In my last blog I suggested that the new elite will not be as prone to surrendering its position as the old one was. One big difference is that Jewish activist organizations go ballistic over any mention that Jews are a disproportionate portion of American elites–truth is irrelevant. Those who stray into this forbidden territory soon learn that their lives have just gotten a lot more complicated. The result is that people behave like well-conditioned rats in a psychology experiment and keep their mouths shut no matter how obvious Jewish overrepresentation is.
The latest instance is the reaction to Pat Buchanan’s column “Are Liberals Anti-WASP?” where Buchanan wrote: “If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats’ idea of diversity?”
Jewish activists immediately went to work. The National Jewish Democratic Council complained about Buchanan’s “over-the-top, conspiratorial screeds.” Abe Foxman was at his most colorful, calling Buchanan a “recidivist anti-Semite who doesn’t miss an opportunity to show his fangs.” Foxman also gave his expert, unbiased opinion that Kagan “is a highly qualified candidate for the judiciary, an exemplary Solicitor General and a great legal mind.”
Liberals are fond of making arguments that ethnic and religious diversity affect people’s judgments and therefore we should do everything we can to promote diversity. For example, Sonia Sotomayor’s famous “Wise Latina” comment was doubtless a huge asset for her among her liberal supporters. But Foxman is implying that Kagan’s Jewishness will have no influence at all on her judgments and anyone who says otherwise is a rabid anti-Semite.
Of course, this is ridiculous. There are a whole lot of reasons to believe that Kagan’s Jewishness will indeed affect her judgments. The fact that Elena Kagan is the product of New York’s Jewish leftist sub-culture makes a huge difference in what we can expect from her — particularly given her views on the First Amendment and executive power that are in line with the mainstream Jewish community. All the research shows that Jewish attitudes are far different from the American majority on a wide range of hot button issues, particularly social issues such as immigration, homosexuality, controls on sexual behavior, abortion, Christianity in the public square, and gun control. Particularly when there is such a thin paper trail (contrary to Foxman, there is no tangible evidence that Kagan has a “great legal mind”), the most rational expectation is that Kagan’s views reflect the views of the wider Jewish community.
Foxman is exercised because he is well aware that there is a recurring pattern in history in which Jews become highly overrepresented among elites. This then feeds into anti-Jewish sentiment from people who feel underrepresented, especially if they think that the elites are opposing their interests in other ways. Patrick Cleburne was hinting as much when he noted that “all three of Obama’s recent nominations to be Federal Reserve Governors were Jews, bringing their representation on that body to 5 out of 7″ (his emphasis). The Abe Foxmans of the world see this coming and hope to nip the process in the bud by squelching any mention of Jewish overrepresentation.
Notice that Foxman could have responded by saying “Yeah, three Jewish Supreme Court justices are probably a bit much, given that Jews are already vastly overrepresented among all American elites–media, academic, financial, etc. Kagan should discreetly take herself out of the process.”
But instead, the reflex is to suppress such expressions. The strategy is that people may well be thinking that three Jews on the Supreme Court is too much, but we will win if we can keep such thoughts out of the media.
Again, this is an old pattern. I collected several examples in Chapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents. My favorite is from Joe Sobran, who lost his position with National Review because of his views on the influence of American Jews on U. S. policy toward Israel. Appropriately, he mentions Pat Buchanan:
The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism.
The result is that there is an ever increasing gap between people’s thoughts about Jewish influence and what they can say about it. It reminds one of the USSR where people were well aware that there were a whole lot of things that were routinely left out of the news.
I think there comes a point, however, where Jewish power is so obvious that people will start discussing it, at first furtively and anonymously. But the historical pattern is that eventually there is some push back.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
The more that diaspora Jewish nationalism succeeds in censoring and subjugating America, and the more successes gained by other ethno-nationalist tribes like La Raza modeled after diaspora Jewish nationalism, the more essential it becomes to devise a means to trust-bust those unable or unwilling to take the leap of faith from tribal-supremacism to individualism and self-accountability as envisioned by the Protestant Founders and practiced by the vast majority of Americans.
Americans need to fashion a libertarian nationalism that acts as a kind of trust-buster that will break up these predatory tribes and the left-wing institutions that serve as their Trojan Horse, and expel those who refuse to play by the rules that made America great by repatriating groups that are clearly working for foreign governments (Israel and Mexico).
These “lobbies,” mostly on the Left, but a few on the neocon Right, are engaged in treasonous ethnic-racketeering, plain and simple, and are dooming the survival of the country.
Funny: Buchanan substitutes liberal for Jew and still gets smeared as an anti-Semite.
If there is one person in the entire world who can help us, he is Buchanan. How come he is not receiving thousands of (printed) letters from WNs? We bloggers are like little hobbits far away from the spheres of power, but “even the smallest person can change the course of the future” —LOTR.
Chris Moore said:
May 19, 2010 at 9:34 AM
“The more that diaspora Jewish nationalism succeeds in censoring and subjugating America, and the more successes gained by other ethno-nationalist tribes like La Raza modeled after diaspora Jewish nationalism, the more essential it becomes to devise a means to trust-bust those unable or unwilling to take the leap of faith from tribal-supremacism to individualism and self-accountability as envisioned by the Protestant Founders and practiced by the vast majority of Americans.
Wrong! Tribalism and racialism are human nature. It is not essential, desirable, or even possible to adopt individualism and survive as a race.
The Founding Fathers were a bunch of individualist, race-mixing scumbags. That’s why we are where we are now. They brought slaves here and racially mixed with them because it was their “individual” right to do so and we must never again allow anyone to do anything that negatively affects our people as a whole.
The vast majority of White Americans DO think racially and would practice racialism and group-accountability even more than they already do if there were no anti-discrimination laws. Lift those draconian laws and you’ll find out how wrong you are and just how fast America will become racially stratified. And why would they do that? Because it is human nature, that’s why! If you think that Americans already practice individualism and self-accountability and would continue to do so, then you should be in favor of abolishing those laws.
BTW, it shouldn’t concern modern day White Americans what the Founding Fathers wanted. Their needs and desires at that time were different than ours today.
Chris Moore said:
Americans need to fashion a libertarian nationalism that acts as a kind of trust-buster that will break up these predatory tribes and the left-wing institutions that serve as their Trojan Horse, and expel those who refuse to play by the rules that made America great by repatriating groups that are clearly working for foreign governments (Israel and Mexico).
No, they don’t need to fashion a libertarian nationalism. It wasn’t rules that made America great. It was the White race that made it great. You could take those “rules” and implement them in black Africa and you’d end up with nothing.
Chris Moore said:
These “lobbies,” mostly on the Left, but a few on the neocon Right, are engaged in treasonous ethnic-racketeering, plain and simple, and are dooming the survival of the country.
Hopefully, America IS doomed because its policies are killing Whites. We can then build a racial state in its place. Those who don’t like the idea of a racial state can and should go elsewhere. There’s nothing wrong with ethnic-networking as you should be able to tell from nearly every poster on this website.
Chris Moore, are you in favor of allowing race-mixing as an individual right? Just wondering.
of course they exist but the official message is your’e not supposed to notice it.
When reality and truth become more and more detached from the rhetoric and assumptions about a society how much longer can that society last.. at this point seems the jews are trying to deny the inevitiable.
@ Mark “are you in favor of allowing race-mixing as an individual right? Just wondering.”
Depending on how far south in Europe you draw the line on “white,” I would bet most (if not all) Americans are of mixed race, so the answer is yes.
What’s going to be your litmus test on mixed race, anyway? Brown eyes? A certain shade white of skin and no darker? Blood tests?
But true enough, it may come to your way unless libertarian nationalism is put into place fast, so thank you for your honesty.
Elliott Abrams, an American Jewish scholar who was President George W. Bush’s senior advisor for “global democratic strategy,” and in 2006 was a key advisor on Middle East affairs to the US Secretary of State.
In his book Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in Christian America, he writes: “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to STAND APART from the nations in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart — except in Israel — from the rest of the population.” Judaism and the Jewish way of life,” writes Abrams, is not “entirely voluntary, for the Jew is born into a covenantal community with obligations to God.” Jews, he goes on, “are in a permanent covenant with God and with the land of Israel and its people.
In plain English that means that Jews living in the USA as well as in any other nation/country that their allegiance is ONLY to Israel.
Does not such a belief reflect, the Liebermans, the Schumers, the Boxers, the Fiensteins, and specifically AIPAC. Is there not a square and/or street named Jonathan Pollard in Israel?
Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on me its the thrid attempt that breaks the camel’s back.
Chris Moore says:
May 19, 2010 at 12:27 PM
@ Mark “are you in favor of allowing race-mixing as an individual right? Just wondering.”
Chris Moore said:
“Depending on how far south in Europe you draw the line on “white,” I would bet most (if not all) Americans are of mixed race, so the answer is yes.”
No, most White Americans are not of mixed race, however, I’ll narrow it down for you: Do you believe that Whites of northwestern European ancestry should be permitted to breed with Negroes as an individual right?
Also, do you believe is was ok for the “Founding Fathers” and other slave owners during those times to breed with their Negro slaves? Should they have had that individual right?
Chris Moore said:
“What’s going to be your litmus test on mixed race, anyway? Brown eyes? A certain shade white of skin and no darker? Blood tests?”
Well, we’ll start with those who are of wholly northwestern European ancestry.
Chris Moore said:
But true enough, it may come to your way unless libertarian nationalism is put into place fast, so thank you for your honesty.
The reason that there will be no “libertarian nationalism” is because such a program serves such a narrow range of interests that it isn’t worth considering for two seconds.
For Doctor MacDonald…
Roses are red,
Violets are bluish,
If it wasn’t for Christmas,
We would all be Jooish?
No academic controversy there…LOL.
@ “Do you believe that Whites of northwestern European ancestry should be permitted to breed with Negroes as an individual right?”
Although this question has been addressed to another person, having in mind the dilution of the snow-white skin, last year, in one of my first posts in the Gates of Vienna forum I stated, “Race mixing should be the supreme sin.” Of course: these sort of comments usually get shunned in that site of cowards.
@ “…wholly northwestern European ancestry.”
This is perhaps the perfect litmus test.
Obama’s rash of Jewish appointments is easy to explain. He has angered the Jewish elites by not bombing Iran and by not being hawkish (enough) on Israeli expansion. Now he’s apologizing that he’s not an anti-semite by making a bunch of appeasement nominations of Jews. That way he might win a second term. This scenario may demonstrate how having a powerful foreign lobby contributes to domestic power.
There’s two huge problems with Kagan.
1. She has no experience as a judge. That makes her unqualified to be a judge on the Supreme Court.
2. She has repeatedly refused to answer any questions about the nature of her work for Goldman-Sachs or her compensation from them. Considering there are several pending cases against Goldman-Sachs that may reach the Supreme Court, she has a serious conflict of interest.
Goldman-Sachs that may reach the Supreme Court, she has a serious conflict of interest.
maybe that’s the point.
Elena Kagan is certainly a sloppy and slovenly-looking individual. At least the WASPs were mindful of personal appearance, if not long-term genetic interests.
Aside from being rumpled, corpulent, and an atrocious slob, Kagan is rumored to be close-minded and arrogant about her personal interpretation of reality (i.e. her Jewish-Leftist heuristic). Like so many recipients of nepotistic and affirmative action laurels, she lacks the intellectual objectivity and distance necessary for the perpetuation of America’s quintessentially-WASP system. (Oh the irony…)
On the other hand, I guess Sotomayor–that frumpy-dumpy Latina–will now have a partner. Together she and Kagan will represent all those Americans who are hygienically- and sartorially-challenged!
The Goldman Sachs case will never make it to the Supreme Court. Leaving their fate in the hands of six Catholics might as well be another Inquisition. Look for new rules that require more disclosure that no one reads. Then back to business as usual.
“Recidivist”?
I may not have been bothered by the WASP elite’s displacement by a Jewish elite if it only affected the elite classes.
But the consequences for white Middle America have been devastating because the WASP elite were essentially a ‘benevolent’ elite while the Jewish elite have proven to be a ‘hostile’ elite.
The Jewish elite should have taken on the torch as guardians of Middle America and become a benevolent elite. They would have won the support of Middle America if they had. But they did just the opposite. They have worked for the destruction of the white middle classes in all sorts of ways we are all familiar with. My sense is that they don’t just dislike white America – they despise it.
But that’s probably one of the reasons they wanted so desparately to replace the WASPs as the country’s elite. They wanted to remold America in a shape they were more comfortable with (read = dilute the strength of whites in all ways possible).
But the way they have gone about this – criticizing and denouncing any sort of white consciousness – while clinging fiercely to an ethnocentric identity in which everything is judged by the standard “Is it good for the Jews” is so hypocritical as to be repulsive.
Modern society is so different it’s maybe going to depart from the historical trend
Chris moore said:
“Depending on how far south in Europe you draw the line on “white,” I would bet most (if not all) Americans are of mixed race, so the answer is yes.”
Chris is implying that Italians, ect are non-white. However, ‘white’ mean European. This is what we are talking about.
“According to the more accurate latter method, Sub-Saharan African admixture is ~13% in North Africa and “imperceptible” (~0.01%) in Southern Europe
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22956855/Population-relationships-mediterranean-gonz
Edit. etc. means.
Chris,
What do you mean by Libertarian Nationalism?
Generally I would say that, one doesn’t need either post-racialism or racial separation. Just libertarianism and an acceptance of difference. This ideas that distinct groups will necessarily embrace a Bellum omnium contra omnes and so either need to be eliminated or separated is fiction. And this idea that ethnoracial groups need to be pure is also a fiction. Jews somehow are still around and quite mixed. La Raza folk are not complaining; they have some type of Ur-myth. Genetic similarity is just one part of the equation. With regards to the US, you could just treat ‘culture,’ as they call it, like religion and keep it officially out of government. Maybe this is what you mean.
“Well, we’ll start with those who are of wholly northwestern European ancestry.”
If one were to follow that program, it would actually make sense to reproductively isolates White from Non-Europeans either before or at least the same time purely northwestern European Whites would be isolated from non-purely northwestern European Whites.
Reginald says: May 20, 2010 at 8:42 AM
“Well, we’ll start with those who are of wholly northwestern European ancestry.”
Reginald said:
“If one were to follow that program, it would actually make sense to reproductively isolates White from Non-Europeans either before or at least the same time purely northwestern European Whites would be isolated from non-purely northwestern European Whites. ”
Yeah, I don’t have a problem with that method. Usually when someone tries to pin me down I give that definition of “White”.
I believe a period of isolation of the untainted White elements will be necessary after the deluge just to sort things out a bit. They’ll need to be ideologically and culturally restored.
I guess the point that I was getting at is that it’s better to be extremely conservative when defining “White” than to have a very loose view of it. I was also thinking that a eugenics program would be part of any intentionally isolated White community, however large or small, and the geneticists and others qualified in the biological sciences could genetically “map” that community and otherwise come up with a definition of “White” and also formulate a standard regarding who could or could not be admitted to that community.
Once the White world stops supporting the non-white world there will be a huge die-off of the non-white elements. The northernmost border of that die-off in that part of the world could be at the southern edges of Europe and extend all the way to what is now South Africa. I suppose the “almost-whites” could occupy areas in northern Africa.
Invisibility has its uses, both offensive and defensive. One amazing thing about this is how invisibility is being worked to the Jews’ advantage both ways here. For example: Blacks have advocates, Latrinos and Jooze do too (tooze?). But Whites have no public advocate as such; they are the invisible race, a race that dares not speak its name. This invisibility is used as a weapon against them. In public life, when it comes time to divvy up the spoils, they may as well not even exist. Now, if your race doesn’t exist, it’s impossible to defend. For how can you defend something that you aren’t even supposed to know about, that you can’t even admit exists? And if you can’t defend yourself on a racial basis, then anything can be done to you on a racial basis.
Conversely, the Jewish elite is likewise invisible, but here, instead of losing from its invisibility, it gains. Since it doesn’t officially exist, or more precisely, isn’t being permitted to publicly exist, it can grow to any proportion. If the Supreme Court can be 33% lizard people, then why not 80, 90, or 100%? Nobody will say anything, because even to observe the fact that there is a Jewish elite will mark one as an outsider, someone weird and “ignorant”, a bigoted racist anti-semite. For most people, a fate worse than death! They have a deep-seated need to be comfortable with their overlords, and even if there were no other penalty for speaking up they would probably not do so if it meant they had to stand out as odd and non-conformist.
Of course, the difference is that Whites have agreed to become invisible to themselves, whereas the Jews have successfully made themselves invisible to others, especially Whites. Invisibility is an advantage when one is on the attack, but being invisible to onself is a severe disadvantage on defense. Can the world’s one invisible race find a way to defend itself from its invisible attacker? We shall see.
Perhaps we shouldn’t underestimate the fact that -in the jewish mindset- 3/9 SCJs is still …too little. ‘Who are those other 6?’ would be their interpretation of reality. Remember the “Russian” oligarchs that emerged in post-communist Russia during the Yeltsin years (6/7 were jewish)?
I don’t know if there is ‘self-deception’ involved in this, but it seems to me they really won’t be willing to admit they are indeed the new Establishment of the land until they have completely taken over all positions in elite institutions.
Yes Kevin I think that the new elites are now very visible . I feel that many people are being naive no to see that the management is being stacked before the coming massive financial storm hits , that I believe has been designed to reorganize the West .To the people who make and break countries America may have served its purpose ; in its current form .They are working 50 years ahead eg The Iran biz and 9/11 . Anyone who thinks that Obamma is appointing these critical people has rocks in his head , like British Queen , he is told who will be knighted -by limiting the contestants then promoting there ‘man’ with smiles and daggers.(other wise he would become demoralized and an ineffective puppet ).
You think there is going to be a blow back , but I think that in the coming chaos , the whining over the constitution will be forgotten.
The system actively trains ‘the people’ not too look for conspiracies . If you hear someone shagging in a room next to yours , do you need video footage ??
The other problem is that psychologically , us ants at the bottom find it paralyzing to really contempt that this might be going to happen -it interferes with there purpose and meaning in life ; it guts their drive .Like waiting for Domesday ,without a religious parachute !
What going to happen when the US States can’t pay there bills?? Print some more money .But first make sure you control the legal system to implement emergency laws ; without the legal framework the gov management would seize.
Actually, Elena Kagan’s support of strong executive power in the U.S. government is the Bush/Cheney, right-wing position, not the left-wing position. It is conducive of American imperialism, which is in Israel’s interest.
To: Phil Tracy
I don’t think I’d call strong support for the executive, by Kagan, a right-wing policy. In its context, it is a Neo-Con policy, thereby, a fascist.
Thanks for that Elliot Abrams quote. Of course, one could have a field day quoting jews yapping about their jewishness but quotes from highly placed jews like that worm Abrams are particularly helpful. What universe does that miserable Abrams creature believe he exists in in which he might even allow himself to imagine the proper response to a statement such as that quoted isn’t the most supreme revulsion towards him and his kind (to the extent he’s representative of them) a human can muster? This isn’t even a “WN thing.” For the life of me I can’t see the slightest reason why any non-jew should tolerate this tribe of creeps having so much as a say in how anyone else lives, let alone controlling it to the degree they do. Nothing short of an almost endless torrent of denunciations and repudiations of views like Abrams’ from jew leaders will do for me, and I doubt I’m the only one who’ll be feeling that way. “Meh, there’s nothing special about being jewish. It’s just something an individual is born into, but there’s no reason at all it should have any kind of a hold on him, and if maximizing personal autonomy is important to a person he’d do well to completely detach himself from it.” Statements like that circulating as common jewish viewpoints are what I want to see, not the alphabet soup jew organizations’ apologetics.
Why Foxman practically soils his shorts every time someone notices that a very distinctive looking racial group member with an equally ethnic name gets nominated to a high-powered position is beyond me. Unless he’s simply an Attention Whore who likes to throw his weight around just for the hell of it. For someone who doesn’t like people to notice that there is a Jewish power in this country, he sure likes to underscore it by trying to bully and intimidate anyone who points it out.
It all comes down to the fact that they are placed by gentile front men. Foxman would be better off leaving it to Obama to explain why he chose Kagan over a female black leftist like Ann Claire Williams, Jacqueline Cox or Blanche Manning (with real judicial experience from lower federal courts). It was Obama’s decision to put Kagan in. Presumably he did so to court Jewish voters who are understandably skittish due to his pro-Muslim sensibilities.
Not that I see Kagan’s appointment changing anything. The one thing I will point out is that the Jews have among their numbers several brilliant leftist jurists with thick enough portfolios to pass the most jaundiced conservative eye. Kagan reminds me of a Jewish Jocelyn Elders, if you will. In an odd way, she’s a token, easily dismissed. I think Obama chose her, because she seems the kind of person who would not have it in her to effectively mount a challenge to his power. She would probably be more of a rubber stamp jurist. A left-wing Scalia she ain’t.
In any case, I believe the Leftists are more hostile to the Jews than the right wing which has been totally infested with Christian Zionists like John Hagee. If anyone is going to mount a serious challenge to Jewish hegemony, it is going to be the Leftists. That’s why I have to giggle uncontrollably every time Mark Potok or Abe Foxman get hysterical over the right wing who hate the Muslims almost as much as they do.
to Mr Chris Moore
there is a plenty of variables to be depicted on the matter…for sure the first great civilization that “enjoyed” their slaves to be cushioned in their social lives(accepted as free individuals and with their rights secured ) were the egyptians…the first colonies to inhabit the Nile Delta were (PROVED) from the asian middle east as they thrived and populated the whole area in the post millenia after the last Ice age..although it is probable(more than certain) when the number of the subsahaarian inhabitants were incredibly tight located in tiny spots along the african (an arabic word) continent ,leaving the north of Africa for non european white(surely the descendants of the older cultures,pre sumerian and pre arabic ones from the Arabic Peninsula, the latest as the same as arabics but unknown to us today,buried in the sand of that area)…but back to the point…it is proven that the NOSE(a skeletal feature much more complex to explain than simply the colour of the skin as well the darwinian “WHY” such feature would arise in a desert area(sorry PhD and professor(?) Sforzza(laughable if it is not criminal with his adjunctions given his expertise the genetic biology trying to convince the world ,including who dare to have knowledge and simple logical reasoning,THAT THE OVERPROJECTED NOSE AS WELL THE EVOLVING WHITENESS OF THE SKIN WHEN AFRICAN MIGRATED TO THE COOLER WEATHER OF THE NORTHERN AREAS IN EUROPE FORGETING OF COURSE THAT THE MOST PROEMINET NOSES IN THE ENTIRE WORLD ARE FROM THE DESERT OF ARABIA AND EVEN IN THE ICE AGE WAS NOT A GIGANTIC ICE STONE AS WAS THE ENTIRE EUROPEAN CONTINENT ,were a significant and complex variable INEXISTENT in the Phenotype in all the subsaharian population that show up defiantly in all the related whites and it is a clear and indeniable symptom of DEEP differences ….thus the inner material(brain configuration,underlying thoughts and all the ABSTRACT features that rise from the same genotype featuring the sensible,materialistic phenotype results in a diferential toward different cultures …as the egytians (with a LARGE NUMBER OF PAINTINGS AND ENGRAVINGS SHOW a group of NOSE PROJECTED WARRIORS CAPTURING a bunch of BLACK slaves from imemorial times brought by expeditions from the south up in the nile river stream and after centuries freed by their masters as they began to speak and behave as a part of the egytian society…so after some hundreds or thousands years the entire egytian society turn to the kind ,that unfortunately you SIR are hoping to become the rst of the european and north american society…a calculated decadence.,,,and so on….the decadence is inevitable if you do not allow the diversity to thrive…WHY NO ONE DARES TO DEMAND THAT THE ASIAN TO MIX?????ALL THE COUNTRIES THAT YOU CAN GO..YOU ARE GOING TO OBSERVE THAT ASIANS MIX WITH ASIANS WITH NO ONE SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT…so then what??there are a myriad of works from serious researchers on the educational and psycholgical field that you SIR can goolge for your enlightenment and discover the outstanding differences in the Abstract thought depicted by deep and serious tests among the children and juveniles asserting that these characteristics are undeniably different in grade and qaulity among Asian ,Caucasian and subsaharian ones…so it is up to you if you want to cover the reality by self deception…but PLEASEEEEEE do not do that to others …all of us have the right to think and to test our belief mirroring the underlying reality of the things
Tom Watson @ 1:52 you plagiarized my poem from VNN.
Actually my father told me that around 1963. I remember the important stuff. Roses are reddish (not red)
violets are bluish