MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

We Are in the Midst of the Third Bogus 'White Extinction' Panic in Just as Many Centuries

Anti-immigrant fearmongers of demographic doom proved wrong in the 19th and 20th centuries, and today's will be no different.

KidsInFlagPavelIluylinDreamstimePavel Iluykin/DreamstimeOver at The New York Times, Charles M. Blow in his column, "White Extinction Anxiety," cites reactionary provocateur Patrick Buchanan's recent warnings against the menace that immigrants purportedly pose to the survival of our Republic. The first comes from his interview last week on the Laura Ingraham Show:

"This is the great issue of our time. And, the real question is whether Europe has the will and the capacity, and America has the capacity to halt the invasion of the countries until they change the character—political, social, racial, ethnic—character of the country entirely," said Buchanan.

Over at his blog, Buchanan asserted, "The existential question, however, thus remains: How does the West, America included, stop the flood tide of migrants before it alters forever the political and demographic character of our nations and our civilization?"

Sadly, this is not the first time in our history when bigots have urgently prophesied that America would soon be destroyed by a rising tide of allegedly unassimilable immigrants. We are now in the midst of the third such anti-immigration panic.

Sentiments very similar to Buchanan's were expressed in 1850s by the anti-immigrant Know Nothing Party's newspaper American Patriot: "American Citizens! We appeal to you in all calmness. Is it not time to pause? Already the enemies of our dearest institutions, like foreign spies in the Trojan Horse of old, are within our gates. They are disgorging themselves upon us, at the rate of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS EVERY YEAR! They aim at nothing short of conquest and supremacy over us."

The American Patriot further warned: "We are burdened with enormous taxes by foreigners. We are corrupted in the morals of youth. We are interfered with in our government. We are forced into collisions with other nations. We are tampered with in our religion. We are injured in our labor. We are assailed in our freedom of speech."

AmericanPatriotWikimedia

The threat of tides of national-character-altering immigration as a political bogeyman has a long and undistinguished history in America. Just before the outbreak of the Civil War, foreign-born immigrants comprised just over 13 percent of our nation's population—about what it is today.

A bit of historical sleuthing turned up the below nuggets of insight about the deleterious effects of the tide of Irish and German immigration in the 1840s and 1850s from Massachusetts Governor Henry J. Gardner in his annual addresses to that state's legislature. At that time, more than 20 percent of Massachusetts' residents were foreign-born. Today 16.2 percent of folks living in Massachusetts are foreign-born.

From Gardner's 1857 address:

Born and brought up under totally dissimilar principles of government, and accustomed to be led by the clannish influences which surround them rather than by enlightened individual responsibility, aliens are unfitted to appreciate or rightly use the great trust, in the exercise of which they are unwisely permitted to participate. …we may properly, and should necessarily, remember that the class of aliens, to whom we specially refer, are blindly attached to a religious faith whose cardinal principle is implicit obedience to its temporal head, and that temporal head a foreign potentate, which forbids independence of action and the right of private judgment; which claims not only the power to inflict temporal ills on those who dare question its infallibility; but also entail future and eternal vengeance; whose prelates notoriously coerce politically as well as spiritually its followers; and which arrogates to itself, and actually exerts, a potent and malign political influence at war with the teachings of our Constitution and the essence of our government. …

Witnessing this vast influence of evil, which is continually swollen by accessions from the old world, and seeing, year after year, the manifold dangers which not only threaten the future but are pernicious to the present, it seems strange that all who value the exhortations of the fathers of our country, the teachings of past history, or the repeated warnings of the present, do not unite to counteract this acknowledged danger....

From Gardner's 1855 address:

The present European immigration is deeply prejudicial to the fair remuneration of American labor. The mechanic, the artisan, the agriculturalist, daily suffer from its influence. There is no statement in political ethics more palpable or fundamental than that honest industry should receive its due reward. Those who hourly feel the oppressing competition of alien labor, depreciated under the taskmasters of the old world, and schooled in self-denials and modes of existence there so universal, properly believe that their own elective franchise should be exercised for the protection of American labor. ...

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury, recently transmitted to Congress, shows that our imports, during the past year, have exceeded our exports twenty-six millions of dollars. … Thirty-eight millions of dollars in gold – over nine-tenths of all our receipts from California during the year, as officially reporte – have simply passed through the country, in transit, and have been shipped away to for imported products of European labor, and the interest on our European debt. …Had this golden gift of Providence been retained at home to enrich the American artisan and tiller of the soil, instead of having been squandered to purchase foreign luxuries and the products of alien labor, we should this day, as a nation, doubtless have enjoyed prosperity in every branch of industry….

The periodic panic over "white extinction" reached a second peak in the decade before 1920 when the foreign-born population stood (as it does today) at about 14 percent. One of the most notable expressions of this racial anxiety was the classic 1922 anti-immigration screed by Saturday Evening Post correspondent Kenneth Roberts, Why Europe Leaves Home: A True Account of the Reasons which Cause Central Europeans to Overrun America. "The American nation was founded and developed by the Nordic race," asserted Roberts. "If a few more million members of the Alpine, Mediterranean and Semitic races are poured among us, the result must inevitably be a hybrid race of people as worthless and futile as the good-for-nothing mongrels of Central America and Southeastern Europe." They came and then became Americans.

In his blog post, Buchanan specifically worried, "The U.S. Hispanic population, already estimated at nearly 60 million, is predicted to exceed 100 million by 2050, just 32 years away." So what? Recent reports find that Hispanic immigrants and their children are assimilating into American culture at least as fast as earlier groups of immigrants did.

To the extent that there is actually such a thing as "white extinction anxiety," a new study by two political scientists, Dowell Myers and Morris Levy of the University of Southern California, finds that using an inclusive definition that "counts as white anyone who so identifies (even if they also identify with another race or ethnicity), the white population is not declining; it's flourishing. The Census Bureau's inclusive projections show a white population in excess of 70 percent of the total for the foreseeable future." They note that when white folks are exposed to the actual facts of ethnic melding and assimiliation, concerns over an allegedly minority-white future are greatly abated.

The two researchers correctly conclude that "stories about the impending demise of white America are rooted in outmoded notions of racial exclusivity. These stories of white decline obscure the ongoing changes to America's color line, and they serve only to divide. Fortunately, the white American public seems far more content with the more inclusive future that is actually destined to emerge."

And this process is already well under way. A recent Pew Research Center study, "Hispanic Identity Fades Across Generations as Immigrant Connections Fall Away," finds that lots of people with Hispanic heritage do not identify themselves as being Hispanic when filling out Census survey forms. By the third generation, 56 percent of respondents simply identify themselves as American.

Depressingly, it seems that white extinction panics have occurred each time the foreign-born population of the United States has risen above 13 percent. Donald Trump is just the latest demagogue to rise to power by stoking white folks' ethnic fears.

Buchanan's assertions amount to a kind of blood-and-soil tribalism that is simply un-American. I'll say it again: Americans of whatever ancestry living in 2050 will look back and wonder why anyone cared about the ethnic makeup of our country's population. America is an ideal, not a tribe.

Anti-immigrant fearmongers of demographic doom proved wrong in the 19th and 20th centuries, and today's dire prognostications will turn out to be just as wrong in the 21st century.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Just Say'n||

    I read the Buchanan piece and you might be purposely misconstruing his argument in order to have a convenient straw man. I'm not saying that Buchanan is the most enlightened thinker (although, he is absolutely right with regards to foreign policy), but he seems to be talking less about "whites" and instead offering criticism of an unresponsive elite.

  • Just Say'n||

    Or maybe I'm giving Buchanan too much of the benefit of the doubt

  • Just Say'n||

    Or you're giving Charles Blow too much of the benefit of the doubt

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You are. Buchanan is just a sad bigot. The only thing I respect about him is his consistent antiwar stance.

  • Just Say'n||

    I would only note that he's also been labeled an antisemite for his antiwar stance, which I always thought was unfounded. But, maybe I'm wrong there too

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    He is anti-Israel, and we know there is no difference between that and an anti-semite. That's why so many commenters call Sheldon Richman, who is Jewish, an anti-semite for criticizing Israel.

  • Just Say'n||

    And that's the problem. That's why I'm hesitant to just declare someone a bigot unless they make explicitly bigoted remarks. Admittedly, I have not read most of Buchanan's books (just "A Republic, Not An Empire") so maybe he has some choice words that I'm not aware of.

  • Ron Bailey||

    From Death of the West: In half a lifetime, many Americans have seen their God dethroned,
    their heroes defiled, their culture polluted, their values assaulted, their country invaded, and themselves demonized as extremists and bigots for holding on to beliefs Americans have held for generations. "To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely," said Burke. In too many ways America is no longer lovely. Though she remains a great country, many wonder if she is still a good country. Some feel that she is no longer their country. We did not leave America, they say, she left us.

  • Azathoth!!||

    THIS is 'bigored' to you?

    This?

    That's a bar set so low that you'd have to dig it up to raise it.

  • Detroit Linguist||

    Yeah, the use of the term 'polluted' certainly sounds like bigotry to me. Keep those dirty foreigners out (unless they're Irish, which is, I assume, Buchanan's background).

  • Joe Walker||

    Buchanan is Scottish and German.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    THIS is 'bigored' to you?

    You probably don't think you are a bigot either.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Call me 'rayciss' too, while you're at it.

    If that's the path you've chosen, go for it--stop pretending, let your red flag fly.

  • Joe Walker||

    Do you call everyone you disagree with a bigot?

  • JoeBlow123||

    Mr. Bailey, I grew up in a religious household. I am no longer religious, but you would have to be intentionally glib to not pretend there has not been an all out war by secularists on religion through schools, media, government, everything.

    Perhaps you personally do not care about the changes, but for someone who actually finds Christianity important to their lives I am sure they would agree with many of the things stated in there.

  • buybuydandavis||

    If that's the best you can come up with, Buchanan doesn't have a racist bone in his body.

    It's all culture, values, and beliefs.

  • khm001||

    "In half a lifetime, many Americans have seen their God dethroned,
    their heroes defiled, their culture polluted, their values assaulted, their country invaded, and themselves demonized as extremists and bigots for holding on to beliefs Americans have held for generations. "To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely," said Burke. In too many ways America is no longer lovely. Though she remains a great country, many wonder if she is still a good country. Some feel that she is no longer their country. We did not leave America, they say, she left us."

    What kind of faggot soyboi thinks this obviously true statement makes Buchanan a bigot? And why is being a bigot bad? Anyone is open minded to the violent anit-Americans streaming across our borders is an idiot.

  • lap83||

    anti-semite is probably an inadequate criticism for Sheldon "Chris Kyle is Adam Lanza" Richman

  • Happy Chandler||

    It's not just anti-Israel. It's singling out American Jews as conspiring against America, because they are Jews. It's counting the Jews on the Supreme Court and in the Senate.

  • buybuydandavis||

    No one ever has a problem counting whites and saying that there are just too damn many of them.

  • vek||

    Well, as far as things go Jews DO STATISTICALLY have a vastly disproportionate amount of power in the USA and Europe. This is a statistical fact. Their average income is far higher, they're over represented in basically every single area of prestige in the country, be it business, government, media, etc.

    I tend to believe that Jews have "earned" that disproportionate share of power because they tend to have the highest IQs of any ethnic group... But is it wrong to worry about a small group having disproportionate amounts of power sometimes? Probably. I mean the smartest middle east policy we conceivably could have had would have been to pander to Muslim interests, since there are over a billion of them on earth... Yet we have always sided with Israel. They wouldn't exist as a country if the USA and Europe didn't prop them up. We pissed off over 1 billion people in doing so. Bad strategic move since Israel is basically useless for us.

    Jews and hardcore Christians have been the main ones pushing this policy. So again, is it EVER warranted to question motives of groups? No. Jews understandably want to see their own peoples homeland protected, but whether or not that is in the best interests of America is a completely different story. I think it was very much NOT in our interests. I don't hate Jews, but their influence on policy is not above reproach either.

  • Joe Walker||

    I am sure that many Jewish leftists count out the number of evangelicals in public office. Are those Jews bigoted for noticing that these people are evangelicals?

  • Happy Chandler||

    http://www.newsweek.com/pat-bu.....tic-201176

    He did seem to have an affinity for Nazi's rights.

  • Joe Walker||

    You only think some people should have rights?

  • Trainer||

    When he was running for the Republican presidential nomination well before the days of the internet, I had the chance to attend a picnic he was going to in New Hampshire. I only had very limited access to a few of his writings and they intrigued me but I felt I wasn't getting the whole picture.

    I told my husband that he was either a hateful bigot who was afraid of anything that wasn't what he thought was right or he was thoughtful and was promoting things he felt were right. There was a big difference between the two. I said that I was going to shake his hand and look into his eyes and that would tell me which one it was.

    I did just that and when I looked him in the eye and said it was nice to meet him, I just about shuddered. His eyes were cold and empty. I knew everything I needed to know.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I can see evil in their eyes"

    Exactly the kind of thing I'd expect a bigot full of hatred to say.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    His eyes were cold and empty-no chance that he didn't sleep well the night before and was just dragging his way through the picnic, going through the motions until he could go home and take a nap?

    No, you're probably right, probably easier to just declare him evil and move forward.

  • Joe Walker||

    Do you read crystal balls and tarot cards as well?

  • John||

    I agree. Bailey is not being fair here. Also, most of the people I see talking about white extinction are Progs bragging about how it is their plan.

  • Ron Bailey||

    J: You might want to look at Buchanan's book linked to below too.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "...most of the people I see talking about white extinction are Progs bragging about how it is their plan."

    Thanks; you saved me the trouble of bringing up that niggling matter.

  • Fancylad||

    "most of the people I see talking about white extinction are Progs bragging about how it is their plan"
    That's the second largest group. The largest group are woke demagogic journalists crafting stories about how "stupid white plebeians" think they are under racial attack by their betters.

  • DrZ||

    Most of the people I know, including myself could care less about the skin color of immigrants. What we do care about are immigrants who are willing to assimilate by understanding and respecting the Constitution, learning the language and who are willing to work and support themselves and their families.

  • Ron Bailey||

    J: I don't think that I'm misconstruing Buchanan either purposely or ignorantly. Take a look at his 2006 book, Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, for details of his thinking on the threat posed by immigration.

  • Just Say'n||

    That's fair. I never read that book.

  • Just Say'n||

    Though I doubt you have either

  • Ron Bailey||

    J: You're right, but in reporting this article, I did read the introduction and the chapter on future migration just to make sure that I was not misrepresenting Buchanan's views.

  • Just Say'n||

    Maybe me giving Buchanan too much of the benefit of the doubt is due to how much I liked the McLaughlin Group back in the day. I always enjoyed the back and forth between him and John.

  • SIV||

    I liked him back on Crossfire. You could tell he was winning when Tom Brady began non sequitur sputtering "I FOUGHT IN THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR!!!" and Buchanan would laugh as the old lefty nearly had a stroke.

    'Course I voted for Pat Buchanan in 2 GOP primaries against GHW Bush and Bob Dole.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Of course you did.

  • Joe Walker||

    I'd rather be guilty of giving someone too much benefit of the doubt than too little.

  • Azathoth!!||

    J: You're right, but in reporting this article, I did read the introduction and the chapter on future migration just to make sure that I was not misrepresenting Buchanan's views.

    Hey, here's a thought, maybe read the whole thing before you write an article based on a glance over it and issue condemnations based of your leftist-biased 'impressions', okay?

    What the hell is happening to this site, to this magazine? It's getting worse by the article.

  • Cathy L||

    He's explicitly lamenting potential changes to the "racial" and "ethnic" "character of the country."

  • Just Say'n||

    Citation?

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Explain why that's an illegitimate concern, other than progs having declared it off limits?

  • vek||

    It's not!

    It's basically "If you like your country, you can keep it!"

    But that's just as big a lie as when Barry said the original version. America will NEVER be the same place it used to be, even if we changed course now. If we don't change course it will become a considerably worse country, in my view, because of the changes that are very likely to come from the new immigrants.

    There's nothing wrong with preferring YOUR peoples way over another. I like pants. I would NEVER wear a kilt. I think Scots should be free to wear them all they want, but I still prefer my pants. It's not WRONG to have a preference like that, but that's what lefties and Cosmotarians are trying to beat into peoples heads.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I hope White Women go first and are replaced with fine mixed-Hispanic and mixed-Black women.

    The finest of the fine.

  • Just Say'n||

    Why does it have to be mixed?

  • Just Say'n||

    No pure black or Hispanic women?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Well, I don't want people getting murdered. So getting bred out by sexy race mixing is the dream I have for us all.

    (Secretly, I just want a nice Mexican woman to raise a large family together. And all the biggest families I knew were Catholic Hispanic.)

  • Just Say'n||

    You're good people, BUCS

  • Citizen X||

    It's subthreads like these that make me miss Heroic Mulatto the most.

  • Just Say'n||

    Just go on Glibs. He posts about once a week with something that is utterly disturbing, but magnificent at the same time. He is a national treasure

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Ah, yes, he is missed. He would always argue against any position, just because. He did know his linguistics, though.

  • Citizen X||

    If HM were here, this comment section would be nothing but twerking videos by now. Just endless clips of ladies of every ethnicity, shaking they thang.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Are you Bahai by chance? I think that very thing is one of their end games.

  • John||

    I like white women. And Hispanic women are all fun and games until someone gets stabbed

  • ||

    And Hispanic women are all fun and games until someone gets stabbed

    I certainly know there are hispanic women out there who are attractive but the average ones I work around and/or see on the street, above the age of about 30-35 make Walmart seem like a decent place to pick up women.

    Women who loosely resemble Halle Berry, Charlize Theron, Amber Heard, or Lucy Liu I can walk around the downtown area of the local village and see occasionally or go to an event like the Chicago Auto Show and definitely see. Women like Penelope Cruz, Sofie Vergara, and Salma Hayek just don't seem to exist. Or, at least, the ratio of them to Lupe Ontiveroses and Raini Rodriquezes is exceedingly low.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Said the guy who obviously hasn't been to Thailand.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Eh. Asian women. Eh.

  • John||

    I am with you on that.

  • Citizen X||

    Too skinny, huh.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If I was attracted to skinny boys, I could just have sex with twinks.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I love how you guys say "Asian women" as if that was some homogeneous group. There is a lot of variety there.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, seriously. Filipinos are in no way similarly built as Japanese, for example

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I say it in that when you get a guy really into Asian women, they mean a very specific archetype. Skinny, usually quiet, subservient.

    There are attractive Asian women, but that Asian archetype is not mine.

    I don't even consider Filipino to be Asian as well.

  • $+€££@||

    They really aren't. A lot of the population has Spanish ancestry.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And the native population is more similar to PIs as well.

  • ||

    Skinny, usually quiet, subservient.

    I'd just stick with dark-haired and petite.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I don't even consider Filipino to be Asian as well.

    I forget who, but someone once said that Filipinos are the Hispanics of Asia: descendants of native people who were fucked, literally as well as figuratively, by a bunch of Spaniards.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Said the guy who obviously hasn't been to Thailand.

    Up to your neck in cobra whiskey and lady-boy hookers?

  • Don't look at me.||

    Hey, some guys know how to live, some don't.

  • vek||

    Horrible idea! Hispanic women can be hot, and Asians as mentioned... But there definitely need to be pure bred Anglo-Saxon blonde girls still. The world would be a horrible place without them.

    And also gingers. Either Irish or Norwegian gingers work for me, but I kinda prefer the Irish ones as I have a thing for just the right amount of freckles...

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    House Republicans Make a Last-Ditch Attempt to Save DACA and Themselves
    Ryan, no doubt partly because of the difficulty of working with the president, is retiring at the end of the year. If there were ever a good time to put principle above party and support the newly woke Denham and Curbelo in finally doing the right thing, this would be it. This is especially the case given that in the long run this would help take the GOP back from nativists and restore its pro-immigrant bona fides, giving it a fighting chance to win in a rapidly diversifying America.

  • VinniUSMC||

    One day, our ancestors will look back at us wondering how we were so stupid as to be swayed by something as trivial as skin pigmentation.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Most likely because skin pigmentation differences won't be as large as they are now. People are loosening up about interracial relationships and as those become more common (I think they will anyway) their offspring will tend towards a homogeneous skin color.

  • VinniUSMC||

    I haven't gone so far as to fact check this, so I'm not going to present it as fact, but I don't think we're ever going to see a homogeneous skin color.

    The first answer seems pretty legit. I don't feel like investigating further though.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    You may be right, I may be crazy.

    I don't know that it will ever be completely homogeneous, but I do think the differences will diminish.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    People are loosening up about interracial relationships and as those become more common (I think they will anyway) their offspring will tend towards a homogeneous skin color.

    South Park did it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    White people should see (read judge) by skin color. See my link below. It's fact.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    "Skin color", my shiny white ass! I know plenty of Indians and Pakistanis who are as black as any African, but I've yet to meet anyone, anywhere who had any fear of walking through an Indian neighborhood at any hour of the night.

    When you meet someone who tries to reduce racial issues to "skin color", you want to punch that lying sack of shit right in the face.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I think you meant descendants, not ancestors. But regardless you're thinking they'll evolve into something woke?

  • Citizen X||

    Wokeness involves caring a whole lot about skin color, so that doesn't seem to be what Vinni is saying.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    America is an ideal, not a tribe.

    Question for you, Ron. Without saying whether such change is good or bad, would you say that that ideal has changed since 1789?

  • Ron Bailey||

    Yes. And sadly, anti-immigration panics have contributed substantially to the increase in the size and scope of government and the contraction of our civil liberties. Think Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives.

    Trump's current efforts to panic the public over immigration are doing so now.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    anti-immigration panics have contributed substantially to the increase in the size and scope of government and the contraction of our civil liberties

    No doubt. Most people fear change and look to government to keep them safe. But I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with calling people who just don't want their culture to change bigots.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with calling people who just don't want their culture to change bigots.

    Well, it's one thing to say "I miss the good old days". It's quite another to say "I miss the good old days, before the darkies ruined everything". These two groups of people are not identical, but there is a strong overlap unfortunately.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    No kidding? Huh. Who woulda thought?

  • JoeBlow123||

    Yeah man keep banging that everyone with a different opinion on liberotopia is a racist. Real enlightened. We can we expect your opinions on institutional racism and white privilege next?

    The comment you make about "darkies" is so clearly said by a white person intended for other whites. Would you say something like that to a black dude? I bet not. But hey, keep up the good work with the virtual signaling.

  • Nardz||

    "can we expect your opinions on institutional racism and white privilege next?"

    Haha, funny you should say that...
    >>>

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah man keep banging that everyone with a different opinion on liberotopia is a racist.

    I never said that. I never even implied that. You pulled that out of your ass. Don't get so touchy about it.

    And yes, white privilege is a real thing, *when properly understood*. It is NOT the same as claiming every white person is racist, or that every white person gets some explicit advantage over everyone else just due to skin color.

  • Ecoli||

    Our current problem with immigration is "too much, too fast". It's not about race, it's about culture. I happen to admire western culture, and the US constitution. I don't want those things changed. If that makes me deplorable, then so be it.

  • JoeBlow123||

    100% this. Multiculturalism is a crock of shit. Groups need time to assimilate and if huge swaths of the world are allowed to immigrate nonstop all it does is encourage balkanization and fragmentation.

    I do not know how many times you guys have to see ethnic problems across the world to get it that this shit causes fragmentation. Its not like Yugoslavia happened in the distant past. In the more distant past, Greeks were ruled for hundreds of years by Ottomans, even had very important roles in their government, and still rebelled. Russia interfered across the Balkans (still does) because they viewed themselves as the protector of Slavs. Read the history of virtually every country that gained independence after WWI.

    There can be no Mexican-American or Japanese-American or German-American or Nigerian-American or whatever, you need to leave that shit behind and become American. This is difficult to do when places inside areas like California can become defacto ethno-states inside a majority different ethnic state. You goofs are playing with fire by ignoring the COUNTLESS times in human history this has caused issues.

    THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT! WE ARE A NATION OF IDEALS!

    Sure.

  • vek||

    Yup. I don't want open borders EVER, because I believe in skills based immigration. But I would not want unlimited skills based immigration, because history and human psychology clearly show that it creates tensions and problems.

    Frankly I don't think we'll ever "get past" racial tensions, because they're hardwired. A baby finds faces of people of its own ethnicity to be better than those of a different ethnicity. We can be civil and whatnot, but identity politics will never go away. But when you add in a totally different CULTURE on top of race it multiplies the problem. Hence low and slow is the way to take in foreigners. There may be minor tensions, but hopefully it won't flare up to the point of friggin' race war, which frankly looks like where the USA and Europe might be heading if we don't adjust immigration/refugee policies soon.

    I would not be the least bit surprised if France (or any other Euro country) in 40 years when ACTUAL French people are barely 50% of the population or whatever just straight up started killing in the streets and throwing all non whites out of their country... Because that's how people are, ALL PEOPLE, including non whites.

    There's nothing wrong with preferring your own people and culture to that of others. I think the French are a bunch of cucked pussies, probably because of my Anglo-Saxon-German blood and being an American, but they like being French, so good for them!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Think Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives.

    The gift that keeps on giving, good and hard. Is there anything they didn't manage to fuck up?

  • Ron Bailey||

    No.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    I don't know what American ideal you're referring to, but I'm pretty damned sure the one you hold dear to your heart sure wasn't shared by our founders.

    I suspect the one you're referring to is the one SJW's yanked out of the suppository repository around 1965, and have since been trying to convince us is one of our foundational principles.

    Fail, all the way around.

  • vek||

    FACT. Like it or not America was a White nation from the get go, until 1965, BY INTENTION.

    Frankly I think history shows there is an awful lot of logic behind avoiding importing one of the most common problems in human history, ethno-racial fighting. That, religion, and just plain ol' resources are the 3 most common reasons for war in history... If you can avoid one of them simply via immigration policies, it's probably not a horrible idea. Frankly you could do the same with religion too, but they were all touchy about that back then, even though now it's a lot less important of a thing. Political ideology would be another good one... Why in gods name should we allow open communists to move into the USA?

    You can scream "Cuz absolute freedom!!!" all day long, but it still won't make any practical sense.

  • DajjaI||

    Yep. White supremacists are demoralized because their own apotheosis told them to stop whining and go home.

  • ||

    It's not about skin color, it's about our superior culture...the western culture, more than any other culture in the world, emphasizes liberty, reason, meritocracy, rule of law and equality of opportunity. There's a reason people of other cultures want to come live here and not vice versa. That culture is entirely responsible for our prosperity. People that come solely for our prosperity without internalizing that which lead to it are indeed a threat to it.

  • Ron Bailey||

    N: Do you have a scintilla of evidence that the vast majority of immigrants are not "internalizing" the American values of liberty, reason, meritocracy, rule of law and equality of opportunity?

  • Ron Bailey||

    N: Just curious: What percentage of native-borns do you think would actually be able to pass the Naturalization Test?

  • $+€££@||

    Is that a useful measure of internalized culture? Or just some facts?

  • ||

    Respectfully, Ron, I'm not sure either of those points are relevant. Sure, we have plenty of native-borns who are not well educated or thoughtful about our culture. That's a separate problem having to do with education. Is that reason to open the borders and potentially let in more people like them? The larger point, for America at least, is that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration. Legal immigration attempts to ensure the people who want to live here hold our values and can contribute to our society and does so by limiting the number (to allow assimilation), by vetting their past and ensuring they're employable, etc. Illegal immigration assures none of that happens. In Europe, there is less distinction between legal and illegal immigration simply because the large number of legal immigrants overwhelms the systems.

  • Just Say'n||

    Maybe the failures of European society is the reason why they are not able to assimilate immigrants. The US doesn't have nearly the same amount of problems. The European standard of ghettoizing immigrants is a dumb idea and it's of their own doing.

  • ||

    That's a good point. I would counter that the ghettos are the result of the overwhelmed systems. When you can't assimilate the immigrants, what else are they going to do but gather in areas where THEIR native culture reigns? When they're not living as Europeans, they're obviously not going to be prosperous by European standards...hence ghettos.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Europe is overwhelmed in part because of its proximity to so many shitholes. You can walk to Europe from Syria. Africa is a short boat ride. The borders of the US are protected by oceans and deserts which naturally limit the influx.

  • vek||

    The Europeans didn't ghettoize them on purpose... They became ghettoized because the TYPES of immigrants they let in could be expected to do nothing else. They let in the dregs of society from around the world.

    Imagine if you will if Japan took in nothing but poor, low income, white trash from trailer parks. What would the result be? Extreme dysfunction in the entire white community in Japan. Why? Well for one thing IQ on an individual level is somewhere between 50-80% heritable. In other words dumb people have dumb children. This is NOT disputed by any reputable scientist. Therefore if you let in people from the lowest rungs of any society, their children are ON AVERAGE going to be sub par compared to the average in the source country.

    Alternatively if you ONLY let in people from the middle class on up, you will in fact be selecting for people that will ALL do above average.

    Hence Europe letting in dregs, all they can expect to get out of it is ghetto people. There's a reason Indian American immigrants are far more successful not only than the average person in India, but than the average white American too. Our legal immigration pipeline from India selects nothing but above average people, which will self perpetuate itself since their IQs are mostly heritable.

    This is without even getting into the whole race and IQ thing, which frankly seems more likely than not based on known evidence.

  • Krabappel||

    There is plenty of evidence that even American citizens don't internalize those values. Millions of people voted for Bernie Sanders.

  • Just Say'n||

    Exactly, how can you talk about the superiority of a culture that votes for Sanders, Trump, and Clinton? Not to mention the fact that Europe is not exactly a paradise of individual freedom, unless speech codes and state regulation is the mark of a free society

  • $+€££@||

    "Exactly, how can you talk about the superiority of a culture that votes for Sanders, Trump, and Clinton?"

    "You're not free unless you're free to be wrong"

    Pretty easy actually.

  • vek||

    You forget my friend that around 35% of the population explicitly NO LONGER BELIEVES in the traditional ideas America stood for, as a matter of racial solidarity. The majority of white Americans DO still believe in those things.

    If only white people voted Clinton would have appeared to be the Bernie Sanders, a far more sane Democrat would have taken Clinton's place, and a far more conservative/libertarian minded person would have probably taken Trumps place. The whole scale shifts with the average of the electorate, and according to all polling white Americans are far and away the most conservative/libertarian leaning people on earth.

    They went for Trump because he was promising to fight back, and fight back HARD against a lot of the bullshit they don't like. Without the threats from the left white America almost surely wouldn't have gone for somebody like him. Kinda like how recent immigrants elected FDR, and ones who had been here and become Americanized voted AGAINST his big government agenda for the most part.

    We may be able to convert non whites, but only if we stop the flood of new people coming in and have time to school them on things like Freedom Of Speech, which the majority of them do not support.

  • ||

    Yes, that is a very concerning issue, but a separate issue regarding our poor education system. Is that a reason to open the flood gates to allow in more people who don't share those values?

  • vek||

    "N: Do you have a scintilla of evidence that the vast majority of immigrants are not "internalizing" the American values of liberty, reason, meritocracy, rule of law and equality of opportunity?"

    Ron, ever heard of polls? Ever heard of voting records? Yeah, every single one of those shows they don't respect those things. Sorry!

    Now, maybe we can hypothetically convert them someday, but at the very least that is a legitimate reason to LIMIT the influx of immigration to a point where we can convert them without them changing our laws etc with their incorrect positions. As for passing the test to become a citizen, that's cool brah, but illegals don't do that. So again one more reason for being in favor of sensible immigration policies, not open border nonsense.

    That stuff is pure utopian shit. It doesn't work now, it has never worked in the past, and it will never work. A great influx of foreigners will always change the host culture, and if the immigrants are coming from a shittier culture, that means the good culture will be watered down. Reality, it sucks sometimes.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It's not about skin color, it's about our superior culture...

    You must be referring to America's liberal-libertarian mainstream, with its modern, successful communities, which is superior to the poorly educated, superstitious, backward, economically inadequate, disaffected human residue that populates our rural and southern stretches.

    Strong universities, culture, research, modernity . . . a preference for reason, science, education, tolerance, modernity . . . accomplished, educated, forward-looking, diverse people . . . I can see why you believe our superior culture is worth advancing and defending against the recent rise of gullible, ignorant, bigoted malcontents.

    Good points, NAL! Onward, superior culture!

  • Just Say'n||

    You're an awfully hate-filled reverend. Must be one of those "progressive" churches

  • Citizen X||

    If you google the good Reverend here, he seems to have taken his nom de comment from some anime thing, so do with that what you will.

  • $+€££@||

    ahhh he's Kurt Eichenwald, it all suddenly makes sense.

  • Fancylad||

    Ohhh, he's a Hetalia fan. All of a sudden everything makes sense, Fudanshi aren't exactly noted for common sense.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Citizen X must be using one of those hand-cranked, backwoods Googleators if he missed my Oscar nomination.

  • Citizen X||

    Or maybe Google doesn't give a fuck about some sad nerd.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You need to stop resenting your betters and being trying to improve yourself to succeed in the modern world, Citizen X.

    Unless you believe that stuff about Trump enabling shambling, half-educated, unskilled old white dudes in yahoo towns to prosper despite a lifetime of inadequacy..

  • Fancylad||

    Don't you have some FuransuXRussia doujin to go wank to?

    Oh, and shambling, half-educated, unskilled old white dudes in yahoo towns are still the betters of fat, parents-basement-dwelling yaoi fans, so no resentment needed.

  • $+€££@||

    "which is superior to the poorly educated, superstitious, backward, economically inadequate, disaffected human residue that populates our rural and southern stretches."

    Weird how this is exactly the same way anti-immigrant groups define the immigrants they're against.

  • Don't look at me.||

    He is more racist than those he hates.

  • Ariki||

    Projection sure is fun!

  • ||

    As long as you are referring to the actual "liberal-libertarian mainstream", then yes. If you're trying to include modern leftists in that group, then you are confused.

  • Thomas O.||

    "It's not about skin color, it's about our superior culture...the western culture, more than any other culture in the world, emphasizes liberty, reason, meritocracy, rule of law and equality of opportunity."

    Not sure if sarcasm...

  • Happy Chandler||

    Where have I heard this before? Let's check the sources:

    "I don't think it would meet the part of wisdom," said Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota, according to the Nov. 5, 1938 edition of The New York Times. "Our conditions here at home prohibit accepting an influx of population."

    It's true that Americans in 1939 were worried about refugees taking jobs. Those who lived through the Depression were overwhelmingly supportive of restricting immigration, Mr. Shulman said.

    But safety was also a concern. Jews were associated with a variety of acts and ideas that were seen as un-American, Mr. Shulman said, including Communism and violence.

    Americans were concerned about Jews "weakening the Nordic or Anglo racial stock," Mr. Shulman said. "That was a very real concern."

    It's funny how Trump's supporters sound a lot like the restrictionists who sent the passengers of the USS St Louis back to their deaths.

  • Nardz||

    Nope, that was your idol FOR.
    Many were onboard, however, with Trump finally moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "the western culture, more than any other culture in the world, emphasizes liberty, reason, meritocracy, rule of law and equality of opportunity"

    I'd say that it's British culture that has emphasized Liberty, not Western culture.

  • vek||

    The Brits the most for sure, BUT they built on the ground work laid out by earlier European cultures. Also, the French, Germans, and others did have their important philosophers during the enlightenment. But the Brits, and especially their American colonists, took it to the greatest extremes.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Sadly, this is not the first time in our history when bigots have urgently prophesied that America would soon be destroyed by a rising tide of allegedly unassimilable immigrants. We are now in the midst of the third such anti-immigration panic.

    I see Bailey's been reading the comments.

  • Citizen X||

    He does that regularly, the poor man.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It's like no one ever warned him if you stare into the comments, the comments stare back at you.

  • Citizen X||

    ...while fingering themselves and screaming obscenities. It is known.

  • Cy||

    Being critical of who you want to share your country with makes people bigots now?

    How woke!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That article is scary. It reads like someone brainwashed by a cult.

  • Fancylad||

    The new word for brainwashed is "woke".

  • Rhywun||

    So the takeaway is that anyone who raises any objection to current immigration policies is a bigot. I guess that's an easy way to shut down any meaningful conversation on the subject.

  • Cy||

    With tactics like that, who need needs facts?

  • ||

    Not to mention that the tautology/confirmation bias is absurdly hilarious. When was the last time you read protracted historical accounts by (e.g.) the Native Americans about how these poor white invaders are gobbling up their tax base and ruining their culture?

  • mtrueman||

    "So the takeaway is that anyone who raises any objection to current immigration policies is a bigot."

    The bigot is the one who objects to immigration because undeserving immigrants get the welfare that would otherwise go to deserving whites.

  • Mark22||

    Gosh, why might "white people" be concerned about a "majority minority" country when facing La Raza, Aztlan, Reconquista, reparations, and accusations of "white privilege"?

    Most of the rest of the world is massively racist and intolerant; that is why we need secure borders and limited immigration. Or, as progressives are fond of pointing out, "we cannot tolerate intolerance", and that is nowhere truer then when it comes to immigration.

  • Cy||

    I hear South Africa is a great place to start a farm!

  • JoeBlow123||

    I hear the same about Rhodesia, err, I mean Zimbabwe!

  • mtrueman||

    "Most of the rest of the world is massively racist and intolerant;"

    What we need is more racism. Is that the long and short of it? Seems you have a particular animus against hispanics and blacks. Was the omission of muslims an oversight, or are you soft on islam?

  • Mark22||

    Seems you have a particular animus against hispanics and blacks. Was the omission of muslims an oversight, or are you soft on islam?

    I have no "animus", I have fear based on my experience of being oppressed and attacked for being a gay minority. And, yes, I have well justified fear of Muslim culture as well (as do my gay ex-Muslim friends).

    My advice to my fellow Americans is to be selective about who they let into the country and not to succumb to the delusion that all cultures and religions are equally valid and compatible.

    But if your kind of stupid turns the US into the kind of place where I have to fear for my life, I will simply emigrate again, like I did a few decades ago when I came to the US to make a better life for myself and live in peace.

  • mtrueman||

    "I will simply emigrate again"

    Where to? If you are afraid of being oppressed by blacks, hispanics or muslims, the world is getting smaller and smaller.

  • Mark22||

    If you are afraid of being oppressed by blacks, hispanics or muslims, the world is getting smaller and smaller.

    I don't have a problem with Hispanics, blacks, and Muslims per se, I have a problem with the low-skill third world population the US lets in and the angry, uneducated, government-dependent racists that the American left turns these people into when they come to the US.

    There are plenty of places that don't work that way, including many wealthy nations whose selective immigration criteria I didn't use to meet, but who now welcome me with open arms. I'm happy to move to any of them, and I actually enjoy the diversity of people and backgrounds I find in such places.

  • vek||

    As FUCKED as it sounds to me, in thinking through worst case scenarios, there are some other countries that might be tolerable compared to what the US could turn into if things go really badly.

    Canada will probably still be livable, as they mostly just let in high skill immigrants. Also Argentina might be decent for a warmer climate at some point in the future if they stay on track. But honestly nowhere will be anywhere close to as good as America was when I was growing up. :(

  • Mark22||

    I'm thinking more like Monaco, Switzerland, Bermuda, Singapore, etc.

    I'm hoping it doesn't come to that. I'm hoping that people like MTrueman won't be able to turn the US into a Venezuela-style shithole in their self-righteous ignorance.

    I'm hoping people will recognize that the first people to leave if the US lets in large numbers of poor third world migrants will be the highly skilled immigrants like myself who have been responsible for a big chunk of recent economic booms.

  • vek||

    Yeah, some European countries would be okay, mostly smaller ones. Switzerland is really tough to gain actual citizenship though as I understand it. Likewise with other micro countries.

    The thing I don't like about small countries though is that they aren't "real" countries. They don't have any say in things. If a major power decides to pressure them, they'll usually crack. So to me a decent sized country seems safer long haul. We can talk shit about Canada, Argentina, Poland, etc but we can't REALLY make them do any and every thing we demand of them. We're not likely to invade them either.

    It also depends on WHAT YOU WANT out of life. I'm not some corporate employee just looking to have a cushy life. I'm self employed, and would be searching more for ever elusive freedom than just living in a "nice" place. Also one that might be stable-ish.

    I've not thought about it a TON, just a little. Eastern Europe might be okay in some spots if they stay on the right track. Some countries in Asia would in fact be cool, but the super crazy language barrier thing turns me off as I'm not 8 and can't learn a new language that's not even Latin based/influenced that easily. Hopefully I never have to think it through too hard because the USA will stay better than anywhere else!

  • Mark22||

    The thing I don't like about small countries though is that they aren't "real" countries.

    True, but there has always ever only been one America. And if people like Hillary, Warren, Schumer, Booker, not to mention Shikha and Robby, manage to turn the US into the kind of authoritarian, racist shithole they prefer, then there may not be much of a choice.

    Hopefully I never have to think it through too hard because the USA will stay better than anywhere else!

    I hope so too. But progressives need to understand that their policies have consequences and that they can't force people to work for them or conform to their visions.

  • vek||

    All true. One of the things that bothers me about many of the libertarians here is how delusional and utopian they are... They're just as deluded as to the real world outcomes of some of their policy positions as communists are!

    They can't see that true open borders would instantly destroy everything nice about America, Europe, and any other 1st world country. They live in a pure fantasy land. Just as communism completely ignores certain parts of human nature, so do the utopian libertarians. An America with no majority group in charge will simply become a tribalistic blood bath that never ends, metaphorically if not literally.

    One of the things I have come to accept in recent years is that you CANNOT really have a functional society without a super majority ethno-cultural group. Humans are just not wired for it. Culture would also include roughed out political ideals in my definition, as that can be every bit as big a deal as religion to fight/kill over. America held together because we were 85-90% white, almost 100% Christian of some denomination, and mostly all believed in the basics of the constitution, even if we squabbled about the details. Without those things you get... What we have now.

  • Mark22||

    One of the things I have come to accept in recent years is that you CANNOT really have a functional society without a super majority ethno-cultural group.

    I think a "functional society" means the same as an "ethno-cultural group". Meaning, by definition, two different "ethno-cultural groups" cannot form a single society.

    America held together because we were 85-90% white

    "White" is not an ethnicity. Many empires were composed of people of all different skin colors and appearances. What unified them was the belief that they belonged to the same political and cultural entity. And it is that belief that Democrats and progressives are attacking, for personal and political gain.

  • vek||

    "I think a "functional society" means the same as an "ethno-cultural group". Meaning, by definition, two different "ethno-cultural groups" cannot form a single society."

    I think that's fair! When the cultural differences are too big people just can't deal with it and live side by side.

    ""White" is not an ethnicity. Many empires were composed of people of all different skin colors and appearances. What unified them was the belief that they belonged to the same political and cultural entity. And it is that belief that Democrats and progressives are attacking, for personal and political gain."

    This is true, BUT look at the things that happened in those empires. Basically all of them had to deal with identity politics, people jockeying for things that benefited their group. They also had outright rebellions pretty frequently. I think it can work OKAY, if you can homogenize the culture to a large degree. But the fact is that external appearances, and religious differences, are still big wedge issues. If everything is humming along people won't be at each others throats too bad, but during times of crisis they tend to go back to batting for "their" team, which generally means people who look like them.

    It's not a 100% on/off thing, there are in between levels of functionality there... But I'm 100% sure that having a single racial group also makes for a more stable society.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "white privilege" = "whites are Kulaks"

  • MayneDeWayne||

    If it's bogus, then why do all interracial couples come up when you do a Google image search of "White couples"? A subsequent Google image search of Black, Hispanic, Asian and Interracial couples looks exactly how you would expect, but a white couples search shows all mixed couples.

  • MayneDeWayne||

    Evergreen college with their anti-white policy.
    Yep, all just bogus I suppose.
    You guys at Reason hire any illegal immigrants yet?

  • Cy||

    They're not worried about losing their jobs or wages to illegal invaders. You need to be able to read/write and speak English to have their jobs.

  • MWG||

    Have you ever been to a typical US university? Faculties are FULL of foreigners.

  • Citizen X||

    True fact: you do NOT want to know why Mayne was searching for images of "White couples." That business is between him and God and, eventually, a federal judge.

  • $+€££@||

    Honestly I thought he was full of shit, but he's more accurate than he should be.

  • MayneDeWayne||

    Citizen X just has his head up his ass. Glad you actually took the time to investigate.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Google searching images of white people is far too sacrosanct of a subject to make jokes.

  • Citizen X||

    You should do a Google search for "sense of humor."

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    This is serious business, dickwad! You don't just start making jokes!

  • MayneDeWayne||

    This right here!
    Obfuscate, that's the name of the game, and fascists are good at it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Someone agreed with you Sparky. How does that feel?

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Apparently he needs to Google sarcasm as well as humor.

  • Citizen X||

    Sorry bro, but i just don't see how making fun of some random Internet commenter falls under the definition of either obfuscation OR fascism.

  • Ariki||

    Hammer / Nail.
    Victim / Oppressor.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    My theory: it's related to why my porn results have so much cucking shit in it now.

  • Azathoth!!||


    Honestly I thought he was full of shit, but he's more accurate than he should be.

    Okay now that's just freaking weird. Used bing and google.

  • lap83||

    I don't usually like to give Google the benefit of the doubt, but mixed race couples are probably more likely to have tags that mention race.
    You have to be more "creative" to find white couples, I searched for "country club couples". Jackpot

  • ||

    When I google 'soccer family' I get way less diversity by just about every metric (ethnicity, clothing, equipment, weather, field conditions, participation, etc.) than if I google 'baseball family'.

  • lap83||

    "circus family" - most colorful and interesting, but least diverse....unless "face paint white" is considered a different skin tone than "Caucasian white"

  • Citizen X||

    This is definitely a far more rational explanation than "Google hates white people."

  • ||

    Especially since everyone knows that Google is one of the most racist and sexist companies operating in this country today.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    This is exactly right. And it illustrates one way in which privilege works. You don't NEED to tag white couples as "white couples". They are considered the normative standard. Now do a Google image search of "family pictures" with no racial qualifiers at all. The VAST majority of the pictures depict white families. No special label of "white" needed.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    OH NO!

  • Happy Chandler||

    From Quora:

    Edit: I just went to Google Image search to double check what you were seeing. I noticed the inter-racial couples you spoke of in your original post. The answer is simple. In many cases, the title of the image was "Black and White Couples" (or something like that). Your search of "white couples" is a strong match for half of that title. It is therefore not surprising that these results are showing up in your search for white couples.
  • Happy Chandler||

    Probably your porn search history.

  • MayneDeWayne||

    My porn search history. Ha!
    It's not like there is a concerted effort to "diversify" Europe or anything.
    You know how it works, thousands of "minority's" emigrate to white countries, and it's called multiculturalism or diversity (what fun)....turn that around and it's either racism or exploitation when thousands of whites emigrate to non-white countries.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    MayneDeWayne, Google customizes it's searches now based on past internet browsing history. In the future, view your IR porn on Internet Explorer instead of Chrome.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    This one came up for me. I don't see your point.

  • Mark22||

    If it's bogus, then why do all interracial couples come up when you do a Google image search of "White couples"?

    That's just bizarre.

  • creech||

    Can a good case be made that the ideology of socialism was brought to this country by European immigrants (esp. Germans) in mid to late 1800s? They didn't assimilate but sought (successfully it seems) to infect the political culture in this country.

  • Citizen X||

    I think true socialism never really caught on in the US in part because there wasn't a rigid, hereditary class system here. You could (still can, to an extent) become very well-off by just working hard, which is way easier than arranging to be born into a noble family. Instead of the bottom-up early socialism of European revolutions, the US ended up with the far more paternalistic Social Gospel of the Third Great Awakening, which bled into and informed the Progressivism of the early 20th century.

    Progressivism and socialism have undergone convergent evolution over the last century, it's true, but they started from very different assumptions about society.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think it's a bit simplistic to describe European socialism as bottom-up as well. Starting from Marx there has been a definite trend of it being pushed by intellectuals on to all sorts of people.

    I remember reading an interesting discussion, I wish I could remember the book, maybe it was Ross Douthat's new book. Regardless, it discussed how socialism in Europe was often coming from the traditional hereditary rich, who were becoming bothered by the sudden rise of merchants and the middle class brought about by the Enlightenment. They sought a new model, that gave a return to a strict sense of hierarchy that was slowly being eroded by money.

  • Citizen X||

    You're right, "bottom-up" might be a stretch. I guess the difference i meant to convey is that socialist agitators tended to include themselves in the "working class" whether they were really part of it or not - you get a lot of "we" and "us" referring to workers, whereas in the Social Gospel there's a lot more of what "we" have to do for the laboring poor. The "we" of the Social Gospel is very much separate from "our" targets, and assumed to be materially better off.

    Interesting point about reactionary socialism. I might have to look for that book.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's mostly about the new Pope. More an aside than anything if it was in that work. I'm just trying to think what I read recently that would discuss it, and I don't believe it was the new Johah Goldberg one I just finished. Everything else is random old philosophy and stuff.

  • ||

    Even Marx points out that "Socialism," as such, is largely a top-down phenomenon whose fundamental purpose, all things else aside, is to preserve existing power structures and prevent a communist/anarchist revolution. The Communist Manifesto spends more time criticizing socialism than it does capitalism, actually.

  • Mark22||

    Progressivism and socialism have undergone convergent evolution over the last century, it's true, but they started from very different assumptions about society.

    They aren't really that distinct. Progressivism, fascism, and socialism all are authoritarian, collectivist, illiberal, materialistic, anti-free-market ideologies.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Socialism became a thing because of the industrial revolution. Every society that had rapid industrialization had socialist movements regardless of their cultures. Even xenophobic Japan had one. The reason why immigrants tended to support socialist movements was because the immigrants were by and large the ones with the shitty factory jobs, and so they were more receptive to the socialist message.

  • ||

    In the case of mid-nineteenth-century German socialists, specifically, many of them were exiled after the 1848 uprisings, and came here, which is why suddenly German communes spring up all over the Midwest post-1850.

  • Mark22||

    Can a good case be made that the ideology of socialism was brought to this country by European immigrants (esp. Germans) in mid to late 1800s? They didn't assimilate but sought (successfully it seems) to infect the political culture in this country.

    The primary source of modern leftism in the US is the Frankfurt School of philosophy, which gave us neo-Marxism, postmodernism, and critical theory (a derivative of Marxism). That, plus all the communists that left the failed communist nations of the East Bloc.

  • ||

    "We are burdened with enormous taxes by foreigners. We are corrupted in the morals of youth. We are interfered with in our government. We are forced into collisions with other nations. We are tampered with in our religion. We are injured in our labor. We are assailed in our freedom of speech."

    So, if the proposal came up in Congress tomorrow to roll all taxation, spending, foreign relations, and religious/civil freedoms back to 1850s levels tomorrow, Reason's a "No!" (Despite the fact that Mexicans and Guatemalans could cross the border more freely)? How... ill-conceived.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Adding back Slavery is a pretty big no-no.

  • ||

    Pragmatically politically, sure.

    Principally though, your argument is little different from the usual "Anything that isn't our current racial mecca is necessarily a racist, white-supremacist hellhole." false dichotomy. Several states had banned slavery and even if we converted all the agriculture back over and put slaves out in the field, we'd still have 9-10 black people for every one enslaved who, presumably, would find something between non-slavery and anti-slavery to do (and find very little government to stop them).

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And I'm saying, that slavery is such a tremendous evil that it should not pragmatically or principally be accepted at any point.

    I'm for you on most of the idea you are presenting. Let's roll things back to a time when they were freer. I don't know how meaningful it was, as I fear much of the traditional freedom had as much to do with lack of technology to enable the government. But I also want to make a point that things were not just rosy-cheeks and people living in state of absolute freedom back then.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Can we in retrospect totally dismiss the fears of the Know Nothings? The influx of immigrants from Catholic European countries in the 19th century did cause a surge of social pathologies. It could be argued that we would have been better off with fewer of them.

  • Tony||

    Who is we, kemosabe?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Us. The United States of America. Our nation. I realize that's a difficult concept for those at both ends of the spectrum here.

  • Tony||

    More so than perhaps any other country, isn't it is what it is? Nobody but natives gets to claim more than a few hundred years of occupancy, and that doesn't include anyone in the Trump family, and anyone whose relatives came on the Mayflower couldn't meaningfully distinguish themselves from their neighbors. In fact, the blacker you are, the more likely you are to have staked a claim on this continent longer than your white neighbor.

    There is no "we." Just arbitrary points on a timeline.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "There is no "we." Just arbitrary points on a timeline."

    Unless you are a Democrat like yourself right? Toolbag.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Grand Wizard Vern, your link to The Federalist appears to be broken.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Can we in retrospect totally dismiss the fears of the Know Nothings? "

    It's totally racist to consider whether there were downsides to the predominantly English America from the massive non-English immigration of the 1800s and beyond.

    Similarly, it's totally racist to consider whether there were downsides to Native Americans from the massive English waves of immigration from the 1600s on.

    Uh, wait....

    "It's only racist when Whitey does it". Phew! Thought I was in trouble for a second there.

  • vek||

    Yup.

    As I've said elsewhere it is ENTIRELY possible that the current citizens of the US would have had wealthier, more enjoyable lives without taking in large numbers of immigrants. Acting as if it is our obligation to take in immigrants is bullshit now, and it was bullshit then. The Irish DID suppress wages. The Italians did the same. The Italians also DID commit crimes at higher rates than native born for generations.

    Even if it all eventually sorted itself out, that doesn't mean that some English descended carpenter who saw his wages go in the toilet due to the flood if immigrants, and who had his brother shot as an innocent bystander in a mafia shootout was better off, or that he should LIKE and APPRECIATE the diversity those people brought.

    The size and scale of it is really the big question. If we had 3% of our nation being foreign born, nobody would notice or care, and those people would be forced to assimilate pretty quickly. If it were 50% EVERYBODY would be pissed about the crazy rapid changes. At 13-14% it seems people get pretty touchy. So maybe 5% is a nice number where nobody is too pissed, but we're still letting some people in? Who knows. But there is probably a sweet spot.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, Buchanan's been sounding his demographic chicken little alarm for decades, at least as long as I can remember. Is he even relevant anymore?

  • Allutz||

    All those words and not a single one about how anti-immigrant sentiment in the mid-late 1800s was a response to native populations observing the rise of machine politics, and how they PREDICTED the progressive movement.

  • ||

    You think immigrants invented machine politics in America?

  • Allutz||

    No, they just were the oil that greased it for about a half century.

  • Nardz||

    Fear of white extinction is bogus?
    But I thought the sky was falling and the God of climate killing all humans is definitely a rational, legitimate fear?
    And if climate change is going to kill us all, white extinction will happen.
    So if climate change fear isn't bogus, then neither can fears of white extinction be.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Let's increase the number of immigration visas we issue, preferably through a random lottery open to people from all countries and/or a reciprocity visa program.

  • vek||

    Sooo we can let in almost nothing but people with elementary school educations? Because that's basically what the global average is without any cherry picking.

    I think not. How about we let in people with advanced degrees only, who speak fluent English? Ya know, people that have a 99% chance of being successful here?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    A bit of historical sleuthing turned up the below nuggets of insight about the deleterious effects of the tide of Irish and German immigration in the 1840s and 1850s from Massachusetts Governor Henry J. Gardner in his annual addresses to that state's legislature. At that time, more than 20 percent of Massachusetts' residents were foreign-born. Today 16.2 percent of folks living in Massachusetts are foreign-born.

    So, in the 1840's and 1850's Massachusetts was run by racist bigots. Harvard was a key player in bringing Darwin's work to America a generation after that. I'm starting to think that many of Darwin's earliest supporters in America were racists Progressives.

  • Mark22||

    I'm starting to think that many of Darwin's earliest supporters in America were racists Progressives.

    Your intuition is correct. In fact, the American progressive movement was the primary driver behind eugenics, forced sterilizations, segregation, social Darwinism, and scientific racism; places like Harvard and Princeton were deeply involved in it. And the ideas of the American progressive movement formed the basis of much of the German fascist movement.

  • John Rohan||

    The periodic panic over "white extinction" reached a second peak in the decade before 1920 when the foreign-born population stood (as it does today) at about 14 percent.

    "Foreign born" does not necessarily mean "non-white", especially when you are talking about 1920s immigration!

    And the numbers support the demographic change. This is not a "myth". White people are projected to be a minority in this country (although the largest minority) by 2045. And if trends continue, they will continue to decrease after that point too (this comment forum won't let me insert a link but you can google brookings.edu for a citation).


    Whether this is something to "panic" over or not, is another issue entirely. But its there. And look at the history of family immigration/asylum/refugees. They don't come to wealthy countries like China, Saudi Arabia, or Japan. They seem to almost exclusively seek out white countries (Europe, US, Canada, Australia, etc) as their destination. Where will these people go once minorities are in the majority?

  • Happy Chandler||

    That's the thing about being white. It really doesn't exist. The definition of white changes depending on what society demands at the moment. In the 1920's, Catholic countries (ie Ireland, Poland, Italy) did not count as white.

    None of the countries you mentioned rank among the top ten for refugees:

    Top refugee hosting countries
    1. Jordan (2.7 million)
    2. Turkey (2.5 million)
    3. Pakistan (1.6 million)
    4. Lebanon (1.5 million)
    5. Iran (979,400)
    6. Ethiopia (736,100)
    7. Kenya (553,900)
    8. Uganda (477,200)
    9. Democratic Republic of Congo (383,100)
    10. Chad (369,500)
  • buybuydandavis||

    Those are refugees.

    In terms of the foreign born, the US has the largest population of foreign born, in the world, by multiples.

  • John Rohan||

    That theory that some Europeans once weren't considered white is a myth and modern day invention. By law and by custom, Poles, Italians, Irish, etc were always considered white. They were not barred from public office, they weren't barred from marrying white women, and they were allowed to join white labor unions:

    (again can't insert a link there, but google the Washington post article "sorry, but the Irish were always white")

    Now, the countries you cite holding the most refugees are largely correct - HOWEVER, there is an important distinction here that makes all the difference! Those refugees aren't staying in those countries and have no wish to. They didn't choose them as a final destination - in all cases, it's because that country is the closest to the conflict at hand. They are staying in camps largely funded by western nations, and none of those countries are offering the refugees residence or citizenship. Nearly all those refugees are either enrolled in the UN refugee program, waiting to be resettled elsewhere, or they are attempting to continue their journey to Europe.

    So they are refugees, but not immigrants. Similarly, the Gulf states have a lot of foreign workers, but those workers aren't allowed to bring their families, they don't have permanent residence, and there is no path to citizenship for them.

  • vek||

    You are correct. They were always "white," however people used to make a bigger distinction between different flavors of white. Northern Europeans thought they were better than southern Europeans because southern and eastern Europe were more backwards at the time (and still are), and various other things most people already know about.

    But they were always white. It's kinda like the hotness scale. 1 is a total fatty (black, brown, etc), 10 is hot (German, English, Swedish etc), and a 6 is alright (Italians, Spanish, Poles etc). It's as simple as that. Whatever the case they weren't wrong that those immigrants did drastically change American culture... SO if you truly preferred the Anglo-Saxon culture in a pure form, it was in fact diluted and made different by these immigrants. They also elected FDR, which native born people voted down. Sooo legitimate complaints did exist.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yes and no. Suadi Arabia is a popular destination for immigrants. Some other countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council have large foreign born populations as a percent of their populations.

  • John Rohan||

    As I said above, the Gulf states have a lot of foreign workers, but those workers aren't allowed to bring their families, they don't have permanent residence, and there is no path to citizenship for them. So they aren't staying there, and nor do they wish to.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    This Atlantic article from 2013 explains how Republicans cannot win back the White House, because Whites are becoming a smaller share of the voting age population. It said:

    From 1996 to 2012, according to census figures, the white share of the eligible voting population (citizens who are older than 18) has dropped about 2 percentage points every four years, from 79.2 percent to 71.1 percent; over that same period, whites have declined as a share of actual voters from 83 percent to 74 percent (according to census figures) or even 72 percent (according to the exit polls). With minorities expected to make up a majority of America's 18 and younger population in this decade, all signs point toward a continued decline in the white share of the eligible voter population -- which suggests the GOP would have to marshal heroic turnout efforts to avoid further decline in the white vote-share. If the electorate's composition follows the trend over the past two decades, minorities would likely constitute 30 percent of the vote in 2016.

    The people harping on this issue are Progressives who assume that demographic trends will continue and that they can keep racial minorities voting Democrat despite their land use policies which price racial minorities out of the housing market on environmental and urban renewal grounds.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Clinton was a uniquely unpopular candidate. Trump got a smaller share of the vote than Romney had, but Clinton had lost a larger percentage. And, she still got nearly 3,000,000 more votes than him. A fluke over where state lines were drawn was the difference.

    In the past 25 years (6 elections), Republicans got the most votes once, Bush's reelection. I really don't see it happening again.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Trump winning was an electoral map fluke. He might win again if the economy is still going strong.

    But if Hillary had won, she would have christened 10-20 million new Hispanic voters, overwhelmingly in favor of bigger government. Then it truly would have been over. The country would be CA all over, heading toward Detroit all over.

    And having spied on her presidential opponent and gotten away with it, we'd never have a real election again anyway. The Media. The Universities. The Deep State unleashed. The internet controlled.

    America was over if Hillary won.

    Trump buys it a *chance* to survive. But the demographic trends are entirely on the side of the Dems.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The current data shows overwhelming Left leaning, big government bias in the US Hispanic population.

    It's simply hilarious that you think "land use policies" are going to be a rallying cry to change that.

  • vek||

    Yup.

    The Democrats know, acknowledge, and LOVE the reality of the demographic changes. They have in fact help orchestrate it on purpose. I have little doubt that as the demographics in the USA become less white we will become less free, have bigger government, and more racial animus towards whites.

    These are all things that show themselves clearly in the trends now, and will only grow with time. Anybody who can't wrap their head around REALITY because it doesn't fit in with their utopian dreams is simply sticking their head in the sand.

  • Echospinner||

    I have long believed that race is a myth. It is not a meaningful way to classify humans in a biological sense. Yes there are some variations, not many, based on geographical origins. There are also variations within populations of the same "race" and origin.

    There is no such thing as white culture or black, brown, green culture. The whole discussion that goes on about that is meaningless.

  • Happy Chandler||

    There surely are cultures. There is no white culture, because white doesn't exist. It only depends on what nationalities are acceptable at the moment. Irish, Italians, Polish, etc were not white for a long time. Irish culture is different than Italian is different than German or WASP. There is an American culture, which can overlap with others, and is open to all races.

  • Echospinner||

    I agree and they all change over time and as other cultures mix in, just like our biology.

  • Mark22||

    I have long believed that race is a myth. It is not a meaningful way to classify humans in a biological sense. There is no such thing as white culture or black, brown, green culture.

    No, but individuals classify themselves, and they behave according to their chosen classification. And that does create something like "black culture".

    American "black culture" has no basis in either biology or history, but it is still real, and you can only become part of it if you meet the superficial criteria. Ditto for American Indian culture.

  • vek||

    Yup. Even if it didn't exist it would still be a VERY relevant factor. Kind of like RELIGION. Culture/ethnicity and religion have been responsible for more wars than anything else in human history, so you can babble about how they don't exist allllllll day long... And you'll still be wrong in practical terms.

  • vek||

    Echospinner, you're simply wrong.

    Race does exist. It's a human defined thing, so you can argue about what one means when one uses the word... But there are biological differences that are not trivial between different groups that share more genes than other groups. On the edges of groups races mix as well, such as in Greece or North Africa. But to say you cannot separate out the main body as distinct groups is incorrect. You can tell even from the bones if somebody is African, European, or East Asian.

    There are height differences. Different race specific health issues. On and on. And according to a sober and objective reading of all known data almost certainly intelligence differences too. It'd be nice if evolution had made as all EXACTLY the same, but that wasn't what evolution called for for survival apparently. White people with no technology placed in Africa would die out or evolve very quickly because conditions there differ from Europe. Same placing blacks in northern Norway. We ended up with traits that helped us out in the locations where we evolved... Most of these traits don't matter to much, but they are different none the less. Some of them do make differences in certain fields, hence black domination of most types of athletics.

    Evolution wasn't, like, totally woke bro. Deal with it dude.

  • WillPaine||

    Shades of Sammy : (We must have "the other" to hate, in order to thrive as a civilization), Huntington; he was just a scared white guy, intellectually presenting his case for fear, based on some of the most pointed thinking of the 17th century. Manifest destiny and/of the white man's burden. Many brilliant naturalists and philosophers of that era believed nature only existed in the human mind. If a white man wasn't seeing it, it did not exist. Brilliant people otherwise, no?..I would have suggested they close their eyes and run at a tree as hard as they could.
    Rich white kids want to be black, and poor black kids want to be rich. Hybrids are always healthier than inbreds of pure race, to speak in the language of science; always healthier, more beautiful, stronger, and longer living. And love will prevail, no?

  • vek||

    "Hybrids are always healthier than inbreds of pure race, to speak in the language of science; always healthier, more beautiful, stronger, and longer living. And love will prevail, no?"

    NO. Actually we all adapted to the environments where we evolved. Whites would do poorly in Nigeria without modern technology, just as Africans would in Norway. Mixed people placed in those situations would immediately start selecting for the white traits in Norway and the African traits in Nigeria.

    Also, interestingly, there are in fact some health issues with mixed race people. Different ethnic groups also have different health issues that are specific to them. For instance organ transplants can be a problem I have read. Inbred dogs are actually inbred, which is why they have health issues. Most large human populations have been separate for 10s of thousands of years and are not inbred by any definition, hence no advantage to putting in outside blood... It just weakens the specialized adaptions we all have to the environments where we evolved.

  • WillPaine||

    The immigration here, and In Europe, are of exodus; from the War for the Greater Middle East, and the drug war. To state the obvious; why is no one addressing this yet?..war as business demands customers and "the other". The two differ in dynamic; the result is exodus on a Biblical scale on both fronts.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Fun fact.

    Once upon a time, White meant English or Saxons, at least according to Benjamin Franklin.

    https://goo.gl/ZZXKBx

    Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, 1751, Benjamin Franklin

    24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

  • vek||

    Ron, maybe you should learn how to read statistics and stuff.

    Whether or not you want to consider Mexicans white is debatable. Some definitely are, some definitely aren't, by normal definitions. Also whether or not they will assimilate into the society is debatable, and IMO largely dependent on whether or not they keep coming in in massive numbers. Keep in mind blacks NEVER HAVE and likely NEVER WILL. So it depends on various factors.

    All the "less than perfect" whites who immigrated here that people bitched about back in the day were one intermarriage away from being impossible to tell apart. That is one of the reasons the melting pot worked there, but didn't with blacks. Mexicans that are starting out at 80% Spanish blood will surely become "white" after one mixing with an Anglo-Germanic Murikan, but the 80% Indian one probably will not. They will likely still identify because they cannot "pass" which has always been a thing that denotes how people identify.

    Personally if we stop the massive flood of low skill immigration I think we can absorb the Hispanics and carry on okay. But NOT if we keep an ever growing number of people coming in. And ALSO not if we are talking people from other cultures that can't mix/pass quickly. People identify based on passing, like it or not. This will result in increased tribalism as we are seeing now. According to most estimates, we will be a solidly white minority country by the middle of the century, and ever decreasing afterwards.

  • vek||

    Anybody who doesn't get how this WILL change our country, and our culture is an idiot. One need look no further than polls on ANY FRIGGIN' SUBJECT. Whites are okay at accepting the good and bad parts of American history. Minorities are LITERALLY calling for removing statues of Founding Fathers because they were slave owners. This will only get worse with more non whites. They vote for bigger government. Etc etc etc. This may change with SOME groups, but not all. Again IMO realistically it comes down to passing and identifying as white. Non whites are totes cool with Us Versus Them, so long as whites can't identify as an ethnic block of course, even when we're becoming a minority in our own land...

    Also, the people in the past WERE NOT WRONG about many of the things that irritated them at the time. The fact is immigration DID vastly change the country our Anglo-Germanic ancestors had.

    Irish labor DID undercut native born labor, which if you were a native laborer probably irritated you. Catholic dogma on contraception/abortion helped shape American politics for decades. Italian crime led to tons of deaths and other undesirable stuff that wouldn't have happened without them. And my favorite is that FDR WOULD NOT HAVE WON HIS FIRST ELECTION without the new immigrant vote. You think The New Deal didn't reshape America for the worse??? Micks and WOPs brought truly big government to America, thanks immigrants! At least we got spaghetti out of it though right?

  • vek||

    Now we survived and moved on from all those, but only after time and trouble of integrating these people. The question is would the people that were already here have been better off if they'd taken in fewer immigrants? There are good odds they may have had nicer and more serene lives. America might not have become the great empire we are today with a smaller population, but I'm not a big fan of empire anyway. They didn't OWE my later arriving German ancestors the right to come here any more than I OWE the right for somebody else to come now.

    One more small example. The language we're using right now. The people of Albion (Britain) were conquered, mass immigration of Germanic tribesman (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) ensued, and ultimately subsumed the native Celtic cultures of Britain. The very days of the week like THORsday are only that because of demographic replacement and the destruction of the native culture. Now Britain survived, and thrived, but WHAT IF you were a Celtic Brit would liked your culture as it was? Well then it was kind of a bummer. I like the America that we used to have (and still have a slice of today), with all of our decidedly Anglo-Germanic principles and cultural values. Am I wrong to not want that to be replaced by foreign cultural values that will inevitably get mixed into our own?

    So don't pretend mass immigration doesn't have consequences. It does.

  • vek||

    I want a trickle of high skilled immigrants. This will keep the pace of change slow and manageable, and in fact reduce the backlash you complain about. It gives the newbs time for us to change THEM, instead of them changing us. This seems to be the most sensible approach.

    FINALLY, I would be pretty okay with America being a little crazy. However what really gets me pissed off is when people talk about Europe. That is the homeland of our people, not some conquered land like America. If you look at demographic trends in almost every cucked out European country the native populations will be minorities in their own homelands before centuries end. Many will be barely after 2050.

    That is FUCKED.

    The political class is telling Europeans they have NO RIGHT to keep their homelands for their own people, when their ancestors have lived there for 10s of thousands of years in many cases. FUCK THAT. I believe EVERYBODY has a right to a homeland, including whites. There is nothing weird, or crazy, or even bigoted in believing that European peoples have a right to say "No thanks, we want to keep France French." It's their land, and they have a right to keep their culture if they prefer that to becoming a mixed up globalist multi-culti mish mash that will decidedly NOT be French anymore.

  • vek||

    The poor Europeans aren't even getting immigrants that are as assimilateable as we are. Hispanics are more or less a western culture already, with a few quirks.

    Europe is getting Africans and Muslims that will not melt into the pot so nicely. Europe will not become a nicer place to live if Europeans become minorities in their own homelands. And if the political class ignores the desire of people to retain their homelands for their own people, expect mass bloodshed in a few decades when the native whites get sick and tired of being told they're racists, bigots, etc in THEIR OWN FUCKING COUNTRIES by foreigners who don't respect the native culture.

    Humans are naturally tribal. History shows that when things get mixed up violence almost always comes soon after. This time will be no different. Almost no whites mind having 10-20% minorities floating around, but many people don't want to become a minority in their own homeland. Bagging on people for not wanting to see their culture changed/destroyed is a bunch of bullshit.

    Whites won't become extinct. But to become a marginalized, hated minority in your own country is just about as bad. Whites are already a minority group globally, so why don't we get to protect our poor selves from being overrun? Can you imagine the backlash if some African country were being overrun by whites moving there to the point of making the blacks a minority? Lefties would FREAK, and support the blacks who were complaining about it. As they should.

  • CDRSchafer||

    I stop reading when a columnist uses the word "bigot" in an article. Dumb and tired cliche. Get a thesaurus.

  • GoatOnABoat||

    "'a new study by two political scientists, Dowell Myers and Morris Levy of the University of Southern California, finds that using an inclusive definition that "counts as white anyone who so identifies (even if they also identify with another race or ethnicity), the white population is not declining; it's flourishing.'"

    That doesn't sound very scientific to me...

  • Tim L.||

    Racial concerns are not, or should not be, the issue. Political and cultural concerns are the issue.

    Barack Obama would not have been elected in 2008 without the mass immigration of the preceding decades, and his presidency gave us Obamacare. Kennedy/Johnson would not have been elected in 1960 without the pre-1924 wave of immigrants, and that election gave us Medicare and the Great Society. The massive waves of immigrants today may (or may not) eventually assimilate, but, in the meantime, precedent shows that they will vote to enlarge the government massively. That is not good for our country.

  • vek||

    You forgot to mention that FDR wouldn't have won without taking an overwhelming percentage of the recent immigrant vote! He's the ones who really sent us down the road to big government.

    So yeah, whether or not we can assimilate people eventually, immigrants tend to vote for anti-American things when they first get here and don't know any better. So best to not have TOO many of the newbs around at once.

  • Pat001||

    Why worry about white extinction when there are plastic straws?

  • PeteRR||

    Whites will never be a minority in this country. You know how I know? When George Zimmerman became a "White-Hispanic" when it suited the people opposed to his actions. Minorities who don't tow the line enjoy honorary white status when they stray off the plantation. So Hispanics and Asians will be considered White in the not to distant future.

  • BunkerBill||

    So, Immigration will not drive our political system to the far left. One word answer: California, once Reagan country. Next up: Texas and Florida. Then game over.

  • vek||

    Yup. This is the sad reality of it. It will probably be followed shortly thereafter by Civil War V2.0.

  • Kochtopussy||

    "Bogus"

    Good goy.

  • EscherEnigma||

    [...]using an inclusive definition that "counts as white anyone who so identifies (even if they also identify with another race or ethnicity), the white population is not declining; it's flourishing. [...] concerns over an allegedly minority-white future are greatly abated.


    I'm skeptical.

    Let's say you have someone worried about how non-white America is in the future. You say "okay, but if you use a definition where Obama and his daughters are white, then America is just as white as today", and they feel better?

    Sounds fishy.

  • vek||

    Right???

    The thing is it all DEPENDS on things we don't know yet. For instance blacks have REFUSED to assimilate into the majority culture. Small numbers of them do, but the vast majority refuse to act like a normal white American. Hispanics USED TO integrate very well. I'm from California. I am part Mexican on my moms side, and part Seminole Indian on my dads.

    I don't think of myself in those terms AT ALL because it has been watered down to where I'm 90%+ Anglo-Germanic blood. This was very typical of older Hispanic families that had been in Cali or Texas for a long time, whether they mixed with Anglos much or not. The ones that came in during the Reagan amnesty and later were very much NOT choosing to do this to my eye. They were rockin' Mexican flags instead of American ones on purpose.

    So the big question is will Hispanics choose to white-ify themselves, or retain their Hispanic-ness like blacks. I think it is mostly dependent on how many more we let in. I think between intermarriage and not having a lot of fresh immigrants they would blend in pretty well in a few decades... But if we let in another 30 million, that turn into 60 million with their kids, etc they will retain their Hispanicness., and this will be a MAJOR problem.

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... let me rephrase, less delicately, so you aren't confused.

    If someone is RACIST enough to be concerned about American not being sufficiently WHITE in the future, I don't think using a definition of WHITE that includes President Obama in order to argue that the future is still sufficiently WHITE is going to PLACATE THEM.

    The people most concerned are only likely to be reassured if they don't read the small print.

  • NashTiger||

    I'm confused - PJB's largely unread blog post constitutes a full scale "panic" ???

    I expected this article to touch on at least a modicum of substance - such as the fact that white Europeans are indeed vanishing due to Birth rates below replacement. And that pales (no racist) to what is happening to the Japanese, largely because of a collapse of their culture and the replacement of dating and family life with weird fetishism and robots and dolls.

  • vek||

    Don't expect anything on this topic to actually dive into the heart of the issue... Reason falls into the "It's good if white people all die off" camp as far as I can tell.

    I wouldn't mind if this was just America, but the fact that most countries in Europe will be majority non European is just a horrible thought... Paris filled with Muslims will no longer be Paris. It will be Istanbul West or something. The death of so many great cultures and civilizations, by design of the political elite through mass immigration, in such a short span of time is just too fucking sad. I'd rather just deal with the issues of a declining population versus see the entirety of Western Civilization go up in flames in the span of 50 or so years...

    Japan is doing pretty decent really, their average income per capita is doing just fine, and that is the real measure of wealthy people care about. There have been upsides for many people, like falling real estate prices in the Tokyo suburbs.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online