Tag Archives: la raza

Interesting Predictions

Steve Sailer wrote an article reflecting on what makes for interesting predictions. I was motivated to make a long comment which instead turned into this post.

I’d like to know why so many predictions of the Latino population in 2050 are in the news. We’re told these predictions can be made with confidence because of trends in birth rates. However, this is patently false.

Imagine the utter absurdity of predicting, in the 1950s, what US demographics would look like today. Back then the country was roughly 90% white and 10% black. The trend was toward something like 85% white and 15% black. Less than 2% of the military during WWII (300K out of 16M) was Mexican American. Up until 1980 Latino numbers were so small the census didn’t include a category for them.

Realizing the absurdity of predicting populations 50 years in the future, in spite of the trendy trends, makes me wonder why exactly anyone would be trumpeting such predictions now with the benefit of this hindsight. Especially in this case, where the focus on birth trends neglects the factor that invalidated extrapolations from the 1950s: immigration. Who knows what future immigration will bring? Besides that, official statistics massively undercount the mostly Latino illegal invaders. The predictions also disingenuously focus on majority status rather than when you-know-who will outnumber you-know-who. In a multicultural society like the one being forced down our throats that’s what really counts. In light of all these factors the prediction that should be in the news is for a Latino plurality in 2020!

So what’s behind the population prediction misinformation? Here’s what I think:

Let the Pilgrims know what’s happening, because after all we can hardly deny it, they have eyes. Convince them however that it is inevitable, but also so far off it won’t matter to them personally. In this way we can reconquer Aztlan (and perhaps more!) and do it in a single generation. Viva Raza!

To my fellow Americans I say: this isn’t inevitable. It doesn’t have to be. We don’t have to accept “a path to citizenship” for millions of invaders. They’re afraid we’ll wake up before they’ve pushed beyond the point of no return. Our backs are up against a wall. We can wake up and fight back – or we’ll watch ourselves and everything that was great about this country get washed away by Turd Worlders and replaced with one or more banana republics with rule alternating between narco-crime gangs, death squads, and mobs – just like the rest of Latin America.

Read here what our new overlords have in store for us. That’s also the source of the image above.

Postscript: Shortly after writing this I discovered Vanishing American made a recent post questioning the wisdom of mass immigration. Besides pointing out the outrageous cost of cheap labor she linked to an excellent article by Srdja Trifkovic titled Half a Billion “Americans”? I found the comments there grim but oddly reassuring. It seems there are more and more people who see what’s going on and are willing to speak against it.

PPS: Note the new Search fields to the right. The one labeled "Age of Treason" searches just this site. The one labeled "AoT Links" searches all the domains linked under Pundits and Right. I used it to find the Limits to Growth story from which I shamelessly stole the WWII links above. I remembered reading it but couldn’t find it again because generic Google often returns boatloads of disinformation, especially for jihad- and immigration-related searches. Problem solved.

Arguing with an Invasion Supporter

It started when I stumbled over to see what dee was saying. She and I have commented on each other’s blogs a bit lately. She describes her blog thusly:

Discuss Immigration Issues with a Mexican American. Truth, Honesty and the American Way!

and describes herself like so:

Hello. My name is Dee. I live in Texas. I am an American. My ethnicity is Hispanic. Many would call me Mexican or Mexican American. Some call me a female, PRO-Immigration Reform – Ann Coulter. My parents, their parents and theirs were all born in the USA. My husband and I have been happily married for over 20 years. My husband is a big, Irish-American. We have two grown sons. We are happy and my family is doing well. I have been employed as a mid level manager at a very large, well known corporation for over 20 years. In May, 2006, after the Immigration Marches, I started seeing the cable news channels talking very negatively about illegal immigration. I found many internet sites were talking negatively about legal and illegal immigration issues as well. Since I do research on the job, I started conducting Immigration research on the web. I joined several Immigration websites and I researched others. I´ve learned so much about Immigration issues over the last year. What you don´t see on the internet is the Mexican American perspective. I am here to share my views with you.

Dee writes in a polite and pleasant manner. To her credit she does not misinterpret my brusque style as rude.

I couldn’t resist commenting at length on an item titled Why the ANTIs are winning the Argument right now. (FYI dee calls herself and others who support the invasion “PRO”, and anyone who opposes the invasion “ANTI”, though she does not use the word invasion.)

The problem I have with dee is that I believe she, to put it very bluntly, is a fifth columnist. This is because she views virtually everything through the lens of her Mexican identity, unabashedly supports the invasion, and yet puts on airs that she’s a centrist seeking compromise. She loves to say she favors enforcement – of the Senate’s toothless “comprehensive reform” variety of course.

Her argument ranges from stories about her father, to immigration law from 1924, to flatly asserting that we simply cannot deport all the illegals. Right off the bat she tried to dismiss me by calling me an “extremist” full of “hate” toward “all Latinos”. Hopefully it’s clear why the ANTIs win these arguments. The PROs bring nothing of substance.

It’s a long thread, but quite revealing. She’s very slippery. I still can’t quite tell if she’s earnest with an ethnocentric bias, craving attention, or just blowing smoke deliberately in order to waste people’s time. Perhaps a bit of all. More than a few commenters certainly are wasting their time getting into the nitty gritty of “compromise” with her, and in my view that’s not a good thing. So it was worth my time to try and disillusion her readers (present and future) and deflate her little personal blogspot-Senate.

I want more Americans to see more quickly just how fruitless it is to compromise with the invaders and their apologists, to see how flimsy their promises are, and how anti-American their ultimate aims are. Immigration “moderates” (like Muslim “moderates”) try to exploit our good will and fair nature. They’re not interested in compromise. They’re interested in weakening our defense so their buddies can fuck us. My country has taken enough of that.

As bad as the invasion is, imagine how much closer to a balkanized third world shithole we’d be if the Senate’s duplicitous “compromise” had passed. We’d have no hope of deporting the violent scum overrunning our country. Unfortunately El Presidente and half the Senate continue to argue just like dee, and pine for exactly the kind of “compromise” she does. Too many loyal Americans are too ill-informed or too frightened about being called names to stand up in defense of their country.

Wake up America. Listen to the brown supremacists. We don’t need to negotiate our future with hostile aliens and their fifth columnists. We need to tell the bigots to shut up, and start sending them home.

Hate Speech Pinheads Really Hate Speech

Here’s a wonderful example of a petty little ethnocentric pro-invasion mind at work. Note that it’s fueled by hypocrisy and denial. Since such minds have no rational arguments their impulses tend toward muffling those who oppose them.

‘Anchor babies’ is hate speech

Today’s North County Times readers can’t find an article that uses the infamous N-word, the Q-word (queer) or words like “homo” for homosexual.

What they find is the use of the words “anchor babies” in letters or Opinion pieces.

“Anchor babies” are words used by extremists to define babies born of illegal alien parents in the United States.

Most of these children are born to Mexican parents illegally in the United States. Shamefully, the anti-illegal alien cohort also applies the term to any Mexican-American regardless of the legality of one or both parents, grandparents or great-grandparents.

Oh my. "Anchor babies" is hate speech? How about your word "extremists" Raoul, you hypocrite? How about the racist, fascist, bigot, xenophobe, and nativist slurs so effortlessly tossed around by your colleagues in the media Raoul? How about the guero, pilgrim, gabacho, and gringo labels your La Raza carnales prefer Raoul? Shame on you and your myopic ethnocentrism. Of course we hate invaders. And you hate us for hating "your people". Pot, meet kettle.

Anchor baby is a perfectly descriptive phrase. It describes exactly what these babies represent. It reflects how their own parents feel about them. Which is of course why Raoul would like to see the phrase banned. That truth is embarassing, thus he wants it obscured. Do us all a favor Raoul – take your censorship, your politically correct N-word games, and shove them up your A-word. Nice try at hooking your victimology wagon to niggers and homos though. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your baggage.

Oh, did I violate your politically correct censorship laws? It’s ok. Take a deep breath and pull the panties out of your crack. They’re called "words". We use them to "communicate". And this endeavor is only infantilized and impeded if we play pig-latin-like games with every word that somebody like you might be offended by. I will not play those games. People like you obviously want to nullify the First Amendment by outlawing anything you don’t want to hear as "hate speech". The constitution describes the legitimate process, but you’ll find it much easier to have your pro-invasion dictators in black robes divine an emanation of a penumbra that enables you to call for state-backed violence against me simply for offending you.

Until then I’ll say anchor baby all I want, thanks. But just for giggles let’s brainstorm a few alternatives, shall we?

jackpot baby – Hmmm. Good second choice. Positive rather than negative connotations. And who can deny the literal windfall the proud alien parents reap? It starts with free health care (including delivery) and extends to free education, WIC, and the occasional free trip to your real homeland! Such a deal!

undocumented American babyHarry Reid’s personal favorite. They’re just Americans who lost their documents. And we all know how hard-working they are. Harry might even someday call them hard-working undocumented American worker babies with great family values. Note the near perfect reality-inversion. The parents are not Americans, never had any documents, and exhibit a way below average ability to stay employed, in school, and out of jail – so let’s claim exactly the opposite! Brilliant! No other country in the world awards citizenship to a baby just because of where they get dropped. Ssssh! Don’t ever mention that.

illegitimate baby – While technically correct illegitimate already has another meaning. And it sure is useful to be able to distinguish an illegitimate anchor baby (like Elivra’s bastard – oops, have the PC-police banned that perfectly descriptive word?) from a legitimate anchor baby (like Bill "call me Lopez" Richardson).

natural-born United States citizen baby – Raoul’s preference. Of course. Because then we wouldn’t be able to distinguish babies born to parents who are here legally from those born to parents here illegally. At least not without bogging down every conversation about immigration. Mission accomplished, right Raoul? No person is illegal, right Raoul? Words have no meaning, right Raoul?

invader baby – My preference. The 14th Amendment (whose plain language pro-invaders like Raoul love to misread) was not intended and has never been interpreted to grant citizenship to the babies of foreign diplomats or invaders. If you "migrate" here without "documentation" then you are by definition an invader. Raoul denies this reality. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Actually, this is precisely what Raoul and his friends want us not to talk about.

So answering Raoul hasn’t been a complete waste of time. By trying to shut down debate he actually inspired one, and in answering his absurd logic I’ve arrived at a deeper truth. From this point on I for one shall use the term invader baby – which is even more descriptive and correct than anchor baby, and thus is sure to piss off Raoul and his pro-invasion friends even more.

Gracias Raoul! You wouldn’t by any chance be an invader baby would you? Write some more of your thoughts about immigration, please.