If a society 1000 years ago had encouraged promiscuity, single motherhood, effeminacy in the men, “transgenderism,” very low fertility rates, abortion for any reason, use of female soldiers in combat, welfare payments which disincentivize work, dysgenic fertility, abuse of drugs, immigration of hostile foreigners, and racial preferences to ethnic groups which are hostile to the majority ethnic group it would have quickly collapsed due to internal revolt or foreign aggression. There is a reason conservatives have a visceral negative reaction to these things, and why some expect our society to collapse.
But I don’t think it will. Technology allows a society with values such as ours to continue. As I wrote in part 1 America’s economy will increasingly resemble a post scarcity economy. We won’t need to work very hard to produce abundance, and few will ever need to fight. If the society does either “collapse” or change in a more conservative direction it will be because of the decisions of our population.
I predict over the next 30-40 years that we will see a continuation of the current ideology’s dominance. Immigration will be increased. More “diversity” will be forced onto White communities. Miscegenation will become even more common. After 30-40 years I don’t know what will happen, there will be a new generation whose views will determine the direction of society.
The reason I think the current ideology will continue it’s dominance is that I don’t see all that many people resisting it. Those who do tend to be people who do it anonymously on the internet.(It should go without saying that the official “Right” is worthless as far as opposing the Left) If you spend your days reading the alt-Right you might get a distorted picture of how common those views are. Just look how many smart, SWPL White people vote for Obama. There is nothing stopping them, in the privacy of the voting booth, from voting for the Republicans, or for third parties. And in the Republican party(or the Stupid Party as it is commonly called) look how few officials can be found to oppose it’s anti-White, pro-Israel and pro-immigrant policies.
There’s just not nearly enough people out there to create a serious alternative to multiculturalism. Whoever was responsible for creating it, multiculturalism is now an ideology that a large majority of the intelligent White population has chosen to follow.
The Soviet Union is used as an analogy by many people who point out how quickly a once dominant ideology can collapse. But there are two important differences between the Soviet system and our own. In the Soviet system, everyone could easily imagine an alternative, that of the West. But we have no clear alternative, all of the White west except for Eastern Europe embraces similar multiculturalist ideology(and Eastern Europe is….Eastern Europe). The other important difference is that the Soviet system was a state apparatus which could be easily deconstructed. But “diversity” is here to stay, only a mass expulsion could remove it.
If you read White nationalist literature(I use the term loosely) from 20-30 years ago you’ll hear predictions that the Awakening should be taking place around now. WN literature today predicts it as taking place in 20-30 years. I think a lot of White nationalists have a hard time understanding the liberal mentality.(Just as liberals have a hard time understanding the ethnocentric mentality of WNs or Jews) These people simply Do Not Care about the White race. They are “racially conscious” in that they know where the Good Schools are, but they see no reason at all to care more about a given individual, community or culture because it is White. If the future direction of American society is one that is bad for Whites, but good for non-Whites, they do not see any reason to see that as objectionable. Many of them believe the propaganda that non-Whites are morally superior to Whites, thus the replacement of Whites by non-Whites is seen as a good thing.
White nationalists are frustrated with their lack of media exposure(and the little they get is overwhelmingly negative) and access to the political system. However even where there exists large nationalists movements as in Europe it is always a minority position. It will remain the position of a small minority in America. White Americans, unlike the European nations, do not have much of a unique culture, and much of what they do have(such as so called “popular culture,” music and Hollywood) has been created by Jews or White liberals and supports ideas and values which are antithetical to most White nationalists, such as sexual promiscuity.
The rate of interracial marriage for Whites was 9.4% in 2010.(Pew Research, 2010) 11% of children born to White mothers have non-White fathers, additionally for 9% of these children the race of the father is not cited, so the real value is likely higher.(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013) The number who have in the past had non-White boyfriends or girlfriends is higher than the 9.4% figure. Some of the individuals who do not miscegenate themselves have siblings or other close family members who do. And many young White men could see themselves in a interracial relationship in the future, so they wouldn’t want to open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy by condemning them now.
As Whites are already a minority among American newborns only separation in a portion of the country, expulsion of non-Whites, or an unlikely surge in White fertility rates can recreate a White majority nation. All three are going to be considered unacceptable or unfeasible by most Whites. I think the dominant attitude of Whites will be one of “acceptance.”
The movement to a non-White America will create inevitable problems, but these problems will not be enough to cause it to collapse. Meanwhile, technological advances will offset many of these problems. Any increase in crime will be moderated by technological advances, the elimination of paper money and more mass surveillance will be the most notable.
We’re not going to turn into Africa overnight. By the following IQ numbers and the racial demographic projections produced by the Census Bureau(excel link here) the average IQ can be estimated:
Even in the nightmare scenario, based on the assumption that you have had 80 million more Blacks(2 million more immigrants and their children, on average, between 2020 and 2060) and 40 million more Hispanics you have a decline of 3.6 IQ points, as opposed to 1.4 points as predicted by the Census Bureau numbers. That level of IQ decline will not be enough to drop the country into third world status. Technological advances will likely offset this IQ decline.
The elites will continue to be White/Jewish, for the simple reason that Whites and Jews are the more naturally dominant races. Just look at Latin America: except at it’s Southern extremes “Whites” are a minority in all of Latin America, in some countries considerably so. Yet with a few exceptions the “Whites” have always dominated the political and economic structure of the region.
The White-Jewish elite will support non-White politicians, but will still ultimately be in control. If any politician decides to “go off of the reservation” they will see their donations and media attention dry up; their rivals will receive a surge in their donations and media attention. An instructive example is the way the pro-Israel lobby dominates the Democratic party, despite it’s substantially non-White voter base.
Individual Social Justice Warriors will denounce the White elites and their non-White puppets, but these SJWs will receive no funding or media attention, leaving them to rant in solitude to their followers on twitter. The most extreme may be targeted as “haters,” as happens now with extreme Black separatists.(In 2013 the $PLC categorized 113 Black Separatist organizations as “hate groups”) Following the Charlie Hebdo Shootings in France there were 54 arrests of individuals, mostly Muslims, for being “apologists for terrorism.”
The one possible rival to the White-Jewish elites are the Asian Americans, who are projected to continually grow over the next 45 years, reaching 9.1% of the population by 2060. Asians have considerable presence in American elite universities. However they do not have such high levels of over representation in American business and media. They also have a high rate of intermarriage with Whites and lots of internal division. I do not think they will become an elite group within the next 30-35 years.
The Decline of Christianity
Christianity is currently in a period of great decline in America. This is especially notable among the younger generation. Just 57% of the “millennials” describe themselves as Christians. 38% are Protestant. Evangelicals are declining, though not at the rate of the mainline Protestants.
There is no sign that younger Millennials will re-embrace religion as they age:
However, generational replacement is by no means the only reason that religious “nones” are growing and Christians are declining. In addition, people in older generations are increasingly disavowing association with organized religion. About a third of older Millennials (adults currently in their late 20s and early 30s) now say they have no religion, up nine percentage points among this cohort since 2007, when the same group was between ages 18 and 26. Nearly a quarter of Generation Xers now say they have no particular religion or describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, up four points in seven years. Baby Boomers also have become slightly but noticeably more likely to identify as religious “nones” in recent years.(Pew Forum, 2015)
As we saw in Russia a decline of Christianity can be reversed. But I don’t think it will.
Rediscovery of Biological Determinism
Leftist ideology today is based on the assumption that no genetically determined differences in intelligence or personality exist among the races. Furthermore it assumes that certain natural feelings of sexism, ethnocentrism(for White people) and recognition of “stereotypes” are not natural but are pathological.
Will these beliefs be abandoned if scientific evidence disproves them? Maybe, but probably not. If they are it won’t be until after 2050 at the least. The elites are very invested in their ideology and will not abandon it in the face of evidence. Instead, I predict we will see suppression of alternative views. This will come through suppression of dissenting speech by hate speech laws and by purges of individuals who express dissenting views. Academics will either remain silent or communicate their true beliefs in ‘Straussian’ ‘codes’ that they hope the general population will not understand.
Hate Speech Laws
I think it is more likely than not that we will see hate speech laws in the future. Hate speech laws are the norm, not the exception, in Western countries. Some say that America’s first amendment will preclude such efforts, I don’t think so. The First Amendment is only worth as much as nine justices on the Supreme Court think it’s worth. I’ll note the views on one current Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan. Kevin MacDonald gives a good summary of her views:
Her 1993 article “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V,” (60 University of Chicago Law Review 873; available on Lexis/Nexis) indicates someone who is entirely on board with seeking ways to circumscribe free speech in the interests of multicultural virtue: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” She acknowledges that the Supreme Court is unlikely to alter its stance that speech based on viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment, but she sees that as subject to change with a different majority: The Supreme Court “will not in the foreseeable future” adopt the view that “all governmental efforts to regulate such speech … accord with the Constitution.” But in her view there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Clearly, she does not see the protection of viewpoint-based speech as a principle worth preserving or set in stone. Rather, she believes that a new majority could rule that “all government efforts to regulate such speech” would be constitutional. All government efforts.
And until that day comes — doubtless speeded by her arrival on the court, she advocates finding ways to rationalize restrictions on free speech within the current guidelines of the court. Her article proposes a variety of ways that “hate speech” may be restricted without running afoul of current Supreme Court guidelines. For example, she supports the constitutionality of “hate crime” laws that enhance penalties for crimes motivated by racial bias — precisely the sort of law recently passed by the House and now being considered by the Senate. Such laws have been strongly promoted by the organized Jewish community and condemned by conservative legal scholars as creating special victim categories and destroying federalism because they punish acts that are already illegal in the states.
Kagan’s conclusion shows where her heart is:
[Efforts to draft restrictions on speech] will not eradicate all pornography or all hate speech from our society, but they can achieve much worth achieving. They, and other new solutions, ought to be debated and tested in a continuing and multi-faceted effort to enhance the rights of minorities and women, while also respecting core principles of the First Amendment.(MacDonald, 2009)
One hopeful thing is the widespread support of free speech among liberals and the intelligent.(Khan, 2015) However public opinion can change quickly, as the example of homosexual marriage showed.
The way hate speech will first be banned will probably be through the doctrine of ‘group defamation.’ Defamation of individuals or small groups of people is not protected by the first amendment. The argument for “Group Defamation” will be to extend such logic to ethnic groups, sexual identity groups, ect. It makes a certain amount of sense, enough sense of the Elena Kagan’s and Sonia Sotomayor’s of the world. It won’t ban all hate speech, allowing simple expressions of dislike for minority groups(i.e. “I don’t like Jews”), but it will prevent most of the intelligent arguments that they so dearly want to prevent. There was a contest back in 1988 to write a “model statute” which would justify banning group defamation without running afoul of the first amendment. I encourage readers to read the winning statute.
Or perhaps not. Hate speech laws may not be judged to be necessary if the media and academia does a good enough job suppressing alternative views on it’s own, as seen by the regular and by now unsurprising purges.(see Handle Haus’s now outdated list)
You’re not Allowed to Notice That!
When I was doing research for my post about the ethnic composition of the media elite I came across a story about something that happened in France. There is a website and an app called “Jew or Not Jew” written by a Jew named Johnathan Levy. It is a database compiling the ethnicity of historical figures, celebrities, businessmen, and even fictional characters. “SOS Racisme,” “MRAP,” and the “Union of Jewish Students of France”(think French versions of the ADL and $PLC) threatened to sue Apple for the app being available in France. Apparently the app violates a law preventing people from compiling personal details on people including “race, sexuality, political leanings or religious affiliation” without their consent. Levy then voluntarily removed the app from the French market. My blog post would be illegal in France.(Huffington Post, 2011)
France does not collect ethnic statistics on it’s population, nor does it do the type of bean counting that American liberals are so fond of. This makes it difficult to accurately count to the number of French Muslims or the magnitude of the demographic shift caused by mass immigration. The American government collects statistics on racial differences in crime, poverty, education, test scores, ect. They do this because low Black test scores or high rates of, in their words, “winding up in prison” are taken to be evidence of White oppression. But if they decide that these statistics are no longer Good for the Cause the government could stop collecting them and even, as in France, forbid the rest of us from collecting them.
We already see what could happen in the difficulty of trying to estimate the rate of Hispanic crime. The government lumps all Hispanics into the ‘White’ category for crime statistics whether they identify as White or not. Thus while it is easy to identify the magnitude in which Blacks commit much more crime than Whites and Hispanics and Asians commit much less(see FBI statistics, 2011, keeping in mind that “White” means “Whites and Hispanics”), it is difficult to estimate the Hispanic crime rate(see Rubinstein, 2010).
Even a recognition that Whites have higher IQs would not end the leftist hatred of the White race. Most antisemites recognize the higher Jewish IQ, it does nothing to moderate their hatred. You’ll still have a high proportion of the population(Blacks, Muslims, and some Hispanics) and a large portion of the elite(Jews) who have real or imagined grievances against Whites and will continue to resent them.
In Eastern Europe Jews rose to elite status with the creation of communist regimes. In the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary Jews were considerably overrepresented in the highest levels of the communist state. This overrepresentation eventually ended, sometimes with violent purges as Jewish elite figures were removed and replaced by native European communists. Elite status is something they can lose.
In America Jews have a considerable amount of power, including making 60% of the campaign contributions to the Democrats and 25-35% of the donations to the Republicans(Wallace, 2009), a considerable presence in Hollywood and the media(Bayz, 2015), and, along with mixed Jews, making up 34.75% of the 2012 Forbes 400(racehist, 2013). No unbiased commenter could not call Jews an elite population in America. But like the Jewish population in Eastern Europe it could potentially lose it’s elite status and simply be a population which only has “above average incomes” as the Asians do today.(Asians, based on their representation in politics, business, culture, and the super wealthy, cannot be described as an elite population)
How could Jews lose their elite status? Population decline might contribute to a reduction in their power, however this is unlikely to be a large factor. Unlike other groups only estimates of the number of Jews can be cited. While it is clear that Jews have, over the past 60 years, declined as a percentage of the American population it is unclear whether they have also declined relative to the proportion of their main rival, non-Hispanic White gentiles. I graphed an estimate of this proportion:
Jewish intermarriage is considerable and could pose a major demographic threat to the Jewish population, but I don’t think it will. Whether it does depends on how likely the children of intermarriage are to identify as Jews. If you assume that the number of Jewish men and women who intermarry is equal then intermarriage does not decrease the number of Jews by a strict Halachic standard. Jewish women will have Jewish children and it does not matter what ethnicity the fathers are. If the number of children from Jewish intermarriages who identify as Jews is over 50% the number of self identified ‘Jews’ increases, if it is under 50% the number of self identified ‘Jews’ decreases. So if half of Jews intermarry, and half of their children identify as Jews, the number of “Jews'”does not decline by that factor alone.
Intermarriage reduces the number of “racially pure” Jews and thus is objectionable to some Jewish ethnic nationalists, however I would think most Americans aren’t going to care how much Jewish blood someone has so long as they identify and behave as a Jew. Nor do they care about the Halacha definition of a Jew. Intermarriage does however reduce the average IQ of the self identifying “Jews” produced. It also may lead these “Jews” to be more sympathetic to non-Jews and their culture as they have White heritage and White relatives.
Another factor different from population decline is population quality. More and more Jews will likely be Orthodox, who are much less likely to have elite educations and jobs.(Nathan Kazis, 2013)
If the elite status of Jews is lost in the near future the main reason will not likely be population decline. If their status as an elite people declines it will be because of the actions of the White American population.
White nationalism, if widely adopted would obviously and inevitably cause a decline in Jewish power, but I don’t think that’s very likely.
A Christian movement could also reduce Jewish power. A Christian political movement could unite Whites, Hispanics and even some Asians against Jewish power, however the decline of Christianity will preclude this. The “Christian Right” today is worthless as a political movement. Perhaps I shouldn’t expect much from people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
Reducing the power of the Jews does not need to come from a Right wing movement. It can also be an internal process within a left wing movement as it was in Eastern Europe. If Jews are disempowered, this is how it will happen. I put the odds of it happening at around even. Outright antisemitism is unlikely to figure within such a movement, rather other “proxy” factors will be used to target Jews based on their ethnic origin. Economic status will be one factor. In the Soviet Union discrimination against the children of the “bourgeois” helped Jews to rise in elite status in the decades following the revolution. Later affirmative action was introduced in favor of the children of “workers and peasants,” this had the opposite effect.(Slezkine, 2004, p 243 and p 262) Class based affirmative action in elite colleges would mainly benefit Whites and Asians at the expense of Jews.
Zionism is one proxy factor and one that was used by the Soviet Union as an excuse to purge Jews. Already there is great opposition to Zionism within the left even though it has no influence on Democrat party policy. The left-wing Zionists have the money and media access but the anti-Zionists have one important thing: the truth on their side. If you are a multiculturalist and believe that multiculturalism is a moral obligation the consistent thing is to support it everywhere, including in Israel. It has happened in Europe and could happen here.
Anti-Zionism can be used by White gentile leftists as an excuse to remove potential Jewish rivals from positions of power. Jews will face the dilemma of either condemning Israel or giving up their position of power. I’m sure many will choose to leave America and immigrate to Israel when faced with this decision. As we saw in Eastern Europe they might not even be given a choice, purged as “Zionists” no matter what they do.
If Jews are removed from positions of power by White leftists it doesn’t mean that leftism will be abandoned. The removal of Jews from positions of power in Eastern Europe did not lead to an immediate abandonment of communist ideology. Universalism is appealing on it’s own to Whites who are financially well off and do not have to live around diversity. However abandonment of multiculturalism will no doubt be easier if a substantial portion of the elite no longer believes that multiculturalism is in their ethnic interests.
The Far Future of Race
America’s future is often compared to Latin America, and it is an apt comparison. Perhaps Latin America is the best we can hope for, while the Balkans(i.e. large scale ethnic conflict) would be the worst.
Ethnic conflict in a multiracial society is not necessarily inevitable, as Latin America shows. The Black/Brown population there does not seem to mind much the continuing dominance of society by “Whites.” I think that without Jews and White liberals trying to stir up trouble our Black and Hispanic populations wouldn’t be so angry. Hispanics could eventually “become American” fully, they are racially about half White and are Christian. They will then see themselves as “American” just as they used to see themselves as “Mexican.” A similar process could occur for Asians and part-Asians, though it is unlikely to occur for Blacks. This would be a nightmare for White nationalists.
Religious people have birth rates that are higher than nonreligious people. So far this has been more than compensated by abandonment of religion. But not for the extreme religions. In 1944 there were just 13,000 Amish. In 2014 there are 290,000. What happens where their population reaches a million? Right now liberals are fascinated by the Amish and their lifestyle. But eventually they might decide the Amish are a Threat. There might exist an Amish Question and we will hear about how bigoted, misogynistic and homophobic their beliefs are. The government might decide to mandate Amish children attend public schools. Child labor regulations will be strictly enforced. Economic roadblocks will be put in the way of their farming lifestyle. Leaders might even be arrested under hate speech laws. The same type of thing will be done to other groups such as Mormon fundamentalists. The goal will be to reduce the fertility rates and increase the defection rates until the groups are no longer a threat. I doubt the Leftist elites, or whoever replaces them, will allow themselves to be demographically swamped by religious fanatics.
I increasingly feel like a stranger in someone else’s country. I often hear or read that America is “the greatest country in the world.” Is it really? I don’t know. I doubt it will be in 35 years.
Last month I was with a group of SWPL leftists, most looked like they were in their forties and fifties. All were true believers in liberalism. And yet they all could agree that “the world is going to sh*t.” I asked them why, if liberalism seems to have triumphed, they were so gloomy. Feminism. The decline of religion. A Black President. They nodded to all of that, but were silent when I asked them what was worse. Finally one woman said the kids were “ruder,” but that didn’t really satisfy anybody. It’s as if they know it in their bones.