Amerika

Since we’re doing topics about race, in anticipation of another presidential election where race is the crypto-topic on everyone’s mind, how about a quick analysis of demographic collision?

America — with Europe slightly trailing it, not by so far anymore — is heading toward a crucial point: does it become a white nation with a third world minority, or a third world nation with a few white people hanging out?

We have a few choices:

• 1950s America: white people do their thing, African-Americans do their separately. Problem: if you’re waging Civil Wars in which you claim to have the moral high ground, and World Wars to liberate Europe from a lack of freedom, you look like an idiot when every black person works a menial job.
• White ruling minority third world: Mexico, Brazil, Iraq and India are good examples here: a vast horde of Asiatics are ruled by a statistically tiny minority of Caucasians or more-Caucasian-ish people. Problem: much of the country becomes third world wasteland, and frequent revolutions kill off the ruling castes eventually.
• Mixed-race whitish nation: Hello, most of Eastern and parts of Southern Europe, and California: a steady mixture of groups gets absorbed by a majority of mixed-European ancestry, creating a group of Eurasians who may be mostly European in appearance but seem to prefer countries organized more around third world principles: strongmen, corruption, hedonism, and drama.
• Nationalism: White people say, “We did wrong but not all wrong, here are reparations in exchange for repatriation,” and get rid of laws forcing them to hire minorities. Minority groups for the most part see a lack of opportunity and so follow the path of least resistance and return to their host countries. Amerinds are forced to make their reservations communities again.

Whatever choice we make, the choice is upon us, and like so many choices when one is delusional out of preference for oblivion, it seems to rush at us out of the fog:

Last week’s release of national totals from the 2010 census showed that the minority share of the population increased over the past decade in every state, reaching levels higher than demographers anticipated almost everywhere, and in the nation as a whole. If President Obama and Democrats can convert that growth into new voters in 2012, they can get a critical boost in many of the most hotly contested states and also seriously compete for some highly diverse states such as Arizona and Georgia that until now have been reliably red.

In November’s midterm elections, Republicans won 60 percent of white voters—the highest share of whites they have attracted in any congressional election in the history of modern polling. Since May, Obama’s job-approval rating among whites has exceeded 40 percent only twice in Gallup’s weekly summary of its nightly polling. Unless the economic recovery accelerates, many analysts in both parties believe that Obama could struggle to match the modest 43 percent of white voters he captured in 2008.

These twin dynamics suggest that in many states the key question for 2012 may be whether Republicans can increase their advantage among whites enough to overcome what’s likely to be a growing share of the overall vote cast by minorities, who still break preponderantly for Democrats. – National Journal

The moment we have dreaded has arrived: race is now no longer an optional thought, but what will define our politics. It’s a power struggle, formally, …finally.

From the Democratic perspective, this has always been the intention. Democrats in 1965 realized that non-whites voted Democratic, and that the then-current generation of whites were so drugged on liberalism they would approve any underdog-bolstering altruistic imperative, so they changed immigration law. The floodgates opened.

White America slumbered on, buoyed by dreams from their churches of universal equality in heaven, and by politics from their televisions and useful idiots neighbors, talking about how diversity was our strength and our egalitarian politics would keep the proles from rioting.

History grinned a little. Historically, even among groups of the same race, diversity has always been a failure. It takes a century or two to see the full effects, but you’ll note that no societies stay “diverse” for longer than that. They collapse and end up as racial melanges with none of their former potential.

• Does this mean there are inferior races? No, it means that mixing groups of specialized ability destroys that ability in the resulting groups.
• Does it mean that some races are bad citizens? No, it means that diversity itself is the problem. No two or more groups — whether divided by race/ethnicity, religion, even social class or regional differences — can occupy the same space at the same time. This means a power struggle which culminates in successive waves of conflict and compromise until a lowest common denominator is reached.
• Does this mean that some races are defective? No, it means that while there are genetic and thus aptitudinal and attitudinal differences between races and ethnic groups, it is the fact that any difference at all exists that dooms diversity, not the particular groups involved.
• Does this mean America was not a melting pot before 1965? Yes, America was of “mixed” heritage — if you count Western Europeans as mixed. In the 1840s, the slow introduction of Irish and Southern Europeans caused problems, as did the introduction of Eastern Europeans in the 1890s, but these demographic changes were minor compared to what we have now.
• Does this mean white nationalists are correct? No, it means they are insane, because they want to create diversity — white, fascist diversity — which will cause the same problems on a smaller scale, but still create them nonetheless.

We really face a chokepoint soon, where the former narrative of the oppressive majority against the oppressed minority fades rapidly, and we have to actually choose our future. In the past, we were able to assume that we could make changes to America and the country would basically stay the same, just with a little diversity added — think Cherry Coke or Reeses Peanut Butter Cups — for flavor.

Now we realize that we’re talking about replacing the population, which actually makes America a different country. A country is not its laws or economics; it is its people. When we replace the majority English-German American stock with new people, the country will start to resemble the homelands that shaped them genetically.

Nationally, the overall share of the non-Hispanic white population dropped from 69.1 percent in 2000 to 63.7 in 2010, a greater decline than most analysts anticipated. In a mirror image, the minority population grew from 30.9 percent in 2000 to 36.3 percent in 2010.

[…]

46.5 percent of people under 18 were minority, a dramatic jump from 39.1 percent in 2000. As recently as last summer, demographers projected that minorities would make up a majority of the under-18 population sometime after 2020. At the current rate of growth, however, nonwhites will comprise a majority of children in the United States by 2015.

[…]

Strikingly, as Frey notes, the census found that the number of whites under 18 declined by more than 4 million over the past decade, even as the number of minority young people increased by more than 6 million.

This tells more of the story than the vague news that CNN likes to report, which is that by 2040 whites will no longer be a majority. That doesn’t sound bad, does it? We’re all equal then. But the fact is that some group will be on top, and that group will make the country like their country of origin.

So do we want Western Europe or… Mexico? Nigeria? Brazil? Thailand? Zimbabwe?

Americans will have to choose, after years of assuming that immigration was like having a new family in the neighborhood — and no other consequences. “Sure, the Witherspoons are black, but it’s just one house in a neighborhood of 400.”

Yet as the numbers show, the Witherspoons aren’t just adding to the mix — they’re displacing the native Americans of mostly English/German stock, and replacing them with Mexican indios (Asians), Southern Asians, Indians (Caucasoid Asians) and Africans.

What’s that mix going to look like? A lot like the indios of Mexico, lower castes of India, poorer people in Iraq and Iran, favelas of Brazil, etc.

That’s not the original idea of diversity, which was a few non-white faces to “spice up” the horde of whites.

This is why history grins at us. We are the latest in a series of people to assume that we can make demographic changes to our nations without it vastly affecting us.

The French in 1789 decided to execute their aristocrats, and promptly sent their country into a tailspin from which it has never recovered because of a lack of competent administrators. The Russians did the same thing in 1917. Western Europe itself made the mistake when it allowed many of its best people to emigrate to the USA, and promptly had a population crash from which it recovered just in time to hit two disastrous world wars.

The young, increasingly minority population is likely to view public investment in schools, health care, and infrastructure as critical to its economic prospects, while the predominantly white senior population might be increasingly reluctant to fund such services through taxes. The trends could portend a lasting structural conflict. (See “The Gray and the Brown: The Generational Mismatch,” NJ, 7/24/10, p.14.)

As noted in the past, the Tea Parties in the USA and Europe, while not racist per se, represented an ethnic conflict: whites who want an upward-moving society, and “new citizens” who want an entitlement state.

If the pattern repeats not just from Soviet Russia and Revolutionary France, but the post-colonial revolts across the world, the white minority will accede to these demands. The entitlement state will breed many more than the economy can sustain; bankruptcy will loom; The People will blame the rich, and murder or exile the white minority; a competent administrator drain will then doom the country, which will enter its final spiral to true third-world status. Zimbabwe, South Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, Rwanda, Egypt… the list goes on.

The first step toward that is the step America is about to take, which is ending years of pleasant denial about race to face the power struggle, and realize that in order to “be diverse” we must destroy the majority.

And we’re just about there.

Anti-white prejudice – considered almost non-existent in the ’50s – is now perceived among white Americans as a bigger problem than anti-black bias, according to a new study.

The report found that both races agreed anti-black prejudice declined steadily over the last 60 years, but white Americans felt that bias against them was on the upswing.

Asked to rank prejudice against blacks on a 1-10 scale in the 2000s, white respondents put the number at 3.6 – compared with 9.1 in the ’50s.

But white respondents also put the number for anti-white bias at 4.7 – way up from the 1.8 of the ’50s.

The numbers suggest “that whites also linked the decrease in anti-black sentiment over the last half century to an increase in anti-white bias over the same time period,” the authors wrote. – NYDN

Although delusional people like to gush on about sharing the wealth, the truth is that wealth is finite. Our planet is finite. Its resources are finite. Time is finite. Even energy and matter are finite; what we take from somewhere else has consequences.

You cannot “add diversity” to a country without destroying what is there. This is why history grins: this is the lesson we don’t seem to learn, as a species. We don’t want to think that our actions have consequences beyond the immediate result we wanted to achieve.

As the cycle of history shows, all you do is kill the goose that laid the golden egg. You take a country that is succeeding because its people are motivated and competent, then introduce cultural chaos, and what is left is a new population that cannot replicate the organization and aptitude, thus the competence, thus the wealth, of the old.

Diversity fails not only the majority, but everyone else — minorities — who get dragged into its vortex.

As another commentator writes:

Black Run America is based on the idea that African-Americans cannot get ahead in our society because of White racism. Gunnar Myrdal told White people they suffered from “An American Dilemma” and the Supreme Court responded with the Brown decision that ordered integration in public schools.

Now that White people know that Whites are not racist anymore and that racism isn’t holding back African-Americans, the visible failure of African-Americans to make progress has become a serious problem in need of explanation.

(1) If White racism isn’t holding back African-Americans, there has to be some other explanation for racial inequality.

(2) If the experts in race relations have gotten it wrong for decades, then White America has been told a huge lie and authority figures cannot be trusted.

(3) If blacks can’t get ahead in spite of visible explicit discrimination against Whites and non-existent discrimination against blacks, what is holding them back?

(4) If robbing White people to create social programs like Obamacare doesn’t solve racial inequality, how can social spending on the welfare state be justified and seen as anything more than institutionalized racial extortion of White taxpayers?

(5) If “racism” doesn’t explain inequality in our society, then why should Whites feel guilty about black failure?

(6) If Whites have no good reason to feel guilty anymore, what is stopping White racial consciousness from coming roaring back and looking for vengeance? – OD

I’ll answer his final question (what is stopping White racial consciousness from coming roaring back and looking for vengeance?) first:

• Fear of conflict. Don’t take risks you do not immediately need to take.
• Social fear. Who wants to buck a trend and defy altruism? The basement dwellers only.
• Oblivion. It’s always easier than truth. Just more destructive.
• Kindness. No one wants to wage war or enact vengeance. They prefer practical plans.

The last one to me is the kicker. We cannot allow the mental disease known as “White Nationalism” to infect our minds and turn us from the practical. What are white people more likely to do, declare war… or look for practical solutions?

I think we can see what they’ll do based on what they’ve done in the past:

Dill (Anethum graveolens ) was used in the Middle Ages in charms against witchcraft. It was known as a medicinal herb to the ancient Greeks and Romans, where soldiers placed burned dill seeds on their wounds to promote healing. Medieval Europe could not grow it fast enough for love potions, casting spells and for protection against witchcraft. Carrying a bag of dried dill over the heart was considered protection against hexes.

[…]

The whole plant is aromatic and used to flavor many foods, such as gravlax (a Nordic appetizer made with raw salmon that looks soooo good! I’ll try making it someday and report back.), borscht and other soups, and pickles. Dill is best when used fresh, as it loses its flavor rapidly if dried. – Hermione’s Garden

Our arrogant history professors will look at this and infer a causal relationship that was not there. “They were afraid of witches, so they invented a superstition using dill, so they came to like dill, so now it prevails in their taste preferences. Ta-da!”

More likely is this:

Even all four of my readers have stopped after this digression. What the heck could he be rambling about?

I am talking about nothing less than a different way of governing.

In modern government, you observe an effect and make it illegal.

In the more organic world that Hans and Sven inhabit, you simply find the behavior that is its undoing, and make that preferable.

In their case, a world without dill would be very bad indeed… so when some helpful idiot showed up talking about witches, they used witch-hunting to justify dill-using.

In the same way, I think the race problem that America and Europe share will be solved with this kind of positive futurism.

1. Instead of even thinking about criticizing other races (or Jews) — especially since the choice to become diverse was a white thing for the most part — we should focus our criticism on diversity.
2. We should recognize that our elites are corrupt, and make fun of them, but not for being successful, because everyone loves success. Criticizing others for having money is a pathway straight to the liberal mentality. Instead, we should make fun of them for being out of touch.
3. Next, we should learn from the successful brands of the past century. Mercedes-Benz, Christian Dior, Apple Computer, Ralph Lauren, Mont Blanc and Viking ranges. These each preached a simple message: you can be part of a new growing elite of those who know if you buy our product. It’s a luxury product, without the linear factor of simply costing more than others. They sell cool, and intelligence, more than sheer cost value.
4. We create a new elite based on this ideal. Unlike the hipsters/liberals, this brand does not hate success but embraces it. Unlike the stodgy old right, they embrace success only when it comes with a “whole life,” which implies (in hipster/liberal fashion) a social life and a cultural life that are as important as the cash flow. This is a new elite not only from social power, memetic power, financial power and political power, but also pure cool. They are not what is burnt out and dead from the past, nor are they trying to control you. They’re rising above you, and so you have a binary choice to follow them or be left behind.
5. This new elite adopts a sensible attitude toward multiculturalism-versus-culture: diversity doesn’t work, so I choose to live near people like me. Not just in race, but ethnicity, and social caste as well as social class (a monetary substitute for caste). Even more, I want them to think like me. None of those burnt-out hippies or stodgy fat businessmen here. Just pure cool. And if I’m white, it looks like my whole neighborhood is. Our schools are better. We pay less in taxes. We’re happier. And we’re unapologetic, because whatever ills occurred from colonialism, slavery and The Holocaust are now bought and paid for.

After demographic collision, politics will have to take off its kid gloves. This is not a battle of ideologies, like the Communism-versus-capitalism follies of the 1980s. It’s not a battle of religions, or class warfare. It’s a clash of civilizations, but even more so, a clash of civilization-types, meaning that those who want a more traditional society for practical reasons will get it and make it cool.

The others will drool.

Our demographic collision looks scary as it comes over the horizon. Knowing that we can’t just keep going to work, buying stuff, amusing ourselves and that everything will turn out OK while we do that… it’s painful to make this transition. It’s like waking up on a luxury cruise liner to find out it has hit an iceberg.

But those who survive will grasp this new reality, and like warriors act; but also, like artists, they will act secondarily by portraying a new and better future without these stodgy old problems (equality is from 1789, class war is from 1917, and racial equality is from 1968).

While “white nation with a third world minority, or a third world nation with a white minority” is the immediate question, the bigger question is how get over the constant class warfare of liberalism which is the origin of our racial crisis. Once we do that, we can build a better society.

Tags: civil war, class war, crowdism, french revolution, race, russian revolution