What's new

White supremacist rails against Indian and Pakistani immigration to the US

Proof?

I’ve never seen it.
Sameer changes to Sam
Rizwan changed to Riz.

But they’re realtors bro…..desperate for any clients….in canada they all make it easy for ppl to contact them…..all for money, every ethnicity doing it in the mortgage/real estate gigs

Go to any immigration forums on the web, pages are full of indian people (just like every other developing country) trying to immigrate and take western citizenship and passports.
Indian govt doesn’t allow dual nationality so after getting canadian citizenships thesr ppl r trying to apply simething like OCI and indian visas etc…..pages r full of such ppl

If india actually was shining and helping its own, indians wouldn’t be desperately seeking western immigration and citizenship. Real picture is total different to what their desperate conditions.

Its like kinda same with extremist molvi’s in pak…..they’re against west but offer them usa visa see their total liberal/secular self come out right away…..
 
.
What a wasteful writing you produce.

Tell me about it. Posting some dubious stats, but dismissing the word of a scientist.

Then claiming Austria, a desert country with limited food & water, can reach a billion because according to you humans, unlike animals & insects, can survive without food & water and even reproduce without them.

Next thing you'll claim Antarctica will have 12 billion if South Asians live there.

Like what accounts for Sri Lanka having a smaller population? Are they not South Asian or suddenly now Scandinavian according to your own argument. Or maybe their rain-forest climate restricts their agricultural output; hence slower food production

Such a fallacious arguer you are. Can't accept the facts, so you strawman and ad hominem. There's a word for your replies and it's called denialism.
 
.
If india actually was shining and helping its own, indians wouldn’t be desperately seeking western immigration and citizenship. Real picture is total different to what their desperate conditions.
There are opportunities in India but competition is tough. Each vacancy has thousands or even more seekers. Quality of life and social security is like any third world country.
Developed courtiers give a better life without that much of hassle. Except the initial part of gaining a decent qualification and a visa thereafter.
Even for a person without fancy qualifications the possibilities of living a decent life are higher in many of these countries. That’s why so many unskilled or semi-skilled people try and to go abroad illegally, sometimes even at peril of their lives.

India is trying to shine. Not there yet. Inequalities prevail, hunger remains, jobless in scores.
But it is doing few things better then some counterparts in the region.
 
Last edited:
.
Look at how much land Australia has for food production. They export 72% of food instead of overpopulating.
If all Australians are replaced by south asians there number would be in billions within no time.
Only a limited portion of Australia, mainly temperate coastal areas have farmland. Yes if they consumed most of their food, they would have higher birthrates. But since they are more fertile than Libya, they got less people, in contrast to Libya's neighbor, Egypt which has fertile coastal areas and deltas.

The fact is most of Austrlia is non-arable desert like Balochistan.
 
.
Tell me about it. Posting some dubious stats, but dismissing the word of a scientist.

Then claiming Austria, a desert country with limited food & water, can reach a billion because according to you humans, unlike animals & insects, can survive without food & water and even reproduce without them.

Next thing you'll claim Antarctica will have 12 billion if South Asians live there.

Like what accounts for Sri Lanka having a smaller population? Are they not South Asian or suddenly now Scandinavian according to your own argument. Or maybe their rain-forest climate restricts their agricultural output; hence slower food production

Such a fallacious arguer you are. Can't accept the facts, so you strawman and ad hominem. There's a word for your replies and it's called denialism.
You again mention a country you have no idea about. Sri Lanka's land is about 8% of Pakistan and 10% population. Where do you see lack of population there?

Only a limited portion of Australia, mainly temperate coastal areas have farmland. Yes if they consumed most of their food, they would have higher birthrates. But since they are more fertile than Libya, they got less people, in contrast to Libya's neighbor, Egypt which has fertile coastal areas and deltas.

The fact is most of Austrlia is non-arable desert like Balochistan.
I know it won't make any difference to your denial but the fertile parts of Australia are enough to cover Pakistani land or maybe more:
 
Last edited:
.
You again mention a country you have no idea about. Sri Lanka's land is about 8% of Pakistan and 10% population. Where do you see lack of population there?


I know it won't make any difference to your denial but the fertile parts of Australia are enough to cover Pakistani land or maybe more:
😄 Here is a size comparison of Sri Lanka & Pakistan: https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/sri-lanka/pakistan

It's larger than 8%. It's about the same size as Sindh but with a fraction of the population. Sindh is naturally much fertile, but with the irrigation systems, all that changed.

Also note that Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are almost the same size but miles apart in population size because of land fertility difference.

Australia's coastal areas are temperate and fertile. That's about it. The country has a limit on natural fresh water. They have much less fresh water than what the Indus gives Pakistan.

And yes if they consumed most of their food, their population would be larger but still not even quarter half as big as Pak.

BTW Kerala, also seen on the map is also less population by land ratio in comparison to other Indian states. It has the same climatic conditions as Sri Lanka.

David Attonoborough correlated it to educated girls. But only if he and other hippies like him wondered why Saudi Arabia has less than half of Germany's population, he's be biting his head.
 
Last edited:
.
😄 Here is a size comparison of Sri Lanka & Pakistan: https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/sri-lanka/pakistan

It's larger than 8%. It's about the same size as Sindh but with a fraction of the population. Sindh is naturally much fertile, but with the irrigation systems, all that changed.

Also note that Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are almost the same size but miles apart in population size because of land fertility difference.

Australia's coastal areas are temperate and fertile. That's about it. The country has a limit on natural fresh water. They have much less fresh water than what the Indus gives Pakistan.

And yes if they consumed most of their food, their population would be larger but still not even quarter half as big as Pak.

BTW Kerala, also seen on the map is also less population by land ratio in comparison to other Indian states. It has the same climatic conditions as Sri Lanka.

David Attonoborough correlated it to educated girls. But only if he and other hippies like him wondered why Saudi Arabia has less than half of Germany's population, he's be biting his head.
Amazing how you shared link with Sri Lankan map overlaid on Pakistan and still think its equal in size to Sindh and Bangladesh. They are not even close!
 
.
Americans have a history of Indian centered hate even where immigrants are not involved.

A diplomat living in India couldn't control here disgust and contempt of Indian culture:

Here is an interesting article about declassified Nixon tapes where he reveals his dislike for Indians.


The Terrible Cost of Presidential Racism

As Americans grapple with problems of racism and power, a newly declassified trove of White House tapes provides startling evidence of the bigotry voiced by President Richard M. Nixon and Henry Kissinger, his national security adviser.

The full content of these tapes reveal how U.S. policy toward South Asia under Mr. Nixon was influenced by his hatred of, and sexual repulsion toward, Indians.

These new tapes are about one of the grimmest episodes of the Cold War, which brought ruin to Bangladesh in 1971. At that time, India tilted heavily toward the Soviet Union while a military dictatorship in Pakistan backed the United States. Pakistan flanked India on two sides: West Pakistan and the more populous, and mostly Bengali, East Pakistan.

In March 1971, after Bengali nationalists won a democratic election in Pakistan, the junta began a devastating crackdown on its own Bengali citizens.

Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger staunchly supported the military regime in Pakistan as it killed hundreds of thousands of Bengalis, with 10 million refugees fleeing into neighboring India. New Delhi secretly trained and armed Bengali guerrillas. The crisis culminated in December 1971 when India defeated Pakistan in a short war that resulted in the creation of an independent Bangladesh.

I documented the violent birth of Bangladesh and the disgraceful White House diplomacy around it in my book “The Blood Telegram,” published in 2013. Much of my evidence came from scores of White House tapes, which reveal Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger as they really operated behind closed doors. Yet many tapes still had long bleeps.

In December 2012, I filed a legal request for a mandatory declassification review with the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. After considerable wrangling, the Nixon archivists at last released a few unbleeped tapes in May 2018 and July 2019, then 28 more in batches from October 2019 to this past May. (There are bleeps still remaining on a couple of the reviewed tapes, some of which I am appealing.)
It was stunning to hear a conversation between Mr. Nixon, Mr. Kissinger and H.R. Haldeman, the White House chief of staff, in the Oval Office in June 1971.
“Undoubtedly the most unattractive women in the world are the Indian women,” said Mr. Nixon. “Undoubtedly,” he repeated, with a venomous tone.

He continued, “The most sexless, nothing, these people. I mean, people say, what about the Black Africans? Well, you can see something, the vitality there, I mean they have a little animallike charm, but God, those Indians, ack, pathetic. Uch.”


On Nov. 4, 1971, during a private break from a contentious White House summit with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India — a rare woman leader at the time — the president harangued Mr. Kissinger about his sexual disgust at Indians.

Mr. Nixon said: “To me, they turn me off. How the hell do they turn other people on, Henry? Tell me.” Mr. Kissinger’s response is inaudible, but it did not discourage the president from his theme.

The president, in between bitter sparring matches with Mrs. Gandhi about the danger of war with Pakistan, suggested to Mr. Kissinger that his own sexual neuroses were having an impact on foreign policy: “They turn me off. They are repulsive and it’s just easy to be tough with them.”

A few days later, on Nov. 12, 1971, in the middle of a discussion about India-Pakistan tensions with Mr. Kissinger and Secretary of State William P. Rogers, after Mr. Rogers mentioned reprimanding Mrs. Gandhi, the president blurted, “I don’t know how they reproduce!


Mr. Kissinger has portrayed himself as above the racism of the Nixon White House, but the tapes show him joining in the bigotry, though the tapes cannot determine whether he truly shared the president’s prejudices or was just pandering to him.

On June 3, 1971, Mr. Kissinger was indignant at the Indians, while the country was sheltering millions of traumatized Bengali refugees who had fled the Pakistan army. He blamed the Indians for causing the refugee flow, apparently by their covert sponsorship of the Bengali insurgency. He then condemned Indians as a whole, his voice oozing with contempt, “They are a scavenging people.”

On June 17, 1971 — in the same conversation as Mr. Nixon’s outburst at “sexless” Indian women — the president was furious at Kenneth B. Keating, his ambassador to India, who two days earlier had confronted Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger in the Oval Office, calling Pakistan’s crackdown “almost entirely a matter of genocide.”

Mr. Nixon now asked what “do the Indians have that takes even a Keating, for Christ, a 70-year-old” — here there is cross-talk, but the word seems to be “bachelor” or “bastard.” In reply, Mr. Kissinger sweepingly explained: “They are superb flatterers, Mr. President. They are masters at flattery. They are masters at subtle flattery. That’s how they survived 600 years. They suck up — their great skill is to suck up to people in key positions.”

Mr. Kissinger voiced prejudices about Pakistanis, too. On Aug. 10, 1971, while discussing with Mr. Nixon whether the Pakistani junta would execute the imprisoned leader of the Bengali nationalists, Mr. Kissinger told the president, “I tell you, the Pakistanis are fine people, but they are primitive in their mental structure.” He added, “They just don’t have the subtlety of the Indians.”

These emotional displays of prejudice help to explain a foreign policy debacle. Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger’s policies toward South Asia in 1971 were not just a moral disaster but a strategic fiasco on their own Cold War terms.

While Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger had some reasons to favor Pakistan, an American ally which was secretly helping to bring about their historic opening to China, their biases and emotions contributed to their excessive support for Pakistan’s murderous dictatorship throughout its atrocities.

As Mr. Kissinger’s own staff members had warned him, this one-sided approach handed India the opportunity to rip Pakistan in half, first by sponsoring the Bengali guerrillas and then with the war in December 1971 — resulting in a Cold War victory for the Soviet camp.

For decades, Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger have portrayed themselves as brilliant practitioners of realpolitik, running a foreign policy that dispassionately served the interests of the United States. But these declassified White House tapes confirm a starkly different picture: racism and misogyny at the highest levels, covered up for decades under ludicrous claims of national security. A fair historical assessment of Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger must include the full truth, unbleeped.
 
.
Amazing how you shared link with Sri Lankan map overlaid on Pakistan and still think its equal in size to Sindh and Bangladesh. They are not even close!

Agreed, they are not even close- in population size that is. In land size Sri Lanka is almost the same size as Sindh and more than half of Bangladesh's size.

I mean it wasn't me who made this post but saved it for excellent reasons:

Screenshot_2020-12-02 Soher Husseinshah's answer to Do you regret moving to Germany - Quora(1).jpg
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom