Monthly Archives: February 2009

US Hispanic Racial Dynamics

Repost from the old site.

This is an update to an earlier post, The Racial Makeup of Hispanics. For background on the issue, please refer to the previous post.

This post will mostly deal with Hispanics in California, because that is where I live.

In the previous post, we noted that Hispanics seemed to be getting darker (more Indian and Black and less White) with time in California and the Southwest. The first study, done in the early 80’s in San Diego, showed CA Chicanos to be 68% White, 30% Indian and 2% Black.

The second study, done in 1998, that show Arizona Chicanos were 57% White, 39% Indian and 4% Black. That figure is about the same as for California 14 years prior. This is because the Mexicans who go to Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have traditionally been lighter than the ones who come to California.

We now have a new study showing that by the year 2000, California Hispanics (overwhelmingly Mexicans and Chicanos) have become much darker over 16 years. The new study includes two surveys – one shows CA Hispanics at 46% White, 43% Indian and 11% Black, while the other shows them at 48% White, 38% Indian and 13% Black. Taken together, the studies show CA Hispanics at 47% White, 40.5% Indian and 12% Black.

CA Hispanics

        White  Indian  Black

1984    68     30      2
2000    47     40.5    12

Two new studies were reported in the Southwest US as a whole from 2000. The first found admixture of 64% White and 36% Indian and the second found 66% White and 34% Indian. Another study of the border county of Starr County, Texas (97% Mexican) showed the typical Southwestern mix of 65% White, 35% Indian. No Black DNA was found in any of these studies.

The combined total for the three studies was 65% White and 35% Indian. This is about along the lines with what previous studies had found.

Studies of Hispanic admixture in California, Nevada and the US Southwest represented as pie charts. All charts are from a recent study done in 2000.

What this indicates in that the Chicanos and Mexicans in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado are much Whiter, less Indian and dramatically less Black than those in California. This may be because of California’s huge agricultural crops that attract many largely-Indian Mexicans from Guerrero and Oaxaca.

There is evidence that in general, the flow of Mexican immigrants to the US is the same as it has always been – they are coming from the same states as they have always come from:

In general, therefore, we do not find a “changing profile” of Mexican migrants during the 1980s. Rather, despite a few changes, we perceive a remarkable continuity in trends and patterns.

Maintaining a pattern that dates back at least to the 1940s and perhaps even to 1900, recent outflows continue to be dominated by migrants from a handful of western states: principally Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Michoacán, and to a lesser extent Durango, San Luis Potosí, and Zacatecas.

Together these six states have consistently accounted for about half of all Mexico-U.S. migrants, with the border states comprising another 30 percent and the central states making up the remaining 20 percent.

Over time, emigration has also become less selective with respect to education, suggesting that the outflow has increasingly been one of the rural and urban poor, predominantly from the western states.

Most Mexican immigrants continue to come from the Northern, North-Central and the West-Central part of the country, traditionally Mestizo areas. Look at these pics of Tejano singers whose ancestors came from those places.

Chihuahua in Northern Mexico has traditionally sent many immigrants to the US. Check out these photos of Chihuahua hotties and see how they are a lot more White than Indian. This phenotype is so common in my town that it is almost ubiquitous.

Once again, to reiterate, 50% of Mexico’s historic immigration has come from the more Euro-Mestizo (Zacatecas is actually the most Mestizo state in Mexico – it has almost no Whites or Indians) rural areas of Jalisco, Zacatecas, Sinaloa, Guanajuato, Michoacan, San Luis Potosi and Durango. These states are Western Mexico or North-Central Mexico.

The border states of Chihuahua, Sonora, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila have traditionally made up 30% of Mexico’s immigration. Mexicans in these states are some of the Whitest (Mestizos) in all Mexico.

The reason that those states are Whiter is because they had fewer Amerindians from the very start.

Combined totals of the three heavily Cuban (and Venezuelan and Nicaraguan upper class in Florida) areas of Florida, New Jersey and the SE US show a population that is 83% White, 10% Indian and 7% Black. This indicates that Hispanics in this area are de facto mostly-White people, though they are mixed race.

Hispanics in Pennsylvania are 83% White and 13% Black, with no Indian. There is a good guess that these are mostly Puerto Ricans and possibly Dominicans.

The Hispanic population of Virginia is hard to characterize – it is 64% White, 21% Indian and 15% Black. There are many Salvadorans in this state, but that does not sound like a Salvadoran racial mix – Salvadorans have little to no Black in them. This group is probably mixed Salvadoran, Puerto Rican, Dominican and Mexican.

All told, the total on the East Coast is 79% White, 10% Indian and 11% Black. The Hispanics on the East Coast are clearly an overwhelmingly-White group of mixed race persons.

Let us look at these figures as a chart:

US Hispanics

              White  Indian  Black

East Coast    79     10      11
Southwest     65     35      0
California    47     40.5    12

Hispanics on the East Coast and in the US Southwest are to this day a mostly-White ethnic group, despite the fevered blatherings of White nationalists.

This can no longer be said about California’s Hispanics. California’s Hispanic population is now the least White, the most Indian and the most Black of any major region in the US, and it has become much less White, more Indian and dramatically more Black in the past few decades.

References

Peterson, B.L., Su, B. and Chakraborty, R. et al. 2000. World Population Data For The HLA-DQA1, PM® And D1S80 Loci With Least And Most Common Profile Frequencies For Combinations Of Loci Estimated Following NRC II Guidelines. J. Forensic Sci. 45:118-146.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

25 Comments

Filed under Reposts From The Old Site

The Racial Makeup of Hispanics

Repost from the old site.

This post has been updated with new information, photos and pie charts showing degree of genetic makeup here.

Let us take a look at a subject that most people seem to know little or nothing about – the genetic makeup of Hispanics in the Americas.

You think I am kidding? I now live in a town that is 70% Hispanic.

I recently informed some of these Hispanics, ranging from wannabe gangbanger graffiti-tagging teenagers in continuation high school and headed for nowhere, to university grads with their own businesses on the road to Yuppiedom, that Mexicans were a mix between American Indians and Whites, and that they were in fact part White.

This was met with incredulity and charges of lying all around, most depressingly on the part of the “university grad.”

Hence a bit of education seems to be in order.

As I noted in a previous foray into this area, there are two opposing poles of idiocy at work here. The first, a group of fools calling themselves Atzlanistas, or radical Chicanos, holds that Chicanos are “80% Amerindian”.

This is because their idiot ethnic nationalism is predicated on some BS “indigenousness” and related hatred of everything European and White, even though most folks espousing this line are probably majority-White.

The opposing pole of morons is of course formed by another group of ethnic nationalists, in this case the White Nationalist faction (What is it about ethnic nationalism that seems make morons out of even the most intelligent people?).

It would be very painful to admit that US Hispanics are a lot more like us White folks that these guys want to admit, so they conveniently code Hispanics as a “non-White race”. These clowns, in line with their enemies the Atzlanistas, also hold that Hispanics are 80% Amerindian, but in their case this is a bad thing, whereas for the Atzlanistas, it’s a thing of glory.

The truth will be depressing to both sides, but since they are both infected with brain-rotting Identity Politics, neither will be able or willing to see the truth.

The truth is that Chicanos in the US are at present (1998) about 60% White and 40% Amerindian. Actual figures were 57% White and 39% Amerindian and 4% Black in one study and 59% White, 37% Amerindian, 3% Black in another. About 10-15 years before, in the 1980’s, they were about 70% White and 30% Indian. Actual figures ranged from 68% White, 30% Amerindian and 2% Black in one study to 65% White and 35% Amerindian in another.

Mexico is about the opposite – about 65% Indian, 34% White and 1% Black. Guerrero had 22% (!) Black genes. Sonora, at the high end, had 58% White genes. The study also showed that Mexicans have come from all over the world.

Yet another study of Mexican genes found that they were quite similar to US immigrants – 59% White, 31% Amerindian and 10% (!) Black. White admixture ranged from 51-70% amongst in this study, and the highest Amerindian admixture in Mexico was 37% in Guerrero. 80% of Mexicans were classed as mestizos.

So the actual makeup of Mexicans themselves is somewhat of a mystery.

Black admixture in Mexico tends to be around 3-8%, or about 5.5% on average. And it seems to be split around pretty evenly.

However, note that about 20 years ago, the ratio was about 1-2% Black in the US, and now it is about 3-4% Black.

Most Chicanos had ancestors that came only from certain states – from the various Mexican mestizo states – the Western States of Jalisco and Michoacan, the West Central States of Guanajuato, San Luis Potosi and Zacatecas, and the Northern States of Sinaloa, Nuevo Leon, Durango, Chihuahua and Tamaulipas.

Analysis of Mexicans from the Mestizo heartland of Monterrey, San Luis Potosi, and Zacatecas showed that they are about as White as Chileans or Argentines – 78.5% White and 21.5% Amerindian. Zacatecas in particular has long been noted for having an almost exclusively Mestizo population.

Mexico is actually pretty divergent. A study of the residents of the city of Tlapa, Guerrero, revealed that they are almost pure Amerindian. Yet I have met several Mexicans from Guerrero who look about as White as I do.

Some Zapotec Indians from Oaxaca. My town is full of Oaxacan Indians, and contrary to the linguistic pessimists in my comments threads, the languages seem to be doing quite well.

I recently saw two young men speaking a Zapotec language outside the DMV. They told me that everyone in the village back home spoke Zapotec, including all the kids, that it was even used in the schools, and that they both knew how to read it and even write it. They were impressed that I was interested in their language.

From these facts, a few things become clear.

There is a suggestion (unproven so far) that Hispanics in the US are much more White than the Hispanics in Mexico. The more Amerindian Hispanics may be staying in Mexico, whereas the Whiter ones may be coming here. This is precisely the opposite of most of what we hear about Mexican immigration (the poor Indians are all flooding here).

There is also evidence that Mexicans in the US are less Black than Mexicans in Mexico. In Mexico, Mexicans are 5.5% Black. In the 1980’s, Mexicans in the US were 1.5% Black, but that increased to 3.5% Black in the 1990’s.

There is a clear suggestion that Mexican immigrants to the US are becoming more Amerindian, more Black and less White over time. This accords with what most honest folks are noticing. Nevertheless, as of 10 years ago, they were still a majority-White people.

In fact, Mexico is so bad that even about 80% of Mexican professionals now want to come here. Fully 50% of the population of Mexico says they want to come to the US and are willing to risk the trip.

The Open Borders Lobby wishes to open our border to 55 million Mexicans. You don’t have to be a racist to realize what a catastrophe this would be for the US. I don’t think it would be so great for Mexico either, especially if 80% of their professionals high-tailed it.

It is idiotic for Atzlanistas to claim that a mixed-race people, possibly majority-White (60%), are 80% Amerindian.

It is equally insane for White Nationalists to claim that a majority-White (60%) population has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their precious and threatened White Race.

Now that I live in what is practically a part of Mexico, I have been observing the Chicanos and Mexicans around me, an interest that sparked these posts. One thing that is immediately clear is that there is no rational way to call this group of people a “race.”

This is genetic mystery casserole prepared by a master chef. You see all “types” and gradations and everything in between. You see dark-skinned Mexicans with Caucasian features. You see light-skinned Mexicans with Amerindian features. And I keep thinking I see Black here and there. And every possible jumble in between that you could possibly imagine.

It’s actually fascinating to observe them.

Since the gene mix was somewhat restricted (mostly Iberian Whites and Mexican Amerindians with a bit of Black), you do see some of what ethnologists used to class as anthropological “types” (although PC has probably made it illegal to discuss types anymore in ethnologies). That girl in the Walmart looks like the waitress in the bar. Then their triplet shows up at the gas station.

Even here, the diversity is striking. If one were to play Carleton Coon, you could probably come up with hundreds of Mexican “types.” You see what look like pure-blooded Spaniards here and there, and I am starting to suspect that different Mexican Amerindian tribal admixtures produce different types.

Here is a Tarahumara woman who looks a lot different from a typical Mexican Indian. From northern Mexico, this woman could easily pass as a Navajo.
Another Tarahumara woman, this one quite old. Even she does not look like most of the Mexican Indians you see in the US, most of whom are from Oaxaca and Guerrero.This is a Mayan Indian man from the far south of Mexico. As you can see, not all Mexicans are “Aztecs”, as Aztlanista lunatics insist and Mexican government propaganda implies.

Most disturbing to the idiots above is that many Mexicans could clearly be classed as “White” by any rational human being. They may look Mediterranean, Greek, Italian or Iberian, but they don’t look that different from some of the Whites I grew up with.

And yes, quite a few are pure Amerindians. Some of these look so Asian that you might think they were Filipinos. Yes, they are short and dark – something the White racists love to rant about – clearly shorter and less robust than California Amerindians.

But reduced size is an adaptation to a tropical climate – reduced body size makes it easier for the body to cool off in the heat – and of course melanin was essential for any humans evolving in tropical climes before the advent of suntan lotion.

In Mexico, Mexican society is quite stratified, and White nationalists think this is fantastic. WN’s also love to carry on about how “racist” Mexicans are, with the Whites lording it over everyone else and despising all the dark-skinned lessers, except they think this racism is just wonderful, as opposed to the variety directed at their own kind, which is sheer evil.

No, this photo was not taken in Orange County, California. It was taken in Mexico. The spectators are either tourists or White Mexicans. I think the dancers are White Mexicans, but a Spaniard wrote to tell me that they are Mestizos.

That may be true in Mexico, but I have noticed little of it here in the US, at least in the poor, mostly Mexican town I live in. White and lighter Mexicans carry on with darker and full-Indian Mexicans in the bars, and everywhere else, here. I watch them while they cavort and chat, searching for the signs of this horrible racism the WN’s insist is omnipresent in US Mexicans. Problem is I can’t see it at all.

I asked around, and one Mexican-American told me that “some” Chicanos in the US have racial attitudes towards skin color, but he acted like it wasn’t common or ubiquitous. Here again, the WN’s would be disappointed. He said most made no distinction between White, Mestizo and Indian (in fact these categories almost did not exist) but instead there was a general, continuum-type attitude that lighter skin was better.

He then described a beautiful young “light-skinned” Chicana that he fancied. What struck me as strange is that to my White eyes she was fairly dark.

Here is a good example of Mexican racism by an Overseas Chinese author, Amy Chua, from her World On Fire. Chua apparently thinks this sort of hierarchy is just groovy:

Almost without exception the Mexican officials, lawyers, and business executives we dealt with were light-skinned and foreign educated, with elegant European names.

Meanwhile, the people doing the photocopying and cleaning the floors were all shorter, darker, and plainly more “Indian-blooded”. While considerable social fluidity exists in Mexico, it is also true that lightness of skin correlates directly and glaringly with increasing wealth and social status. (p 59)

It is important to recognize where race-realists and White Nationalists are coming from. They think the state of affairs described above by Chua is normal, reasonable and rational – the way things should be, as it were, or even a God-made law, “Natural Law”, as the rightwing Catholics have it.

A recent IQ test undertaken by Richard Lynn at a public school in Mexico showed that in Mexico, White IQ is 98, Mestizo IQ is 94 and Indian IQ is 83. This is why the race-realists love IQ differentials so much. Because they see these IQ differentials as enshrining, for ever and ever, the situation that Chua describes above.

Ah, but let us examine these scores.

Let us say that the 14 point difference between Whites and Amerindians above means that Whites are 3X as intelligent as Amerindians and 50% smarter than Mestizos (a bit of a reach, but Arthur Jensen says an IQ of 145 is seven times more intelligent than an IQ of 100).

This entitles Whites to about 3X personal income of Amerindians and 50% more income than Mestizos, right?

Yet the reality is far different, as we see in Chua above. Instead of 3X the income, the elite has many times the income of an Amerindian, while the Amerindian lives in poverty. And the White elite has vastly more than 1.5X the income of Mestizos.

Indeed, the family of one man, Carlos Slim, has 50% of the wealth in all of Mexico. So even by the nasty rules of IQ, the inequality described by Chua above falls flat on its face, and so does race-realists’ justification of it.

While we are at it, we should note that the situation that WN’s rave about in Latin America – the Whites have all the money, the Mestizos and mulattos much less and the Amerindians and Blacks nothing – is not really true.

As we can see by this study, it is not true that all Whites of Latin America are rich (I can confirm this, as I see many “White” Mexicans who are quite poor in my town) and there are a reasonable (though still small) number of Blacks, mulattos and mestizos in the highest income categories.

So the situation in Latin America, while quite unfair and even racist, is not the White Supremacist paradise that the WN’s say it is. It is instead, as most things in life are, somewhat more complicated.

As long as we are pondering the racial makeup of Mexicans, let us look around, racially, at the rest of Latin America: Argentina and Chile are the prizes of Latin America for White Nationalists – the populations are said to be “all White,” the IQ’s are nice and high and so are the development figures. Yet studies show that Argentines and Chileans are not so White as WN’s say.

This study shows Argentines at 74% White and 26% Amerindian, which seems about right. It shows Chileans at 53% Amerindian and 47% White (I think that far overestimates Amerindian and underestimates White in Chile). Colombians are 48.5% White, 45% Amerindian and 6.5% Black (probably about right).

Brazilians, curiously, despite the fevered cries of WN’s that “the future of America is Brazil”, are 68% White, 17% Amerindian, and 15% Black.

However, see the comments at the end of the post for a probably better analysis of Brazilian genetics showing Brazilians as 52% White, 35% Black and 12% Amerindian.

While the WN’s scream about “Brazilianization”, I prefer “Cubanization”.

Cubanization should work just fine. 2% of the population of Latin America in Cuba produces 10% of the science grads, has the best educated population in the Americas, the lowest infant mortality and malnutrition, some of the longest life expectancy and are amongst the best-fed in Latin America. All this with all those darned Black inferior genes. How do they do it, and this is bad just how now?

These are typical Cuban women, and most of them are probably mixed-race to one degree or another. As you can see, they are starving, miserable, sickly and clothed in rags, since they live in a Communist Cuban Hell, or so the US media would have us believe. Although 37% of Cubans identify as White, we are getting into Latin American definitions of White here, and those are not the same as American definitions.

I had a Cuban-American girlfriend when I was 19 who looked something like the woman at left. Curious thing was that her father and mother were both a lot lighter than she was. How does that work anyway? I thought that a child cannot be darker than either of its parents?

Costa Ricans, which WN’s love to uphold as an “almost purely-White state” (see this link from a journal in the 1930’s, which claimed that 70% of Costa Ricans were pure White), are actually 61% White, 38% Indian and 3% Black – this is very much like the Hispanic population in the US, so despised as “non-White” by WN’s.

Other studies give us similar figures.

This study found Hispanic Costa Ricans 59% White, 34% Amerindian and 1% Black, while Black Costa Ricans were 76% Black, 14% Amerindian and 10% White.

Yet another study of Argentines showed that they were 79% White, 19% Amerindian and 2% Black.

Another cast doubt on the notion that many, if any, Argentines were pure White, and suggested that almost 100% of Argentines are at least part-Indian. That series of 94 Argentines found that they all had Amerindian blood, and that the lowest % was 1.5% (the highest ranged up to 84.5%). The average, in line with the study above, was 19% Amerindian, which seems about right.

However, another found that 56% of Argentines had Amerindian blood, and they had an average of 18% Amerindian in them. In many, it was not apparent on phenotype. Therefore, Argentina is a 44% White country and it is one of the Whiter countries in Latin America. However, it is still a majority-mestizo land.

Tragically, Argentine White nationalists have gone insane over this study and have tried to destroy the Wikipedia article. This is similar to the way that Italian and Greek White nationalists have gone nuts over the considerable evidence showing that Greeks and Southern Italians have ~5% Black genes.

Two studies out of Uruguay suggested a considerable amount of Amerindian and Black genes in Uruguayans. Previous studies found an average of 78% White, 10.5% Amerindian and 11% Black genes in Uruguayans. A study in the northern city of Tacuarembó found that residents were 31% Amerindian on the mother’s side (mtDNA).

Another study of Uruguayans in the Department of Cerro Largo found that they were on average 78% White, 15% Indian and 10% Black, similar to the study above.

Chile is quite similar – 30% of Chileans say they are White – but genes may give the lie to that. Most of the White component is from Spanish stock – mostly from Castille, Andalusia and the Basque Country.

Some Spaniards from Seville. In my town I actually see a lot of “non-White” Mexicans who look like these folks (especially the woman) to one degree or another.

The amount of non-Spanish White stock in Chile is not large, unlike Argentina, where large numbers came from Germany, Italy, Wales, Lebanon, Yugoslavia and other places.

Most Chileans are clearly mestizos – 69.5% of the population class themselves as such, but the true number is probably. Chileans, like Argentines, are about 80% White and 20% Indian, with some interesting, but not great, differentiations by class (dead link).

The upper classes are 85% White and 14% Amerindian, while the lower classes are 74% White and 25% Amerindian. Chilean Mestizos are also 1% Black.

As you can see here, most Chileans (every single woman in this picture) are Mestizos, whether they say they are or not. By their complexion and features, it seems reasonable that Chileans may be 20% Amerindian, as one study above estimates, but not 53% Amerindian, as the other does. This phenotype is ubiquitous among the mostly-Mexican Hispanics in my town. By the way, they sure are cute, huh?

Amerindians make up a full 10.5% of the population of Chile – 85% of them are Mapuches, who were never completely defeated by the Chilean government during the savage wars that raged in the mid to late 1800’s.

Chile is a profoundly racist and classist society compared to the US. On the Net recently, I learned of a flame war between Chileans and Peruvians on Youtube. I don’t understand Spanish well enough when spoken to understand the videos, so I don’t know all the details, however I gleaned a bit of it by looking at some Chilean discussion forums.

As I can read Spanish pretty well, I got a gist of the Chilean point of view. Many Chileans utterly despise Peruvians, whom they call Peruasnos, instead of the proper Peruanos (that means something like “Peruviasses”). Their main complaint against Peruvians, which they were not shy about making, was that Peruvians are dirty, filthy, inferior Indians.

That Chileans are 20% Indian is no matter. Chileans don’t see themselves as Indians, and Peruvians are, and that is that. The rank racism of the Chileans was appalling from a US point of view – sort of what you might find on Stormfront – except that this is apparently mainstream Chilean thinking.

I knew a Chilean once whose father had been in the Allende regime. He was studying sociology and planned to go live with an Indian community as part of his fieldwork.

Yet he laughed hysterically talking about the “ugliness” of Mapuches (I looked at photos on the Internet and thought the women at least were beautiful) and claimed that the Chilean poor were poor because they spent all their money on booze and gambling.

He also said in Chilean society it was important for a man to have “soft hands” (strange in such a macho society) because this meant that he was upper class and did not work with his hands like a lowly working-class guy. A glance at Chilean economic figures shows a society wildly stratified income-wise by class, far worse than even our increasingly Gilded Age America.

And the class attitudes above (reminiscent of, say, the British upper class) are all but absent from even upper-class US society. After meeting that fellow, and reading about Chile, I finally understood why men named Allende and Pinochet led the country for years, and why ferocious class division, and frankly class hatred, continues to wrack that land.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

217 Comments

Filed under Reposts From The Old Site

The Racial Makeup of US Chicanos

Repost from the old site.

There is a lot of nonsense floating around about the racial makeup of US Chicanos. Obviously, they are mixed-race people, being made up of a mixture of Indian and White, mostly from Spain, but to a lesser extent from other European nations such as France.

According to a report I accessed in the Journal of Physical Anthropology in the 1990’s, a study done on US Mexican-Americans (probably citizens, but I am not sure), mostly done in border cities, concluded that taking the whole group on average, US Mexican-Americans are:

68% White
30% Indian
2% Black

That is on average. Obviously, there are groups, including the openly racist White elite, who are much more, if not entirely White. There are others who are all or almost all Indian. And there are Black and Mulatto Mexicans.

According to the report, most of the inbreeding between Whites and Indians occurred soon after the conquest. The White conquerors had not brought enough women over here, so they made do with Indian women for wives.

There was less White-Indian interbreeding after early in the conquest, as a race-based system was set into place, with Whites being at the top, and pure Indians being at the bottom. In recent years, there has probably been very little White-Indian mixing.

In the intervening times, Mestizos of various shades bred in with each other, but Whites bred less with Mestizos as time wore on. Mestizos did not breed in a lot with Indians (although there was some of this), and only a little with the Whites, once again, lessening as time wore on.

Early on, some Black slaves were brought to “wonderful, non-racist” Mexico. They mostly settled on the Atlantic Coast. There was some limited interbreeding with Blacks and Mestizos and Blacks and Indians, such that your average Chicano now has a tiny amount of Black blood, much as he may not wish to believe that.

Keep in mind that as late as the late 1700’s, there was still quite a bit of interbreeding going on, including White-Indian, White-Mestizo, Indian-Mestizo and Indian-Black or Mulatto. At this time, there was still a shortage of White women in some parts of Mexico, which explains some of this. Plus, the system now is much more racist now than it was back then.

The reason I am even bothering to write this post is because of two breeds of ignoramuses: racist anti-immigrant activists, and equally racist Chicano nationalist fools.

Both of these groups have claimed recently in web posts that present-day Mexican immigrants to the US are “80% Indian”.

The radical Chicanos say this out of, frankly, their contempt for European Whites and European culture itself, and their fetishization of their own Indian ancestry (in particular, Aztec ancestry, although many Mexican Mestizos and Indians are not Aztecs. Here is a link to a radical Chicano site offering so-called scholarly evidence that, apparently, Mexicans are 80% Indian.

I say apparently because the piece is so poorly written (though the author is fairly intelligent) that it is hard to figure out what she is trying to say. She cites genetic studies done in Mexico that apparently show that Mexicans are 80% Indian and only 20% White. She quotes other studies done in the border states of the US that apparently show that US Chicanos are 62% Indian.

As you can see by the JPA study above, the JPA study totally contradicts these figures.

The racist Whites, including White Nationalists, say this because they view Indians as inferior to Whites, and they have a hard time swallowing the notion that the average Mexican is a mostly-White person like he is. I made a comment noting this on the Steve Sailor blog, but the comment was not accepted by the moderator for unknown reasons.

Now, I really don’t care if Mexicans are 80% Indian or not, but it is just not true. Although it pains both groups to believe this, your average Chicano is a mostly-White person with considerable Indian blood.

To this day, despite all the screams of La Raza propagandists about the wonders of Mexico, that country, and most of Latin America for that matter, is a profoundly racist place, much more racist than the US that the La Raza crowd continually condemns as racist.

Their own beloved Mexico is far more vicious and cruel in its treatment of illegal immigrants than the US they shower abuse on. Indeed, US treatment of illegal immigrants is comparatively mild. They are only housed for a brief time in detention centers, then they are deported. If I were to go to any nation on Earth illegally, the vast majority of places would treat me just as poorly, and in many cases worse.

The Aztlan Crowd needs to be confronted and exposed. Studies show that 63% of all Mexicans in Mexico believe that the part of the US known as “Aztlan” is actually a part of Mexico. Presumably, many believe that they have a right to take it back. Indeed, Mexico’s elite, including its intellectual class, is quite open on this subject.

More research needs to be done regarding how US Hispanics, legal and illegal, feel about this. How many of them believe Aztlan is really a part of Mexico? If they believe this, what do they think should be done about it? How strong are their feelings?

My own limited experience has been that the only Mexicans who call Whites “pilgrims” and talk about Aztlan, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Reconquista (Mexico taking back Aztlan in some way or another) have been college educated US Chicano intellectuals.

One guy was a typical egghead Leftist working on a Master’s Degree in History. Another was a professor of Spanish at a university who only came to the US when he was 26 years old. Of all the Mexicans and Chicanos I have met in the US, those are the only ones who ever brought up these subjects. There is a possibility that the average Mexican or Chicano in the US could pretty much care less about these issues.

We also need to try to gauge what causes Mexicans/Chicanos to adopt radical Aztlan-type causes. Does anti-immigrant sentiment increase the drift towards radicalism, slow it down, or have no effect? What can we do to keep our Mexicans/Chicanos from becoming radicalized in this way?

If the Aztlan movement is indeed an eventual threat to the territorial integrity of the US, this is something that most Americans should know about.

The Mexican War was wrong, but we won, and Mexico signed a treaty giving up the land. It was perfectly legal to conquer land by force back in those days. Limits need to be imposed in irredentism, otherwise every border on Earth will become a war zone.

The Aztlan crowd, for those who do not know, believe that all of California, Nevada, Arizona and Texas and parts of New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming are actually part of Mexico, not the US. These are the lands the US conquered from Mexico in the Mexican War back in 1848. The Mexican government signed a treaty and handed over the lands.

The radical Aztlan activists, including the largest US Hispanic student organization, MECHA, subscribe to this view that much of the Western US is actually a part of Mexico.

Unless and until MECHA and the radical Chicanos renounce their view that a part of the US is actually part of a foreign country (a frankly treasonous view), sensible progressives need to distance themselves from this nonsense and expose these folks’ treasonous alliance with a hostile foreign state to the American public.

There are some even more dangerous idiots in the Mexica Movement who call the entire Americas the land of Anahuac, a land that only Native Americans have a right to live in, and which all non-Indians, or possibly only Whites, have to go back to where they came from. As far as Blacks and other non-Whites who came to America, the movement is unclear (see below) on what needs to be done with them.

That is, all Whites (whatever that means) have to go back to Europe. As I said, the movement is confused on US Blacks, so we get radical Latino morons confronting Black anti-illegal immigration activists with, “Go back to Africa!” The same boneheads greet White anti-immigration activists with, “Go back to Europe!”

They also tend to call Whites “pilgrim” – that is an easy way to spot a Chicano nationalist. Because of their stupid belief that almost all Mexicans are “80% Indian” (destroyed above), the Anahuac fools say that all Mexicans get to stay in Anahuac while all the rest of us take off.

Despite its claims to be a pan-Indian movement, the Anahuac idiots are obviously almost all radical Mexican-American Chicano nationalists – a look at their webpage makes that clear. I believe that they have made little inroads with US Native Americans, and apparently few to none with other Latin American Indians.

It is interesting and insulting to other Indians the way that they have decided to name the entire area of the indigenous Americas Anahuac in reference to the Aztec name for the Valley of Mexico. This is simply a radical ethnocentric Chicano racist movement posing as and conflating itself into a pan-American Indianist movement.

Although the potential for serious violence and instability in this movement is apparently low for the time being, one of the dangers of permitting millions upon millions of Mexicans to anarchically flood into the US is the possibility of increased virulence and numbers of these irredentist crazies.

In about 100 years, though I will be dead, there is a potential for a serious problem from these folks due to increased numbers if nothing else. There may be some sporadic violence or worse from them in the interim, and the prospect of race riots by agitated Chicanos over immigration is a real worry even this early on, though little has materialized so far.

The La Raza crowd and the radical Chicanos had every right to scream about racism and discrimination against Hispanics back when the movement was founded in the 1960’s. Once they took it into ethnic nationalism, as with Black nationalism, it had the predictable racist and fascist effect that infects most all ethnic nationalism.

Obsession with La Raza, Aztlan, MECHA and Chicano nationalists have been the province of the Right, while the Left, incredibly and possibly unknowingly, has gone along with the open treason of these characters. That is disgusting. This is not a Left-Right issue.

Most progressive and Marxist regimes in the past century have not tolerated secessionists well, rightly or wrongly.

China did not tolerate Tibetan, Taiwanese or East Turkestan secessionists. The USSR crushed the Chechens. The Socialists in France and Spain did not allow the Catalans, Basques, Corsicans or Bretons to secede. Certainly no leftwing regime allowed a neighboring state to lob off a hunk of the homeland, as the Chicano nationalists are outrageously proposing.

We need not let the Right own this issue, and we need to stop accusing the Right of hysteria on the Aztlan issue (although they are sometimes guilty of it). Although there is little immediate concern, there is a potential for difficulties down the road.

New citizens should be quizzed on their allegiance to the nation before being granted citizenship, much as Muslims are being quizzed about their tolerance for Western openness before they immigrate to Europe. Perhaps Mexicans looking to become US citizens (a step we should promote) should, in the same vein, be quizzed on their opinions regarding the territorial integrity of the US, including the parts known as Aztlan.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

20 Comments

Filed under Reposts From The Old Site

Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, Hero

Repost from the old site.

Goodwin, a psychiatrist, was head of something called the Violence Initiative, intended to reduce the insane violence in our, ahem, (Black and Hispanic, but mostly Black) inner cities. He made the following extremely controversial comment, which I heartily endorse:

If you look, for example, at male monkeys, especially in the wild, roughly half of them survive to adulthood. The other half die by violence.

That is the natural way it is for males, to knock each other off and in fact, there are some interesting evolutionary implications of that because the same hyperaggressive monkeys who kill each other are also hypersexual, so they copulate more to offset the fact that more of them are dying.

Now, one could say that if some of the loss of social structure in this society, and particularly within the high impact inner-city areas, has removed some of the civilizing evolutionary things that we have built up and that may be it isn’t just the careless use of the word when people call certain areas of certain cities jungles, that we may have gone back to what might be more natural, without all the social controls that we have imposed upon ourselves as a civilization over thousands of years in our evolution.

Goodwin screwed up by using the monkey – jungle metaphor. That implies that Blacks are monkeys who live in the jungle. There’s no place in civilized discussion to call Blacks monkeys. They aren’t monkeys. They’re human beings. US Blacks have been out of the jungle for 200 years. And around the world, plenty of well-behaved folks live in jungles, so living in a jungle doesn’t automatically make you act like an animal.

Goodwin was condemned as racist and a Nazi for saying that. If believing that makes you racist and a Nazi, I guess I’m a racist Nazi then. The best way to answer this abuse from the Cultural Left is to simply agree with them.

First, rephrase the comment that upset them. Ask, for example, “Really, so saying that Black IQ’s are 13 points lower than White IQ’s is racism?” The idiot will usually say, “Yes, it is.” Then calmly nod your head and say, “OK, well, if saying that means I’m a racist, I guess I’m a racist.” Say it with complete aplomb, as if one were commenting on the weather.

We really need to take the sting out of some of these abusive words the Cultural Left is throwing at the sane people. Sure there’s plenty of racism around, but there’s less and less all the time. Most of the time anymore, “racist” is a just a term of abuse leveled against Whites. It’s just hate speech against Whites, like calling Blacks niggers.

Goodwin’s comment was outrageous, but it does seem to make a lot of sense, does it not?

The only alternative theories for the insane violence in our Black ghettos are bullshit notions like poverty, bad schools, bad neighborhoods, lack of education, lack of hope, lack of jobs, White racism, discrimination, oppression, on and on the bullshit piles.

The only thing bad about our ghettos is the humans who live in them. The neighborhoods, schools, etc. are lousy because the humans in the ghetto have destroyed them. There’s no jobs because the horrible behavior and mass crime of the humans in the ghetto has driven all the employers away.

The humans in the ghetto are poorly educated because they don’t want to get educated. There’s no hope in the ghetto because the humans who destroyed the neighborhoods also have to live in them, and that’s pretty hopeless.

About racism, discrimination and oppression, about the only racism, discrimination and oppression in our ghettos is against any non-Black person stupid enough to venture into them. The residents of the ghettos aren’t experiencing any real oppression or discrimination at all. Who’s oppressing them, beside the criminals they live with?

Who’s discriminating against them? Whites? They aren’t any White people in the ghetto to discriminate against anyone. Residents of the ghetto probably experience little racism too. They hardly see any Whites, and the only ones they do see are liberal do-gooder types. Blacks in suburbs live much better than ghetto Blacks and surely experience far more racism.

Yet this is what passes for sane discussion of one of the most important issues in our nation – utter nonsense.

Recent efforts to ameliorate the mess in our ghettos have involved tearing down or shuttering public housing and giving ghetto residents vouchers to go live anywhere they want.

As a socialist, I support these efforts. Ghetto residents ought to be able to live anywhere they can afford to, and packing lots of ghetto Blacks together tightly can’t possibly be a good idea. Blacks have moved out of the projects and into better neighboring areas.

The results have been mixed at best. The former ghetto residents act somewhat better, but not dramatically so. Crucially, they continue to have serious pathologies. This reinforces my view that the problem in the ghetto was always the humans who live there, not the buildings, the streets, the schools, or whatever.

2 Comments

Filed under Reposts From The Old Site

Crime Rates For Hispanics, Polynesians and Amerindians

Repost from the old site.

In the comments section, an anonymous commenter notes:

Hispanics, Amerindians, and Polynesians are all Asians or have Asiatic roots (and thus presumably lower testosterone) and still their crime rate is higher than Whites…this suggests that there is a social element to crime rates as well, probably related to the status of these groups as ‘persecuted minorities.’

I respond:

I have already discussed this in some of my other posts. It is true that elevated rates of crime among Asian-derived groups are somewhat mysterious.

However, no one knows what the testosterone levels of any of these groups are, nor do we have much information about personality styles, although Richard Lynn claims that numerous studies show that Amerindians have elevated rates of sociopathy.

However, they all have relatively low IQ’s (Hispanics = 90*, Amerindians = 88*, Polynesians = 87*) and in modern industrial capitalism, lower-IQ groups resort to mass crime, probably due to failure to achieve the successes that society tells them they deserve and the resulting extreme frustration.

This failure is probably to a great degree due to lowered IQ levels. Lower IQ groups generally do not do well in modern urban societies.

Hispanics have high crime rates in all of the capitalist nations of the Americas. The more Amerindian blood, the higher the crime. Pure Amerindians also seem to commit a lot of crime in Latin American urban areas. These people evolved in tribal societies and lately in small villages. Modern urban capitalism is just something they can’t cope with. They didn’t evolve with it, culturally or otherwise.

I doubt of Amerindians are persecuted much at all in most of the US (although there is a lot of anti-Indian racism in North Dakota at least). In this part of the country, AMERICAN (not Mesoamerican) Indians are highly regarded, and many Whites around here want to be Indians (Indian wannabes).

There are lots of California Indians living in these foothills here, and racism against them seems to be about zero, although there would seem to be grounds for some because their levels of pathology are unbelievably high and some of them live in nearly unimaginable filth and squalor, apparently deliberately. Most of their problems is this part of the country are self-inflicted.

Some tribes around here became very wealthy with casino money.

One tribe was giving out $7000/month checks to members, but they didn’t seem to act much better. Most of the young ones blew every nickel of the money on dope, alcohol, gambling and whatnot, did not invest in or improve housing stock (you drive by there and see 20-30 Indians of all ages lounging about with chickens running everywhere in a trashed-out front yard).

However, a few of them did save and invest the money. I know one fellow who is a millionaire who invests in many business ventures.

In this part of California, there is no discrimination against Hispanics at all. My city is majority Hispanic. They run the whole place. The only racism in that town is against White people. Hispanics are in charge in large swathes of this state. From my POV, they experience little or no discrimination or racism as a dominant group.

There is little to no discrimination or racism against Samoans or Tongans here either.

I can’t speak of Hawaii.

I really don’t think that any of these groups qualify as persecuted minorities, at least not in California. Other than lower IQ’s, I don’t have a good explanation for elevated crime rates though.

American Samoa has very high crime, while Western Samoa next door, with a traditional Polynesian lifestyle, is nearly crime-free. Clearly, Polynesian crime is predicated to a large degree on culture.

I understand that Mexico, especially in smaller villages, did not use to have a lot of crime. This has certainly changed recently.

It is extremely difficult to generalize about Amerindian behaviors. The Amerindian behavioral phenotype, like the Polynesian one, seems to be quite plastic and is capable of expressing itself in many different ways depending on the environment.

It’s well-known that there are Amerindian tribes, especially in the Amazon, who are so pacifistic that it’s almost comical. I can think of at least one in Venezuela. Curiously, they live near the Yanonamo, long thought to have the highest homicide rate on Earth. I doubt if their genes are much different.

With a relatively plastic behavioral phenotype, Amerindians are possibly highly susceptible to culture. In a pro-violence culture they can become ridiculously violent and criminal. In a culture that promotes pacifism and non-violence, they can become so peaceful that that it is almost a caricature. These are tribal people who evolved culturally to strictly abide by tribal cultural norms.

I suspect Polynesians also may have a plastic behavioral phenotype. The differences in the two Samoas suggest that Polynesian criminal behavior is heavily mediated by culture.

This is discussed in greater depth in the another post, The Moriori and the Dangers of Pacifism.

Crime is about a Hell of a lot more than testosterone or IQ.

Criminology is traditionally a black hole for theory.

*One  point was added to each score due to the recent renorming of US IQ scores.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

6 Comments

Filed under Reposts From The Old Site

The Moriori and the Dangers of Pacifism

Repost from the old site.

The saga of Moriori is instructive.

The Maori have long been known as ferocious headhunters and cannibals who had one of the cruelest and evillest cultures on Earth. The Moriori seem to be a Maori split dating back to about 1500 or so. They left New Zealand and colonized the Chatham Islands. The Chatham Islands are small, very cold and isolated, and there is not a lot of food other than from the sea.

Moriori legend has it that initially, widespread tribal warfare, headhunting and cannibalism was practiced as the normative cruel Maori culture. On such a small island, this savagery was disastrous, and soon the population plummeted to near extinction. A leader arose among the Moriori, Nunuku-whenua, who preached a new doctrine of extreme pacifism, Nunuku’s Law. Nunuku’s Law was strictly adhered to 300 years.

Fighting was allowed between males, but it had to be conducted with each armed with a stick the width of a finger. At the first sign of blood, the duel was called off, and the beef was considered settled. Homicide, rape and other crimes were reportedly rare to absent among the Moriori for centuries.

In 1835, the Chatham Islands were invaded by Maori warriors, who promptly proceeded to slaughter, cannibalize and enslave the Moriori. The Morioris gathered for a meeting to decide whether or not to fight the invaders. Many young men argued for fighting back, but the elders decided that Nunuku’s Law could not be violated for any reason.

The Moriori ran away and hid and were found and dealt with by the Maori.

Rightwingers have used this episode to exemplify the folly of pacifism.

Morioris were forbidden to marry each other, and Moriori women were forced to marry Maori men. It was a true genocide. From 1835-1862, the population declined from 1,600 to 100. Tommy Solomon, the last pure Moriori, died in 1933.

Tommy Solomon on his yearly visit to Christchurch. He was definitely a big fellow! He married a Maori woman, so his descendants are technically not pure Moriori.

Although popular myth says the Moriori were exterminated by the Maori, several thousand mixed-race Moriori still exist today. The Moriori language is extinct, but efforts are being made to raise it from the dead.

The saga of the Moriori gives the lie to the notion that race is destiny, at least among Polynesians.

It is commonly thought that Polynesians selected for extreme aggression on their long sea voyages to colonize distant islands. Food may have run low on these voyages, and the survivors may have killed others and cannibalized them to survive.

Perhaps the biggest and strongest were the ones most likely to survive the voyages, and this explains the huge size of Polynesians, probably the largest race on Earth, and possibly their high levels aggression and outrageous cruelty.

In modern Westernized societies, Polynesians characteristically become an Underclass with high crime, violence, gang membership and general pathology. In traditional societies, they often do well.

Whatever Polynesian genes look like, the saga of the Moriori shows that they are not doomed to high crime rates or Underclass pathology.

Genetics is the clay, culture is the sculptor.

14 Comments

Filed under Reposts From The Old Site

Organized Vs. Unorganized Violence

Repost from the old site.

A commenter, Perry, questions whether or not the Japanese of the 1930’s or the ancient Vikings had criminogenic genes, given their high rates of wartime plunder. Unstated but assumed, he seems to be ridiculing the notion because both Scandinavians and Japanese now have very low levels of crime and pathology in general.

To this, I say that regarding the Vikings and Japanese, see the difference between organized violence (war, imperial plunder, colonialism, etc.) and unorganized violence (crime, etc.) from Arthur Hu’s very un-PC page. This is a post from Steve Sailer’s ill-fated Human Biodiversity mailing list, and the post is written by Louis R. Andrews of the Stalking the Wild Taboo website.

Andrews is a racist ass, but he’s also very smart, and he makes some good points here. Here the Sierra Club condemns Andrews, on admittedly silly grounds, in a horrible editorial attempting to justify the Club’s unjustifiable and totally insane stance refusing to condemn mass or illegal immigration.

Andrews refers to this as legitimate versus illegitimate violence. Cultures can continue to exist and even thrive while waging regular warfare, while mass crime seems to be destructive to the glue of any civilization.

In my opinion, organized violence, even extreme organized violence, can unfold in any society, even very highly civilized ones with little crime or pathology within their own culture. In fact, these societies may be more prone to mass organized violence based on the premise of supremacy (Nazis, Japanese).

Leave a comment

Filed under Reposts From The Old Site

IQ Is a Meaningful Construct and Measurement

Repost from the old site.

IQ tests have been designed for a century now, and there is little real controversy anymore among psychometricians and psychologists about how accurate they are. The notion that they are culturally biased or inaccurate has largely been manufactured by the Cultural Left because unfortunately, the scores have not worked out very well racially in terms of upholding egalitarian principles.

Much is also made of what IQ tests measure, and whether they measure anything important. Surely they measure the brains necessary to compete effectively in a modern society.

They also line up well with many other things.

The lower the IQ, the more likely the person is to do stupid things – go to jail or prison, commit crimes or lots of crimes, have kids out of wedlock or as a teenager, parent multiple children by multiple partners, be a lousy parent to your child if you’re female or refuse to support the kid if you’re male, go on welfare, engage in domestic violence, have poor to low morals, join a street gang, shoot someone or get shot, refuse to plan for the future, drink or take drugs, die young, never go to the doctor, engage in extremely risky behaviors, fall victim to injurious or life-threatening accidents, refuse to engage in healthy behaviors such as eating properly and exercising, etc.

The lower the IQ, the stupider humans tend to act. The higher the IQ, the smarter humans tend to behave. These differences are most marked in a modern industrial capitalist urban society, and may not be so relevant in a tribal or village culture with strict behavioral norms.

Studies in prisons confirm that prisoners have lower IQ’s than the norm. In particular, they tend to have lower verbal IQ, while their performance IQ may be normal. This performance IQ > verbal IQ pattern is also seen in sociopaths.

These correlations hold across races, at least for Whites, Amerindians, Polynesians, Hispanics and Blacks (I’m not sure about Asians). It’s not just a Black thing.

Holding IQ constant, the Black violent crime rate does not differ dramatically from the White rate (Gordon 1987). This is one reason I strongly support efforts to raise Black IQ.

IQ is meaningful. If you meet someone with an 80 IQ, they won’t come across as a rocket scientist. If you meet someone with a 140+ IQ (like all of my siblings and my mother), they won’t come across as retarded or slow.

If IQ were the fallacious, nonsensical and worthless measure the Cultural Left says it is, we would regularly meet 150 IQ people who were dumb as rocks, and the universities would be crawling with 80 IQ Phi Beta Kappas.

That doesn’t happen.

References

R. A. Gordon 1987. SES versus IQ in the race-IQ-delinquency model. International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy 7:30-96

9 Comments

Filed under Reposts From The Old Site

Broken Windows Theory Proven

Repost from the old site.

Good stuff.

I used to not believe in that theory, but it looks like there is something to it. Perhaps by promptly removing litter, graffiti, etc., we can reduce crime in general.

Leave a comment

Filed under Reposts From The Old Site

Great Article on Illegal Immigration

Repost from the old site.

Here, by the fine writer Heather MacDonald. The Sanctuary City laws (list of Sanctuary Cities ) issue is admittedly complex, and many police chiefs do support them.

The idea is that cops want illegals to cooperate as crime victims and witnesses to crimes. But my observation is that illegals don’t cooperate even if they are crime victims. I watched one car full of illegals hit a van with a couple of illegals in it in town recently. I asked the people who got hit if they wanted to go to the cops, but they turned around, got back in their vehicle and drove away.

It’s well known that the local gangbangers around here prey on drunken illegals, who are often wandering around at 3 AM with pockets full of cash. It’s called “rolling drunks.” The victim never goes to the cops.

It seems like 50% of this stupid city of 50,000 people are illegal aliens and their awful children. If in general they acted like Danes or Japanese, I honestly don’t think people would care that much. They don’t, and that’s part of the whole problem.

We could easily modify Sanctuary City policies to say that cops may not ask witnesses and crime victims of their immigration status.

Heather MacDonald offers some commonsense solutions to the admittedly difficult quandary of whether or not cops should get involved with immigration law – local cops should be able to arrest known criminals who have been deported and are back in the US – that’s a felony anyway.

I was stunned that many cities don’t even try to figure out if the criminals they arrest are illegals. At the very minimum, police ought to check immigration status of everyone they arrest. They sure do here in this town. A check of the county jail site reveals a vast number of criminals who are remanded to the INS.

I think the ethnic lobbies need to be called out as traitors. The Hispanic Lobby is a treasonous lobby with far worse dual loyalty issues than the Jews. At least Jews don’t form street gangs that lay waste to hundreds of square miles of cities, and they’re generally pleasant, intelligent and civilized in person.

The truth is that an overwhelming number of recent immigrants from Mexico in the past 20 years (Almost all recent immigrants from Mexico are illegal aliens – 85% of those who immigrated from Mexico in the past 18 years are illegals) are loyal first to Mexico and then, if at all, to the US. That’s not acceptable.

Probably very large numbers of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans think that the Southwest belongs to Mexico, and they have a right to walk across the border the same way they can walk across the border from Oaxaca to Michoacan. Fact is, they don’t think that border has a right to exist.

That’s a completely unacceptable and downright treasonous attitude, and it ought to be condemned by patriots every time it rears its head.

The entire Hispanic Lobby in the US is basically a Treason Lobby which is loyal to a foreign state and disloyal to America.

Furthermore, the Hispanic Lobby and their moron allies on the Left really do advocate something resembling Open Borders. Once you sit down and talk to them, it quickly becomes apparent that they think anyone ought to have a right to walk across the Mexican border into the US no questions asked. And right away, they should have the right to ask to be legalized, and that right should be granted.

That’s completely insane. Not only is there a terrorist question involved, but Mexico is screaming with a mad Drug War that is starting to look like Iraq. Sooner or later, this insanity is coming to the US. Open Borders would only hasten the day.

People seem so puzzled about why I am so militant on this issue. Let me tell you, only three years ago I supported full amnesty for all 12-20 million illegals in the US. Why? I didn’t live with them. I heard stories from my friends about how illegals had laid waste to whole vast urban areas in my state, but I shrugged my shoulders. Like Black crime, it didn’t effect me.

Moving to a Valley city that feels it’s it’s about 50% illegals tipped me over into near-psychosis on this issue real fast. It’s kind of the liberal-until-mugging story.

One more thing whenever anyone tells you how wonderful illegal aliens are. Just remember:

Illegal aliens did 9-11!*

*It’s a little-known fact, but several of the 9-11 terrorists were illegal aliens – VISA overstayers. We really need to publicize this issue more – Illegal Aliens Did 9-11 is one kickass slogan.

Leave a comment

Filed under Reposts From The Old Site