How The U.S. Will Become a 3rd World Country (Part 2)

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Ron Hera of Hera Research

How the U.S. Will Become a 3rd World Country (Part 2) (Part 1 found here)

The United States is quickly coming to resemble a post industrial neo-3rd-world country.  Unemployment, lack of economic opportunity, falling real wages and household incomes, growing poverty and increasing concentration of wealth are major trends in the U.S. today.  Behind these growing problems are monetary inflation created by the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies, federal government deficit spending and the dominant influence of “too big to fail” banks and large corporations in Washington D.C., which has altered the direction of law in the United States.  To make matters worse, the U.S. government faces a historic fiscal crisis.

High unemployment, lack of economic opportunity, low wages, widespread poverty, extreme concentration of wealth, unsustainable government debt, control of the government by international banks and multinational corporations, weak rule of law and counterproductive policies are defining characteristics of 3rd world countries.  Other factors include poor public health, nutrition and education, as well as lack of infrastructure—factors that deteriorate rapidly in a failing economy.

Apparently ineffective regulation and relatively little law enforcement action by the federal government in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown resulted in widespread speculation that special interests had taken priority over the rule of law.  Critics have also charged that the federal government’s policies threaten to eliminate what remains of the American middle class.

Accelerating Concentration of Wealth

In response to the economic downturn that began in 2007 and the start of the financial crisis in 2008, the U.S. federal government and the Federal Reserve resorted to a radically inflationary policy intended to save banks and to shepherd the U.S. economy through a recession.  Instead, radically inflationary policies greatly increased the concentration of wealth.

Under ordinary circumstances, monetary inflation has the effect of redistributing wealth in favor of those who receive newly created money first.  The value of money is reduced as a function of the number of currency units in the economy but recipients of newly created money can spend it before it loses value.  In a declining economy, however, the wealth redistribution effects of inflation are magnified.

When the Federal Reserve or the federal government supports banks and financial markets through liquidity injections, bailouts, asset purchases, quantitative easing, etc., the lion’s share of financial support, i.e., newly created money, is captured by the largest financial institutions and by the wealthiest 1% of Americans.  Money printing skews the distribution of money over the economy while the value of money, i.e., the purchasing power of wages and savings, is reduced.  The overall effect is a wealth transfer from proverbial Main Street to literal Wall Street.

Looming Fiscal Crisis

U.S. government debt and deficit spending have markedly accelerated over the past decade.  For example, The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created and the U.S. military grew to 3 million active duty and reserve personnel, not including contractors.  Since 2001, the U.S. spent approximately $1 trillion on military expansion while the total cost of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been estimated to exceed $3.7 trillion.

Although the U.S. federal government remains in denial, the Congressional debt ceiling debate and subsequent U.S. credit rating downgrade on August 5, 2011 were only the tip of the iceberg.  In fact, the United States faces a historic fiscal crisis.

As of 2012, the majority of new federal government debt will stem from interest on existing debt.  Treasury bond issues totaled $2.55 trillion in 2010, roughly 2x the federal budget deficit of $1.3 trillion.  Artificially low U.S. Treasury bond yields, created by the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing (QE1 and QE2) programs and by its current “Operation Twist,” only slow the rate at which the federal debt balloons.

The U.S. federal government’s fast growing debt is $14.94 trillion, approximately 100% of GDP.  Additionally, future liabilities total $66.6 trillion based on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP accounting) and using official data from the Medicare and Social Security annual reports and from the audited financial report of the federal government.

1.    Medicare: $24.8 trillion
2.    Social Security: $21.4 trillion
3.    Federal debt: $10.2 trillion* (not including intra-governmental obligations)
4.    State, local government obligations: $5.2 trillion
5.    Military retirement/disability benefits: $3.6 trillion
6.    Federal employee retirement benefits: $2 trillion

The eventual insolvency of the U.S. federal government cannot be averted through any combination of taxes, budget cuts or realistic GDP growth.  Inflationary policies, i.e., increasing deficit spending by the federal government and debt monetization by the Federal Reserve, would devalue the U.S. dollar and potentially trigger a hyperinflationary collapse of the currency.  To stave off the inevitable, interim measures might include tax increases, exchange controls, nationalization of pension funds or other measures similar to those taken in 3rd world countries.

Dominant Corporate Influence

In a 2009 radio interview on Elmhurst, Illinois’ WJJG 1530 AM, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) explained that “…the banks—hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created—are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill.  And they frankly own the place.”  Senator Durbin was unequivocal in saying that the federal government of the United States is controlled by banks.  Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), had reached the same conclusion one month earlier in his widely read article The Quiet Coup.  Johnson explained that the finance industry had effectively captured the U.S. government, a state of affairs typical of 3rd world countries.

Corporate influence over the political process, as well as over the tax and regulatory policies of the United States, is at an all time high.  The federal government is the largest single customer in the U.S. economy and, through taxation or regulation, the government can grant or deny market access to private companies and can either prevent or mandate the consumption of their products and services.  As a result, virtually every large corporation in the United States seeks to win the government’s business and to steer government tax policies and regulations in their favor.  Naturally, politicians who accede to the wishes of particular corporations are given campaign funds to ensure their reelection.  In the past decade, the amount of money spent on lobbying has more than doubled and there are currently 24 lobbyists for every 1 member of Congress.

The interdependence of elected officials and the largest U.S. corporations reached a new high with the 2008 bank bailouts.  The influence of private corporations and de facto industrial cartels (comprising the largest corporations in each major industry) over tax and regulatory policies creates significant economic distortions that ultimately compromise the sustainability and the stability of the economy.  Ideally, the government would be an impartial referee, rather than an active business partner that overwhelmingly favors large businesses over small businesses, despite the fact that small businesses account for the vast majority of American jobs.

Impact on the Rule of Law

Corruption, cronyism and weak rule of law are typical of 3rd world countries.  The United States exhibits a clear corporate influence over elections and legislation and, arguably, relatively little law enforcement action where large, legally well-equipped corporations are concerned.  Reports of so-called crony capitalism have appeared in the U.S. news media, but the term “corruption” has been avoided, along with discussion of fundamental reforms.

A cursory examination of legal developments over roughly the past decade evidences a pattern in which U.S. federal law systematically favors the largest financial institutions, as well as a paradigm in which financial institutions heavily influence both the regulations that putatively govern their activities and the laws that apply to consumers of their products and services.  The financial crisis that began in 2008 and the subsequent response of the federal government appear to follow logically from prior legislative events:

  1. 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB).  The Act repealed key provisions of the Banking Act of 1933, commonly known as the Glass–Steagall Act.  In the aftermath of the Great Depression, the Glass–Steagall Act prevented depository institutions from engaging in high risk financial speculation.
  2. 2000 The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA).  The Act deregulated over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, such as credit default swaps, referred to by Warren Buffett as “financial weapons of mass destruction.”  OTC derivatives were at the heart of the financial crisis that began in 2008 and are the root cause of the “too big to fail” doctrine.  The Act preempted state gaming laws that had prevented banks from speculating in OTC derivatives with no connection to underlying assets.
  3. 2001 USA PATRIOT Act.  The financial provisions of the Act allow banks to collect additional financial information about account holders, for example, linking business accounts to the personal financial records of business owners, thus weakening both financial privacy and the corporate veil.  The Act enhances the ability of creditors to collect and allows federal authorities to monitor financial transactions and to obtain financial records without a subpoena.
  4. 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA).  The Act, which was sponsored by banks and credit card companies, effectively eliminated the concept of a “fresh start” by allowing banks and credit card companies to engage in collections activities, in effect, forever.  As a result, small business owners who end in bankruptcy are less likely to ever start another business.  The Act places banks in front of bankruptcy courts, creates liabilities for bankruptcy attorneys and contains many widely criticized, anti-consumer provisions.
  5. 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.  The Act, commonly referred to as a “bank bailout,” authorized the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities (MBS).  Instead, the funds were given to foreign and domestic banks to offset their risky MBS, OTC derivatives and other losses.  The bank bailout set a precedent of socializing losses but keeping gains private.  The Act effectively bound the fate of the U.S. Treasury to that of the largest U.S. financial institutions.
  6. 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  The Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling prior case law and guaranteeing the ability of corporations to influence elections without meaningful restrictions.  The Court’s decision gave carte blanche to corporations to influence elections, legitimized the interdependence of elected officials and large corporations and created a precedent under which the rights of corporations supersede those of citizens.
  7. 2010 The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  The Act failed to restore critical provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act, significantly regulate OTC derivatives, break up “too big to fail” banks, prevent another financial crisis and prevent further bailouts.  The Act created a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but did not repeal any provision of BAPCPA or restore the financial privacy of U.S. citizens removed by the USA PATRIOT Act.  The Act failed to provide adequate funding to the government’s watchdogs, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), potentially hobbling enforcement.  The Act has also been criticized for the burden it places on smaller competitors in the financial sector, which could ultimately result in an increased concentration of financial power in “too big to fail” banks.

Critics have alleged that, underlying the sub-prime mortgage meltdown that triggered the financial crisis in 2008 was rampant fraud.  Fraud has been alleged at virtually every level from the assessment of property values and credit risk; to the loans themselves and to their securitization as MBS assets; to the ratings of MBS assets as AAA; to hedging or betting against MBS assets in the OTC derivatives market (perhaps including financial firms allegedly betting against MBS assets that they themselves created and sold to clients as AAA assets).  After the crisis, a seeming pattern of fraud continued apparently unabated in the robo-signing foreclosure scandal where documents submitted to courts were falsified.  Despite an avalanche of alleged crimes under existing federal law, no firm or individual of any significance in the financial crisis has yet been prosecuted.

President Barack Obama said in October 2011 that the mortgage finance practices leading to the economic meltdown were “immoral, inappropriate and reckless … but not necessarily illegal.”  Since fraud is, in fact, illegal, critics claim that the U.S. federal government has simply failed to enforce the law.  Adding fuel to the fire, the Solyndra loan scandal could be construed to suggest corruption at high levels and the MF Global debacle could be construed as indicative of weak regulation and law enforcement and even of questionable market integrity.

In theory, selective enforcement of the law risks the creation of two sets of laws: one for big banks and corporations, and for their executives, i.e., those with connections in Washington D.C. or on Wall Street, and one for everyone else.  Among other things, failure to enforce the law could create an environment in which crime pays, but, for ordinary citizens, hard work, prudent financial decision making, saving and investing for the long term do not.

More than any other aspect of America’s progression towards 3rd world status, the federal government’s low level of law enforcement action where “too big to fail” banks are concerned is perhaps the most insidious because it raises questions of legitimacy and of the social contract.  A financial and legal system of moral hazard implies that victims face double jeopardy while they are deprived of legal recourse, i.e., those allegedly defrauded might face inflation and tax burdens stemming from preferential treatment of favored corporations or from further bailouts.

Destructive Tax Policies

In the face of rising government debt, the rapidly shrinking American middle class is the primary target of the U.S. federal government’s tax policies.  The eventual extinction of the American middle class would be a key milestone along the road to 3rd world status.  Current U.S. tax policies favor the largest corporations and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.  Although tax increases exacerbate economic downturns, several tax options have been or are being discussed.  However, none of them are likely to be put in place.

•    Increasing taxes on corporate profits would result in job losses in the short term and would affect dividends and share prices in the stock market.  Lower dividends or share prices would affect pension funds, including government pension funds.
•    Increasing taxes on capital gains would impact the non-tax-exempt investments of the now retiring “baby boomer” generation and would reduce capital formation thus reducing investment in new businesses or business expansion and hampering job growth.
•    Increasing payroll taxes would cause companies to downsize resulting in job losses and would have a chilling effect on hiring.
•    A Value Added Tax (VAT) is impractical in the United States because countless special taxes already exist at all levels of the supply chain.  To prevent unpredictable, disruptive consequences, implementing a VAT would require years of study and comprehensive tax reform.
•    A national sales tax is undesirable because it would overlap and interfere with already existing state sales taxes, which are highly inconsistent across states.
•    Carbon taxes remain possible but they would encumber businesses and result in job losses or reduce hiring.

Chief among the remaining possibilities is the income tax but, according to the Tax Policy center at the Urban Institute, Brookings Institution, 46% of American households will pay no federal income tax in 2011.  The reasons include income tax exemptions for subsistence level income, dependents and nontaxable tax expenditures for senior citizens and low-income working families with children.

Assuming that big banks, multinational corporations and the wealthiest 1% of Americans remain off limits in terms of tax policy, the range of income taxed is likely to widen from the current tax on households earning more than $250,000 per year to progressively lower income levels.  In fact, the government’s intended revenue source is precisely what remains of the once much larger middle class: professionals, small business owners and dual income families in urban areas, etc.  These are the households that have managed to stay ahead of inflation, declining real wages and falling household incomes.

Among other things, U.S. tax policies will erode capital formation within the remnants of the middle class, which is the engine of small business creation and the source of most American jobs.  The eventual result will be a three-tier socioeconomic structure consisting of a super rich wealthy class, a much poorer working class and a massive, politically and financially disenfranchised underclass, similar to that of a 3rd world country.

Via Dolorosa

The United States increasingly resembles a 3rd world country in terms of unemployment, lack of economic opportunity, falling wages, growing poverty and concentration of wealth, government debt, corporate influence over government and weakening rule of law.  Federal Reserve monetary policies and federal government economic, regulatory and tax policies seem to favor the largest banks and corporations over the interests of small businesses or of the general population.  The potential elimination of the middle class could reshape the socioeconomic strata of American society in the image of a 3rd world country.  It seems only a matter of time before the devolution of the United States becomes more visible.  As the U.S. economy continues to decline, public health, nutrition and education, as well as the country’s infrastructure, will visibly deteriorate.  There is little evidence of political will or leadership for fundamental reforms.  All other things being equal, the U.S. will become a post industrial neo-3rd-world country by 2032.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Bicycle Repairman's picture

At the start of the 20th century the USA was in the 5-10 range in terms of wealth per capita.  Argentina was richer.  USA people had considerably less government interference.

earleflorida's picture

it's not! the imf & basel want to make the american sheeple believe this 'black proganda.

ref: blog [top bar] 4/28/11 'the imf's war on america'

ps.    great reads


luna_man's picture




Too much has changed around the globe, let alone this country, to go back.

Heck, Man, most of the people back then were miserable!  Just try living like people did back then.

NOT THAT IT WON'T HAPPEN...We're gonna really have to toughen up!...So much for the comfortable, "AMERICAN DREAM"!

hmmm, REALITY!


earleflorida's picture

so let's kill a few more million,... or go for a billion - what ya say. just for a good nights sleep,... we can even use the skeletons as logs in our comfy fireplace, singing,... 'god bless amerika'

Uber Vandal's picture

Amish people don't seem to complain much about living an 1850's lifestyle.


i-dog's picture

Hmmmm ... they must have known what was coming and were getting prepared. Very suspicious. Hey ... the Amish are the NWO!! (They certainly show what the US will be like under the NWO).

Sean7k's picture

So, you think people that amass power and influence will surrender it all without resolve? How quaint. 

There is no "natural" condition. There are only the dynamics of the market and the limits set by the controls put in place by others. Today, we have the means to confront out oppressors through passive resistance, education, communication and determination. 

If we set our own parameters for behavior and government, eschewing the fascism of America, we can rewrite the social contract in terms that trade government influence and intervention (thus corporate control) for liberty and laissez faire markets. 

The fascists need a compliant population. However, we do not need them. 

Civilzation is about production of goods and services. We can do that with our own money, our own labor and the rules of the free market. The social contract is based on the affirmation of the population. Instead of giving unto Caesar, tell him to exit stage right...

stateside's picture

The British were the world's superpower and had the world's reserve currency until the 1940's.  Over 70 years later everybody drinks at pubs and plays golf.  Not a bad result after losing the reserve currency.  The women aren't that hot but when you drink alot you don't notice as much and everything's good.  Good beer, good women.  I can live with it.


NuckingFuts's picture

You beat me to it. Yeah, dental care and orthodonics must not be covered by the national health service.

But hey, they still have the monarchy! /sarc/

IQ 101's picture

First up , The British Gave up their Empire, they did not lose it, a primary condition of the Marshall plan, (The rebuild of Europe , post WW2), was, hey you can have the LOAN, Britskies, but you have to give up your Empire, tis a condition of the BAILOUT.

When British soldiers were trying to save France from the Nazis, the USA was standing around Jerko wanking on each others gay inbread bottoms, chit chatting about Neutrality and not give a fuckery, the Brits were fighting the Nazxis in 1939 but the USA did not show up until !942 ?

WW1 Began in 1914 and went on until 1918, the USA showed up in 1917,

My point is, the USA has no reason to gloat, the USA was a day late a ton o' times,

I mean no disrespect to the hundreds of thosands of US servicemen who gave EVERYTHING, but it is not a glamourous truth.

It all looks a bit ugly since 1913'ish.

The USA gets involved when it looks like the Germans or Russians might use the UK as an airbase ?

When the Battle of Britain was over and Hitler realized he could not take the UK, he turned on Russia, gave up and went east.

The USA was not even in the war yet, but apparently US banks were financing both sides, ? IBM, FORD.

I will not even go to Japan this evening, with Ford engines in their vessels,

Most Americans never get too much further than the village boundaries,

 in fact or in mind, but know this, England is about the same size as Rhode Island, Wales is about the same size as San Bernadino ,CA.

Scotland twice as large and Ireland is run by Leprechauns.

As far as British dental care, it ranks amongst the best in the world, if not thee best, you might want to Google, British surgical and Dental innovations of the 20th century,

Fuck you in your financial Times, pick up a fucking history book now and then, so you can actually base your opinions on facts rather than assumptions sold to you in high (AS A KITE) high school ?



BigDuke6's picture

That was admirably spunky until you came up with that BBC link at the end.

The BBC are the biggest bunch of motherfucking, corrupt ,multi-culti rammed down your throat, dont report on any news story with a foreign born criminal... bunch of cocks ever.

Those pakistani rape gangs in the north of england - the BBC ignored the whole thing.

i'd disband it and hang the board for treason.


nmewn's picture

lol...I was rockin along with him till this...

"Scotland twice as large and Ireland is run by Leprechauns."

Never reach under an Irishmans kilt & fondle his lucky charms ;-)

trav7777's picture

desert nomad war tribe must own them too

BigJim's picture

So, according to you, the British 'gave up' their Empire... because they would rather have had cheap money from Uncle Sam than carry on exploiting their 3rd world conquests? They 'gave up' their Empire because they had no choice. Even if it hadn't been a condition of the Marshall plan - and I'd be interested to see some references proving this - Britain was spent. It was broke. Britain's military adventurings destroyed its Empire... and the US is to be criticised because it was not quite so eager to go to war?

As for the US showing up a day late a "ton o' times", has it occurred to you the US had no business getting involved in WWI? That BRITAIN had no fucking business getting involved in WWI, pledging the lives of millions of its young men to defend a bunch of corrupt European monarchies? That it was the US involvement in WWI that gave the Allies the ability to push the ruinous Versailles 'Treaty' down Germany's throat, which was what set the conditions that gave rise to Hitler?

As for Ford engines in Japanese vessels... how many British-made weapons help prop up vicious despots the world over today?

Enough of the nationalist militarism. If the US hadn't got involved in WWI the world would probably be a lot better place today.

FeralSerf's picture

America's involvement in WW1 was prima facie evidence of her continued existence as a British colony.

BigJim's picture

I think it's more likely to be more evidence that the MIC had already had an established grip on the body politic even back then.

The interests of the MICs of the US and the Brits are usually confluent.

Vlad Tepid's picture

I'm glad you didn't go into Japan, because I really didn't want to brain myself by bashing my head against the keyboard.

Since you have such a hard-on for England, you should be proud of the fact that most Japanese warships were powered by British propulsion systems - namely Brown-Curtis and Parsons turbines.  Don't know of any IJN ship powered by Ford, or what that even had to do with your screed.

Speaking of village boundaries, you may want to check in to your nearest geography class:  San Bernadino is 153 square km; Wales is more than 8,000.  Not even going to bother checking the Rhode Island/England claim.  

Put your 101 IQ to better use next time.

earleflorida's picture

write in answer:  the loyalist are____  ____.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

The pound sterling got fucked in the ass in the late 19th century when they went off the silver standard.

They would have lost WWII, and maybe WWI, without the help of the US.  The Brits lost status before you say, and they never were a lone super power.  They lost to America/France in 1783, remember?

hooligan2009's picture

ummm...they beat the French later and kept Canada, with the Canadians actually burning down the White House in 1805. The Americans did not swing the balance in the Great War of 1914-1918, but were important and gratefully accepted volunteers. I agree that wiping out half an entire generation of young men in the Great War, saw the demise of the British Empire and that they were not ther lone superpower at the time. Pretty much like America won't be, or even isn't now. The USA accounts for almost zero of wealth that is not ecumbered by debt. On this basis, given that all countries are more or less broke, the only currency that counts for superpower status is nuclear warheads. I think that having enough to destroy the world 50 times over is pretty pointless and even destroying half would bring the other half to starvation, so I am not sure nucelar missiles are worth anything either.

r00t61's picture

And they have a welfare parasite state that would put our Octopus Mom to shame.

And they have a police/surveillance state that would put our NYPD and Operation Fast and Furious to shame.

And they have a official policy of forced multiculturalism that would put our affirmative action quota system to shame.

No thank you.

trav7777's picture

desert nomad war tribe got them too...Rothschild Bank of England

billsykes's picture

they are huge in the UK. couldn't get that drunk. remember the still own the colonies like Canada and the usa that's why they aren't totally done yet. wait till we go and they have nothing. except the opium, forgot about that one.

knowless's picture

there are some very attractive "british" women, but most of them are celts.. green eyes, red hair; there you go. or blue and yellow, whateverthefuck.

knowless's picture

green and yellow would make it.

or blue and red.

Richard Chesler's picture

How the U.S. Is an Obanana Republic.

Fixed it for you.


Everybodys All American's picture

Obama is a failure. Eric Holder has been a failure and still maintains his job. Geithner has failed at his job and has been retained. Bernanke has been a failure and still retains his job. Will Obama retain his job. If Obama does get re-elected the future of this country is very very dim.

Real Estate Geek's picture

Yeah, well don't get out your shades if Romney, Perry or any other Repub (except RP of course) gets elected either.

Dr. No's picture

Doom and gloom.


The bankruptcy of the Us Gov. will not kill the american spirit.  Rebirth will occur.  The US has a culture of freedom and believes in a Republic.  Things have gotten out of hand in the past 50 years but the great default will result in a burden being lifted.  

Look at Iceland.

CPL's picture

Turn off all media and other distractions you might have a chance of delivering that message.

Freddie's picture

The f**ktard morons who watch TV enpower and enable their overlords.  ZH is filled with morons who watch Tv including CNBC.

SilverIsKing's picture

Difference in the US is that there are forces that will continue to try to hold us down.

trav7777's picture

Iceland isn't burdened with diversity.

Dr. No's picture

I agree; but I beleive (or is it a mad hope?) that the great default will result in an exodus so that we can rebuild from wreckage.

GMadScientist's picture

No, they're a homogenous cluster of retarded white people.

trav7777's picture

which is why their standard of living is 1000x higher than africa with the homogenous cluster of supersmart cool black people.

Burnbright's picture

Honestly Trav what is up with the whole racist slant? What the fuck does race have to do with our country turning into a fucking shit hole dictatorship? Race and immigration have nothing to do with our constantly reduced standard of living, corruption within the government, or central banks going MAD on each other. 

WTF is the point to keep blaming race? You make no fucking sense.

dolph9's picture

You are so fucking wrong it's ridiculous.

The first thing that race has to do with America's demise is niggers:  our constant coddling of them and getting virtually nothing in return.

The second thing that race has to do with it is that America somehow think it's a good idea to bring practically the whole world to these shores.  Now, a few Chinese or Mexicans, and it wouldn't be a problem.  But it's practically a tide of biblical proportions at this point.

And even if Chinese and Arabs and Mexicans and Indians show that they can maintain America, will they actually work together, like the European immigrants of the past did?  Somehow I don't think it will be that easy.

Diversity just doesn't work.  People prefer people like themselves, in all things:  race, language, interests, age, education, class, etc.  You can't just make people with widely varying backgrounds magically work together and create a prosperous society.

Witness the never ending propaganda on TV and elsewhere that always has token people of different races smiling happily and enjoying each other's company.

Have any of you ever actually seen this in real life?  I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have observed it.

caerus's picture

quid debemus cogitare?

nufio's picture

kids dont care about race. go look at any nursery school and see if the kids distinguish between races. pointing fingers at other races is just like the 2 parties pointing fingers at each other for failed governmental policy and reluctance to look at the real problems in the society. I married outside my race. we just speak different languages

i think the fundamental problem in american society is that everyone wants to be a real estate agent or lawyer or paper pushing clerk making six figures after partying for 4 years studying liberal arts and psychology. The college enrollment statistics in the US is horrifying. More people take up psychology as a major than all of engineering (civil+ mech + electrical + etc ) AND computer science COMBINED. its just fucking ridiculous.

I dont think the government is not spending a lot of money on the the african americans, and no i dont think the african american societies in the US  contribute much, but I dont think its because of the race but sort of like the divide and rule policy of the british empire the government employs to keep the whites and blacks segregated.

fuck off trav

trav7777's picture

YES, they DO.

Children self-segregate and african kids prefer white dolls and proportional white faces.  Even in nursery school you can ALREADY see disparities in rates of skills development between the races.

JFC, MORON, did you not see the COVER of Time Magazine, where they asked "is your baby RAYCISS" (of course it was a white baby)??

EVERYTHING you think you know is FALSE.

You got this nursery school thing from where, actual rigorous observation of nursery schools or did you hear something like it said by some talking head on the MSM.  Because the actual studying of nursery schools shows the OPPOSITE of what you assert, and that's why Time just HAD to run that as a lead story!

Yes, yes, the MSM TOTALLY tells the truth on race, unlike everything else they talk about which is 100% propaganda.  Got it.  Makes total sense.

Blacks and whites SELF segregate.  In fact, every race tries to segregate itself from blacks.  ALL DO. 

BigJim's picture

I've got young kids. And I haven't seen any sign of this 'self-segregation' you proclaim.

Looking at various races throughout history, we can see advancements and declines relative to others. And this includes Whitey. There was a time when the (brown) Egyptians were way ahead of white Europeans. The Indus civilisation - they were brown, too. How about the Saracens, vs your beloved whitefolk in Europe?

People migrate to improve their lives. The problem in the US is that, because of the perverse incentives of socialism (free education, free healthcare), we attract those who have most to benefit from coming here - ie, the poor of neighboring countries. The fact that they have brown skin is irrelevant.

I might also add that it was LBJ's minimum wage that destroyed the burgeoning Black middle classes. That and the 'War on Drugs' and welfare have given us our beautiful modern ghetto culture... in which an increasing number of white people are taking part, because the same incentives are working the same magic on them, pigmentation notwithstanding.

trav7777's picture

What the fuck does ANCIENT HISTORY have to do with NOW?

Populations can diverge in as little as 500 years.  You've got young kids and you are NOT a sociologist? 

Go examine the work of SOCIOLOGISTS instead of pretending like you are doing rigorous research,  JFC.  You're gonna tell me something about the movement of the stars now because you looked up once or twice?

BigJim's picture

Ah, so it's only modern whitey that is genetically superior to the brownies? So any instance of brownies being demonstrably culturally superior is irrelevant if it's more than, say, 500 years ago?

What I'd like to see from you, Trav, is some kind of evidence that this 500-year divergence is genetic, rather than cultural-political-economic-environmental.

As for SOCIOLOGISTS (any sociologist who accidentally leaves the caps lock on, I'm guessing), most of them would run a mile from your whitey-ubermensh frothings.

trav7777's picture

I don't care about 500 years ago and the populations you mentioned are caucasian in origin AT ANY RATE.

Yes, Ahabs and persians are fkin caucasian.  Over time, they have been diluted with increasing amounts of subsaharan african, aka negroid.

This is how the populations diverged so much.

BigJim's picture

The ancient Egyptians were caucasian, were they? I guess that explains the pale skins, and thin noses and lips when they represented themselves in their artwork.