I have the racial and ethnic cohesion of the country in mind. The fact that you brought up economics right away demonstrates where your priorities are.
The economy is probably the fundamental key to the development of nations. If you want to allude to metaphysical issues, it is as absurd as it is irrelevant. The spirituality of nations has already died from long ago by globalism where the primacy of issues and priorities lies in money and hedonism (or your ability to satisfy such).
Immigrants harm American workers in a simple way: more competition in the workforce reduces job opportunities and decreases wages. You are less likely to find a job now, and if you manage to find one, it will pay you less than it would in case the immigrants were kicked out.
This is how the market works; through underground economies, the entrepreneur earns more benefits. This happens in all developed countries where it is preferred to use immigrants for the most laborious or subhuman jobs. If there is no demand, there is no business.
Incidentally, despite being a minority in the United States, Hispanics commit a disproportionate amount of crimes. They only lose to Blacks when it comes to criminality.
Go look at the crime rate in a large part of the planet and especially in developed countries. The crime rate is directly proportional to the material conditions, where the immigrant and minority groups are generally the most vulnerable.
One of the greatest mythical frauds in history is that of Albert Einstein, the famous physicist who invented the Theory of Relativity, E=mc²
No one who read about Physics divulgation and its history would say that Albert Einstein "invented" it. What is attributed to Einstein is that, after the imprecise work of previous scientists, he arrived at the correct and precise formula.
And by the way, the physical and scientific foundations are not invented, they are discovered. This makes me think that your scientific knowledge is either poor or you lack clear linguistic deficiencies in understanding what the meaning of words is. Of course, English is not my native language and I also make grammatical mistakes, but I find it curious how with the confidence you show when talking about the scientific field, you refer to "invention" instead of "discovery".
Einstein was almost certainly the greatest fraud and plagiarist in modern science and an unashamed intellectual thief. His fame and popularity today, his status as a hero of the scientific world, are due only to decades of a well-planned force-feeding of the Einstein myth to the masses by the MSM.
This statement is not accurate. Einstein was a highly respected and renowned physicist, known for his groundbreaking work in the field of theoretical physics, including the development of the theory of relativity and the famous equation, E=mc², as a novelty and precisely, not as other approaches that were not fully correct. His contributions to science have been widely recognized and have had a major impact on our understanding of the universe. The assertion that he was a "fraud and plagiarist" is not supported by evidence. Use YouTube's English translation for this:
The claims about Einstein inventing any theory of relativity, or light and photons, or time, are false. Almost every claim – almost everything – attributed to Einstein is simply a lie. Einstein was an inept who contributed nothing original to the field of quantum mechanics, nor any other science. Far from being a competent physicist, he once even flatly denied that the atom could be split and, much later, admitted that the idea of a chain reaction in fissile material “had never occurred to me”.
Albert Einstein's contributions to the field of physics are widely recognized and considered groundbreaking. He developed the theory of special relativity, which fundamentally changed our understanding of space and time, and the theory of general relativity, which revolutionized our understanding of gravity.
He also made important contributions to the development of quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics. His work on the photoelectric effect, which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for, was a major step forward in the development of the quantum theory. It is true that Einstein did not believe in certain aspects of quantum mechanics and had some disagreements with other scientists on the subject, but this is common in science where theories and ideas are constantly being scrutinized, debated and updated. It is not accurate to say that he contributed nothing original to the field of quantum mechanics and other science, his contributions are widely recognized by the scientific community.
Science is a field that receives feedback from past generations, like any field of serious knowledge. If it weren't for the contributions of Darwin, eugenicists, and evolutionary biology, we would today consider blackpill a pseudoscience. As you repeat the term invent again you fall into ostracism again. Science advances through itself, not outside of it.
Einstein was almost certainly the greatest fraud and plagiarist in modern science, an unashamed intellectual thief but, according to sources like Wikipedia, this is all just a minor “priority dispute” about who said what first in the realm of relativity physics. These sources misleadingly imply that several people made a discovery independently and more or less simultaneously, and we are simply debating who went public first. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Wikipedia is renowned as being virtually useless as an information source due to widespread ideological bias and censorship
It is not accurate to say that Einstein was a fraud and plagiarist in modern science. While there have been some historical disputes over priority in the development of certain theories, such as the theory of relativity, as we haveen debating, this is not unusual in the field of science and does not diminish the significance of Einstein's contributions. The statement about Wikipedia being virtually useless as an information source due to widespread ideological bias and censorship is also not accurate. Wikipedia is a widely used and well-regarded online encyclopedia that is written and edited by volunteers from around the world. It is true that there can be inaccuracies or bias on Wikipedia, as with any source of information, but the community of editors works to fact-check and improve the accuracy of the content. Additionally, Wikipedia's articles are often supported by reliable sources and cites, enabling readers to check the information for themselves. We can spend hours debating many Wikipedia articles, but today, it is a general knowledge reference.
Without the extravagant generations-long PR and propaganda campaign, Einstein would have remained in the dustbin of obscurity where he belongs.
I highly doubt it, because of all the approximations that have been made regarding the behavior of the photoelectric field, it was genuinely Einstein who gave the precise answers. And this occurs in each generation of scientists who collect the remains of the work of others to reach the most feasible conclusions. Not understanding this is lacking scientific culture and how science has been developed over the centuries, because education is precisely based on riding on the shoulders of giants. That's right, that many Nobel prizes were shared because several scientists reached similar conclusions or because they collaborated to reach these conclusions.
There are many Einstein apologists who produce reams of heavily-documented irrelevancies masquerading as proof, items such as a schoolmate who claimed “the flight of his mathematical genius was so high that I could no longer follow.” Many scientists and scientific historians know the truth of all this, and the accurate historical record is readily available, but many appear afraid to speak out for fear of damaging their careers.
If you do not like Einstein, you will find many others of different ethnicities and imported for those purposes, from jews, to curries, passing by sandniggers.
Chess players? For real? Do you honestly believe we would be worse off without a few chess players? Your priorities are misplaced.
Yes, it is a characteristic example, because before and after Bobby Fischer (of Polish Jewish descent, by the way) American chess was terribly filthy and weak. This example helped me to illustrate how many of the successes achieved by the United States are based on the importation of immigrants.
By the way, Magnus Carlsen is the greatest player in the world and he is White, and so was his mentor Kasparov.
You will find that the definition of white in these types of issues is somewhat confusing considering that the debate of who is white is hot and has many characterizations. Some say they are of European descent, others that they have not mixed in dozens of generations with other races, and others appeal to inescapable metaphysical sentiments. In racial or ethnic terms, the best chess players were Slavs and Caucasians (geographically).
And many of them had Jewish ascendancy, like Kasparov or Botvinnik.
In fact, we had a curry as World Chess Championship, such as Anand. Without USA's importation of immigrants, the USA would be a trash as a chess team.
The validity of Nobel Prizes is debatable, as the committee behind it seeks to reward individuals that go along with its political agenda. It is no more trustful than the Oscar committee which elects the best professional actor based on its multiculturalist, globohomo agenda.
Fair enough, but scientific ones are still relevant and insightful.
Most Whites who refuse to reproduce are tolerant towards multiculturalism, while most Whites who have lots of children are intolerant towards multiculturalism. In a few generations, there will be more intolerant Whites like me because the liberals will have bred themselves out of existence or not bred at all.
It has no objective basis that the idea precedes the material conditions. Whites do not reproduce because of the social superstructure, which in turn is fed by the material conditions of competitiveness, inclusion in the women's market, and given the overflow of material supply, people do not want to have children, including the destruction of moral values, religiousness and past social roles.