Category Archives: Overpopulation

“Pollution and Overpopulation in India,” by Magneto

Pollution and Overpopulation in India

by Magneto

Recently there was a huge festival in India called Diwali, and Indians celebrate it by popping off a bunch of firecrackers and fireworks. These fireworks are built with cheap, toxic ingredients, and you may think, “Oh well, shooting off a few fireworks won’t do much damage to air quality,” but when a nation of 1.3 billion people are all shooting off toxic fireworks, well yes, it has an effect.

Indians woke up to a massive pollution smog cloud the day after Diwali, and the visibility was so bad that you could barely see a few meters ahead of you. Many Indians complained about their eyes and lungs burning from the air. Official air quality tests showed that the pollution levels were 10 times higher than safe levels. This is how dumb Indians are. For the sake of shooting off a few fireworks, their cities are covered in toxic smog that is literally killing them slowly. Indians are clearly such selfish, heartless people that they could care less even about their own children because everyone is breathing in this air, including their own children.

And Indians make the problem worse by their uncontrolled reproduction habits. Already India is massively overpopulated, and Indians just keep breeding like cockroaches. Although I am not a fan of Big Government, in this case, it would be a very good thing if India had a strong government like China’s and enforced a one-child population control policy. The pollution in India is caused by overpopulation because the more people that are born, the greater the environmental impact is going to be.

Unless India deals with its overpopulation crisis immediately, there will be zero hope for the country. And it’s probably already too late. Even worse is the fact that many Hindus murder their female babies or abort them in the womb once they find out it’s a girl. Sociologists have shown that when men outnumber women in society by a large enough margin, society itself becomes ultra-violent. Think about that. When a man realizes that he has no hope of ever having a normal life, getting married, and having children, there is a much higher chance that he will turn to anti-social activities and crime because such men basically have nothing to lose.

This is the future that India has to look forward to. A society with an extremely high crime rate and very low living standards because there are simply not enough resources to go around for the massive numbers of population being produced. There really is no solution to this problem and even implementing a one-child policy is not enough to stop it at this stage.

India is the toilet bowl of the world, and the bacteria is spreading at an uncontrollable rate. South Asians, consisting of India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh, are simply having too many children, and the rest of the world needs to isolate South Asia and let it rot in its own filth. There is nothing we can do to help South Asians. They have created their own mess by their uncontrolled breeding habits, corruption, inhumanity and selfishness.

The only thing we can do is isolate them and do not let them immigrate to the rest of the world. Let them live in the toilet bowl they have created. Wherever they go in the world, they will spread the same cancer they have created in their home countries. So unless the rest of the world wants to be turned into a 3rd world shithole with 3rd world living standards, the only thing we can do is to isolate these barbarians in their own countries and refuse to have any trade or connection with them. Isolate them completely and don’t let these parasites feed off of the West anymore.

I’m sure some of you may think this is extreme, but unless you have actually been to India or  South Asia in general and have seen the utter horror of reality here, you can’t truly understand. We cannot let Indians and South Asians spread their horrific lifestyles and culture to the rest of the world.

35 Comments

Filed under Corruption, Crime, Culture, Environmentalism, Gender Studies, Government, Guest Posts, Immigration, India, Overpopulation, Pollution, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia

Four False Ideas about Overpopulation

Steve is a left-leaning commenter who posted a video with a deceptive title that nevertheless has some interesting things to say about overpopulation – namely, the global birth rate is at replacement, all nations are trending downwards, and many 3rd World countries are trending towards replacement level also. Global population, instead of growing exponentially,  will instead hit 11 million around the year 2100 and will level off after that.

However, I disagree with the scientist who made this video that world overpopulation is therefore no big deal. This is simply a Pollyanna view of things.

This is in HD and the real title is ‘don’t panic- the truth about population’.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x175qup_bbc-this-world-don-t-panic-the-truth-about-population-h264-1280×720-aac-rmac_news

There are two sources of some very crazy views about overpopulation, one from the Right and one from the Left. A third view held by elites and even US liberals, is not much nuts as it is just wrong. The fourth view, which is portrayed in the Steve kindly linked to, is the most rational anti-overpopulation view of all. While certainly positive and hopeful, this view founders on the shoals of blind optimism.

. Hard rightwing economic liberals or Libertarians who believe that in order for capitalism to succeed, you need a population that grows forever. These nuts, one of whom is named Simon (some Jew, figures), offer the Netherlands as an example. As if the whole world could be as overpopulated as the Netherlands and still function!

The other nutcases are on the Left. These loons hate all talk of overpopulation because it shuns aside the causes of poverty, instead blaming poverty on poor people “having too many kids!” This is true to some extent, but it glosses over the fact that overpopulation is indeed a horrific problem in the Third World for many reasons, not least of which is the destruction of ecosystems, species and whatnot.

And many 3rd World countries are not the slightest bit overpopulated. For instance, Bolivia is not the slightest bit overpopulated. If anything, they are underpopulated. Bolivia is one of the most underpopulated places on Earth. Why are they so poor? Because income is distributed so poorly.

Others have high incomes but distribute wealth very poorly. For instance, Mexico, with a PCI of $15,000/yr, is a relatively wealthy country. Many nations with PCI’s like that are nice, modern and pleasant places to live. Not 3rd World at all. In fact, $15,000/yr is approaching 1st World incomes. Yet recently up to 50% of Mexicans lived in poverty, and 28% have no sewage treatment and presumably have no access to safe water either.

Mexico City’s slums are horrifying. There is so much shitting outside going on that there are tiny bits of toilet paper and shit floating around in the air of Mexico Shitty all the time. I call this phenomenon “shit air,” and I assume Mexico Shitty is not the only place where even the very air you breathe is literally full of shit.

The argument here is, “Mexico has too many people!” Actually they do not. California is more crowded than Mexico. Anyway, at $15,000 PCI there should be plenty to go around.

There is a third false view about the overpopulation problem. This view is not so much crazy as it is simply self-serving and false. One group (often Democratic Party liberals and liberal or elite types in other nations) likes to put all the blame for 3rd World poverty on poor people having too many babies. If you mention that Bolivia is actually underpopulated, you get a wild argument that, “They have too many kids!” Yet with such an underpopulated country, even a fairly high birthrate should not be a major problem. They do not wish to discuss distribution problems because presumably they don’t really support redistribution of income.

The other group (the Leftists) says that overpopulation is not a problem and anyway, saying 3rd Worlders have too many babies is racist. They also say that focusing on overpopulation takes away focus on income maldistribution, which is true.

The third group is simply insane. High birth rates? No problem, good for growth. Overpopulated countries? Cool, the better to grow your economy with, my dear. The whole world can easily be as overpopulated as the Netherlands with no issues whatsoever. This argument is so insane that there is no use refuting it.

These arguments are a bit circular. Poor people tend to have lots of kids. Telling them to stop making kids doesn’t really work. They rely on kids for labor and social security when they get old because the state has no elderly pension program. Until you distribute income better, you will never get low population growth. And as you stabilize incomes the way the loony Leftists want, the population naturally stabilizes anyway as women who have stable lives prefer not to have lots of children.

Really all four of these groups are just wrong.

  1. The whole world cannot live like the Netherlands. Explosive birth and growth rates are hardly good for growth. Look at Latin America, the Philippines, India and sub-Saharan Africa. Babies popping out all over the place. See any growth there? Of course not. Exploding population growth seems to coincide with mass poverty.
  2. Overpopulation is indeed a problem in many ways. If you are a blind Leftist and can’t see that, there’s no hope for you. You are simply an irrational ideologue.
  3. Maldistribution is indeed a problem and it needs to be fixed, whether you liberals like it or not. Income inequality is a terrible thing, and it causes a whole witches brew of problems in and of itself.
  4. It is very positive and hopeful that the world’s birth rate is at replacement level, the birth rate is trending down in most nations, and even 3rd World countries are now at or near replacement birth rates. Nevertheless, this rose colored glasses view glosses over the problem that 7.2 billion people is already far too many for our carrying capacity and is causing many problems in the world in and of itself to both human and nonhuman life and environments. If 7.2 billion is already disastrous, one can imagine how much worse 11 billion is going to be. This false view seems to be that “a positive trend equals a positive result.” That is very tempting thinking, but the more you think about it, the more you realize its fallacious nature.

27 Comments

Filed under Americas, Environmentalism, Latin America, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Mexico, Overpopulation, Political Science, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South America

What I Would Give to See This Clock Run Backwards

The only three clocks on that page that are important are the clocks showing

  • World Population Growth
  • Population Growth Today
  • Population Growth This Year

The only clocks I like to see going up are:

  • Deaths Today
  • Deaths This Year

Births Today  and Births This Year clocks will increase in numbers no matter what the world’s population is like. New babies are born every day and every year no matter what, no getting around that.

That World Population Growth clock is one of the most terrifying things I have seen in a long time. I am actually glad that I have maybe a few more decades here before I shuffle off this mortal coil. I don’t want to be around for the inevitable genocidal “correction” (similar to a stock market
“correction”).

Malthus was right, and Malthusianism is a hard and fast rule as good Newton’s or any other physical law. At some point, human population will simply grow too large and then mass war, starvation or disease will correct the numbers. It works precisely this way in Nature, and humans are nothing if not animals ourselves. Always remember, not only can’t you fool Mother Nature, but:

Mother Nature Always Bats Last.

12 Comments

Filed under Environmentalism, Overpopulation, Sociology

World Population Clock

Here.

Great website. Watch the world’s population climb inexorably upwards!

You can set it to see the whole world’s population (a truly terrifying clock that increases seemingly about 3 human beings per second), or you can set it per nation. The nation clocks generally do not climb very fast, in fact, most of them climb so slowly that you can’t even watch them go up in the time a normal patient person would logically sit in front of the clock. The number of nations that grow by more than one human being per minute is not large at all.

And it is true that a number of nations (including some that would really surprise you) are either hardly growing at all, are basically flat or are even losing population.

Many nations in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, are actually losing population. Nations in Western Europe tend to be gaining population but at a much slower rate, probably almost all due to immigration. Among the West European nations, Italy is losing population.

It is claimed that Communism caused East Europe and the former USSR to lose population, but as far as I can tell, the population losses happened after the move to capitalism and not before. At any rate, if Communism causes negative population growth, I would say that that is one thing in its favor!

In Latin America, Cuba is actually losing population. Rightwing liars claim that this is because so many young people leave the island, but that’s not true.

It’s because it is developing the population structure typical of a 1st world country. First world countries tend to develop negative population growth after a bit. Cuba’s population is aging in a typical First World trend. This is due to great medical care and general high quality of life.

Not that many young people leave Cuba in the first place, and when they do, they almost all go to the US. It is fascinating that Cubans only want to go to the US. For some reason, they shun the capitalist workers’ paradises of Latin America. Now why is that? Also, a huge number of the young of Mexico and even Central America leave their countries (also to come to the US just like the Cubans do), but their populations continue to grow.

So obviously, Cubans aging population and negative population growth are not caused by the propaganda lie of “all the young people are leaving.”

When your survival and whatnot is pretty much assured and women are educated, women get smart and don’t have many kids. Many 3rd World nations lack social security (even Communist China to their discredit), so people have lots of kids to take care of them in their old age. Others have lots of kids to have free labor to help on their small farm plots.

Women are not educated in many 3rd world countries and birth control is not widely available. Many such nations are under oppressive macho patriarchy in which men feel that having more kids makes them more masculine.

Check out the clocks of India and China if you really want to scare yourself.

93 Comments

Filed under Americas, Asia, Capitalism, Caribbean, Central America, China, Conservatism, Cuba, Economics, Education, Environmentalism, Europe, Gender Studies, Health, India, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Mexico, Overpopulation, Political Science, Regional, South Asia, USSR, Women

Deep Ecology – An Overview

Repost from the old site.

One thing people ought to know about this blog is that one of
my philosophies is Deep Ecology. Click that link and you so you can try to figure out what it means. It was part of a debate in the environmentalist (especially radical environmental) movement that probably really got going in the 1990’s.

It had several rivals, including Social Ecology, promoted by a fellow named Murray Bookchin . Deep Ecology was promoted by a guy named Arne Naess. There’s also Ecofeminism, which I’m not really up on, because I can’t stand most kinds of feminism, although pro-porn feminists sounds like they are after my heart.

To me, Deep Ecology means something like, “Up with the animals, down with the people.” I’m not saying kill the people or anything like that, but I think in general, most species have a right to survive just like people. And no, White nationalists may not give me a debate in the comments section of this post about why their race is an endangered species.

Notable Deep Ecologists and influences include Edward Abbey of The Monkeywrench Gang fame, Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First! (many EF’ers are Deep Ecologists), Mike Roselle, also of EF!, Judi Bari (probably framed by the FBI), Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold , Theodore Roszak, John Zerzan (anarchist intellectual from Oregon) and Gary Snyder (Buddhist beatnik poet).

An overview of the Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology dust-up is here. In general, Deep Ecologists were more anarchists and Social Ecologists were more traditional socialists. I recall a Social Ecologist saying that if an animal had to be driven extinct to keep poor humans from suffering, than so be it.

They also opposed the idea of protecting animals like tigers that kill humans. If a tiger protection plan deepened the poverty of already poor humans, they would oppose that. This is pretty much the mentality of socialist states in the past 100 years, which in general have cared a lot more about the needs of humans than animals.

Deep Ecologists had major roots in the Green Party and the worldwide Green Movement as a whole. They tend to support not just reduced population growth, but actual negative population growth and population declines within nations.

This puts Deep Ecology on an oppositional status with almost all nationalists, especially ethnic nationalists. Ethnic nationalists in particular have always championed high birth rates. White nationalists are extremely pro-natalist for Whites only, and they go nuts over articles about White women having 18 kids. That would keep me out of such a movement right off the bat.

Ominously, all fascists have also always been fiercely pro-natalist.

Capitalism also, dependent on ever-increasing population for the insanity of ever-increasing economic growth, is very much pro-natalist. Capitalist theory holds that population declines will destroy the capitalist economy. That’s a great reason to reject neoliberal capitalism, or possibly capitalism itself, right there.

One of Deep Ecology’s critiques of standard environmentalism is why we should preserve habitats and species.

The standard line is that we must do this because these things can or may provide great benefit for human beings. Wilderness areas are preserved so humans can run around in them, birds are preserved so humans can look at them with binoculars, and rainforests and species are preserved because science can study them and figure out new medical or technological applications to benefit humans.

Deep Ecologists say that this is anthropocentrism. Species and places should be preserved for their inherent value, regardless of whether or not humans can use them or exploit them for human benefit. That’s a major philosophical position that you might want to ponder.

We had a big to-do over the California spotted owl (CASPO) in this part of the Sierra Nevada about 15 years ago. Bottom line is some mills closed, people lost their jobs, homes went into foreclosure, etc. About 100% of the population up here was in favor of the loggers who were wrecking the forest and against the owls.

As it turns out, the restrictions that the Forest Service put in are not even working to preserve the CASPO, and it surely needs to be listed at least as federally threatened. The crooked Fish and Wildlife Service won’t do so because that would mean further logging restrictions.

At the time, I used to delight in infuriating people by saying that 1 spotted owl was worth about 20 humans. Hardly anyone seemed to go along with that.

The species accounts on this blog are in the spirit of Deep Ecology. I’m an animal lover. I wish I could love human animals just as much, but it seems like non-human animals are in general nicer and more reliable.

By the way, Dave Foreman’s Confessions of an Eco-Warrior (1991) is highly recommended as a primer in deep ecology.

2 Comments

Filed under Animals, Birds, Capitalism, Economics, Endangered Species, Environmentalism, Ethnic Nationalism, Fascism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Government, Nationalism, Overpopulation, Owls, Political Science, Racism, Reposts From The Old Site, Socialism, Spotted Owls, White Nationalism, Wild

Immigration – A Question of Quality

Repost from the old site.

It is quite common in the US for the debate on immigration to be split into polar opposites. On the pro-immigrant side is an utterly insane Open Borders group that seems to more or less argue for unfettered immigration into the US. The overwhelming majority of the US business class supports this for the sole reason of cheap and easily intimidated labor.

On the liberal side of the spectrum, many liberals simply feel it is cruel to keep anyone out of the US who wants to come here. Many others have swallowed the pro-diversity propaganda whole. There is a whole industry out there that is promoting diversity and multiculturalism.

These things are human norms, and human societies have been diverse and multicultural since the beginning of time, so it is insane to argue that these things are unnatural, which is a typical White nationalist argument.

The problem is that diversity, while normal, is not necessarily such a great thing per se. For one thing, various immigrant groups can be poor quality and create many problems for a society. Hispanic immigrants and their offspring are vastly more criminal and problematic that other immigrant groups, or than, say, White Americans.

Long-term resident Hispanics often cause few problems, but the recent immigrants and their children have been a total nightmare. New evidence shows that diversity reduces trust at the neighborhood level. It is common sense that high-diversity societies are often more unstable that monocultural societies.

I am not saying any of this to be a xenophobe. I am just pointing out that it makes little sense to shill for diversity as if it were automatically a good thing in and of itself.

We also have minority groups, in particular Hispanics, who are now pro-immigrant simply out of ethnocentrism and for no other reason. On this, the Left is utterly bonkers. Black and Hispanic ethnocentrism is cheered on wildly, while Whites are forbidden to be ethnocentric themselves.

This Identity Politics has been the curse of the Left since the 1960’s. It is now backfiring as a new White nationalist movement comes into being. This movement is nothing but the logical result of Whites creating their own Identity Politics movement after the Left fertilized society with this nonsense cult.

Also, now that the Open Borders crowd has, in the past 15 years, cleverly conned society into thinking that anti-immigrant sentiment (even anti-illegal immigrant sentiment!) is de facto racist, you have many guilt-ridden folks, especially liberals and Centrists, who support even illegal immigration out of fear of being called a racist.

Nearly the entire US environmental movement has gone over to Open Borders, including Earth First and the Center for Biological Diversity. Sierra Club lost its anti-immigrant battle long ago. Since CBD is focused on endangered species, their position seems particularly insane.

Habitat loss by overpopulation is obviously one of the major causes of environmental damage and the extinction crisis. Anyone who cannot see this is blind. The environmental movement has come out for Open Borders simply out of terror of being labeled racist and for no other reason.

On the opposite side, we have a lot of sensible folks, especially those who want to limit illegal immigration. Even 14 years ago, the debate was much more sensible. In 1994, 40% of California Hispanics voted for Proposition 187 to limit social services to illegals. Now, things have gotten so polarized that I think many of those Hispanics are probably Open Borders folks.

We also have lots of nasty racists, especially White nationalists, on the anti-immigrant side. These people simply do not want any non-White immigration whatsoever, though they are not opposed to the immigration of European Whites (However arbitrarily they may define that group!).

Most of these folks actively dislike everyone who is not White; there are others who do not, but just want to “preserve the declining White race” as if it were an animal subspecies on the Endangered Species List.

There are also the xenophobes. Vdare is a good example of these folks. They just don’t like any furriners period. Most people here are not White nationalists at all – they just oppose non-Americans coming to our land.

In general, most of the hardcore anti-immigrant crowd is on the political Right. The Left has granted this entire field to the Right, even on illegal immigration, which, incredibly, almost the entire liberal wing of the Democratic Party seems to support.

There may be less ulterior motives for this. Democrats need Hispanics votes to win, and the only way to get those these days is to support amnesty for 12 million illegals. More cynically, Democrats are supporting illegals as a way to get 12 million new Democratic voters into the US, since 80% of Mesoamerican immigrants are voting Democratic.

Hence it is nice to see someone step out of the box on immigration, like this progressive, Randall Burns, on Vdare actually coming out against illegal immigrants, but focusing his anger on the businesses who hire them. He also makes an argument similar to the one I have made – that mass illegal immigration has been a major factor in both the screwing of the US worker and in the wild inequality gap of the past 35 years .

We need some sense on the immigration debate. In particular, we on the Left and in the environmental movement need to open up some space for the progressives and environmentalists to take sane positions on immigration without fear of being called racists.

First of all, not all immigrants are bad news. It is hard to make a case that legal immigration has been a terrible problem for this country, though we need to drop the numbers way down. The “limit” is now something like 1.1 million legal immigrants.

There is not a lot of evidence that even this level of legal immigration has harmed wages, created crime waves, or done much of anything other than harmed the environment. It is dubious whether legal immigrants take jobs for less wages than US citizens. Most legal immigrants come here and want to work for US wages.

H-1B and the gamut of other “temporary worker” visas are often simply outrageous. Businesses do indeed bring in foreign workers for just about every position imaginable generally for the sole reason of cheap labor. These visas are “non-immigrant temporary worker” visas and last for up to six years!

The whole temporary worker visa BS game needs to be pretty much scrapped. There is little evidence of any labor shortage in any field anywhere in this nation. Most stories about such shortages are simply lies.

Illegal immigration is a catastrophe because the immigrants are unscreened.

With legal immigration, we have a very strict process that winnows out a large number of prospective candidates. The process is so long and drawn out that only those determined to assimilate make it through the program. Once in, they need to be on very good behavior and can be deported for the slightest thing. Legal immigrants in general are not a serious problem in our nation.

With illegal immigration, you are simply importing entire slices of foreign countries wholesale. It’s madness. We have no idea who these folks are, and many of them are criminals and bad folks indeed. Their whole time they are in the US they are breaking the law every day in myriad ways. Their employer is breaking the law. They are using fake ID.

When you import an illegal, you’ve just imported a criminal.

Refugees are another problematic group of immigrants, also because they are unscreened.

I do love SE Asians, but we have had quite a few problems here in California with Vietnamese, Lao, Khmu, Khmer and Hmong gangs. These groups also have huge rates of welfare use, even many years on. It’s clear that they are hardly paying for themselves. I think most of these folks will eventually work out.

Yet even where SE Asian gangs are a problem, SE Asians have a low crime rate. Fresno is near here, and the city’s crime statistics are interesting.

In Fresno, Blacks have a wildly elevated crime rate, the Hispanic rate is about 3 X the White rate, and the “Asian” rate is much lower than the White rate. But most Asians in Fresno are SE Asians. This implies that even with their gangs, SE Asians have a much lower crime rate than Whites.

Nevertheless, there are reports of Liberian and Somali refugees in the US committing a lot of crime and using a lot of welfare. In Australia, Sudanese refugees have been a nightmare.

In one town where many were settled, their crime rate is eight times the normal rate. At a meeting called by a bunch of liberal do-gooders to whitewash the problem of the Sudanese, a Sudanese refugee stole the briefcase of one of the top liberal presenters!

It seems to me that African refugees can be adequately resettled in other African lands. I do not think that many of these people are going to fit in well with our modern society.

It is interesting that other than some Caribbean and Mesoamerican immigrants, Hispanic immigrants have caused few problems.

We have sizable numbers of Brazilians, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Panamanians, Costa Ricans, Hondurans, Colombians, Ecuadorians, Peruvians, Chileans, Argentines, Uruguayans and Bolivians in the US. Other than some Colombian drug dealers, most of these groups are causing few to no problems.

The reason is that they are not flooding in here as refugees or illegals. They are coming in as legal immigrants, and we are probably doing a good job of screening them.

On the other hand, Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans have been a nightmare. Vast numbers of all of these groups came here illegally, in the case of the Central Americans, as war refugees. So vast numbers of this group were simply unscreened immigrants. Unscreened means low quality, de facto.

Cubans are a problem in that this is an example of an ingrate immigrant. Since we outrageously automatically let them in as soon as they set foot on land since they are fleeing evil Communism, they have little motivation to assimilate.

Hence they have recreated 1958 Havana in Miami, complete with outrageous corruption, and insane gap between the rich and poor, a corrupt government serves only the rich and spits on everyone else, and a city where English is not necessary. One can go into nice stores and hotels in Miami and you will not find anyone who speaks English. The English language has for all intents and purposes disappeared from this vast city.

One gets the impression that almost no other country on Earth would put up with this sort of insane bullshit.

Unfortunately, Puerto Ricans and Samoans have been problem ethnic groups. This is because they are unscreened! Puerto Rico and American Samoa are colonies of the United States in a world that has decolonized. Because they are US colonies, just about any Puerto Rican and American Samoan gets to come to the US as easily as I can move to New York.

Both groups have a high crime rate and have fallen into Underclass gang culture. The solution is to completely decolonize the US. American Samoa and Puerto Rico need to be set free and cut off the welfare gravy train and Puerto Ricans and American Samoans need to get into the normal immigration line like everyone else.

After 1965, huge numbers of Dominicans from the Dominican Republic flooded into the US as legal immigrants. Now, I like Dominicans just fine and have known a couple of them, but the available information indicates that they have caused a lot of crime, ghettoization and an Underclass in Upper Manhattan – Washington Heights and Inwood – and in much of the Bronx, though legal immigrants.

This is a case where mass immigration of a national group, in this case Dominicans, has not worked out well. The only solution is to get a lot stricter about which Dominicans we allow to immigrate to the US.

It’s also true that mass legal immigration of Mexicans to the US has not worked out well. The available data show that even in the 4th and 5th generation, Chicanos have very high rates of high school dropout and gang involvement. They have very low rates of college graduation. We obviously are not doing a very good job of selecting legal Mexican immigrants to the US and we need to be a lot more selective.

For Mexicans and Dominicans, studies should be undertaken to determine which ones are likely to work out well and which are likely to join the Underclass. Perhaps even IQ tests could be used to screen. This is a difficult area and I do not have all the answers.

Immigrants to your country are like visitors to your house. If an immigrant group is causing problems, it’s time to evaluate our criteria for letting them in, the same way you deal with troublemakers in your home. By definition, legal immigrants should be a benefit to our nation. Groups are likely to create more problems than benefits are not good for America and need to be subject to a more selective immigration process.

There are some Jamaican gangs, but in general, we do not have a Jamaican Underclass seething in our cities. I do not know much about Haitian immigrants. I am not aware that a teeming Haitian Underclass is a threat to the republic.

White nationalist racists like to say that the problem with some immigrant groups is that they are a genetically low quality group. There is nothing to this. Perhaps if we let whole populations flood in unscreened, we could have this discussion.

East Indians, Filipinos and Black Africans are three groups that do not have extremely high IQ’s. All of these places are steaming Third World wrecks. Yet Filipino, Black African and East Indian immigrants have been some of the most wildly successful immigrants of them all. The reason is simple – screening.

No ethnic group is “low quality” per se. Certainly, properly screened, one can find immigrant gold in any race or ethnic group. This ought to be a principle of a sane immigration policy.

On the other hand, letting Black Africans and East Indians flood in here unscreened would probably be a nightmare. They would simply tend to recreate Calcutta or Lagos in the US.

1 Comment

Filed under Americas, Asians, Blacks, California, Criminology, Cubans, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Dominicans, Environmentalism, Fake Guest Workers, Florida, Hispanics, Illegal, Immigration, Legal, Mexicans, Overpopulation, Puerto Ricans, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, Scum, SE Asians, Sociology, South, Urban Decay, Urban Studies, US Politics, USA, West, White Nationalism, Whites

Let’s Hear It For Population Decline

Population decline in 2009 in red - purple means population decline coming soon

Population decline in 2009 in red - purple means population decline coming soon

Give it a one, give it a two, give it a three cheers for population decline!

One thing I hate about ethnic nationalists all over the world is that they are pro-natalist. Of all the horrible things on Earth to do, to cheer on women for overpopulating this ruined planet…my God. This is one thing that ultranationalists all over the Earth seem to be on the same page with, last time I checked, though maybe Chinese nationalists are immune from it.

In the 1920’s and 1930’s, a hallmark of European fascism that spread like wildfire across the continent was pro-natalism. Lamentably, even Communists like Ceausescu got into this, though hardly any Commies anywhere want to claim that monster. Stalin outlawing abortion was a pro-natalist move, but then, Comrade Stalin had some fascist tendencies sometimes.

What about Hindutvas? What’s their position on natalism? Pro or anti? I wonder what the position of say, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, Arab ultranationalists is? Ultranationalists in Russia have never seen anything so horrible. Capitalists in the West are all upset about population decline in Italy. I guess that means no more pasta and Michelangelos or Sophia Lorens.

I will say that population decline due to declining life expectancy below a certain age is not a good thing. This is what is happening in the Eastern Bloc and Russia. Life expectancy decline is occurring in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and Bulgaria. You idiots wanted to go from socialism to capitalism, and look what happened. Capitalism is killing you off! Fools.

In Africa, population decline is occurring in Swaziland and Zimbabwe due to AIDS and in Darfur apparently due  to genocide. Amazing, the only place on Earth that genocide is actually reducing population numbers, and the Left won’t utter a peep, because their lovable Arab and Muslim monsters are doing the Final Solutioning. If only evil Jews or Americans were doing the Holocausting, our ears would never stop ringing.

Considering that the present population density of these African states cannot be maintained without utter destruction of the natural environment, maybe there is some horrible Malthusian logic working here.

19 Comments

Filed under Environmentalism, Overpopulation