Posted on 05/31/2026 12:40:56 AM PDT by MarlonRando
Between the falling birth rates, chain migration, anchor babies, and the planned demographic changes by our social engineers, non-whites will be the majority by 2050 or sooner if Democrats get back into office. They would open the borders again. There is no reason to think otherwise. If you think they will be nice to white people, you are sadly mistaken.
For some reason, Democrats decided white people can’t have their own country. Possibly, it’s because they see them all as future Democrats they can manipulate due to their neediness.
(Excerpt) Read more at independentsentinel.com ...
No, Marlon, the leftists dumbing down is the cause.
In the 1900s no one believed that the Germans could embrace democracy as it was ‘not ingrained in them like in our English race’
Education must be harsher - a very detailed study of history, civics and “ways to behave in this society” coupled with detailed language studies - not just reading 10+ books a year in English but also learning Latin, possibly Greek and at least one other language (can be Czech, can be Cantonese, can be Xhosa) along with more complex maths and science and kids to be FAILED in a year.
Add that to no phones on school grounds, school uniforms and longer hours for study in school.
Lots of wealthy men with IQs of 120+ wind up with airhead trophy wives whose IQ probably doesn't top 80. I think that explains why there are so many dull rich kids on elite college campuses.
The Irish were portrayed in the media as monkeys. Morons. A disease. All of the Apollo astronauts were scotch-irish. Fine stock. average 100 IQ’s. The european immigrants and natives struggled, yes, but you’re talking good stock and good stock. We breed animals to pass on certain desirable traits, but when it comes to humans, there is no such thing as good breeding and good breeding choices.
Not only is dysgenics taboo in today's politically correct world, but we have policies that are actually dysgenic, i.e. importing the worst dregs of the Third World, combined with welfare policies that reward both native and imported dregs to have more children.
And those who say that today's Hmong and Somalis are equivalent to yesterday's Irish, Poles, and Italians are either ignorant or dishonest - usually the latter. There's a reason why we talk about an Italian Renaissance but not a Somali or Laotian Renaissance.
exactly. you and I are on the same page. If you have a beautiful European society that is functioning properly. The trains are on time, the streets get their garbage picked up and so forth, you don’t just hand that over to Somalians and expect it to function. Of course it won’t because Somalia doesn’t function. You don’t hand it over to people from Mexico because then you get Mexico and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
Yes, regression to the mean is a factor. Due to environmental variance (as well as non-additive genetic effects, such as dominance and epistatic effect), the IQ of a 100 x 80 cross would probably be somewhat higher than 90, but still below 100. Nevertheless Rando’s point stands - if you cross-breed bright and dull people, their children are expected to be duller than the better parent.
Do you deny that the laws of heredity apply to humans just as they apply to cattle, hogs, and pea plants?
The attitude of some religious conservatives towards eugenics strangely mirrors that of hysterical leftists with their babble about "equality", only with some scriptural quotes tossed in.
You repeat the same fallacious line of argument that I mentioned in my previous quotes, i.e. because Germans and Dutch, or Irish and Italians were unwelcome to Anglo-Americans in the 1800s or early 1900s, that today's Guatemalans, Somalis, and Hmong are just like the Germans, Irish, or Italians. The fallacy lies in claiming that one quality - being disliked by the native majority, makes them all equivalent. They aren't equivalent - and to see that's the case, all you need to do is compare Somalia to Germany or Italy, or compare the average income and education of a German American to that of a typical Guatemalan, Somali or a Hmong in America.
You’re focused on the current snapshot of socioeconomic data, but that misses the long-term arc of American history.
—> If you had looked at the data for the Irish in the 1850s or the Italians in the 1900s—groups that faced extreme prejudice and possessed low average education or wealth upon arrival—you would have seen the exact same arguments about their inability to assimilate or contribute.
The ‘equivalence’ I’m pointing to isn’t about the starting point of any specific group’s origin country; it’s about the fact that the American system has historically functioned as a filter that integrates diverse groups over generations.
When you argue that current groups are ‘not equivalent’ based on their current economic status, you’re ignoring the reality of the immigrant cycle:
- integration,
- education, and
- upward mobility
take time.
History shows that today’s ‘unwelcome’ outsider is often tomorrow’s mainstream, provided the host culture remains focused on shared values and meritocratic standards rather than static labels.
There must be strict education in American culture and values.
The reason for the dysfunctional behavior of Third World immigrants and their descendants has nothing to do with "prejudice" and everything to do with their own natures and low intelligence.
“the laws of heredity”
The mistake in your analogy is that it reduces human beings to single-trait biological products.
While the basic laws of Mendelian inheritance apply to humans, intelligence is not a single, fixed trait like ‘coat color’ in cattle or ‘pea shape’ in a garden. It is a polygenic phenomenon where thousands of genes interact with an incredibly complex, malleable environment.
Cattle don’t build libraries, establish legal systems, or learn languages that alter the neuroplasticity of their brains.
When you treat society like a farm, you ignore the very thing that differentiates human civilization from livestock: our capacity for culture, innovation, and self-directed change.
If you focus only on ‘breeding’ and ignore the institutional and cultural ‘software’—the values, discipline, and education that allow those genes to express themselves—you’re ignoring the primary driver of human advancement
Somalis, no matter their many, many faults did not "live in caves a few generations back
You’re attributing complex civilizational outcomes—like economic output or social cohesion—entirely to a 'nature' you’ve decided is fixed, while completely dismissing the transformative power of culture, education, and institutional environment.
Benjamin Franklin famously referred to German immigrants in Pennsylvania as "Palatine Boors" who were "swarthy" and would never adopt English customs, fearing they would eventually turn America into a "German colony." Later, during the 19th century, they were suspected of radicalism and refusal to integrate because many held onto their language and social clubs (Vereine).
Then later the 1924 immigration act was specifically passed to limit Italians and Slavs, as they were widely believed to have lower IQs and a higher propensity for crime compared to Northern and Western Europeans.
While the basic laws of Mendelian inheritance apply to humans, intelligence is not a single, fixed trait like ‘coat color’ in cattle or ‘pea shape’ in a garden. It is a polygenic phenomenon where thousands of genes interact with an incredibly complex, malleable environment
Yes, IQ is a polygenic trait that's influenced by the environment. That doesn't change the fact that its heritability is approximately 70-80%.
Huts made of straw and cattle dung aren’t a big advance over caves.
Jared Diamond?
Jesus dude
Boy you just gave yourself away hoss
You might be sinkspur
Diamond wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel specifically to advance the Marxist view that all poeples are equivalent and malleable, and that only their physical/material circumstances, as opposed to innate abilities, dictate differences among them.
Wardaddy, horny beck, whether you agree with Jared Diamond or not, the core historical fact remains: technology and civilizational ‘success’ are not genetically locked traits.
If they were, we wouldn’t see the rapid adoption of technology by societies that previously lacked it.
Look at the speed with which Native American tribes, like the Comanche, integrated the horse into their culture—they didn’t need to change their DNA to become some of the most formidable horse-mounted warriors in history; they simply gained access to a tool that shifted their entire mode of existence.
The same applies to the rapid modernization of Japan in the Meiji Restoration or the spread of the printing press across disparate cultures.
These aren’t ‘Marxist’ theories; they are documented instances of cultural and technological adaptation.
When you credit everything to genetics, you’re forced to explain why that ‘genetic genius’ was absent in Europe during the centuries when the Middle East, China, or India were the world’s centers of innovation.
The rise and fall of civilizations is a study in the mastery of environment and institutions, not a scoreboard for biology.
“
Huts made of straw and cattle dung aren’t a big advance over caves”
The structures you’re describing—nomadic pastoralist dwellings—were highly efficient adaptations to the specific environmental pressures of the Horn of Africa, just as the early ancestors of many modern European groups lived in structures that would seem primitive by today’s standards.
If you want to talk about assimilation, let’s talk about that—not about how you personally judge their ancestral housing.
The question is whether they can adapt to the values, work ethic, and civic responsibilities of an American society.
Historically, people from all walks of life have proven they can do exactly that, provided they are expected to meet those standards.
OK, thanks.
OK, thanks.
alcohol: from al‑kuḥul / al‑kohl (“the kohl,” a fine powder).
algebra: from al‑jabr (“the reunion of broken parts”).
algorithm: from al‑Khwārizmī (name of the mathematician).
alcove: from al‑qubba (“the vault/dome”).
almanac: likely from al‑manākh (“climate”), though the path is debated. (inferred from general Arabic etymology lists)
alembic: from al‑anbīq (“the still” used in distillation). (widely attested in etymology dictionaries)
alfalfa: from al‑falfaṣfa or al‑fisfisa (via Spanish).
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.