Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

The Census Bureau now predicts that whites will be in the minority in the U.S. by 2042. As a disliker of rapid population growth, I'll issue a semi-related groan over the fact that by 2042 the U.S. will likely have almost three times as many inhabitants as it had when I was born.

Some subversive thoughts on the general topic come from Elizabeth Wright:

What will be the consequence of other cultures dominating this formerly Anglo land? Will it matter ... if Asian groups, led by the Chinese and east Indians, displace the leading whites? (In the end, a century from now, regardless of the size of the Hispanic/Latino population, the Chinese and east Indians probably will have navigated their way to the national leadership positions.)

As the Anglo-Euro population diminishes, why would people from these alien cultures subscribe to the prescriptions of a Thomas Jefferson, or care about the legacy of Magna Carta? When would the squabbling between the various ethnics begin over whose law is wisest and best fit to rule in the new, predominantly colored America?

Punchline: The woman behind these words is anything but a white triumphalist, let alone a white nationalist. In fact, she's black. As I've tried to suggest in some previous postings on immigration policy, one of the things I dislike most about our current practices is that they're an insult and a disservice to the U.S.'s black population.

A fun quote comes from Salon's Glenn Greenwald:

One of the most striking aspects of our political discourse, particularly during election time, is how efficiently certain views that deviate from the elite consensus are banished from sight -- simply prohibited -- even when those views are held by the vast majority of citizens.

I'll say. Greenwald is mainly writing about attitudes towards the mideast, but much same thing might be said about attitudes towards immigration policy. In polls, the percentage of Americans who feel that our policies are too liberal, if not downright nutty, runs from 60-80%. There are few political topics that many Americans feel as strongly about. Yet how openly -- and how regularly -- is the immigration issue discussed in our mainstream media, let alone by our most important candidates?

The very smart, provocative, and rewarding Elizabeth Wright blogs here.

Best,

Michael

By 2042, I'll be dead. If I'm not, I'll be going through a box of Depends a day.

Somehow, Michael, I knew that you would post on this one.

I'd like to argue over these issues, but I can't see exactly what good it would do. This issue, along with whether we should allow suburbia to exist, seems so far beyond my purview as to be laughable.

That lengthy jeremiad against the "car culture" you produced... well, that's just the way people work. The process you describe... self-dealing, corruption, insanity... that's what people do. This is the way people make choices. We don't sit down, read a bunch of books and have an intellectual discussion. I don't understand your expectation that we ought to do that.

Reading books and thoughty articles is a curse. If you do enough of it, you begin to think that the world ought to be ruled by the interior dialogue that process creates. In my experience, that has little to do with how human society works.

It looks to me like this world is ruled by people on the make, not by bookish intellectuals. This is a very good thing. I'm sorry, Michael, but I don't find anything attractive about your desire to have the world ruled by people immersed in the world of reading and arguing about ideals. I'm quite content with a world ruled by the base desires of people on the make. It's a mess. That's for sure. It's supposed to be.

You know: "It's the same old story, a fight for love and glory... a case of do or die..."

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 15, 2008 7:49 AM

This whole nightmare could be ended, or at least considerably ameliorated, if the anchor baby insanity were outlawed.

The fact that it's not been outlawed tells us all we have to know about "our" government!

Posted by: ricpic on August 15, 2008 9:46 AM

ST -- You sure spend a lot of time argumentatively announcing that you've moved beyond arguing! Incidentally, who's inviting an argument? I'm a far bigger fan of conversations than arguments. And you refer to my "desire to have the world ruled by people immersed in the world of reading and arguing about ideals ..." Where do you get that I want such a thing? Heavens, skepticism about and wariness of intellectuals is nothing if not one of the big themes at this blog.

Ricpic -- No kidding. Ditching the anchor-baby thing might qualify as the single easiest and best thing we could do for ourselves politically ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 15, 2008 10:16 AM

I am arguing purely for the sake of argument.

We seem to be arguing always about babies. You seem to be appalled by the messiness of babies. This seems to emanate from your personal dislike of having babies mess up your life.

I think that people should have babies simply because they fall in love, get horny and want to see the product of their passion. The messiness of all this seems to me to be a great thing. It's certainly been a wonderful part of my life.

Whites have gotten so intellectual and so immersed in individuality that most of our women no longer want to have babies. Reading Roissy, you'll discover that the white men want to get revenge against the women for refusing to play the traditional role of wife and mother.

Hispanic and Asian women continue, for the most part, to want to have babies. So, there are more Hispanic and Asian babies than white ones. I think that Hispanic and Asian women are far more attractive than white women for precisely this reason.

So, I don't think that laws and politics are the answer. The answer is for whites to can the Stuff White People Like nonsense, cease regarding fucking as just for fun, and start producing some babies. The problem is the idiot Stuff White People Like horseshit. The hipster world is not only an arid bore... it's suicidal.

A commenter told me recently that his parents' desire for grandchildren is "selfish." This is not a desire. It is one of the basic drives of every living thing... like eating, shitting and building a roof over your head. The triumph of the intellect over this basic drive is a mental illness. It is always surprising just how stupid intellectualism can make you.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 15, 2008 10:43 AM

The clever point about East Asian leadership (relative to latino growth) suggests a recognition that it's not about immigration per se.

Even if we drastically reduced immigration and favored skilled immigrants (the most sensible, vaguely popular reform), the major change would be to cut down on Hispanic growth.

But given the high skill set and academic accomplishments of Asian Americans, it is likely that Asian Americans would play a much greater leadership role [from the political to academic to business elites] than they're playing today, even if they remained no more than 10-15% of the total population. In which case, the issue isn't immigration, but competition between populations at the elite level.

This is an interesting issue that's worthy of discussion but somewhat different from the problem of immigration and population growth, don't you think? Moreover, it has more to do with the declining relative performance of middle American whites than numbers per se (vs. Jews or the high end of well-educated whites). After all, Jews are overrepresented at Harvard and on Wall Street despite being a tiny fraction of the population. Asian Americans won't be as successful, but since there are more of them their elites might be numerically greater. And all indications are that third generation Asian-Ams are quite Anglo in behavior and orientation.

Posted by: Not gandhi on August 15, 2008 10:43 AM

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for Americans, and more urgently the Europeans to appreciate the consequences of their immigration policies.

I am optimistic for the USA. Latin American immigration is one thing, and I don't mean to belittle the economic, demopgraphic and political consequences of current policies (which I agree are significant and negative).

But compare our situation to contintal Europe - radical islamists instead of apolitical Mexican peasants. Most European countries are presently about 20% Muslim, 40-50% in the major city centres and if you compare men of fighting age, Islamists would have a clear numerical advantage in most urban areas. I'll lay money on a civil war or two in the next decade.

"America Alone" by Mark Steyn is a good book to read on the subject. I bought it after learning that it was at risk of being banned in my native Canada.

My expectation going into it was that it would be virulent, angry and racist. (Racist in the sense of expressing a vile and categorical dislike of groups of people, rather than say, admitting that kenyans tend to excel at long-distance running). How else could any serious person advocate banning it?

What blew me away was how MODERATE Steyn was. In terms of subversiveness, I'd rank Steyn considerably less than isteve, half sigma, roissy and maybe even slightly below M. Blowhard. Just an honest discussion of the demographic realities of the world, and their possible consequnces... and it is at risk of being banned.

Thank god for the internet and foums such as these that allow intelligent people to openly share ideas without fear of social opprobrium or 'human rights tribunals'.

Posted by: Zdeno on August 15, 2008 10:59 AM

But compare our situation to contintal Europe - radical islamists instead of apolitical Mexican peasants. Most European countries are presently about 20% Muslim, 40-50% in the major city centres and if you compare men of fighting age, Islamists would have a clear numerical advantage in most urban areas. I'll lay money on a civil war or two in the next decade.

That is one of the biggest steaming piles of Steyn/Auster/LGF panty piddling paranoia crap I've ever read. By all evidence the EU's population is about three percent Muslim. Even in France, the country with the highest percentage, most estimates go no higher than 6% to 7%. The other larger countries, Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain, are all under 5%.

Posted by: Peter on August 15, 2008 12:28 PM

Peter:: yeah and just look what that 3% has done already..why are you so F4@#$@#$ out of touch with reality? Oh, I know why, because you let ideology supersede reality.

America and Europe, barring a miracle, barring a modern Isabel & Ferdinand...are finished: too emffemanized, pc-zed, guilt tripped, decadent... America is technologically better, but socially far more deteriorate, far more illiterate than the day we were 'blessed' by the 1965 immigration 'reform' act.

It won't change because our elite HATE us, and they have subverted and will subvert any effort to stop their agenda.

Posted by: me on August 15, 2008 1:25 PM

5 minutes on wikipedia later, and I stand corrected. Another example of the importance of always checking your sources eh?

Still rank Islamofascism up there in terms of "things that worry me" but it wouldn't be an overstatement to say that Peter just caused a radical shift in my perception of reality with a few snide remarks.

Thanks

Posted by: Zdeno on August 15, 2008 2:01 PM

Zendo: google around about the rape rate in Oslo now - every city in Europe that was once save is now unsafe - more so for whites - I would just LOVE for Peter to move to one of those muslim majority neighborhoods and then give us a lecture about how great diversity is and how race and ethinicity 'just don't matter'.. It will be a little hard for peter of course, to talk with mouth wired shut and teeth missing, but such is the 'enrichment' that multiculturalism has brought to europe.

Peter: Are you or are you not aware of the rape statistics for cities like Oslo and that white women are specifically targeted by muslims and other minorities?

Posted by: me on August 15, 2008 2:58 PM

btw Zdeno - don't forget that people like Peter and EU try to downplay the stats - whether is minority/muslim on white crime, the number of immigrants and the number of illegal immigrants.

Peter is also blatently 'lying' in the sense of trying to downplay the impact -with current muslim birthrates vs. French ones (oh i know peter there' s no such thing ) France will be majority muslim in 50 years...

Zdeno do you remember Ted Kennedy & other elite's famous claim that the immigration reform act of 1965 would only result in about 3000 more immigrants a year? People like peter LIE or LIE to themselves because their ideology supersedes everything (all people are equal so it doesn't matter if France is filled with 80 IQ somalians

Posted by: me on August 15, 2008 3:05 PM

@ me -
Yawn, more panty piddling paranoia. Crime rates in most European cities are FAR lower than what we can even imagine in America.

Posted by: Peter on August 15, 2008 3:22 PM

Peter: you are lying, or completely out of touch with reality.

"The number of rapes in the Norwegian capital Oslo is six times as high as in New York City. ed of talking about them, so here goes."
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1754

Why do you have to lie peter? Why do EU cheerleaders go out of their way to try to bury/hide this information? I seriously, honestly would like you to suffer the full effects of your idealogy , so I beg you , please move to a muslim majority neigborhood and report back in six months.

Posted by: me on August 15, 2008 3:32 PM

As my final missive today, I've got to comment on how this all relates to your second career as a producer of erotic video and your tours in support of erotic literature.

These activities make you a culture warrior, and in that role you only hear one side of the story. You are riding into the hick towns as an emissary from the Big City, and you are luring the hick kids with tales of wickedness and debauchery. Let it be noted: the kids you attract want to be lured into the wicked life of the Big City. (Years ago, I was one of them.)

When you state that you are fond of mischief, you should consider just what sort of mischief you are playing. The parents of these kids want their kids to stay home and produce grandkids. The parents are seldom the hick moralists you portray them to be. They just want their kid to live close enough to come home for dinner every week, and they want to be in the lives of their grandkids.

There is a missionary zeal about this work you have embarked upon. While I also enjoy porn, erotica, etc., I recognize just how these things attack the parents of those kids. You are campaigning through this work for a view of sex as strictly aesthetic and meant solely for play. From the viewpoint of the parents, you are attacking their claim on the future.

I don't agree with your political argument. I think that sexuality is primarily about romance, marriage and making babies. Secondarily, sexuality is for play and aesthetics. Minus romantic, procreative sexuality, that play sexuality, in my opinion, usually becomes abusive and deadening.

As a broad generalization, it is only within white culture that this grim aversion to procreation has become hip. I find this a most unattractive, damned near crazy thing. Art is not a substitute for parenting. People who claim that parenting deprived them of success as an artist are full of bullshit. That's a crappy excuse.

That battle over at Roissy's is entirely over this insanity within hip, educated white culture. Who wants a wife who is just a man without the dick? I certainly don't.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 15, 2008 3:40 PM

I'm sure the EU, as well most exponents of multi-culturalism pick and choose stats that serve their agenda. For that reason, I would advise Peter to double check his

My error was in forgetting that Steyn (whose book still contains a lot of truth) has an agenda as well.

Regardless of the numbers, I do agree that the massive and unprecedented immigration levels in the Western World are unhealthy and detrimental to our peace, prosperity and freedom.

My recollection of the 1965 immigration act is muddy, since I was still 20 years removed from the world at the time.. I'll take you old farts' word on it though :D

Posted by: Zdeno on August 15, 2008 3:46 PM

i also suspect Peter and people like him are rigging for the old bait and switch as was done in America "what illegal aliens? who, what ? you're racist..there aren't any according to our stats..they just do jobs you don't want to do..whoops! there's 20 million, we can't deport all those people that's just silly we may as well learn to get along".

Posted by: me on August 15, 2008 3:56 PM

"more to do with the declining relative performance of middle American whites than numbers per se (vs. Jews or the high end of well-educated whites). After all, Jews are overrepresented at Harvard and on Wall Street despite being a tiny fraction of the population"

Has it ever occurred to you that part of that decline comes directly from Jews continuing to engage in ethnic nepotism while WASPs, in the words of Jews like David Brooks "gave up without firing a shot" (They didn't know, like the jews, that they were in a war)

The reason whites are losing so much power so quickly is that we are the ONLY ones demonizing what held us together for thousands of years... No one else, certainly not the chinese- or the jews - are stupid enough to play that game. They will let ANglo America play all they want and even prod them along, but as the thousands of chinese who came out in support of supressing tibet illustrated -they are playing by different rules.

Posted by: me on August 15, 2008 4:37 PM

Muslims are going to rise from 3% to much, much higher in what will seem the blink of an eye: a few decades. And once that happens, they're not going to go away. Europe isn't screwed; they're tough in ways we can't begin to understand (at least here in Canada). But Muslims will be a problem much bigger than they are today. Just not an islamoterroristofascisticmedievalo problem. They'll be more like our blacks and Hispanics: part of an emerging international culture of poverty, thuggery, drug-dealing, kinda like white trash, just de-whited and spread out all over.

I call this emerging society the International Brotherhood of Thugs. It's the coming thing in culture!

Posted by: PatrickH on August 15, 2008 5:03 PM

Michael:

Provide me with your definition of what constitutes American culture.

When I drive down to the Pacific Dining Car in Los Angeles, a predominatly Hispanic area, I see the same fast food franchises I see in my predominantly white North Hollywood residence. I also see the same billboards for the same products, only the slogans are printed in Spanish downtown.

I'm with you on population growth and the higher fertility rates of Hispanics, etc. I'm unconcerned about the destruction of American culture. To me American culture equals rampant mercantilism and consumption, which is what most immigrants to the US aspire to anyway. Look at what's happening in China and India.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on August 15, 2008 5:08 PM

PLW: I am unconcerned about the destruction of American culture.

We know, Peter. Now if only those who share your contempt for your own country would be as honest, those who do love America the way she is right now--not as some f*cking City On A Hill that's always receding over the horizon--would finally recognize the enemy they face, would rise up against you, and put a sane immigration policy into effect.

Unless I've misunderstood you, of course.

Posted by: PatrickH on August 15, 2008 10:25 PM

It seems like Mr Winkler should be heartily opposing immigration? After all by his own definition these immigrants are just adding mass to what he sees as the American cultural tumor?
sN

Posted by: sN on August 16, 2008 3:57 AM

ST: Have you looked at the birth rates in Asian countries other than the Philippines? Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and Korea are far below replacement level. So is China, of course, but for special reasons. Vietnam, Burma, and Sri Lanka are going there soon. Indonesia and Malaysia are not far behind. Even in the Philippines, the rates are dropping fast.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on August 16, 2008 6:15 AM

SN: I don't oppose all immigration, but would limit it to a very small number of skilled individuals.

Posted by: Peter Winkler on August 16, 2008 4:23 PM

Peter does not know what he is talking about re European immigration.

The UK is currently experiencing the largest wave of immigration ever. That includes the Norman conquest, the Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Norse and lord know who else.

According to UK Government projections, immigration will result in an increase in the population of the UK of 6 million in the 27 years from 2004 that is 6 times the population of our second largest city, Birmingham.
Immigrants and their descendants will now account for 83% of UK future population growth.
Meanwhile, asylum has been allowed to become a back door to Britain. In recent years over 60% have been refused permission to stay here but only 1 in 4 of those who fail are ever removed.
The pressure on our borders continues. Demand for visas has risen by 33% in 5 years and is now 2.5 million per year. In 2003 one in five visa issuing posts was consistently unable to cope with the daily demand for visas, despite the time allocated to each case being reduced to only eleven minutes. No one is recorded as they enter or leave the UK.

Posted by: Barry Wood on August 16, 2008 4:37 PM

I am sincerely trying to imagine a world in which everyone lived in the nation of their birth until their death, which seems to be what most anti-immigration folks really want. To begin, every nation would need to adopt effective means of screening and tracking any and all who enter or leave their borders. Which leads pretty quickly to needing a stringent system for tracking any of their own citizens who ever travel beyond their borders. And if you're going to do that, isn't it logical to require everyone to be in the system from the moment they arrive in the world? There are examples of places [China, Bhutan, Stalin era Russia] that found ways to "solve" the problem of immigration. Are those models we wish to emulate?

I look forward to getting my XXI Century Identification card with the trackable GPS chip. Don't you?

Posted by: Chris White on August 16, 2008 6:59 PM

CW: every nation would need to adopt effective means of screening and tracking any and all who enter or leave their borders

No. We would need methods to prevent third world migrants from entering our country. We would need no emigration controls. Much simpler problem.

Posted by: PatrickH on August 16, 2008 8:07 PM

Chris White has discovered a new variation of the 'nazis' argument. Congrats.

Chris, do you keep the door of your house open and let anyone and everyone in?

The population of the US will be over half a billion in 50-100 years if we continue to let anyone and everyone in.. look at southern california - ask anyone who lived their 30 years ago if it is a better place because of immigration...

Posted by: me on August 18, 2008 11:44 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?