Another unfulfilled prophecy is that non-European immigrants would maintain their high fertility in the US and other Western countries. In reality, their fertility has fallen dramatically. Fertility rates are now lower among Asian Americans and African Americans than among Euro Americans, and the same will probably happen for Hispanic Americans. I discussed this point earlier in Aporia Magazine: https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/trump-white-americas-savior
Northwest Europeans seem to have a higher tolerance for individualism and social atomization. Consequently, when other human populations migrate to a Western country, the adverse effects are much greater for them than for the indigenous Western population.
We see similar adverse effects when non-Western countries embrace the program of Western atomization. South Korea is an extreme example, but the same holds true for most of East Asia and, increasingly, Latin America.
We are seeing a similar pattern among Muslim immigrants in Western Europe. Muslims in Germany now have below-replacement fertility, and the same may be true for second generation Muslims in France.
The problem is that continuing large-scale immigration, particularly from Africa, is maintaining a high-fertility culture within the immigrant community that would otherwise converge on the European norm.
Things are quite different in the inland North. While immigrants are basically swimming in American popular culture, Amish, Mennonites and Laestadians form seperate cultural groups, even though their ancestors have lived in the United States. If you prefer to live in the old America, I strongly recommend moving to the Lake Superior region, (e.g Duluth, Marquette or anywhere in between).
“ The Great Replacement will make America a worse country.”
Of course. This line belonged in paragraph one, the rest of the article simple commentary. A country is no more than its people—and we are replacing native stock with inferior substitutions. The country now has a National IQ of 98 and is declining rapidly. In this regard a “great leveling” is occurring throughout the West with the rest of the world. Mediocrity is on the rise and AI won’t solve the problem, albeit it will mask it for a time.
There is a reason we became the greatest power in the world and it will be the same reason we become a second rate power such as your example, Brazil. The “shopping mall” unity phenomena will subside as we continue to become a bipolar society of haves and have nots.
There will not be a blending of races to the betterment of all, but a stark contrast between those on the top and everyone else. Heck, it’s already here, but old memories die hard.
Agree in principle, but when did the replacement start? A country is no more than its people, but for this country “its people” have always been a constant flow of people imported from elsewhere. Land was literally given to anyone who was willing to get on a ship and come over and work it. It’s hard to talk people in nationalist terms when you’re dealing with the first (and most successful) post-nationalist country. That’s probably why nativism works better as an approach to this question (vs nationalism).
I don’t know where you got the idea that countries in general are in a constant state of “replacement” with people from external sources. Nothing is further from the truth, for example take China, Japan, Korea. You’ve extrapolating from the last/final historical occurrence of such influx, America, where the land was basically vacant because the original people were “Hunter-Gatherers” and their small numbers left a big content to resettle from a crowded Europe.
In any event, the people we used to get here in quantity were of Northern and Southern European stock. Even then, we called a halt to mass immigration of these people in the early 1900’s, then regulated by law an acceptable number/flow proportional to the then current population’s ethnic distribution numbers residing in the US.
The concept that anyone, from anywhere, can get on a boat and come here to enjoy the welfare state is a new phenomenon. These people, by and large, have no skill sets useful to an advanced, first word technological society and are in many cases subpar in intellect and have grossly different cultural norms.
In addition, their numbers are swamping our ability to absorb them, hence ghettos form. In just the Biden years, it is estimated that perhaps 15-20M IA’s crossed the border. Even the Census admits that we now have 58M residents not born in the country—the highest ever recorded. That’s 16% of their low-balled current US population figure.
The country is not simply evolving, it’s dissipating as we speak.
I said “this country” referring to the United States and my argument of ongoing immigration and people getting on ships to get there etc was clearly all about the US. Nothing to do with china japan or Korea.
“..this country “its people” have always been a constant flow of people imported from elsewhere”
Indeed, I now note this above, but your comment below changes nothing of import from my comment. A distinction without a difference.
“I said “this country” referring to the United States and my argument of ongoing immigration and people getting on ships to get there etc was clearly all about the US.”
You seem to imply that the immigration we experienced in the past should in some way set a controlling precedent for immigration today. In prior times we needed people to settle vacant land and grow the country—sea to sea as they say. People survived by the sweat of their labor. That time is long past. Today we reward products of the mind more so than unskilled, manual labor.
Those days were also of a predominately European, Christian immigration, and perhaps more importantly with few, if any welfare safety net provided. Many who got off those boats, got right back on to go home when they did not succeed here.
Finally, one might interpret that the IA’s I mention constitute some sort of rejection of all immigration. On top of those numbers, we currently allow 1.1M legal migrants yearly, and at latest count another 500-750k H1-b VISA holders are here doing those high skilled jobs we need, but can’t necessarily provide with current population—legal residents or not.
If the argument for immigration is strictly for settling vacant land, then you still have a ways to go. There are vast swathes of vacant land across the US. Look up how much land the federal government owns and that can be privatised for people to settle. Look at the population density of some states west of the Mississippi.
“Today we reward products of the mind more so than unskilled, manual labor.”
Well, first of all, you’re always going to need people who build things, physically with their hands. You can’t have everyone that does “mind” jobs, by which I presume you mean white collar. Those jobs that native born Americans don’t want to do, don’t go away; they’re still there and need doing, and seasonal workers from Mexico or wherever else do them. Second of all, it’s the policy of the current government to actually bring back some of those non-mind jobs, blue collar and manufacturing jobs. Whether it works or not, is a different story, but it is the policy to create more of those jobs that haven’t been as prized the last few decades. As I said, someone will always need to physically and manually build things and do labour.
“Those days were also of a predominately European, Christian immigration, and perhaps more importantly with few, if any welfare safety net provided. “
That’s true; the safety net now is much greater than in times past, although less than in other western countries. It could and should probably be reduced further. It’s bizarre that some jurisdictions are even letting non-citizens vote.
Always from Europe at a 90 percent clip though before the 1965 Celler Hart Act. 1990 George HW Bush also signed a bill more than doubling the legal immigration numbers with 90 percent not coming from Europe.
nferior substitutions which are around 75 percent European—are you this dumb or what? Even given your nightmare scenario wanked to the extreme—and I mean to the fucking extreme—they would still be 75 to 80 percent European, which is more than enough to be white. Why? Because Mexicans are 65 percent European and African Americans are 25 percent white.
Also, the US became the greatest superpower in the world during globalization, not a lack of it. It's because of the values you don't support that it became great. It's all about free speech, freedom of movement—what do you think the right to liberty is? America has always been a freedom-loving culture. Your viewpoints are the antithesis to what the founders would have stood for; they were all about small government in everything. What is actually happening is not a genocide. You're overly romanticizing Mexicans; they see an opportunity and they come to America. They see the wealth, so they want to stay and work. Because they are in the vicinity, they mix with white people. By definition, this cannot be a genocide because there isn't an active intent to try and wipe out Europeans. Most of the mixing happens because they live next to each other.
You still haven't told me how this is genocide ''the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.'' where can any of this be a genocide I don't know maybe just mixing is genocide it's so stupid
Balkanization will be a late or even end-stage phenomenon in the West's civilizational decline. For now, whites continue to withdraw from conflict into remaining white areas, rather than defend existing enclaves. But eventually there will be nowhere left to run.
What you refer to as 'slop' is managerial culture. To the extent that immigrants are assimilating (which varies somewhat), they are assimilating to managerialism, not the traditional Faustian West.
why is the debate Great Replacement Theory versus multiculturalism?
I dont know when we lost the plot on the melting pot concept. from my humble, circumstantial perspective that shit works better than any sort of race or demographic segregation
think the problem is straight up cash in pocket and all the identity shit is a red herring
generally confused by both the lefties and righties tbh. willing to discourse if you want
People assimilate to the degree they were similar to begin with. That's why with Europeans you get the melting pot, and with others - multiculturalism.
maybe? what I have seen with my own eyes would be communities with enough money enable the melting pot regardless of country of origin
I know people of European heritage that are very ethnic, and I know people of Latin, Middle Eastern, African and Asian heritage that are some of the most melted, basic ass Americans
down for whatever works but those with power have and continue to use stupid shit to divide us and use their capital for rent seeking activities
So, why is Europe the exceptional case? Singapore does this, Dubai does this, Malaysia does this—are they collapsing or what?
America is actually doing pretty well globally. Trump is fear-mongering, and like a fascist he always needs a victim to blame. Now i'm not calling him a fascist but his ideas are fascist adjacent—just like how socialism is communist adjacent. The 2 overlap heavily and they leave room for bad ideas that spiral out of control.
One only need look at Weimar Germany: extremism can happen in a generation and once it starts it's very hard to turn off. When the race purists have cleared the non-whites they then cannibalize each other—and you see this in history. Italians were treated like garbage, same with the Irish. People had ridiculous conspiracies of a Vatican global order to take over the world and bring in the Antichrist. That is the result of ethno-nationalist ideologies: when they get rid of the out-group it always shifts to the next.
This isn't a slippery slope—I can cite you history. Hitler with the Jews then he went for the disabled then the gypsies then the Slavs who he considered untermenschen. It's not a slippery slope if there isn't a mountain of historical evidence. Once you lose the enemy another 1 generates.
It's the same with socialism: once the evil kulaks or bourgeoisie die then the next group becomes the victim. Fascism and socialism are 2 sides of the same parasite.
The better system is cognitive capitalism with embryo selection and a Singapore type of government.
Now I'm not saying Trump is a communist he's not I'm not saying he's a fascist he's not what I'm saying is the same conceptual frame work of an in group blaming an out group is the same in pattern even if the ideology differs
I think in the next 15-20 years, there will be a political party whose explicit goal is secession of a part of the United States. I think the most likely part is the area of the Northwestern US bounded roughly by the Cascade Range, Great Salt Lake and Bismarck, ND.
The platform of this party will probably not be explicitly racist. Although it will be driven by a sense of the still largely white population of this area that they have little in common with the rest of the United States or its federal government, their demands will be phrased in libertarian terms. It will be similar to Alberta secessionists today.
This party will likely also elect many state or local politicians who will explicitly attempt to curb migration from other parts of the United States. Besides opposing new development, they will create new regulatory hurdles for people from other locations who want to work, buy property or do business in their states and cities.
I do not believe such a drastic measure is necessary. If Northern states enact rigid e-verify employment policies, jack up the minimum wage, and cut welfare to the bone, the same goal could be achieved with far less acrimony.
Those are great suggestions for what people who do not believe that demographic change is a moral imperative could do to prevent it in their own states and cities. I can imagine that the party I envisioned, if it does emerge, would do exactly that. Nevertheless, enacting those suggestions on a local level wouldn't do anything to prevent demographic change on a national level - if anything, the resulting divergence between local and national demographics would only make secession look more appealing.
In those five states (ND, SD, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming) those who move to the states are more likely to register as Republican than those who live in the states:
Crime would be considerably higher if it weren't for a larger prison population relative to the 1970s (let alone the 1920s), though there was a 10-15 year period where both crime and incarceration shrunk. Was that purely a function of demographic ageing among ADOS?
I don't know enough to critique his arguments except that (generally) population as an ecological issue has been lost to social justice and Julian Simon type thinking (innovation substitutes resources).
2. I'm waiting for discussion on this: Can race be erased? Essentially we have automatic and mandatory reactions to people of different pheotypes. It is all part of a process that assess who is our tribe and who isn't. Essentially we do it because since we became the top predators, other humans are the competition. Members of our tribe are allies and so we seek the certainty of those around us from the proximate to the national level, which is why common myhs and symbols are important (and easily pulled down). As Eric Kaufmann says "minorities need to be written into the national [story?]". Given the first point about ecology (filling of niche) and excess populations "seeking a better life", it is a big ask for sections of the population not to see newcomers as invaders.
Recently, I went to a networking event in downtown Washington, DC for company founders—and just about everybody there is an immigrant.
Everybody who's starting companies, founding companies—almost every entrepreneurial person is an immigrant.
Where are all the white Americans in this?
Not to be seen...
So...I think you missed the biggest unifier of all, that ties together the Guatamalan house cleaner with her own business, to the taco lady with her truck-based taco business.
Because -- why do people come to this country?
Traditionally, the reason is that there really are more opportunities here.
There has been less bureaucracy than most places. The rule of law most of the time.
As a result, there has been more of an entrepreneurial can-do spirit and still is.
Small business owners and founders are respected in the USA.
People can come here, speak no English, and found a successful yogurt brand.
His point is that immigrants are, in general, innovators and entrepreneurial go-getters.
In reality, that description matches only a minority of immigrants, and most of them are of European or East Asian origin, as well as from certain communities in South Asia. This can be seen when we look at patent applications by national origin.
A misleading statistic is the number of startups by national origin, since a person who declares bankruptcy multiple times will appear in the statistics as someone who has started up multiple companies. In reality, it's usually the same company.
Using patent filings to measure entrepreneurship is a very weak proxy. He spoke of a cleaner founding her own company. Most entrepreneurs found small businesses. They wouldn’t be filing patents. Patents are filed by an extremely small number of people (most often working at behemoth corporations or universities/research institutes) for cutting edge inventions.
Even if you remove bankruptcies and only look at existing successful companies, almost half of S&P 500 firms were founded by an immigrant or their child.
Considering the rule of law, access to capital, low level of regulation, relatively lower business/corporate tax rates and many other reasons, it’s no surprise that people move to the US to found businesses. Unclear why some Americans are eager to argue against this reality.
But it's true that the share of patents filed by small businesses is decreasing. In 2016, small businesses accounted for 18.1% of all patent applications in the US, down from 25.3% in 2008. This is happening largely because of a decline in cognitive ability within the US population, both the native-born and immigrants.
"Even if you remove bankruptcies and only look at existing successful companies, almost half of S&P 500 firms were founded by an immigrant or their child."
A little over half of those immigrant founders were European-born. Another 18% were from China (PRC & Taiwan). And another 18% were from South Africa. I believe all of the latter were of European descent.
"Considering the rule of law, access to capital, low level of regulation, relatively lower business/corporate tax rates and many other reasons, it’s no surprise that people move to the US to found businesses. Unclear why some Americans are eager to argue against this reality."
Many countries offer very low corporate tax rates, like Haiti and Honduras. There are also many others with weak labor regulations, particularly for child labor. Yet those are not the countries that American businesses prefer to invest in.
American businesses prefer to invest in countries with high levels of social trust — in other words, places where the overwhelming majority of people are trustworthy, tell the truth, obey the law, and don't resort to violence to settle disputes.
Ideally, American businesses want to invest in high-trust societies while being able to import cheap labor from low-trust societies. It's unclear why some Americans cannot see the folly in that.
Haiti or Honduras might offer low corporate tax rates but none of the other reasons I mentioned why foreigners move and found businesses in the US. Haiti has only ever heard of rule of law from someone visiting it. If we’re going to compare those 2 countries to the US, I fear we may be talking on different planes of reality.
The rule of law is not maintained in Western countries by strong governments or strong police forces. It is maintained by the cultural and behavioral characteristics of the population. In other words, people are law-abiding. They have a strong desire to obey the law even if it runs counter to their personal interests or the interests of their family and kin.
It really doesn't matter what laws you have if most people openly flout them. Of course, one can argue that Haiti does have the "rule of law" but it's the law of you, your family and your immediate kin. You do what's best for them — even if it hurts everyone else.
> but their children know they need to learn the language to get anywhere in America
I think it works somewhat differently: children are language learning robots (that's why it is much easier to become bi- or multilingual in childhood as opposed to post-puberty adulthood) & if there's a reasonably common language (like English) then they'll learn it for the *general utility* of being able to communicate with their peers (as opposed to just with their co-ethnics of whatever age).
Of course later they benefit from being conversant in the official language of the land, but it isn't foresight which motivates them to learn English: they just want to be able to talk with their age cohort.
It's true that it's innately easier for children to learn languages, but there's also major cultural and environmental reasons as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTgbDXYG_OY
I became bilingual in adulthood (post age 25). I'm fairly happy with my written English, but I have a very thick accent which I couldn't shed with any reasonable effort. I don't think that this is due to cultural or environmental reasons.
I never said that the inability of some adult language learners to master native-like pronunciation was due to cultural or environmental reasons. It is extremely unusual for adult language learners to ever obtain perfectly native-like pronunciation. Being able to attain native-like pronunciation is the most important benefit to learning languages before the critical period(s).
Nevertheless, that doesn't invalidate the cultural or environmental reasons why children are able to learn languages better than adults. I have a bachelor's degree in linguistics btw.
The interesting question is exactly the relative importance of such *critical period(s)* vs. *cultural or environmental reasons* in language learning success(es) between prepubescent children vs. adults.
The critical period is heavily debated in academia.
Adults and teenagers have stronger cognitive abilities than (young) children, which is a huge advantage for mastering all the different patterns inside language. So even after removing the cultural and environmental reasons that make it easier for children to learn foreign languages, it's not quite accurate to say that children are better at learning languages than adults. Adults have some advantages at learning languages that children don't have.
> The critical period is heavily debated in academia.
Yet *something* like that does exist; otherwise you wouldn't have written
> Being able to attain native-like pronunciation is the most important benefit to learning languages before the critical period(s).
----
> it's not quite accurate to say that children are better at learning languages than adults
Some people make an even stronger claim: that children are better at *creating* language(s) than adults.
See for example Steven Pinker's *The Language Instinct*, in particular pages 32-39. He starts out by making a claim:
"The crux of the argument is that complex language is universal because *children actually reinvent it*, generation after generation — not because they are taught, not because they are generally smart, not because it is useful to them, but because they just can't help it." (emphasis in original)
He brings up a couple or three examples to support this claim: the creation of *creole* languages by children of adults who created *pidgin* language(s) by necessity. To clarify:
"Pidgins are choppy strings of words borrowed from the language of the colonizers or plantation owners, highly variable in order and with little in the way of grammar.
[...] in many cases a pidgin can be transmuted into a full complex language in one fell swoop: all it takes is for a group of children to be exposed to the pidgin at the age when they acquire their mother tongue. That happened [...] when children were isolated from their parents and were tended collectively by a worker who spoke to them in the pidgin. Not content to reproduce the fragmentary word strings, *the children injected grammatical complexity where none existed before, resulting in a brand-new, richly expressive language*. The language that results when children make a pidgin their native tongue is called a creole." (emphasis by me)
One of the examples of such a process is the creation of a creole language (from the parents' pidgin) among the children of sugar plantation workers in Hawaii who were brought in from China, Japan, Korea, Portugal, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. (For details see the book at the referenced pages.)
Two more examples are the creation of sign languages by children: in one case in Nicaragua, where exist the Lenguaje de Signos Nicaraguense (LSN) which is quite pidgin-like in practice. But small children developed (created) a creole version of it, which is different enough that it has its own name: Idioma de Signos Nicaraguense (ISN). He writes:
"ISN has spontaneously standardized itself; all the young children sign it in the same way. The children have introduced many grammatical devices that were absent in LSN, and hence they rely far less on circumlocutions. [...] (Thanks to such consistent grammar,) ISN is very expressive. A child can watch a surrealistic cartoon and describe its plot to another child. The children use it in jokes, poems, narratives, and life histories, and it is coming to serve as the glue that holds the community together. A language has been born before our eyes."
The other example involves a single deaf child. As an intro to the case study, Pinker writes:
"When deaf infants are raised by signing parents, they learn sign language in the same way that hearing infants learn spoken language. But deaf children who are not born to deaf parents — the majority of deaf children — often have no access to sign language users as they grow up [...] When deaf children become adults, they tend to seek out deaf communities and begin to acquire the sign language that takes proper advantage of the communicative media available to them. *But by then it is usually too late*; they must then struggle with sign language as a difficult intellectual puzzle, *much as a hearing adult does in foreign language classes*. Their proficiency is notably below that of deaf people who acquired sign language as infants, *just as adult immigrants are often permanently burdened with accents and conspicuous grammatical errors*." (emphasis by me)
Then he gets down to the case study:
"The psycholinguists Jenny Singleton and Elissa Newport have studied a nine-year-old profoundly deaf boy, to whom they gave the pseudonym Simon, and his parents, who are also deaf. Simon's parents did not acquire sign language until the late ages of fifteen and sixteen, and as a result they acquired it badly. [...]
In many ways Simon's parents were like pidgin speakers.
Astoundingly, though Simon saw no ASL but his parents' defective version, his own signing was far better ASL than theirs. He understood sentences with moved topic phrases without difficulty, and when he had to describe complex videotaped events, he used the ASL verb inflections almost perfectly, even in sentences requiring two of them in particular orders. Simon must somehow have shut out his parents' ungrammatical "noise." He must have latched on to the inflections that his parents used inconsistently, and reinterpreted them as mandatory. And he must have seen the logic that was implicit, though never realized, in his parents' use of two kinds of verb inflection, and reinvented the ASL system of superimposing both of them onto a single verb in a specific order. Simon's superiority to his parents is an example of creolization by a single living child."
Unless all of this are just elaborate flights of fancy by various researchers, passed on by a credulous neurolinguist (Pinker), I take them as strong scientific support for the proposition that children are better at 'learning' (acquiring) language(s) than adults.
(Of course *some* adults learn — sometimes more than one — foreign languages quite well. But the *relative rarity* of their numbers vs. the number of similarly or even more proficient bi- or multilingual children who were exposed to those 'extra' languages in [early] childhood indicates that the two kinds of language acquisition are *qualitatively different*: in case of adults it takes fairly *strong motivation* to do so, while [young enough] children "just can't help it".)
"While immigration has certainly changed much, it hasn’t quite “Balkanized” the country."
It is too early to make that statement.
"They fully embrace the slop of 21st century America. They may not care for our history and heroes, but they do love our malls, movies and snacks."
Those things are not what made America great; they are actually part of the problem with current America.
"We now have a country where people are fatter, dress shabby, smoke weed in public, display tattoos, and share little in common besides sports fandom and the pursuit of consumer goods."
Indeed, that is true, plus they are less ambitious and have little desire for knowledge.
"It was expected that non-whites would band together as a rainbow coalition against whiteness. That hasn’t panned out."
That is in process currently, sadly, with the help of stupid whites.
"But the primary driving force for the far-left in America are the “Yuccies”. These are college-educated creative types who are experiencing relative downward mobility. They’re the ones backing Antifa, joining the Democratic Socialists of America, and leading online cancellation mobs."
The term 'college-educated' is used here to imply a class level above the average. The vast majority of current college degrees are useless. A better term would be college-indoctrinated.
"White nationalists were once confident that a diverse America would make whites embrace racial consciousness. That event has yet to happen. Just 15 percent of whites say their racial identity is important to them, which stands in stark contrast to the majority of every other group who say that identity is important to them."
And herein lies a big problem. White Americans are slow on the uptake. Insouciance runs rampant among whites.
"Demographic change has also not increased crime. Crime has, in fact, fallen."
That is open to interpretation. Crime statistics are a political football.
"The Great Replacement will make America a worse country. But it likely won’t fall apart like Pat Buchanan predicted in Suicide of a Superpower."
That is small comfort, and it is too early to make a final prognosis.
Bottom line: Yes, demographics is destiny, and as with anything, quality over quantity. The current IQ of the average American is 100. Immigration of people with an IQ considerably below that paints a bad future.
I find this a bit hypocritical and moralizing. You're acting like Americans are indigenous to America when they're not—they came later. This whole concept of 'indigenous' is erroneous: At what level does it start and stop? Also, there are a lot of meta-ethical claims not tied to data; you have to infer them. For instance, why should America be a majority 'white' country? What is the moral superiority of the white race? Why can't it be mixed? Lower IQ? I mean, African Americans are 25% white (last I checked), and Mexicans are 60% [European]. Any mixing that happens will eventually converge because the European base is higher. For reference, most ethnic minorities are Mexicans, and half to 75% of their DNA is of Iberian origin. So even if there was a 'replacement,' it's by majority Europeans. Even Africans in America are already white-shifted—like, any mixing would create a kid who's around 60-75-80% European in Mexicans.
But even if there was a genetic 'lowering' of an aspect, you didn't justify why X is innately bad—that's a meta-ethical question, not a science question. To me personally, the whole concept of 'indigenous' or 'white majority' seems ridiculous. A better system is Singapore's—it integrates people better. But this type [of rhetoric] is dangerous because I've seen Indians, Africans, and Mexicans getting violently attacked. On what level is that justified? It does lead to that.
If the premise is that white people are a collective organism with group interests, and a long-nosed tribe [likely a derogatory reference to Jews] is working to take out the whites, then the invaders are attacking the group, so they have to be attacked. This does lead to violence.
El Paso Walmart Shooting (August 2019, with Ongoing Echoes in 2022-2024 Rhetoric) A gunman targeted a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 23 people and injuring 22, many of whom were Hispanic.
Buffalo Supermarket Shooting (May 2022) killing 10 people and injuring 3
Singapore is over 70% Chinese and more or less only has to integrate other Asian groups while having laws that most modern Westerners would consider fascist or inhuman. This working better than the US attempted integration of the whole world is not surprising.
I agree that Singapore is the best: capital punishment for drug dealers and big criminals, physical punishment in situ for burglary and vandalism, extreme vetting process for immigrants and no welfare whatsoever. The problem is Western countries had signed ECHR, UN declarations and similar suicidal pacts. We can't have Singapore-like laws because of that.
Another unfulfilled prophecy is that non-European immigrants would maintain their high fertility in the US and other Western countries. In reality, their fertility has fallen dramatically. Fertility rates are now lower among Asian Americans and African Americans than among Euro Americans, and the same will probably happen for Hispanic Americans. I discussed this point earlier in Aporia Magazine: https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/trump-white-americas-savior
Northwest Europeans seem to have a higher tolerance for individualism and social atomization. Consequently, when other human populations migrate to a Western country, the adverse effects are much greater for them than for the indigenous Western population.
We see similar adverse effects when non-Western countries embrace the program of Western atomization. South Korea is an extreme example, but the same holds true for most of East Asia and, increasingly, Latin America.
Good point
—NC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VhSm6G7cVk
Still maomettan one is very high.
It depends on the country. Several Muslim countries now have below-replacement fertility (figures are for 2024):
Azerbaijan - 1.69
Iran - 1.91
Kosovo - 1.87
Tunisia - 1.93
Turkey - 1.90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate
We are seeing a similar pattern among Muslim immigrants in Western Europe. Muslims in Germany now have below-replacement fertility, and the same may be true for second generation Muslims in France.
The problem is that continuing large-scale immigration, particularly from Africa, is maintaining a high-fertility culture within the immigrant community that would otherwise converge on the European norm.
Nothing to litigate here.
Things are quite different in the inland North. While immigrants are basically swimming in American popular culture, Amish, Mennonites and Laestadians form seperate cultural groups, even though their ancestors have lived in the United States. If you prefer to live in the old America, I strongly recommend moving to the Lake Superior region, (e.g Duluth, Marquette or anywhere in between).
“ The Great Replacement will make America a worse country.”
Of course. This line belonged in paragraph one, the rest of the article simple commentary. A country is no more than its people—and we are replacing native stock with inferior substitutions. The country now has a National IQ of 98 and is declining rapidly. In this regard a “great leveling” is occurring throughout the West with the rest of the world. Mediocrity is on the rise and AI won’t solve the problem, albeit it will mask it for a time.
There is a reason we became the greatest power in the world and it will be the same reason we become a second rate power such as your example, Brazil. The “shopping mall” unity phenomena will subside as we continue to become a bipolar society of haves and have nots.
There will not be a blending of races to the betterment of all, but a stark contrast between those on the top and everyone else. Heck, it’s already here, but old memories die hard.
"A country is no more than its people"
Someone tell that to North and South Koreans.
Agree in principle, but when did the replacement start? A country is no more than its people, but for this country “its people” have always been a constant flow of people imported from elsewhere. Land was literally given to anyone who was willing to get on a ship and come over and work it. It’s hard to talk people in nationalist terms when you’re dealing with the first (and most successful) post-nationalist country. That’s probably why nativism works better as an approach to this question (vs nationalism).
I don’t know where you got the idea that countries in general are in a constant state of “replacement” with people from external sources. Nothing is further from the truth, for example take China, Japan, Korea. You’ve extrapolating from the last/final historical occurrence of such influx, America, where the land was basically vacant because the original people were “Hunter-Gatherers” and their small numbers left a big content to resettle from a crowded Europe.
In any event, the people we used to get here in quantity were of Northern and Southern European stock. Even then, we called a halt to mass immigration of these people in the early 1900’s, then regulated by law an acceptable number/flow proportional to the then current population’s ethnic distribution numbers residing in the US.
The concept that anyone, from anywhere, can get on a boat and come here to enjoy the welfare state is a new phenomenon. These people, by and large, have no skill sets useful to an advanced, first word technological society and are in many cases subpar in intellect and have grossly different cultural norms.
In addition, their numbers are swamping our ability to absorb them, hence ghettos form. In just the Biden years, it is estimated that perhaps 15-20M IA’s crossed the border. Even the Census admits that we now have 58M residents not born in the country—the highest ever recorded. That’s 16% of their low-balled current US population figure.
The country is not simply evolving, it’s dissipating as we speak.
I said “this country” referring to the United States and my argument of ongoing immigration and people getting on ships to get there etc was clearly all about the US. Nothing to do with china japan or Korea.
“..this country “its people” have always been a constant flow of people imported from elsewhere”
Indeed, I now note this above, but your comment below changes nothing of import from my comment. A distinction without a difference.
“I said “this country” referring to the United States and my argument of ongoing immigration and people getting on ships to get there etc was clearly all about the US.”
You seem to imply that the immigration we experienced in the past should in some way set a controlling precedent for immigration today. In prior times we needed people to settle vacant land and grow the country—sea to sea as they say. People survived by the sweat of their labor. That time is long past. Today we reward products of the mind more so than unskilled, manual labor.
Those days were also of a predominately European, Christian immigration, and perhaps more importantly with few, if any welfare safety net provided. Many who got off those boats, got right back on to go home when they did not succeed here.
Finally, one might interpret that the IA’s I mention constitute some sort of rejection of all immigration. On top of those numbers, we currently allow 1.1M legal migrants yearly, and at latest count another 500-750k H1-b VISA holders are here doing those high skilled jobs we need, but can’t necessarily provide with current population—legal residents or not.
If the argument for immigration is strictly for settling vacant land, then you still have a ways to go. There are vast swathes of vacant land across the US. Look up how much land the federal government owns and that can be privatised for people to settle. Look at the population density of some states west of the Mississippi.
“Today we reward products of the mind more so than unskilled, manual labor.”
Well, first of all, you’re always going to need people who build things, physically with their hands. You can’t have everyone that does “mind” jobs, by which I presume you mean white collar. Those jobs that native born Americans don’t want to do, don’t go away; they’re still there and need doing, and seasonal workers from Mexico or wherever else do them. Second of all, it’s the policy of the current government to actually bring back some of those non-mind jobs, blue collar and manufacturing jobs. Whether it works or not, is a different story, but it is the policy to create more of those jobs that haven’t been as prized the last few decades. As I said, someone will always need to physically and manually build things and do labour.
“Those days were also of a predominately European, Christian immigration, and perhaps more importantly with few, if any welfare safety net provided. “
That’s true; the safety net now is much greater than in times past, although less than in other western countries. It could and should probably be reduced further. It’s bizarre that some jurisdictions are even letting non-citizens vote.
Always from Europe at a 90 percent clip though before the 1965 Celler Hart Act. 1990 George HW Bush also signed a bill more than doubling the legal immigration numbers with 90 percent not coming from Europe.
nferior substitutions which are around 75 percent European—are you this dumb or what? Even given your nightmare scenario wanked to the extreme—and I mean to the fucking extreme—they would still be 75 to 80 percent European, which is more than enough to be white. Why? Because Mexicans are 65 percent European and African Americans are 25 percent white.
Also, the US became the greatest superpower in the world during globalization, not a lack of it. It's because of the values you don't support that it became great. It's all about free speech, freedom of movement—what do you think the right to liberty is? America has always been a freedom-loving culture. Your viewpoints are the antithesis to what the founders would have stood for; they were all about small government in everything. What is actually happening is not a genocide. You're overly romanticizing Mexicans; they see an opportunity and they come to America. They see the wealth, so they want to stay and work. Because they are in the vicinity, they mix with white people. By definition, this cannot be a genocide because there isn't an active intent to try and wipe out Europeans. Most of the mixing happens because they live next to each other.
You still haven't told me how this is genocide ''the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.'' where can any of this be a genocide I don't know maybe just mixing is genocide it's so stupid
Balkanization will be a late or even end-stage phenomenon in the West's civilizational decline. For now, whites continue to withdraw from conflict into remaining white areas, rather than defend existing enclaves. But eventually there will be nowhere left to run.
What you refer to as 'slop' is managerial culture. To the extent that immigrants are assimilating (which varies somewhat), they are assimilating to managerialism, not the traditional Faustian West.
why is the debate Great Replacement Theory versus multiculturalism?
I dont know when we lost the plot on the melting pot concept. from my humble, circumstantial perspective that shit works better than any sort of race or demographic segregation
think the problem is straight up cash in pocket and all the identity shit is a red herring
generally confused by both the lefties and righties tbh. willing to discourse if you want
People assimilate to the degree they were similar to begin with. That's why with Europeans you get the melting pot, and with others - multiculturalism.
maybe? what I have seen with my own eyes would be communities with enough money enable the melting pot regardless of country of origin
I know people of European heritage that are very ethnic, and I know people of Latin, Middle Eastern, African and Asian heritage that are some of the most melted, basic ass Americans
down for whatever works but those with power have and continue to use stupid shit to divide us and use their capital for rent seeking activities
So, why is Europe the exceptional case? Singapore does this, Dubai does this, Malaysia does this—are they collapsing or what?
America is actually doing pretty well globally. Trump is fear-mongering, and like a fascist he always needs a victim to blame. Now i'm not calling him a fascist but his ideas are fascist adjacent—just like how socialism is communist adjacent. The 2 overlap heavily and they leave room for bad ideas that spiral out of control.
One only need look at Weimar Germany: extremism can happen in a generation and once it starts it's very hard to turn off. When the race purists have cleared the non-whites they then cannibalize each other—and you see this in history. Italians were treated like garbage, same with the Irish. People had ridiculous conspiracies of a Vatican global order to take over the world and bring in the Antichrist. That is the result of ethno-nationalist ideologies: when they get rid of the out-group it always shifts to the next.
This isn't a slippery slope—I can cite you history. Hitler with the Jews then he went for the disabled then the gypsies then the Slavs who he considered untermenschen. It's not a slippery slope if there isn't a mountain of historical evidence. Once you lose the enemy another 1 generates.
It's the same with socialism: once the evil kulaks or bourgeoisie die then the next group becomes the victim. Fascism and socialism are 2 sides of the same parasite.
The better system is cognitive capitalism with embryo selection and a Singapore type of government.
Now I'm not saying Trump is a communist he's not I'm not saying he's a fascist he's not what I'm saying is the same conceptual frame work of an in group blaming an out group is the same in pattern even if the ideology differs
I think in the next 15-20 years, there will be a political party whose explicit goal is secession of a part of the United States. I think the most likely part is the area of the Northwestern US bounded roughly by the Cascade Range, Great Salt Lake and Bismarck, ND.
The platform of this party will probably not be explicitly racist. Although it will be driven by a sense of the still largely white population of this area that they have little in common with the rest of the United States or its federal government, their demands will be phrased in libertarian terms. It will be similar to Alberta secessionists today.
This party will likely also elect many state or local politicians who will explicitly attempt to curb migration from other parts of the United States. Besides opposing new development, they will create new regulatory hurdles for people from other locations who want to work, buy property or do business in their states and cities.
I do not believe such a drastic measure is necessary. If Northern states enact rigid e-verify employment policies, jack up the minimum wage, and cut welfare to the bone, the same goal could be achieved with far less acrimony.
Those are great suggestions for what people who do not believe that demographic change is a moral imperative could do to prevent it in their own states and cities. I can imagine that the party I envisioned, if it does emerge, would do exactly that. Nevertheless, enacting those suggestions on a local level wouldn't do anything to prevent demographic change on a national level - if anything, the resulting divergence between local and national demographics would only make secession look more appealing.
The minimum wage isn't necessary to this, and will only cause unemployment and hence population exodus to states with lower minimum wages.
In those five states (ND, SD, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming) those who move to the states are more likely to register as Republican than those who live in the states:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/30/upshot/voters-moving-polarization.html
In Montana at least, the dominant trend is to make new development easier via YIMBY reforms.
Crime would be considerably higher if it weren't for a larger prison population relative to the 1970s (let alone the 1920s), though there was a 10-15 year period where both crime and incarceration shrunk. Was that purely a function of demographic ageing among ADOS?
1. I'm reading this forgotten book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fates_of_Nations
I don't know enough to critique his arguments except that (generally) population as an ecological issue has been lost to social justice and Julian Simon type thinking (innovation substitutes resources).
2. I'm waiting for discussion on this: Can race be erased? Essentially we have automatic and mandatory reactions to people of different pheotypes. It is all part of a process that assess who is our tribe and who isn't. Essentially we do it because since we became the top predators, other humans are the competition. Members of our tribe are allies and so we seek the certainty of those around us from the proximate to the national level, which is why common myhs and symbols are important (and easily pulled down). As Eric Kaufmann says "minorities need to be written into the national [story?]". Given the first point about ecology (filling of niche) and excess populations "seeking a better life", it is a big ask for sections of the population not to see newcomers as invaders.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.251541498
FYI - the French had permanent settlements in Canada some decades before the British did.
So I hardly see the existence of Quebec as an example of Balkanization.
Recently, I went to a networking event in downtown Washington, DC for company founders—and just about everybody there is an immigrant.
Everybody who's starting companies, founding companies—almost every entrepreneurial person is an immigrant.
Where are all the white Americans in this?
Not to be seen...
So...I think you missed the biggest unifier of all, that ties together the Guatamalan house cleaner with her own business, to the taco lady with her truck-based taco business.
Because -- why do people come to this country?
Traditionally, the reason is that there really are more opportunities here.
There has been less bureaucracy than most places. The rule of law most of the time.
As a result, there has been more of an entrepreneurial can-do spirit and still is.
Small business owners and founders are respected in the USA.
People can come here, speak no English, and found a successful yogurt brand.
There is a big difference between opening a taco stand and inventing and developing microchips.
What is your point?
His point is that immigrants are, in general, innovators and entrepreneurial go-getters.
In reality, that description matches only a minority of immigrants, and most of them are of European or East Asian origin, as well as from certain communities in South Asia. This can be seen when we look at patent applications by national origin.
A misleading statistic is the number of startups by national origin, since a person who declares bankruptcy multiple times will appear in the statistics as someone who has started up multiple companies. In reality, it's usually the same company.
80% of innovation is Whites/Jews
20% is East Asians, which is kind of pathetic considering their numbers
All other peoples are rounding errors
Using patent filings to measure entrepreneurship is a very weak proxy. He spoke of a cleaner founding her own company. Most entrepreneurs found small businesses. They wouldn’t be filing patents. Patents are filed by an extremely small number of people (most often working at behemoth corporations or universities/research institutes) for cutting edge inventions.
Even if you remove bankruptcies and only look at existing successful companies, almost half of S&P 500 firms were founded by an immigrant or their child.
Considering the rule of law, access to capital, low level of regulation, relatively lower business/corporate tax rates and many other reasons, it’s no surprise that people move to the US to found businesses. Unclear why some Americans are eager to argue against this reality.
"Most entrepreneurs found small businesses. They wouldn’t be filing patents."
Although small businesses file fewer patents overall, they generate more patents per employee than larger firms. https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Fact-Sheet_Small-Business-Innovation-Measured-by-Patenting-Activity-1.pdf
But it's true that the share of patents filed by small businesses is decreasing. In 2016, small businesses accounted for 18.1% of all patent applications in the US, down from 25.3% in 2008. This is happening largely because of a decline in cognitive ability within the US population, both the native-born and immigrants.
"Even if you remove bankruptcies and only look at existing successful companies, almost half of S&P 500 firms were founded by an immigrant or their child."
A little over half of those immigrant founders were European-born. Another 18% were from China (PRC & Taiwan). And another 18% were from South Africa. I believe all of the latter were of European descent.
"Considering the rule of law, access to capital, low level of regulation, relatively lower business/corporate tax rates and many other reasons, it’s no surprise that people move to the US to found businesses. Unclear why some Americans are eager to argue against this reality."
Many countries offer very low corporate tax rates, like Haiti and Honduras. There are also many others with weak labor regulations, particularly for child labor. Yet those are not the countries that American businesses prefer to invest in.
American businesses prefer to invest in countries with high levels of social trust — in other words, places where the overwhelming majority of people are trustworthy, tell the truth, obey the law, and don't resort to violence to settle disputes.
Ideally, American businesses want to invest in high-trust societies while being able to import cheap labor from low-trust societies. It's unclear why some Americans cannot see the folly in that.
Haiti or Honduras might offer low corporate tax rates but none of the other reasons I mentioned why foreigners move and found businesses in the US. Haiti has only ever heard of rule of law from someone visiting it. If we’re going to compare those 2 countries to the US, I fear we may be talking on different planes of reality.
The rule of law is not maintained in Western countries by strong governments or strong police forces. It is maintained by the cultural and behavioral characteristics of the population. In other words, people are law-abiding. They have a strong desire to obey the law even if it runs counter to their personal interests or the interests of their family and kin.
It really doesn't matter what laws you have if most people openly flout them. Of course, one can argue that Haiti does have the "rule of law" but it's the law of you, your family and your immediate kin. You do what's best for them — even if it hurts everyone else.
> but their children know they need to learn the language to get anywhere in America
I think it works somewhat differently: children are language learning robots (that's why it is much easier to become bi- or multilingual in childhood as opposed to post-puberty adulthood) & if there's a reasonably common language (like English) then they'll learn it for the *general utility* of being able to communicate with their peers (as opposed to just with their co-ethnics of whatever age).
Of course later they benefit from being conversant in the official language of the land, but it isn't foresight which motivates them to learn English: they just want to be able to talk with their age cohort.
It's true that it's innately easier for children to learn languages, but there's also major cultural and environmental reasons as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTgbDXYG_OY
I became bilingual in adulthood (post age 25). I'm fairly happy with my written English, but I have a very thick accent which I couldn't shed with any reasonable effort. I don't think that this is due to cultural or environmental reasons.
I never said that the inability of some adult language learners to master native-like pronunciation was due to cultural or environmental reasons. It is extremely unusual for adult language learners to ever obtain perfectly native-like pronunciation. Being able to attain native-like pronunciation is the most important benefit to learning languages before the critical period(s).
Nevertheless, that doesn't invalidate the cultural or environmental reasons why children are able to learn languages better than adults. I have a bachelor's degree in linguistics btw.
> the critical period(s)
The interesting question is exactly the relative importance of such *critical period(s)* vs. *cultural or environmental reasons* in language learning success(es) between prepubescent children vs. adults.
The critical period is heavily debated in academia.
Adults and teenagers have stronger cognitive abilities than (young) children, which is a huge advantage for mastering all the different patterns inside language. So even after removing the cultural and environmental reasons that make it easier for children to learn foreign languages, it's not quite accurate to say that children are better at learning languages than adults. Adults have some advantages at learning languages that children don't have.
> The critical period is heavily debated in academia.
Yet *something* like that does exist; otherwise you wouldn't have written
> Being able to attain native-like pronunciation is the most important benefit to learning languages before the critical period(s).
----
> it's not quite accurate to say that children are better at learning languages than adults
Some people make an even stronger claim: that children are better at *creating* language(s) than adults.
See for example Steven Pinker's *The Language Instinct*, in particular pages 32-39. He starts out by making a claim:
"The crux of the argument is that complex language is universal because *children actually reinvent it*, generation after generation — not because they are taught, not because they are generally smart, not because it is useful to them, but because they just can't help it." (emphasis in original)
He brings up a couple or three examples to support this claim: the creation of *creole* languages by children of adults who created *pidgin* language(s) by necessity. To clarify:
"Pidgins are choppy strings of words borrowed from the language of the colonizers or plantation owners, highly variable in order and with little in the way of grammar.
[...] in many cases a pidgin can be transmuted into a full complex language in one fell swoop: all it takes is for a group of children to be exposed to the pidgin at the age when they acquire their mother tongue. That happened [...] when children were isolated from their parents and were tended collectively by a worker who spoke to them in the pidgin. Not content to reproduce the fragmentary word strings, *the children injected grammatical complexity where none existed before, resulting in a brand-new, richly expressive language*. The language that results when children make a pidgin their native tongue is called a creole." (emphasis by me)
One of the examples of such a process is the creation of a creole language (from the parents' pidgin) among the children of sugar plantation workers in Hawaii who were brought in from China, Japan, Korea, Portugal, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. (For details see the book at the referenced pages.)
Two more examples are the creation of sign languages by children: in one case in Nicaragua, where exist the Lenguaje de Signos Nicaraguense (LSN) which is quite pidgin-like in practice. But small children developed (created) a creole version of it, which is different enough that it has its own name: Idioma de Signos Nicaraguense (ISN). He writes:
"ISN has spontaneously standardized itself; all the young children sign it in the same way. The children have introduced many grammatical devices that were absent in LSN, and hence they rely far less on circumlocutions. [...] (Thanks to such consistent grammar,) ISN is very expressive. A child can watch a surrealistic cartoon and describe its plot to another child. The children use it in jokes, poems, narratives, and life histories, and it is coming to serve as the glue that holds the community together. A language has been born before our eyes."
The other example involves a single deaf child. As an intro to the case study, Pinker writes:
"When deaf infants are raised by signing parents, they learn sign language in the same way that hearing infants learn spoken language. But deaf children who are not born to deaf parents — the majority of deaf children — often have no access to sign language users as they grow up [...] When deaf children become adults, they tend to seek out deaf communities and begin to acquire the sign language that takes proper advantage of the communicative media available to them. *But by then it is usually too late*; they must then struggle with sign language as a difficult intellectual puzzle, *much as a hearing adult does in foreign language classes*. Their proficiency is notably below that of deaf people who acquired sign language as infants, *just as adult immigrants are often permanently burdened with accents and conspicuous grammatical errors*." (emphasis by me)
Then he gets down to the case study:
"The psycholinguists Jenny Singleton and Elissa Newport have studied a nine-year-old profoundly deaf boy, to whom they gave the pseudonym Simon, and his parents, who are also deaf. Simon's parents did not acquire sign language until the late ages of fifteen and sixteen, and as a result they acquired it badly. [...]
In many ways Simon's parents were like pidgin speakers.
Astoundingly, though Simon saw no ASL but his parents' defective version, his own signing was far better ASL than theirs. He understood sentences with moved topic phrases without difficulty, and when he had to describe complex videotaped events, he used the ASL verb inflections almost perfectly, even in sentences requiring two of them in particular orders. Simon must somehow have shut out his parents' ungrammatical "noise." He must have latched on to the inflections that his parents used inconsistently, and reinterpreted them as mandatory. And he must have seen the logic that was implicit, though never realized, in his parents' use of two kinds of verb inflection, and reinvented the ASL system of superimposing both of them onto a single verb in a specific order. Simon's superiority to his parents is an example of creolization by a single living child."
Unless all of this are just elaborate flights of fancy by various researchers, passed on by a credulous neurolinguist (Pinker), I take them as strong scientific support for the proposition that children are better at 'learning' (acquiring) language(s) than adults.
(Of course *some* adults learn — sometimes more than one — foreign languages quite well. But the *relative rarity* of their numbers vs. the number of similarly or even more proficient bi- or multilingual children who were exposed to those 'extra' languages in [early] childhood indicates that the two kinds of language acquisition are *qualitatively different*: in case of adults it takes fairly *strong motivation* to do so, while [young enough] children "just can't help it".)
"While immigration has certainly changed much, it hasn’t quite “Balkanized” the country."
It is too early to make that statement.
"They fully embrace the slop of 21st century America. They may not care for our history and heroes, but they do love our malls, movies and snacks."
Those things are not what made America great; they are actually part of the problem with current America.
"We now have a country where people are fatter, dress shabby, smoke weed in public, display tattoos, and share little in common besides sports fandom and the pursuit of consumer goods."
Indeed, that is true, plus they are less ambitious and have little desire for knowledge.
"It was expected that non-whites would band together as a rainbow coalition against whiteness. That hasn’t panned out."
That is in process currently, sadly, with the help of stupid whites.
"But the primary driving force for the far-left in America are the “Yuccies”. These are college-educated creative types who are experiencing relative downward mobility. They’re the ones backing Antifa, joining the Democratic Socialists of America, and leading online cancellation mobs."
The term 'college-educated' is used here to imply a class level above the average. The vast majority of current college degrees are useless. A better term would be college-indoctrinated.
"White nationalists were once confident that a diverse America would make whites embrace racial consciousness. That event has yet to happen. Just 15 percent of whites say their racial identity is important to them, which stands in stark contrast to the majority of every other group who say that identity is important to them."
And herein lies a big problem. White Americans are slow on the uptake. Insouciance runs rampant among whites.
"Demographic change has also not increased crime. Crime has, in fact, fallen."
That is open to interpretation. Crime statistics are a political football.
"The Great Replacement will make America a worse country. But it likely won’t fall apart like Pat Buchanan predicted in Suicide of a Superpower."
That is small comfort, and it is too early to make a final prognosis.
Bottom line: Yes, demographics is destiny, and as with anything, quality over quantity. The current IQ of the average American is 100. Immigration of people with an IQ considerably below that paints a bad future.
All the conversation of multiculturalism will be moot unless we tackle the Muslim problem on the horizon.
Basically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VhSm6G7cVk
I find this a bit hypocritical and moralizing. You're acting like Americans are indigenous to America when they're not—they came later. This whole concept of 'indigenous' is erroneous: At what level does it start and stop? Also, there are a lot of meta-ethical claims not tied to data; you have to infer them. For instance, why should America be a majority 'white' country? What is the moral superiority of the white race? Why can't it be mixed? Lower IQ? I mean, African Americans are 25% white (last I checked), and Mexicans are 60% [European]. Any mixing that happens will eventually converge because the European base is higher. For reference, most ethnic minorities are Mexicans, and half to 75% of their DNA is of Iberian origin. So even if there was a 'replacement,' it's by majority Europeans. Even Africans in America are already white-shifted—like, any mixing would create a kid who's around 60-75-80% European in Mexicans.
But even if there was a genetic 'lowering' of an aspect, you didn't justify why X is innately bad—that's a meta-ethical question, not a science question. To me personally, the whole concept of 'indigenous' or 'white majority' seems ridiculous. A better system is Singapore's—it integrates people better. But this type [of rhetoric] is dangerous because I've seen Indians, Africans, and Mexicans getting violently attacked. On what level is that justified? It does lead to that.
If the premise is that white people are a collective organism with group interests, and a long-nosed tribe [likely a derogatory reference to Jews] is working to take out the whites, then the invaders are attacking the group, so they have to be attacked. This does lead to violence.
El Paso Walmart Shooting (August 2019, with Ongoing Echoes in 2022-2024 Rhetoric) A gunman targeted a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 23 people and injuring 22, many of whom were Hispanic.
Buffalo Supermarket Shooting (May 2022) killing 10 people and injuring 3
Singapore is over 70% Chinese and more or less only has to integrate other Asian groups while having laws that most modern Westerners would consider fascist or inhuman. This working better than the US attempted integration of the whole world is not surprising.
I agree that Singapore is the best: capital punishment for drug dealers and big criminals, physical punishment in situ for burglary and vandalism, extreme vetting process for immigrants and no welfare whatsoever. The problem is Western countries had signed ECHR, UN declarations and similar suicidal pacts. We can't have Singapore-like laws because of that.
Pieces of paper do not stop people: ask the Constitution.
simplistic delusional contrived happy horseshit