America’s Demographic Denial

Robert Samuelson, Washington Post, March 2, 2014


Just why is American politics so dysfunctional? One answer is that both parties, for different reasons, have created self-serving mythologies that reward them for not dealing with pressing problems that, though daunting, are hardly sudden or secret. For proof, see Paul Taylor’s new book, “The Next America.” Taylor oversees many of the Pew Research Center’s opinion surveys. His masterful synthesis of polls shows that three familiar mega-trends lie at the core of America’s political and social stalemate.

First, immigration. By 2050, immigrants and their U.S.-born children are projected to represent 37 percent of the population, slightly higher than in 1900, when the country last experienced mass immigration. Between now and mid-century, immigrants and their children will generate two-thirds of population growth.

The question is whether newcomers are constructively assimilated or whether—to use Taylor’s acid characterization of popular fears—they “take our jobs, drain our resources, threaten our language . . . and import crime.” Either way, America’s profile changes. In 1960, 85 percent of Americans were white and 10 percent were black. Now, 63 percent are white, 13 percent black, 17 percent Hispanic and 5 percent Asian. In 2050, those shares are projected to be 47 percent white, 13 percent black, 28 percent Hispanic and 8 percent Asian.

Second, family breakdown. In 2011, unmarried women accounted for 41 percent of U.S. births, up from 5 percent in 1960. The trend affects all major groups. The rate is 29 percent for whites, 53 percent among Hispanics and 72 percent among African Americans. Although 60 percent of single mothers have live-in boyfriends, half of these relationships end within five years. Single parenthood’s stigma is gone.


Finally, aging. Every day 10,000 baby boomers turn 65. The retiree flood is swamping the federal budget. By 2022, Social Security, Medicare and the non-child share of Medicaid will exceed half the budget, up from 30 percent in 1990, projects an Urban Institute study. To make room for the elderly, defense and many domestic programs are being relentlessly squeezed.


America’s future rests heavily on how these mega-trends play out. Democracy works best when the political system can mediate between the often-inconsistent demands of public opinion and larger national needs. This, America’s leaders can’t or won’t do. Faced with immutable trends, they have not adapted to change. Instead, they pander to partisans with soothing, though outdated, stereotypes. Nostalgia poses as policy when it is actually a marketing strategy.

Liberals won’t come to terms with aging. Believing that spending on the elderly and near-elderly constitutes the essence of progressivism—and ignoring the affluence of many elderly—some liberals even support raising these benefits. {snip}


Conservatives have parallel hang-ups. They can’t adapt to the permanence of Big Government or the presence of so many immigrants, including an estimated 11 million who are here illegally. Even if unworthy government programs are cut, federal spending will easily exceed one-fifth of national income, which is more than today’s taxes will cover. Higher taxes, contrary to GOP dogma, will be needed. Similarly, illegal immigrants won’t conveniently vanish.


Appraising America’s democratic prospects in the mid-1940s, historian Brogan wrote that “the pessimists have always been wrong.” Maybe, but they’re looking prescient now.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Puggg

    Demographic denial?

    When are we allowed to talk about it?

    Seems to me like they do everything they can to keep us from talking about it.

    I don’t think American politics today is “dysfunctional” as much as it is bizarre and off the wall, and that’s mainly because we’re not allowed to talk about the most obvious things. That’s why so many politicians come off sounding stupid and insane, because the option of sanity isn’t an option.

    • silviosilver

      Based on his article you’d think Samuelson is a living a world of denial himself. Of course, I’m sure he knows only too well that race matters. All those highly placed “liberal” bums do. That’s why they are so expert at denying it.

      • Bartek

        I’m sure only one ethnic group matters to Mr. Samuelson.

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    Samuelson: “…they’re [the pessimists are] looking prescient now.”

    As to the root cause of the woes of western societies, Hans-Herman Hoppe has a useful formulation:

    “Egalitarianism leads to democracy; democracy leads to socialism; socialism leads to economic destruction; and democratic socialism in multicultural societies leads to death and democide.” (Hans Herman Hoppe, Austrian school economist, libertarian political philosopher)

    • I don’t know how much of a “libertarian” HHH truly is these days, precisely because he rejects egalitarianism. Just that would make him a “totalitarian collectivist” in the eyes of almost all modern libertarians. I think that if it wasn’t known that HHH wrote those words, most libertarians, when confronted with that quote, would probably and flippantly attribute them to a Nazi or a segregationist.

      • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

        Maybe Hoppe can say what he thinks because he is not a politician. There’s also this:

        “Hoppe, of course, has never been afraid to speak to the ‘unequal civilizing potential’ (in James Burnham’s coinage) of different people and peoples.” (Illana Mercer in “Apartheid South Africa: Reality vs. libertarian fantasy”)

        Is a belief in egalitarianism a prerequisite or adoption of libertarianism as philosophy? Perhaps a libertarian will respond.

        • if a libertarian responds, another will respond saying the first isn’t a “true” libertarian. 😉

          Libertarianism is what ever you want it to be.

        • BillMillerTime

          See Murray Rothbard, “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature.” 1974. Google it, it’s free to DL.

          • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

            Thanks. It’s apparently also the lead essay in a book by Rothbard of that name for about $11. Ordered it.

        • Norseman

          It depends what you mean by egalitarianism. The essence of libertarianism is the right of all adult individuals to decide over their own person and property. The only limitation is that one can not violate the same rights of another person. In this basic principle libertarianism can be said to be egalitarian. In sharp contrast to socialism however, libertarianism does not try to fix the distribution of resources to equalize the end result. Neither does it advocate the enforcement of any other distribution. Libertarianism only has a standard for how resources can be acquired, namely through appropriating resources that no one owns or by other people voluntarily giving you resources in their possession, as for instance happens in voluntary trade.

          Hoppe’s opinions on the unequal civilizing potential of different peoples are not inconsistent with libertarianism. Saying the opposite would not be inconsistent with libertarianism either, but it would, I’m pretty sure, be inconsistent with the truth.

        • Brutus

          I used to b e a libertarian, and I found egalitarianism absolutely necessary to libertarianism. The belief that greater individual freedom is always good depends on the assumption that all are capable of making use of their freedom to better their lives according to their individual preferences. When I became convinced that egalitarianism was false, I could no longer be a libertarian.

  • He discussed a book by an author named “Taylor,” but it was the wrong Taylor.

    Just why is American politics so dysfunctional? One answer is that both parties, for different reasons, have created self-serving mythologies that reward them for not dealing with pressing problems that, though daunting, are hardly sudden or secret

    Except that the “pressing problems,” while not “hardly sudden or secret,” ARE taboo to discuss in what passed for polite society.

  • So CAL Snowman

    It’s pretty obvious that the liberals and non Whites believe that America is a magic land, something out of a Harry Potter book. In this magic land, wealth and prosperity simply ARE; in America wealth and prosperity are not created, they are simply part of the fabric of society. Therefore ANYONE can and should be successful in America precisely because it is magic. If a person of color is not successful in America it is because the White man that first encountered this magical place, forcibly withholds the magic wealth of the nation from the poor oppressed persons of color. Because America is magic it does not matter WHO inhabits the nation, blacks, mexicans, asians, indians, etc. it will be successful no matter what. Liberals believe that a nation makes the people. Reality dictates that the people make the nation.

    • Great comment because the particular truth you state is both insightful and never spoken of or confronted. But as the long-term economic decline continues, either the resentment against whites leads to hard efforts to exterminate whites or a civil war with a strong racial component will start. I hope you post your comment everywhere because it interjects a significant new thought into the dialogue.

      • We have been saying this here for a long time now. People create cultures, not the other way around. Material prosperity is one aspect of culture.

        In other words, inferior people are incapable of building superior societies. But because multicultists reject the very concept that some cultures are superior to others, even as they flood superior cultures with inferior peoples, you can’t get them to admit or even recognize this. To them, there is literally no value difference between low-IQ Australoids living a Stone Age existence and the most brilliant European composers, inventors, and scientists of all time.

        It is insanity and you can’t reason with the insane. You can only drown them out, push them aside, and take your country back.

        • Petronius

          Yes. When you change the trees in the forest, it is no longer the same forest.

          • IstvanIN

            You mean red woods and arborvitae aren’t the same?

          • Garrett Brown

            We are all the same tree under god! Derp.

      • John R

        Africa: Huge land mass. Vast supplies of natural resources. Underpopulated for it’s size. Desperately poor.
        Japan: Small. Practically no natural resources. Very overpopulated for it’s size. One of the most prosperous and advanced societies in the world.
        It is not the land the people live on. (Ditto for such countries as Switzerland, Denmark, etc.) It is the people living on the land.

        • dubyasee


        • paul marchand

          Not only is your example exemplary of resourcefulness, but also as to where we should potentially, in a fair world, be getting immigrants from (sheesh, especially those kind Japanese women).

          • Yes, it would be wonderful to get huge, massive immigration from white-man-obsessed east asian women whose goal is often to have mixed kids at the expense of our race.

            You see, this is when even blacks can say that whites are retarded.

        • Brian

          Iceland vs. Haiti is another great example. Given equal populations, Haiti should be doing much better with its superior natural endowment. Yet, the differences could not be any more stark, in the other direction.

          • John R

            Every age has its dogma’s it seems. I guess we are the modern day Galileos fighting those that argue the Sun revolves around the Earth. We are committing heresy: Arguing that all races are NOT equal and showing evidence to support our claim. We are being persecuted by the modern day Church of Liberalism. History repeated.

          • Michael Samuel

            Didn’t Iceland go bankrupt faster than Detroit, after all it took them 50 years while Iceland did it in less than 20?

          • Brian

            You’re comparing a city, propped up by a whole nation, to a small independent nation? Yeah, their bank system had serious problems, but as long as Iceland is still Icelandic they’ll be fine.

    • Pelagian

      That’s counterintuitive. There are lands that are more prosperous than others because of their natural resources. That was kind of the whole point of the Old Testament. Even God could not make a go of the Ur of Chaldees, and told Abram to pick up his ramshackle tent and move to the land of Canaan.

      And you state this last line, apparently completely unaware of how problematic the word “nation” is, and how subject to different definitions (e.g. neoconservative, paleoconservative, libertarian, etc.) it is.

      • Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the most abundant and resource-rich areas on the planet. What is your excuse for universal African dysfunction, famine, and squalor? What is your excuse for the differences between Apartheid-era South Africa and South Africa today? The differences between Rhodesia and Zimbabwe?

        • Einsatzgrenadier

          Liberals will always have an excuse for African failure. “The underdevelopment of the African continent is the result of European colonialism and the slave trade.” When these explanations are revealed to be inadequate, they will invoke cultural relativism and social constructionism. They will even go so far as to deny the existence of a mind-independent reality. Liberal extremists are heavily invested in universal equality because when that goes, there goes their steady government jobs and their beloved experiment with multicultural diversity.

          • IstvanIN

            They were given two functioning, wealthy, first world nations: Rhodesia and South Africa. All they had to do was maintain the existing structure and not kill the goose (whites) that laid the golden egg. They couldn’t even do that.

          • So then ask them to explain Ethiopia, which was never colonized. *crickets*

          • Michael Samuel

            Its a pre industrial society…..

          • Yes, but why? And who invented industry?

          • The Verdict of History

            If anything, it appears as if Africa wasn’t colonized ENOUGH.

            It is doubtful that the indigenous people would have undergone economic and civic development without some kind of external imposition.

        • Pelagian

          All I’m saying is to say that it doesn’t matter is ridiculous. If a land were truly flowing with milk and honey, as is prophesied in the Bible, and for which the pilgrims were looking when they came to America, …. and one group within that polity was not receiving any of that flow, it would have a right logically to question that, in my opinion. it is entirely possible that one group was keeping it from the other group intentionally. Not saying that that is the case in the present case.

        • Michael Samuel

          Politics….Botswana is relatively prosperous its the lack of Marxist economics and centralized state control, in other words they lack a free and open economy.

      • Charles W.

        Japan is the third richest county in the world; also one of the most resource-barren. Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, also rich by world standards.

        At the end of the day a country’s most important natural resource by far is its people.

      • John R

        The Old Testament was thousands of years ago, when land area meant something to primitive, agrarian societies. Not today. It is the nature of the population that counts for prosperity today.

    • Charles W.

      The very definition of a nation is a people who have some discernible degree of shared ancestry.

      Liberals see countries as geographic zones, populated spaces, that somehow mysteriously behave differently due to some dubious ‘cultural factors’ that no one can quite seem to put their finger on. They never for a second consider the fact that blacks, Chinese, Irishmen, etc. tend to behave essentially the same everywhere in the world they dwell.

    • Germanicus

      Very well said. Give Europeans a hellhole or give them a beautiful, resource-filled land like the United States and they will make the most of that place. Give them California or give them the place now occupied by Detroit–give it all back–give them a beautiful place or give them a mill town. We make the place what it is. We are in a diaspora in our our own nations of Europe, America, and Great Britain. Once again we will coalesce. History just has not made it ear yet how that will happen. Just as the framers of the US Constitution sought to make certain that particular experiences of the previous era were not repeated, I expect that this will be the case with with the reconstituted nation of those whose origins were Europe, wherever that place will be.

      • Brian

        White men could colonize Mars, and with time, ingenuity, and teamwork, terraform it into prosperity and beauty.

        Africans take Eden itself and turn it into Mars.

        • Zaporizhian Sich

          They’d turn Eden into Venus, complete with sulfuric acid rain, 900 degree F surface temperatures and rivers of molten lava if they could.

        • Germanicus

          There must be some love of and capacity ororganization in so.e and not others. A little boy that organizes his Matchbox cars (do they still.make those things?) First according to color, then cars vs.trucks, then maybe emergency equipment, commercial vehicles and then farm machine s. The little Aristotle is working on genera and species. If mom is smart and dad is not to have sore toes, the boy will have a little box with compartments for all of the cars. I use to think all of this was teachable. I think now that that is not likely. Bell curves. The best situation is immersion of the best in a properly structured village school perhaps

    • Brian

      Nail. On. Head. These libs and POC you mention are no different from the New Guinean ‘cargo cult’ tribesmen.

    • Ed

      This is why Russia, China combined with God knows who else will eventually defeat us.

  • JohnEngelman

    If an article like this can appear in The Washington Post the intellectual climate is improving, at least marginally. I hope this will be followed by similar articles.

  • Spartacus

    “In 2050, those shares are projected to be 47 percent white, 13 percent black, 28 percent Hispanic and 8 percent Asian. ”


    Would be, if America would still exist then . It won’t , and thank God for that .

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      You can’t have western civilization without white people.

    • Extropico

      Have you dropped by the Amerikan airbase northwest of Constanta?

      • Spartacus

        No, I live in Bucuresti, and haven’t gone to Constanta in years . I have heard news about the US soldiers getting into a lot of bar fights. Someone I know who lives there tells me it’s mostly the black ones, but they don’t show that on the news…

        • IstvanIN

          Even Romania is occupied by American armed forces? How sad, considering it was the Americans and British who sold your King and country out to the Soviets in 1948.

        • ShermanTMcCoy

          Seems like some good opportunities to set those apes straight about hitting on the local white girls, gnomesayin’?

  • Liberal egalitarians created the problems of the white middle and working classes deliberately due to their self-righteous hatred of the typical white person, whom they associate with Archie Bunker. Oprah said it–she wants us dead.

    What these loopy lunatics fail to appreciate is that we created prosperity, and without us it can’t be sustained. I’m withdrawing from the liberal egalitarian state, although it would be better if there were White Support Networks I could withdraw toward.

    I use a number of tricks to legally avoid taxes. I am nearly ready to start growing my own food. I sabotage they System every way possible, so long as it’s not felonious. If I could I would impregnate dozens of white females and get them on welfare to increase our numbers and bankrupt the System, but alas I am going to have to leave that to younger white nationalists. You guys go out and date and mate.

    • Germanicus

      Haha. “Date & mate.” Funny. I assume it ‘s a joke, right? Otherwise, it sounds like a perfect formula for making burdensome White trash “femilies,” as appealing as that might be to the young and dumb. Also, some states put you (well–ok–White guys, that is) in prison for not paying child support. Twelve little bambinos might mean hard time in the State Prison. (I was never sure how that helped the kids, but oh well.)

      • Whites are being pushed into extinction because the white birth rate is so low. Viking Bitch and a number of other white nationalist women bloggers seriously advocate that white women, married or not, immediately begin reproducing in large numbers. VB also advocates that whites refuse to support the system by getting food stamps and other benefits, in order to bankrupt the system. Mothers do not have to name the fathers of their children, and can say they don’t know who the father is, so white men need not be sent to prison. VB practices what she preaches, as she is a single mother of two, with another on the way, and she’s never been married. She rejects materialism and raises her children to be white nationalists.

        I don’t know how large the “have white babies NOW” movement is, but unless it catches on, the white race will go extinct. Putin saw this and offers huge incentives to women becoming mothers.

        Until recently, I was opposed to white single motherhood, but the crisis is so acute that I’ve reluctantly come to the opinion that all stops must be pulled out so that whites reproduce. So, white single mothers with at least three or more white children are now fine with me. So is milking the system dry.

        • ShermanTMcCoy

          Te most troubled children I know are fatherless. I hope VB is a single mother in name only. I like the idea of draining the system, just so dad is actually around.

        • Einsatzgrenadier

          IMO Encouraging whites to have children is a waste of time. Whites cannot out-breed imported 3rd world savages because we evolved as a subspecies to pursue a K-selected reproductive strategy. This means maximal parental investment in a small number of offspring. Furthermore, many whites have been sterilized by massive 3rd world immigration. This puts downward pressure on wages and inflationary pressure on housing prices, depressing the fertility of the native population.

          The fact of the matter is that whites don’t need large numbers of children to defend themselves or conquer large swaths of territory. After all, it only took a small number of 19th century Europeans to subdue the teeming masses of 3rd world savages and win a global empire for themselves. What we need are small numbers of very high quality offspring. These must be thoroughly indoctrinated in blut und boden and trained in the ars et disciplina bellica, ready to drive the 3rd world parasites and white race traitors out of our ancestral lands when the time comes.

          • White families with 10 or 11 children used to be quite common, in farm country at least. I was an only child, but my neighbors in Chalmette, La., all white, had large families of three or more children, often as many as six. Our modest little houses were only about 700 square feet. Think bunk beds.

            Respectfully disagree that numbers don’t matter. Look at the genocide of whites in South Africa. The white race cannot survive as a relatively small minority. We must either reproduce or be exterminated, as South Africa is proving every day.

          • Zaporizhian Sich

            Drive them out? I don’t think so, they are trying to exterminate us, we should return the favor.

    • slash345

      Not that simple to just date and mate.

      Besides, most white women would shun a white nationalist because their minds have been poisoned.

      Unfortunately our biggest enemy are other whites, not non-white.

    • WR_the_realist

      I’m not convinced that having more white people act like ghetto blacks is the proper solution to our problems.

      • Tarczan

        The machinery operates differently.

  • John R

    I don’t entirely agree with this article. I object to the comment that “The illegal immigrants won’t magically disappear.” I mean, they would if we summoned the courage and the will to throw them out. But we won’t. Where I DO agree with this article is with the fact that, yes, our problems ARE caused by the rapidly changing demographics of this country, and the fact that we have been in denial about it.

    • The gestapo-like national security apparatus we currently have could be repurposed to finding illegals pretty easily, I would imagine.

    • WR_the_realist

      We could make most of the illegal immigrants disappear with these three weird tricks:

      1. Mandate the use of e-verify when hiring people.

      2. Increase the penalty for hiring an illegal immigrant from the current $5000 to $100,000. For small businesses hiring an illegal could mean bankruptcy. For bigger ones it still wouldn’t make economic sense. Businesses that make proper use of e-verify would be indemnified against these penalties, so nobody would lose his business due to an honest mistake.

      3. Strictly enforce that illegal immigrants and their children get NO public benefits.

      Illegal immigrants would walk back home. We wouldn’t have to clog up the courts with ten million deportation cases.

  • Frank_DeScushin

    At any other time period in world history, if the native population precipitously dropped form 85% to 47% and was replaced be new populations all in a span less than a century, that would be referred to as a conquering.

    • Extropico

      There is no way Whites will comprise near 47% of the population in 2050 at current migration rates. Those numbers are a highly inaccurate social construct.

      • IstvanIN

        Way too high.

    • John R

      How to make my reply short. The “Native American” didn’t lose this country to war or disease, as many claim. He lost it to demographic replacement by Europeans. In 1600, there were only a few hundred of us in the country. In 1700, around 200,000. By the 1750’s, there were more Whites in the future United States, than Indians. So, it took the White Man, about 150 years to become a majority over the Indian in the future United States. And we are accused of “killing off the Indians”? It has taken less time (starting around 1965) for the non-whites of the Third World to do the same to White Americans today. (Estimated about a century, say 2065 or so.) Can we then accuse the Mexicans of genocide then? Same situation, different races. Make no mistake: We are the new “Native Americans” and it is OUR way of life that is being destroyed. (“They took the whole Cherokee Nation…..”)

      • Reverend Bacon

        “Though I wear a hair shirt and tie, I’m still part white man deep inside.”
        “but maybe someday when we’ve learned, American Nation will return, will return…”
        – apologies to Paul Revere

      • Brian

        You’re right about the demographic replacement, but wrong about the disease. It’s estimated that there were about 25 million Indians in the New World in 1500 AD. By 1750 there were far fewer. Most did die from European diseases for which they had no immunity or reciprocal diseases to pass back. They died in droves.

        The intentional conquest, ‘smallpox blankets’ and such, was very minor, comparatively. We didn’t ‘kill off the Indians’ with axe, fire, or gun, but it was inevitable that once the Columbian Exchange began, most natives would die from diseases, regardless of the Europeans’ intent.

        The difference now is that some of our enemies, even among our own number, are doing the replacement knowingly, and intentionally.

        • John R

          I tried to keep my reply short, but the “disease theory” does have some problems and has been criticized recently. Short story: There have been evidence of major epidemics striking down Indian communities BEFORE EUROPEANS ARRIVED. We know of one that devastated Mexico in the late 1400’s, before Columbus came to America. And if the Indians only died because they “hadn’t acquired the immunity” to resist disease, then how about the epidemics devastating Indian communities centuries AFTER contact? There is NO PATTERN of Indians only dying off after first contact, then acquiring immunity. No, that theory I do not believe anymore. And I think these figures of millions of Indians living in the United States before the English arrived is another myth perpetuated by the Left. There are more Amerindians living in the US today than there were when Whites first arrived.

          • Brian

            evidence of major epidemics striking down Indian communities BEFORE EUROPEANS ARRIVED.
            Of course they had epidemics before Europeans– but post-1500, they were exposed to a variety of brand new diseases on top of whatever they already had experience with. Also, you realize that in order to have contagious disease epidemics, a large-ish population is required for effective transmission, which shoots down the notion that there are more American Indians today than 500 years ago. You can’t have it both ways– they couldn’t have had outbreaks without decent population density. And they had it– how else do you explain the garden-like, recently cultivated areas the pioneers found, with no one around, and the towns like Cahokia and Etowah, and the trade goods circulating over hundreds of miles?

            how about the epidemics devastating Indian communities centuries AFTER contact?
            So? Bubonic plague and smallpox both had breakouts every century or two in Eurasia. 500 million people around the world died from smallpox alone, with deaths coming in waves until the vaccine. And that’s with a population with exposure and resistance– when the Indians were exposed for the very first time, they’d drop like flies.

          • John R

            Sigh, trying to keep this short. Even the American Heritage Book of Indians-written in the 1970’s talks about a mysterious illness, probably smallpox-that struck Mexico in the 1400’s. And Indian populations were not static. Problem is we have no written records of their history before Europeans “discovered” America. But we have anecdotal evidence of densely populated communities that existed in North America BEFORE the English arrived.

            These would include the Hopewell Burial Mound Culture that existed in the Ohio Valley centuries ago. Ironically, in historic times that region was almost uninhabited by any tribe. In addition, there was once a thriving Temple Mound Culture that existed in the Southeastern United States before Europeans arrived. Again, what happened?

            My point is that Indian depopulation may not have been primarily the White Man’s fault, and even the diseases that we are blamed to have brought over were probably already here. I am just refuting the old popular tale of the Left of the happy Red Man who lost his wonderful way of life to the evil White Man.

            European history was brutal. We know that. And Native American history was probably just as brutal, only most of it is unrecorded. Example? We know, from history, SOME of the destruction caused by the League of the Iroquois in carving out their Empire in New York State. But we have no exact figures of the destruction caused by the Aztecs as they fed their hungry gods on the hearts of so many victims. I would bet the Aztecs killed off far more Natives than the Spanish Conquest ever did.

            Well, that is about it. I think you get my drift. We at Amren have got to try and stop this constant telling of history as a constant tale of the evil of our people, when the reverse is true. Peace, thank you for your reply. Even in writing, a lively discussion.

  • Extropico

    “Democracy works best when the political system can mediate between the often-inconsistent demands of public opinion and larger national needs.”

    IOW. Hint. Hint. Don’t listen to the people’s demands to control the border. Our excellent banker overlords need a higher population level to continue the debt service ponzi.

    • IstvanIN

      I wonder what would happen if everyone just hit the reset button and started over? “Money” isn’t wealth, simply a medium of exchange, and since money doesn’t have any great intrinsic value, other than the value of coinage melted down, which isn’t any where near the vast bulk of money in circulation, what could it hurt?

      • Extropico

        John Kerry would rebuke you for having 19th Century values of independence and sovereignty. 😉

      • dd121

        The system will reset itself alright. What the social consequences will be is unknown.

      • Tarczan

        Money does have value, or at least it is supposed to. It represents your time and work.

    • Sangraal

      Or, ‘That democracy which works best works least’.

  • John K

    By 2050, there may not be an America. The future looks to become that of present-day Africa, where whites are raped and murdered, and their property taken. There might actually come a day where whites will pull their heads out of their behinds and stop hating their own race, but it will probably be too late by then.

    • MBlanc46

      It will be very different and will have little historical continuity with the America that I grew up in and the 1950s and 1960s. I wouldn’t mind that if I thought the changes would be positive ones, but they almost certainly won’t be.

  • dd121

    What were we looking at. Was the boy white? Where were his parents?

  • dd121

    Do you witness massive social disorder in the homogeneous country known as Japan? That should answer your question.

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    Then he’s wrong. Western civilization is more than just IQ. It’s the end result of a specific combination of IQ, creativity, testosterone levels and certain personality traits, such as individualism, that is unique to the white race.

    • The ‘individualism’ is a toxic burden. Whites have the ‘me’ mentality. Too many whites want to benefit as individuals, so much so, that they couldn’t careless what damaged they course as a whole. You only have to look at your neighbors in a predominant white area to see that they more often care about themselves than others.

  • silviosilver

    The sole value of Arthur Jensen lies in his demonstration of the genetic basis of IQ differences between individuals and between races. His political opinions are worthless. Frankly, the man was a political fool – as is anyone who refuses to take the most fundamental, minimal steps of cultivating healthy racial self-regard and adopting a stance of racial self-defense.

  • Magician

    I went to the website, 56 dot com, and I see Chinese letters. Chinese letters look much more complex than Korean or Japanese letters.

  • paul marchand

    The available solution won’t be with us very long, IF we have a “conservative” with at least one gonad on Pennsylvania Avenue:
    patriots call Constitutional Convention. ONLY PATRIOTS need apply.
    Three groups excised from voting, JUSTIFIABLY SO:
    1) illegals retro to 1970, and their children (retro: no auto-citizenship…that was not intended by the founders
    2) those who are net recips from govt cannot vote. All they have to do to gain the vote back is to BE PRODUCTIVE
    3) govt employees cannot vote. NOBODY WILL TWIST THEIR ARMS. It will be contractual.
    Be sure the military is onboard, and just DO IT.

  • paul marchand

    The federal govt has, in effect, declared war ( for about 50 years) on the ” middle class whites”, by making shacking up lucrative, and impoverishing responsibility:

    * *


    a WORKING FAMILY EARNS $70k, and a SHACKING UP FAMILY only earns $30 k, DUE TO
    THE FED GOVT, after you shake it all out, the RESPONSIBLE FAMILY will lose
    about $26k, and the SHACKING UP FAMILY will GAIN about $35k.

    a DIFFERENCE of over $60,000.

    – –

    family, 2 children, 2 incomes

    makes 40k, she makes 30k = + 70k

    9k, subsidy 3k = -6k


    chased out of “bad schools”, tuition 14k

    = 43.5k


    and felishana 2 kids shacking up, 1 income + welfare

    makes 30K, she gets welfare incl Medicaid sect 8 etc worth +25k

    school = +20k

    income tax = -4k

    = + 66 k

    – – – – –

    ffed govt cost the married couple in effect -26.5k

    fed govt embellished the shackups +41k

    different treatment of $67.5k

    • Tarczan

      And when something is subsidized, you get more of it.

  • Sangraal

    Wow our future will be awesome, I bet those people all have really high IQs and really low illegitimacy rates and will invent loads of cool gadgets and grow our economy and love us long time.

    • IstvanIN

      Look at how they kick at a terrified child, not one adult steps in to help the poor child. Yes, Asians are just like us.

  • WR_the_realist

    Where are all those white Spanish Hispanics? All I see are Mestizos from Central America and mixed black/Indian/white Puerto Ricans. Spanish or Argentinian whites are a negligible portion of the mix. One of us is hallucinating and I don’t think it’s me.

  • WR_the_realist

    We don’t deny demographic reality here.

    That is why we are called “haters”.

  • Brian

    Good question. Affirmative action would be gone, or mostly so. (Some feminism would still exist.) Education would be FAR cheaper…when you have smart, orderly students, it’s just easier all around. The cost of social services (DFACS, welfare/SNAP), and prisons/police/courts would be far less. No more ‘stop the violence’ campaigns. We could also return to a government, two-party system, that isn’t quite so riven and gridlocked on basic principles, since there would be some common ground instead of coalitions of warring tribes.

    We would also have much less problem with traffic I think– not much need to flee the Diversity-laden cities and fly to the suburbs. Imagine having our cities back, and the countryside beyond.

  • WR_the_realist

    I’m sure the people you depict don’t even get counted as Hispanic. I suspect La Raza wants nothing to do with them.

  • Mentious

    “…they “take our jobs, drain our resources, threaten our language . . . and import crime.”

    He left out:

    — Destroying our ethnic character, and
    — Threatening our genotype, and
    — Destroying our natural cohesiveness and communal nature.

    All more important stuff!

  • Michael Samuel

    They can’t see the real problem is Politics its not always “race”…

  • Michael Samuel

    Isn’t this what happened to the North American natives after the “civilized” high I.Q Euros got here?

  • A good portion of White liberal (elites) are sociopathic. I’m positive they derive sexual pleasure from colonizing their own countries. Its more about their need for fulfillment than it is about the immigrants themselves.