Whites will become a minority in the U.S. in 14 years

What’s sad is that most people who are concerned about this are unaware or unwilling to acknowledge who was primarily responsible, and the reason why.

 

you mean folks who are 98% Ashkenazi Jew?

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ft_16-06-23_censusmajorityminority_agegroups/

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012...mber-white-births/#demographics-of-motherhood


As of 2017, whites account for less than 50% of the children under the age of 10.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-...ration-z-plus-is-minority-white-census-shows/

 

so you mean minority as in us whites vs all other minorities combined.... but were still the race with the highest percent

we are still gonna be more then double the highest minority, even though I disagree with the logic of this data, sure white birth rates may be down now, but as economy improves they will go up - economy effects birth rates, uncertainty in the future reduces it

diversity is good, nothing to fear.... though the racist of each group may try

 

Half those white people are long past their reproductive years and won't be having any more babies.

In the state of California for example, the median age for whites is 45. That means half of them are older than that.

The overall population percentages do not show the whole picture.

Whites may make up 62% of the overall population, but they only make up 55% of the population under the age of 50, for example.

Obviously certain regions of the country are experiencing this much more than others.

 

Here's one statistic that demonstrates how much demographics can change over a single generation.
In California public schools, 62.8% of the teachers are white, compared to less than 24% of the students.
(2016-2017, source here)

(Yes, that's for the entire state. Only 7% of students in the state go to private schools.)

 

If such comes about, it is only a matter of time before white individuals can no longer be charged with committing hate crimes, and instead crimes perpetrated against them will be racially-motivated hate crimes by default.

 

This breakdown is from 2015 and shows that among Millennials (ages 18-34), whites make up 55.8% of that group and Hispanics make up about 21%.
It's about 25.5% Hispanic among those under 18.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/06/28/diversity-defines-the-millennial-generation/

This is for the entire country, and I'm sure the percentage points have already shifted a little since then, because the statistics are from 2015, and it's now already three years later.

In comparison, among the population age 55 and older, 75 percent are white.
That jives with this observation: Blue eyes increasingly rare in America

 

And if you knew anything about the history of the United States, you would know it has ALWAYS been that way.

For much of the late 1800s, German, Norwegian and Swedish were the primary languages in Wisconsin and Minnesota. You could travel for days without ever hearing English spoken. Milwaukee still has German-language newspapers.

The United States is a nation of immigrants. That is a strength, not a weakness, and always has been. The skin color or nation of origin of the immigrants is irrelevant.

 

So you believe.

There's no way to prove that, is there? Even if the U.S. turns into a Third World, you'd just blame it on something else.

 

I've got 240 years of history on my side. You?

 

Can you point to a non-English speaking non-Western European country that you would like to emulate?
Out of 195 countries in the world, more than 90% meet that criteria, so I'm sure you can manage to pick out one.

(There are a few successful East Asian countries like Japan and Taiwan but I don't think you would advocate the type of policies they have in place, and Singapore is practically just a city and majority populated by ethnic Chinese)

You are also welcome to select any English-speaking country that wasn't settled by people of majority Northwestern European descent, like Nigeria or India.

Do you believe it's a coincidence that Argentina is the most successful country in Latin America? (not exactly First World, but better than the others)

 

I'm a Westerner, so culturally and linguistically I'm more comfortable in Western nations. I'm not sure why you think that's relevant.

But to answer your question, I'd be comfortable living in large parts of South America, such as Uruguay or Argentina. Costa Rica would be fine, and Panama isn't bad these days.

Most of Eastern and Southern Europe is fine.

I'm not as familiar with African countries, but Botswana and Ghana are peaceful and prosperous. I'm sure there are several more I'd be fine in.

Heading into Asia, there is Jordan and Lebanon in the Mideast. Lebanon is a little chancy, thanks to the presence of Hezbollah. But it's supposed to be a lovely country otherwise.

The Gulf States have first-world infrastructure and are relatively liberal, though I suspect I would not like some of their social policies. But I'll point out that many of those policies applied in the United States until relatively recently.

Going further east, I'd be willing to live in China, Malaysia or Thailand. I discount Nepal because of its poverty, but otherwise nothing against the Nepalese.

Then there is Korea, Japan and Taiwan.

Indonesia I'm intrigued by, but don't know enough to say if I'd want to live there. And I'd be fine living on just about any Pacific island.

So, you were saying?

 

That would be an understatement. First of all, their economies are mostly fueled by oil. This is essentially money coming from Europe and America, as well as China and Japan. The countries in the Middle East that have high standards of living all have low populations relative to their oil revenue. Iran also has a large amount of oil revenue, but because their population is much larger it doesn't transfer into very high standards of living.
The economy of Malaysia is also fueled by oil. It's another muslim-majority country with a fairly low population.

Thailand, I'm not sure you actually are aware of how much poverty exists in Thailand. It also doesn't have the most political stability and recently had a military coup ousting the democratically elected officials to replace them with new ones.
Indonesia also has some chronic poverty problems, lots of migrants from Indonesia illegally trying to make the trip to Australia. And of course radical Islam does exist in that country, they've had a few terrorist attacks, and there has been some persecution against other religious groups.

Back to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, I'm not sure people living in English-speaking countries truly realize what the society is actually like there. There's been a lot of tourists form England and parts of Europe who have gone there and gotten in big trouble because they had just assumed (mistakenly) that things there were similar to Europe.
Domestic workers are often treated like slaves, and Female Circumcision is still going on behind closed doors in the country, despite many people thinking it doesn't exist there. They do occasionally behead people for witchcraft, and severe punishment can ensue if you dare to say Allah doesn't exist or insult Islam. Women who report to police that they were raped can be in danger of being arrested (This is not unusual in many parts of the Middle East).

On the subject of Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, you might read this, about how Malaysia arrested and extradited a young Saudi citizen who had fled the country back to Saudi Arabia to face blasphemy charges. He ended up being held in prison for two years. This video gives some more detail on exactly what he said that constituted blasphemy.

If you think the shiny modern city of Dubai in the UAE (Gulf State) is that different from Saudi Arabia, you'd be wrong.
Plenty of Australian businessmen have been arrested there based on flimsy evidence and held in terrible conditions, oftentimes pressured while held in prison to sign contracts to hand over an interest in property.

No, I'm sorry, the truth is you are ignorant about what actually goes on in these countries, and the quality of life isn't that good.

I could get into much more detail, but the truth is discussing all these countries one by one would be too complicated, and would take more effort from me than I'm willing to spend here.

The standard of living in Eastern Europe isn't as rosy as you might imagine.
As just one example, they have different standards of justice from the West.​

 

Um, okay. You apparently have a hard-on for the oil states, which is fine. But you’re ignoring the vast majority of my list.

The point is, there are plenty of places around the world that are pleasant to live in. Your original premise is a failure.

 

Example of the injustice in Eastern Europe creating problems for citizens in Western Europe:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-european-arrest-warrant-—-our-rights-abused.382761/

There's so much corruption in Italy they can't even trust their own Parliament members not to vote for someone else who isn't there. Big problems with organized crime and protection rackets in the South of the country, parts of the country with higher unemployment rates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capaci_bombing

Now of course Southern and Eastern Europe aren't anywhere as bad as many parts of the rest of the world, but again they're in Europe.

Ukraine is pretty bad in terms of poverty. There are children living in the sewers (and that was before the recent civil war).
Alcoholism is a chronic societal problem there for a reason.

If you're on vacation, or are an expat with money.

 

You want to bring up South Korea? Korea is a one of those Northeast Asian countries, along with China and Japan, so the living standards aren't that bad there. But things are very very competitive in South Korea. The rate of school students being driven to suicide by all the pressure is even higher than Japan. And there are not enough good jobs to go around for all the people with college degrees, which is not surprising because it's one of the most educated countries in the world. The standard of living couldn't be too high there, otherwise you wouldn't have all the Korean immigrants that have come to America over the last few decades (opening liquor stores in bad neighborhoods, for example).

Taiwan, as already mentioned, is basically ethnic Chinese. It achieved its prominence in the 80s with a lot of exports to the U.S. Basically before China opened up with the rest of the world. In terms of size it's not a very big country and most of its population is concentrated around a single city (although it is very densely populated).

Northwest Asian culture (Chinese-Japanese-Korean) in these countries is not liberal. They place a tremendous importance on the family, and responsibility. Their societies are rather strict, in numerous ways.

If Thailand isn't that bad, I'm sure you would have no problem sending out your 14-year old daughter to have sex with strangers because your household doesn't have enough money then...
A little south of the border, in Malaysia, she might be married off to some old guy (against her wishes).

Lebanon isn't too bad of a place, if they're not having a civil war.
Per capita GDP isn't really that high.
It does border on the Mediterranean, and geographically is closer to Europe than other parts of the Middle East. If you look at some Lebanese people they almost look half-European, a lot of children have blonde-brown hair.

Jordan is probably the only example of a stable successful (non-oil) country in the Arab Middle East. The royal family is half-European, resulting from a few marriages of the royal princes with British women (Lisa Halaby, aka Queen Noor al-Hussein, as one example).

Why aren't the immigrants heading there then?

In Europe, for example, why do migrants cross over seven or eight different countries to reach the U.K., Germany or Sweden?

 

That's a really broad generalization that sort of defies being answered.

First, on what do you base the claim that immigrants "aren't heading there", wherever there is?

Every country has different immigration rules. Korea, for instance, has very strict immigration rules.

It's also not particularly easy to get to. You have to cross a fair bit of open ocean to reach it.

Plus, proximity matters.

Two of the biggest current sources of immigrants are actually refugee flows: Central America (fleeing war and gang violence) and Syria (fleeing war).

Among Syrian refugees, most are internally displaced: they're still in Syria.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/29/where-displaced-syrians-have-resettled/

Of those who have left Syria, the vast majority have merely crossed the border, into Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan or Iraq.

Of the remainder, about 130,000 have gone to Egypt, 87,000 to Canada and the U.S., and about 690,000 to Europe.

This doesn't seem surprising to me. You go to the most hospitable countries that are closest to you. If you have the resources or connections, you might go farther. It wouldn't make sense for Syrian refugees to travel to, say, China.

Similarly, Central American refugees largely go to neighboring countries -- Belize, Mexico, Costa Rica and Panama. Some push on to reach the United States.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018...nce-higher-numbers-unhcr-180523051641542.html

So I think your view of refugee flows is skewed.

 

As you can see, this is very complicated thing to discuss, and we practically won't be able to come to an agreement.
My contention is that nearly all non-English non-Western European countries in the world have a lot of problems and a lower standard of living, and the only few that don't are all culturally Northeast Asian.

We're essentially talking about all the countries in the entire world and what quality of life is like in each one. It's just not possible to have such a detailed discussion, like we might with other political issues.

Costa Rica is one of the few countries in Latin America with a majority white population, and Panama is a relatively low population country and has the Panama canal, an important source of employment to their economy. They still have a lot of really bad poverty though.

 

Conservatives believe in individual liberty, and in allowing each individual the freedom to advance as far as that individual is capable and willing.

The only places to pursue and achieve that type of society are European (white), and that type of society has allowed those nations to advance further than all other nations following an ideology which does not prize individual liberty.

 

Does that mean the trains will not run on time?

 

It most likely means they'll be overcrowded. Do you know what trains are like in the Third World?

 

no, I drive..

 

Like Marie Antoinette, "Let them it cake"
You'll still have to deal with horrible traffic though.

The more I talk to the Left, the more a realize how ignorant they are.

You'd have to imagine the rest of the world as being "just peachy" to not be worried.

 

I live in da sticks so traffic is light.