Archive for the 'Immigration Supremacy' Category

New York Times Nativists are Restless Vdare

February 1, 2009

NYT attacks Peter Brimelow, Marcus Epstein, Vdare, Bay Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, Republicans, white people, Founding Stock Americans, Southernors, Virginia Dare, Benjamin Franklin implicitly and everyone linked to them in any way.

Americans want immigration solved, and they realize that mass deportations will not do that. When you add the unprecedented engagement of growing numbers of Latino voters in 2008, it becomes clear that the nativist path is the path to permanent political irrelevance. Unless you can find a way to get rid of all the Latinos.

What a very interesting point of view.  NYT is saying you can never stop Latino immigration, since there will always be illegals to be legalized or anchor babies even if stopped legal immigration.  Either Latinos take over completely and genocide all here, or the rest have to eject all the Latinos.  Wisdom of the New York Times.

NYT is saying its all Latinos out or its:

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

NYT is saying literally its all Latino genes replace all others or the others eject all Latinos.  This is because some sort of Latino immigration continues forever if any Latinos remain is the NYT position.  By the theorem that implies genetic extinction of all other genes.  Not mixing, but complete replacement.  Theorem doesn’t say there is final state of mixture, but a final state of complete replacement.

Note NYT is saying that Latinos insist on genocide of all other genes by future Latino immigration.  NYT says other genes can only survive by ejecting all Latinos because Latinos insist on genocide and have a program of genocide.  NYT is saying Latinos won’t let others coexist with them in equilibrium but insist on perpetual immigration to genocide all other genes completely.  Moreover, NYT says its either fight this and remove them all or give in and submit to genocide.  Those are the only two choices according to NYT.  (NYT is in effect saying Latinos hate all non-Latinos and are determined to genocide them and if any Latinos are left they will continue to try it.)

A semi-spoof with data to reject NYT and more math and theory is


New York Times orders Wright Island Model concealed

February 1, 2009

(Spoof) The New York Times ordered that the Wright Island Model be removed from textbooks and webpages worldwide.  The NYT wrote:

The Wright Island Model makes the white nativists restless.  Its too much for the poor dears to comprehend that their extinction is decreed by us, and that makes it good.  Peter Brimelow, Vdare, and Marcus Epstein received warnings from the Times that they must apologize 5 times a day for being white.   When it was pointed out that Vdare was a website, the Times said so?  We say it is, so it is.

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

(Nagylaki got started in physics and wrote papers on quantum electrodynamics.  WIM though is much older.)

New York Times claims that this is too complicated.  We are journalists, we are told what to say.   What do we care what some theorem says.

Besides we don’t like the assumptions.

Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

June 4th, 2007 Assume that

  1. Population is bounded from above
  2. The flow of immigrants is unbounded from above
  3. The survival probabilities of the genes of each immigrant are equal.


For any given cohort of immigrants at time t, the survival probability of their genes at T > t, p(t,T) must go to zero as T goes to infinity.

In fact the assumptions can be weakened so that if some group with unbounded influx has a survival probability which mutiplied by some constant bounds the other groups then it and all the groups have zero survival probability.  Same applies for ex-post survival factor.

NYT:  You didn’t use measure theory in that proof did you?   If you didn’t, we don’t accept it.  Its not theoretical enough.  If you did, we don’t accept it either, its not practical.

(OK, obviously the spoof is going too far.  The NYT editorialists don’t know measure theory and that probably includes Paul Krugman as well.)

BTW with the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem you can proof the second law of thermodynamics.   The proof is basically that the full Hamiltonian or time development operator causes the system to have an influx of probability of other states as seen relative to some simpler Hamiltonian.  Thus the entropy increases since the probability of every state relative to the simpler Hamiltonian goes to zero.

The WIM implies a substitution effect.  This carries over to all aspects of human society.  The WIM says whatever good you do, the bad rises even more to force extinction of every gene here and each year’s cohort of genes that come here.  Immigration forever means that this is a genetic graveyard.  Every gene that comes here goes extinct.

Another way of understanding it is as follows.  Suppose every gene now in the US gets a serial number that is distinct.  Each gene that crosses the border gets a new serial border.  When a gene is created from a single gene, it copies the same serial number plus the date.  When created from two genes it gets both serial numbers combined and the date.

The serial numbers as of any date eventually all disappear even embedded in other numbers.  All the serial numbers that arrive in a year disappear as well even embedded in other numbers.  This has to happen because otherwise there would be more serial numbers than the upper bound on population.

Thus all the good that happens has to be overmatched by bad to force humans to reproduce below replacement.   We are in the credit crisis and financial crisis that the WIM predicts will happen.  Uncertainty is a way to get humans to defer reproduction.  In some cases, that is permanent.  Young adults defer and then are old adults before they know it.  Marriages are unstable.   So they don’t have more kids they break up.

Then young adults think recursively.  The marriage won’t last, so don’t have kids.  So don’t get married.

With zero immigration, not zero net, but zero influx, young adults have job security.  All jobs have to go to them if there is zero influx, not zero net, but zero absolute.  This gives young adults the confidence and security to get married, have kids, stay married and have more kids.  This produces institutions that work and happy families.  Happy families make institutions work and when institutions work they make it possible to have happy families.  This is why influx must be zero, not just equal to outflux.

Graph of ferility 1800 to 1990:

Fertility fell except during immigration restriction from 1940 to 1957, when immigration reached 250,000 per year again.  That is why that amount is too high, it cuts off the security of young adults and interferes with marriage stability.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973

See graph page 19

Productivity per hour doubled over the period.


Series Id: PRS84006093
Duration: index, 1992 = 100
Measure: Output Per Hour
Sector: Business

Series Id,Year,Period,Value,


Select business, output per hour, and index. Then click on Add to Your Selection.

Then click on Get Data. You can get formatting options later. I selected only annual data and csv data. I copied that into a text file and then recopied it into this.

Other productivity choices and sources

Labor productivity

1948 to 2002

Table 1. Private business sector:Indexes of productivity & related measures, 1987-2006

“productivity index” bls




This is almost a doubling of this measure of output per labor. There are many at BLS.

==NYT.  Bottom line is bottom line.  And top line is top line.

Who won CNN Youtube Republican Debate?

November 29, 2007

The performance of the candidates in order, might be

  1. Fred Thompson
  2. Tom Tancredo
  3. Duncan Hunter
  4. Ron Paul
  5. Mitt Romney
  6. John McCain
  7. Mike Huckabee
  8. Rudi Giuliani

There are two groups. The first group are loyal to Americans as people and will fight for them. That group of 4 won because they had things to say to help Americans. Those 4 performed as follows in terms of winning the debate.

  1. Fred Thompson Had things to say. Didn’t surrender on the Confederate Flag. Thompson is willing to say what he thinks on social security, entitlements, immigration. etc. Fred had the most to offer on many subjects that was actually for the benefit of Americans. It was also at a good level of using specifics when needed to bolster an explicit set of policies to help Americans. None of the others used specific facts to support policies to help Americans as effectively as Fred.
  2. Tom Tancredo. Was more relaxed and confident than usual. He was funny and self-deprecating at times and comfortable in his skin.
  3. Duncan Hunter. Strong confident, pro-American.
  4. Ron Paul. Independent, didn’t waffle in face of some tough questions.

The second 4 had nothing positive to offer to Americans.

  1. Mitt Romney. Empty suit. Romney has nothing to offer to make our lives better. Romney made 250 million in the 1980’s and 1990’s by ending good paying jobs. Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. Women’s median wages are what men’s were in 1960. See p60-233.pdf. Romney made money for himself by keeping them lower.
  2. John McCain. Was somewhat defensive and shrill.
  3. Mike Huckabee. He really made it clear at length that he has no loyalty to Americans, that Americans in general are closet racists and that he really despises those who think he owes them or any American citizens loyalty. For Huckabee, hating Americans opposed to immigration is a moral passion. He reacts with anger to any proposal to be loyal to Americans when their interests conflict with immigrants, which is often. Huckabee thinks that conflict is often and thinks Americans who want Huckabee to take their side are racist.
  4. Rudi Giuliani. He was defensive through the evening. Like the others in the anti-American 4, he makes it clear he has contempt and no loyalty for Americans where it counts, in wages and in keeping out those who come here and change our country, which is for the worse.

The top 4 were all comfortable in their skins. The bottom 4 were all uncomfortable. The top 4 were for the people. The bottom 4 had covert or even overt hostility to the people.

That included Romney on the Confederate Flag. Romney made clear his contempt and you could see his mind working to use this as a triangulation issue to advance himself, but he might cost himself votes in South Carolina where Fred Thompson is battling it out with Romney, both are at the top in South Carolina, which is the third event behind Iowa and New Hampshire.

Huckabee on tuition breaks for illegals came out with a passion against anyone who would deny anything to children of illegals or illegals themselves. For Huckabee this is a moral issue direct from God. Anyone who is opposed to Huckabee on helping illegals is not a good Christian or person and is evil. He made that clear.

==Hypothesis on why bottom 4 came off as against us

We discuss here a hypothesis of why the second 4 had nothing to offer Americans on good paying jobs, job security, stopping immigration, etc.

The second 4 think, or act as if, its racist to be loyal to Americans. These 4 are intentionally and affirmatively “racist” against Americans. They advocate good job destruction for Americans and their children. They advocate ending the safety of American communities and making them unsafe at night or even by day by immigration by those who have manifested animosity against Americans, especially white Christian or secular Americans.

The bottom 4 are immigration supremacists. Because immigration supremacy is built on calling whites racist to silence them its necessary to point out the anti-whiteness of this strategy and these candidates. Whites are the majority so a strategy to keep wages below the 1973 level for men for all groups has to be built on cowing whites into silence.

Their strategy is that whites who ask for good wages will be called racist when they propose the only real solution, ending all legal immigration. So we need to discuss at length the anti-white racism in the immigration supremacist position of the bottom 4 candidates.

The candidates who imply loyalty to Americans is racist are really implying that whites are racists who deserve nothing. This is the whites deserve to lose their good jobs, aren’t due anything for building the country or fighting the wars, and should be condemned if they say they are.

These candidates intentionally pursue big immigration strategies designed to make whites a minority, take away their good jobs and label all whites as racists. They are doing this to everyone else here too. Since big immigration as a strategy relies on labeling whites as racist to succeed, its necessary to point out the anti-whiteness of the candidates pursuing this approach. The bottom 4 are triangulating with the rest of whites as racist.

Although the 4 didn’t express these ideas explicitly, their behavior at the debate, and their past record are consistent with this hypothesis. They don’t have anything to offer to make American lives better. The top 4 did. The top 4 are immigration restrictionists in one way or another. The bottom 4 are immigration supremacists.

==Questions that should be asked.

A question that should have been asked, is: Do you think its racist to want to stop all legal immigration, and send all the illegals home?

To Huckabee, do you think Tom Tancredo’s statements or positions on immigration are racist?

Do you think America should remain a majority white country? What would you do to keep it that way? (This should be asked of Democrats as well.)

Are those who say America should stay majority white racist?

For Dems and Huckabee:

Do blacks have lower IQ than whites?

Is it partly genetic?

Is it racist to say so?

Does it matter?

Do “racial differences exist” between blacks and whites in crime?

For Hispanics?

Is it racist to say “racial differences exist” between blacks and whites in crime? Hispanics?

Does that imply we should not have immigration by blacks or Hispanics?

Is it racist to say so?

Is there regression towards the mean in IQ and behavior?

Does this mean we should not have immigration from the third world, even higher IQ or better behaved individuals?

Is it racist to say so?

Is it white supremacist to say so?

Is the Confederate Flag a symbol of white nationalism or white supremacism?

Do you consider Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Virgil Goode, Trent Lott, or George Allen to have said anything that is white nationalist or white supremacist?

Do you believe America will become a white minority country?

Do you think its racist to say it should not?

Do you think doing anything to stop America becoming white minority is white nationalism or white supremacism?

Are you an immigration supremacist in the sense that you believe America will become minority white and that you call anyone who says to stop that a racist or white nationalist or white supremacist?

Is anyone who says America should stay majority white a white nationalist?

A white supremacist?

Do you believe every American either has to

  1. Support or accept minority status for whites, or
  2. Support keeping America majority white and thereby be a white nationalist or white supremacist?

Is ignoring the issue and letting it happen, America becoming minority white, the right thing to do?

Is anyone who talks about it as negative, a racist, white nationalist or white supremacist?

If saying America should be white majority is white nationalism, and saying it should be white minority is immigration nationalism, which are you?

Does your answer change if its white supremacist v. immigration supremacist as the labels?

Nation of Immigrants is Immigration Supremacy

November 26, 2007

Immigration Supremacists have made the phase America is a Nation of Immigrants into a mantra of immigration supremacism.  They also use in England, Denmark, Sweden, France, Norway, and Italy.

We are not a nation of immigrants.  An immigrant is a person who is not born in a country or not born a citizen and who lives there with the intent to stay permanently.  We are not a nation of such people nor is that the purpose of our nation.  Those who say immigrants are our future are immigration supremacists.

Ted Sorenson likely invented the phrase Nation of Immigrants and wrote the book with author name John F. Kennedy.  This was never the belief of the American people or any other Western country that is subjected to this phrase and these immigration supremacy policies.

Affirmative action for immigrants shows that immigration is really immigration supremacy.  What past discrimination is being remedied by affirmative action for immigrants?  This is accepted because of the power of the Immigration Supremacy Complex.

%d bloggers like this: