You stupid white males, this is no joke, I don’t care what the upload states, Blacks believe this crap, we are going to have to wipe them out, we cannot live together on the same planet.  They want us for slaves, they want to kill us, so we must take them out first.

Pay attention.

Pay attention.

Pay attention.

Pay attention.

Do some research, do nothing violent, but be ready damn you. Be ready our time is coming, whether you like it or not. You will stand and fight, or die like cowards!

Africa’s Bad Luck from

Africa’s Bad Luck

September 20, 2009 by guywhite

– “Rich countries are simply those which are lucky enough, for historical reasons, to have a great deal of this clustered [industrial] activity.”

Hard to believe anybody could write the sentence above and be serious. How is it that whites , wherever they end up on earth are “lucky” whereas Blacks always end up ” unlucky”? Hell of a coincidence Wouldn’t you say? Always good to start of a morning with a good laugh.
– Peter A. on ARlist

Peter is someone I invited to visit after reading his comments on ARlist and this is an example why.

The point is right on target. When some is perpetually poor or perpetually successful, it’s not just luck.

We can blame bad luck for North Korean poverty. When they chose Communism, it was not impossible that it would succeed. Originally North grew faster than South because the government can control temporary growth and temporarily prevent the normal capitalist economic downturns.

Koreans made a bet and lost. Same for Russians, Chinese and Vietnamese. But right now it is known how to succeed and capitalism is the way.

In some nations, it’s hard to overthrow the government and Noth Korea is one of them. But that is a temporary condition and will change sooner or later.

We know how North Koreans will do – just as well as South Koreans. East Europe and China are quickly catching up. Chinese in Raiwan and Hong Kong are certainly very successful.

But Africans are always poor. They tried Communism and Capitalism, free trade and protectionism, colonialism and independence, being a satelite of a major power and going their separate way, stable currency and inflationary policies of massive money printing. Nothing worked. Some policies worked better than other, but nothing put Africans even on par with even the poorest white states under Communsm.

Ghana’s capitalist reforms made the country among the wealthiest in Africa, but is still poorer than the West by a factor of 10.

One case at one point in history can be bad luck. Tiger Woods missing by a hair could be bad luck. Not being able to ever get a birdie is a sign that it’s not bad luck, it’s just poor ability.

Unlike the past generations, there is technology and knowledge needed to succeed. Africans don’t even have to invent anything, just copy what whites have done. It’s time to end the excuses. Either some African countries Have to succeed or logical conclusions must be drawn.

The Economy is a Lie, too

The Economy is a Lie, too

By Paul Craig Roberts

Americans cannot get any truth out of their government about anything, the economy included. Americans are being driven into the ground economically, with one million school children now homeless, while Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke announces that the recession is over.

The spin that masquerades as news is becoming more delusional. Consumer spending is 70% of the US economy. It is the driving force, and it has been shut down. Except for the super rich, there has been no growth in consumer incomes in the 21st century. Statistician John Williams of reports that real household income has never recovered its pre-2001 peak.

The US economy has been kept going by substituting growth in consumer debt for growth in consumer income. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan encouraged consumer debt with low interest rates. The low interest rates pushed up home prices, enabling Americans to refinance their homes and spend the equity. Credit cards were maxed out in expectations of rising real estate and equity values to pay the accumulated debt. The binge was halted when the real estate and equity bubbles burst.

As consumers no longer can expand their indebtedness and their incomes are not rising, there is no basis for a growing consumer economy. Indeed, statistics indicate that consumers are paying down debt in their efforts to survive financially. In an economy in which the consumer is the driving force, that is bad news.

The banks, now investment banks thanks to greed-driven deregulation that repealed the learned lessons of the past, were even more reckless than consumers and took speculative leverage to new heights. At the urging of Larry Summers and Goldman Sachs’ CEO Henry Paulson, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Bush administration went along with removing restrictions on debt leverage.

When the bubble burst, the extraordinary leverage threatened the financial system with collapse. The US Treasury and the Federal Reserve stepped forward with no one knows how many trillions of dollars to “save the financial system,” which, of course, meant to save the greed-driven financial institutions that had caused the economic crisis that dispossessed ordinary Americans of half of their life savings.

The consumer has been chastened, but not the banks. Refreshed with the TARP $700 billion and the Federal Reserve’s expanded balance sheet, banks are again behaving like hedge funds. Leveraged speculation is producing another bubble with the current stock market rally, which is not a sign of economic recovery but is the final savaging of Americans’ wealth by a few investment banks and their Washington friends. Goldman Sachs, rolling in profits, announced six figure bonuses to employees.

The rest of America is suffering terribly.

The unemployment rate, as reported, is a fiction and has been since the Clinton administration. The unemployment rate does not include jobless Americans who have been unemployed for more than a year and have given up on finding work. The reported 10% unemployment rate is understated by the millions of Americans who are suffering long-term unemployment and are no longer counted as unemployed. As each month passes, unemployed Americans drop off the unemployment role due to nothing except the passing of time.

The inflation rate, especially “core inflation,” is another fiction. “Core inflation” does not include food and energy, two of Americans’ biggest budget items. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) assumes, ever since the Boskin Commission during the Clinton administration, that if prices of items go up consumers substitute cheaper items. This is certainly the case, but this way of measuring inflation means that the CPI is no longer comparable to past years, because the basket of goods in the index is variable.

The Boskin Commission’s CPI, by lowering the measured rate of inflation, raises the real GDP growth rate. The result of the statistical manipulation is an understated inflation rate, thus eroding the real value of Social Security income, and an overstated growth rate. Statistical manipulation cloaks a declining standard of living.

In bygone days of American prosperity, American incomes rose with productivity. It was the real growth in American incomes that propelled the US economy.

In today’s America, the only incomes that rise are in the financial sector that risks the country’s future on excessive leverage and in the corporate world that substitutes foreign for American labor. Under the compensation rules and emphasis on shareholder earnings that hold sway in the US today, corporate executives maximize earnings and their compensation by minimizing the employment of Americans.

Try to find some acknowledgement of this in the “mainstream media,” or among economists, who suck up to the offshoring corporations for grants.

The worst part of the decline is yet to come. Bank failures and home foreclosures are yet to peak. The commercial real estate bust is yet to hit. The dollar crisis is building.

When it hits, interest rates will rise dramatically as the US struggles to finance its massive budget and trade deficits while the rest of the world tries to escape a depreciating dollar.

Since the spring of this year, the value of the US dollar has collapsed against every currency except those pegged to it. The Swiss franc has risen 14% against the dollar. Every hard currency from the Canadian dollar to the Euro and UK pound has risen at least 13 % against the US dollar since April 2009. The Japanese yen is not far behind, and the Brazilian real has risen 25% against the almighty US dollar. Even the Russian ruble has risen 13% against the US dollar.

What sort of recovery is it when the safest investment is to bet against the US dollar?

The American household of my day, in which the husband worked and the wife provided household services and raised the children, scarcely exists today. Most, if not all, members of a household have to work in order to pay the bills. However, the jobs are disappearing, even the part-time ones.

If measured according to the methodology used when I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the unemployment rate today in the US is above 20%. Moreover, there is no obvious way of reducing it. There are no factories, with work forces temporarily laid off by high interest rates, waiting for a lower interest rate policy to call their workforces back into production.

The work has been moved abroad. In the bygone days of American prosperity, CEOs were inculcated with the view that they had equal responsibilities to customers, employees, and shareholders. This view has been exterminated. Pushed by Wall Street and the threat of takeovers promising “enhanced shareholder value,” and incentivized by “performance pay,” CEOs use every means to substitute cheaper foreign employees for Americans [How Well-Educated, Hard-Working Americans are Treated in America, By Rennie Sawade, WashTech News, September 14, 2009 ]. Despite 20% unemployment and cum laude engineering graduates who cannot find jobs or even job interviews, Congress continues to support 65,000 annual H-1B work visas for foreigners.

In the midst of the highest unemployment since the Great Depression what kind of a fool do you need to be to think that there is a shortage of qualified US workers?

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.  He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.  He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington;  Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

Even If Immigration Continues, The Sailer Strategy Could Still Win It For The GOP In 2050

Even If Immigration Continues, The Sailer Strategy Could Still Win It For The GOP In 2050

By Steve Sailer

The central question about the long-term future of the Republican Party is—does the Republican Party have a future?

The demographic changes unleashed by post-1965 immigration policies inexorably work to benefit Democrats, as Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein pointed out in their National Review cover story Electing a New People back in1997. (Those were the days! After William F. Buckley purged the magazine of patriotic immigration reformers, Brimelow and Rubenstein updated their analysis in the Hudson Institute’s magazine American Outlook in 2000.)

Brimelow and Rubenstein made three points:

  1. a static point: in American politics, race is destiny—the races vote systematically differently and these differences are very slow to change;
  2. a dynamic point: the major parties’ share of the overall vote sways back and forth according to political conditions, and the proportion they get of each race’s vote sways back and forth in parallel (but the differences between the races remain roughly the same);
  3. an immigration point: immigration policy is shifting America’s racial balance toward minorities, and therefore the ability of the Republican Party to win national elections is being steadily reduced.

Brimelow and Rubenstein’s conclusion in 1997: the GOP should move to cut off immigration.

Instead, under George W. Bush, the GOP did exactly the opposite, although Bush’s amnesty efforts ultimately failed.

Nevertheless, the trend that Brimelow and Rubenstein identified was undeniable. Thus, according to the gold standard Census Bureau survey of more than 50,000 households immediately after each election, the non-Hispanic white share of the vote declined slowly from 84.9 percent in 1988 to 79.2 percent in 2004.

Then the white share fell off a cliff, down to 76.3 percent in 2008.

Here are the details:

Share of Votes Cast 2000 2004 2008
Whites 80.7% 79.2% 76.3%
Blacks 11.5% 11.0% 12.1%
Hispanics 5.4% 6.0% 7.4%
Asians 1.8% 2.3% 2.5%
Others 0.6% 1.5% 1.7%

The reason for this sudden slump: turnout. In 2008, minorities surged to the polls to vote for Obama. Simultaneously, white turnout as a share of white adult citizens was down from the level of 2004.

Not surprisingly, the black turnout rate as a share of eligible black voters was up from 60 to 65 percent. But even more interestingly, other minorities, who are less politicized than blacks, were excited by Obama’s candidacy too. Among citizens, Asian turnout was up from 45 to 47 percent of eligible Asian voters, and Hispanic turnout increased from 47 to 50 percent of eligible Hispanic voters.

Here are the details:

Turnout 2000 2004 2008
Whites 61.8% 67.2% 66.1%
Blacks 56.9% 60.3% 65.2%
Hispanics 45.1% 47.2% 49.9%
Asians 43.3% 44.6% 47.0%

The more marginal white voters tend to vote Republican if they get motivated enough to show up at the polls. The opposite is true for the more marginal minority voters—they tend to vote Democratic.

The details:

GOP Share 2000 2004 2008
Whites 54% 58% 55%
Blacks 8% 11% 4%
Hispanics 35% 40% 31%
Asians 41% 44% 35%

At a conceptual level, there are two ways the GOP can stay alive:

Oh, wait, that has been the strategy of George W. Bush, Karl Rove and John McCain. How’s that working out, by the way?

But there is an alternative, more obvious strategy that hasn’t been widely discussed:

  • The GOP could raise white turnout and win a larger share of the white vote.

Of course this means the GOP would have to advocate (and then perhaps actually implement) policies that, you know, do something for its natural (white) base.

The obvious example: cutting immigration. This would not merely benefit whites by, for example, reducing workplace competition, but it would also (whaddya know) halt the immigration-driven demographic deterioration in the GOP’s electoral position.

It’s so rational that it apparently can’t be discussed in respectable Beltway circles.

VDARE.COM calls strategy #2 the “Sailer Strategy”.

Even before the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the 2000 election, I pointed out in GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote.

“If Dubya had garnered 57% instead of just 54% of whites, he would have cruised to an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171.”

Despite all the subsequent hogwash from Karl Rove about his minority outreach strategy, the plain albeit unreported fact was that the GOP triumphs in 2002 and 2004 followed this game plan. GOP House candidates won 59 percent of the white vote in the 2002 off year election and Bush took 58 percent in the Presidential election of 2004.

However, the Republicans’ relatively strong showings among whites in those two elections were driven much less by any coherent platform intended to benefit the base than by post-9/11 appeals to their patriotism. My analysis of the lost 2002 exit poll results showed that:

“Whites were more interested in foreign-affairs issues than blacks or Hispanics. One out of five whites said the issue that mattered most in determining their votes was either terrorism or Iraq, compared to one out of ten Hispanics, and one out of 25 blacks.”

By 2006, though, the Bush-Rove-McCain Grand Strategy of

  • Invite the World
  • Invade the World
  • In Hock to the World

was running out of gas. And, in 2008, the Housing Bubble inflated by Bush’s 2002 plan to win over Hispanic voters by creating 5.5 million more minority homeowners via debauching traditional credit standards backfired catastrophically.

In 2006 in California, 56 percent of all home purchase mortgage dollars had gone to minorities. And in the subsequent mortgage meltdown, minorities accounted for the great bulk of defaulted dollars in California. A study by economists at the San Francisco Federal Reserve of 239,101 mortgages issued in California during the Housing Bubble reported:

“We also find that race has an independent effect on foreclosure even after controlling for borrower income and credit score. In particular, African American borrowers were 3.3 times as likely as white borrowers to be in foreclosure, whereas Latino and Asian borrowers were 2.5 and 1.6 times respectively more likely to be in foreclosure as white borrowers.”[ Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California:The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown,by Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, November 26, 2008]

In other words, the Republican Establishment wasted eight years, while the party’s position was deteriorating demographically because of mass immigration, on minority outreach programs like tacitly encouraging illegal immigration and bad borrowing.

The result of all this cleverness was that the GOP was in even worse shape going into the 2008 election. Add in well-deserved blame for economic collapse and McCain’s themeless and politically correct campaigning, and Obama unsurprisingly won 365-173 in the Electoral College.

As I’ve shown above, McCain’s share of the white vote, 55 percent, was relatively weak, and white turnout was down.

Worse, in terms of the Electoral College, white Republican voters were over-concentrated in Great Plains, Great Basin, and Southern states.

But I’ve built the same kind of Electoral College model as I did in 2000. This time, it shows McCain could have eked out a 271-267 victory if he had gotten just five more percentage points of the white vote in each state—and if whites had showed up at the polls at the same rate as in 2004.

With just those two changes, McCain would have picked up Florida, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.

It’s striking that one can even dream up a path to victory for a candidate as feckless as John McCain was in 2008!

Recently, the bloggers Cold Equations and One STDV looked at the Census Bureau’s 2050 population projections, and in effect tried to update the 1997 Brimelow-Rubenstein forecast of the partisan tilt of the playing field in the 2048 and 2052 Presidential elections, assuming the GOP garners the same share of the vote within each race as in this decade. Upon that base, I built a model with a few more factors, such as age and citizenship differences.

The result: If—as in some time-loop nightmare—we just refought the 2008 election over and over, mere demographic change alone would propel the Democrats from 53 percent last year to 59 percent by mid-century.

That is, if the GOP keeps doing what it did in 2008, the country will become a more or less one-party regime—just like the President’s chosen hometown of Chicago. And that might be the best case scenario. Think Detroit. Or New Orleans.

And yet the GOP’s plight is not hopeless. Looking at my statistical model of the 2048-2052 elections: if

  1. the GOP’s share of the white vote grows from 55 percent to 70 percent; and
  2. white turnout returns to the level seen in 1992 (during Ross Perot’s insurgent run),

then, all else being equal, GOP candidates would still win in the middle of the 21st century.  The party would get a 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent majority in the popular vote in 2052.

To put that in current perspective, about one third of Obama’s white voters would have had to switch to Republican by 2052.

That certainly wouldn’t be easy.

But does anybody have a better plan? (Other than an immigration moratorium NOW?)

In future columns, I will examine how it can be done.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S “STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE”, is available here.]

Soaring Poverty—The Unreported Immigration Dimension

Soaring Poverty—The Unreported Immigration Dimension

The U.S. poverty rate climbed to 13.2 percent last year, up from 12.5 percent in 2007, according to the Census Bureau’s annual report released last week. The report also documented a decline in employer-provided health insurance and in coverage for adults.

The poverty rate is now at the highest level since 1997. It portends even larger increases this year, which has registered far higher unemployment than in 2008.

The poverty story was front-page news at the both Washington Post and the New York Times. But as usual the word “immigration” was conspicuous by its absence.

Yet there can be no question that, in the worst downturn since the 1930s, continued mass immigration, both legal and illegal, is exacerbating America’s poverty problem:

How large a direct role did immigration play last year? Here are the Census Bureau’s figures for 2007 and 2008:

The Poverty Picture: Native v. Foreign-born



% increase

Number of Poor(1,000s)









Naturalized citizens








Poverty rate (%)









Naturalized citizens








Source: Census Bureau. Poverty 2008

First the good news (sort of.) For the first time in many years the growth rate of foreign-born poor lagged that of U.S.-born poor. As a result, the immigrant share of America’s poverty population declined. slightly—from 16.5 percent in 2007 to 16.4 percent in 2008.

But this good news comes with caveats. It ignores the American-born minor children of poor immigrant mothers—nearly 3.0 million by some estimates—counted as “U.S. natives” by the Census. This is huge. For example, the number of Hispanics living in poverty grew by 1.1 million last year, or nearly 8 times the 142,000 blacks added to the rolls. About half of Hispanics are foreign-born, but in recent years more than half Hispanic population growth has been via U.S.-born children rather than immigration.

The bad news: the share of immigrants living in poverty reached a record 17.8 percent last year, up a whopping 7.9 percent from 2007. The past two years have seen a significant widening of the poverty gap between natives and immigrants:

In 2006 the poverty rate for immigrants—15.2 percent—exceeded that of natives by 3.3 percentage points. By 2008 the gap nearly doubled, to 5.2 percentage points.

It would have been worse except for one little noticed fact: the foreign-born population is falling. (Immigration can be reversed!) By dividing the number of poor in each category by their poverty rates we can deduce the following population shifts:

U.S. Population: Native v. Foreign-born




% change









Naturalized citizens








The number of foreign-born residents fell by about 600,000 last year—a 1.5 percent drop. The decline was paced by non-citizens, a category that includes illegal aliens.

While many non-citizens lack health insurance, their numbers did not fall due to poor health. Most simply went home because their jobs vanished. In other words, the U.S. is now exporting poverty to Mexico and other immigrant homelands.

This emigration constitutes a significant, albeit clandestine, economic stimulus to the U.S. Without it, the poverty rate would be higher. (Think of it as a retroactive moratorium). But how long will this happy trend continue?

In a future National Data, I will look at immigration’s indirect contribution to the American poverty rate, by bidding down wages and taking jobs.

Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis.

Meet The Soetoros

Meet The Soetoros

The birth certificate issue should have been settled long ago, and would have been if Obongo had any kind of valid birth certificate to produce. The Democratic party is probably manufacturing a fake birth certificate that all the liberals and the media will hail as valid. George Soros didn’t spend half a billion dollars to slide this nigger into the Oval Office for nothing.

The group Americans for Freedom of Information has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College. The transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.

The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. They’re not going to be able to ignore this forever. Eventually one of these proliferating court cases will be filed before some old White judge who actually has some stiffening in his spine, or else he’s about to retire on his pension and he doesn’t give a damn any more, and that judge will issue a court order for Barack Hussein Obama to provide a valid, notarized vault copy of an American birth certificate. Like you have to do for a passport or your first driver’s license.

That order will be ignored or quashed in some way, because it’s pretty obvious that Obongo can’t provide such a document, because it doesn’t exist. If it did, he would have produced one long ago.

Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states in legal fees and court costs, to block disclosure of any of his personal records. There’s something there, all right, and eventually it will be dug up.