First they said, “. . . the 1965 Immigration act won’t change the ethnic balance of the country.”
Then Bill Clinton said, “. . . by 2050 whites will be a minority” just as a fait accompli, with the implication that he is neutral about whether this is good or bad. Many people just shrugged along with Clinton, and didn’t see his smirk.
Now the “progressives,” feeling the winds of demographic victory at their backs, admit their vicious glee, such as Alternet writer Joshua Holland:
Joshua Holland 1 minute ago in reply to Jeronimus14
I can’t wait for whites to become a minority in in the United States 2050.
FYI: the U.S. has most definitely never been a “white country.” In 1775, the year before the Revolution, 20% of the Colonial population were Africans.
And while they obviously weren’t American citizens, within the territory that would become the United States, native Americans were plentiful.
A most excellent development! Let all the masks come off now! The whole premise of liberals/progressives was that they were the golden-hearted angels who didn’t wish genocide or even a scraped knee on any living creature. With Holland, we see what a “progressive” looks like when it thinks it sees the “finish line.”
There’s still millions of normal White Americans who would consider it “news” to find out that their very existence is evil and they need to be wiped out, according to an arrogantly arms akimbo racially indeterminate Joshua Holland grinning and heralding the extinction of YT.
Anyone who understands biology knows that a race that is declining isn’t going to stop declining; it’s going to go extinct. The race replacement policies of feminism and third world immigration and forced integration have been genocide in the name of humanitarianism. Progressivism, which is an ideology with a feminist and homosexual bent, has dominated because in a growing economy it was easy to “tolerate” a lot of filth and hypocrisy. Progressivism in a growth economy is like a shit sandwich — people tolerate the shit so long as its masked by a LOT of bread.
But now the taste, and smell, of “progressive” shit is going to become unbearable. Priceless quotes from “mainstream progressive writers” like Holland shall be Exhibit A to the fence-sitters about the gleefully genocidal intentions of these golden-hearted angelic liberal humanitarians.
Edit — Mr. Holland made a revision of the Bob Whitaker Mantra.
Joshua Holland 1 minute ago in reply to Jeronimus14
And I think whomever you’re quoting left off a word …
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white-trash.”
There, all fixed!
It always gives me a nice warm feeling to see the enemy get emotional and ad hominem. I think Holland is a textbook case of a mixed race individual with a major case of racial envy against unmixed Whites.
“Two more logical fallacies.”
Here are two fallacies for YOUR consideration, Holland (the first of which I note you had the good taste not to deploy):
1. Our racial dispossession is something to be ‘celebrated’. Wrong.
2. Once that dispossession is well under way, it will not be that bad. So be a good chap, and…just go back to sleep. Wrong again.
Bullshitter.
Holland: “Here you do assign causation (”A black majority means …”). Logical fallacy.”
Hunter did not engage in a logical fallacy. Blacks do in fact have higher murder rates, lower academic test scores, etc. That is a fact, not a fallacy. Therefore, where such a group congregates in substantial numbers, statistically you are likely to get more of the problem behavior. A lot more, in fact. And, surprise surprise, that’s exactly what we see happen. This isn’t some esoteric theory, Holland. The bodies are in the morgue to prove it, the test scores actually exist.
This is not a logical fallacy, it is a demonstrable and provable fact. But then, it’s easier to make specious claims of logical fallacies than to deal with reality, evidence, and facts that you cannot deny. Understood.
“So, we’re not talking about a group of people advancing their “interests,” we’re talking about differential birthrates among ethnic groups.”
Differential birthrates that will inevitably increase the numbers and thereby the power, and thereby the ability to pursue their group interests.
Are you telling me groups do not pursue their interests?
“I won’t deny that many minorities are happy to see their numbers grow.”
And this has nothing to do with a rational perception of their group interests? I know you don’t honestly believe that. E.g., La Raza, NAACP, AIPAC et al.
“population and power aren’t the same thing.”
And yet numbers track with the ability to project power. The Democratic party is shaping up to be a coalition of non-White groups. That is the future.
“As I’ve said repeatedly, when whites become a minority, they’ll still hold most of the seats of political and economic power.”
Again, our demographic decline will not be arrested at 49.9%. Non-Whites will lobby to allow more of their co-ethnics into this country.
OK, folks, it’s been a surprising amount of fun.
Allow me to suggest that if you’re really concerned about this, you should stop spending so much time worrying about wise-ass comments made by some obscure liberal writer and get screwing!
I mean, these are long-term projections — estimates — not facts etched in stone.
Nobody thought the US hockey team had a snow-ball’s chance in Hell of beating the Russkies in 1980, but they did it through hard work and pluck. Go home to the wives — you guys can still win this race! But you’ll have to focus — keep your eyes on the prize — like Team USA did.
“Are you telling me groups do not pursue their interests?”
Read what I said.
Are you telling me that a in the real world couples who are considering whether or not to have a child, think to themselves, ‘ well, we don’t want another kid, but we really should so our ethnic group can be a larger share of the population in subsequent generations’?
That has nothing to do with groups of people pursuing their own interests. All I’m saying is that they don’t make a conscious choice to have babies in order to advance those interests (again, with the exception of crazy people like the Quiverfull bunch).
“Russkies”
A coalition of non-Whites led by Jews, in which instance Whites may fair no better than when the Jewish Bolsheviks (google Lazar Kaganovitch) held the whip-hand of the “Russkies.” You Ash-can-nazis are inveterate bullshitters. The great masters of the lie, as Schopenhauer averred.
Thanks for affirming Godwin’s Law, Captain.
It never, ever fails and that gives me a sense of comfort.
“Read what I said.”
If you’d do me the small favor of responding directly to my questions. Though I’m not holding my breath.
“That has nothing to do with groups of people pursuing their own interests.”
Ethnic activist groups and voting patterns by minorities that tend towards facilitating the redistribution of resources have much to do with the conscious pursuit of groups interests. And the more intelligent and ethnocentric of whatever ethnic group act as the mouth piece of this impulse. If there was not this impulse to ethnocentric pursuit of interest, how is it that ethnic activist groups could enjoy success at all? Answer me, now.
Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he grudgingly admits that they exist; whereas he enthusiastically points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful. — http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future
You’re still not getting what seems to me a pretty clear distinction.
I never said there aren’t organized advocacy groups that pursue the interests of their various ethnic groups.
What I said was that we’re talking about slight differences in birthrates, and when actual couples are weighing whether to have a child or not, they don’t consider their ethnicity’s future proportionality as a major factor in that decision.
In other words, sure, groups of people pursue what they see as the interests of their communities. But they do it politically, not through some kind of organized campaign to pump out more babies!
It’s possible that I’m not getting your point, because this seems pretty self-evident.
“In other words, sure, groups of people pursue what they see as the interests of their communities. But they do it politically, not through some kind of organized campaign to pump out more babies!”
The “point” you keep attempting to hammer home is a non sequitur in the context of the larger, world historical trends, and the consequences of those trends, which we are discussing here. There is such as thing as the fortunes of a group waxing and waining in the course of time, no? Yes. And what is more, the demographic trends we observe now are not happenstance, but the consequence of conscious policy prescriptions. The fortunes of non-White ethnic groups are waxing per conscious policy prescriptions at the expense of the White majority. The effect is intended. You cannot possibly deny that, as it is obvious.
And what is more, the demographic trends we observe now are not happenstance, but the consequence of conscious policy prescriptions.
This comes to the crux of the debate. And I definitely reject your claim. There’s no Chinese-style single child policy for white people.
Yes, we can talk about immigration, but the projected demographic shift would happen even if immigration were reduced to zero, based only on differential birthrates.
And those differential birthrates are influenced by a variety of complex factors. A conscious effort to outbreed other ethnic groups is not among them.
And, as I said above, if you believe it is an organized effort then you can always start organizing and make some babies on the white side of the ledger. It’s a free country.
The central lie by omission in Holland’s comments here is that he is not a dispassionate, neutral observer to the looming minority status of Whites, but is actively in favor of it. He wishes to convey the impression that what is happening is merely historical accident, and not the result of consciously pursued policy, one motive of which for consciously pursuing said is ethnocentric interests; which includes his own – his Jewish ethnocentric interests. And if he is not motivated by Jewish ethnocentrism, then is he in favor of, or indifferent to, Jews becoming a minority in Israel? I highly doubt it.
I note that Holland refused to answer the question as to his specific ethnic ancestry.
Allow me to suggest that if you’re really concerned about this, you should stop spending so much time worrying about wise-ass comments made by some obscure liberal writer and get screwing!
I mean, these are long-term projections — estimates — not facts etched in stone.
This is mendacious. Immigration is the primary reason whites are projected to become a minority, and immigration has the effect of retarding native birthrates. However, you are correct that these are projections and not etched in stone. The course of events can easily be altered if only we summon the will and acquire the power to do so.
Low birthrates by themselves are not the cause of race-replacement. Exclusive, defended territory is more important than fertility rates. Here is Frank Salter in On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration:
p. 60
pp. 149-150
Holland, racial differences in intelligence, criminality, and social delinquency are not the issues that matter. They are peripheral. What really matters is racial survival and preservation. When different races occupy the same territory, intermixture, amalgamation, and racial destruction are inevitable in the long run. Racial preservation requires reproductive isolation, which requires geographic separation. Separation is the preservationist imperative. A racial partition of the United States into ethnostates is needed in order to ensure racial preservation. To oppose separation is to oppose racial preservation and to support racial destruction.
“And, as I said above, if you believe it is an organized effort then you can always start organizing and make some babies on the white side of the ledger.”
It is oft claimed that immigrants with high fertility rates are needed as Whites in the West have below replacement fertility rates and said immigrants are needed to make up for that dearth of young people. That gives the game away right there, as the response of Western societies in not to instead prescribe policies that would increase the White birth rate; something it is certainly in their power to do. So then, the effect of replacing Whites in clearly anticipated and therefore intended. And another thing, non-Asian non-Whites have a evolved higher-fertility, lower-child-investment reproductive strategy. As economic and societal conditions in the West continue to deteriorate Whites will per ‘tighten up’ and bear fewer children. What is happening to us is genocide, and it is intended.
I would rather the world burn to ashes than see my people die.
Holland’s rhetoric is the kind that merits a trial for genocide, if he were bragging about overwhelming an Asian or African with non-natives he would be in a prison cell by now.
So Josh may I ask on how you came about this genocidal ideology?
The central lie by omission in Holland’s comments here is that he is not a dispassionate, neutral observer to the looming minority status of Whites, but is actively in favor of it.
No, I really think the whole thing is silly and don’t care. For the most part I write about economics!
…is he in favor of, or indifferent to, Jews becoming a minority in Israel? I highly doubt it.
Perhaps you should Google me before making such a foolish assumption. As a relatively well-known Jewish critic of Israel — one who is frequently called “self-loathing” by the AIPAC types — I honestly couldn’t care less whether Jews become a minority in Israel.
In fact, if you take the advice of an earlier commenter and Google my name and “Jew,” you’ll find a number of unapologetic white supremacist websites — much like this one — linking to and quoting approvingly from my writing on Israel-Palestine (no, those links didn’t make me particularly happy, but whatever).
And to MGLS: there are 30 of you and 1 of me, so I really don’t feel the need to answer every single question. My ancestry is irrelevant. I hereby swear to you that I myself will not have a few million babies!
Captain, I don’t want to see your people die either.
The good news is that just like today, they’ll continue to die of old age, disease and accidents.
And when your people die of old age, disease and accidents, they’ll be replaced by a generation that’s just a little bit smaller than the generation which follows the deaths of other, non-white people who die of old age, disease and accidents.
Nobody’s getting killed in this deal! Phew!
They always make some irrelevant noise about how they are against Israel, but never actually do anything about it, but always support the Zionist/Jewish agenda in every other way.
“frequently called “self-loathing” by the AIPAC types”
Does anyone believe this actually happened, other than perhaps some stray comment on his blog? Is anyone impressed with this martyrdom?
42 CompassionateFascist
Flaming Jew seeks persecution. Finds it. Feels Chosen. Joshua Israel Holland, our (former) nation will be in a state of race war, Left/Right war, secessionist states vs. District of Corruption war within 2 years. This is what you Beasts of Chaos wanted when you stuffed our (former) nation full of black-brown socialist sturmtruppen, and this is what you are going to get. But you may not enjoy the outcome.
CompassionateFascist previously predicted ( http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/09/lost-and-lonely-white-america/#comment-45705 ) that there would be “Race War + class war + state secessions” by April 2013. Now he has moved up his prediction, confidently asserting that there will be race war, ideological war, and state secessions by May 2012. These sort of predictions have been made endlessly over the last few decades, and they never come true. Fortunately, CompassionateFascist, who appears to revel in the prospect of mass violence, the death of millions, and a complete bloodbath, has made a concrete, specific prediction, so when, two years from now, it inevitably has not come true, we can remind people of this wrong prediction.
They always make some irrelevant noise about how they are against Israel …
Actually, “they” never do! It’s such a pain in the ass during holiday meals with the grandparents, you know?
You’re obviously too lazy to use the Google, so try this — he’s one of your fellow travelers.
I previously posed the following questions to CompassionateFascist, but did not receive a response.
I would ask the same thing with respect to the prediction of race war, ideological war, and state secessions by May 2012.
“a generation that’s just a little bit smaller”
And smaller and smaller and smaller until there are none of us left. Wholly unacceptable.
“Nobody’s getting killed in this deal!”
You must be kidding me. The mythos that Whites are responsible for all the ills of all the peoples of the world will only continue to grow in scope and repetition. And we, what is left of us, as the most despised rump imaginable, will suffer terribly. A trail of tears leading straight to the grave. This is not some parlor game, we are talking about the diminution into nothingness of an entire ancient people. Not a fate you would commend, under any circumstance whatever, to your Jewish people. Yet you commend it to us.
However this thing ends, it cannot end well.
And smaller and smaller and smaller until there are none of us left. Wholly unacceptable.
No, it doesn’t work that way. Birthrates never remain constant over time. You’ll be fine!
MGLS,
With all due respect, when has separation of peoples been peaceful?
First I said:
“That aside, let’s assume there is no causality between race and behavior. Let’s assume that the misery is all due to socio-economic factors. Let’s assume that the whole victimization wah-wah fairy-tale of liberalism is true.
Ok, so here’s my question: why the h*ll should normal, honest White 21st century people accept it, deal with it and pay for it with money, blod and life?”
Then Joshua Holland said:
That’s the where the rubber meets the road, buddy.
“Birthrates never remain constant over time.”
Truly, and with the onset of increasingly hostile external circumstances they will continue to peter out. You steadfastly refuse to consider the issue in its wider context. Exclusive territory is the indispensable guarantor of genetic continuity which allows a given group to master all the tides of the vagaries of fertility. We are Europeans, and as is true for most of the other peoples of this earth, we have not evolved in diaspora as Jews have. We lack the hyper-ethnocentrism and group cohesion to survive the coming millenia in what will effectively be diaspora-life, having been dispossessed of our lands. And if you want us to give up our lands, then give up Israel. Put your money where your mouth is.
Second line from the end was meant to end “chirping bird sounds”, but the formatting was wrong and it didn’t take. My bad.
Truly, and with the onset of increasingly hostile external circumstances they will continue to peter out. You steadfastly refuse to consider the issue in its wider context.
I steadfastly refuse to accept your dire predictions, yes. They are predictions, and I find them totally unrealistic. And the thing about debating what will occur 32 years from now is that neither one of us can prove the point. You’re not going to convince me that your fears, while obviously hartfelt, are really justified.
Also, I understand that this is a comment thread on a white supremacist website, and you folks aren’t going to buy that many Jewish people are also considered “white.” But here’s a key point: we’re talking about demographic statistics, and I just sent in a census form on which I checked the box for “Caucasian.” And if I should break my earlier promise and personally have millions of babies with a woman who also happened to be white, then in 2050 all those rugrats would also declare themselves “Caucasian,” and be counted as such on the census.
So, seriously, I understand you feel threatened. But I’m not sure who you’re identifying as your “people.” Do you mean white people who also share your worldview? Because that’s ideology, not humanity, and ideologies rise and fall.
Joshua Holland
Not you.
We are a people.
MGLS,
With all due respect, when has separation of peoples been peaceful?
I don’t have any illusions that racial separation would be entirely without hostility and conflict. However, we should aim and hope for a separation that is as peaceful as possible.
Reveling in the prospect of a bloodbath and the death of millions of people ( http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/29/arizona-the-new-irrepressible-conflict/#comment-50322 ) is wrong and entirely unproductive.
Also, we have no need for false, broken record predictions about imminent wanton violence and war. They breed fatalism and encourage people to disengage from the real world. Once they inevitably fail to come true, it creates a sense of despondency and betrayal in those who believed the predictions. We must get past the mentality that a collapse and race war are imminent. They are not. The decline of our race is slow and gradual. If we are to reverse it, it will be through the building of a movement in the political and cultural spheres to secure our interests.
Nordicreb, I didn’t answer that because I had no earthly clue what you were talking about. Try to keep in mind that I’m just a visitor!
The topic at hand is this: ethnic minority groups have, on aggregate, a somewhat higher birthrate than Americans of European descent. If those rates remain constant for the next 3 or so decades, and factoring in immigration, whites will represent less than 50% of the population.
My argument is that you shouldn’t care about this, so your question makes absolutely no sense.
Thanks Reddit is Awesome — I picked up on that earlier in the thread. And I’m really OK with it!
So, Morphy, you’re saying whites who share your views rather than “white people,” right? “We” being the kind of folks gathered here.
That’s kind of what I figured.
Dudes, he is serious about being opposed to extreme Zionist policy. Here is two of his articles criticizing Israeli aggression and it’s supporters.
http://www.alternet.org/story/143503/is_the_end_near_for_the_right-wing's_vice_grip_on_u.s._israeli_policy/
http://www.alternet.org/story/141315/why_is_a_liberal_israel_analyst_echoing_neocon_fearmongering_on_iran/
@Holland
Awesome article about MJ Rosenberg.
MGLS,
Well said. Whatever the future holds in store, I will be a free man.
Also, I understand that this is a comment thread on a white supremacist website, and you folks aren’t going to buy that many Jewish people are also considered “white.” But here’s a key point: we’re talking about demographic statistics, and I just sent in a census form on which I checked the box for “Caucasian.” And if I should break my earlier promise and personally have millions of babies with a woman who also happened to be white, then in 2050 all those rugrats would also declare themselves “Caucasian,” and be counted as such on the census.
It does not matter who the Census Bureau considers “white” or “Caucasian.” Whether Turks, Jews, Greeks, or mestizos are defined as “white” is of no consequence. If we adopted a Latin American style standard of “white” and defined mestizos as “white,” so that “whites” would continue to be a majority indefinitely, it would not change the racial facts on the ground and the reality of the dispossession of the founding American (Northern and Western European) population. The issue is the survival and preservation of the (real) American population, not Census Bureau definitions.
Joshua Holland,
It was the only kind of inside joke, a true one.
The explanation is here:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_compleat_anti_racist/
No, it doesn’t work that way. Birthrates never remain constant over time. You’ll be fine!
Low birth rates do not cause race-replacement in and of themselves. Mass migration is what leads to race-replacement. An ethny can weather the effects of low birth rates if it has an exclusive, defended territory. I recommend you read the book On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration by Frank Salter. Above I quoted from the book concerning this issue.
Nutuporshutup, those aren’t even the ones that this crowd tends to like best.
Those can be found here, here and especially here.
It’s a good lesson: not everyone walks in lockstep.
Ah, Morphy, thanks.
@MGLS: no, they don’t. Immigration obviously plays a role.
But in the United States, in 2010, the demographic shift is being fueled primarily by differential birthrates among U.S. citizens.
Long before whites become a minority, they’ll stop having the majority of babies in this country. That could happen as soon as 2012, and most of those babies are going to be borne to Americans.
This demographic shift appears to be baked into the cake at this point, so you folks really ought to take my advice and start spitting out more kids.
@MGLS: Actually, what the census Bureau says is at the heart of this whole discussion.
I mean, if you define “white people” as only those from North-Western Europe, then I’m sure “whites” are already in the minority. After all, those Russians, Greeks and Poles in the demographic statistics we’re talking about aren’t “white” after all, according to your definition.
This demographic shift appears to be baked into the cake at this point, so you folks really ought to take my advice and start spitting out more kids.
No. Racial survival cannot be achieved by changes in birth rates. Geographic separation and the partition of the United States into ethnostates are required for racial preservation.
The goal is not to have whites remain a majority in the currently constituted United States. I am indifferent to the United States as a political entity. My goal is the survival of my co-ethnics on the North American continent. This requires an exclusive, defended territory. Ideally, the United States will be broken up into homogeneous ethnostates.
@MGLS: Actually, what the census Bureau says is at the heart of this whole discussion.
No, it isn’t. I don’t care how the Census Bureau defines “white” or “Caucasian.” It has no bearing on racial facts and realities. If the Census Bureau decided to define blacks, Asians, mestizos, and every other group as “white,” so that the country would be defined to be 100% “white,” would that change the reality of racial differences? Obviously not.
Quick reality check: do you or do you not acknowledge that the idea of dividing the U.S. into separate “ethnostates” is one embraced by a very, very small minority?
If you acknowledge that reality, and given that you (admirably) eschew bloodshed, then what do you propose? It’s not like all white Americans want to be divided into ethnically-pure enclaves. So how would you achieve your pristine utopia without violence?
And if you don;t care about the U.S. as a political entity, only North-Western Europeans in a sectarian way, then wouldn’t it just be easier to move to someplace like Denmark? 91% of the population is of Danish descent.
@MLGS: If you don’t care about the official statistics, then why bother?
When we say “whites” will be the minority in this country in 30 years, we’re discussing the official statistics. If you only accept a sub-set of “Caucasians” as “white,” then we’re dealing with apples and oranges.
So, another reason not to worry: we’re only talking about a shift in the official demographic statistics, which don’t follow your criteria.
After all, those Russians, Greeks and Poles in the demographic statistics we’re talking about aren’t “white” after all, according to your definition.
No, the non-Europeans including in the Census Bureau’s definition of White includes Middle Easterners, North Africans, West Asians and racially mixed people. Those definitely are not White.
I mean, if you define “white people” as only those from North-Western Europe, then I’m sure “whites” are already in the minority.
Hmm… that’s an interesting point. I think that might be right. Does anyone know if that is in fact the case?