Comments on: Now the NYT Wants to Talk About Immigration

By: Tanstaafl

Tanstaafl — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:52:00 +0000

So sorry, here's another Pew poll I meant to link in this post: Almost half of Americans want to live somewhere else.

USAToday strongly favors genocidal immigration. That's probably why they don't mention it here. That might undermine the "diversity is our strength" propaganda. After starting with some weasly-worded happy horseshit discussing which cities are "most popular" they let slide a little glimpse of the truth:

City dwellers want out

"City residents disproportionately are more likely than people living in other types of communities to say they would prefer to live in a place other than a city," Morin says. "Fewer than half of all city residents say there is no better place to live than in a city."

A smaller proportion of women express the desire to live in the nation's largest cities. "Women are less drawn to big cities," says Robert Lang, co-director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech. "It could be safety."

Wanting to live outside cities doesn't necessarily mean people reject urban lifestyles, however. The appeal of developments with an urban flair — ones that combine housing, stores and offices in a neighborhood setting — is growing.

Nah, people aren't rejecting urban lifestyles. We're rejecting assault, battery, rape, and murder. We don't like gangs, graffiti, garbage, blaring music, or the ever-increasing feeling that our cities have been transported to the third world. Immigrants gravitate to the cities. We leave, or want to leave. This reflects a perfectly normal revulsion for the S&M dystopia that USAToday and the NYT and the rest of the genocidal immigrationists desire so badly and have been prodding and guilt-tripping us toward for decades.

By: Tanstaafl

Tanstaafl — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:27:00 +0000

I think this is the article Jim refers to: VDARE.com: Blog Articles » Are The New York Times And SPLC Coordinating Their Attacks?

Sailer linked it and expanded on it: Yet another NYT editorial denouncing "nativists!"

You omnivore! said...

It's long gone past the point of parody to witness jews married to jews, or blacks in all-black organizations, or what have you, call moderately, even slightly, ethnocentric folk descended from Europeans "racist". The crawling, pleading replies of "We're not," show that the decades-long social/media/cultural barrage has been utterly effective. It will not end until the term is embraced, then heads down the road of parity, becoming the equivalent of "omnivore" or "biped".

The opposite of "racist", when it comes to our species, is "extinct".

By: Jim Jones

Jim Jones — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:33:00 +0000

I don't know if you saw, but Vdare made the point that the SPLC and Jew York Slimes almost seemed to be coordinating their attack. The SPLC, Morris, Heidi, and Potok swung into gear and released a report on "hate" basically the same time as the NYT starting running the editorials.

This person at Vdare pointed out that the NYT had someone on their editorial board who is either a current SPLC lawyer or was one recently. A fella by the name of Cohen. Could be the link that explains the coordination.

By: Tanstaafl

Tanstaafl — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:26:00 +0000

It really makes no sense to argue economics with people who won't include the costs of legalizing the immigrants. In fact they've made sure many of those costs are already paid (to deliver their kids, educate them, hospitalize them, incarcerate them, etc) so as to make acquiescing to them seem more profitable than it actually is.

None of this matters to the genocidal immigrationists. I've long since realized that none of their reasons in favor of immigration make sense. They're not even offered in good faith. Now that it's clear to me the flood is intended to wash away my people it doesn't matter even if somebody could spell out how "profitable" it is.

By: Tanstaafl

Tanstaafl — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:02:00 +0000

"If Congress and President Obama legalized the current 10-12 million undocumented persons in the U.S. an economic stimulus of $30-36 billion in personal income, 750,000-900,000 new jobs, and $4.5 to $5.4 billion in net tax revenue would result"

How can they expect their economic estimates to be taken seriously when they can't even be honest about how many illegal aliens there are? By insisting on using a euphemism for illegal aliens they demonstrate a bias and cast even more doubt on their numbers.

In addition to helping the economy, as DMI has argued before, bringing undocumented workers out of the shadows will raise wages and labor standards for all workers.

They came out of the shadows in 2006. Don't you remember marching in the street with them? Legalization will open jobs to them they cannot currently get, which will inevitably displace natives and/or reduce their wages. It will also incentivize an influx of more aliens, which is what the genocidal immigrationists really want.