White births in the U.S. are now fewer than nonwhite births: what it means, and what can be done about it

Paul Kersey of SPBDL writes:

I didn’t do a screen shot save, but Matt Drudge had the story about white babies now being in the minority above his main story: DOWN TO THIRD: USA ‘TO FALL BEHIND INDIA’ IN TRADE

Drudge, in a suitable way, showed that the de-whitening (what else should it be called?) of America means a negative economic trade-off.

White liberals, who are overzealous in importing their own demise, will only cheer that the “cancer of the human race” is slowly fading from America.

My question: Who is going to subsidize non-white growth when the taxpayers are gone?

It’s a system that can’t survive. That is why the work you do is so important, as you prepare minds for the deluge that is coming (if not already here).

LA replies:

I don’t know that I am preparing anyone for it. Yes, whites, if they are reduced to minority status, will survive in some form. But if whites become a minority, and then an ever-shrinking minority (not in absolute numbers, but relative to the immigration-created growth of other groups), our society as we’ve known it will end. And the same is true of other Western countries. Therefore what is vitally needed is the reversal of current trends. As difficult or impossible as that sounds, it can happen, if the following measures are adopted: the cessation of nonwhite and non-Western immigration; the removal of all illegal aliens (whether through law enforcement and voluntary attrition, or through deportation), the end of birthright citizenship of the children of illegal aliens; the removal of the citizenship of such persons; the departure, whether voluntary or coerced, of all Muslims; and the elimination of permanent legal residence status for non-citizens.

But that is only a beginning. The departure of illegal aliens and Muslims would be a tremendous shot in the arm, but it would not fundamentally reverse the demographic trends leading to the de-Europeanization of America. What is further needed are steps that will encourage many recent immigrants and their offspring, particularly Mexicans and other Hispanics (who constitute by far the largest part of the immigrant population), to return to their native lands. These steps include: the elimination of all group privileges for nonwhites; the elimination of the multicultural ideology and all of its manifestations; the reassertion of the identity of the country’s history white European majority and their publicly stated determination to remain the majority; the adoption of a frankly anti-Hispanization ideology (just as we need to adopt a frankly anti-Islamization ideology); and the reduction of government benefits that largely benefit Hispanics. A further step that might be considered, which I have advocated in the case of Muslims, is to pay departing legal residents and citizens a one time fee in exchange for giving up their residence or citizenship status and leaving.

By the way, there is no reason why we should be shy about adopting a frankly anti-Hispanization or anti-Mexicanization ideology. The country to our south has a frankly anti-American ideology and frankly aims at the Mexicanization of this country. Only a country of pathetic wusses would fail to identify this fact and defend itself. I think we should stop being a country of pathetic wusses.

In earlier discussions about the Islam problem, I have said that the main thing is not to aim at an instant solution (i.e., the complete deportation of all Muslims tomorrow, which is the way many anti-jihad people talk), but rather the reversal of the current trends. The current trends are that Muslim numbers, power and confidence are steadily growing, and that the majority’s relative numbers, power, and confidence are steadily shrinking. Reversing those two trends, I said, would be enough to save the country from Islamization.

The same logic applies to the de-whitening or de-Europeanization of America as a whole. The problem cannot be solved all at once. But it is possible to reverse the current direction of things, so that instead of whites steadily losing demographic and cultural ground, and seeing themselves and their culture as doomed, the whites are steadily gaining demographic and cultural ground, and thus have grounds for believing in themselves and their future once again.

- end of initial entry -

LA writes:

Now I know what a certain response to the above proposals will be: that they can never be adopted, because the liberal half (or the liberal majority) of the white population will never go along with them. And therefore that the only solution is the secession of white conservatives and the formation of a new, conservative nation.

As I’ve often acknowledged, that may ultimately be the case. But we can’t deal with all issues at once. What I have laid out above is a path to national recovery and survival, reversing the path to national suicide. That is enough to take in for now. If it turns out that this path cannot be pursued within the boundaries of the current USA for the reason given, then it may be pursued within a new, conservative nation. But, as I said, we cannot deal with all possible issues at the same time.

Posted June 28

Mark Jaws writes:

This day has been long in coming and will at least catch the attention of a significant portion of the population. Therefore, our first round of steps as part of an extended incrementalist approach must be appropriately conceived and highly defendable in order to diminish support for the status quo. Here are a few points to consider.

First, those “Hispanics” who are not chained to the welfare hacienda vote in a manner similar to non-Hispanic Whites. So, there is no point in alienating those folks, the vast majority of whom are of Spanish or mostly Spanish (or other European) ancestry. [LA replies: I don’t think it’s possible not to offend them. Even anything done about illegal immigration is going to offend the white Hispanics, who always identify with their nonwhite fellow Hispanics.]

Second, without pointing our fingers to any one group, we must accurately calculate and publicize the total costs associated with government-subsidized illegitimacy (the vast majority of which occurs, as we all know, in the Black and “Aztec” communities), to include its highly deleterious second-, third, and fourth-order effects. This would include the breakdown of the family, the decline of neighborhoods and schools, and the growth of suburban sprawl and hour-long commutes, traffic congestion, and air pollution associated with the middle class flight to the far-flung suburbs.

Third, to help the liberal urban professional class come to its senses, we must associate the trillions spent on welfare with resources which otherwise could have been used to build the transportation infrastructure and develop green industries (whatever that means).

And finally, we must publicize welfare usage rates among immigrants, which approaches 50 percent.

John McNeil writes:

As you may remember, I lean towards the secession camp and also take the position that it’s too late for anti-immigration causes to avert whites shrinking into minority status. But setting aside that difference between us, would you consider the possibly that no matter whether we follow the Take-back-the-USA plan or the secession route, the very key cornerstone to our plans would be the building of European-American identity in 21st century America? As you probably well know, white Americans are largely autonomous individuals not beholden to organic concepts of national identity and communal ties. Fixing that and building an ethnic-conscious movement is key to revitalizing a white America. For whites will not fight if they do not have a sense of purpose; having something worth preserving.

And how do we get there? How do we undo all of the extreme individualist programming within white Americans? Can we rally a people that largely looks out for themselves and their immediate family members? Can we get such people to look past such trivial things like the latest electronic fad or pop culture sensation and take pride in their roots, and realize what’s at stake by forsaking the very building blocks of our civilization?

If this is at all possible, then perhaps this should be among our first priorities. You are right that we cannot tackle everything at once, and I feel this path is something worthwhile of our time, as it will make both Plan A and Plan B viable in the future.

Karl J. writes:

You wrote:

Now I know what a certain response to the above proposals will be: that they can never be adopted, because the liberal half (or the liberal majority) of the white population will never go along with them. And therefore that the only solution is the secession of white conservatives and the formation of a new, conservative nation.

As I’ve often acknowledged, that may ultimately be the case.

My two cents worth is that this view is both wildly pessimistic and wildly optimistic. Pessimistic, by inflating the actual number of “liberals,” and optimistic, by inflating the prospects of “conservative” separation.

The vast majority of Americans are just too busy getting on with their own lives to pay much attention to major public issues. And if they do pay attention, what are they presented with? The “liberal” news/entertainment/education complex, and a “conservative” counter-establishment that is too cowardly, or fatuously complacent, or downright complicitous, to challenge the nation-killing agenda of the Left. Those who hold this view have too much faith in the half of America that put Jorge W. Bush in the White House.

You, in your own way, are part of the consciously pro-American remnant. Keep up the good work.

June 29

James N. (who has seven children) writes:

Don’t blame me. :-)

Karl J. writes:

Some afterthoughts:

I work in DC—the part I call the Tourist Zone—and live in the Virginia suburbs. Here we are comfortably insulated from the Orc-ish demimonde of the inner city. Out in the ‘burbs there are ever-more-intrusive hordes of foreign skells, mostly Hispanic, but even out here they’re effectively marginalized from the social circles I move in. Most bourgeois whites are quiet, polite, bland, and nice to a fault, whatever their politics may be. The concentration of “liberals” and establishment “conservatives” is higher than in flyover country, of course, but in daily life, they’re practically invisible. And nationally, they play a passive/aggressive game by exploiting most bourgeois whites’ inveterate tendency to be quiet, polite, bland, and nice to a fault. I try not to browbeat people with my own “mean-spirited” opinions, but to the extent that I sound them out, most have a pretty sensible attitude towards immigration—but, being comfortably insulated, and just too darned nice, the issue doesn’t resonate with them. Some are quietly fed up, but see nothing to be done about it. That is to say, they are basically pro-American, but not consciously so. Given competent leadership, this sentiment could be tapped into: look at Pete Wilson and the passage of Prop. 187, back in 1994. As things get worse, I expect a more people will get fed up, less quietly, and support a major reaction like that which brought Reagan to the White House.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 23, 2011 01:15 PM | Send