Tag Archives: census

Double-Crossing, The Rubin Con

The systematic replacement of White people – the Great Replacement, or White Genocide – is vehemently denounced as a “conspiracy theory” by the same shitbags who otherwise cannot contain their glee in celebrating it. The same shitbags hiss and sneer that race is a social construct, but only applaud the deconstruction of one race – the White one. What does this mean? It means these shitbags are anti-White. They feel justified to attack Whites no matter the cause or rationale.

Recently, data from the anti-White regime’s latest census has been published, and what’s more important, the jewsmedia has started trying to jewsplain what it means. Census data shows widening diversity; number of White people falls for first time, published by The Washington Post earlier this month, summed up the main take-away well enough in its title.

More “diversity” means less White people.

There’s alot to say about polls and demographics. Let’s just focus here on this part of this report:

The opioid epidemic and lower-than-anticipated birthrates among millennials after the Great Recession accelerated the White population’s decline, said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution.

“Twenty years ago if you told people this was going to be the case, they wouldn’t have believed you,” he said of the White decline. “The country is changing dramatically.”

This grim news has been a long time coming, the predictable consequence of a quite conscious and deliberate policy to fill America with non-Whites.

Sure, many Whites refuse to believe there is a war on Whites even now, which is at least in part because they know they’ll be demonized and attacked for expressing any concern. What we can clearly see today that we couldn’t twenty years ago is the now constant stream of denouncements and edicts against “White supremacy” and “rising anti-semitism” coming from the most powerful perches of a thoroughly jewed academia and media and government.

How could any country supposedly ruled by Whites allow this to happen? The answer is simple. Whites don’t rule this anti-White/pro-jew regime, jews do.

The idea that nobody knew where all this anti-White jewing was headed is ridiculous. Kevin MacDonald published his indictment, Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review, in 1998. The who/whom of this particular demographic whodunit was already history twenty years ago. Stephen Steinlight’s screech-brag is not well known among Whites, but is perfectly typical of his tribe’s penchant to claim responsibility for making changes while also posing as the biggest victims of those changes.

The whole point of the century-long jew assault on American immigration policy was to physically undermine the White majority, to reduce and ultimately destroy it. And with the border opened, the tribe shifted their efforts to the finer-grained work of destroying neighborhoods, families, or anything else they deemed “authoritarian”. Cohencidentally, this was about the same time jews invented the term “conspiracy theorist”, which to this day they use to psychopathologize anyone they suspect might dislike their jewing.

It’s important to note that this jew attack was not confined to America. Whites were simultaneously attacked everywhere by the same hostile tribe using the same tactics, even where Whites were not the majority. The jew attack on White South Africans has been just as virulent as anywhere else.

Also, opioids are just one of the many psychological and chemical weapons manufactured and trafficked by a parasitic tribe with a long sordid history of poisoning their hosts for profit. The same tribe also invented the toxic slogan “diversity is our greatest strength”, selectively deploying it to benefit themselves while inflicting incalculable harm on Whites.

One especially loxist response to the non-news of the White race’s planned demise came from Jennifer Rubin:

a more diverse, more inclusive society. this is fabulous news. now we need to prevent minority White rule.

“Fabulous news”, croaks the shark-eyed goblin, too ebullient to capitalize any word but White. All she’s doing here is celebrating “diversity” and “inclusion”, just like everyone else in the thoroughly jewed regime. Yes, she’s one buzzterm short of the full “wokeness” mantra, but let’s face it, “equity” can be translated as “we need to prevent minority White rule”, which is more forthright about the target.

In case anyone is wondering, Rubin is a full-throated, full-time tribalist shitbag – a professional jewsmedia jew whose job is to spell out what the goyim can think. She is of course keenly aware that what she calls “fabulous” would be regarded by shitbags like herself as an attack if it were aimed at any group other than Whites.

Rubin went to work for the Washington Post in 2010 under the laughable pretense she was a “conservative”. Rubin’s previous employer was Commentary, founded by the American Jewish Committee with an explicit mission to promote jews-first jews-only nationalism and jewing more broadly. Reading the narrative on Rubin’s move, it’s apparent that her only “conservative” qualification was that she was attacking Obama. Curiously, she was specifically getting promoted for doing so, even as jewsmedia cabalists were colluding to denounce “conservatives” as “racists”.

Naturally, Rubin has never had to fear being black-balled. She spent eight years screeching that Obama was the most “anti-semitic” president ever. Then she spent the next four years screeching the same about Trump, standing out amidst a veritable swarm of lesser “anti-Trump” and “anti-anti-Trump” jews. These Clark Kentbergs all drone on about “American interests” and “American values” until something ticks off their inner superjew. Then out flies yet another column or book about “anti-semitism”, or yet another shameless denunciation of everybody else’s tribalism.

During Trump’s term Rubin became increasingly explicitly anti-White, sounding more and more like any “leftist” jewess. In September 2020 Rubin finally dropped the “conservative” mask and tried on a “classical liberal” mask instead:

The name is far less important than the outlook and the rejection of extremism, racism, authoritarianism, isolationism, xenophobia, cruelty, deceit and tribalism.

Like the Weinsteins, Rubin plays the same games jews have always played with words and identity.

A few days after her “fabulous news” twit, Rubin published an op-ed to expound on it. The census reminds us America isn’t static. The GOP needs to deal with it:

That [demographic] reality has, of course, freaked out a significant share of White Christians who do not see “their America” as predominate. It was never “theirs” to begin with, and the assumption that something is amiss if White Christians are not in charge is the essence of white supremacy and Christian nationalism. It is also fundamentally un-American; our country is defined, as President Biden rightly says, by an “idea.”

It is easy, then, to understand why a political party based increasingly on its appeal to White Christians has adopted so many anti-American traits.

. . .

The GOP is so dependent on the right-wing media generator of White angst and resentment, and so fearful they will lose their grip among Whites, that they have chosen instead to try to hold back the demographic and cultural tide washing over them.

Things change, goyim. Get over it.

“White Christians” is just this noxious jewess’ clumsy way of signalling that her disdain is for Whites, not jews. America’s founders were White nationalists, not Christian nationalists. They doomed themselves and their posterity by welcoming jews, and despite delusional jew screeching to the contrary, would not have excluded jews even if they had been Christian nationalists. Christianity is a jew-serving ideology.

It almost goes without saying that Rubin must be utterly confident in her own tribe’s predominance. How else could she so unselfconsciously assert her own jew-serving vision while psychopathologizing Whites for supposedly doing so. Rubin clearly loaths Whites, and takes for granted that everyone else should as well. Yet she can’t articulate why except to portray us as thinking and behaving like jews.

In America in 2021 both major political parties are anti-White and pro-jew, differing only in their emphasis. The main figures in both parties regularly decry “racism” (by which they mean White people simply being White) and “anti-semitism” (any criticism of jews or their jewing). They’re all as dismissive of Whites as they are subservient to jews. Like Rubin, their idea is that America exists to serve jews and their jews-first jews-only state.

It is no surprise that in this environment Rubin claims that one of these parties is actually trying to serve Whites. After all, she’s spent the last 12 years claiming that both parties are actually run by “anti-semites”. These claims are connected.

“The GOP is the White party” is an old narrative. During the Obama era it was a staple of jews who favored an increasingly anti-White political discourse. Even as “conservative” Rubin was attacking Obama in blatantly pro-jew terms, “liberal” jews and their “woke” pets were attacking Romney in blatantly anti-White terms. “Woke” Rubin in 2021 sounds like Harold Meyerson in 2008:

[T]he GOP’s last best hope remains identity politics. In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks’ party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly — un-Americanly — white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem. This year, however, whiteness is the only way Republicans cling to power.

Unlike Rubin, Meyerson didn’t pretend he was a “conservative” or that he was shitting on Christians.

Monitoring Genocidal Immigration and Anti-White Discrimination

2010 U.S. Census Sample Form:

8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

* No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
* Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
* Yes, Puerto Rican
* Yes, Cuban
* Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin — Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.

9. What is Person 1’s race? Mark one or more boxes.

* White
* Black, African Am., or Negro
* American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.
* Asian Indian
* Chinese
* Filipino
* Japanese
* Korean
* Vietnamese
* Native Hawaiian
* Guamanian or Chamorro
* Samoan
* Other Pacific Islander – Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on.
* Other Asian – Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.
* Some other race – Print race.

Explanations provided by census.gov:

Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

Asked since 1970. The data collected in this question are needed by federal agencies to monitor compliance with anti-discrimination provisions, such as under the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State and local governments may use the data to help plan and administer bilingual programs for people of Hispanic origin.

What is Person 1’s race?

Asked since 1790. Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.

Celebratory media reporting on the predicted demise of the White majority – Minority births on track to outnumber white births  | ajc.com:

Minorities make up nearly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which minorities are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 40 years.

In fact, demographers say this year could be the “tipping point” when the number of babies born to minorities outnumbers that of babies born to whites.

The numbers are growing because immigration to the U.S. has boosted the number of Hispanic women in their prime childbearing years. Minorities made up 48 percent of U.S. children born in 2008, the latest census estimates available, compared to 37 percent in 1990.

Right now, roughly 1 in 10 of the nation’s 3,142 counties already have minority populations greater than 50 percent. But 1 in 4 communities have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point, according to the study, which Johnson co-published.

That is because Hispanic women on average have three children, while other women on average have two. The numbers are 2.99 children for Hispanics, 1.87 for whites, 2.13 for blacks and 2.04 for Asians in the U.S. And the number of white women of prime childbearing age is on the decline, dropping 19 percent from 1990.

Multiracial no longer boxed in by the Census – USATODAY.com:

When Barack Obama was elected the nation’s first black president in 2008, some academics and political analysts suggested the watershed event could represent the dawning of a post-racial era in a land that has struggled over race relations for four centuries.

At the same time, growing ethnic and racial diversity fueled by record immigration and rates of interracial marriages have made the USA’s demographics far more complex. By 2050, there will be no racial or ethnic majority as the share of non-Hispanic whites slips below 50%, according to Census projections.

“It’s showing that tomorrow’s children and their children will in fact be multiracial, leading to a potential post-racial society,” says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Institution.

“The issue isn’t just multirace,” says Census historian Margo Anderson, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “It’s the blurring of the very traditional black vs. white. Categories that held until about 1980 are shifting in large numbers. … The clarity is breaking down.”

The image above comes from Rise in Minorities Is Led by Children, Census Finds – New York Times.

Disparate Impact provides the legal justification to “monitor compliance”, “assess fairness”, and “monitor racial disparities”, discriminating in favor of “protected classes”:

Under Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, plaintiffs may sue employers who discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, or national origin. Employers who intentionally discriminate are obvious candidates for a lawsuit, but the courts also allow plaintiffs to prove liability if the employer has treated classes of people differently using apparently neutral employment policies. The disparate impact theory of liability will succeed if the plaintiff can prove that these employment policies had the effect of excluding persons who are members of Title VII’s protected classes. Once disparate impact is established, the employer must justify the continued use of the procedure or procedures causing the adverse impact as a “business necessity.”

This legal theory has the effect of excluding Whites.

The Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide:

What is genocide?

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) defines genocide (article 2) as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group…” including:

1. (a) Killing members of the group;
2. (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

All such acts are violations of human rights, and may also be crimes against humanity or war crimes, depending on the context in which they were committed. The Convention confirms that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or war, is a crime under international law which parties to the Convention undertake “to prevent and to punish” (article 1). Because it is a part of international customary law the Convention is considered applicable in all countries, irrespective of whether they have signed or ratified it.

The Convention further states the following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d ) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Article 4 Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Mass immigration and anti-White legal theories of “protected classes” are genocidal. Whether the intent was initially anti-discrimination or not is irrelevant. The result, made plain by census monitoring, is the physical destruction of the native White population.