of United States as a nation of Europeans that is inherently a Left-Right type of political question at all. It should be beyond politics, just like conserving the white rhino or keeping Japan Japanese.
The racial mix of the country is not logically implicated at all in the position you take on the size of the government, the welfare state, abortion, the role of women, homosexual marriage, income distribution, foreign policy, public prayer, how you interpret the Constitution, or any other political question.
You can believe in cradle-to-grave welfare or rugged individualism, but be in complete agreement on wanting to keep the country majority-white. Jack London, for example, was very active as a socialist, but was adamantly opposed to a multi-racial America.
So: Why would anyone want to conserve whites as a distinct people, and want them to remain a majority in the United States? First of all, these questions shouldn’t even have to be answered. If the Navajo were dwindling in numbers or losing their culture, no one would say they didn’t have the right to do something about it. No one would ever ask the Navajo: Why do you care about surviving as a people? Why do you need a homeland? Why not just fade away? If a white person asked those questions it would be the height of racism.
But for white people? It’s the very opposite. The very desire to survive as a distinct people is “racist.”
Remember the Cuban crocodile: “In a worst-case scenario, one crocodile lineage can cause the extinction of another.” Well, strictly as biological artifacts, white people are at least as valuable as Cuban crocodile, if only for aesthetic reasons. And there’s a lot more than that. Europeans created the modern world. Shouldn’t they have the same rights as the tribes of New Guinea: To be left undisturbed?
These are objective questions, but, of course, there is also my own subjective view of white survival as a white person. Survival is the first law, there is no more fundamental instinct than the desire to protect one’s own kind and to want it to flourish.
That’s obvious when we are talking about any group but whites.
The number of Hispanics is growing very quickly in this country, and Hispanics are ecstatic about this. It means their language, their culture, their physical type, their heritage, their aspirations are all gaining ground and could eventually dominate the United States. Hispanics want this very much, and they consistently try to change laws and policies to increase their numbers, and benefit their people. This is considered a sign of healthy collective pride.
But if whites tried to delay their dispossession, if whites proposed steps to maintain their majority status, that would be hate and bigotry. Why? The processes are perfectly symmetrical. The percentage of Hispanics increases as the percentage of whites decreases. Why is it right for Hispanics to celebrate their gains but wrong for whites to regret their losses?
Let us imagine the immigration shoe on the other foot: What if whites were pouring across the border illegally into Mexico, demanding amnesty, demanding school instruction in English, demanding ballot papers in English, setting up newspapers, TV and radio stations to English rather than Spanish, complaining that they weren’t equally represented in government and all national institutions? What if so many of them were coming they were likely to outnumber the Mexicans?
The very people–white and Hispanic–who encourage the change in America’s population would rail against this as neo-colonialism and cultural imperialism. And yet when Hispanics come here with that intent and that effect–and when Muslims show up in Europe with the same intent and effect–any resistance is denounced as bigotry. Why? This question deserves an answer.
I make no secret of my view on this. My ancestors have been white for tens of thousands of years. My children are white and I want my grandchildren to be white. I like the culture of Europe, I prefer the society that whites create. What’s wrong with that?
Well, guess what? Even though they don’t admit it, almost all whites feel the same way I do.
Look at what they do, not what they say. Where do they live? Who are their friends? Who do they invite over for dinner? If you ask a white person to name a single non-white neighborhood he’d like to live in, or a single non-white school he’d want to send his children to, you get a blank.
Whites know in their bones that a non-white America is not the country they want for themselves or for their children. That is why, when the part of America in which they live becomes an outpost of Africa or Mexico, they move away–to some place where whites are still the majority. And most white people still want their children to marry other whites.
They wouldn’t dare say these things openly. They don’t even admit these things to themselves. But look at how they behave–and Lefties are no different from anyone else. As Joseph Sobran used to put it, “in their mating and migratory habits, you can’t tell a liberal from a Klansman.”
As the hippies used to say, white people just need to get in touch with their feelings.
Whites used to be entirely honest about their feelings, and there is no doubt that people who call themselves conservative were honest for longer than lefties were.
In the 1960s, William F. Buckley’s National Review supported apartheid in South Africa, and said that an immigration policy designed to keep the country white “requires no justification.” Preserving a white America was a goal so obviously legitimate that it didn’t have to be justified. It was “beyond conservatism” and “beyond liberalism.”
National Review doesn’t take that position now. It would banish anyone who did to the outer darkness of VDARE.com. And that’s just one of the countless positions that conservatism has simply abandoned.
Take Martin Luther King. In the 1960s National Review called him a “rabble-rousing demagogue.” It said that the expression “civil rights movement” was ludicrous and should instead be called “the Negro revolt.”
Now, 50 years later, conservatives quote King as if he were a moral authority. Whenever they want to argue against racial preferences for non-whites they quote King’s line about judging people on the content of their character. And yet, by the time King died he was open and explicit about wanting race preferences and quota hiring for blacks.
So, why do conservatives quote the words of a plagiarist, adulterer, communist sympathizer, whom contemporary conservatives called a “rabble rouser”?
It’s because they have completely swallowed the leftist view that whites have no racial legitimacy. Conservatives can’t just say plainly that affirmative action discriminates against whites. They have to borrow the moral authority of a black person to say that. And that’s why they quote the “content of their character” line, which King didn’t even believe.
It’s hard to think of a more contemptible mental capitulation.
Fifty years ago, National Review said that the desire to keep America white “requires no justification.” Well, whites never did come up with a justification. That’s a big part of the problem. They never articulated moral reasons to justify their own survival. For hundreds of years–thousands of years–whites, like everybody else, never had to. They just took survival for granted as a legitimate goal.
But now, it means whites have no stock of tested ideas and arguments that they can draw on to justify survival. They have a deep foreboding about what is happening, but they don’t have words to express that foreboding. Without words, without convincing moral foundations, whites cannot act.
And that is what makes whites different from everyone else and what makes them uniquely vulnerable. Non-white immigrants don’t have to justify their conquest of the United States. They don’t have to explain why they want their numbers to grow at our expense. They know instinctively that it’s good for them, and that is all they need to know.
The same is true for Third-World immigrants to Europe. They don’t have to justify conquest. No, it is Europeans who would have to justify even the most basic steps necessary to assure their survival.
It should be no more necessary to explain why whites have the right to a future than to explain why it is better to live than to die. But that is the dilemma we face. Slowly, slowly, both in America and in Europe, we are waking up to this dilemma.
~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Jared Taylor!
-
http://whitegenocideproject.com/white-g ... -lesson-2/
Below is the talk Jared Taylor delivered at the National Policy Institute conference, hosted at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, February 27, 2015, followed by an audio recording.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The theme of this conference is “beyond conservatism,” and I’d like to start with a few things that are beyond both conservatism and liberalism, that is to say, some things people agree on whatever their politics. What I am thinking of is related to conservatism since it has the same root. It is the idea of conserving or conservation.
There are some things that essentially all people–no matter what their politics–are conservative about. The planet, to begin with. There are probably some misanthropes who would like to blow it up, but most folks, across the political spectrum, want to conserve it.
Most people also want to keep the planet livable so we can conserve the people who live on it. Mark Twain used to say, “Sometimes I’d like to hang the whole human race, and finish the farce,” but most of the time, people don’t feel that harshly about our species.
And we want to conserve animals. We’d be sorry to see giraffes or baboons die out.
Take the case of the Cuban crocodile. He’s a relative of the American crocodile and said to be a noble beast. But the Cubans are interbreeding with the Americans and could be genetically swamped. As one scientist explains, “the two crocodile species interbreeding may pose a major threat to Cuban crocodiles. In a worst-case scenario, one crocodile lineage can cause the extinction of another.” Scientists are fretting about how to prevent this tragedy.
The United States government worries about conserving species you’ve never heard of–the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle, the spruce-fir moss spider. If you buy land, and one of these guys turns up on it, you might not be able to develop it.
And most people want to conserve the different places where people live, and the different ways that people live in those places. We’re happy for Uruguay or China to remain distinctive countries. We all want different languages and cultures to flourish. In that respect we’re all conservative.
We are sad when the last speaker of an obscure language dies out or when a distinctive way of life comes to an end. That’s why Brazil now has an official policy of leaving untouched tribes alone if that’s at all possible. People living in the stone age should have the choice of staying there if that’s what they want.
Conserving these things literally does go “beyond political conservatism.”
However, there are things you are not allowed to want to conserve. Hardly anyone will oppose you if you say that the primitive tribes of New Guinea have the right to maintain their customs and their way of life, undisturbed by outsiders. But you better not say the same thing about the French or the Swedes.
If you say that the French have the right to keep their country Catholic and European, you’re not a conservationist. You’re a hatemonger. You’re not beyond conservatism, you’re beyond the pale.
According to current thinking, the French absolutely do not have the right to live undisturbed by outsiders. On the contrary, people from all over the world should be encouraged to move there.
This is astonishing, really. I can’t think of a single thing that New Guineans have contributed to the world. And yet their way of life will endure. That of the Europeans, who have immensely enriched the world, may not.
Not even conservatives argue that France is a distinctive biological and cultural entity that should be conserved. That’s not the way we are supposed to think about white countries. Korea? Yes. Ghana? Pakistan? Paraguay? Fine. Those places, like all other non-white nations, have the right to maintain their identities and ways of life.
And what about conserving white people biologically? They are a small minority of the world population–7 or 8 percent–and some of them are breeding with other groups, just like the Cuban crocodile. But anyone who says maybe we should think about the long-term prospects of white people–kind of like the way we do with the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle–is no longer a conservationist. He’s a white supremacist.
And so there is not one politician in America–even among the ones who claim to be deeply conservative–who says he wants to conserve the founding stock of this country, who wants to conserve a majority-white United States.
The funny thing about all this is that it’s the Lefties who act as if they had the corner on conservation. They love government power, and they love to boss us around for our own good in the name of the conserving the environment. Why aren’t they all in a flutter about the prospects for white people exactly the way they are in a flutter about the ozone layer? I can see them browbeating us: “Now, you white people have to live over here, and you have to marry among yourselves.” “Remember: it’s for the children.” That’s just the busy-body sort of thing they love. Where’s Hillary when we need her?
For most of the history of this country, of course, the idea of the United States as an explicitly white country was taken for granted: It was beyond debate, neither liberal nor conservative. It’s well known that the very first immigration law, passed by the very first congress that was called after the ratification of the Constitution, restricted naturalization to “free white persons.”
Until 1965, we had an immigration policy designed to keep the country European.
There is nothing about the idea of United States as a nation of Europeans that is inherently a Left-Right type of political question at all. It should be beyond politics, just like conserving the white rhino or keeping Japan Japanese.
The racial mix of the country is not logically implicated at all in the position you take on the size of the government, the welfare state, abortion, the role of women, homosexual marriage, income distribution, foreign policy, public prayer, how you interpret the Constitution, or any other political question.
You can believe in cradle-to-grave welfare or rugged individualism, but be in complete agreement on wanting to keep the country majority-white. Jack London, for example, was very active as a socialist, but was adamantly opposed to a multi-racial America.
So: Why would anyone want to conserve whites as a distinct people, and want them to remain a majority in the United States? First of all, these questions shouldn’t even have to be answered. If the Navajo were dwindling in numbers or losing their culture, no one would say they didn’t have the right to do something about it. No one would ever ask the Navajo: Why do you care about surviving as a people? Why do you need a homeland? Why not just fade away? If a white person asked those questions it would be the height of racism.
But for white people? It’s the very opposite. The very desire to survive as a distinct people is “racist.”
Remember the Cuban crocodile: “In a worst-case scenario, one crocodile lineage can cause the extinction of another.” Well, strictly as biological artifacts, white people are at least as valuable as Cuban crocodile, if only for aesthetic reasons. And there’s a lot more than that. Europeans created the modern world. Shouldn’t they have the same rights as the tribes of New Guinea: To be left undisturbed?
These are objective questions, but, of course, there is also my own subjective view of white survival as a white person. Survival is the first law, there is no more fundamental instinct than the desire to protect one’s own kind and to want it to flourish.
That’s obvious when we are talking about any group but whites.
The number of Hispanics is growing very quickly in this country, and Hispanics are ecstatic about this. It means their language, their culture, their physical type, their heritage, their aspirations are all gaining ground and could eventually dominate the United States. Hispanics want this very much, and they consistently try to change laws and policies to increase their numbers, and benefit their people. This is considered a sign of healthy collective pride.
But if whites tried to delay their dispossession, if whites proposed steps to maintain their majority status, that would be hate and bigotry. Why? The processes are perfectly symmetrical. The percentage of Hispanics increases as the percentage of whites decreases. Why is it right for Hispanics to celebrate their gains but wrong for whites to regret their losses?
Let us imagine the immigration shoe on the other foot: What if whites were pouring across the border illegally into Mexico, demanding amnesty, demanding school instruction in English, demanding ballot papers in English, setting up newspapers, TV and radio stations to English rather than Spanish, complaining that they weren’t equally represented in government and all national institutions? What if so many of them were coming they were likely to outnumber the Mexicans?
The very people–white and Hispanic–who encourage the change in America’s population would rail against this as neo-colonialism and cultural imperialism. And yet when Hispanics come here with that intent and that effect–and when Muslims show up in Europe with the same intent and effect–any resistance is denounced as bigotry. Why? This question deserves an answer.
I make no secret of my view on this. My ancestors have been white for tens of thousands of years. My children are white and I want my grandchildren to be white. I like the culture of Europe, I prefer the society that whites create. What’s wrong with that?
Well, guess what? Even though they don’t admit it, almost all whites feel the same way I do.
Look at what they do, not what they say. Where do they live? Who are their friends? Who do they invite over for dinner? If you ask a white person to name a single non-white neighborhood he’d like to live in, or a single non-white school he’d want to send his children to, you get a blank.
Whites know in their bones that a non-white America is not the country they want for themselves or for their children. That is why, when the part of America in which they live becomes an outpost of Africa or Mexico, they move away–to some place where whites are still the majority. And most white people still want their children to marry other whites.
They wouldn’t dare say these things openly. They don’t even admit these things to themselves. But look at how they behave–and Lefties are no different from anyone else. As Joseph Sobran used to put it, “in their mating and migratory habits, you can’t tell a liberal from a Klansman.”
As the hippies used to say, white people just need to get in touch with their feelings.
Whites used to be entirely honest about their feelings, and there is no doubt that people who call themselves conservative were honest for longer than lefties were.
In the 1960s, William F. Buckley’s National Review supported apartheid in South Africa, and said that an immigration policy designed to keep the country white “requires no justification.” Preserving a white America was a goal so obviously legitimate that it didn’t have to be justified. It was “beyond conservatism” and “beyond liberalism.”
National Review doesn’t take that position now. It would banish anyone who did to the outer darkness of VDARE.com. And that’s just one of the countless positions that conservatism has simply abandoned.
Take Martin Luther King. In the 1960s National Review called him a “rabble-rousing demagogue.” It said that the expression “civil rights movement” was ludicrous and should instead be called “the Negro revolt.”
Now, 50 years later, conservatives quote King as if he were a moral authority. Whenever they want to argue against racial preferences for non-whites they quote King’s line about judging people on the content of their character. And yet, by the time King died he was open and explicit about wanting race preferences and quota hiring for blacks.
So, why do conservatives quote the words of a plagiarist, adulterer, communist sympathizer, whom contemporary conservatives called a “rabble rouser”?
It’s because they have completely swallowed the leftist view that whites have no racial legitimacy. Conservatives can’t just say plainly that affirmative action discriminates against whites. They have to borrow the moral authority of a black person to say that. And that’s why they quote the “content of their character” line, which King didn’t even believe.
It’s hard to think of a more contemptible mental capitulation.
Fifty years ago, National Review said that the desire to keep America white “requires no justification.” Well, whites never did come up with a justification. That’s a big part of the problem. They never articulated moral reasons to justify their own survival. For hundreds of years–thousands of years–whites, like everybody else, never had to. They just took survival for granted as a legitimate goal.
But now, it means whites have no stock of tested ideas and arguments that they can draw on to justify survival. They have a deep foreboding about what is happening, but they don’t have words to express that foreboding. Without words, without convincing moral foundations, whites cannot act.
And that is what makes whites different from everyone else and what makes them uniquely vulnerable. Non-white immigrants don’t have to justify their conquest of the United States. They don’t have to explain why they want their numbers to grow at our expense. They know instinctively that it’s good for them, and that is all they need to know.
The same is true for Third-World immigrants to Europe. They don’t have to justify conquest. No, it is Europeans who would have to justify even the most basic steps necessary to assure their survival.
It should be no more necessary to explain why whites have the right to a future than to explain why it is better to live than to die. But that is the dilemma we face. Slowly, slowly, both in America and in Europe, we are waking up to this dilemma.
~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Jared Taylor!
-
http://whitegenocideproject.com/white-g ... -lesson-2/
-
Benjamin Bice
Re: White Americans are Being Targeted for Extermination
German government opens borders to all Syrians
by Steve Goode • August 26, 2015 •
The German government has flung open Germany’s borders to any and all Syrians, regardless of whether they claim to be asylum seekers.
A statement from the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees said that “Germany will become the member state responsible for processing their claims.”
This new diktat means Syrians will no longer have their asylum cases reviewed to see if they are genuine refugees; they will be let in regardless.
Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President, François Hollande, have spoken in Berlin, and are speaking about again trying to force all EU countries to take in a quota of illegal immigrants.
Merkel’s spokesman said that “Germany is a compassionate country and will not allow refugees to be met here by hateful slogans or alcohol-fueled loudmouths,” and said they should be treated with “dignity and respect.”
Germany predicts that it will be flooded with over 800,000 illegal immigrants this year
There are real Syrian refugees, and the crucial point here is that they all went to neighboring countries – Jordan, mostly. There are another kind of Syrian “refugees” who travel through many safe countries on their way to Germany, Sweden, or Britain. They are simply economic illegal immigrants, like all the others, because they pass through many safe countries.
EU leaders know this, but they still call them “refugees” because it makes the European majority less against them flooding into Europe.
Most – if not all – EU leaders are anti-White, and they want to make Europe more “diverse”, or in other words, less White.
These people are supposed to have intimate knowledge of the law, but they seem blissfully unaware that their agenda is legally – White genocide.
by Steve Goode • August 26, 2015 •
The German government has flung open Germany’s borders to any and all Syrians, regardless of whether they claim to be asylum seekers.
A statement from the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees said that “Germany will become the member state responsible for processing their claims.”
This new diktat means Syrians will no longer have their asylum cases reviewed to see if they are genuine refugees; they will be let in regardless.
Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President, François Hollande, have spoken in Berlin, and are speaking about again trying to force all EU countries to take in a quota of illegal immigrants.
Merkel’s spokesman said that “Germany is a compassionate country and will not allow refugees to be met here by hateful slogans or alcohol-fueled loudmouths,” and said they should be treated with “dignity and respect.”
Germany predicts that it will be flooded with over 800,000 illegal immigrants this year
There are real Syrian refugees, and the crucial point here is that they all went to neighboring countries – Jordan, mostly. There are another kind of Syrian “refugees” who travel through many safe countries on their way to Germany, Sweden, or Britain. They are simply economic illegal immigrants, like all the others, because they pass through many safe countries.
EU leaders know this, but they still call them “refugees” because it makes the European majority less against them flooding into Europe.
Most – if not all – EU leaders are anti-White, and they want to make Europe more “diverse”, or in other words, less White.
These people are supposed to have intimate knowledge of the law, but they seem blissfully unaware that their agenda is legally – White genocide.
-
Benjamin Bice
Re: White Americans are Being Targeted for Extermination
U.N. to dump flood of Muslim refugees on U.S.
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/09/u-n-to-du ... xb0UZY1.99
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/09/u-n-to-du ... xb0UZY1.99
-
Benjamin Bice
Re: White Americans are Being Targeted for Extermination
Over 1.2 Million Nonwhite Invaders Have Entered Europe in 8 Months
Over 1.2 million nonwhite invaders from all over the Third World have entered Europe in the first eight months of 2015, analysis of official European Union (EU) data has revealed.
This figure is calculated by totalling up statistics released by the official EU data agency, Eurostat. These figures also show that during the second quarter of 2015, only 20 percent of the invaders claimed to be “Syrian”—making a lie of the claims that this invasion is the result of “war refugees.” Furthermore, with thousands of fake papers in circulation, even this figure is questionable.
On September 18, Eurostat issued its “Asylum in the EU” report for the second quarter of 2015, compiled from figures supplied by Member State nations.
The report, headlined “Over 210,000 first time asylum seekers in the EU in the second quarter of 2015,” went on to boldly state in its opening paragraph that a “third are from Syria or Afghanistan” before revealing that the actual total number of “asylum seekers” for the period of April to June 2015 was 213,200.
Furthermore, they do not include the numbers for January to March 2015. According to Eurostat, there were 185,000 “first time asylum seekers in the EU” during the first three months of 2015.
This means that for the entire period of January to June 2015, some 398,200 “asylum seekers” were registered in the EU. Given the notorious underreporting endemic in all such reports, it is safe to assume that the real figure is in excess of 400,000.
These figures do not, of course, include the massive influx of July, August, and September, when hundreds of thousands more “asylum seekers” invaded Europe. Nonetheless, they serve as a good indicator of the nature of the invasion.
According to the latest Eurostat figures, of the 213,200 “first time asylum seekers,” Syrians made up 44,000 of the total number—or 20 percent.
As reported earlier, there are tens of thousands of fake Syrian passports and papers in circulation and on open sale in Turkey, and it can therefore safely be concluded that even this 20 percent figure is inflated.
The more recent invasion is likely to have contained an increased number of “Syrians”—or at least those claiming to be such—but even if this figure is doubled, it is still clear that the vast majority of nonwhite invaders are lying when they say they are fleeing “war.”
The latest Eurostat reported concluded by revealing that, in addition to the 213,000 “new” arrivals, there were some 592,000 applications for asylum still pending within the EU Member States.
When the 400,000 figure is added to the “currently processing” figures, the official total number of invaders in Europe as of the end of June 2015 was just under one million.
As pointed out, this figure does not include numbers for July, August, and September.
Some 104,460 invaders arrived in Germany in August alone, and this stream shows no signs of decreasing. In total, estimates claim that some 413,535 nonwhites have entered Europe in the first eight months of 2015—with hundreds of thousands more still to come.
All these figures added together show clearly the vast scale of the nonwhite invasion—well in excess of 1.2 million already, with an indeterminable number still on the way.
Furthermore, according to the EU-funded European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), there are already 1.5 million “recognized” refugees living in Europe, so this figure should also be added to any other totals.
This mass movement of nonwhites into Europe is unprecedented, and unless halted and reversed, will see the extinction of white native Western Europeans within a few decades as the faster breeding nonwhites simply squeeze them out of living space.
http://newobserveronline.com/over-1-2-m ... -8-months/
Over 1.2 million nonwhite invaders from all over the Third World have entered Europe in the first eight months of 2015, analysis of official European Union (EU) data has revealed.
This figure is calculated by totalling up statistics released by the official EU data agency, Eurostat. These figures also show that during the second quarter of 2015, only 20 percent of the invaders claimed to be “Syrian”—making a lie of the claims that this invasion is the result of “war refugees.” Furthermore, with thousands of fake papers in circulation, even this figure is questionable.
On September 18, Eurostat issued its “Asylum in the EU” report for the second quarter of 2015, compiled from figures supplied by Member State nations.
The report, headlined “Over 210,000 first time asylum seekers in the EU in the second quarter of 2015,” went on to boldly state in its opening paragraph that a “third are from Syria or Afghanistan” before revealing that the actual total number of “asylum seekers” for the period of April to June 2015 was 213,200.
Furthermore, they do not include the numbers for January to March 2015. According to Eurostat, there were 185,000 “first time asylum seekers in the EU” during the first three months of 2015.
This means that for the entire period of January to June 2015, some 398,200 “asylum seekers” were registered in the EU. Given the notorious underreporting endemic in all such reports, it is safe to assume that the real figure is in excess of 400,000.
These figures do not, of course, include the massive influx of July, August, and September, when hundreds of thousands more “asylum seekers” invaded Europe. Nonetheless, they serve as a good indicator of the nature of the invasion.
According to the latest Eurostat figures, of the 213,200 “first time asylum seekers,” Syrians made up 44,000 of the total number—or 20 percent.
As reported earlier, there are tens of thousands of fake Syrian passports and papers in circulation and on open sale in Turkey, and it can therefore safely be concluded that even this 20 percent figure is inflated.
The more recent invasion is likely to have contained an increased number of “Syrians”—or at least those claiming to be such—but even if this figure is doubled, it is still clear that the vast majority of nonwhite invaders are lying when they say they are fleeing “war.”
The latest Eurostat reported concluded by revealing that, in addition to the 213,000 “new” arrivals, there were some 592,000 applications for asylum still pending within the EU Member States.
When the 400,000 figure is added to the “currently processing” figures, the official total number of invaders in Europe as of the end of June 2015 was just under one million.
As pointed out, this figure does not include numbers for July, August, and September.
Some 104,460 invaders arrived in Germany in August alone, and this stream shows no signs of decreasing. In total, estimates claim that some 413,535 nonwhites have entered Europe in the first eight months of 2015—with hundreds of thousands more still to come.
All these figures added together show clearly the vast scale of the nonwhite invasion—well in excess of 1.2 million already, with an indeterminable number still on the way.
Furthermore, according to the EU-funded European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), there are already 1.5 million “recognized” refugees living in Europe, so this figure should also be added to any other totals.
This mass movement of nonwhites into Europe is unprecedented, and unless halted and reversed, will see the extinction of white native Western Europeans within a few decades as the faster breeding nonwhites simply squeeze them out of living space.
http://newobserveronline.com/over-1-2-m ... -8-months/
-
Benjamin Bice
Re: White Americans are Being Targeted for Extermination
90% of US Naturalizations from 3rd World
In a further confirmation of the danger that legal immigration poses to America, new figures from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have revealed that 90 percent of all US citizenship naturalizations in 2013 were made by people originating from the Third World.
The statistics, provided in spreadsheet format at the DHS website (“Profiles on Naturalized Citizens”) show that in 2013, there were 779,929 successful naturalizations as US citizens—of which only 80,333 were from people born in Europe.
According to the DHS, there were 248 naturalizations made by people from Austria, 1,797 from Belarus, 513 from Belgium, 3,662 from Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2,646 from Bulgaria, 112 from Cyprus, 794 from the Czech Republic and the former Czechoslovakia, 127 from Denmark, 213 from Estonia, 300 from Finland, 2,534 from France, 4,066 from Germany, 938 from Greece, 984 from Hungary, 75 from Iceland, 1,295 from Ireland, 2,355 from Italy, 364 from Latvia, 16 from Luxembourg, 786 from Netherlands, 80 from Norway, 8,697 from Poland, 1,585 from Portugal, 4.050 from Romania, 8,222 from Russia, 117 from Serbia, 1,830 from Serbia and Montenegro, 413 from Slovakia, 58 from Slovenia, 1,367 from Spain, 2,807 from the former Soviet Union, 783 from Sweden, 452 from Switzerland, 8,624 from the Ukraine, and 9,459 from the United Kingdom.
All the rest were from nonwhite countries, with people originating in Asia making up a third—the single largest group. By country, the biggest groups after Mexico are India, Philippines, Dominican Republic, and China. There were also 3,466 naturalizations made by Jews born in Israel.
Naturalized citizens are foreign nationals who have become citizens of the United States after fulfilling requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act. To become a naturalized American, an immigrant generally must have been a permanent resident of the US for at least five years (three years if the spouse is American) and pass a citizenship exam.
The map below shows the number of naturalizations broken down by state. Asians are the biggest group in 24 states, while in the remaining 26 states plus the District of Columbia, 10 other nationalities make up the biggest number of “new” US citizens.
In nine states, Indians made up the biggest group of naturalized citizens. Those from the Dominican Republic, who nationwide topped those from China for the first time in a decade, are the biggest group in five states, the DHS data show.
Dominicans have now for the second year running, made up the biggest group of naturalizations each year, narrowly exceeding the number of Indians.
The origin countries of naturalization demonstrate clearly that even without illegal immigration—which has not slowed down at all—legal immigration will also lead to the inexorable flooding out of America by nonwhites and the consequent destruction of that First World created nation state.
Those conservatives who claim therefore to be in favor of “legal” immigration, as opposed to “illegal” immigration fail to comprehend that the only difference between the two processes—as they are currently configured—is a question of time.
Illegal immigration and legal immigration under the current laws will both result in the destruction of First World America—one will just do it more quickly than the other.
http://newobserveronline.com/90-of-us-n ... 3rd-world/
In a further confirmation of the danger that legal immigration poses to America, new figures from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have revealed that 90 percent of all US citizenship naturalizations in 2013 were made by people originating from the Third World.
The statistics, provided in spreadsheet format at the DHS website (“Profiles on Naturalized Citizens”) show that in 2013, there were 779,929 successful naturalizations as US citizens—of which only 80,333 were from people born in Europe.
According to the DHS, there were 248 naturalizations made by people from Austria, 1,797 from Belarus, 513 from Belgium, 3,662 from Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2,646 from Bulgaria, 112 from Cyprus, 794 from the Czech Republic and the former Czechoslovakia, 127 from Denmark, 213 from Estonia, 300 from Finland, 2,534 from France, 4,066 from Germany, 938 from Greece, 984 from Hungary, 75 from Iceland, 1,295 from Ireland, 2,355 from Italy, 364 from Latvia, 16 from Luxembourg, 786 from Netherlands, 80 from Norway, 8,697 from Poland, 1,585 from Portugal, 4.050 from Romania, 8,222 from Russia, 117 from Serbia, 1,830 from Serbia and Montenegro, 413 from Slovakia, 58 from Slovenia, 1,367 from Spain, 2,807 from the former Soviet Union, 783 from Sweden, 452 from Switzerland, 8,624 from the Ukraine, and 9,459 from the United Kingdom.
All the rest were from nonwhite countries, with people originating in Asia making up a third—the single largest group. By country, the biggest groups after Mexico are India, Philippines, Dominican Republic, and China. There were also 3,466 naturalizations made by Jews born in Israel.
Naturalized citizens are foreign nationals who have become citizens of the United States after fulfilling requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act. To become a naturalized American, an immigrant generally must have been a permanent resident of the US for at least five years (three years if the spouse is American) and pass a citizenship exam.
The map below shows the number of naturalizations broken down by state. Asians are the biggest group in 24 states, while in the remaining 26 states plus the District of Columbia, 10 other nationalities make up the biggest number of “new” US citizens.
In nine states, Indians made up the biggest group of naturalized citizens. Those from the Dominican Republic, who nationwide topped those from China for the first time in a decade, are the biggest group in five states, the DHS data show.
Dominicans have now for the second year running, made up the biggest group of naturalizations each year, narrowly exceeding the number of Indians.
The origin countries of naturalization demonstrate clearly that even without illegal immigration—which has not slowed down at all—legal immigration will also lead to the inexorable flooding out of America by nonwhites and the consequent destruction of that First World created nation state.
Those conservatives who claim therefore to be in favor of “legal” immigration, as opposed to “illegal” immigration fail to comprehend that the only difference between the two processes—as they are currently configured—is a question of time.
Illegal immigration and legal immigration under the current laws will both result in the destruction of First World America—one will just do it more quickly than the other.
http://newobserveronline.com/90-of-us-n ... 3rd-world/
-
Benjamin Bice
Re: White Americans are Being Targeted for Extermination
Obama Speeds Up “Syrian Refugee” Invasion
NOVEMBER 15, 2015 BY TNO STAFF— IN NORTH AMERICA
The Obama regime has announced a “speeding up” of its program to import as many “Syrian refugees” as possible, despite the recent terrorist attack by nonwhite invaders in Paris having definitively proven the security threat involved.
According to a Reuters report, the US government is “increasing and accelerating” the number of Syrian refugees who will be granted quick access to America, by opening new screening outposts in Iraq and Lebanon.
Obama promised in September that he would sign an executive order authorizing entry for an additional 10,000 “refugees” to enter the US.
According to a US State Department spokesman, a “refugee settlement” processing center will be built in Erbil, Iraq. In addition, the Reuters report said, the State Department will “resume refugee processing in Lebanon” in early 2016.
In 2014, the processing center in Lebanon was closed because it was deemed too dangerous for department officials to be stationed there.
The decision to reopen the Lebanon processing office is puzzling, because only last month the Lebanese government announced that it would no longer accept Syrian refugees “except in special cases.”
The Reuters report went on to quote anonymous White House spokesman as saying they were seeking ways to increase the numbers beyond the 10,000.
“We want to be in a place where we can push out really ambitious goals,” said one of the officials.
The State Department already runs nine “refugee” screening centers worldwide to facilitate the flow into the US. The additional centers will bring to four the number devoted exclusively to importing Middle Easterners into the US.
“Refugees” are resettled in America via something called the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
USRAP is a consortium of federal agencies and nine private organizations working together to identify and admit qualified refugees for resettlement into the United States.
The USRAP’s nine privately run official affiliates are:
– The World Church Service (comprised of the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Reformed Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
-The Episcopal Migration Ministries, the pro-immigration arm of the Episcopal Church, the United States-based member church of the worldwide Anglican Communion (or Church of England);
– The Ethiopian Community Development Council, based in Alexandria, Virginia.
– The International Rescue Committee, a global aid, nongovernmental organization founded in 1933 at the request of Albert Einstein;
– The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the pro-immigration arm of the Lutheran Churches of America;
– The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops;
– The US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a Virginia-based organization that is supported by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and which specializes in bringing in “refugees” from Central and South America.
– World Relief, a Baltimore, Maryland organization which is an arm of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). The NAE counts as its member churches the following: The Baptist General Conference; the Churches of Christ in Christian Union; the Anglican Mission in the Americas; the Assemblies of God USA; the Brethren in Christ Church; the Christ Community Church; the Christian Reformed Church in North America; the Christian Union; the Church of God (Cleveland); the Church of the Nazarene; the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference; the Conservative Lutheran Association; Converge Worldwide; the Elim Fellowship; the Evangelical Assembly of Presbyterian Churches; the Evangelical Congregational Church; the Evangelical Free Church of America; the Evangelical Friends Church International; the Evangelical Presbyterian Church; the Every Nation Churches; the Fellowship of Evangelical Churches; the Free Methodist Church of North America; the General Association of General Baptists; the Grace Communion International; the Great Commission Churches; the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel; the International Pentecostal Church of Christ; the International Pentecostal Holiness Church; the Mennonite Brethren Churches; the Missionary Church, Inc.; the Open Bible Church; the Presbyterian Church in America; the Primitive Methodist Church USA; the Brethren Church; the Christian and Missionary Alliance; the Evangelical Church; the Salvation Army, National Headquarters; the Vineyard, USA; the Wesleyan Church; the Transformation Ministries; the United Brethren in Christ; and the Evangelical Protestant Church GCEPC.
– The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, one of the oldest Jewish advocacy organizations in the US, set up originally to aid Jewish immigration into America, but now devoted to bringing Third World immigrants into America—but not, of course, to Israel, which does not allow refugees from anywhere to enter its territory.
http://newobserveronline.com/obama-regi ... -invasion/
NOVEMBER 15, 2015 BY TNO STAFF— IN NORTH AMERICA
The Obama regime has announced a “speeding up” of its program to import as many “Syrian refugees” as possible, despite the recent terrorist attack by nonwhite invaders in Paris having definitively proven the security threat involved.
According to a Reuters report, the US government is “increasing and accelerating” the number of Syrian refugees who will be granted quick access to America, by opening new screening outposts in Iraq and Lebanon.
Obama promised in September that he would sign an executive order authorizing entry for an additional 10,000 “refugees” to enter the US.
According to a US State Department spokesman, a “refugee settlement” processing center will be built in Erbil, Iraq. In addition, the Reuters report said, the State Department will “resume refugee processing in Lebanon” in early 2016.
In 2014, the processing center in Lebanon was closed because it was deemed too dangerous for department officials to be stationed there.
The decision to reopen the Lebanon processing office is puzzling, because only last month the Lebanese government announced that it would no longer accept Syrian refugees “except in special cases.”
The Reuters report went on to quote anonymous White House spokesman as saying they were seeking ways to increase the numbers beyond the 10,000.
“We want to be in a place where we can push out really ambitious goals,” said one of the officials.
The State Department already runs nine “refugee” screening centers worldwide to facilitate the flow into the US. The additional centers will bring to four the number devoted exclusively to importing Middle Easterners into the US.
“Refugees” are resettled in America via something called the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
USRAP is a consortium of federal agencies and nine private organizations working together to identify and admit qualified refugees for resettlement into the United States.
The USRAP’s nine privately run official affiliates are:
– The World Church Service (comprised of the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Reformed Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
-The Episcopal Migration Ministries, the pro-immigration arm of the Episcopal Church, the United States-based member church of the worldwide Anglican Communion (or Church of England);
– The Ethiopian Community Development Council, based in Alexandria, Virginia.
– The International Rescue Committee, a global aid, nongovernmental organization founded in 1933 at the request of Albert Einstein;
– The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the pro-immigration arm of the Lutheran Churches of America;
– The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops;
– The US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a Virginia-based organization that is supported by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and which specializes in bringing in “refugees” from Central and South America.
– World Relief, a Baltimore, Maryland organization which is an arm of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). The NAE counts as its member churches the following: The Baptist General Conference; the Churches of Christ in Christian Union; the Anglican Mission in the Americas; the Assemblies of God USA; the Brethren in Christ Church; the Christ Community Church; the Christian Reformed Church in North America; the Christian Union; the Church of God (Cleveland); the Church of the Nazarene; the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference; the Conservative Lutheran Association; Converge Worldwide; the Elim Fellowship; the Evangelical Assembly of Presbyterian Churches; the Evangelical Congregational Church; the Evangelical Free Church of America; the Evangelical Friends Church International; the Evangelical Presbyterian Church; the Every Nation Churches; the Fellowship of Evangelical Churches; the Free Methodist Church of North America; the General Association of General Baptists; the Grace Communion International; the Great Commission Churches; the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel; the International Pentecostal Church of Christ; the International Pentecostal Holiness Church; the Mennonite Brethren Churches; the Missionary Church, Inc.; the Open Bible Church; the Presbyterian Church in America; the Primitive Methodist Church USA; the Brethren Church; the Christian and Missionary Alliance; the Evangelical Church; the Salvation Army, National Headquarters; the Vineyard, USA; the Wesleyan Church; the Transformation Ministries; the United Brethren in Christ; and the Evangelical Protestant Church GCEPC.
– The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, one of the oldest Jewish advocacy organizations in the US, set up originally to aid Jewish immigration into America, but now devoted to bringing Third World immigrants into America—but not, of course, to Israel, which does not allow refugees from anywhere to enter its territory.
http://newobserveronline.com/obama-regi ... -invasion/