PoliticsThe Red Pill

Democrats, Demographics and Ethnocentrism


It is no secret that this election season has been one of the most racialized in years, probably the most racialized outside of the 1860s, the 1960s or 2008. As a result, a lot of ((((media outlets)))) and talking heads are having a one-sided lec—I mean a conversation—about race. And there’s nothing wrong with talking about the reality of race. What’s interesting are the Lügenpresse—a great German word meaning “lying press”—efforts to chastise only the White side of things and deliberately misrepresent facts on the ground. Partially because of overseas Israeli influence and partially because of hegemonic liberal ideology, expressions of White American ethnocentrism (such as nativism or wanting a smaller government or voting for Trump) are presented as backwards, fearful and racist, while it is totally fine for blacks, Hispanics, Asians and homosexuals to act and vote on the basis of their identities without being pathologized. No respected journalist is going to call a woman voting for Clinton a feminist cunt but if you are voting for Trump you are racist white trash.

To be fair, sometimes instead of repeatedly bleating “racist,” the more sophistic of our adversaries will argue that since Whites are a majority and “whiteness” is the default, we do not need any kind of race-based representation or identity politics. This naturally involves the use of US Census statistics, from which we can determine demographic data like which group has a majority and how large it is. I don’t know if this is just me, but lately I’ve read article after article where liberal authors will be making some kind of point about why those racist White people (redundant, I know) are wrong about immigration, crime, welfare, guns or some other issue in this country, and then they will claim as part of their argument that the United States is almost 80% White. In other words, don’t be so worried about immigration, goy. You’re still top dog. Meanwhile, other liberal authors or even the same ones will claim that this country is the most diverse it’s ever been and gloat that the White majority is dying and will be replaced by a progressive rainbow coalition in a few decades. Justice is coming. So which is it; is this country oppressively White or vibrantly diverse?

There are number of problems with both of these. On the first one, the notion that this country is anywhere close to 80% White  is patently false. In 2013, the “White” population was estimated to be 77.7% of the United States. Since North Africans and Middle Easterners are considered by the government to be as White as Europeans, despite neither these people themselves nor anyone else, liberal or conservative, identifying them as White, that slightly distorts the numbers. Overseas Israelis also skew these numbers, as many of them are not White in any meaningful way. But more importantly, since the Census lacks a mestizo category and most Hispanics are not of African descent, almost the entire Hispanic population gets counted as White. Jeb Bush’s wife is as White as he is Hispanic on government forms. If you take out the overwhelmingly non-White Hispanics, the “White” population becomes White and drops to a more accurate percentage of 62.6%

You might expect liberals to not do this kind of statistical inflation since that would mean that Hispanics have ‘white privilege,’ it would ‘erase their experiences,’ or mean something of that nature, but liberals evidently do not care about those issues anymore when trying to argue against White ethnocentrism. Apparently they are more fascist than they let on—the ends do justify the means. The utility of misrepresenting the actual White population as 77.7% of the population rather than 62.6% is fairly evident. Sixty is a lot closer to fifty than eighty, and when you go under fifty you lose majority-rule. That is implicitly concerning for White voters in a universal democracy, in the same way that racial and ethnic percentages have historically always been concerning in a settler country. Because as a “nation of immigrants,” to use an enemy slogan, we are or should be all too aware that what goes in affects what comes out.

Historically, we have been aware of who settles in our country and sought to control it. In the 1790s, only White immigrants could become citizens. Migration from Asia was famously banned in the late 19th and early 20th century. And in the 1920s, laws were passed to keep out jews, Slavs and Italians in order to maintain the Northern European character of the population. These were all scrapped in 1965 by the ((((Hart-Celler Act)))). Before the 1970s, between 80% and 90% of Americans were White, with the fluctuation due to post-independence European immigration waves. Today around 90% of immigration is from non-European countries. Isn’t it a good thing for everyone that society is becoming more diverse?

A 2013 study published in the Association for Psychological Science found that the rising tide of diversity makes people of whiteness more tribal. From the abstract:

[R]acial minority groups will make up a majority of the U.S. national population in 2042, effectively creating a so-called majority-minority nation. In four experiments, we explored how salience of such racial demographic shifts affects White Americans’ political-party leanings and expressed political ideology. Study 1 revealed that making California’s majority-minority shift salient led politically unaffiliated White Americans to lean more toward the Republican Party and express greater political conservatism. Studies 2, 3a, and 3b revealed that making the changing national racial demographics salient led White Americans (regardless of political affiliation) to endorse conservative policy positions more strongly. Moreover, the results implicate group-status threat as the mechanism underlying these effects. Taken together, this work suggests that the increasing diversity of the nation may engender a widening partisan divide.

More immigration leads to more conservatism, i.e. ethnocentric behavior, among White Americans. This is obviously something the left does not want goys thinking about since White ethnocentrism is anudda shoah to the neurotic. Which leads us into major narrative collision problems with the rising tide of diversity narrative. How can we be #SoWhite and wonderfully diverse at the same time? We know that slightly over 50% of all children born last year were not “non-Hispanic Whites,” to use the alienating Census category that forces us to identify as not being part of a recent wave of mestizos, something which was never an issue before. (Which is why I am partial to the identity of Anglo-American for English-speaking native-born White people in North America). We also know that general population will be majority non-European in thirty years. As Vice President Biden has gleefully reminded us on a few occasions (1, 2), Whites are becoming a minority and  diversity is our greatest strength.

So apparently, we shouldn’t be concerned about not having in-group loyalty and a political identity since we are the majority, but we should also celebrate that we will become a minority in our lifetimes due to changing patterns of fertility and migration. But wait, wasn’t being a minority cited as a major reason for gibsmedats and the source of many problems and difficulties experienced by people of color, as well as the justification for their banding together politically?  That would seem to imply that a White minority ought to be allowed to do the same as other minorities, or at the very least, begin preparing to do the same. But that would be White ethnocentrism, and therefore wrong because ((((reasons)))). If the left gets their minority-majority utopia, they may find Anglo-America is no longer interested in civic nationalism. The pressure to fash may be too great.