Archive for the 'Ian Dew-Becker' Category

1965 Immigration Act Causes U inverted U in Income Inequality and Fertility

June 1, 2007

Immigration caused a U shaped effect in income inequality from 1914 to present as immigration restriction was put in place in the 1920′s and taken off in the 1960′s. But looking at post WWII, we also see an inverted U shape in fertility. Fertility rises from 1945 to the late 1950′s in some studies where it peaks and then falls to below replacement today.

If we look at the long trend from 1800 to 1990, we see that fertility starts falling in the 1820′s and continues to 1990, the end of the chart, except for a brief interlude from around 1940 to c. 1960 and then it resumes falling with a big pickup in falling in the mid to late 1960′s. From the 1820′s to 1990 we had massive immigration.

The baby boom happened during the period of immigration restriction. There is no period outside the period of immigration restriction from 1800 to 1990 when fertility went up. Thus we can say that in the US since 1800, immigration has been the irresistible force pulling down fertility.

The period of immigration restriction didn’t cause an abnormal rise in female fertility to 3 and as high as 3.5 children per woman during the peak of the baby boom. Immigration restriction allowed female fertility to return to the normal level of 3 or 3.5 or higher that occurred in the 1950′s. The 1950′s were not abnormally high female fertility, they were normal, and even still low female fertility.

What ended the return to normal female fertility in the 1950′s, or even still low female fertility in the 1950′s? It was the resumption of immigration in the 1960′s. That returned to the abnormal fall in female fertility. Falling female fertility can’t be normal because below 2.1 is below replacement and leads to human extinction, which is not normal.

The fall in female fertility from the 1820′s to 1990 except during the post WWII normal period during immigration restriction is what is abnormal. That falling graph of female fertility is highly abnormal. That was during the period of immigration.

When it falls after 1965, it falls like a rock. The exact location of the peak for social science data is really confirmed by the events around them, its not a hard physical peak. Its partly random. So its really a soft peak. Its the drop in the 1960′s that really makes the peak happen in the late 1950′s.

Both the U of income inequality and the inverted U of fertility show the impact and timing of post war immigration. When immigration is low, income inequality is falling, and thus job security is rising, and fertility is rising. When immigration starts in 1965, this virtuous cycle is cut off immediately. If one regards the peak as in the 1950′s, the 1960′s confirms the peak.

Fertility didn’t peak in 1945 when man came home from war, it peaked in the late 1950′s. Fertility dropped like a rock in the 1960′s when immigration was restarted and immigrants came here to work. That is when income inequality stopped falling and started to rise.

The result was to create job insecurity for the young. They could no longer trust in the future to bring them better jobs. So the young couldn’t get married young, have kids, stay married, and have more kids. Instead, they had to postpone children. For some, forever.

The facts and timing to be explained for the U of income inequality and the inverted U of fertility, and their being mirror images in the post 1945 period are explained only by immigration and its timing.

We shall first review the math of the immigration substitution effect. Then we review material on income inequality and wages including Vdare’s Edward Rubenstein’s analysis of the U in income equality and his quotations from Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon. We then review a graph from 1800 to 1990 in fertility in the US which shows the inverted U in fertility from 1945 to present.

Fertility rises from c. 1940 (it doesn’t peak in 1945 as the left has tried to make us think) to c. 1960. It apparently peaks in the late 1950′s and falls substantially after the time of the 1965 Immigration Act. It was 3 to 3.5 in the late 1950′s, and is now somewhere in the 2 range.

Both the U in income inequality and the inverted U in fertility are consequences of the more basic math of the immigration substitution effect. The fact that population is bounded above means that immigration at some point has to substitute for births, otherwise population wouldn’t be bounded above. Thus there has to be a substitution from births to immigrants that eventually becomes 1 for 1 when population no longer increases. This substitution effect is a requirement of basic arithmetic.

The substitution effect shows up in wages by cutting them off and lowering them as immigrants take wages that American’s don’t want to earn, and are not enough to provide job security for family formation when Americans are young. This income insecurity and job insecurity prevents marriage when Americans are young. They can’t just get married and have kids when biology tells them to. This creates a mismatch in biology and income that is not an accident, but implied by population being bounded above together with a sustained flow of immigration.

It is the knowledge of future immigration that shapes expectations of job insecurity in the young and their parents. They see their own fathers lose good jobs and get no good job to replace it. That sends the signal of permanent job insecurity as their generation’s fate. That fate is not from the gods, its from the Senate and the MSM. Its from universities that teach it. Its from shows like All in the Family that celebrate both Archie and his son-in-law being one child men.

==Omnia Cleansing Immigration Substitution Effect

Mathematically, immigration causes omnia cleansing. To review the math:

Suppose US population is stable at 300 million. If people live 75 years, 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter, and pop is stable, then there are 2 million births. 2 million births over 4 million deaths is a genetic survival ratio of 1/2. 25 years birth to parent, so in 75 years, 3 cycles leaves 1/8 genes. Even if pop goes to 450mm and 1 million enter, we get a fraction of 5/6 per cycle, which results in genetic extinction.

This happens by lowering wages and is happening already. There is a substitution effect from births to immigrants.

quote

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

end quote

Archie Bunker had one child and his son-in-law had one child. The Left cheered that. Archie represents the Wasp Scotch Irish German etc. founders. The son-in-law is Polish and represents the descendants of 19th century immigrants. The show is post the 1950′s baby boom. It shows both men as being one-child men. It shows this happens to the son-in-law because he can’t get a steady job out of school the way Archie’s generation could.

from WaPo

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II.

==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_in_the_Family

All in the Family is an acclaimed American situation comedy that was originally broadcast on the CBS television network from January 12, 1971 to April 8, 1979.

==

Men’s median wages reached their peak in 1973 and are flat since then. See graph page 18 at census. By 1971, fertility had dropped like a rock from its peak, wherever one locates that in 1957 or a little later in the Karen Stevenson graph.

One of the Germán Rodríguez Princeton fertility graphs shows that fertility fell all through the 1970′s and reached rock bottom by the late 1970′s, below replacement. This is the time period of the show All in the Family. That show was advocating and even gloating in the decline in fertility of median men through their low wages and their inability to rise economically, in exact contrast to the writers and producers who had.

The show is really a celebration by the successful of the misfortunes of the middle class. It celebrates their low birth rate, below replacement as shown in the show. This exactly mirrored what the same elites were doing in policy terms to the middle class in Washington by their immigration policies.

The median wage of men is the Archie Bunker wage. The graph from census is the Archie Bunker wage graph, its flat since 1973. Just as on the show, Archie doesn’t enjoy in the rising prosperity. Who does? The writers and producers of the show. They get the money from the rising productivity of workers like Archie, but Archie gets nothing out of his own increased productivity.

Archie’s son-in-law, Michael Stivic, makes less than the median wage of men, the Archie Bunker wage. The fertility graph is the fertility graph of both Archie Bunker and his son-in-law. We can call it the Archie Bunker Fertility Graph. The grand child graph that Archie has is at 1/4 per grandparent in effect.

Archie Bunker is Median Man, which is even below Average Man, because the Median in wages or fertility is below the average. The show All in the Family is a celebration by those in the top 1 percent, the MSM Nation, of the misfortunes of Median Man. Median Man’s wages don’t go up. Median Man’s son-in-law doesn’t have a job to support Median Man’s daughter, so they have to live with Median Man.

==MSM Nation

The MSM Nation are the beautiful people on TV, in the Senate, professors at Harvard, CEO’s, etc. They live on MSM or they go on MSM to plug their books or other services. They have rejected assimilation to the Middle America Nation. They are not assimilationists to Middle America but rejectionists.

They require to join and remain that members reject Middle America. This means no loyalty to Middle America on wages, fertility, immigration, physical security, job security, ER availability, etc. Members of the MSM Nation call Middle Americans bigots. This justifies all the harm that the MSM Nation does to the Middle America Nation.

Archie Bunker is the man who embodies to the MSM Nation, the Middle America Nation (Man). Archie is the median man, the middle man. His wage is flat since 1973. His fertility is below replacement. He deserves his fate because he is a bigot.

==MSM Nation celebrated deaths of Archie Bunkers

The reaction on and to 9-11 and the WTC 1993 attacks by Peter Jennings, George Stephanopoulos, Paul Begala, Bill Clinton and others in the MSM Nation shows exactly this same response. The Red Crescent Memorial was the MSM Nation celebrating the deaths of Archie Bunkers in the Middle America Nation.

==MSM Nation is all it accuses others of, xenophobic.

The MSM Nation is totally xenophobic, fearing strangers. To them the stranger or other is the Median Man, Middle America, or Median America. They despise and loathe Median America and call it Bigoted America.

They vent their hatred of Median America all the time and openly. The MSM Nation is the most outwardly xenophobic, intolerant, and bigoted nation in history. It never stops. It requires its victims to join in their own vilification.

The MSM Nation is also the most omnia cleansing nation in history. No other group in history cleanses its victim to extinction as efficiently or as totally as the MSM Nation. Immigration is omnia cleansing. The math is discussed above, and we see it in the wage and fertility data. The MSM Nation is all the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse. It says that Median America deserves it, because it rejects Median America as bigoted.

==

“Fertility in the US 1917 to 1980″

Germán Rodríguez, Office of Population Research, Princeton University http://data.princeton.edu/eco572/heuser.html

==1800 to 1990 Fertility Graph by

Black and white fertility in the US went from around 8 in 1800 to around 2 in 2000.

Look at the graph of fertility from 1800 to 1990 below:

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

Fertility spikes up starting in 1945 and peaks c. 1965 on this graph. Note the graph here and the one above are not agreeing exactly on the peak date. For this type of data, which has a random component, the timing of a turning point has to be confirmed by the years that follow it. Its the dropping of fertility as the 1960′s go on and its continued low or falling value after that which makes c. 1960 a meaningful peak in fertility.

What happened c. 1965 to confirm fertility’s peak being c. 1960 and reverse fertility’s rise to a sudden fall? The Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act. There are 2 facts to explain for the baby boom, why it started and why it ended. Its ending is forgotten or considered as a return to normality. What normality?

Below replacement fertility can’t be normal because it results in human extinction. Since humans still exist, they must have had at least replacement fertility as their normal condition.

The long term graph shows that fertility in the 1960′s and 1970′s dropped to unprecedentedly low levels. These are the lowest since 1800. People are taught by the MSM that the baby boom was abnormal and that current levels of fertility are normal. This is a fallacy. Current levels of fertility are the lowest in human history. The lowest in human history is not normal, its abnormal.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography

Although blamed on World War II, the baby boom may simply reflect low immigration after WWII combined with prosperity. WWII only lasted from 1941 to 1945 in the US, and so can’t explain a baby boom lasting many years after 1945 and involving people not old enough to go to war in 1945.

Those 17 in 1945 were having children in 1946 as 18 year olds. It can’t be because they went to war, because they didn’t.

Fertility didn’t peak in 1945, but c. 1960. How did pent up demand in World War II cause fertility to peak c. 1960? The war for the US lasted from 1941 to 1945, 4 years. But fertility peaked in the 1950′s and dropped rapidly in the 1960′s. So how could WWII have caused births to peak not in 1945 but in the 1950′s? WWII doesn’t explain the baby boom post war.

Fertility did not go from a low in 1944 to a peak in 1946. There was a jump in births in 1945 and 1946, but that is just a blip on the graph. The real change on the graph is the 1945 to 1950′s/60′s change, which despite the blip in 1945 is dominated by the trend upwards from 1945 to the late 1950′s and not by the change in any one year.

==Why does Archie Bunker deserve one kid and one grandkid?

Because he is a bigot. This is the message of the MSM Nation. They said that in the show All in the Family from 1971 to 1979, precisely the years they were pushing the fertility of Archie Bunker men to below replacement. The producers and writers were part of the MSM Nation and they were writing hate material to justify the omnia cleansing of the Middle America Nation, which omnia cleansing they were carrying out by immigration.

==Final comment on peak location in 1950′s v. 1960′s

in two graphs.

If the 1960′s had stayed the same as the 1950′s we wouldn’t think of 1957 or c.1960 as a peak. So don’t get hung up on 1957 or c. 1960 as the peak as if this was a physical process. Its the behavior in the 1960′s that makes the peak be in the 1950′s, not God saying 1957 is the peak.

==What caused the fall off in the 1960′s?

If one imagines the baby boom was caused by WWII pent up demand, then the fall off should have started in 1950 at the latest. The fall off started in the 1960′s. The question is what caused the fall off?

The fall off is what is abnormal. Fertility in the 1950′s was 3 to 3.5, normal. So its the fall off in the 1960′s and its staying low after the 1960′s that has to be explained.

==Operation Wetback 1954 removed1.2 million illegals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

By removing illegals in 1954, Operation Wetback helped make the period of immigration restriction in law be a period of immigration restriction in fact. Operation Wetback together with restriction of legal immigration made America safe for the baby boom. That was safe in job security and physical security. The baby boom was the time of unique job and physical security in America. It was the best time to have babies, and fertility returned to normal levels.

Fertility above replacement is the human norm. Its the period of immigration from 1820 to 1990, excluding the safe time of restriction of immigration, that has resulted in the abnormal drop in female fertility.

Nor was this drop caused by women working in the 1960′s for the first time in human history. America was an agricultural country in which women worked, just as women have always worked since the origin of the human species, and before.

==

Income inequality was low and going lower in 1945:

Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

Kennedy rescued his stock portfolio by the 1965 Immigration Act which restored income inequality to the rich and the Senate today thanks him for his generosity. Kennedy is a Senator’s Senator.

==Income Inequality measures Income Insecurity

Income inequality measures income insecurity for the middle class. When income inequality is high, income insecurity is high for the middle class. Its income insecurity that stops babies. As soon as the 1965 Immigration Act was passed, the forward looking income insecurity of the middle class jumped.

What was Benjamin told in “The Graduate”? He was told the future was in plastics. Benjamin in “The Graduate” doesn’t know what job he will have or what he will do. The day of job insecurity for college graduates had already arrived.

The Graduate was released in April 1968. So it was written after the 1965 Immigration Act. There was a new wind blowing, and it wasn’t about job security.

==U shaped pattern income inequality

As Edward Rubenstein points out

“In debunking SBTC the authors make a broader historical point regarding immigration:”

“To be convincing, a theory must fit the facts, and the basic facts to be explained about income equality are not one but two, that is, not only why inequality rose after the mid-1970s but why it declined from 1929 to the mid-1970s. Three events fit neatly into this U-shaped pattern, all of which influence the effective labor supply curve and the bargaining power of labor: (1) the rise and fall of unionization, (2) the decline and recovery of immigration, and (3) the decline and recovery in the importance of international trade and the share of imports…”

==Fertility Post War is Upside Down U, or Inverted U

Fertility has to explain the Upside Down U, not just why it rose starting in 1945 but why it peaked c. 1960 and then went down. What we notice is that the Upside Down U of fertility and the U of Income Inequality happen to approximately mirror each other.

== Income Fertility U See-Saw

We get the U see-saw. When income of the middle class goes up, fertility goes up, which was happening in 1945. When the income of the middle class stagnates as started after the 1965 Immigration Act, fertility drops like a rock.

==Fertility and Job Inecurity See Saw

Income inequality measures job insecurity. When income inequality is high, job insecurity is high. As income inequality fell post 1945, fertility went up.

==”Devaluing Labor”

By Harold Meyerson

Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19

The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

As a remarkable story by Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt in Monday’s New York Times makes abundantly clear, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of gross domestic product since 1947, when the government began measuring such things. Corporate profits, by contrast, have risen to their highest share of the GDP since the mid-’60s — a gain that has come chiefly at the expense of American workers.

Problem is, the declining power of the American workforce antedates the integration of China and India into the global labor pool by several decades. Since 1973 productivity gains have outpaced median family income by 3 to 1.

==Devaluing Labor <-> Devaluing Archie Bunker

The show All in the Family is all about devaluing labor. Archie Bunker is a bigot. He is the Median Man. He deserves a wage flat at 1973 levels and fertility at 1970′s levels, below replacement. Both the flat 1973 wages and the falling during the 1970′s to below replacement fertility are the fate of Median Man. Archie has this fate because he is a bigot. He must go extinct. Those are MSM Nation values.

But this doesn’t happen because the gods willed it, it happens because the MSM Nation wills it. Its their 1965 Immigration Act, their 1986 amnesty, and their legal immigration policies from 1965 onwards that are causing the flat median wages and below replacement fertility that Median Man experiences.

They are doing it to Archie Bunker, not the gods. Its the same people who produced the All in the Family show. That show is propaganda against Archie Bunker.

They also use divide and rule tactics. They show Archie Bunker in conflict with 19th century immigrants, in the person of his son-in-law, and blacks. But in reality, all these groups are part of Median Man. All these groups are having their wages put on hold at 1973 levels. All these groups are experiencing falling fertility to below replacement levels.

Its the MSM Nation that gets all the higher labor productivity of the workers. Since 1973, productivity went up, but the median worker gets no rise in wages. That is from immigration. The MSM nation gets that rise in productivity, not the workers, immigrant or not.

==Devaluing The Median Man

The MSM Nation is using propaganda like All in the Family and the equivalents in K-99 to justify the immigration that it is engaged in. The omnia cleansing of Median Man by immigration is the obsession of the MSM Nation.

==Thus the Income Inequality Fertility U inverted-U See-Saw

From 1945 to the 1965 Immigration Act, income and income security went up for the middle class, and their job security, even more important, so they could get married young, have kids young, stay married, and have more kids. Young people have no job security today.

== Men’s Median Wages in 1973 are a ceiling to all groups

Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973.

Income, Poverty, and
Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2005

US Census Report on wages By
Carmen DeNavas-Walt
Bernadette D. Proctor
Cheryl Hill Lee

Graph page 18 shows men’s median wages peaked in 1973, they are lower now. Women’s median wages are lower than men’s, which means they are lower than men earned in 1973. Black median wages are lower than all men, which means black wages are lower than what all men made in 1973.

== Male Labor Force Participation Rates have fallen since 1965

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2006/B40.xls

White and black men’s labor force participation rates fell from about 80 percent, equal to each other, in 1965 to 74 percent for whites and 66 percent for blacks.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emplab05.htm

Black, white, Asian and Hispanic male labor force participation rates are projected by BLS to fall from 2004 to 2014, even before the effect of the proposed 2006 and 2007 Bush McCain Kennedy Kyl Senate Amnesty plans are factored in.

==Summary Fertility Income Inequality U inverted U Mirror

There are not just 2 facts to be explained, as Ed Rubinstein quoting the profs points out, there are more than 2. We have the U in income inequality and the upside down U of fertility. These mirror each other. Whether one calls this 4 facts or 5 or some larger number, the Mirror U inverted U pattern of income inequality and fertility has to be explained. What explains them is the substitution effect of immigration pointed out at the start.

Immigration creates as a mathematical theorem a substitution effect of immigrants for births. This is a consequence of the population being bounded above. That bound can be absolute or a relative local bound determined by current technology, available and safe land, ambient threats, culture and other factors. Whatever those are, the impact of immigration is to depress the fertility rate.

We see this illustrated in our own time. Below replacement fertility can’t be normal, because humans still exist. Below replacement fertility is a sign of huge stress. That stress is immigration. It impacts not just whites but blacks, showing its broad based.

==Fairus Report

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_risinginequality

Full report by Jack Martin

==

Search immigration income inequality

Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.


Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

Hutchison Pence amnesty and expanded guest worker info here.

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills: http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet

==

From an earlier Old Atlantic article:

The lives of Arlen Specter and the 6 cosponsors of S. 2611 are reviewed at the end of the article in terms of how they fit on the income inequality graph. Arlen Specter, John McCain and Ted Kennedy were born in the 1930’s and became young adults in the 1950’s while income inequality was falling. They could build careers and have families while still young. Two Senators, Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez were born in 1946. They became 21 in 1967. They had families and full careers as they timed the income inequality graph perfectly, low income inequality when they were young and rising while they got on top. Both became rich on this curve.

Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback were born in the mid 1950’s. Graham had to start out as the curve was getting worse. He had to choose a career or family and chose career. He has never had children. Brownback solved this problem by marrying an heiress and has 5 children and a career. Brownback is running for president.

Patrick Cleburne comments on the prior Old Atlantic article at Vdare.com:
The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

A large number of Americans appear to have realized that income inequality has increased and that massive immigration is substantially responsible. And they are increasingly willing to say so.

A frequently-expressed view of Peter Brimelow’s is that the current generation of political “leaders” was formed intellectually before immigration was discernable as a social problem. Quite possibly they will literally have to die off before public policy will change – people rarely have new ideas.

Personally, though, I still think the more persuasive explanation is that these Senators are selfish, corrupt, and unAmerican.

==Senate BillsS. 1348 will perpetuate the U inverted U Mirror that has smited America’s middle class. Call your Senators and let them know what you think about that.

==

Ted Kennedy, George Bush, John McCain, Jon Kyl and other senators timed the U’s, both in income inequality and fertility to maximum advantage. To do that they had to minimize the fortunes in income and fertility of the middle class.

They are leaders of the MSM Nation. The MSM Nation is now engaged in the cleansing of Median America by immigration. As the fertility charts and wage charts show, this cleansing process is an implementation of the math of omnia cleansing, the math of halving.

The MSM nation blames Median Man, Bigot Man, for all the sins of history. Every Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, pogrom, war, air raid, disease spreading immigration from Europe, or other event in history that is bad they blame on bigotry. They blame all bigotry on Median Man, Archie Bunker, Bigot Man. So they are using immigration to engage in the mathematical omnia cleansing of Bigot Man. As the wage and fertility graphs show, this is working. They are cleansing Bigot Man. Just as All in the Family showed from 1971 to 1979, the fertility of Bigot Man, of Median Man, is below replacement. So the MSM Nation is winning. This is why their reaction to 9-11 and the WTC 93 attacks was more immigration. They want Archie Bunker cleansed. They are using fertility as their main weapon, but the reason they don’t stop immigration or hold Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to account is because they are doing the job that the MSM Nation has already decided on, the final solution to the Bigot Problem, the final solution to the Archie Bunker problem, the final solution to Median Man problem.

This is why Lindsey Graham and George Bush start calling people bigots when the people oppose immigration. Graham and Bush are saying, don’t you understand, you’re bigots, you are supposed to be cleansed out of existence. Graham and Bush are saying that’s the whole point, to cleanse out you bigots and eliminate you from the face of the earth.

search

Lindsay Graham bigot

Lindsay Graham bigot immigration

Bush bigot immigration

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.