The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Robert Stark Archive
New US Birth Data Vindicates Breeder Selection Theory (Mini-White Baby Boom)
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

US births have been consistently declining since 2014, but actually increased from 3,613,647 in 2020 to 3,659,289 in 2021. White births increased by 2.2% (from 1,843,432 to 1,884,554), Hispanics birth by 2% (from 866,713 to 884,726), Black births declined -2.4% (from 529,811 to 517,027), Asian births declined by 2.5% (from 219,068 to 213,556), and Native American births declined by -3.3%. From April 2021 to March 2022, the total US birth rate rose from 1.66 to 1.68, non-Hispanic Whites were steady at 1.60, non-Hispanic Blacks steady at 1.68, and Hispanics rose from 1.90 to 1.95. From 2020 to 2021, total US fertility was steady at 1.64, non-Hispanic Whites increased from 1.55 to 1.57, non-Hispanic Blacks declined from 1.71 to 1.67, and Hispanics declined from 1.88 to 1.86.

source

Many were expecting a pandemic baby bust but overall the pandemic had less of an impact on fertility than anticipated. While the increase in White fertility was modest, it contradicts a lot of the demographic doom and gloom narrative. The slight increase in White fertility appears to be more among affluent Whites, and my personal observation has been of an increase in pregnant White women in affluent areas in California. This trend is likely due to remote work benefiting upscale Whites more than other groups, enabling mothers to stay at home with babies and those moving from cities to more family oriented suburban areas. An increase in older mothers having more children at the margin could also be a factor. Latinos were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and there was initially a dip in Latino fertility. The recent rise could be a recovery from the pandemic decline, plus the recent surge in foreign migration. Urbanization tends to suppress fertility, and the Asian and Black fertility decline, reflects that those two groups are heavily urbanized.

Source: Wall Street Journal report Behind the Ongoing U.S. Baby Bust

Source

US Non-Hispanic White births at 1,884,554 in 2021, are still numerical lower than 2,056,332 in 2016, and 2,162,406 in 2010. White births also declined 10.35% from 2016 to 2020, ironically under MAGA years. Non-Hispanic White births briefly lost majority status around 2010-2011 but then recovered to 54% of total births by 2013, declined to 51.7% in 2016, but were still at 51% in 2021. White fertility has been below replacement since the early 1970s baby bust, bottoming out at 1.61 in 1983. However, there was a recovery in White fertility in the 80s and 90s, when boomers had families, peaking at 1.91 in 2007. Then there was a gradual decline to 1.71 in 2016, reaching a low point of 1.55 in 2020, and then bouncing back to the current TFR of 1.6. While Whites are still hemorrhaging population by having below replacement fertility, their overall rate, which is still higher than that of most developed nations, has been remarkably stable. Whites have maintained fertility proportions close to 50% without a major drop, which is decent taking into account that immigration is overwhelmingly non-White.

The 884,726 Hispanic births in 2021, were a substantial decline from 918,447 in 2016, and from 945,180 in 2010. Hispanics births also declined by 5.63% from 2016 to 2020. Hispanics fertility was 2.96 in 1990, remained fairly high throughout the 90s and into the 00s, then declined sharply after the 08 housing bubble crash, which impacted Hispanics much more than other groups. Hispanic fertility was at 2.09 in 2016, and then dipped below replacement in the late 2010s, reaching 1.95 today. There is a disparity between native born Hispanic fertility at 1.71 and foreign born at 2.18 (2019) but also a much bigger decline in foreign born fertility, that is converging with native rates. An American Community Survey from 2015 to 2019 placed those of Mexican ancestry at 1.84, while the highest fertility Latino ancestry groups were Guatemalans at 2.58 and Hondurans at 2.67, though likely significantly lower today.

Black births declined to 517,027 in 2021 from 558,622 in 2016, and from 589,808 in 2010. Black births also declined by 5.16% from 2016 to 2020. Black fertility was high in the late 80s to early 90s, peaking at 2.55 in 1990, and then declining throughout the 90s, to below replacement level, and coming close to converging with Whites rates around 2000. Black fertility had a small rebound in the mid-00s, followed by a dip around the 2008 crash, and has been below replacement throughout the 2010s, from 1.90 in 2016 to 1.68 in 2021. Foundational Black American Fertility was at 1.65 in 2019, while Black immigrant fertility was at 2.20. Foundational Black fertility is now at about 1.6, which is tied with Whites. The American Community Survey from 2015-19, placed African American fertility at 1.84, but Somalis at 4.32, Haitians at 2.23, and Nigerians at 2.44. Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest fertility in the world and African immigration increasing in the future could compensate for the decline in American Black fertility.

Asian births declined from 254,471 in 2016 to 213,556 in 2021, and declined by 13.9% from 2016 to 2020. Asian fertility was at an abysmal low at 1.38 in 2020, and is now likely even lower. The Asian fertility rate was 2.0 in 1990 and has been below replacement level ever since. Asian fertility plateaued from the mid 90s until a drop off in the late 00s and 2010s. Considering that Asian Americans are the fastest growing racial group, even factoring in growth from immigration, the decline in Asian births is remarkable. If immigration were cut off, Asian population would rapidly decline. Foreign born Asian TFR was at 1.63 and native born was at 1.30 in 2019. The American Community Survey from 2015-19 shows Asian fertility the highest among Hmong at 3.23, Burmese at 2.69, Nepalis at 2.63, Indians in the middle at 1.72, and the lowest rates were for Chinese at 1.55, Taiwanese at 1.49, Korean at 1.40, and Thai at 1.27.

Native American fertility fell from 31,452 in 2016 to 26,813 in 2020, and declined by 14.75% from 2016 to 2020. Native American fertility has declined the most among any group over a long period of time, which is devastating considering the high out-marriage rate.

The states with the fastest declining fertility in 2021, including DC (-7.6%), were New Mexico (-5.1%), California (-4.1%), and Arizona (-4.0%), which are also the most heavily non-White, and except for DC, the most Latino. The states with the greatest increase in fertility were New Hampshire (+4.8%) and Idaho (+3.1%), which are also disproportionately the Whitest. In California, White births declined from 143,531 in 2013 to 115,543 in 2020 (19.4% decline), in contrast with Hispanics from 238,496 to 194,295 (18.5% decline), Asians from 76,424 to 58,543 (23.3% decline) and Blacks from 31,977 to 21,350 (33.2% decline). California had a significant decline in White births, but about the same rate of decline as Hispanics and a much lower rate of decline than for Blacks and Asians, which is overall not bad taking into account immigration trends and White flight out of the State.

A lot of racial stereotypes about fertility are outdated. In fact fertility is now declining the most among non-White women. There are parrels to Brazil’s fertility decline, which is driven by non-White rates converging with White rates. Non-Whites are still growing more than Whites numerically and have higher fertility rates but are also declining at a faster rate than Whites, whose fertility shows signs of stabilization and recovery. There are limitations to relying upon past trends to predict the future, as all groups are undergoing fertility transitions at different rates. There is even speculation that Whites are at a long-term advantage over other groups by undergoing their fertility transition earlier, even though they hemorrhaged a lot of their population, which the recent albeit modest bump in White fertility points to. If immigration were shut down, then Whites could be at a long-term demographic advantage over non-Whites.

There is a hypothesis that fertility is heritable, based upon inborn genetic traits rather than external social factors. Since modern society has many anti-natalist selection pressures, those who are not genetically selected to want children are being shredded from the gene pool and the genes of those who are wired to reproduce more will become more pronounced in future generations. In the past, the lack of birth control and social pressure to reproduce meant that almost everyone reproduced regardless of genetics. The theory predicts that the selection for fertility means that fertility will rise in the future among demographics that declined first, and thus have an advantage over groups that underwent the cycle latter.

There is extensive data to back up this hypothesis, such as Jason Collins and Lionel Page’s research for the Institute for Family Studies that accounts for heritable fertility preferences. A Forbes article states that their research theorizes that “as soon as individuals exercise choice over how many children they wish to have, then fertility does become heritable.” Lionel Page states that “The argument is straightforward: countries will likely experience a rebound in fertility after the demographic transition because new generations are from family with higher fertility & fertility is heritable,” and that “We should expect fertility to rebound in developed countries which have completed their demographic transition, like in North America and Europe.”

Corrected population predictions (red) vs standard UN predictions (blue)

Source: Lionel Page

The Forbes article states that the research by Collins and Page “calculates that the world fertility rate, which now stands at 2.52 (as of the period 2010 – 2015) and is forecast to drop to 1.83 in 2095 – 2100 in the baseline UN forecast, will, in fact, continue to drop, but eventually, as this evolutionary impact comes into play, birth rates will rebound to slightly above replacement level, at 2.21. At a regional level, European fertility rate is forecast to reach 2.46 instead of 1.83, and North American fertility, 2.67 rather than 1.85.” Until this study, most mainstream fertility projections, including the United Nations’, assumed that the trend of fertility decline will continue indefinitely.

Russian blogger Anatoly Karlin has also written extensively about fertility being hereditable, pointing to charts that show that “actualized fertility tends to lag desired fertility by approximately 0.5 children.” Karlin also points out that Haredi Jews in Israel, who have a TFR of 7, live in a very densely populated environment that would usually be bad for fertility. The Twitter account Birth Gauge’s research on the theory assumes a heritability of fertility for Finland at +0.32 children per generation, Canada +0.27, USA +0.27, Japan +0.27, Germany +0.26, UK +0.25, Spain +0.22, France +0.22, Sweden +0.21, Italy +0.21, Russia +0.19, Czechia +0.19, South Korea +0.19, and Portugal +0.17. This data predicts a higher long-term fertility rate for Canada, Japan, and Germany, even if these nations currently have low fertility.

Anatoly Karlin’s strongest case for the theory is historic trends in Europe, contrasting France, which was the first major European nation to undergo demographic decline, and went from being Western Europe’s most populated nation in the 18th to 19th Century, but was surpassed by Germany. However, today France has much healthier fertility than other European nations such as Germany, which underwent the transition much latter. Karlin also points to Russia which had a fertility rate of 1.1-1.3 after the fall of the Soviet Union but then peaked at 1.8 children, a couple of years ago, though recently declined to 1.6. Of all European nations, Czechia had the most notable rebound in fertility, falling from 1.1 at the fall of Communism to about 1.8 today. Another success story is Denmark whose TFR rose from 1.38 in 1983 to 1.72 in 2021. This year, the only EU nations to buck the trend of fertility decline are Romania, Bulgaria, and in France, where births were up 2.2%, in the first half of 2022, from 2021. One of the biggest declines in Europe, has been in the UK, where until recently had much higher fertility than most of Continental Western Europe, which shows how the UK is late to go through the transition.

Even factoring in the differences between native vs. immigrant fertility, most of the fertility increase in France was in rural areas, especially in the South and West, that are populated by native French. The biggest decline in France’s fertility was in the immigrant heavy suburbs of Paris. Fertility is generally higher among immigrants than native s in Europe, with a few exceptions such as Iceland and Denmark, where it is close. However, in many European nations, foreign fertility is declining at a much faster rate than among natives. For instance in Sweden, immigrants still have substantially higher fertility than natives but are converging with native fertility rates. The native Swedish rate actually grew more despite high levels of immigration. Also in Belgium, fertility rose from 1.43 to 1.49 for citizens from 2020 to 2021 but declined from 2.13 to 2.11 for foreigners. Even in Germany, births briefly increased for German mothers, but declined for foreign mothers, though native births have declined more recently.

Sweden: Native vs. Migrant fertility

source

(Republished from Substack by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity, Science • Tags: Demograhics, Fertility Rates 
Hide 15 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[411] • Disclaimer says:

    You call that a “boom”? A boom would be an increase of 1 child per woman. You’re talking about an increase of 0.25 over like, a decade.

    This isn’t “breeder selection”. It’s the bext biggest generational cohort after the Boomers, the Millennials, reproducing for the first time.

    Fertility in white countries and Japan has been below replacement since the early 1970s, with only a few small temporary bumps here and there to just slightly above replacement. The Millennials were the byproduct of these bumps.

    Also, what makes you think it matters that births are up 2.2% in France over 2021?

    COVID-19 suppressed births in France in 2021.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-births-covid-lockdown/2021/02/10/285385ae-656c-11eb-bab8-707f8769d785_story.html

    https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210225-covid-19-pandemic-blamed-for-biggest-drop-in-france-s-births-in-45-years

    The 53,900 babies born in January 2021, down from 62,180 in January 2020, were conceived at the start of the first nationwide lockdown imposed by France in March 2020 to halt the spread of Covid-19.

    Anybody can take data for anything from 2020-2021 and make it look like 2022 was this great spectacular change, ignoring that a 2.2% increase would still put the rate below what it was in 2019.

    This is an FBI article designed to keep people distracted and confused about the birthrate. The birthrate has absolutely tanked since the 1960s and it has never shown any signs that it will naturally recover to anytbing healthy. You’re obsessing over a 0.25 increase, ignoring that it needs to be 3 children per woman just to return to the middle class “Brady Bunch” fertility of the 1960s. If you’re a traditionalist you recognize that it needs to be 7 children per woman. A 0.25 child increase it too little, too late. Even a 2 child increase wouldn’t compensate for the lost momentum.

    This has dire implications for people who are concerned about the future of their ethnic group. Heed the warning now, if you care. Note that heeding the warning by necessity means action, right now. No need to respond to my comment.

    • Thanks: puttheforkdown
  2. Fertility rates by race of mother are not as useful in determining racial fertility rates as they once were. When 99%+ white women had children with white fathers, knowing the race of the mother was sufficient to infer the race of the child. Since 1970 the interracial fertility of white women has increased from around 1% to perhaps 15% or 20% today. (The CDC has this data and used to make it accessible; no longer.) The trend is continuing and, in the fullness of time, there is nothing preventing it from reaching 100%. So the fertility of white mothers could double, but if 50% of those births are to non-white fathers, white fertility would be no better off.

    • Replies: @Anon
  3. Many of the commenters who frequent the Unz Review seem to be stuck in a time warp and still assume that black and Hispanic fertility is above replacement. It’s nice to have this article to direct them to, whenever I need to disabuse them of that notion (which seems to be all the time).

    However, the author’s belief that fertility will will recover within the foreseeable future is very much nonsensical. We haven’t even seen the beginning of the massive population decline that is upon us.

  4. Anon[139] • Disclaimer says:
    @silviosilver

    Since 1970 the interracial fertility of white women has increased from around 1% to perhaps 15% or 20% today.

    I highly doubt this. Less than 10% of white American women outmarry, so it’s doubtful 20% would outbreed.

    Also interestingly enough the rate of interracial marriage among white women has declined in recent years. Interracial relationships for white women peaked in the 2000s and declined ever since, according to various sources, like ACS. It is unlikely we would incidentally see an increase in interracial births among white women given these trends.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  5. @Intelligent Dasein

    However, the author’s belief that fertility will will recover within the foreseeable future is very much nonsensical. We haven’t even seen the beginning of the massive population decline that is upon us.

    Fertility is generally referred to as a rate. Therefore there’s no necessary contradiction between expecting the fertility rate to rise and the population massively declining. It just means that the people left after the massive decline will be having more children than people did in the decades before the decline. Whether that will happen is open to doubt, but nothing about the population being set to massively decline rules it out.

  6. @Anon

    I highly doubt this. Less than 10% of white American women outmarry, so it’s doubtful 20% would outbreed.

    The CDC data I referred to used to allow you to disaggregate births to white mothers by race of father, as well as to view that birth data by county. The inclusion of ‘unknown/other’ category for race of father allowed me to calculate minimum interracial fertility – all the unknowns were white fathers – and maximum interracial fertility – all the unknowns were non-white fathers. When I did this calculation – relying on memory; HD died, lost the data – I found minimal interracial fertility close to 20% in the most racially diverse counties (eg LA county, Miami-Dade) and well over 50% in the most heavily hispanic counties where whites were a 10% or less minority.

    I thus concluded that whites in whiter counties had lower interracial fertility because of the lower availability of potential mates, and that whites who lived as heavily outnumbered minorities ‘capitulated’ and bred out at hair-raising rates. You may note that some 50% of white women managed to find a white partner despite whites being less than 10% of the population in these counties. Although this counts as clear evidence of racial self-preference, it is cold comfort, since even if there is a genetically influenced component to racial self-preference there is no guarantee that one’s offspring will breed white; and without such a guarantee, the expectation must be that at some point, regardless of how far in the future, all whites will breed out as a result of nothing more than the overwhelming demographic weight of mate availability. And even if you want to maintain that some lineages will be so strongly averse to mixing that whites may live on regardless of how small a minority they become, this still concedes that whites will become ‘effectively extinct’ even if some do indeed live on.

    Regarding your point about white interracial relationships having peaked, that would be very welcome news, but aside from my foregoing comments, there are additional reasons to be skeptical. Firstly, the determination of ‘white’ in the data you cite is likely to be of a, let us say, less-than-exacting standard. Certainly ‘some’ of those whites, and perhaps even ‘many’ of them, would not be ‘white’ as traditionally understood. Secondly, one of the more insidious effects of intermixture is that the offspring it produces become less racially objectionable to the subsequent generation of whites – eg a white woman who would racially reject a mestizo partner would be less likely to reject a white-mestizo mix (‘castizo’ is the term, I think). This would have the effect of accelerating the rate at which interracial couplings form. Thirdly, the temptation to ‘define down’ the definition of white becomes more difficult to resist with each generation. This seems to have already happened in America with respect to nordicism; where white was once virtually synonymous with nordic (especially as ‘white’ was used by white nationalists), today even the most ardent nordicists regard nordic preservation as a lost cause. I can see no reason to think that the same could not happen to the broader standard of ‘white’ that exists today.

    • Replies: @Anon
  7. Anon[561] • Disclaimer says:
    @silviosilver

    So you say you did a bunch of your own research on the data but your harddrive conveniently died and you’ll never be able to retrieve it.

    Convenient, but:

    Regarding your point about white interracial relationships having peaked, that would be very welcome news, but aside from my foregoing comments, there are additional reasons to be skeptical. Firstly, the determination of ‘white’ in the data you cite is likely to be of a, let us say, less-than-exacting standard. Certainly ‘some’ of those whites, and perhaps even ‘many’ of them, would not be ‘white’ as traditionally understood.

    And? What makes you think the same reasoning doesn’t apply to the ‘white’ women who outmarry or outbreed?
    Many of them might also be mixed, castiza, or otherwise “off”.

    Furthermore, “off white” groups, such as Latinos and Arabs, are increasingly not identifying as white.

    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-09-09/south-los-angeles-immigration-displacement-latinos-blacks-2020-census

    https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101885598/fewer-latinos-identified-as-white-on-2020-census

    In the 2020 Census, the number of Latinos who selected “white” as their race dropped to 20% from 53% in 2010, at the same time more Latinos selected “two or more races” or “other” as their racial category. Experts say this indicates an evolution in Latinos’ complicated relationship with race.

    This would tend to negate the suspicion that “non-whites identifying as white” could be marrying white women and obscuring the data. If anything, the exact opposite is happening.

    Secondly, one of the more insidious effects of intermixture is that the offspring it produces become less racially objectionable to the subsequent generation of whites – eg a white woman who would racially reject a mestizo partner would be less likely to reject a white-mestizo mix (‘castizo’ is the term, I think).

    Is there any reason to believe that that a Castizo-white mix would be non-white? A castizo is effectively white already. There are several examples: nobody ever batted an eye at Lynda Carter, who had a Mexican mom who looked frankly mestizo.

  8. @Intelligent Dasein

    “stuck in a time warp and still assume that black and Hispanic fertility is above replacement.”

    Hispanics of course do not need any fertility at all to achieve replacement; their replacement comes from non-stop immigration, and the immigrants can be relied on to drop anchor babies, so it doesn’t matter. Every single Hispanic woman in America today could become sterile, and there would still be a non-stop supply of new Latinos.

    Same thing, increasingly, with Africans, thanks to the ever-increasing firehose of African immigrants. Granted we would tend to wind up with all-around better quality Africans than the home-grown kind; but still.

    “We haven’t even seen the beginning of the massive population decline that is upon us.”

    In an already way-overcrowded country, massive population decline, especially among POCs, would be most welcome. Housing and other costs would decrease, making family formation more affordable, making more children possible, and then population would bounce back after a few generations.

    Absent non-stop (((nation-wrecking))) constant immigration, demographics is a rather elastic thing. If Whites could grow the stones to say, Look, it’s our country, go home and fix your own and let us live our lives as we please, we would see these sorts of demographic boomerangs all the time.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
  9. However, today France has much healthier fertility than other European nations such as Germany, which underwent the transition much latter.

    Not sure how much this means if you don`t do racial analyses too.

    Until recently, Germany`s immigrants were mainly Turks , France`s a mixture of Sub-saharan and Northern Africans.

    And also surely another effect comes from the size of the annual inflows as a percentage of the population.

    And their makeup – families? Single people who have come to work?

    A bit of analysis of this – which may well be pretty impossible due to lack of statistics – is needed to be meaningful.

  10. Roger T says:

    France’s decent fertility rate is not because of the native French, it’s because of the Arabs and blacks that have swarmed the country since the end of WW2. To get a idea of how bad native Europeans are in the Western half, just look at how poor the fertility rate is in the East. There is no reason to assume that the difference will be much at all.

    Ukraine and Russia are killing each other off and their fertility rates are around 1.3 to 1.4…Ukraine is probably the better example to use as unlike Russia, they don’t have 20% of their population being non-white. Western Europe’s white native population is also around 1.3 if we knew the real stats, which the EU and local governments hide from the people.

    I have been visiting Paris at least once every 10 years and every time I visit, it becomes a harder game of finding “Where’s Waldo” [a genuine French person] among the masses of brown and blacks that have become the new, and worse, face of the city.

  11. Emslander says:

    Guess young couples haven’t got it, yet.

    The most important action any American couple can take for the future of civilization is make babies. It’s actually quite enjoyable and rewarding as well. I’ll personally attest to that.

  12. J1234 says:

    Our youngish white neighbors have four little kids. Also, we have many white Catholic neighbors, including a nice older couple who have over FORTY grand kids (all white, of course.) And many among these religious folks are conservative. It isn’t just a matter of having kids, though, you have to raise them correctly, too. And avoid public schools if possible.

  13. Wokechoke says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    correct. This doesn’t stop the US from losing the south west.

  14. more family oriented suburban areas.

    This is like the mistake of calling suburban schools “good”, when they are merely safer and cleaner. The “education” is fluff. And culs-des-sacs featuring rows of “snout houses”, even if sidewalks are present, are what the Germans call kinderfeindlich.

    I spent my adolescence in a small college town, and never had to be driven anywhere. Bike or feet were adequate for everything. Unfortunately, many children– white children– are trapped where they have to beg parents for rides to “playdates”.

    Karlin also points out that Haredi Jews in Israel, who have a TFR of 7, live in a very densely populated environment that would usually be bad for fertility.

    My great-grandparents could have a half-dozen or more children in Manhattan, of all places. Many of their descendants now live in spacious Florida, and are split between those who have two and those who have none. One nuclear family of four boys has this distribution of grandchildren: Louisiana, 0 (we assume he’s gay, but quiet about it), Texas/North Carolina, 2; Florida, 2; Massachusetts, 3. The opposite of what you’d expect.

    The old-stock, rural Midwestern side of my family saw its birthrate collapse long before the urban side did.

    Fertility may be heritable, but there are countervailing pressures as well. I know a few from large families who have little or no interest in starting families of their own. One, whom I dated, was a last-born of seven. My own great-grandfather’s seventh son had no sons, just one daughter.

  15. Chebyshev says:

    We can boost white fertility in America by letting in more immigrants from Balkan countries – the women from there are beautiful.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Robert Stark Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?