There are nations all over this planet that are 90% this or that and nobody including Buchanan or I find that improper. But if the U.S. is 90% white, some consider it a definate problem. Why? Today it's seemingly a definate problem that it's 65 to 70% white. Again, why? Why was it okay for Bill Clinton and Gray Davis to celebrate the fact that the White race was no longer 50% of California's populas? What is this emphasis for diversity if not open season on whites? Are you blind to this?
I ask if you are blind to this issue, because I would find it offensive to try to reduce the numbers of blacks or people of Mexican heritage as a part of our nation. But when the shoe is on the other foot, nobody, or at least very few people find this objectionable. We have gone from about 75 to 80% white just a decade or two ago, to between 65 and 70% today. Do you find it an admirable goal to reduce our percentage of the populas as a whole to numbers below 50%? Well, that's where we're headed. If current trends hold constant, this will happen within twenty to thirty years.
Buchanan has noted this. His statistical projections for Europe and the US are irrefutable. I don't see people lamenting the percent of Vietnamese as a whole of their nation's populace to the detriment of others. I don't see anyone lamenting the Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, African nationals, Arabs, Indian nationals, Philipinos, Mexicans, Cambodians, Laotians, Brazilians, Peruvians or any nation's domestic populace being over represented within their own borders. But that's exactly what's happening to the majority race in our nation?
Is it racist to address this issue? If you consider it to be, then you must be of the opinion that it's okay if there isn't a single nation on the face of the earth that has a majority white populace. Where could whites go for self-determination if the US and Europe were to go majority non-white? Blacks could find a majority black nation. Mexicans could find a majority Mexican nation. Only the whites are deemed racist if they wish to maintain the status quo. Why?
The Klan has sought to keep blacks, Jews and others in an inferior position within our nation. They intimidated blacks, Jews and others and perpetrated acts of terrorism against them. Buchanan doesn't support that. And the attempt by anyone to link him to those types of activities is unfortunate. It denegrates Pat and the person who tries to make that claim.
In this nation we have fought to give blacks and all other ethnic groups equal access and treatment under the Constitution. Do you think Pat objects to this?
Somehow the idea that whites who wish to maintain self-determination are racists, has been accepted. How can that be? I don't consider Chinese, who wish to establish and live under their own laws, racist. The same goes for any other race or nation. Why then do some seek to deny this to whites?
It's time for a reality check bud.
Our?
Anyway...I don't care if America is 95% white or 5% white. I believe racial and ethnic "self-determination" is an abomination and should be abhorrent to any civilized person. The core premise of America isn't a question of skin color - it is a belief in the fundamental dignity of all humans regardless of race or national origin.
It's the 21st century - we should move beyond looking at biological irrelevancies like skin color. If American becomes less than half white then so be it as long as the fundamental premises of America hold.
And this is where the rubber meets the road - Pat doesn't believe we brown-skinned types, on the whole, have what it takes to run America properly - otherwise he wouldn't be alarmed.
Regards.
Regards.