February 11, 2008

Unfortunate Sons

USA Today reports:
The U.S. population will soar to 438 million by 2050 and the Hispanic population will triple, according to projections released Monday by the Pew Research Center. The latest projections by the non-partisan research group are higher than government estimates to date and paint a portrait of an America dramatically different from today's.

The projected growth in the U.S. population — 303 million today — will be driven primarily by immigration among all groups except the elderly.

"We're assuming that the rate of immigration will stay roughly constant," says Jeffrey Passel, co-author of the report.

Even if immigration is limited, Hispanics' share of the population will increase because they have higher birth rates than the overall population. That's largely because Hispanic immigrants are younger than the nation's aging baby boom population. By 2030, all 79 million boomers will be at least 65 and the elderly will grow faster than any other age group.

The projections show that by 2050:

•Nearly one in five Americans will have been born outside the USA vs. one in eight in 2005. Sometime between 2020 and 2025, the percentage of foreign-born will surpass the historic peak reached a century ago during the last big immigration wave. New immigrants and their children and grandchildren born in the USA will account for 82% of the population increase from 2005 to 2050.

•Whites who are not Hispanic, now two-thirds of the population, will become a minority when their share drops to 47%. They made up 85% of the population in 1960.

•Hispanics, already the largest minority group, will more than double their share of the population to 29%.

•Blacks will remain 13% of the population. Asians will go to 9% from 5%.

Nobody ever, never, ever thinks about this, but how is affirmative action going to work when the beneficiaries outnumber the benefactors? It's exactly like the social security problems down the road as the retiree to worker ratio rises, but we've all seen millions of words about that and practically nothing about the analogous affirmative action problem.

As John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater sang in "Fortunate Son:"

And when you ask them, how much should we give?
Ooh, they only answer more! more! more!

P.S. Well, I've thought about it -- here's one of my articles crunching the numbers. And here's another that explains why black leaders almost never criticize affirmative action privileges for brand new immigrants who just got off the plane.

The crazy thing is that everybody just wants to argue -- pro or con -- over affirmative action for blacks. Critics of quotas want to attack preferences exactly where the argument in favor of them is strongest -- that America owes something to the descendants of slaves. In contrast, nobody would claim with a straight face that we owe anything to Argentineans who have just got off the jumbo jet from Buenos Aires, and yet they benefit from quotas too! But the future will be dominated numerically by quota-eligible Hispanics, not by quota-eligible blacks.

It's also worth pondering what proportion of those 438 million people in 2050 will have been born to unmarried women. Just from 2005 to 2006, the number of babies born to married white women fell 0.4% while the number of babies born to unmarried Latinas grew 9.6%! The Hispanic illegitimacy rate is now up to 50%. What will it be in 2050? What does this portend for law-abidingness, education, social capital, technological innovation and a host of other good things that are correlated with intact families?

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

49 comments:

SKT said...

Sounds like the U.S. will be a lot like today's Brazil, except without the bouncing fake boobs everywhere.

Anonymous said...

Wishful thinking that the "United States" will even exist in 2050...it will be the 35th-40th year of the NAU and the population will probably be closer to 700 Million because of Canada and Mexico.

And hopefully my descendants will back where they belong.. in County Cork.

Bill said...

Nobody ever, never, ever thinks about this, but how is affirmative action going to work when the beneficiaries outnumber the benefactors?

-SS


The same way, but with fewer beneficiaries. It works in Brazil; it's just that only one out of a hundred or so is effectively promoted out of the favelas. In the US, it's probably close to one in five getting out of the ghetto and into the middle class due to AA at the moment.

When there's less to go around, less goes around. That's all. Whites and Asians will take care of themselves after their own fashion, as usual. Look at South Brazil, for example. Pretty nice place.

Big Bill said...

The answer is simple: South Africa's BEE program.

Bee = Black Economic Empowerment.

You tell every white business with more than a handful of employees (family restaurant, local hardware store, printing company) that it has to find a black partner who will get a share of the business.

Tell every large corporation that they must hiring black people for all new jobs until the percentages are equal.

And you get ready for the power grid to shut down (ESKOM), the trains to stop running, the elevators to break down, the downtown office buildings to fill with squatters (Jo'burg), and the white people to emigrate.

Won't your kids move from LA when there are no jobs left for them?

Won't you?

Read any of the articles here for the excruciating details and slow demise of SA as it tries to achieve the impossible: maintaining a first world civilization in a third world slum:

http://southafricasucks.blogspot.com/

Mike said...

I would be very surprised, after the coming wave of genetics knowledge and biotech hits (certainly by 2050!), if affirmative action looks anything like it does today.

We'll certainly have affirmative action 'stuff' to think about in 2050-- but perhaps not as we know it now. I personally think it's futile to project that far into the future without taking into account what biotech may mean for eugenics, fertility, enhancement, and so forth. Or even how deeper, less ambiguous (and thus less ignorable) knowledge of what various genes mean will change the affirmative action discussion.

Argent Paladin said...

What I wonder is why the Sierra Club, the Conservation Corps, etc aren't horrified at these projections. Won't this mean more sprawl, more pollution, more landfill space, etc?
What about PETA? I don't think that most hispanics are terribly upset by animal cruelty, such as bull-fights, cock-fights, stray dogs everywhere, etc. And what about African-American groups, who will be pushed aside by far more numerous Hispanic advocacy groups? Environmentalists, African-Americans, and other traditionally liberal groups should be against immigration, for simple self-preservation reasons.

Fred said...

"Sounds like the U.S. will be a lot like today's Brazil, except without the bouncing fake boobs everywhere."

Brazil has a few big advantages over us in this.

1) Its underclass (black and otherwise -- mainly pardo, or mixed race) has lower expectations than ours, and is thus able to be appeased by much lower levels of public assistance.

2) Brazil is already energy-independent (it leads the world in sugarcane-based ethanol, every car in Brazil is flex-fuel, and every gas station offers ethanol as well as gasoline), and will become a major oil exporter once its huge new Tupi oil field is developed.

3) Brazil is running primary budget surpluses, and is about to have its sovereign debt upgraded to investment grade.

4) Brazil is running large trade surpluses as well, driven by exports to China.

5) Brazil's population growth is only slightly higher than ours, but its economy is growing twice as fast.

6) Brazil's currency is strong (it has more than doubled in value versus the dollar in the last 5 years).

Leonard said...

I don't see anything illogical or impossible about a society with 50+% of the people eligible for "affirmative action". In fact I don't see anything impossible about having 100% of the people eligible. Of course, if it goes to 100% it becomes meaningless, unless, of course, some kinds of diversity are more vibrant than others.

Steve, you need to link up and help popularize Griffe's ideas about the "smart fraction". Here:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/imm.htm
This is not South Africa, which is reverting to its low national average. This is America, with plenty of brains. Griffe's conclusions, though using somewhat different projected population breakdowns:
1) By 2050 the US per capita GDP will have declined, because of third-world immigration, to 86.8% of its 2004 value.
2) ... during this time the US mean IQ will have dropped by about 2 IQ points.

Testable predictions! Though I don't think Griffe accounted for expected productivity gains at all.

anony-mouse said...

I'm not as sure as everyone else is that whites will stay a minority for long.

Among the fastest birthing groups in America are Mormons, monogomous and otherwise (Utah has the highest fertility rate of any state) and ultra-Orthodox Jews (the American municipality with the lowest median age of any municipality with more than 5000 presidents is Kiryas Yoel, NY). Once these groups become a larger percentage of the American Caucasian population things may change

Anonymous said...

Except Big Bill the biggest power-group will be Latinos (basically, Mexicans). So it would be Mexicans fighting over AA handouts.

And there are people talking about it. Black Talk radio has been critical of Obama's plan for Open Borders. Blacks are the first to be displaced.

Right on schedule, another Shamnesty bill:

here .

Ugh.

cranky matron said...

I agree that white people will be just fine, by hook or by crook.

My guess is that water rights will be the limiting factor here; nothing ends affluence-induced apathy faster than running out of potable water.

And yes, as Mormons and other pro-natalist patriarchal conservatives become a bigger slice of the demographic pie, (while liberal-ish WASP types forget to procreate) we may see an entirely different picture emerge.

Argent Paladin said...

One thing that should be talked about as well is the fact that in 2030, the 79 million baby-boom retirees will be predominantly white and the workers who will be having a considerable portion of their income taxed will be mainly Hispanic. Don't you think that there will be some resentment in the Hispanic community that immigrants and children of immigrants, mainly without college educations and with their own children to support will be paying for the retirements of white, affluent, often childless, retirees? Especially since racial tensions will have been stoked so much, so often? What are the chances that they say, sorry, Senors, we won't pay. We will cut Social Security. I can tell you, those won't be happy times.
Of course, the above scenario will be far worse in Europe, when the Muslim workers in 2020 will refuse to pay the fat pensions of the French/Italian/Spanish etc retirees.

Bill said...

Blogger Mike said...

I would be very surprised, after the coming wave of genetics knowledge and biotech hits (certainly by 2050!), if affirmative action looks anything like it does today.


Mike, you are a funny guy.

Don't you know that farmers have been selectively breeding animals for thousands of years?

You think people just figured this stuff out today?

In fact, people appear to know far less about these things today than they did when their bellies (or titles) depended on such practices.

nope said...

What I wonder is why the Sierra Club, the Conservation Corps, etc aren't horrified at these projections. Won't this mean more sprawl, more pollution, more landfill space, etc?

Thank David Gelbaum:

Just what is the cost to buy off the Sierra Club—once the most respected environmental organization in America?

A low nine figure sum does the job according to the Los Angeles Times in its story last fall about David Gelbaum, one of the key funders of the 112-year-old environmental organization. ["The Man Behind the Land" by Kenneth R. Weiss, Oct. 17, 2004]

A nice round $100 million was enough for Executive Director Carl Pope to toss the principles of honesty, democracy and conservation out the window.

Many of us involved in the grassroots effort to restore population sanity to the Sierra Club were suspicious that the mysterious $100 million in donations might have immigration strings attached.

After all, the 1996 switch from common sense to political correctness was an abrupt change from the earlier position that the Club should work to "bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world."

Our suspicions were correct. The LA Times article revealed that shadowy funder Gelbaum donated generously on condition that the Sierra Club not address immigration as an environmental issue.

Said Gelbaum, "I did tell [Sierra Club Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."

Anonymous said...

Among the fastest birthing groups in America are Mormons... and ultra-Orthodox Jews. Once these groups become a larger percentage of the American Caucasian population things may change.

Indeed. People often overlook the fact that differences in birth rates among different groups of whites means that 40 years down the road even the white population will look different. The larger proportion of Mormons, etc. will possibly mean higher birth rates for whites, and it may spread culturally into the larger white culture.

Immigration works against that, however. Affordable family formation is, thanks to immigration, becoming less affordable in Utah, Idaho, and other traditionally Mormon areas.

cranky matron said...

Well, I'll have a tough time finding a lot of sympathy for the aforementioned childless-childish "seniors" myself, being that they're the ones who believed they could import their future for free, rather than do the hard job of raising it and fighting for it themselves.

Anonymous said...

My guess is that water rights will be the limiting factor here; nothing ends affluence-induced apathy faster than running out of potable water.

And what, do you suppose, are the odds that average people will ever draw the connection between water shortages and immigration? Very low, I would think. They don't even draw the connection between immigration and traffic congestion, or between increasing numbers of uninsured and immigration.

Last year I read a story in Time on water shortages and a cover story in US News on traffic congestion. In neither was the "I" word even mentioned.

I do, however, hope you are right.

When the golf courses start going brown and swimming pools start going dry, and farmers can't water their land, maybe something will indeed happen.

Regulars here and on VDare know all the cultural, social, economic, environmental and political reasons for opposing mass immigration. If we're right about those then the consequences themselves will keep creating the news headlines that no one can hide from.

Anonymous said...

:Among the fastest birthing groups in America are Mormons, monogomous and otherwise (Utah has the highest fertility rate of any state) and ultra-Orthodox Jews (the American municipality with the lowest median age of any municipality with more than 5000 presidents is Kiryas Yoel, NY).:

Yeah, but you're talking about a 50-year+, messed-up intelligence/barrenness correlation, across the first-world, like the raceless joke in "Idiocracy." Race-abstractions work all right right now, but hey, maybe the Idiocracy will finally usher in the raceless utopia. A prole white or Jew family spits out genius-y material often enough, but if the Cochran paper is true, it won't take long for that to become less and less likely. Your IQ 120 class isn't about breeding, these days. The IQ 105-140s aren't breeding, white, Asian or black, because it's the smart move, for them to pursue their adolescent interests (the only valid ones left). Without a stable clan-system, with birth control, and locked in unpleasant, ball & chain nuclear families, the traditional human RPG (+10 dexterity, +35 my DNA's propagation) calculus looks like nonsense.

mnuez said...

Two brief notes:

1 - Counting on ultra-orthodox Jews to replenish the ratio of Whites v. Others is pretty silly, there are only some 200,000 or so of them in the country (and they don't proselytize much), better stick with Mormons as your Great White Hopes.

2 - Caring so strongly, and so viscerally, about Whites v. Others seems quite the misguided venture to me. I mean, think about your Core Interests (happiness, health, family, etc.) and then tell me how elaborate for me exactly why the simple math of Ethnic Calculus is so crucial to your cares.

Then again, I feel that way about "Patriotism" too, so I spose there's quite a bit about people's passions that confuse me.

mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com


P.S. My personal passion for this site, for the subjects discussed here and for the innovative ideas and large knowledge base of the commentors is on account of my visceral twin hatreds of Lies and Stupidity. I hate the fact that We The People are lied to regularly about a host of (likely) truths relating to race, immigration and some other matters and I therefore come here for respite from that hostile, obtuse world. Furthermore, I can't stand the stupidity and ignorance of the common man - who thinks that political ideas are confined to either "Being a liberal or being a warmonger". Here, at iSteve, most folk are aware of the fact that the universe of ideas extends just a bit beyond that duality. So - again - I'm with y'all on the pleasures of talking about these things, but, for the Love of Our Dear Lord and Savior The One Begotten Son of God, why the fuck care so much? Is your esteem really that in that great a danger if minorities outnumber whites? Are you really in that much greater danger (lots of countries FULL of whites are pretty darn dangerous, or have been in the not too distant past)? Will your own personal happiness or that of your family really be that greatly diminished (studies mostly seem to show that happiness is dependant in large part on where you fall within the hierarchy of society, so more dumb people means you'll be higher, a good thing, no)? Do you really identify Whites as some sort of extended family of yours about whom you care more deeply than you do about "non-whites"? And if so, What The Fuck Is Wrong With You?

Selah. I've said my piece and counted to three.

mnuez

Anonymous said...

you mean the bouncing fake butts?

hmmmm said...

mnuez on whites:

2 - Caring so strongly, and so viscerally, about Whites v. Others seems quite the misguided venture to me. I mean, think about your Core Interests (happiness, health, family, etc.) and then tell me how elaborate for me exactly why the simple math of Ethnic Calculus is so crucial to your cares.
[. . .]
Do you really identify Whites as some sort of extended family of yours about whom you care more deeply than you do about "non-whites"? And if so, What The Fuck Is Wrong With You?


muez on jews:

Oops. I think that there's something I should fess up to: I've long been pleased with the Syrian Jewish Community of Brooklyn's strong stance against accepting (even) converts. Their reasons (for the record, and best I'm aware of them) aren't out of any aesthetic distastes for people not born to Jewish parents but rather in order to ensure that their children don't stray from the Jewish faith and start dating non-Jews under the common rationalization that "she can always convert". When you know that converting your potential spouse is not an option you won't even consider dating a non-Jew.

Anonymous said...

We feel the same way about whites as Jews feel about other Jews. We want America to remain predominately white just like Jews want Israel to remain predominately Jewish.

shakinghead said...

mike said...
"I would be very surprised, after the coming wave of genetics knowledge and biotech hits (certainly by 2050!), if affirmative action looks anything like it does today."

Nice try Mark. But civilization does not proceed on a never ending upward path. Just look at South Africa for a recent civilization going backwards again. Expect more of that in western countries as the real fruits of liberalism start to ripen. Blacks and Latino's give a hoot about all your "Genetic Engineering". When they get the power they will simply milk the system until it looks like Zimbabwe.

mnuez said...

"Hmmm" and "Anonymous" sure sound like they've revealed some sort of death-blow "gotcha!!" but I trust that, upon some further thought, the more intelligent folk here (hmmmm and anon inclusive) will realize that's just a cool illusion.

Yeah, I have familial feelings for my fellow Jews - to a degree. For one, that feeling can dissipate easily upon actually meeting the individual in question (or even reading them, Ctrl+F my blog for "caplan"), for two it's generally less strong than feelings that I have for non-Jews whom I happen to actually know. Do I have some sort of "tribal" feelings for Jews on account of our shared ancestry, religion, recent history, (largely valid) paranoias, etc. Of course. That's pretty logical, aint it? I mean, I'd expect Yazidis to feel some bond with other Yazidis, as I would expect American members of the Communist party to feel about each other, as I would expect enthusiasts of some lesser known 18th Century author to feel about each other as well.

Some sort of telepathic care for Jewish strangers is not very hard to comprehend. I was raised as an ultra-orthodox Jew by grandparents who were guests of Hitler's and whose families were wiped out by Jew-Haters. I was raised around Jews and with Jews, knowing no non-Jews at all, studying Jewish texts all day in Hebrew and Yiddish and being knowledgeable of the absolutely extraordinary history of the people who were and are my ancestors and not-too-distant cousins. Having some sort of tribal, vague, "care" for "fellow Jews" then requires Zero explanation. But having such feelings for generic "Whites"? That I have a hard time comprehending. I mean, if you were Icelandic, I could certainly see having such feelings for fellow Icelanders, but "White"?

Of course, my "Jewishness" may be an impediment to my understanding (I, after all, already have a tribe), or, alternatively, this White-race monomania may be the righteous fist of outrage at Tubmania - a mania that tells Whites (and admittedly, does not really include Jews in this category) that they are racist and evil, simply for being white (men). But, beyond that, my imagination fails me. Is it logical to truly worry and care about the White v. Minorities demographics of the country or the world some fifty years hence? Do you really view all "Whites" as members of your extended family? Are you aware of the fact that they don't view you the same way? I mean, seriously, Armenian - Fascist - Transsexual - Van Buren Appreciator - Cancer Survivor - sure,,, but caring about some demographic that includes some 1,500,000,000 people? You kiddin' me??

mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com

dearieme said...

It seems rather half-baked to accept the downside of Hispanic culture but not the upside. Where are the bull fights?

Anonymous said...

What will it be like? It will be absolutely nothing like Brazil. The Deep South already is like Brazil demographically.

We will probably see the Welfare State rolled back for two reasons. Whites will resent the perception (accurate or not) that illegal immigration is causing a net drain on state resources. Second reason was mentioned here: working Latinos (yes, they work) will resent older retired white folk sitting around collecting Social Security. This has already been raised by politicians like Bustamente in SoCal.

We are already seeing a third effect that nobody here seems to be aware of. The old Black-White race dynamic is gone. It's over. The old rhetoric is dead, the old strategies are dead. There will be no overhyped President Obamas in the future.

Will golf courses turn brown? I find that hard to believe. Latino labor is a very powerful force already, because they are doing work that whites and blacks have not been doing. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new Labor movement. Not about inefficient workers asking for more perks with their protected perks, but of a massive influx of economically productive people.

Fred said...

"We want America to remain predominately white just like Jews want Israel to remain predominately Jewish."

It's worth considering what effect this motivation has had on Israel in the last several years. Instead of an immigration policy designed to attract immigrants with high-levels of human capital, Israel has just tried to increase its number of Jewish immigrants, regardless of their backgrounds. A number of these Jewish immigrants have been ultra-orthodox, who have lots of kids but generally don't work. One consequence has been a big increase in economic inequality and poverty levels, even as Israel's high-tech economy has boomed over the last few years, with per-capita GDP approaching EU-levels. See FT: "Israelis seek to erase ‘mark of disgrace’"

Martin said...

"anony-mouse said...

Among the fastest birthing groups in America are Mormons, monogomous and otherwise (Utah has the highest fertility rate of any state) and ultra-Orthodox Jews......Once these groups become a larger percentage of the American Caucasian population things may change"

So in addition to effectively paying taxes to Mexico, I will no longer be able to get a beer and a cheeseburger.

Martin said...

"mnuez said...

"Hmmm" and "Anonymous" sure sound like they've revealed some sort of death-blow "gotcha!!" but I trust that, upon some further thought, the more intelligent folk here flying (hmmmm and anon inclusive) will realize that's just a cool illusion."

Okay, I've thought about it, and I've come to the conclusion that you are an arrogant and hypocritical jerk.

I want to live in a white country because it's safer, more prosperous, and because it makes me more comfortable. And wanting such for myself, I naturally want those benefits to extend to my family as well.

I feel more comfortable among irish, english, germans, french, poles, italians, israelis, canadians, or for that matter americans (as previously understood) than I would among somalis, arabs, or mexicans.

Does that make me a racist? I don't know, and I don't care. Is it in my interest? Yes. Why? Because I say so - that makes it my interest. Do I give a d**n what mnuez thinks? No. Are rhetorical questions a hacky and trite rhetorical device? Undoubtedly.

Rick said...

Isn't anyone going to question the "Non partisan" Pew center comment? if Pew is non partisan, then so am I. :)

Rick

ben tillman said...

Caring so strongly, and so viscerally, about Whites v. Others seems quite the misguided venture to me.

It's misguided for living things to look out for their own interests? I'll take you seriously when you start depositing *your* paychecks into *my* bank account.

I mean, think about your Core Interests (happiness, health, family, etc.)

Happiness is not a core interest. Health and family are indeed important, but these interests *require* attention to the interests of our ethnic/racial kin. They are our family, and a large part of the health of a family (same as with a human body) is the ability of the members of the family to cooperate toward the achievement of family interests.

Read David Sloan Wilson, and learn your multilevel selection / multilevel organization theory.

ben tillman said...

To put it another way, each person is indeed a "self", but each person is also an agent through which the self-interest of lower-order and higher-order "selves" is pursued.

Lower-order selves include genes, and higher-order selves include groups or communities of humans.

Truth said...

"Sounds like the U.S. will be a lot like today's Brazil, except without the bouncing fake boobs everywhere."

You really know how to depress a guy.

Yeah Right said...

but caring about some demographic that includes some 1,500,000,000 people? You kiddin' me??

So if a smaller subset, like Germans say, you obviously would have no problem with.

William said...

"Hmmm" and "Anonymous" sure sound like they've revealed some sort of death-blow "gotcha!!" but I trust that, upon some further thought, the more intelligent folk here (hmmmm and anon inclusive) will realize that's just a cool illusion. - Mnuez

No, it's not just a "cool illusion." I remember the Syrian Jew thread pretty well, and the people were quoted as being pretty contemptuous of non-Jews. They weren't just trying to assure that someone would be true to the Jewish faith. They were barring Jews whose pedigrees didn't check out back to three generations because they didn't want their kids to have "gentile characteristics."

And you know what? I'm all fine with that. Good for them. I think that's what freedom is about. But if you can't understand that that is contempt and not just a desire to preserve the faith then you're not as smart as I thought, or else willfully blind.

It's a fact that Israel wants to remain Jewish; that their immigration policies are deliberately tilted in favor of Jews. The same goes for Japan, Korea, India, and lots of other non-white countries. Why should white Americans have to make any excuses for wanting our country to retain our cultural and political traditions, and not be overrun by someone else's?

William said...

but caring about some demographic that includes some 1,500,000,000 people? You kiddin' me??

Are you here defining white as Caucasian or as light-skinned Caucasian of European origin? Are you counting Hispanics?

I certainly don't consider all Caucasians (or just whites) to be part of my "extended family" ina n emotional since. But I'm certainly more willing to acknowledge that whites are more likely to agree with me on political and cultural issues. An America where whites are are minority is an America probably less to my liking. Is it OK if I choose not to have the kind of America?

Anonymous said...

Do I have some sort of "tribal" feelings for Jews on account of our shared ancestry, religion, recent history, (largely valid) paranoias, etc. Of course. That's pretty logical, aint it?

The majority of white Americans draw at least some portion of their genetic inheritance from one of maybe 3 or 4 donor nations, share the same religion, language and recent history. To the same extent as an ethnic/religious group like the Syrian Jews, with strict guidelines on breeding? No. But to
somehow jump from there to the conclusion that white americans are isolated atoms, utterly disconnected from each other or any shared culture isn't quite entirely, completely correct either. Are you certain that this sort of reasoning isn't the product of what you'd consider a "largely valid" paranoia on your part rather
than a cold eyed evaluation of the facts?

And at any rate there seems to be far more divergence among jews in general from the orthodox religious and cultural line than there is amongst whites from the mainline protestant/catholic sects.

cranky matron said...

Eh, I think it's not terribly far-fetched to think of all one's co-ethnics as a vastly extended family; certainly, in my experience, the ONLY place that most white people are really brutally honest about what they believe/feel/fear is when we're in company with our own.

And how has multi-ethnic diversity been good for us in the past, again? I can see why lots of people would cock an eyebrow about the idea that we just ought to not care about such fripperies as self-rule.

Anyway, as far as water goes, I'm not sure people will make a blatant connection between water and immigration (though it wouldn't take a hell of a lot of brainpower to connect the dots!) but they'll fight for their own survival when the time comes.

And in a fight for bare survival, you pick your co-ethnics to fight with. Who else can you REALLY trust?

Proofreader said...

OK, Mnuez, let's phrase it a different way:
what's strange about viewing Europeans as members of one's extended family, for a European or a European-descended individual? It's the same way you feel about your fellow Jews.
Euros are a subset of Whites, along with Jews and other peoples.

Svigor said...

Mnuez: nice tapdance.

Marc said...

I don't think you can count on Mormons to replenish the white race here in the U.S. There are only about 7 million of them in the country, and their birth rate isn't *that* high.

On a more encouraging note, the Inductivist has recently posted that the mean IQ for Mexican-Americans born in the U.S. has risen from 84.4 in the 80's to 95.1 in the 00's.

Floccina said...

Most of the Hispanics will meld with the whites. Only the poor will remain Hispanics. Note only 1/3 of blacks are poor I expect then that less than 1/3 of people descended from Hispanics will be poor. A sizable portion will be part non Hispanic.

scottynx said...

Mnuez, it isn't *just* that america won't be majority white. It is the horrible socio-economic-statistics, including crime, that will come with this new american non-white majority if the way they currently perform is any guide to the future (which indeed it is).

Concerned Netizen said...

Forget about his paper trail. I'd like to dig up a few former girlfriends. So far it seems that Michelle is the only chick he ever paid attention to, in his saintly years as a "community organizer," whatever the hell that is.

Martin said...

"cranky matron said...

Eh, I think it's not terribly far-fetched to think of all one's co-ethnics as a vastly extended family; certainly, in my experience, the ONLY place that most white people are really brutally honest about what they believe/feel/fear is when we're in company with our own."

That's a very good point. Whom you are truly honest with is whom you trust. That in itself defines a group that no amount of sophistry can rationalize away.

Anonymous said...

Pew Research Center. The latest projections by the non-partisan research group

Yeah right, in the mirror image of the way the Heritage Foundation is "non-partisan."
Don't get to worked up about this "research" until it's been vetted by real scholars.


-Ralph Phelan

Lucius Vorenus said...

Marc: On a more encouraging note, the Inductivist has recently posted that the mean IQ for Mexican-Americans born in the U.S. has risen from 84.4 in the 80's to 95.1 in the 00's.

Where in the world did that statistic come from?

Do you have a link?

Anonymous said...

Hey Steve, can you figure out what interracial crime will be like in 2050? Right now, "whites", as defined in the census, are victimized by blacks about 85% of the time. In the future, when whites are the minority, does this mean we can all expect to be a victim of an interracial crime at some point in our lives? I realize that Hispanics are counted as "white" in some of the data so maybe this is too complex? Anyway, can you do the math? This would be very interesting and I think others here would agree.

Truth said...

"ight now, "whites", as defined in the census, are victimized by blacks about 85% of the time."

Well, it depends on the crime, but actually whites are victimized by blacks about 35% of the time and only 15% of the time when it comes to murder.