When mass immigration makes a society more ethnically diverse, social order increasingly comes to rely on abstract ideals and economic narratives, rather than biological and emotional ties. Eventually, multiculturalism cuts deep wounds in a people’s sense of cohesion, replacing it with mutual suspicion. The ideals of e pluribus unum—creating a melting pot of peoples—only succeeds with fairly homogeneous peoples willing to assimilate, such as the European immigrants to America who brought with them a shared history, Christian religion and Western civilization. They also showed a willingness to learn to speak English (well, eventually…).
But when a people becomes too diverse, i.e. when immigrants start refusing to assimilate, the inevitable realization takes root that one is no longer a single people, but several. We can observe this social collapse in real-time in present-day United States. Demographics play a leading role in it. In 1965, non-Hispanic whites represented over 80% of the total population. Down to about 65% today, Pew Research projects white Americans to become a less than 50% minority by 2040.1 But by that time, white babies will make up less than a 25% share of total births. Already in 2015, non-white births outnumbered white births.2 American whites may never recover.
White Decline and Demographics
White decline in the United States knows two key causes. On the one hand, a rapidly aging white demographic is failing to reproduce a replacement generation. Their wealthy lifestyles force them to cut family size down to an average of one or two children per woman. On the other hand, a mostly Hispanic and Asian low-wage immigrant population is booming. Concerning the African American population, researchers project it will remain relatively constant at around 13% of the population, although growing in absolute numbers.3 Researchers believe the immigration wave made possible since the 1965 Kennedy Immigration Act may bring in nearly 60 million mostly non-white immigrants (excluding offspring!) by 2065.
These critical demographic changes have divided the United States into at least two distinct peoples: a rural Middle America populated by whites who helped vote Republican President Donald Trump into office—also dismissively known as ”flyover country”—and a hyper-diverse urban rabble that houses much of the US industry’s immigrant labor force—also known as “coastal America” and home to massive Democrat voter bases. Without immigrants driving the Democrat vote, President Obama could never have been elected, let alone twice.
Although much of the United States is still white-owned today, rapid white decline implies that this former British colony, too, must one day follow in the footsteps of former colonies such as Suriname, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)4 and South Africa. These countries were once ruled by whites, but their falling numbers eventually toppled the balance of power in favor of non-white majorities. Australia, Canada and even Europe may be facing a similar fate.
For example, in South Africa, according to the 1904 census, whites represented about 22% of the total population at 1.1 million individuals.5 In 1960, whites had grown to 3 million individuals, but constituted a relative 19% of the total population as the non-white population began to explode.6By 2011, whites had grown to around 4.6 million, but now represented less than 9% of the total.7 In 2016, the non-white population hit a staggering 50 million individuals, with whites further declining to 8% of the total population. Now down to 4.5 million, South African whites have begun to decline in absolute numbers for the first time in history.8 The above figures exclude about 3 million illegal immigrants left unaccounted for.
White Disappropriation and Disempowerment
Considering white decline in the US, it is not at all far-fetched that a joint majority of non-white Americans may choose to overthrow Washington in a civil war before the end of this century. Mimicking the abolition of South Africa’s Apartheid regime, non-white Americans may demand their own non-white government. America’s revolutionaries may argue that institutionalized racism had historically disadvantaged them, thus warranting them a right to legally disown whites of their land and property. (It shouldn’t be difficult to understand why racism and discrimination exist at all: these are the tools economic majorities deploy to stay in power, i.e. to make sure minorities stay minorities by oppressing their reproductive rates.)
Once non-whites have established themselves as the dominant political power, they will pursue white disappropriation, e.g. take away land and property from white owners. This has happened in Suriname,9 it has happened in Zimbabwe, it is presently happening in South Africa,10 and it is eventually going to happen to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and even to the mother continent Europe herself. Despite being economically successful, whites fail to win the reproductive numbers game everywhere in the world. Consequently, they will have to surrender their political power someday, both nationally and internationally.
Indeed, white decline is a global phenomenon. For decades, Europe’s aging white demographic has been dropping in absolute numbers. By 2050, Pew Research expects Christian Europeans to decline from 550 million down to 450 million.11 At the same time, the European Union believes it should actively import tens of millions of non-European immigrants to come replace its aging workforce, “The cumulative effect of net migration assumed under the EUROPOP2008 convergence scenario is to increase the EU’s population by 56 million by 2061.”12 Globally, people of European descent are set to become a fringe minority. In case of Europe alone, Russel Shorto figured:
“Around the time that President Kennedy went to Germany and gave his Ich bin ein Berliner speech, Europe represented 12.5 percent of the world’s population. Today it is 7.2 percent, and if current trends continue, by 2050 only 5 percent of the world will be European.”13
Disowning White Farmers
By then, white Americans would only be 2% of the world. In such a scenario, like South Africa’s white Afrikaners, white people are condemned to play the role of an economically successful though politically powerless rural minority in the countries their ancestors built. Western civilization may be flushed out and replaced by doctrines of African superstition, Arab traditionalism and Chinese communism. When black dictator Robert Mugabe overtook Zimbabwe’s rule, his all-black government immediately began brutally torturing and killing whites and their families in order to seize their property and scare them out of the country.14 What can people of European descent do to avert such a nightmare on a global scale?
Notably, as a consequence of Mugabe’s “well-planned” policy to drive out white farmers, a quarter of the Zimbabwean population, and counting, now faces mass starvation.15 Millions of Zimbabweans have already migrated to South Africa illegally, happily consuming the food South Africa’s white farmers still produce there… But what happened in Zimbabwe is also happening in South Africa. Since the fall of Apartheid in 1994, South Africa has become a net importer of food in order to feed its ballooning black population.16 Apparently, disowning farmers leads to a collapse in local food production, which in turn leads to an exodus of the hungry to places where more farmers live.
Let this sink in: Hunger drives mass migration from places with low to high agricultural activity. Thus, with Europe being a most productive agricultural region, Europeans risk being overrun by hundreds of millions of hungry Africans, Arabs, Indians and Asians once their failing societies force them to make a run for the European continent.
The Tragedy of Overbreeding
Writing on the problem of human overpopulation in a 1968 essay titled The Tragedy of the Commons, American ecologist and philosopher Garrett Hardin asked,
“In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts overbreeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement?”17
Indeed, overbreeding as a policy is precisely the strategy non-white immigrants have been pursuing for decades in order to conquer Europe and America from within. A Western welfare state drunk on cheap immigrant labor that willfully opens its borders to an unrestricted influx certainly risks the possibility of self-induced extinction, of suicide by immigration. Hardin further notes that there is “no technical solution to the problem” of overbreeding in any enclosed setting, whether local, national or global. Regardless of technological advances, overall human reproductive rates eventually catch up with the latest developments. Those dreaming of building underwater cities will not escape the Tragedy of the Commons either:
“It is fair to say that most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy. They think that farming the seas or developing new strains of wheat will solve the problem–technologically. I try to show here that the solution they seek cannot be found.”18
The finite world we live in is what Hardin calls the commons. A term taken from political economics, it refers to all natural and cultural resources people or societies hold in common such as air, water, and the habitable earth, as opposed to privately owned property. The phrase Tragedy of the Commons refers to mankind’s inability to escape the consequences of its own continued population growth, namely overpopulation, resources shortage, war, famine, disease outbreak and the subsequent reality of (partial) population collapse. Hardin explains the Tragedy of the Commons as follows:
“Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.”19
The impossibility of a peaceful solution led Hardin to the conclusion that an individual’s freedom to reproduce lies at the heart of the problem:
“Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.”20
Hardin proposed a political solution to the unsolvable technical problem, stating, “The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon.”21
In his view, individuals should no longer be allowed to reproduce at will. Hardin’s suggestion is surprising, because it is precisely the sort of ‘solution’ Nazi Germany employed by enacting racial purity laws that barred ‘impure’ people from having children. Yet, the idea of licensing parents to have children is gaining popularity among the progressive left.22 But there’s a problem. If we would go full leftist and choose to license only economically successful people, whites would be a substantial part of the licencees—and the whole world would cry racism. (Obviously, progressives would take the opposite course of action and point to ‘white privilege’ to deny whites a license to breed.)
Hardin’s solution to overbreeding was an argument for communism, namely the belief that individual people may not be left to decide for themselves what is best for them. Under communism, it is the State that decides who may (or must) start a family, how many children each woman may have, and who should be barred from having children—like a shepherd in charge of his flock. Only a bureaucratic apparatchik of self-appointed know-betters may be allowed to rule the ignorant masses. One might say Josef Stalin had already devised a most excellent population control system. It was called the Gulag. Is that what globalism really means to progressives, a return to communism?
Facing the Facts
It is time Western people of European descent face the facts. We are economically successful, but only because we keep our family sizes small (and inheritances large). Our numbers are in decline everywhere in the world, both relatively speaking and in absolute numbers. Before the end of this century, we risk becoming a global fringe minority. Replacement immigration is already eating away at the societies we built. World overpopulation and its environmental footprint are not our fault, but the fault of non-white masses whose numbers keep rising exponentially. Nevertheless, hungry hordes may seek to invade our lands in search of food.
Before the end of this century, people of European descent face the real possibility of near extinction through a combination of aging demographics and mass immigration, but also through potential mass rape and genocide at the hands of hungry invaders. Moreover, Western upper classes seem only interested in their own survival.
That means we’re on our own. So, what do we do now? Answer: we prepare for total war.