Discussion:
Research Shows Babies Are Totally Racist
Add Reply
mg
2018-04-03 21:39:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Infants have to be carefully taught not to hate things different than
them, instead of the other way around:

-------------

"Obama’s viral tweet is wrong: Research shows babies are totally
racist

Tristin Hopper, August 16, 2017

In what soon became the world’s most liked tweet, former president
Barack Obama this week responded to a white supremacist march in
Charlottesville, Virginia by posting a famous quote from South African
leader Nelson Mandela.

“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin
or his background or his religion,” reads the quote, which is pulled
from Mandela’s 1994 autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom.

Two subsequent tweets then finish the quote, “people must learn to
hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love. For
love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

The quote is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t quite line up with
science. According to a growing body of infant research, racism is
often a default setting for babies. Tolerance, not racism, is what
needs to be hammered into young minds.

“Parents do not teach children to be biased,” said Kang Lee, a human
development researcher at the University of Toronto.


Lee said that while a racist parent can exploit a child’s innate
biases, most children will organically begin to dismiss other races
soon after their birth.

Mandela was correct in that no baby is born with inherent prejudices.
But at around six months, the average infant will automatically begin
to distrust anything that looks and sounds different than their
parents.

“Because most of us are born into monoracial environments we start to
show preferences for own-race individuals, and then we start to show
biases,” he said.

The baby begins to associate positive things, such as happy music,
with their own race. Sad music gets associated with other races.
Foreign languages and accents, meanwhile, sound scary and unfamiliar.
. . ."
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/obamas-viral-tweet-is-wrong-research-shows-babies-are-totally-racist




--------------------------------------
Human Nature is not a problem that can
be fixed by rules and regulations.
All solutions to the existing problems
must be based on how people behave, not
on how we think they should behave.
-- Kirk Chisholm
GLOBALIST
2018-04-03 22:44:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Infants have to be carefully taught not to hate things different than
-------------
"Obama’s viral tweet is wrong: Research shows babies are totally
racist
Tristin Hopper, August 16, 2017
In what soon became the world’s most liked tweet, former president
Barack Obama this week responded to a white supremacist march in
Charlottesville, Virginia by posting a famous quote from South African
leader Nelson Mandela.
“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin
or his background or his religion,” reads the quote, which is pulled
from Mandela’s 1994 autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom.
Two subsequent tweets then finish the quote, “people must learn to
hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love. For
love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
The quote is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t quite line up with
science. According to a growing body of infant research, racism is
often a default setting for babies. Tolerance, not racism, is what
needs to be hammered into young minds.
“Parents do not teach children to be biased,” said Kang Lee, a human
development researcher at the University of Toronto.
Lee said that while a racist parent can exploit a child’s innate
biases, most children will organically begin to dismiss other races
soon after their birth.
Mandela was correct in that no baby is born with inherent prejudices.
But at around six months, the average infant will automatically begin
to distrust anything that looks and sounds different than their
parents.
“Because most of us are born into monoracial environments we start to
show preferences for own-race individuals, and then we start to show
biases,” he said.
The baby begins to associate positive things, such as happy music,
with their own race. Sad music gets associated with other races.
Foreign languages and accents, meanwhile, sound scary and unfamiliar.
. . ."
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/obamas-viral-tweet-is-wrong-research-shows-babies-are-totally-racist
--------------------------------------
Human Nature is not a problem that can
be fixed by rules and regulations.
All solutions to the existing problems
must be based on how people behave, not
on how we think they should behave.
-- Kirk Chisholm
This is a true story. A friend of mine took her little daughter with her
to a "Great Clips" for a hair cut, whatever. She had her own hair
cut and then a black beautician came up to the little girl and
told her she was ready to cut her hair. The little girl said:
"She didn't want the dark one" This little girl was probably
3 years old
Gary
2018-04-04 12:02:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Infants have to be carefully taught not to hate things different than
-------------
"Obama’s viral tweet is wrong: Research shows babies are totally
racist
Tristin Hopper, August 16, 2017
In what soon became the world’s most liked tweet, former president
Barack Obama this week responded to a white supremacist march in
Charlottesville, Virginia by posting a famous quote from South African
leader Nelson Mandela.
“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin
or his background or his religion,” reads the quote, which is pulled
from Mandela’s 1994 autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom.
Two subsequent tweets then finish the quote, “people must learn to
hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love. For
love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
The quote is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t quite line up with
science. According to a growing body of infant research, racism is
often a default setting for babies. Tolerance, not racism, is what
needs to be hammered into young minds.
<snip>
Post by mg
Mandela was correct in that no baby is born with inherent prejudices.
But at around six months, the average infant will automatically begin
to distrust anything that looks and sounds different than their
parents.
That is the natural order of things. Fear of anything not like us is
what preserves the species. All species ! Which is why young cats
do not run across the yard to play with the dogs. Nor do young mice
run out from under the house to play with the cats. And which is why
the cavemen did not try to pet the tigers.

And if we fear anything -- and are forced to see it frequently -- it
won't be long til we begin to hate it.

"Multi cultural" and "diversity" are alien to man's natural instincts.
GLOBALIST
2018-04-04 14:21:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Infants have to be carefully taught not to hate things different than
-------------
"Obama’s viral tweet is wrong: Research shows babies are totally
racist
Tristin Hopper, August 16, 2017
In what soon became the world’s most liked tweet, former president
Barack Obama this week responded to a white supremacist march in
Charlottesville, Virginia by posting a famous quote from South African
leader Nelson Mandela.
“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin
or his background or his religion,” reads the quote, which is pulled
from Mandela’s 1994 autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom.
Two subsequent tweets then finish the quote, “people must learn to
hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love. For
love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
The quote is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t quite line up with
science. According to a growing body of infant research, racism is
often a default setting for babies. Tolerance, not racism, is what
needs to be hammered into young minds.
<snip>
Post by mg
Mandela was correct in that no baby is born with inherent prejudices.
But at around six months, the average infant will automatically begin
to distrust anything that looks and sounds different than their
parents.
That is the natural order of things. Fear of anything not like us is
what preserves the species. All species ! Which is why young cats
do not run across the yard to play with the dogs. Nor do young mice
run out from under the house to play with the cats. And which is why
the cavemen did not try to pet the tigers.
And if we fear anything -- and are forced to see it frequently -- it
won't be long til we begin to hate it.
"Multi cultural" and "diversity" are alien to man's natural instincts.
================
"Multi cultural" and "diversity" sure in the hell is not working in Israel or Ireland or Germany or Norway and count how many blacks live in
Japan. Look at the French in Quebec. You call there long distance and
you get a French speaking phone operator
Gary
2018-04-04 14:46:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 07:21:36 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Infants have to be carefully taught not to hate things different than
-------------
"Obama’s viral tweet is wrong: Research shows babies are totally
racist
Tristin Hopper, August 16, 2017
In what soon became the world’s most liked tweet, former president
Barack Obama this week responded to a white supremacist march in
Charlottesville, Virginia by posting a famous quote from South African
leader Nelson Mandela.
“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin
or his background or his religion,” reads the quote, which is pulled
from Mandela’s 1994 autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom.
Two subsequent tweets then finish the quote, “people must learn to
hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love. For
love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
The quote is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t quite line up with
science. According to a growing body of infant research, racism is
often a default setting for babies. Tolerance, not racism, is what
needs to be hammered into young minds.
<snip>
Post by mg
Mandela was correct in that no baby is born with inherent prejudices.
But at around six months, the average infant will automatically begin
to distrust anything that looks and sounds different than their
parents.
That is the natural order of things. Fear of anything not like us is
what preserves the species. All species ! Which is why young cats
do not run across the yard to play with the dogs. Nor do young mice
run out from under the house to play with the cats. And which is why
the cavemen did not try to pet the tigers.
And if we fear anything -- and are forced to see it frequently -- it
won't be long til we begin to hate it.
"Multi cultural" and "diversity" are alien to man's natural instincts.
================
"Multi cultural" and "diversity" sure in the hell is not working in Israel or Ireland or Germany or Norway and count how many blacks live in
Japan. Look at the French in Quebec. You call there long distance and
you get a French speaking phone operator
Back when the first humans came crawling out of the jungles -- they
were searching (without realizing it) for a single culture so they
could become civilized. They had spent their previous life in
"multi-culture". Meaning each cannibal killed and ate his prey --
different from the others.
mg
2018-04-04 22:21:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Infants have to be carefully taught not to hate things different than
-------------
"Obama’s viral tweet is wrong: Research shows babies are totally
racist
Tristin Hopper, August 16, 2017
In what soon became the world’s most liked tweet, former president
Barack Obama this week responded to a white supremacist march in
Charlottesville, Virginia by posting a famous quote from South African
leader Nelson Mandela.
“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin
or his background or his religion,” reads the quote, which is pulled
from Mandela’s 1994 autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom.
Two subsequent tweets then finish the quote, “people must learn to
hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love. For
love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
The quote is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t quite line up with
science. According to a growing body of infant research, racism is
often a default setting for babies. Tolerance, not racism, is what
needs to be hammered into young minds.
<snip>
Post by mg
Mandela was correct in that no baby is born with inherent prejudices.
But at around six months, the average infant will automatically begin
to distrust anything that looks and sounds different than their
parents.
That is the natural order of things. Fear of anything not like us is
what preserves the species. All species ! Which is why young cats
do not run across the yard to play with the dogs. Nor do young mice
run out from under the house to play with the cats. And which is why
the cavemen did not try to pet the tigers.
And if we fear anything -- and are forced to see it frequently -- it
won't be long til we begin to hate it.
"Multi cultural" and "diversity" are alien to man's natural instincts.
If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems.




--------------------------------------
Human Nature is not a problem that can
be fixed by rules and regulations.
All solutions to the existing problems
must be based on how people behave, not
on how we think they should behave.
-- Kirk Chisholm
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-04 22:34:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems.
Again with the claim about mass migration from third-world countries?
The only way our immigration law favors third-world countries is through
asylum status. But, that makes up less than 15% of our immigrants and
adds only about 0.05% to our population each year.
mg
2018-04-05 04:36:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems.
Again with the claim about mass migration from third-world countries?
The only way our immigration law favors third-world countries is through
asylum status. But, that makes up less than 15% of our immigrants and
adds only about 0.05% to our population each year.
In this particular case, I'm not interested in what the law says. If
you would like to start a new, separate discussion on that topic,
though, I'll probably read it.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-05 14:19:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems.
Again with the claim about mass migration from third-world countries?
The only way our immigration law favors third-world countries is through
asylum status. But, that makes up less than 15% of our immigrants and
adds only about 0.05% to our population each year.
In this particular case, I'm not interested in what the law says. If
you would like to start a new, separate discussion on that topic,
though, I'll probably read it.
Perhaps I mistook what you wrote. I thought you were saying the law was
wrong because it has resulted in mass migration from third-world
countries. What instead did you mean to say?
mg
2018-04-05 18:43:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems.
Again with the claim about mass migration from third-world countries?
The only way our immigration law favors third-world countries is through
asylum status. But, that makes up less than 15% of our immigrants and
adds only about 0.05% to our population each year.
In this particular case, I'm not interested in what the law says. If
you would like to start a new, separate discussion on that topic,
though, I'll probably read it.
Perhaps I mistook what you wrote. I thought you were saying the law was
wrong because it has resulted in mass migration from third-world
countries. What instead did you mean to say?
I've talked about immigration law in the past, in other posts, but
unless I'm missing something, in this thread, I didn't say anything
about immigration law or anything about the law favoring third-world
countries. Whether it does or doesn't, though, the president has some
latitude to provide his own interpretation to laws and act
accordingly. Therefore, for any particular law there may or may not be
a high degree of correlation between what the law says based on an
opinion outside of the executive branch and what is actually happening
in the country and how the law is being implemented and enforced.

Come to think of it, incidentally, I don't recall that you start
you're own discussion topics very often, but if you do want to discuss
immigration law, why don't you start a new thread on that subject?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-06 00:21:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems.
Again with the claim about mass migration from third-world countries?
The only way our immigration law favors third-world countries is through
asylum status. But, that makes up less than 15% of our immigrants and
adds only about 0.05% to our population each year.
In this particular case, I'm not interested in what the law says. If
you would like to start a new, separate discussion on that topic,
though, I'll probably read it.
Perhaps I mistook what you wrote. I thought you were saying the law was
wrong because it has resulted in mass migration from third-world
countries. What instead did you mean to say?
I've talked about immigration law in the past, in other posts, but
unless I'm missing something, in this thread, I didn't say anything
about immigration law or anything about the law favoring third-world
countries. Whether it does or doesn't, though, the president has some
latitude to provide his own interpretation to laws and act
accordingly. Therefore, for any particular law there may or may not be
a high degree of correlation between what the law says based on an
opinion outside of the executive branch and what is actually happening
in the country and how the law is being implemented and enforced.
Come to think of it, incidentally, I don't recall that you start
you're own discussion topics very often, but if you do want to discuss
immigration law, why don't you start a new thread on that subject?
No thanks. I'm still trying to figure out what your point was when you
said:

"but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we should import
millions of people who are different than we are through mass
immigration from third-world countries."
mg
2018-04-06 04:55:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems.
Again with the claim about mass migration from third-world countries?
The only way our immigration law favors third-world countries is through
asylum status. But, that makes up less than 15% of our immigrants and
adds only about 0.05% to our population each year.
In this particular case, I'm not interested in what the law says. If
you would like to start a new, separate discussion on that topic,
though, I'll probably read it.
Perhaps I mistook what you wrote. I thought you were saying the law was
wrong because it has resulted in mass migration from third-world
countries. What instead did you mean to say?
I've talked about immigration law in the past, in other posts, but
unless I'm missing something, in this thread, I didn't say anything
about immigration law or anything about the law favoring third-world
countries. Whether it does or doesn't, though, the president has some
latitude to provide his own interpretation to laws and act
accordingly. Therefore, for any particular law there may or may not be
a high degree of correlation between what the law says based on an
opinion outside of the executive branch and what is actually happening
in the country and how the law is being implemented and enforced.
Come to think of it, incidentally, I don't recall that you start
you're own discussion topics very often, but if you do want to discuss
immigration law, why don't you start a new thread on that subject?
No thanks. I'm still trying to figure out what your point was when you
"but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we should import
millions of people who are different than we are through mass
immigration from third-world countries."
In that quote, you deleted part of what I said. What I said was:

"If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems."

What is it about that quote that is hard to understand? What I'm
saying is that:

1. Based on the article, it's human nature that different races don't
like each other. Therefore, we shouldn't compound the problem by
allowing the immigration of races or ethnic groups that don't
assimilate well into our society. We have enough problems already. Why
should we create more with our immigration policy? What's the
advantage to Mr. Joe Blow, the average person on the street?

2. Environmentally speaking, the US is full, actually over-full. "Our
American way of life--300+ million people enjoying historically
unprecedented living standards—is NOT sustainable because the
ecological resources and economic resources upon which it depends will
not be available going forward".
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-08-18/our-american-way-life-unsustainable-evidence/


When I was a kid, my friends and I used to be able to hop on our
bicycles and go all over the county. There wasn't a lot of traffic
and, if we looked off on the sides of the road, mostly what we would
see is farms and fruit trees. The population was homogenous and
serious crime was extremely rare and there was no pollution problems,
etc. Now the fruit trees are all gone and the traffic and the
pollution reminds me of being in LA in the 60s. When I look around, I
don't see any farms or fruit trees and it seems like the entire county
is now paved over with cement and blacktop.

In 1950, the population of Utah Valley was 82,000. Now it's 575,000.
By 2065, it will be about 1.62 million. Mormons love population growth
because it allows the church to grow bigger (and richer) and they can
send more converted souls to heaven. But why should I like it? Do you
like population growth? If so, why do you like it?
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-06 07:41:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
No thanks. I'm still trying to figure out what your point was when you
"but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we should import
millions of people who are different than we are through mass
immigration from third-world countries."
In that quote, you deleted part of what I said.
Deliberately, just to waste your time recapitulating what you
already wrote. That's an example of why I don't bother with
Josh anymore. I guess it's a "debating technique" in college.
Formal "debating" is just a game, like chess, but without the
fascination or completeness or integrity of chess, IMV.
Post by mg
"If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems."
What is it about that quote that is hard to understand? What I'm
1. Based on the article, it's human nature that different races don't
like each other. Therefore, we shouldn't compound the problem by
allowing the immigration of races or ethnic groups that don't
assimilate well into our society. We have enough problems already. Why
should we create more with our immigration policy? What's the
advantage to Mr. Joe Blow, the average person on the street?
2. Environmentally speaking, the US is full, actually over-full. "Our
American way of life--300+ million people enjoying historically
unprecedented living standards—is NOT sustainable because the
ecological resources and economic resources upon which it depends will
not be available going forward".
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-08-18/our-american-way-life-unsustainable-evidence/
When I was a kid, my friends and I used to be able to hop on our
bicycles and go all over the county. There wasn't a lot of traffic
and, if we looked off on the sides of the road, mostly what we would
see is farms and fruit trees. The population was homogenous and
serious crime was extremely rare and there was no pollution problems,
etc. Now the fruit trees are all gone and the traffic and the
pollution reminds me of being in LA in the 60s. When I look around, I
don't see any farms or fruit trees and it seems like the entire county
is now paved over with cement and blacktop.
In 1950, the population of Utah Valley was 82,000. Now it's 575,000.
By 2065, it will be about 1.62 million. Mormons love population growth
because it allows the church to grow bigger (and richer) and they can
send more converted souls to heaven. But why should I like it? Do you
like population growth? If so, why do you like it?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-06 14:42:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
No thanks. I'm still trying to figure out what your point was when you
"but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we should import
millions of people who are different than we are through mass
immigration from third-world countries."
In that quote, you deleted part of what I said.
Deliberately, just to waste your time recapitulating what you
already wrote.
No. I deleted the part that was not relevant to my point.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-06 14:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems."
What is it about that quote that is hard to understand? What I'm
1. Based on the article, it's human nature that different races don't
like each other. Therefore, we shouldn't compound the problem by
allowing the immigration of races or ethnic groups that don't
assimilate well into our society. We have enough problems already. Why
should we create more with our immigration policy? What's the
advantage to Mr. Joe Blow, the average person on the street?
Are you then saying we should give preference to white, Christian,
European immigrants over others?
Post by mg
2. Environmentally speaking, the US is full, actually over-full. "Our
American way of life--300+ million people enjoying historically
unprecedented living standards—is NOT sustainable because the
ecological resources and economic resources upon which it depends will
not be available going forward".
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-08-18/our-american-way-life-unsustainable-evidence/
When I was a kid, my friends and I used to be able to hop on our
bicycles and go all over the county. There wasn't a lot of traffic
and, if we looked off on the sides of the road, mostly what we would
see is farms and fruit trees. The population was homogenous and
serious crime was extremely rare and there was no pollution problems,
etc. Now the fruit trees are all gone and the traffic and the
pollution reminds me of being in LA in the 60s. When I look around, I
don't see any farms or fruit trees and it seems like the entire county
is now paved over with cement and blacktop.
In 1950, the population of Utah Valley was 82,000. Now it's 575,000.
By 2065, it will be about 1.62 million. Mormons love population growth
because it allows the church to grow bigger (and richer) and they can
send more converted souls to heaven. But why should I like it? Do you
like population growth? If so, why do you like it?
Our birth rates are too low to support our economy and our retirees
without immigration.
El Castor
2018-04-06 20:27:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
"If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems."
What is it about that quote that is hard to understand? What I'm
1. Based on the article, it's human nature that different races don't
like each other. Therefore, we shouldn't compound the problem by
allowing the immigration of races or ethnic groups that don't
assimilate well into our society. We have enough problems already. Why
should we create more with our immigration policy? What's the
advantage to Mr. Joe Blow, the average person on the street?
Are you then saying we should give preference to white, Christian,
European immigrants over others?
Post by mg
2. Environmentally speaking, the US is full, actually over-full. "Our
American way of life--300+ million people enjoying historically
unprecedented living standards—is NOT sustainable because the
ecological resources and economic resources upon which it depends will
not be available going forward".
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-08-18/our-american-way-life-unsustainable-evidence/
When I was a kid, my friends and I used to be able to hop on our
bicycles and go all over the county. There wasn't a lot of traffic
and, if we looked off on the sides of the road, mostly what we would
see is farms and fruit trees. The population was homogenous and
serious crime was extremely rare and there was no pollution problems,
etc. Now the fruit trees are all gone and the traffic and the
pollution reminds me of being in LA in the 60s. When I look around, I
don't see any farms or fruit trees and it seems like the entire county
is now paved over with cement and blacktop.
In 1950, the population of Utah Valley was 82,000. Now it's 575,000.
By 2065, it will be about 1.62 million. Mormons love population growth
because it allows the church to grow bigger (and richer) and they can
send more converted souls to heaven. But why should I like it? Do you
like population growth? If so, why do you like it?
Our birth rates are too low to support our economy and our retirees
without immigration.
We should give preference to immigrants who speak our language, will
easily assimilate into our culture, and in the case of adults, have
something to offer in terms of skills or assets.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-06 22:05:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
"If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems."
What is it about that quote that is hard to understand? What I'm
1. Based on the article, it's human nature that different races don't
like each other. Therefore, we shouldn't compound the problem by
allowing the immigration of races or ethnic groups that don't
assimilate well into our society. We have enough problems already. Why
should we create more with our immigration policy? What's the
advantage to Mr. Joe Blow, the average person on the street?
Are you then saying we should give preference to white, Christian,
European immigrants over others?
Post by mg
2. Environmentally speaking, the US is full, actually over-full. "Our
American way of life--300+ million people enjoying historically
unprecedented living standards—is NOT sustainable because the
ecological resources and economic resources upon which it depends will
not be available going forward".
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-08-18/our-american-way-life-unsustainable-evidence/
When I was a kid, my friends and I used to be able to hop on our
bicycles and go all over the county. There wasn't a lot of traffic
and, if we looked off on the sides of the road, mostly what we would
see is farms and fruit trees. The population was homogenous and
serious crime was extremely rare and there was no pollution problems,
etc. Now the fruit trees are all gone and the traffic and the
pollution reminds me of being in LA in the 60s. When I look around, I
don't see any farms or fruit trees and it seems like the entire county
is now paved over with cement and blacktop.
In 1950, the population of Utah Valley was 82,000. Now it's 575,000.
By 2065, it will be about 1.62 million. Mormons love population growth
because it allows the church to grow bigger (and richer) and they can
send more converted souls to heaven. But why should I like it? Do you
like population growth? If so, why do you like it?
Our birth rates are too low to support our economy and our retirees
without immigration.
We should give preference to immigrants who speak our language, will
easily assimilate into our culture, and in the case of adults, have
something to offer in terms of skills or assets.
Are you in favor of preferences to white, Christian, European immigrants
over others?
El Castor
2018-04-07 06:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
"If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems."
What is it about that quote that is hard to understand? What I'm
1. Based on the article, it's human nature that different races don't
like each other. Therefore, we shouldn't compound the problem by
allowing the immigration of races or ethnic groups that don't
assimilate well into our society. We have enough problems already. Why
should we create more with our immigration policy? What's the
advantage to Mr. Joe Blow, the average person on the street?
Are you then saying we should give preference to white, Christian,
European immigrants over others?
Post by mg
2. Environmentally speaking, the US is full, actually over-full. "Our
American way of life--300+ million people enjoying historically
unprecedented living standards—is NOT sustainable because the
ecological resources and economic resources upon which it depends will
not be available going forward".
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-08-18/our-american-way-life-unsustainable-evidence/
When I was a kid, my friends and I used to be able to hop on our
bicycles and go all over the county. There wasn't a lot of traffic
and, if we looked off on the sides of the road, mostly what we would
see is farms and fruit trees. The population was homogenous and
serious crime was extremely rare and there was no pollution problems,
etc. Now the fruit trees are all gone and the traffic and the
pollution reminds me of being in LA in the 60s. When I look around, I
don't see any farms or fruit trees and it seems like the entire county
is now paved over with cement and blacktop.
In 1950, the population of Utah Valley was 82,000. Now it's 575,000.
By 2065, it will be about 1.62 million. Mormons love population growth
because it allows the church to grow bigger (and richer) and they can
send more converted souls to heaven. But why should I like it? Do you
like population growth? If so, why do you like it?
Our birth rates are too low to support our economy and our retirees
without immigration.
We should give preference to immigrants who speak our language, will
easily assimilate into our culture, and in the case of adults, have
something to offer in terms of skills or assets.
Are you in favor of preferences to white, Christian, European immigrants
over others?
No
Gary
2018-04-07 12:07:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
"If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems."
What is it about that quote that is hard to understand? What I'm
1. Based on the article, it's human nature that different races don't
like each other. Therefore, we shouldn't compound the problem by
allowing the immigration of races or ethnic groups that don't
assimilate well into our society. We have enough problems already. Why
should we create more with our immigration policy? What's the
advantage to Mr. Joe Blow, the average person on the street?
Are you then saying we should give preference to white, Christian,
European immigrants over others?
Post by mg
2. Environmentally speaking, the US is full, actually over-full. "Our
American way of life--300+ million people enjoying historically
unprecedented living standards—is NOT sustainable because the
ecological resources and economic resources upon which it depends will
not be available going forward".
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-08-18/our-american-way-life-unsustainable-evidence/
When I was a kid, my friends and I used to be able to hop on our
bicycles and go all over the county. There wasn't a lot of traffic
and, if we looked off on the sides of the road, mostly what we would
see is farms and fruit trees. The population was homogenous and
serious crime was extremely rare and there was no pollution problems,
etc. Now the fruit trees are all gone and the traffic and the
pollution reminds me of being in LA in the 60s. When I look around, I
don't see any farms or fruit trees and it seems like the entire county
is now paved over with cement and blacktop.
In 1950, the population of Utah Valley was 82,000. Now it's 575,000.
By 2065, it will be about 1.62 million. Mormons love population growth
because it allows the church to grow bigger (and richer) and they can
send more converted souls to heaven. But why should I like it? Do you
like population growth? If so, why do you like it?
Our birth rates are too low to support our economy and our retirees
without immigration.
We should give preference to immigrants who speak our language, will
easily assimilate into our culture, and in the case of adults, have
something to offer in terms of skills or assets.
Are you in favor of preferences to white, Christian, European immigrants
over others?
Our ancestors (18th century) preferred immigrants who would blend into
and support our Western culture. Why should we be different ? A
mixed blended culture can be just fine. As long as the "blending" is
done slowly. But why should a hillbilly be forced to eat with
chop-sticks ?

The early non-European immigrants who came here wanted to become
Americans -- and to learn and adapt to our culture. For some reason,
the more recent ones want America to accept and adopt their abandoned
culture. (that they dragged over here with them.) And many of the
more broad (empty) minded Americans support their desire.
islander
2018-04-07 13:59:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
"If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems."
What is it about that quote that is hard to understand? What I'm
1. Based on the article, it's human nature that different races don't
like each other. Therefore, we shouldn't compound the problem by
allowing the immigration of races or ethnic groups that don't
assimilate well into our society. We have enough problems already. Why
should we create more with our immigration policy? What's the
advantage to Mr. Joe Blow, the average person on the street?
Are you then saying we should give preference to white, Christian,
European immigrants over others?
Post by mg
2. Environmentally speaking, the US is full, actually over-full. "Our
American way of life--300+ million people enjoying historically
unprecedented living standards—is NOT sustainable because the
ecological resources and economic resources upon which it depends will
not be available going forward".
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-08-18/our-american-way-life-unsustainable-evidence/
When I was a kid, my friends and I used to be able to hop on our
bicycles and go all over the county. There wasn't a lot of traffic
and, if we looked off on the sides of the road, mostly what we would
see is farms and fruit trees. The population was homogenous and
serious crime was extremely rare and there was no pollution problems,
etc. Now the fruit trees are all gone and the traffic and the
pollution reminds me of being in LA in the 60s. When I look around, I
don't see any farms or fruit trees and it seems like the entire county
is now paved over with cement and blacktop.
In 1950, the population of Utah Valley was 82,000. Now it's 575,000.
By 2065, it will be about 1.62 million. Mormons love population growth
because it allows the church to grow bigger (and richer) and they can
send more converted souls to heaven. But why should I like it? Do you
like population growth? If so, why do you like it?
Our birth rates are too low to support our economy and our retirees
without immigration.
We should give preference to immigrants who speak our language, will
easily assimilate into our culture, and in the case of adults, have
something to offer in terms of skills or assets.
But, what is "our language?" As the share of the Hispanic population
increases, would you accept Spanish as a necessary language skill for
immigrants? Why just one language? Americans tend to be monolingual
and that is to our disadvantage, IMV.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-07 15:01:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by El Castor
We should give preference to immigrants who speak our language, will
easily assimilate into our culture, and in the case of adults, have
something to offer in terms of skills or assets.
But, what is "our language?"  As the share of the Hispanic population
increases, would you accept Spanish as a necessary language skill for
immigrants?  Why just one language?  Americans tend to be monolingual
and that is to our disadvantage, IMV.
A common primary language is a good thing, and English is our common
language. I have no problem giving English speakers (without bias
towards whether English was their first language) a small credit in
skills-based immigration. And while a second language is a desirable
skill that might also rate a small credit, Spanish is not a necessary skill.
Gary
2018-04-07 15:09:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
"If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems."
What is it about that quote that is hard to understand? What I'm
1. Based on the article, it's human nature that different races don't
like each other. Therefore, we shouldn't compound the problem by
allowing the immigration of races or ethnic groups that don't
assimilate well into our society. We have enough problems already. Why
should we create more with our immigration policy? What's the
advantage to Mr. Joe Blow, the average person on the street?
Are you then saying we should give preference to white, Christian,
European immigrants over others?
Post by mg
2. Environmentally speaking, the US is full, actually over-full. "Our
American way of life--300+ million people enjoying historically
unprecedented living standards—is NOT sustainable because the
ecological resources and economic resources upon which it depends will
not be available going forward".
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-08-18/our-american-way-life-unsustainable-evidence/
When I was a kid, my friends and I used to be able to hop on our
bicycles and go all over the county. There wasn't a lot of traffic
and, if we looked off on the sides of the road, mostly what we would
see is farms and fruit trees. The population was homogenous and
serious crime was extremely rare and there was no pollution problems,
etc. Now the fruit trees are all gone and the traffic and the
pollution reminds me of being in LA in the 60s. When I look around, I
don't see any farms or fruit trees and it seems like the entire county
is now paved over with cement and blacktop.
In 1950, the population of Utah Valley was 82,000. Now it's 575,000.
By 2065, it will be about 1.62 million. Mormons love population growth
because it allows the church to grow bigger (and richer) and they can
send more converted souls to heaven. But why should I like it? Do you
like population growth? If so, why do you like it?
Our birth rates are too low to support our economy and our retirees
without immigration.
We should give preference to immigrants who speak our language, will
easily assimilate into our culture, and in the case of adults, have
something to offer in terms of skills or assets.
But, what is "our language?" As the share of the Hispanic population
increases, would you accept Spanish as a necessary language skill for
immigrants? Why just one language? Americans tend to be monolingual
and that is to our disadvantage, IMV.
Monolingual a disadvantage ? England has been monolingual for over
2,000 years. And for several hundred of those years -- it "ruled the
waves". It also gave birth to North American and Australian
civilization. England's child -- America -- was also monolingual
from 1610 until 1960. During which time she rose to be one of the
greatest countries on Earth. Only in recent years did America decide
to become multilingual -- with the influence of it's immigrants from
shithole countries. Ain't progress wonderful ?
mg
2018-04-08 07:16:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
"If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems."
What is it about that quote that is hard to understand? What I'm
1. Based on the article, it's human nature that different races don't
like each other. Therefore, we shouldn't compound the problem by
allowing the immigration of races or ethnic groups that don't
assimilate well into our society. We have enough problems already. Why
should we create more with our immigration policy? What's the
advantage to Mr. Joe Blow, the average person on the street?
Are you then saying we should give preference to white, Christian,
European immigrants over others?
To the extent that we do allow immigration, I think we should give a
preference to those who integrate most easily into the "melting pot"
(including marriage, social activities, and living in the same
neighborhood, etc) and who assimilate with the least cost, require the
fewest social services and commit the fewest number of crimes, etc.
That criteria would probably indicate that we should restrict
immigration to people from countries like the UK, Ireland, and
Germany. However, if research showed that people from other countries
better met that criteria then I would put them at the top of the list.
However, what should we do if someday "brown became the new white" and
Hispanics and Latinos outnumbered non-Hisipanic whites and integrated
better than whites? In that case I would say that we should give a
preferance to Hispanics if they better met the criteria that I
outlined above.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
2. Environmentally speaking, the US is full, actually over-full. "Our
American way of life--300+ million people enjoying historically
unprecedented living standards—is NOT sustainable because the
ecological resources and economic resources upon which it depends will
not be available going forward".
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-08-18/our-american-way-life-unsustainable-evidence/
When I was a kid, my friends and I used to be able to hop on our
bicycles and go all over the county. There wasn't a lot of traffic
and, if we looked off on the sides of the road, mostly what we would
see is farms and fruit trees. The population was homogenous and
serious crime was extremely rare and there was no pollution problems,
etc. Now the fruit trees are all gone and the traffic and the
pollution reminds me of being in LA in the 60s. When I look around, I
don't see any farms or fruit trees and it seems like the entire county
is now paved over with cement and blacktop.
In 1950, the population of Utah Valley was 82,000. Now it's 575,000.
By 2065, it will be about 1.62 million. Mormons love population growth
because it allows the church to grow bigger (and richer) and they can
send more converted souls to heaven. But why should I like it? Do you
like population growth? If so, why do you like it?
Our birth rates are too low to support our economy and our retirees
without immigration.
I don't believe that population growth is necessary for economic
growth.
https://www.quora.com/Is-population-growth-necessary-for-economic-growth
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/08/28/economic-abundance-with-shrinking-population-why-not/#762e637d9ff5

Infinite growth on a finite planet privatizes profits and socializes
the costs incurred from increased population growth. It's a Ponzi
scheme -- the ideology of the cancer cell.
https://www.capsweb.org/caps-issues/population-and-immigration-ponzi-scheme
d***@agent.com
2018-04-09 03:36:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
"If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems."
What is it about that quote that is hard to understand? What I'm
1. Based on the article, it's human nature that different races don't
like each other. Therefore, we shouldn't compound the problem by
allowing the immigration of races or ethnic groups that don't
assimilate well into our society. We have enough problems already. Why
should we create more with our immigration policy? What's the
advantage to Mr. Joe Blow, the average person on the street?
Are you then saying we should give preference to white, Christian,
European immigrants over others?
To the extent that we do allow immigration, I think we should give a
preference to those who integrate most easily into the "melting pot"
(including marriage, social activities, and living in the same
neighborhood, etc) and who assimilate with the least cost, require the
fewest social services and commit the fewest number of crimes, etc.
That criteria would probably indicate that we should restrict
immigration to people from countries like the UK, Ireland, and
Germany. However, if research showed that people from other countries
better met that criteria then I would put them at the top of the list.
However, what should we do if someday "brown became the new white" and
Hispanics and Latinos outnumbered non-Hisipanic whites and integrated
better than whites? In that case I would say that we should give a
preferance to Hispanics if they better met the criteria that I
outlined above.
What will the world be like with 11 billion people,
and they all want to drive?
El Castor
2018-04-09 06:20:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
"If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems."
What is it about that quote that is hard to understand? What I'm
1. Based on the article, it's human nature that different races don't
like each other. Therefore, we shouldn't compound the problem by
allowing the immigration of races or ethnic groups that don't
assimilate well into our society. We have enough problems already. Why
should we create more with our immigration policy? What's the
advantage to Mr. Joe Blow, the average person on the street?
Are you then saying we should give preference to white, Christian,
European immigrants over others?
To the extent that we do allow immigration, I think we should give a
preference to those who integrate most easily into the "melting pot"
(including marriage, social activities, and living in the same
neighborhood, etc) and who assimilate with the least cost, require the
fewest social services and commit the fewest number of crimes, etc.
That criteria would probably indicate that we should restrict
immigration to people from countries like the UK, Ireland, and
Germany. However, if research showed that people from other countries
better met that criteria then I would put them at the top of the list.
However, what should we do if someday "brown became the new white" and
Hispanics and Latinos outnumbered non-Hisipanic whites and integrated
better than whites? In that case I would say that we should give a
preferance to Hispanics if they better met the criteria that I
outlined above.
Sheesh, MG. Like I said earlier in this thread, we should give
preference to immigrants who speak our language, will easily
assimilate into our culture, and in the case of adults, have something
to offer in terms of skills or assets.

If they fit the bill, skin color is irrelevant. Do you know who laid
the track and dug the tunnels of the western half of the
intercontinental railroad? The Chinese! And they did a better job than
the Irish. Just looked it up, there have been 69 Asian Nobel prize
winners. Oh, and the best fences and decks in this county and the next
are built by a company owned and operated by a Mexican family. May not
be good enough to live in Utah, but they are doing just fine here.
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
2. Environmentally speaking, the US is full, actually over-full. "Our
American way of life--300+ million people enjoying historically
unprecedented living standards—is NOT sustainable because the
ecological resources and economic resources upon which it depends will
not be available going forward".
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-08-18/our-american-way-life-unsustainable-evidence/
When I was a kid, my friends and I used to be able to hop on our
bicycles and go all over the county. There wasn't a lot of traffic
and, if we looked off on the sides of the road, mostly what we would
see is farms and fruit trees. The population was homogenous and
serious crime was extremely rare and there was no pollution problems,
etc. Now the fruit trees are all gone and the traffic and the
pollution reminds me of being in LA in the 60s. When I look around, I
don't see any farms or fruit trees and it seems like the entire county
is now paved over with cement and blacktop.
In 1950, the population of Utah Valley was 82,000. Now it's 575,000.
By 2065, it will be about 1.62 million. Mormons love population growth
because it allows the church to grow bigger (and richer) and they can
send more converted souls to heaven. But why should I like it? Do you
like population growth? If so, why do you like it?
Our birth rates are too low to support our economy and our retirees
without immigration.
I don't believe that population growth is necessary for economic
growth.
https://www.quora.com/Is-population-growth-necessary-for-economic-growth
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/08/28/economic-abundance-with-shrinking-population-why-not/#762e637d9ff5
Infinite growth on a finite planet privatizes profits and socializes
the costs incurred from increased population growth. It's a Ponzi
scheme -- the ideology of the cancer cell.
https://www.capsweb.org/caps-issues/population-and-immigration-ponzi-scheme
El Castor
2018-04-06 00:20:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems.
Again with the claim about mass migration from third-world countries?
The only way our immigration law favors third-world countries is through
asylum status. But, that makes up less than 15% of our immigrants and
adds only about 0.05% to our population each year.
I notice that you referred to "immigration law". Hmmm. Convenient for
your argument, but not in touch with reality. You know very well that
a large portion of our immigrant population arrives ouside the law. I
believe the politically correct term is "unauthorized". Of those, 75%
are from Mexico and the rest of Latin America -- the definition of 3rd
World. Many of the remaining 25% are from Asia and Africa and share a
third world status. A July 2017 DHS report estimated that there were
12.1 million unauthorized (AKA illegal) immigrants residing in the US
in 2014, and the current illegal immigrant population of California
alone exceeds 1 million.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Unauthorized%20Immigrant%20Population%20Estimates%20in%20the%20US%20January%202014_1.pdf
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dmv-illegal-immigration-licenses-20180404-story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-06 01:48:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems.
Again with the claim about mass migration from third-world countries?
The only way our immigration law favors third-world countries is through
asylum status. But, that makes up less than 15% of our immigrants and
adds only about 0.05% to our population each year.
I notice that you referred to "immigration law". Hmmm. Convenient for
your argument, but not in touch with reality. You know very well that
a large portion of our immigrant population arrives ouside the law. I
believe the politically correct term is "unauthorized". Of those, 75%
are from Mexico and the rest of Latin America -- the definition of 3rd
World. Many of the remaining 25% are from Asia and Africa and share a
third world status. A July 2017 DHS report estimated that there were
12.1 million unauthorized (AKA illegal) immigrants residing in the US
in 2014, and the current illegal immigrant population of California
alone exceeds 1 million.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Unauthorized%20Immigrant%20Population%20Estimates%20in%20the%20US%20January%202014_1.pdf
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dmv-illegal-immigration-licenses-20180404-story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States
I'm opposed to illegal immigration.
El Castor
2018-04-06 06:48:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems.
Again with the claim about mass migration from third-world countries?
The only way our immigration law favors third-world countries is through
asylum status. But, that makes up less than 15% of our immigrants and
adds only about 0.05% to our population each year.
I notice that you referred to "immigration law". Hmmm. Convenient for
your argument, but not in touch with reality. You know very well that
a large portion of our immigrant population arrives ouside the law. I
believe the politically correct term is "unauthorized". Of those, 75%
are from Mexico and the rest of Latin America -- the definition of 3rd
World. Many of the remaining 25% are from Asia and Africa and share a
third world status. A July 2017 DHS report estimated that there were
12.1 million unauthorized (AKA illegal) immigrants residing in the US
in 2014, and the current illegal immigrant population of California
alone exceeds 1 million.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Unauthorized%20Immigrant%20Population%20Estimates%20in%20the%20US%20January%202014_1.pdf
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dmv-illegal-immigration-licenses-20180404-story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States
I'm opposed to illegal immigration.
Good, so am I, but lets face it, US laws and enforcement have been
structured to invite illegal immigration, or at least not repel it,
which kind of makes it de facto legal. I am sure you are familiar with
the term "sanctuary" as it is applied in many cities and states. The
reason we know that California has more than a million illegal
immigrants is because more than a million drivers licenses have been
issued to them by the State of California in the last three years.
Gary
2018-04-04 22:47:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
<snip>
Post by mg
Mandela was correct in that no baby is born with inherent prejudices.
But at around six months, the average infant will automatically begin
to distrust anything that looks and sounds different than their
parents.
That is the natural order of things. Fear of anything not like us is
what preserves the species. All species ! Which is why young cats
do not run across the yard to play with the dogs. Nor do young mice
run out from under the house to play with the cats. And which is why
the cavemen did not try to pet the tigers.
And if we fear anything -- and are forced to see it frequently -- it
won't be long til we begin to hate it.
"Multi cultural" and "diversity" are alien to man's natural instincts.
If mother nature tells whites not to like blacks, I assume that she
tells blacks not to like whites. I think it's just human nature. On
the one hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to break down
the barriers, but on the other hand it also doesn't mean that we
I would think blacks dislike whites a lot more than whites dislike
them. Most of that is natural. But some would come from the way in
which blacks were treated by American whites from the early 1600s
until about 1960.

On the other hand -- blacks in the South have been trained -- during
those same years -- to always be polite to the old white man and
pretend like you like him. My guess is that black hatred only
surfaced back in the 1960s and 1970s when "black power" became
popular. I suppose most of it has about worn out by now -- and most
blacks and whites seem to accept each other as neighbors.
Post by mg
should import millions of people who are different than we are through
mass immigration from third-world countries, especially where we are
already over-populated to the point where we have a lot of
environmental problems.
I certainly agree. I cannot understand how any American officials
could favor allowing them into this country. Unless -- they are being
paid (bribed) by somebody. We don't need any immigrants these days
except those who have great abilities and IQs over 130.
Mike_Duffy
2018-04-05 14:49:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Infants have to be carefully taught not to hate things different than
It's even worse. As well as being natural-boern racists, most babies are
misogynists, having a strong preference for woman with huge breasts.
Loading...