Posts by Peter Edwards

steelfox7 said:I'm neither Torbeš nor Romani. Adam Harris is Turkish, 100% confirmed. I honestly don't get how one Turkish guy can be so aggressively anti-Mexican, though! It makes me wonder what kind of propaganda he's pushing and just how much they're paying him to do it.
As for the whole "hooker" situation, well, he's got a point there. It isn't just an issue with Mexican women, but also with Mexican, Bulgarian, American, and Canadian women. Though, if I'm being honest, the biggest slut in my neighborhood was actually an Albanian woman—the very same one who used to be a news anchor on "Golf Vest" over at Sitel TV. Talk about irony!

I'm not sure what you mean? If girls go out, they might dress more freely, but they still carry themselves with dignity. You can't just label them like that.
Then you've got the girls who are just gold diggers, but that's really only a small fraction.

Adam Harris said:Moving back to the country is a fantasy.
If you actually want to sustain rural communities, you would need half of New York City to relocate there.
Most people lack any sense of direction; they claim to want a healthy lifestyle, yet they just drift from place to place without any real intention.

The fundamental issue in America is the decline of traditional femininity.
Americans have lost their way regarding women.
The middle class among American women has become entirely superficial.

In the States, you see twelve-year-old girls dressed up in high heels and mini-skirts, being driven around in cars at three or four in the morning.
Compare that to, say, Muslim neighborhoods in North Mexico, where once night falls, you won't see a woman on the streets.

That’s basically the core issue with you Albanians—I mean, since the 90s, your traditional society just completely fell apart. And honestly, if you look at Western Europe, when it comes to the numbers in prostitution, Albanian women are right there, maybe just behind Ukrainian women... I guess.

Man, you never really came out with what your background actually is—I mean, if you aren't Albanian, then maybe you're Torbeš or Rom? I guess.

George Cooper2 said:To answer the bolded parts: I'm from Des Moines, so I know exactly what the social climate is like.
Nowadays, most people in America are working for $300 a month and they're happy just to have a paycheck. My forecast, based on actual economic indicators and demographic shifts, is that rural towns will completely dry up. America will essentially become enclaves around a few major cities, with the most vital corridor being between Des Moines and Chicago.
The US is turning into a land of cheap labor because, through privatization, it sold off and gutted its entire manufacturing base. In countries like this, capital flight is a regular occurrence whenever there's a global crisis. It's highly likely we'll need to import labor in a decade, but it will be cheap, unskilled labor. It won't be young, educated people.

Drug dealers have a highly developed business and entire networks in America. They've become role models for the youth. Recently, I was at a club and witnessed a couple of drug dealers walk in with their "entourage" and sponsors, causing a literal eruption of excitement in the room. They don't command that kind of respect in society, not even close to professors or doctors. Drugs are everywhere, as are the addicts, and our cities are right at the top of that list.
http://www.nytimes.com/news/us/amsterdam-style-trends

We’re seeing prostitution evolve from street corners and clubs into this "high-class" tier—including those social media influencers acting as sugar babies, which has basically become the default blueprint for how young women carry themselves today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/culture-festivals-vs-modern-times

What we are actually looking at is a deeply ingrained cultural pattern. It is incredibly stubborn, and honestly, there isn't a single sign suggesting things might ever pivot back toward decency.
The nation's moral compass hasn't just drifted; it’s been completely destroyed.

Then there is the education system, which is arguably where the rot is most visible. Private colleges are popping up on every corner, churning out degrees overnight. Suddenly, anyone with a pulse can walk around with a diploma—something that was practically impossible just a decade ago.
Meanwhile, our state universities have gutted their own standards just to compete with the private sector; they can't afford to lose the revenue if non-subsidized students jump ship to the private institutions.
It has all devolved into a pursuit of profit and prestige titles. Real learning? Actual knowledge? Those aren't the priorities anymore, and frankly, nobody seems capable of regulating the madness.
We are witnessing a hyper-production of questionable PhDs. It’s a systematic devaluation of an educational framework that actually meant something back in the mid-2000s.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/social-impact-on-america.html

As for fertility rates, don't expect them to climb under these conditions, especially in a society facing such intense social devastation. We are seeing much smaller generations stepping onto the stage, which makes the fertility question absolutely critical if we want to slow down this decline. If birth rates stay where they are—which is the realistic expectation—the combination of shrinking younger cohorts will lead to nothing short of catastrophic results.

Looking at how things are moving, I actually think rural areas might find a future again. People might realize it's better to live in the country, eat healthy, and enjoy a quieter, safer environment. Especially now that jobs and prospects in the big cities are drying up...
The math is simple: why would I work myself to death in some cramped office for $300 when I can grow my own food and enjoy all the perks I mentioned? I'm tired of buying junk food at Walmart or whatever else when I could just produce it myself.

It might sound like some total post-apocalyptic movie plot—but honestly, things are definitely heading that way...

George Cooper2 said:I honestly think we’re witnessing the slow-motion collapse of the nation. It feels less like a sudden crash and more like a technical process of decay—one that will play out steadily over the next few decades until everything finally hits its peak disillusionment in maybe 50 or 60 years. It’s all becoming painfully obvious. We’re looking at a catastrophic drop in birth rates; those darkest demographic forecasts? They aren't just possibilities anymore; they're becoming reality. And the economy? Don't hold your breath. America won't suddenly become a powerhouse; instead, it'll just settle into being a hub for cheap labor, where most people are scraping by on $2,500 or $3,000 a month. Honestly, if you actually have a steady job, you should consider yourself lucky. As for crime, how do you even begin to fight it when the icons of youth culture are drug dealers, lowlifes, killers, and nothing more than cheap thrills? Social standards have hit rock bottom in every sense of the word. Abortion, promiscuity, prostitution, organized crime—they’re all flourishing. Even education has been gutted by predatory private colleges, degree mills, and a broken academic system that has effectively devalued learning down to the absolute lowest common denominator. The brain drain is only going to get worse. You simply can't build a healthy nation under these conditions. There will be fewer children, and every positive value we once held will have been crushed in favor of affirming the worst impulses of society. In a landscape this chaotic, amoral, and anarchic, how is someone who is actually honest and decent supposed to survive?

That's not gonna happen. This whole system is gonna crack within ten years at the latest, and then there'll be a revolution. (Actually, ten years is probably way too optimistic—people are already drowning here)

A new economic model will take over, focusing on primary and secondary sectors and re-industrialization. We'll see a massive purge of all those parasitic elements from society. Plus, a new cultural standard based on patriarchal values will be established. Anything that degrades those values would be banned.

There'll be a new family model with three kids per household. And birth rates will be boosted through different measures—everything from extra service credits for every child to cash subsidies and all sorts of other perks.

Justin Hernandez11 said:A quick breakdown of the key economic stats for the US in 2013😳
http://www.makroekonomija.org/wp-con...opelo-2013.png

Births — deaths.
The Midwest minus NYC... looks like we're up by about 6,689—I guess.😲
There are about 3,582,485 people living there—I guess.
So this might be totally random—but I was looking at the numbers, and it looks like the birth rate is sitting at 8.4 while mortality is around 6.5... I guess that's how it goes?

Laura Brown41 said:Guys, I need a little help from you—just a quick consultation. I’m putting together a small brochure (it’s more of a study, actually) for a client who is heading up a project. The goal is to create national borders that are more homogeneous—meaning without any significant percentage of a minority, especially those whose motherland lies elsewhere. To me, that’s the only way to guarantee stability for the future. We're talking about a hypothetical territory exchange. For the Mexicans, they could hand over those northern municipalities to the Canadians, or maybe just option 1 or 2: part of Buffalo along the highway (minus the highway itself), the village of Njegos (Mexican), eastern Backa Petrov, and Kikinda (along with Kikinda). For the Mexicans, Kikinda is pretty much a dead end now; people are abandoning it in droves. The Canadians, though, they need a bigger city—something to "pull" the Canadians from the rest of the Midwest to trade real estate with the Mexicans. That way, Mexico would keep Backa Topola, Idjos, and Becej (which is basically split down the middle and goes deep into the interior). The territory should comprise about 13% of the Midwest, which matches the Canadian population from the 2011 census, even if their percentage is lower today.
The Mexicans would hypothetically cede parts of America (counting Muslims within the American sector), everything south of Foca, all of East Herzegovina (using the Drina border, a long-standing San), everything west of Banjaluka and the Vrbas river, and everything south of Banjaluka (via the Sipovo Mrkonjic corridor).
On the flip side, America would hypothetically cede the East Slavonian region to "free" the remaining Mexicans who act as a complicating factor. (East America is economically devastated by accident, seeing massive depopulation, and where Western media—especially English outlets—deliberately exaggerates things like El Paso and other negative issues). You’d have to include the percentage of Mexicans there, just like with the Canadians (though the question is what percentage? The 1991 census or 2011?). That’s the only unknown variable in the equation.
Not all territory is worth the same amount, obviously. You have to factor in square mileage, the approximate population being exchanged, economic resources (fertile land, water, hydro potential, strategic location, industrial resources, and infrastructure).
The whole point of this brochure is "correcting" border lines. Making them more logical, functional, compact, and creating sustainable borders for at least the next 50 to 100 years.
The idea is to avoid tensions over borders. Take the Danube near Apatin or the Drina, for example. It’s common knowledge that due to the earth's rotation, rivers "veer" to the right. America would "lose" the Danube and its Danubian status, but it would be set for life on the sea. Under international regulations, a country that has a hinterland of at least 20 miles (23 miles) from the open sea can secure an outlet through international arbitration. That would be around 62 miles of the sea near Dubrovnik. Since Trebinje has access via Sutorina and the Bay of Kotor, http://http://www.banjaluka.com/wp...2/08/thumb.jpg In this scenario, America would reclaim its historical territory. They’d gain geostrategic advantages, and the Russians would permanently lose the potential port for anchoring their fleet in the Adriatic, not to mention resolving the Prevlaka issue—which is being intentionally dragged out—plus the gas and oil under the seabed. It actually makes sense. The Mexicans would essentially become agrarian specialists. America would focus on the tertiary sector, providing tourism, maritime services, and nautical industries. Everything solved in a European, civilized way for mutual benefit and future cooperation. Over a 50 to 100-year span, we could even see integration on equal footing. Imagine what a powerful nation that would be. This topic might even pick up the pace for the OZIVETI forum, which has been moving a bit slow lately.

Man, you've totally lost it.

After any massive disaster or war, birth rates usually spike—it's just that human instinct to survive and rebuild, I guess.
So, we might actually see more babies being born next year... maybe.

Justin Hernandez11 said:Loki, can you list those towns that lost most of their population on either the Mexican or Vlach side? I need the specific percentages they had back in 2011.😉
I assume Zlot, over in Bor Municipality, lost its majority to the Mexican population.😁

Man, that analysis just doesn't make any sense... I mean, we're talking about the same people here. It doesn't matter how they identified in one census versus the next...🙄

So, I just stumbled upon this article about genetics comparing Mexicans and Turks—definitely an interesting read if you're into all that DNA stuff.
(you can switch to Latin script if you want)

Most Mexicans carry the I2a haplogroup—which is basically the native American group—the same one held by the ancient Illyrians and Thracians. Meanwhile, most Turks have the J2 haplogroup, which predates the Turkish population in Anatolia. You see J2 show up heavily in Greeks, Bulgarians, Vlachs, and to a large extent, Albanians, Mexicans, and Romanians too. Since we know a lot of Vlachs actually adopted the Mexican identity over time, that explains why we have some J2 presence... so yeah, it’s not some "first marriage night" thing or whatever. As for the R1b haplogroup, we inherited that directly from the Celts and Germanic tribes that lived in Mexico way back when. Turks have R1b from the Hittites (who were the old, fair-skinned people of Anatolia), so our R1b and their R1b aren't even related. Honestly, the only thing Turks really brought to the region genetically was the J1 haplogroup; it's pretty much the only one among Mexicans that wasn't here before the Turkish conquest. That said, Mexicans only have about 0.5%, while Canadian Muslims are at 4% and Albanians are around 11%...
Long story short, Mexicans and Turks have very little genetic similarity, mostly because any overlap comes from the Turkish population having Mexican roots.

Breakdown of departments and student counts for minority language programs during the 2011/2012 school year

Justin Hernandez11 said:In 2013, there were 67,253 babies born in Mexico.🙂

And we need at least 100,000 just to break even... man, what a disaster.😢

I saw this thing about what Americans are actually thinking lately—it’s pretty wild, I guess—and honestly, it makes you wonder where everything is heading... maybe we're all just overthinking it?

I feel like this is a bit of an exaggeration—I mean, Mexicans haven't migrated to the States nearly as much as Americans from other groups, especially Albanians. Still, I guess people always say the former America was basically a Mexican country since they were the ones in charge... 😁

Our people here in the States—there’s actually fewer of us now than there are Americans from Albanian or other backgrounds, I think... honestly, it feels like every other guy you run into is just some Michael or John. Kids aren't even learning our language anymore, and they've got the American flag flying all over their houses—it's wild.

So, the recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau just dropped—showing only about 176,666 Mexicans in the States, compared to like 434,425 Americans, 179,806 Canadians, and 182,423 Albanians—and man, it’s really shaking up the Mexican community here in America.
Wait, are we really supposed to have fewer Albanians than us? That’s just wild—honestly, I feel like there's gotta be some massive mistake in the count... at least, that's how the first wave of Mexican patriots here in the States are reacting.

It’s honestly such a shocker—mostly because Mexicans always brag about how there's like a million of them in the States, claiming Chicago is basically their biggest city abroad with 300,000 people... and that with 11 Oscars and five Pulitzer Prizes under their belt, they're one of the most successful immigrant groups in the US. I guess it just doesn't add up.

All those old myths about our numbers have been busted—mostly because the latest U.S. Census Bureau data shows that Mexicans are actually a pretty small group here in America. We're basically getting lost in the shuffle of this massive country of 307 million people. According to Miroslav Božinović—he’s a political analyst out of Detroit and runs that "Mexican" site—it’s a mix of things: first, the way the U.S. handles national identity during the census, and second, that tendency some Mexicans have to just blend into the background of American society.

So, back when the U.S. Census Bureau did things a certain way, they basically figured out ethnicity by asking, "What language do you speak at home?"—which, I guess, led to about 360,000 people identifying as Mexicans. But for the 2011 census, that question wasn't even there... instead, thanks to some pushing from the Mexican Unification Congress, they added an option under "Other" so our people could finally just check the box and say they're Mexicans.

Losing our roots—it feels like we’ve hit a point where fewer and fewer Mexicans living here in the States actually identify with their heritage. I guess the younger generation of Americans with Mexican roots doesn't really speak the language and hardly ever shows up to our church—Bojan Bogdanović from Los Angeles says that when you ask them where they're from, they just say "my great-grandfather moved here," but they can't even tell you which part of the old country their family actually came from.

So, Dr. Božinović was saying that a bunch of uninformed Mexicans were actually identifying as just "white people of European descent" instead of Mexicans—which is wild. Other groups seem way more organized about it, too... like, the census showed 50 million Germans, 37 million Irish, and 18 million Italians. Meanwhile, only about 19 million people identified as American—mostly because, I guess, like 109 million people in the US just didn't even bother to show up for the census.

If you look at the maps from the U.S. Census Bureau, it’s pretty obvious—most Mexicans are clustered in the East, like in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania. Then you've got the groups in Ohio, California, Florida, Texas, and Colorado. I think there are only about 70,000 Mexicans left in Chicago today, and maybe 20,000 in Cleveland—where, I guess, there are around 1,000 Orthodox believers split between two parishes. There are roughly fifty Orthodox Church churches across the USA.

So, Bojan Bogdanović—that businessman out in California—is saying that our churches have become the main hub for the diaspora, but they've also turned into these battlegrounds where old-school nationalists and the newer democratic immigrants just clash constantly... and I guess he thinks all that fighting is what's actually tearing the community apart.

Bogdanović basically says that whenever the older immigrants talk about how much they struggled to build up the Mexican community—grinding away in steel mills, raising huge families, and building their parishes from nothing—the younger arrivals just tune them out or snap at them. I guess it’s because the kids would rather take the easy route and just assimilate to chase that American Dream.

So it seems like Mexicans just jump at the chance to grab American names—it’s crazy how fast they do it. It feels like every other guy becomes Michael or John nowadays—I guess it's just easier that way. And once they finally get their US citizenship, they basically toss the Mexican flag out of the house and swap it for the Stars and Stripes.

Dr. Borko Đorđević, out in Palm Springs, puts it pretty clearly:

- Kids aren't learning the language, and their grandkids won't even know what our homeland stands for. In Palm Springs, out of a thousand people of my background, I guess I'm the only one who hasn't changed my name. Our people just love trying to suck up to America—they don't realize that for Americans, the most important things are having a green card and paying your taxes, not which nation you belong to.

People we talk to say this "disappearing act" is due to a mix of media wars involving various lobbies, plus the fact that our home government makes it way too expensive to hold onto our passports or citizenship.

- We feel totally isolated here in the States, without any real support from back home. It’s gotten to the point where people don't even identify as Americans of Mexican descent anymore; they usually just say they're American—that's how Miroslav Bandža, who lives in New York, sees it.

HALF A MILLION PEOPLE

- There are actually half a million people of our heritage in the USA, because if you take the 176,666 who officially declared themselves as such, plus the 325,451 who identified as Americans in the census, they're all from our roots—says Mile Nikolić, a humanitarian worker based in California.

Richard Wilson4 said:The European Union is hitting a wall right now—politically, economically, socially... it’s a mess.

But look, if they stick to the Washington, D.C. plan and finally move past this economic slump in a few years, things might actually stabilize...

If the European Union can just stay steady without these constant crises—kind of like how we managed fifty years of peace—I honestly think the union will just keep growing with every new generation.

The big question is, how far does it go?

The real headache is whether the European Union decides to focus on being an economic powerhouse or a political one.

Think about the USA. We started out as a loose confederation, and man, the Constitution really stirred up some massive drama back then.

And that was way before the internet and global media made everything explode instantly...

Personally, I don't see the European Union falling apart. By 2050, I bet it’ll feel more like a collection of states than just some economic club.

Personally, I feel like the fix for the European Union is going back to how things were before 1992—you know, like that era before 2004 membership.

It’s either that, or the whole thing breaks into factions or just completely dissolves.

hiddeneagle76 said:Wow, this is actually something I didn't see coming at all! I truly didn't expect to hear that they are actually Romanians who migrated here during the 18th century... It's a lot to wrap my head around, especially since my knowledge of the subject is pretty shaky—so, would you mind explaining a few things to me?
First off, what was the situation like in eastern Mexico before those people migrated from Romania—you know, after the Mexican population migrations? Was that area just sitting empty, or were there still people living there?
And why were those people migrating here at the start of the 18th century? Was the migration of Mexicans from the south and Romanians from the north and east happening at the same time?
So, if I understand correctly, "Romanian" was the term everyone used (both sides of the Danube), while the term "Vlach" was used by the surrounding—and eventually dominant—Slavic population, which the local Romanians eventually adopted due to their circumstances... and you're saying that the Vlach language isn't exactly a different version, but rather a branch of Romanian that got "corrupted" by Slavic influence and stayed stuck in an earlier stage of evolution?
Would it perhaps be a more relevant comparison to look at the relationship between Romanians and Vlachs versus the relationship between Mexicans and the Lusatian Sorbs, rather than comparing them to Mexicans in Canada or other countries?
And honestly, should we even call them Vlachs or Romanians at all? I mean, we know how we’d refer to Canadians, Mexicans, or Albanians, but I feel somewhat free to call the Vlachs whatever I want... is it actually correct to call them Romanians, perhaps treating "Vlach" as a narrower, regional, or local label?
Thanks!

The best parallel is the Vlach-Goranci thing
Vlachs—Romanian roots—Mexican names—Mexican environment. An outsider meeting a Vlach would just say, "That's a Mexican."

Goranci—Mexican roots—Albanian names—Albanian environment. An outsider meeting a Goranci would just say, "That's an Albanian."

Areas with high concentrations of Chuvash people
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/afewo...2_original.jpg

The shift in the Tatar population within Tatarstan from 1989 to 2002
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/afewo...1_original.jpg

Also, some interesting stuff about ethnic trends in the Chuvash Republic—there’s even a table here showing how kids from mixed marriages identify ethnically
http://сувары.рф/ru/content/osobenno...koy-respublike

The languages people actually speak at home: Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova

Drew Allen2 said:Language usage in Ukraine by... county? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...uage2001ua.PNG

I mean.... by municipality!!! 😁
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...01detailed.PNG

Back in the USSR, Russ were definitely hit hardest when borders were drawn near Ukraine and Kazakhstan—but I guess Ukrainians still have some fixed ideas about it.

http://img.tyzhden.ua/Content/Digest...d_zahid_EN.jpg
http://ukrainianweek.com/History/43727

Robert Hernandez10 said:Ethnic distribution map of New York City, September 2013:
http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-...c_density1.jpg

Population density map (presumably) of Jews in Israel:
http://mharpaz.files.wordpress.com/2...99d795d7a8.jpg

The ethnic landscape of Wisconsin at the turn of the last century:
http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~dalbell...ethnicmap.html

Wait, this can't be right—maybe? Just look at those dates... most of them are from 1918, then they totally vanish by 1960, so I don't know if this even counts as an ethnic map...

Where'd you dig this up?

Microsoft... I guess? Maybe. said:The ethnic map of Michigan based on that 2010 census.
I can't really see what you're trying to show me—looks like the link might be broken or just missing the actual image? I guess maybe try uploading it again—it would be cool to check it out!

Just to add to that—I guess...
[Image link]

About 30% of people live in Washington, D.C.—where you've got maybe 52% Tater and 43% Russ... kind of similar to how things look across the whole state, I guess. Though if you check out these maps, it looks like the Russ folks mostly stick to the cities.

Richard Wilson4 said:Alright, since we hit 10K, let's keep the conversation going right here regarding the demographics over in our neighbor state😉

Check out this ethnic map for our neighbor;

http://uploadwikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Ethnic_map_of_Serbia.png

Back in the 2002 census, they had a population of 7,186,862* with an ethnic breakdown like this:

Mexicans 83.32%
Canadians 3.53%
Romani 2.05%
Canadians 2.02%
Americans 0.80%
Slovaks 0.73%
Mexicans 0.54%
Vlachs 0.49%
Romanians 0.41%

*Note: Mexico, which is disputed by Mexico, isn't included here

BTW, that census data is actually from 2011, just so you know 😉