A less absurd notion of the left's is that certain animals should not be allowed to become extinct. In fact, I don't think it at all absurd to object to anything becoming extinct, providing we don't have to go to absurd lengths to avoid it. If the civil rights of humans have to be invalidated to save an animal, I say let the animals go extinct. I may not like it, but man comes first. Some of you will disagree with me here. I'd be disappointed if you didn't.
This truism then is the one that I will reference to ask a question. If it is a terribly tragic thing for timber wolves, snail darters and bald eagles to become extinct, shouldn't it be a little cause for concern if a certain variety of humans is headed in that same direction? Hey New York times, how about a "save the Race" run or a telethon or a concert to save the endangered Caucasian? What? No concern over this topic? Garsh, what a surprise.
The fact that the Caucasian race has slipped from 1/3rd to 1/6th of humanity since 1950, is of no concern for the same outlets that endlessly obsess on lesser life forms. Superiority in relationship to other races isn't the issue. If this trend continues the Caucasian race will become 1/12th of humanity by 2035, 1/24of humanity by 2060 and 1/50th of humanity by 2080. Is this, or is it not a reasonable topic to discuss? Evidently the Times feels that it isn't. And therefore I submit that a major truism of the left is breached by the Times'. Extinction is okay if it's the proper entity that is headed in that direction. And for all the carping about Pat Buchanan's opinions and not so overt racism, I've never heard him expound on the merits of any race becoming extinct.
A litany of demons is raised in this article. Stalin, McCarthy, Klansmen, Pinochet, Castro and inferences to Hitler (but no outright mention to tarnish the intellectualism of this sterling zinger) are lofted in this article. Evidently the more names such as these you can place in an article about Buchanan, the better. But who do they have more in common with? Does Buchanan advocate the demise of any group? Well, no. It is only the Times that seems to be "just fine" with the prospects of a race in decline. Now, is that more Buchanan like, or is it closer to the list of people provided by this writer?
Buchanan is belittled because he laments the decline of western values. And the Times dismisses this as if it were merely a demon's ploy. But wait just a minute. We have schools, businesses, media outlets and other refusing to fly the flag of the United States. Why? Well because it might be insensitive. It might offend someone. If that isn't at least a hint of what's to come, I don't know what you could call it. We have states approving text books that do not mention our nation's founding fathers. But no, the Times thinks this isn't an example of our culture being stripped away.
Well I think they are wrong. I think our culture is being stripped away in a blatant manner. And I don't think it's possible for anyone to claim otherwise. Our heritage in this nation was to be able to own a weapon to protect ourselves, from criminals and our own government. That's what those dead white guys who founded our nation said. Who thinks their words are revered these days. Raise your hand if you're an idiot.
Okay, let's review class. The populace of Caucasians on the planet is constant while the populace of third world nations is exploding. Why is that? Well, the truth is, that although the living standards are very low, most of the poor people on the planet are able to subsist. They proliferate in alarming numbers. They are able to grow enough food, or obtain enough food that they drive up population numbers. Even the unfortunate ones that die, do not stop the rising tide of third world inhabitants.
In the United States however, our society has undergone a devastation transition since WWII. For all the talk about living standards, people in the United States must now work longer hours to provide homes for their families. Where one wage earner could earn enough to provide for his family, we now see two wage earners having to work full time, and losing ground all the while. The major factors that impact this situation are globalism and the massive influx of cheap labor into our nation. These two factors have placed downward pressure on incomes.
Now, what happens when both adults in a household work? Well guess what, they don't have the money or the time to care for more children. And thus the population rate in white moderately successful nations around the world has declined.
A careful study of the policies of the United Nations in conjunction with leading western powers would likely show the reason why the white populace is in rapid decline. But that study might open a few eyes. Evidently the New York Times agrees. For if eyes were opened, it would become appearent that the policies we have adopted are having a devistating effect on our very existance as a race.
If anyone would like to dump on me for thinking that Buchanan is right to address this issue, be my guest. Just don't ask me to be concerned the next time the bald eagle or lassie is put on the endangered species list. You may think I'm warped and this opinion is absurd, but I think my race has as much right to exist as they do.
Stick in your ear New York Times!
1. The European population has not declined since WWII, in fact, it has only increased, just not as fast as other groups, who now find themselves overburdened with high-birth rate that makes economic growth doubly difficult.
2. Europeans are not facing the plight of extinction, far from it. Any group with hundreds of millions of specimen is not “endangered”.
3. Ask any anthropologist, Caucasian (actually it should be Cacusoid as Caucasian specifically refers to the inhabitants of Caucasus Mountains) race spans from western Europe to central Asia, from Northern Europe to Northern Africa. Obviously, you define “Caucasian race” quite differently from the real race experts, hence the under-estimated population size.
If your definition of that term is anything other than Homo sapiens, you've just violated JimRob's rules. Buh-bye....
I think this has more to do with instant gratification and thoughtless, irresponsible decisions than exported jobs and imported workers (although those certainly have their detrimental effects.) Many middle-class families now choose to have two cars, 3 TVs (all on satellite or cable), 3 telephones, 2 VCRs, a computer, fax, dishwasher, microwave, two bathrooms, a burglar alarm, riding mower, $150 shoes and Tommy Hilfiger gear for each of the kids, etc, etc -- none of which our parents had -- instead of having a full-time parent at home.
This is not to overlook the difficulties of those below the economic middle class who have been most hurt by the reorganization of the economy. A family of four may not have any of those items I mentioned if their only income is from two minimum wage jobs.
I'd only add that Pat's demographic observations are perfectly consistent with economics: if you tax something more ( middle-class families with children ) you get less of it; if you subsidize something ( old people, out-of-wedlock births of the poor) you get more of it.