Posted on September 21, 2011

Immigration, the Republicans, and the End of White America

Ron Unz, The American Conservative, September 21, 2011

Last June the U.S. Census disclosed that non-white births in America were on the verge of surpassing the white total and might do so as early as the end of this year. Such an event marks an unprecedented racial watershed in American history. Over the last few years, various demographic projections from that same agency and independent analysts have provided somewhat fluctuating estimates of the date — perhaps 2042 or 2037 or 2050 — at which white Americans will become a minority. This represents a remarkable, almost unimaginable, demographic change from our country of the early 1960s, when whites accounted for over 85 percent of the population and seemed likely to remain at that level indefinitely.

Many years of heavy foreign immigration have been the crucial element driving this transformation, but even if all immigration — legal and illegal — were halted tomorrow and the border completely sealed, these demographic trends would continue, although at a much slower pace. Today, the median age of American whites is over 40, putting most of them past their prime child-bearing years. Meanwhile, America’s largest minority group, the rapidly growing population of Hispanics, has a median age in the mid-20s, near the peak of family formation and growth, while both Asians and blacks are also considerably younger than whites. In fact, since 1995 births rather than immigration have been the largest factor behind the near doubling of America’s Hispanic population.

As in most matters, public perceptions of America’s racial reality are overwhelmingly shaped by the images absorbed from the national media and Hollywood, whether these are realistic or not. For example, over the last generation the massive surge in black visibility in sports, movies, and TV has led to the widespread perception of a similarly huge growth in the black fraction of the population, which, according to Gallup, most people now reckon stands at 33 percent or so of the national total. Yet this is entirely incorrect. During the last hundred-plus years, American blacks have seen their share of the population fluctuate by merely a percentage point or two, going from 11.6 percent in 1900 to 12.6 percent in 2010. By contrast, five decades of immigration have caused Asian Americans — relatively ignored by the news, sports, and entertainment industries — to increase from 0.5 percent in 1960 to 5 percent today, following the fifteen-fold rise in their numbers which has established them as America’s most rapidly growing racial group, albeit from a small initial base.

These national changes in racial distribution have been quite uneven and geographically skewed, with some parts of the country leading and others lagging. For example, during the 1970s when I was a teenager growing up in the Los Angeles area, that city and the surrounding sprawl of Southern California constituted America’s whitest region, about the only large urban agglomeration whose racial character approximated that of the country as a whole — around 85 percent white — and my own San Fernando Valley area in particular exemplified the popular image of suburban picket fences and lighthearted “Leave It to Beaver” family comedies. Yet during the two decades that followed, Southern California underwent an enormous immigration-driven demographic transformation, creating a new Los Angeles which was almost 80 percent non-white and a surrounding region in which whites no longer held even a mere plurality.

This sweeping racial shift, involving the movement or displacement of over ten million people, might easily rank as the largest in the peacetime history of the world and is probably matched by just a handful of the greatest population changes brought about by war. The racial transformation in America’s national population may be without precedent in human history.

Republicans as the White Party

It is a commonplace that politics in America is heavily influenced by race, and these enormous demographic changes since 1965 have certainly not gone unnoticed within the political world. For decades, white voters have tended to lean Republican while non-whites have been strongly Democratic, so the swiftly falling ratio of the former to the latter has become a source of major concern, even alarm, within the top ranks of the GOP, which received a sharp wake-up call when gigantic California, traditionally one of the most reliably Republican states, suddenly became one of the most reliably Democratic.

During the mid-1990s there was a powerful strain of thought within conservative and Republican circles that the best means of coping with this looming political problem was to reduce or even halt the foreign immigration that was driving it. But after several years of bitter internal conflict, this anti-immigrationist faction lost out almost completely to the pro-immigrationist camp, which was backed by the powerful business lobby. As a result, the Republican Party mantra became one of embracing “diversity” rather than resisting it and focused on increasing the Republican share of the growing non-white vote. Former President George W. Bush, strategist Karl Rove, and Sen. John McCain have been the most prominent advocates of this perspective.

Rove invested huge resources in maximizing Bush’s Hispanic numbers in 1998 during his easy Texas gubernatorial reelection campaign and achieved considerable success, persuading some 40 percent or more of local Hispanics to vote the Republican ticket that year, a major shift of political loyalties. This later allowed him to tout his candidate’s excellent Hispanic rapport in national GOP circles, which was an important factor in gaining him the presidential nomination in 2000. Although Bush’s national Hispanic totals were much less impressive in the 2000 race, and the vast funds he invested in a quixotic attempt to carry California were totally wasted, Rove and his allies redoubled their efforts during the 2004 reelection campaign, and buoyed by the continuing patriotic aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, largely succeeded. Although the percentages have been much disputed, Bush seems to have carried somewhat over 40 percent of the Hispanic vote nationwide in 2004, although he was once again trounced in California.

• • •

Part of the Bush/Rove political strategy was to take a leading role in passing a sweeping immigration-reform measure, aimed at legalizing the status of many millions of (overwhelmingly Hispanic) illegal immigrants, easing the restrictions on future legal immigration, while also tightening border enforcement. Leaving aside policy matters, the political theory was simple: if the Republican Party changed the laws to benefit Hispanic and other immigrants, these groups and their children would be more likely to vote Republican, thereby helping to solve the GOP’s demographic dilemma. Rove endlessly pointed to 40 percent as the necessary GOP level of future Hispanic support — score above that number and political victory was likely, score much below it and defeat was nearly assured. Although this precise quantitative target was obviously intended for rhetorical effect, it does seem to represent the dominant strain in conservative thinking, namely the need to combine a strong white vote with a solid minority of Hispanics and Asians, thereby allowing the Republicans to survive and win races in an increasingly non-white America. (Meanwhile decades of fruitless efforts to attract a significant share of the black vote would be quietly abandoned.)

But does this political strategy actually make any sense? Or are there far more effective and more plausible paths to continued Republican political success? Although almost totally marginalized within Republican establishment ranks, the anti-immigrationist wing of the conservative movement has maintained a vigorous intellectual presence on the Internet. Over the years, its flagship organ, the website run by Peter Brimelow, a former National Review senior editor, has been scathing in its attacks on the so-called Rove Strategy, instead proposing a contrasting approach christened the Sailer Strategy, after Steve Sailer, its primary architect and leading promoter (who has himself frequently written for The American Conservative). In essence, what Sailer proposes is the polar opposite of Rove’s approach, which he often ridicules as being based on a mixture of (probably dishonest) wishful thinking and sheer innumeracy.

Consider, for example, Rove’s oft-repeated mantra that a Republican presidential candidate needs to win something approaching 40 percent of the national Hispanic vote or have no chance of reaching the White House. During the last several election cycles, Hispanic voters represented between 5 and 8 percent of the national total, so the difference between a candidate winning an outstanding 50 percent of that vote and one winning a miserable 30 percent would amount to little more than just a single percentage point of the popular total, completely insignificant based on recent history. Furthermore, presidential races are determined by the electoral college map rather than popular-vote totals, and the overwhelming majority of Hispanics are concentrated either in solidly blue states such as California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey, or solidly red ones such as Texas and Georgia, reducing their impact to almost nothing. Any Republican fearful of a loss in Texas or Democrat worried about carrying California would be facing a national defeat of epic proportions, in which Hispanic preferences would constitute a trivial component. Pursuing the Hispanic vote for its own sake seems a clear absurdity.

Even more importantly, Sailer argues that once we throw overboard the restrictive blinkers of modern “political correctness” on racial matters, certain aspects of the real world become obvious. For nearly the last half-century, the political core of the Republican Party has been the white vote, and especially the votes of whites who live in the most heavily non-white states, notably the arc of the old Confederacy. The political realignment of Southern whites foreshadowed by the support that Barry Goldwater attracted in 1964 based on his opposition to the Civil Rights Act and that constituted George Wallace’s white-backlash campaign of 1968 eventually became a central pillar of the dominant Reagan majority in the 1980s.

In many cases, this was even true outside the Deep South, as the blue-collar whites of Macomb County and other areas surrounding overwhelmingly black cities such as Detroit became the blue-collar Reagan Democrats who gave the GOP a near lock on the presidency. While the politics of racial polarization might be demonized in liberal intellectual circles, it served to elect vast numbers of Republicans to high and low office alike. George H.W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” ad and Jesse Helms’s “White Hands” ad have been endlessly vilified by the media, but they contributed to unexpected come-from-behind victories for the candidates willing to run them. And in politics, winning is the only metric of success.

Sailer suggests that a very similar approach would work equally well with regard to the hot-button issue of immigration and the rapidly growing Hispanic population, arguing that the votes of this group could be swamped by those of an angry white electorate energized along racial lines. He cites Pete Wilson’s unexpected California gubernatorial reelection victory in 1994 as a perfect example. Deeply unpopular due to a severe statewide recession and desperately behind in the polls, Wilson hitched his candidacy to a harsh media campaign vilifying illegal immigrants, and although his Hispanic support plummeted, his white support soared to an equal extent, giving him a landslide victory in a race the pundits had written off and sweeping in a full slate of victorious down-ticket Republicans. Sailer’s simple point is that individual white votes count just as much as Hispanic ones, and since there are vastly more of the former, attracting these with racially-charged campaign themes might prove very politically productive.

An additional fact noted by Sailer is that the racial demographics of a given region can be completely misleading from a political perspective. As mentioned earlier, Hispanics and other immigrants tend to be much younger than whites and much less likely to hold citizenship. Therefore, a state or region in which whites have become a numerical minority may still possess a large white supermajority among the electorate. Once again, today’s California provides a telling example, with Hispanics and whites now being about equal in numbers according to the Census, but with whites still regularly casting three times as many votes on Election Day.

The Sailer analysis is ruthlessly logical. Whites are still the overwhelming majority of voters, and will remain so for many decades to come, so raising your share of the white vote by just a couple of points has much more political impact than huge shifts in the non-white vote. As whites become a smaller and smaller portion of the local population in more and more regions, they will naturally become ripe for political polarization based on appeals to their interests as whites. And if Republicans focus their campaigning on racially charged issues such as immigration and affirmative action, they will promote this polarization, gradually transforming the two national political parties into crude proxies for direct racial interests, effectively becoming the “white party” and the “non-white party.” Since white voters are still close to 80 percent of the national electorate, the “white party” — the Republicans — will end up controlling almost all political power and could enact whatever policies they desired, on both racial and non-racial issues.

• • •

Many might find this political scenario quite distasteful or unnerving, but that does not necessarily render it implausible. In fact, over the last couple of decades, this exact process has unfolded in many states across the Deep South, with elected white Democrats becoming an increasingly endangered species. Each election year, blacks overwhelmingly vote for the “black party,” whites overwhelmingly vote for the “white party,” and since whites are usually two-thirds or so of the electorate, they almost invariably win at the polls. Although Republican consultants and pundits make enormous efforts to camouflage or ignore this underlying racial reality, it exists nonetheless.

By contrast, appeals for white support based on racial cohesion would be almost total nonstarters in 95 percent white Vermont or New Hampshire, or in many other states of the North in which the local demographics still approximate those of the country that overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. But today’s national white percentages are much closer to those of 1960s Alabama and Mississippi, where whites fought that legislation tooth and nail on racial grounds. And as the nation’s overall demography continues its inexorable slide from that of Vermont to that of Mississippi, will white politics move in that same direction, especially if given a push?

Now I think a strong case can be made that such a process of deliberate racial polarization in American politics might have numerous adverse consequences for the future well-being of our country, sharply divided as it would become between hostile white and non-white political blocs of roughly equal size. But given the extremely utilitarian mentality of those who practice electoral politics for a living, the more important question we should explore is whether it would actually work, purely on the political level. Might this strategy of racial polarization be applicable across the country as a whole?

Non-Whites and Blacks

Consider an interesting datapoint. It is certainly true that the over the last century those states with the smallest white majorities have generally had names like Mississippi, South Carolina, and Alabama, and these have exhibited a very distinctive brand of white politics and race relations. But the least white state of all has actually projected a very different cultural image.

Whites were a minority in Hawaii at the time of statehood and have always been so, with the relative numbers of whites and Asians shifting somewhat based upon the various flows of migrants. Furthermore, the original white colonists and plantation elites historically had had a quite conflicted relationship both with the Native Hawaiian population whose leadership they supplanted and also with the large numbers of Japanese, Chinese, and other Asian workers originally imported as impoverished plantation laborers.

Yet although the local Republican Party has generally skewed toward the 25 percent of the population that is white, while the Democrats have been more popular among the majority Asians, the state’s reputation has overwhelmingly been one of easygoing race relations, a high degree of intermarriage, and a complete lack of vicious political conflict. Ideologically, Hawaii’s white minority seems to think and vote much more like the racially liberal residents of 95 percent white Vermont than as members of a racially polarized minority bloc, locked in endless political struggle with its non-white opponents.

Perhaps Hawaii is just a unique case, being a chain of small tropical islands located thousands of miles off the mainland and heavily dependent upon tourism for its economy. But there is an additional example. After Hawaii, the state with the next lowest white percentage throughout most of the 20th century was New Mexico, with the number of whites fluctuating at around half the total depending upon the ebbs and flows of the white and Hispanic populations, before eventually falling to 40 percent in 2010.

And although New Mexico hardly possesses Hawaii’s enormously positive social image — it is mostly rural with a small economy — it has also never developed the reputation of being a boiling racial cauldron, with whites and Hispanics locked in a bitter battle for power. Mention “New Mexico” and the popular images that spring to mind probably revolve around UFOs, vistas of great natural beauty, and government research laboratories, not longstanding racial conflict.

These examples lead to the suspicion that the history of bitter racial politics across most of the Deep South may represent less a conflict of white vs. non-white than one of white vs. black, and this seems quite plausible. After all, slavery and its legacy have for centuries constituted the deepest wound in American society, provoking a bloody Civil War which cost the lives of almost one third of all white Southern men of military age. The history of black/white racial relations is arguably the single most significant element in American political history, so we should hardly be surprised if it continues to heavily influence the politics of numerous states and cities, including those outside the South.

By contrast, although relations between whites and various other groups — Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians — have sometimes been hostile or even violent, these conflicts have never been nearly as long nor intense and are more like the often contentious relationships between various white ethnic groups. As our schoolbooks endlessly emphasize, black/white relations do indeed constitute a unique aspect of American history.

• • •

These alternate hypotheses about the underlying sources of white political behavior may be explored empirically by examining the electoral data across the 50 states. Like it or not, today’s Republican Party does indeed constitute the “white party,” drawing almost all of its national votes from whites, while the Democratic Party serves as the “mixed party,” with roughly comparable support from whites and non-whites. Therefore, white support for Republicans, particularly at the national level, may serve as a reasonable proxy for a state’s apparent degree of “white racial consciousness,” whether implicit or explicit.

Under the “Sailer Hypothesis,” white alignment with the Republicans should be heavily influenced by the white share of the population, with the residents of lily-white states exhibiting little racial consciousness, while those living in states in which whites have slender or non-existent majorities would tilt much more heavily Republican. A second possibility to consider might be called the “Hispanic Hypothesis,” in which the heavy influx of Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal, pushes whites toward the harder-line Republicans; since the vast majority of today’s Hispanics come from a relatively recent immigrant background, a state’s overall Hispanic population can be used as a good approximation for this independent variable. Finally, there is the “Black Hypothesis,” in which the long history of black/white racial conflict is assumed to be the primary factor, and the percentage of blacks in the local population is what generally influences white political behavior.

For the sake of simplicity and to minimize the confounding impact of local political issues and personalities, the easiest output variable to examine would be the percentage of the white vote that supported the Republican presidential ticket over the last 20 years. On a population-weighted basis, the correlation results for elections from 1992 through 2008 across the 50 states are as shown in the chart below.

The results seem conclusive. The correlations between the Hispanic percentage of each state and white voter preferences are approximately zero for all presidential elections, implying that the presence of large Hispanic populations appears to have virtually no impact upon white political alignment, either one way or the other.

By contrast, the evidence for apparent black/white racial conflict being the driving force that prompts whites to vote Republican seems very strong: the correlations between the size of the black population and the degree of white GOP support range from 0.43 to 0.70, with a mean of 0.55, being both quite substantial and very consistent over time.

The data regarding the “Sailer Hypothesis” is bit more interesting, with the correlations between a state’s overall non-white percentage and white Republican alignment being small but noticeable, ranging between 0.14 and 0.31, with a mean of 0.20. However, we must remember that a considerable fraction of America’s non-whites are blacks, with the ratio declining from around half in 1992 to about one-third by 2008, and obviously the strong black correlations impact the non-white result. In fact, the Sailer Hypothesis curve closely tracks the weighted average of the Hispanic and Black Hypothesis curves, the difference being mostly due to America’s small but growing Asian population. Thus, any “Sailer Effect” in white voting patterns appears almost entirely due to the black portion of the non-white population and is therefore merely a statistical artifact.


[Editor’s Note: Be sure to view the original article to read the remainder of this piece.]

53 responses to “Immigration, the Republicans, and the End of White America”

  1. kulak says:

    Unz writes:

    But after a few years had gone by, most whites concluded that their new neighbors seemed like pretty reasonable people, not too different from themselves, and racial concerns dropped to the lower levels of most public opinion surveys, usually ranking below jobs, housing, healthcare, and sometimes even traffic.

    This of course explains why they have been leaving California.

    Those are indeed the concerns of California whites.

    Until they get concerned about something else.

    And then they leave.

    Eventually there will be no place to run.

    Unz’s theory is hobbled by — ahem — survivor bias.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Ignored by all is one simple fact.

    We can’t afford it.

    This year marks the beginning of the end for the welfare state…..and the likely breakup of the US similar to what happened in the soviet union, largely along racial lines.

    The hypocrisy is staggering. If asked if the US should be an all white nation (or an all black nation or an all mexican nation), few say yes. Yet the census maps make clear that everyone has thought of little else over the last 20 years in making most of the decisions of their lives. We live in literally, three separate countries, largely delineated by race. And where there are exceptions, they live segregated in little outposts.

    Only the white area is productive. No, not totally. But that statement is close enough to matter.

    This year marks the first serious address by whites as to why we should allow the EBT of non-whites to be filled with the fruit of OUR labors. As the federal government weakens and finally collapses, taxation and how those taxes are spent will become a local issue. A local issue in a highly segregated series of ethnostates. Can’t happen? It’s already happening.

    The only question to my mind is if the breakup will be violent or not.

  3. E Pluribus Pluribus says:

    Proposition 187 was a California ballot initiative passed in 1994 by 59 percent of California voters. Prop 187 would have denied a range of benefits to illegal aliens. Ron Unz was fiercely opposed to 187. So much opposed that it was a featured part of his campaign for the GOP nomination for governor against Pete Wilson. Unz lost his bid for governor, but his cause would triumphed after all. And it took only one “vote,” not six million.

    A single Jimmy Carter-appointed federal judge, Mariana Phaelzer, blocked Proposition 187 in 1995. The flood of illegal aliens into California would continue unabated. But a distraught Ron Unz could not know that at the time. Below is an excerpt on the election aftermath for Unz — from the LA Weekly:

    “…the post-election situation in 1994 was deeply depressing for Unz. ‘Proposition 187 won in a landslide and Pete Wilson won in a landslide, and immigration became the really hot-button national issue,’ Unz recalls. ‘That was the primary reason I’d run against Wilson, and for all my effort — or perhaps because of my effort — suddenly immigration seemed to be moving in the opposite direction.’ Depleted both psychologically and financially, Unz went back to work in his business, writing new software code, and he stayed involved only tangentially in politics by cooperating with a network of pro-immigrant activists to oppose new restrictions proposed on immigration by the Clinton administration and the Republican-controlled Congress.” (“Being Ron Unz,” LA WEEKLY, Nov. 24, 1999)

    That’s Ron Unz, publisher of The American “Conservative.”

  4. BannerRWB says:

    Well, I would say the “end of White America” has already occured, and in fact, we can say that we have never truly had an all-White nation. I can though, see an all-White nation somewhere on the North American continent coming out of what we have now, and I believe we will all be better off for it. I’m not sure just what we’ll end up with, but hopefully we’ll be strong enough and have enough White people realize what is happening soon enough, so that we’ll have a decently sized nation. I find articles such as this somewhat odd though, as if people believe Whites in the U.S. will be treated fairly when we are in the racial -and- political minority, which, at that point, just how many of us will agree to stay on with such a nation?

  5. Tony Soprano says:

    Actually the SPLC has proven to me that Diversity tends to provoke white nationalism. They have a map of the U.S. which shows the number of so called Hate groups. The largest concentration are in states like New Jersey while all white states like Vermont have almost none.

  6. Question Diversity says:

    40% of the Hispanic vote is not “excellent.” It’s usually called losing the election.

    Sailer’s simple point is that individual white votes count just as much as Hispanic ones, and since there are vastly more of the former, attracting these with racially-charged campaign themes might prove very politically productive.

    And because like Unz said earlier, Hispanic voters are clumped up in states that are foregone blue or (for now) foregone red. One working class white voter in a swing rust belt state has more leverage over who gets to be President than every Hispanic voter in California.

    These examples lead to the suspicion that the history of bitter racial politics across most of the Deep South may represent less a conflict of white vs. non-white than one of white vs. black, and this seems quite plausible. After all, slavery and its legacy have for centuries constituted the deepest wound in American society, provoking a bloody Civil War which cost the lives of almost one third of all white Southern men of military age.

    Actually, black crime is the single greatest factor in race relations between blacks and whites, and also the voting habits of whites in heavily black jurisdictions.

    A few other problems with this essay: He is using California whites as an example of how whites don’t react badly to Hispanics. Except a lot of whites have been driven out of California, so their “negative reaction” to Hispanics politically exists in other states. Unz also goes on about New Mexico, I happen to think that (for now) it’s a special situation where most of the “Hispanics” are white or white-ish descendants of Spaniards, not the heavily Chicano types. But as New Mexico becomes a haven for Hispanics “fleeing” Arizona immigration enforcement, things will change.

    Remember, Unz used to be a real open borders type. I don’t know what made him change, but something must have changed in him that impressed Pat Buchanan, so that he handed Unz the editorship of the American Conservative Mag after Taki Theodoracopulous moved on to other things.

  7. Anonymous says:

    So the presence of lots of blacks causes whites to be more race conscious and conservative but the large presence of Hispanics doesn’t? He uses New Mexican Hispanics as a group which has never alarmed the state’s Anglo residents. But what he fails to notice is that the bulk of these “Hispanics” are not descedants of post 1965 immigrants and are racially white. And Hawaiian whites are pretty liberal because most non-whites are Asians, not troublesome mestizos or blacks. And the state has always been multi-racial, so even decades ago whites who moved there knew what they were getting into. California on the other hand went from mostly white to being inundated (without their consent) with post 1965 immigrants. Conservative Whites fled the state because this was not something they ever wanted and the Stupid Party never came to their defence. Mostly what’s left now are clueless white liberals and their non-white comrades. A combination of white flight and mass third world immigration will make any city, county or state more liberal. It’s that simple.

  8. Anonymous says:

    So, to sum it up:

    Blacks notoriously abuse social programs – the social programs that are the keystone of the Democratic Party. In addition to that, their demeanor and cultural habits run counter to any civilized society, be it Asian, Latino or European.

    In general, Whites, Latinos and Asians do not abuse social programs.

    There is a correlation between percentage of blacks in a given population and the propensity of adjacent Whites to vote more conservative.

    Whites in states with large black populations like Texas, Arkansas and Georgia vote Republican.

    Whites who live in Whitopias like Vermont or Maine vote Democratic because they don’t see the abuse of the system and racial animus displayed by blacks that Southern Whites do.

    Whites who live in Hawaii or New Mexico with Asians and Hispanics vote more Democratic and have peaceful relations with each other.

    So, what’s the common denominator here?

    Nobody can get along with blacks and blacks are the surest way to ruin a social safety net and a party that supports it !

  9. Anonymous says:

    After I saw a headline article over on that reported that Mitt Romney promised to ‘stop illegal immigration’, but when I read the full story – he went on to say that he ‘loved legal immigration’, I decided to pick up the phone and call the toll-free D.C. office for my district Congressman.

    After one of his office flunkies came on the line, I cited the article and said that I agreed 100 percent with the idea of stopping all illegal immigration. But, I added, I also did not approve of Romney’s statement that he loved ‘legal immigration’ – and I then went on to explain that the White European descendants of the Founding Stock of this nation had legitimate ethnic interests and those interests were not going to be served if Romney or any other politician opened our borders to the non-European third world and allowed hundreds of millions of non-whites to flood into America, thereby reducing Whites to a minority inside their own nation.

    I patiently tried to explain to the dunce that I had on the line a few simple facts that he should have learned in 8th grade math class, had he not dozed through the entire school year. Such as: being a numerical minority means that you are subjugated to the whims and agendas of whichever ethnic group is now the ‘new’ majority. Examples: 85-100% tax rates. The abolition of the sacred and precious Constitution and Bill of Rights, which were gifts to the White European posterity of our 100 percent White Founding Fathers. Even more draconian anti-white discriminatory affirmative action laws, imposed by the new non-white majority and used to further disenfranchise the former White majority. The list is endless. I told the dunce I had on the phone that being reduced to a minority, whether it was due to massive ILLEGAL immigration of non-whites or by massive LEGAL immigration of non-whites with the blessing of our race traitorous white elites – it all spelled the same thing in the end. Namely, the destruction of the dominant culture. The obliteration of all social cohesion. The destruction of White Western civilization. The loss of the ability of White Europeans to control the destiny of the nation of their ancestors and to surrender control over the destiny and future of their children and grandchildren to other ethnic groups who did not have the best interests of White Europeans in their minds.

    What was the attitude and general response from the dunce I had on the line? I’d describe it as impatience – and also an attitude of disinterest, and this idiot couldn’t wait to get me off the phone. And, this was a REPUBLICAN Congressman’s office, friends. This arrogant, elitist snob of an IQ challenged moron was not in the least bit concerned with ANY of my very legitimate and common sense arguments! I even cited the former Rhodesia as one prime example of what happens when whites allow themselves to be ruled by non-whites – the murders, the gang rapes, the bloody mutilations, and outright theft of the property of the White South Afrikaners – and I got the impression that this arrogant, elitist snob was struggling to stifle a yawn as I described the situation in post-white ruled Rhodesia and predicted that we would be seeing the same thing here in America, if idiots like Romney and Perry continued to support massive non-white invasions of America. Disinterest. Apathy. Zero sense of alarm or appreciation for any of my valid concerns.

    Well, here is a message to all of my fellow White race realists and AR community loyalists. We must promise to ourselves that we will remember the treason of our white ruling elites who are destroying the future for our children and grandchildren. And, when the time comes whereby this decomposing dung heap of a once great nation finally breaks apart and we obtain our much deserved White ethno-state – the time for these treasonous white elites to be awarded their just punishment will also arrive, and we must not falter or allow ourselves to be overcome with any misplaced sense of mercy or sympathy when this moment arrives.

    We must vow to nip white race treason in the bud and do so in a public fashion that leaves a sober impression on our fellow people that will never be forgotten. Treason against one’s own tribe must be made again into the most horrific and unforgivable crime that anyone can ever commit – and the punishment for it should be ruthless.

  10. GreatNorthWoods says:

    The problem with whites in heavily white USA areas is that half like to play with fire and the other half are blissful regarding other races. I got news for all of us. We’re going to need these white reserve sub-regions one day and the bulk of the white population who occupy these places are usually terrible defenders of reality and white interests. No wait, forget interests,- survival!

    Whites in these places just love to play their diversity games as long as it’s on their terms, meaning on a limited and controlled basis. As long as they can control the level of contact and interaction by keeping the percentage of non- whites(esp. blacks), insignificant in relation to the dominant white population in place, they’ll spout the beauty of inclusion till’ the cows come home. Northern states are notorious for this kind of naivety and hypocracy. I ought to know, I live it every day.

    Of course when their inclusive game blows up in their faces,- when the percentages skew upward beyond exceptable levels, the stage is again set for another eventual white exodus and secession of more white turf. when this happens their inclusive game isn’t fun anymore and it’s game over,- whites lose.

    To make matters worse, many whites don’t seem to learn their lessons in all this so it’s rinse and repeat. Just look at the examples with Wisconsin and Minnesota for example, importing all those hostile and burdensome Somalis and Hmong, yet government and pubic sentiment there remains as liberal and inclusive as ever.

    This article was factual, ominous and very depressing. . .Help!


  11. Crystal Evans says:

    I wonder if the white population in Hawaii includes the Portuguese population, who like the Asians, came to work in sugar plantations. The Portuguese were not see as equals by the island’s whites. In fact, many of them may identify as Hispanic.

  12. white advocate - Canada says:

    He should be more revealing and tell us what he wants. Does he want whites to endure as our own distinct people? Do you want that Mr. Unz?

  13. William says:

    “The correlations between the Hispanic percentage of each state and white voter preferences are approximately zero for all presidential elections, implying that the presence of large Hispanic populations appears to have virtually no impact upon white political alignment, either one way or the other.”

    This is simply because the Republican and Democrat parties are a plutarchiall duopoly and undifferentiated on the issue of racial identity, immigration (both legal and illegal). G.W.Bush was as untrustworthy as an Democrat ever was. Voters have no real choice so they vote on issues they are differentiated on.

  14. Bud says:

    Typical Unz, he’s all over the map. I really don’t care what mass immigration does to the Republican Party, it’s genocide, the physical and cultural extermination of a people, as concrete as gas chambers and bullets, different in method but not in kind. The reality that Unz won’t touch is that blacks and browns are incapable of building or even contributing much to a advanced society, they MUST be parasites, they have no choice. They believe wealth comes from magic white people and that white people withhold their magically obtained wealth out of spite; they will vote to rob whites of the wealth that they are incapable of producing. It’s biological, and no “approach” from conservatives and Republicans will change that.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Unz either hasn’t gotten out of bed in years, or has an underhanded reason for strenuouslydownplaying immigrant crime, calling us …”fools..” for believing they will (already have) turned our cities into battlegrounds.

    Unz, you scoundrel. I have seen the Mestizo gangs straight out of Latin America. They are a raping, sodomizing, drug selling, cap-busting lot of predators of low intelligence and extreme hatred for us, and anything or anybody that stands in their way. They are crawling over my town like roaches. They shoot off their guns every day. I can hear the gunfire. You strain the limits of credibility to breaking.

    What planet are YOU from?

  16. on the lam from the Thought Police says:

    The less contact one has with blacks the easier it is to like them.

  17. Anonymoose says:

    Unz wrote: “Now I think a strong case can be made that such a process of deliberate racial polarization in American politics might have numerous adverse consequences for the future well-being of our country, sharply divided as it would become between hostile white and non-white political blocs of roughly equal size.”

    This is an interesting thought. Perhaps racial polarization is adverse, but don’t non-White share some of the responsibility for creating this situation by being polarizing themselves? Minorities expect support for their aspirations and throw around the race cards at will when they do not receive support. But they are not willing to any noticeable degree to consider the issues that affect the white population. Except for the wealthy and the hereditary upper middle class, the white population largely is educationally underdeveloped and in need of the same outreach as is given minorities, particularly in the matter of graduate and professional education. When you hear any talk of increasing the number of native born engineering graduates, for example, all you hear of is increasing the representation of women and minorities. Fine, that might be a worthwhile goal, but the shortage of native born engineers and all scientist is critical, and it can only be relieved by reaching into the white population. But you will never hear any support for that idea from minorities or their white liberal allies.

    In the end, judge the cause by the effect.

  18. GW says:

    I had to wonder if the article was written by 2 different people. The first portion aptly described the racial consciousness more and more Americans seem to be getting–and how the GOP can exploit this. Unfortunately, it devolves into a pandering appeal to more Hispanic immigration on the naive belief Hispanics will assimilate and be as productive as the Irish, German, and Italian immigrants we once imported.

    Note: The American Conservative is an anti-war Ron Paul rag. They frankly don’t care about “conserving” anything. Think “Code Pink” except with lower taxes and less regulation.

  19. Anonymous says:

    2 — Anonymous wrote at 7:23 PM on September 21:

    “The only question to my mind is if the breakup will be violent or not.”

    The breakup is already happening, has been happening for at least 20 years, longer. It is just that it is not happening as an all out war, but a political war backed up by spreading neighborhood violence that drives whites out of regions into ever shrinking, supposed “safe zones.” Whites who have lived in those zones all along, don’t see that the break-up is already under way. Our national politics are just one of the many signs of it.

  20. Kenelm Digby says:

    The only fly in the ointment is this: Both Republicans and Democrats are anti-White.

    The Democrats are openly and explicitly anti-White, the Republicans are secretly anti-White.Lest we forget it was Reagan in 1986 with his stinking ‘amnesty’ that set the seal on the death of White America.It was Nixon who enshrined AA into law.

  21. Kenelm Digby says:

    A very long and no doubt very informative essay by Ron Unz – unfortunately I haven’t got the time to read it, digest it and do it justice.

    Skimming through it, I can see that Unz does actually try to give the anti-immigrationist point of view justice and a fair crack of the whip – something that is invariably denied by the MSM, but in the end his immigrationist neo-con wrongheaded beliefs win through.

    The conventional White nationalist point of view is strictly Darwinian and Salterian in scope claiming that the loss of genetic fitness due to infiltrtion of rival stocks is a tragedy.Unz never considers this just as Republicans and Democrats never do.

    I have no crystal ball, but all I can see in store for the USA’s future is a dystopia.Think of Brazil.

  22. olewhitelady says:

    Question Diversity #6 and Anonymous #7 make excellent points. There’s obviously something different about Anglo/Latino relations in NM. I also conjectured that the reason might be that many of the Hispanic residents there are whiter than the onslaught of illegals that have inundated southern CA and other SW areas. I also figured that, if nothing else, NM Hispanic residents are probably longer established as Americans in thought and deed.

    America’s racial problems are not constituted by whites vs. everyone else, as liberals would have us believe. They’re made up of whites vs. problematic races or ethnic groups. As for blacks, Question Diversity hit the nail on the head: black crime is what makes blacks problematic. It was the reason for Jim Crow. White Southerners, by and large, dislike blacks LESS than any other regional group in the country. But, living in closer proximity with blacks than whites do in other areas of the nation, Southern whites know from experience what the ongoing problems with blacks are.

  23. Anonymous says:

    RE: Anonymous #8

    Your assessment is fairly accurate, but take note that Puerto Ricans (White, Black, Taino and endless “No sé que” bi and tri-racial admixture permutations in that society) are probably the most astute abusers of the welfare system in this country.

  24. June says:

    I find it extremly ironic to note that while this nation has been the victor in the many wars in which we’ve defended our country and its freedoms – that now we are to be overthrown on our own land by people who’ve just walked in and squatted. These are poverty stricken, third world, uneducated masses who have been allowed to colonize our once great country. We have the machines and manpower to defend ourselves, instead we send our arsenals overseas to protect our enemies on their land. Does this seem as preposterous to anyone else as it does to me? I don’t think this is what our forefathers intended.

  25. Luke says:

    “8 — Anonymous wrote at 8:30 PM on September 21: said:

    In general, Whites, Latinos and Asians do not abuse social programs. ”

    One out of three isn’t a great score, Mr. Anonymous. Latinos most certainly DO abuse social entitlement programs – and anyone who’s signed up for any of the major immigration control websites (NumbersUSA, etc.) or who subscribes to Middle American News, or to the Nationalist Times newspaper – receives regular news accounts that outline the exact statistical facts on parasitism by Mestizos and even among Asians of certain specific varieties.

    I mean, for crying out loud – how could anyone who is even moderately ‘informed’ make such a ridiculous assertion? Why do you think all of the major La Raza leaders and pro-open borders rabble raise such a big stink over the efforts by the states to deny access to welfare and social entitlements and public housing to illegal aliens, the majority of whom are Latino?

    As for Asians – granted, not all varieties of Asians are as prone to parasitism as some of the Asian groups are, but they are certainly not 100% resistant to the temptation to dip their snouts into the trough. I remember reading a story about a big group of Asians refugees that had been resettled up in either Montana or Idaho or in one of the other Pacific Northwest states a few years ago. If I recall, these Asians came from the general vicinity of the Viet Nam region – possibly Cambodia or from Thailand. I don’t recall exactly.

    Anyway, according to the news article – the local townspeople in the community where these refugees were ‘resettled’ were up in arms over the fact that close to 90% of them were on welfare and feasting from the public dole – and that situation had not only not improved over time, but was getting more pronounced as these refugees were breeding and popping out kids that the taxpayers were being forced to subsidize. These ‘taxpayers’, of course, were overwhelmingly white.

    Here is a rule that I have concluded that is generally true: Post-1965 Third world immigrants of nearly all colors view the United States, as well as any other historically White European nation on Earth – through the prism of a parasite-host relationship. The overwhelming MAJORITY of these non-whites do not care one whit about the history, customs, values, traditions, language, or dominant White Western culture of these historic White nations. If anything, most of these non-whites harbor a HOSTILE attitude towards the history and culture of White Europeans, particularly so here in America. These immigrants see the USA the way a new born baby sees its mother’s big, plump breast – full of milk and nourishment, and they come here with the intention of fastening their lips to the big nipple and devouring their ‘share’ of the bounty, which translates into their slice of the paychecks of the rapidly dwindling White middle class tax payers.

    There is one and only one workable solution to this nightmare. Ethno-states. And, as I’ve said numerous times before, the time to start working on this solution is NOW, while Whites are still a numerical majority and have the leverage to make it happen. Waiting until we are a minority will eliminate this option – because the parasites are not about to let their host separate from them. Ethno-states, people. Repeat after me – ethno-states. Let’s get busy, because there is little time left.

  26. BJohnson says:

    For some reason, whites view themselves as less lovable than other races. Whites are always giving billions of dollars to help poor non-whites in the third world, where the population is booming, but do nothing to help poor whites in America, Eastern Europe, and North America.

    Is it possible that, the rational mind of the white man, which has made him the most talented race in scientific research, causes him to judge himself according to harsh standards? The fact is that whites find themselves less worthy of love, than other races, and we need to debate the issue and find out how to make whites to love each other more.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Had to link this.

    More Whites than blacks it looks like to save a black cop killer. THESE are the kind of “whites” that we have to deal with in this country. What a sorry bunch of worthless specimens.

  28. La Santa Hermandad says:

    Another cloked way to wage virtual genocide against White:

  29. Anonymous says:

    What is happening is a war of genocide against white people. The reason for massive non-white immigration is to destroy white countries and eventually exterminate the entire white race.

    The genocidists even have a motto “Abolish the white race by any means necessary.”

    Non-white immigration must end imediately and all non-white immigrants must be expelled. It’s a matter of the survival of white people.

    Unfortunately, most white people are so brainwashed on the subject of race they can’t even discuss it! Somehow they think it’s racist to even talk about issues facing white people. This must be changed.

  30. sbuffalonative says:

    This piece was pulled from

    There were too many people giving their opinions on the end of “White America”.

  31. kulak says:

    Unz is absolutely right about Hawaii, New Mexico and California.

    Of the states plus Puerto Rico and DC, the six with the smallest proportion of their whites being under the age of 18 are DC (.08), Hawaii (0.13), New Mexico(0.16), California (0.17), Puerto Rico (0.17), and Florida (0.17) — Florida arguably being a special case.

    In Unz’s world, all that is necessary for everybody to get along is for whites to not have children and die out.

    And that’s exactly what Unz wants us to do.

    Unz is anti-racist.

    Unz is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is code for anti-white.

  32. Fed Up says:

    The Liberals and most Liberals happen to be Democrats, hold the cherished ideal that multi-culturalism is the only thing good for America! I recall getting into a heated argument with one Liberal rectal orifice — who told me he was hoping, praying for the day when racial mixing has completely eliminated, supplanted the White Race entirely.

  33. Fed Up says:

    The liberal wet dream and ultimate goal — being the elimination of White people — by racial interbreeding. To the point that our White race will no longer exist — having been assimilated by decades of interbreeding with non-Whites.

  34. Browser says:

    June wrote:

    “I find it extremly ironic to note that while this nation has been the victor in the many wars in which we’ve defended our country and its freedoms ” —


    Well, not quite, June. In those wasr we were not defending our country and its its freedoms. We were OVER THERE, on other continents far from home, attacking and bombing and occupying others in THEIR countries. We were not being invaded in ours.

    Now we ARE vbeing invaded, snd I agree with the rest of your post.

  35. BannerRWB says:

    8-Anon: “Unfortunately, most white people are so brainwashed on the subject of race they can’t even discuss it! Somehow they think it’s racist to even talk about issues facing white people. This must be changed.”: So very true. The Republican debate for tonight is to focus at least in part on immigration. Frank Luntz asked his mostly White focus group about current immigration, and all the people could do was talk about -both- the jobs issue -and- giving illegals a path to citizenship. Those two ideas are opposed to each other, but people have been so frightened that they just cannot come to say, in public, that they want less, or no immigration. It would have been easy to bring up the issue of race, but Luntz wouldn’t (or was told not to) do it. I wonder how many of the focus group would wish their grand-children to live as an oppressed minority in the future American of a billion people where Whites make up about 10% of the population? Otherwise, if they love the non-Whites so much, why don’t these people just leave America now? 4-Luke is correct: Ethno-states will be the end result, and the sooner the breakup occurs, the better it will be for us. America as the nation it was in 1965 (and earlier) has been defeated. We lost. Hopefully, the next time around we’ll make the racial delineation much clearer.

  36. Bon, From the Land of Babble says:

    Anonymous #8 writes:

    In general…Latinos and Asians do not abuse social programs.

    This is not true.

    Latinos and Asians have created cash-based societies in Southern California, as have Armenians and Iranians, with little to no reportable income and a way to skirt the 10%+ state tax in California. Latino construction and field workers are paid in cash. Asian nail salons are cash based. Armenian car repair businesses are cash based. I know because I’m offered discounts for cash all the time — “Pay Cash, No State Income Tax!!”, they tell me.

    There is no income to report, so therefore,they and their families and children qualify for every lavish benefit California offers. I’ve heard them brag about multiple welfare benefits they receive under several different names. Don’t think they aren’t scamming the system, they are.

    I also see the forms that they are mandated to fill out in the school office for free government food at school. They’ll report very little to no income as their kids are sitting nearby with the latest electronic gadgets, the latest “kicks”, expensive designer clothes and jewelry, the latest 4G phones — the girls AND the boys.

    I have never seen one of these applications denied. Not one.


  37. Jason Robertson says:

    The US is fortunate compared to the UK in one respect – it is not actually illegal to have a political party whose main concern is the preservation of western civilization and the white people who created and has sustained it. So long as the aims are presented in a positive, defensive and courteous light, you might have a chance, and set an example to other countries where political parties are required formally by law, or informally, to be multi-racial in composition and (therefore) objectives. To get there you do need to say to “non-whites” that your aims are not only morally right and social reasonable, but they do not present a violent threat to them, and in some ways may be more beneficial to many of them in the long run than existing or probable alternatives. A good argument is that to maintain (presently) majority control would prevent a future conflict among the (present) minorities, as well as possibly violent counter-revolution by dispossessed whites.

  38. Uncle Bob says:

    #3 June: We have the machines and manpower to defend ourselves, instead we send our arsenals overseas to protect our enemies on their land. Does this seem as preposterous to anyone else as it does to me? I don’t think this is what our forefathers intended.

    Yes, absolutely preposterous and suicidal. I just cannot imagine how the people became so spineless. Our forefathers and ancestors who came and did the groundwork and made the kinds of sacrifices that people today could never manage are surely gaping in stupefied awe, wringing their hands, pulling their hair, crying their eyes out, and rolling in their graves.

  39. Anonymous says:

    More pro-immigration propaganda from the pro-immigration fanatic Ron Unz.

    In his last piece on Hispanic crime, Jason Richwine found that Unz miscalculated the data. Can’t wait to see the errors on this one.

    Unz is clearly blindsided by his ideological fanaticism about immigration. He is so pro-immigration that he cannot even see the forest through the trees.

    America historically has been a European nation, and many do not want it to become another failed mestizo nation, another Mexico. Regardless if Mexifornia votes Republican, it will still be a failed Mexifornia.

  40. Question Diversity says:

    Read the rest of Unz’s article. He’s still the same open borders cheerleader he used to be, meaning my previous assessment (which has mysteriously disappeared from this thread, along with some other people’s posts so it seems), about Unz “coming to Jesus,” was false. That means that PJB really loused up by giving Unz editorial control of AmCon. The second worst decision of PJB’s professional life, IMHO, the worst being Ezola Foster.

    Also, Unz also spends a lot of time on the minimum wage, trying to make the case that a well above equilibrium minimum wage could be a roundabout method of immigration restriction. I put that thinking in the same category as “English only” laws or Burqua prohibitions — Munching around the issue instead of addressing it head on, and useless when the demographic tidal wave finally overtakes us. Even if the minimum wage is raised, to, say, $15 an hour, if the country or state is heavily Hispanic, the minimum wage law will be a dead letter, if not totally dead, then corrupted to uselessness by bribes and graft and political back scratching pandemic in Hispanic cultures.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Didn’t Unz write a piece for his rag on the merits of hispanic immigration? I think he lost a few subscribers over that one. I can’t stand Unz and the other fake CONservatives at the Weekly Standard, National Review and Thanks to sbuffalonative for letting us know that freerepublic pulled this article. I’m not surprised. To Luke #4, you might mean the horrible Hmong people. Thanks to family reunification, there are LOTS of them in the US. Unbelievable welfare dependents. And, like Bon says, immigrant groups do not pay their “fair share” of taxes. So many cash businesses, so many scams.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Bon is absolutely right about how the White immigrants and asians absuse the welfare systems. Thre are hundreds of thousands of older asians who have never worked a day under social security drawing social security.

    Their cash businesess use different names and corporations. The welfare agencies are full of armenian, asian, filipino etc workers who give the benefits to their own kind.

    I get food stamps. I go to a welfare office every 3 months to fill out the form that I am still eligible. The office I go to is jam packed with asians and pacific islanders, not blacks.

    There are thousands of section 8 buildings in Los Angeles in which every tenant is some sort of asian. Older asian immigrants are given priority over older Americans in senior citizens housing. The immigration status of those tenants is not checked.

    There are more and more elderly White homeless in Los Angeles. They are not druggies and drunks. They are people who worked all their lives, contributed to social security and live on the street while asian illegal seniors live in the senior housing.

    Many of the White elderly had their careers destroyed by affirmative action back in the 70’s and 80’s and never were able to buy homes or establish IRAs or other private pension systems.

    I believe that all, all children with hispanic names are given free lunch and breakfast in the Los Angeles school system. Doesn’t matter how much the family earns.

    The only way to white survival is to do as the immgrants do. Welfare and disability cheating is difficult for Whites as we are pretty much banned from welfare and disability. But if we do as the immigrants do we can survive.

  43. Anonymous says:

    From an email:

    The CIA World Fact books puts Mexico at:

    60% Mestizo

    30% Amerindian


    less than 10% European

    Using genetic testing, Ruben Lisker has found lower-class mestizos to be:

    59% Amerindian

    34% European (mostly Spaniard)

    and 6% Black

    Average mestizo IQ: 86

  44. Anonymous says:

    Everyone should go over to TAC and leave a comment critical of Unz’s ridiculous article:

    Point out that such anti-Western / pro-immigration propaganda is not appreciated.

  45. Anonymous says:

    “The overwhelming MAJORITY of these non-whites do not care one whit about the history, customs, values, traditions, language, or dominant White Western culture of these historic White nations.”

    Someone mentioned on another post that no non Whites were to be seen at Ted Kennedy’s funeral when Kennedy did so much for them all these years.

    The hotel in which Robert Kennedy was killed is torn down and a new high school serving immigrants will be built. A few Americans thought it might to be nice to include a small memorial to Kennedy in the new school. The idea went nowhere.

    I work in a dialysis clinic 2 blocks away. The neighborhood is now known as Koreatown. No one, absolutely no one who either lives or works in the neighborhood except for a few Whites like me has ever heard of the Kennedy family.

    Yet Robert and Ted did so much from them. Robert threw himself into groveling for votes from hispanics just before he was shot.

  46. Moderator says:

    Some comments on recent AR stories have spontaneously disappeared. On some stories, they have seemingly disappeared totally, from both actual existence and the front page comment count. On some stories, like the Black-White Marriages story from September 15, the front claims no comments but there are really 98.

    Needless to say, we are experiencing technical difficulties. Please stand by. (You’ll have to envision the test pattern for yourself.)

  47. Anonymous says:


    Thanks for the “technical difficulties” explanation of the missing comments. I was inclining toward much less satisfactory interpretation of what had happened: external pressure/censorship. As Jared Taylor observed in the opening paragraph of the cover article of the September issue American Renaissance:

    “Good government and a healthy society require the free exchange of ideas. That is why throttling it is the first priority of bigots and tyrants; their schemes depend on the suppression of truth. The purpose of the First Amendment, therefore, is to ensure that people of all views, no matter how disconcerting, have the right to be heard.”

  48. shaunantijihad says:

    The reason whites have no real say in politics is because we do not own our own currencies. The international bankers do. You can call it the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England, but they are not part of the Feds or English respectively. They have the money and power to make your elected officials do as they want, not as you want.

    To control our destiny we must control the issue of our own money.

  49. Moderator says:

    Anonymous Poster at 26,

    We have discovered the problem. It is a technical issue, relating to My SQL, definitely not a result of political sabotage. We hope to have the missing comments restored in a few days.

    Thank you for your patience.

  50. Anonymous says:

    #5 If you study psychology a little bit, you would learn that only a tiny minority (less than 5%) of white people have the kind of rational mind that is naturally adept at science, philosophy and technology. The vast majority of whites are mentally still of the same kind as the superstitious, present oriented, irrational 3rd worlders that are replacing them.

    Their white counterparts are just more docile and more trainable. They are not fundamentally better at building white societies. Left to their own devices, they would burn witches and sacrifice humans to the harvest gods.

    Modern history is about the first kind of white people inventing the modern world and then having the second kind of white people squandering their discoveries in their perpetual pursuit of various petty schemes. The threat to white civilization does not come as much from the outside as it comes from the inside from primordial whites. The latter exploded in numbers when the rational minority of whites developed medical and agricultural technology like any other third worlder would. Todays western white societies are environmentally totally africanized and this promotoes the breeding of whites with african mental traits at the expense of all other kinds.

  51. Anonymous says:

    The future is not inevitable. The liberal wet dream will not come to pass. Without white people the people of this planet will have no future. All will stagnate and decline. Don’t look to Asians to hold the fort, they thrive off of European ingenuity. Ignore the Asian and they stagnate and decline.

  52. Seek says:

    Can someone tell me how Ron Unz came to control The American Conservative? I know he made a small fortune in software, and that the financially-strapped magazine needed a financial angel. But economics alone can’t explain how an Old Right publication, founded largely on the need for preservation of American identity, could sell its principles so easily to the highest bidder. Buchanan and Taki were both pretty much out of the picture by the time this guy came aboard, but surely they retained at least some veto power, no?

  53. Anonymoose says:

    30 — Anonymous wrote at 3:17 PM on September 25:

    The future is not inevitable. The liberal wet dream will not come to pass. Without white people the people of this planet will have no future. All will stagnate and decline. Don’t look to Asians to hold the fort, they thrive off of European ingenuity. Ignore the Asian and they stagnate and decline.


    This is all very possibly true. Regular readers may have seen these observations before, but worldwide feudalism and a “world lit only by fire” are as likely a long-term future as any other. Could happen even without the full decline of the European white race.

    If there actually are any intelligent entities observing our planet, they will be highly relieved at this outcome. So will a lot of people down here on the surface. For many in the world, a short lifespan, reduced population and the closing off of all possible personal opportunity might seem a small price to pay for getting rid of the hated electromechanical, chemo- and bio- technic, and cybernetic civilization of the West. Others, even among whites, are idealists who see modern civilization as a weakening factor.

    You think, because you can foresee the possibility of decline, that you can prevent decline. But it doesn’t work that way. Not to mention that there are people who see what is commonly called “decline” as a strengthening of the human breed.