The last article exhausts the topic of the US elections, but I note that one detail is debatable, that the US has always seen the ghettos of blacks, but not those of whites (of which some ignore / deny even the existence) . So I wanted to talk about this journalistic mistake, since it doesn't happen ONLY in the USA, but also in the rest of Europe.

Where to start? Before dedicating ourselves to Italy, let's try with France. You may have heard of the Banlieue, which are normally the ghetto neighborhoods around Paris. When we talk about French ghettos, we regularly end up talking about Banlieue, which means talking about Algerian immigrants.

With a discussion that limits the study of French poverty to the Banlieue, everyone (including politicians) will be led to think that the problem of the ghetto and poverty in France is limited to Algerian immigrants, if at all at least in most.

Until the numbers come into play. Because if we put the numbers into it, we discover that Banlieue is not the name of an isolated ghetto populated by Maghrebi. By Banlieue we mean the suburbs of the city, and the size (as well as the isolation) of these areas is anything but limited to immigrants.

As you can see, the income distribution in Paris is not "all the rich whites and the ghettos of the poor Maghrebis". Judging by the size, there are huge areas of poverty in Paris, the number of which goes far beyond (by a factor of ten) the immigrant population.

The poverty rate in France, in fact, can be found on the EUrostat website and in 2018 it was 13.4%. But if we ask ourselves how many Maghrebi there are, even assuming that EVERY Maghrebi is poor (including Zidane) we get this:

In practice, even if EVERY immigrant were a poor African living in a ghetto in the banlieue, the rest of the poor (that is, much more than half) would be white-skinned. And it is plausible (given the division by income, see the previous map), that they live in the same metropolitan suburbs, namely Banlieue.

Curiously, no one has ever described the banlieues other than the ghetto neighborhoods of the Maghrebians. But the fact that they are MAINLY neighborhoods (or entire communes) full of poor whites, has NEVER mentioned anyone.

If we take England, we can take two maps and think about it:

And then this:

As you can see, the UK has a catastrophic problem of misery, both among adults and among children. However, when we talk about ghettos in the UK we are always referring to the Pakistani immigrant neighborhoods of London, or we take it for granted that immigrants are the body of the poor population.

No. Just look at the distribution of immigrants to understand:

As you can see, on a national scale there is almost no correlation between poverty and immigration. * There are entire regions of the country that are poorer than the worst parts of London .

But when journalism reports on poverty and ghettos in the UK, it always talks about the Pakistani neighborhoods of London. It NEVER refers to the huge English areas where poverty is not in the ghetto because it is everywhere.

I could go on with other countries and use the USA as an emblem, or talk about the Italian situation, but I would always go back to the point before: whether it is the poor cities in Germany or entire American states where you live worse than in the ghettos of LA , the point is

our journalistic class has decided that all the poor are black, and that all whites are rich.

They did it with some tricks that are widely used for statistical purposes: cherrypicking. For example, if I show that American blacks are 70% poor, while whites are 25% poor, according to the reporter I would have shown that there are more poor blacks than whites . But in numerical terms the problem is different, because American blacks are 17% of the population, while whites are far more numerous: if I went to count the NUMBER of poor people in the USA, I would get that the American White Trash it is MUCH more numerous than the poor blacks, but not only: it is much more numerous than the minority of blacks.

But the smartest and most mischievous choice that the press has made so far has been to ask "how many poor there are among the blacks", rather than "how many blacks are there among the poor".

If I calculate how many poor there are among the blacks, I get that the blacks are the population that has the poorest. If I calculate how many blacks there are among the poor, I get that most of the poor are white.

And as you can understand, there is an abyss of difference between the two messages.

If we go out of the percentages and go to count people, there are MANY more poor whites than poor blacks across the West. There are MUCH more poor locals than poor immigrants.

Now, the problem is simple: if we accept that blacks protest their condition, what do we expect from the huge masses of whites who are in the same condition, if not worse ?

To understand, we can try to ask ourselves why I choose to leave the percentages and go to use absolute numbers.

• For one thing, there is a very bad habit on the part of the press of providing statistics as a percentage, without ever providing the standard deviation.
• Second, there is an even worse habit on the part of the press of providing statistics with a percentage, without providing distribution.

Under these conditions, the percentages themselves are simply a premature supercock. For example, by somehow putting the percentages on a map I have provided, spannometrically, a GEOGRAPHICAL distribution of poverty. When I looked at how many poor there are and how many immigrants there are, I tried, in a very spanometric way, to understand what the distribution of blacks was among the poor.

BUT there is a practical reason why absolute numbers should be counted and not percentages.

• You vote. The number of exasperated poor at the disposal of the populist on duty is not determined by the percentages, but by the actual number of voters.
• We vote, II: in places like the United Kingdom, the system is majority. This means that poor majority (or poor average) areas count in absolute numbers, not relative numbers.

In both cases, that is, those who consider the percentages of poor among minorities will be able to provide fuel to the protest, but at the time of the vote, the ABSOLUTE number of poor and the ABSOLUTE number of poor areas will count, depending on the electoral systems.

Not the percentages.

Now let's finish with Italy.

If we ask ourselves how many poor immigrants there are, we get a huge number. And with this we will end up thinking (thanks to this cherrypicking) that poverty is a problem that mainly concerns immigrants.

But if we ask ourselves the opposite question, namely how many immigrants there are among the poor, we discover a very different reality:

But the important data comes below:

Because of this, we are saying that poverty is a problem of immigrants. But let's see the absolute numbers:

• 60 million (minus five immigrants) for 5.9%, is 3.245.000
• five million immigrants (about, I found different numbers) for 26.9% is 1,345,000

And now you understand the point: there are MANY more poor Italians than there are poor immigrants: it is not a problem of decimals, we are more than double the number of poor Italians.

But all the narrative that engulfs the country speaks of the difference between 26.9% and 5.9%, while systematically ignoring the difference between ~ 3,245,000 people and ~ 1,345,000 people.

Even in rap music, it was decided that the rapper who lives in the Italian urban ghetto is a Negro, and speaks of poverty and marginalization, but if the proportions were respected, 2 out of 3 rappers would have to be Italians of indigenous origin .

BUT all Western culture is steeped in the same problem: ignoring the poor white. Behave as if it doesn't exist. Always and only talk about the devastating problem of poor blacks and poor immigrants, without NEVER touching the problem of poor whites and poor natives.

This internal racism can be summed up very well, in my opinion, with the vulgate that if we give subsidies to immigrants to be able to live in Italy then we are facing a social problem, while if we go to give citizenship income we are foraging southerners fancazzisti . Yet, the social problem of poor Italians is MUCH bigger in size.

And so we can easily understand why "polls don't work" in the US, and why elections don't behave as we expect in Italy.

Elections are the time when the poor invisible white man becomes visible. In majority systems, this is the time when previously forgotten white ghettos are counted.

Trump is like Berlusconi. Poor whites vote for it.

The trouble is, you don't believe it. Don't believe they exist. There is no broadcast dealing with them versus thousands about poor immigrants living in the shacks. Well, gentlemen, for every poor immigrant living in the shacks, there are TWO (and broken) poor Italians doing the same, BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM.

And it is this phenomenon of IDEOLOGICAL CENSORSHIP that prevents you from understanding today's politics.

Where does this censorship come from? Because it happens. The foundations are different.

• Poverty among whites is a problem that cannot be attributed to the racist right, or racism, but has its roots in the catastrophic failure of the left. But rather than admitting that they have failed, the lefts will show you the poverty among the Amazonian coelenterates.

• Poverty among whites cannot be attributed to the failed "integration of the foreigner". It cannot be attributed to Western colonialism, it cannot be attributed to migratory flows. It is a failure in governance, here and now. And without excuses.

It is much more convenient, when it comes to poverty, to talk about the poverty of minorities of negroes and immigrants. Many scapegoats can be found, such as lack of integration, lack of social integration services, etc.

But the poverty of the natives speaks of the incompetence of the government. He has no excuses. Don't lock her in a reassuring enclosure. It is not an integration problem.

It really is a failure.

Until the poor white votes, and you'll complain "that the polls didn't work." Well, if you do them while ignoring huge chunks of the electorate, they certainly won't work.