In America that's partially true, and the figure is over 60% of non-Orthodox Jews. Though Orthodox Jews have very high Birth Rates, and will make up for some of it. But it will change what "Jewish" means in America. It might go from the 'country club doctor', more towards the Amish-looking Orthodox. re Israel? You wish anti-semite guy! Jewish Baby Boom Alters Israeli-Palestinian Dynamic The jump has calmed the fears of many Israeli Jews of being outnumbered.. Wall Street Journal - July 14, 2016 By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV Jewish Baby Boom Alters Israeli-Palestinian Dynamic JERUSALEM—Israel’s peace camp and its international backers have long used one crude but powerful argument: Arabs make more babies than Jews and unless a separate Palestinian state is created, a demographic time bomb will turn Jews into a dwindling minority akin to white South Africans. That prospect certainly seemed real when the Oslo peace process began in the 1990s. Fertility among Israeli Jews stood at an average of 2.6 children per woman, compared with 4.7 among Muslims in Israel and East Jerusalem and 6.0 among Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Yasser Arafat at the time famously declared that the womb of the Palestinian woman was his people’s most potent weapon. Yet over the past decade, a demographic revolution with long-lasting political consequences has occurred. Jewish birthrates in Israel have spiked while Arab birthrates in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere in the Middle East have declined. This unlikely baby boom has made many Israeli Jews a lot less afraid of being outnumbered—one of the underappreciated reasons why the country’s voters have consistently rewarded politicians opposed to Palestinian statehood and to relinquishing land. “When you are motivated by fear, you seek to preserve demography by giving away geography,” explained Yoram Ettinger, a former Israeli ambassador and right-wing activist who has been active in publicizing the impact of Israel’s rising birthrate. “But if you examine Israel’s demographics realistically, there is no need to think in such terms.” The Jewish fertility rate in Israel was 3.11 per woman in 2014, the last full year for which data is available, while among the Arab citizens of Israel and East Jerusalem residents it was only a notch higher at 3.17, according to Israel’s statistics bureau. Palestinian fertility rates have fallen to 3.7 in the West Bank from 5.6 in 1997, and to 4.5 from 6.9 children in the Gaza Strip, according to the Palestinian statistics bureau. “There will be No demographic time bomb,” Israel’s defense minister and right-wing politician Avigdor Lieberman said in an interview before his recent appointment. “Birthrates in the Arab and Jewish sectors will continue converging, while we also hope that a considerable part of Jews from Western Europe, and also from North America, will come here.” Jewish immigration last year, from countries such as France and Ukraine, was at the highest level since 2003. [.......]+
But without black people, I'll lose my white privilege. Then again, Team White has caused enough devastation on earth.
The country’s Jewish population, which makes up nearly three quarters of the country at 6.419 million, grew at a rate of 1.9 percent, while the Arab population, which makes up just over a fifth of the country at 1.786 million, grew at a rate of 2.2 percent. http://archive.jta.org/2016/09/27/n...dy-as-israels-population-reaches-8-58-million
Most of these people have 'white' in them though, especially western citizens. And the main reason they choose to identity as something other than 'white' is affirmative action. Whites are kicking ass though if we are really such a tiny percentage of the global population. We must be the best.
Be careful what you wish for. When whitey is gone, who will pay the taxes that pay for the welfare, Section 8, AIDC, government cheese, free college, Food Stamps, government phones, and all the other handouts that blacks have taken advantage of, many for their entire lives? When whitey is gone, youll have to get a job - and KEEP that job. There will be no-one to feed you and clothe you and your children for free. You will have to find a way to do it for yourself. No more Affirmative Action - that means you will actually have to QUALIFY for a job, instead of just having it handed to you because of the color of your skin. It will be a whole new ball game. Think about it: NO MORE HANDOUTS. Yeah, itll be paradise, alright. Blacks in other countries also manage to shoot themselves in the foot, because of their envy of white men: In some African countries, jealous locals began stealing land owned by white farmers. They have started to take farms from white farmers -- then gven the land to black farmers. The results have been just what you would expect: In Zimbabwe, for instance, there are millions of starving Africans, now that the white farmers are gone. Paradise. Just like you said. westernfarmpress.com/blog/death-white-african-farmer
Liberia is in good part Repatriated slaves, some hybrid race. They are the 6th Poorest country in the world (of 228 ) with GDP per Capita of $700. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=67 The bottom 20 are almost All Black http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=480975&page=3&p=1066760227#post1066760227 +
This is a common, predictable, and vastly over-used phrase, these days. It’s usually brought up by blacks when they get all wound up, during one of their riots...I mean, “protests.” Every time I hear that tired blaming of whites for every one of the planet’s ills, I nearly puke. Think about it. Think about how awful humans treat each other, regardless of race. I point to blacks because they’re the folks forever protesting and whining about one thing or another. Look at Africa, every time you turn around the people in one of the countries is committing genocide against some other group of blacks. Either that, or, there’s a riot started when someone gets a hair up their rear, and people run around like nuts, hacking people to pieces with machetes. So, what I’m trying to get at, is this: If white men had not been the inventors, the creative people, the innovators, the adventurers, the power seekers, some other group would have found their way to power. And the results would probably have been every bit as “devastating” and brutal and as wide-spread. When you look at the vicious behavior of Africans in hacking each other to pieces, and then look at the astounding crime rates, the rape, theft, brainless rioting, and, especially, the high number of murders, commited by blacks in America, it seems absolutely clear, that if blacks had been able to attain the same level of power that whites accumulated throughout history, blacks would have been every bit as brutal, and they would have caused just as many problems, if not more. So it’s really just foolish to blame whites for acting the same way any other group would have acted, if they had been in power. It’s all about jealousy, as much as anything, I suppose.
I agree with this very much. The best way to preserve your race is to have many children. I'm willing to do my part, and more if I'm permitted..
The only reason there has not been as long and barbaric wars in Africa is because they simply lack the recourses to have a large war. Look at that whole area it is a total train wreck. If Genghis Khan had the resources of the Europeans image what he could have done. To say the white are the only ones that war is simply lacking the the ability to have any deep thought. War and conquering is not an exclusive white thing, they just did it better.
Then neither are blacks. They're Nigerians, or Congolese, or South Africans. Neither are Asians. They are Japanese or Chinese or Taiwanese. Neither are Hispanics. They are Spanish, or Chilean, or Brazilian. What's the reason for removing solidarity among whites, I wonder? I mean, really? Why? What is it being done for? What purpose does it serve? Whites are no more or less racist then the other "races", they just happened to be more successful in implementing racism then the others. Does that mean we marginalize whites to benefit others? No. That's the issue with this mode of thinking. Equalizing everyone does not mean marginalizing one group to benefit the others. Same problem with other liberal idiocies like feminism.
Would you cheer any other race of people becoming a smaller worldwide minority? I don't think so. It's left-wing and PC to cheer on the extinction of whites. - - - Updated - - - It's amazing how many people live in the comforts of a white created and dominated Western society and cheer on the extinction of white people. These are the same people who would call you Hitler if you celebrated any other race of people losing population in the world.
The left generally believes the "noble-savage" theory when it comes to non-whites. Their liberal white guilt has them believe that non-whites are generally good, noble people, incapable of the evils that have been committed by the white man. That's why they view whites going extinct as a good thing.
The left fears the political power of whites, and what might happen if they were to become tribalistic and vote accordingly, like other races. The creators and torchbearers of Western civilization need to be diluted, so that left-wing, foreign concepts in the West, like communism and Zionism, can be advanced to achieve political ends.
"Team White" (and to a much less extent "Team Yellow") are the reason for ALL the world's progress in Social Justice and Standard of Living. Black people would still be living in huts in the Stone age were it not for "whites". (in fact, many African blacks still are) No Running Water, No Electric, No modern medicine, and they would have been/Would be wiped out in large part by, ie, AIDS, Ebola, Famine, etc right up until this very day. +
Prosperous means succeeding financially. In 2012, the United States stopped being the number one economy in the world. Another team has that distinction now.
Which the US has done. Yeah, no. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022415/worlds-top-10-economies.asp
China trails the U.S. when considering market exchange rates by choice. There is a trade advantage to the rate they have chosen. China manipulating currency exchange rates is one of the United States biggest complaints about China's trade practices. PPP is less susceptible to manipulation and gives a more revealing look at productivity. Which is why our own CIA, the world bank, and pretty much any institution that matters uses PPP. Using PPP, America is no longer the number one economy in the world. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. Purchasing power parity When making comparisons between countries which use different currencies it is necessary to convert values, such as national income (GDP), to a common currency. This can be done it two ways: Using market exchanges rates, such as $1 = ¥200, or: Using purchasing power parities (PPPs) Market exchange rates Using market exchange rates creates two main difficulties: Firstly, market exchange rates can quickly change, which artificially changes the value of the variable in question, such as GDP. For example, a one-month appreciation of the US$ by 5% against the Japanese Yen would reduce the dollar value of the Japanese economy by 5%. Clearly, this is more to do with changes in the exchange rate than changes in the underlying state of the Japanese economy. Secondly, market exchange rates are determined by demand and supply of currencies, which reflect changes in imports and exports of traded goods and services. However, not all countries trade the same proportion of their income and output, so currency values are not determined on a consistent basis. Purchasing power parity The alternative to using market exchange rates is to use purchasing power parities (PPPs). The purchasing power of a currency refers to the quantity of the currency needed to purchase a given unit of a good, or common basket of goods and services. Purchasing power is clearly determined by the relative cost of living and inflation rates in different countries. Purchasing power parity means equalising the purchasing power of two currencies by taking into account these cost of living and inflation differences. For example, if we convert GDP in Japan to US dollars using market exchange rates, relative purchasing power is not taken into account, and the validity of the comparison is weakened. By adjusting rates to take into account local purchasing power differences, known as PPP adjusted exchange rates, international comparisons are more valid. The Big Mac Index This index, devised by The Economist, calculates how many units of a local currency are needed to purchase a Big Mac. Exchange rates can then be adjusted according to how much local currency is required. For example, if 200 Japanese yen (¥) are required to buy a Big Mac in Tokyo, and $2 are required in New York, the 'value' of currencies are $1 = ¥100. This can be used to adjust the value of Japanese GDP, so that if GDP in Japan is ¥100 trillion, its value will be $1 trillion. PPPs and market exchange rates compared The World Bank produces a report every three years comparing countries in terms of PPPs and US$. As can be seen, when PPPs are used, the gap between the richer and poorer countries is considerably narrowed. (link)
The US is way ahead in terms of GDP per capita. Their economy is slightly bigger in total size but their population size is about 3-4 times larger than the US. The US also holds a much larger percentage of the world's wealth compared to China, approximately 3 times more. But even when you reject this information in favor of ones more aligned with the anti-white view, what is your point? Are countries with predominantly white populations not prosperous countries in general, compared to that of other races?
