May 1, 2008

Why the DC elite thinks immigration is swell

The Washington Post reports today that from 2000 to 2007, the percentage of children under 5 who are Hispanic swelled from 19 percent to 24 percent in this country.

On the other hand, in Washington D.C., it's raining whites. Looking at the total population:

The District, which the census treats as a state, stands in marked exception to that trend. As once-affordable neighborhoods have gentrified over the past decade, the city has been losing black residents while gaining white newcomers, steadily diminishing its longtime status as a majority-black metropolis.

The latest census figures confirm that pattern, with non-Hispanic blacks accounting for 54 percent of the District's population in 2007, compared with 60 percent in 2000. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites increased from 28 to 33 percent in that period, while the Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian population remained at 8 and 3 percent, respectively.

Every time I visit Washington D.C., it's whiter and wealthier.

(Don't forget, the ethnic clearing of African-Americans from D.C. is actually happening faster than these numbers for "non-Hispanic blacks" indicate -- the African-Americans are being replaced by black immigrants, who tend to be more obsequious and thus make better servants for white Washingtonians.)

No wonder the politicians and pundits are baffled by all those "angry" voters out there concerned about demographic trends. In D.C., everything is good.

That helps explain the lameness of the Washington Post's article:

"Hispanics have both a larger proportion of people in their child-bearing years and tend to have slightly more children," said Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center and co-author of a recent study predicting that the Latino population will double from 15 percent today to 30 percent by 2050.

Huh? The Hispanic total fertility rate was 2.96 babies per woman per lifetime in 2006 -- that's 59 percent more than the rate for white women. That's not "slightly." And it's also a lot higher than the rate for blacks, Asians, and American Indians.

"So this means that in five years, a quarter of the 5- to 9-year-olds will be Hispanic, and in 10 years a quarter of the 10- to 14-year-olds will be Hispanic. It's just going to move up through the age distribution with each successive cohort being slightly more Hispanic," Passel said.

At first, this seems too obvious bother putting this paragraph in the article. Yet, when you think about it, what Passel is saying turns out to be a lie -- there is this thing called "immigration" that will keep increasing the Hispanic percentage for each age cohort as time goes by. So, ten years from now, more than 24 of the 10-14 year olds will be Latino.

Moreover, the key but ignored point is that in five years, the 0-5 year old cohort will be somewhere around 4 percentage points higher than in 2007 -- around 28 percent.

And, from there, it just keeps going up.

I realize that it's terribly disreputable to think about the future, but where is this going to end?

Fortunately, according to the Washington Post, there is good news hidden in the numbers. You guessed it: cultural vibrancy!

"Yet the increasing number of Latino youths might enrich mainstream U.S. culture in unexpected ways, Singer said. "A lot of popular culture comes from youth culture, and we already see the effect of the newest demographic waves in current music and new media," she said."

No, on the whole, we don't. This is one of those dog-that-didn't-bark facts that nobody notices, especially if they lunch in Georgetown.

The abstract logic is too seductive -- Young people are creative; lots of young people are Hispanic. Ergo; lots of creative people in the U.S. must be Hispanic!

Except, they're not. In Miami, sure, but definitely not in Hollywood, which happens to be at the center of the largest concentration of Hispanics in America. Mexican Americans must make up, what, 15 percent of everybody resident in the U.S. in their 20s, but they probably don't make up even 1.5 percent of the English language celebrities in America. (Sure, there is a whole parallel universe of Univision stars, but nobody in Georgetown pays them the slightest attention.)

Nobody ever stops and counts. Counting is racist.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute!!! Did you just say that one quarter of the kids under five are hispanic? In the whole country?

Holy crap.

dearieme said...

"more obsequious": well, I dare say, but I think they might have other advantages as servants too.

Anonymous said...

Well, it's gone too far now, but what is to be done? Mark Steyn seems to think that by chastising whites, especially Europeans, they'll engage in a baby-making war with their lesser-breeds-without-the-law. Fat chance. I guess one has just got to look at the American case as the glass being half full: At least the burgeoning non-white working-class is not Muslim!

Anonymous said...

Ay caramba, these numbers are pretty astounding.

Let's talk about the implications.

guest007 said...

you also forgot to mention that DC has a total lack of blue collar whites. If you ever talk to blue collar white tradesmen in DC, you will learn that he lives in Baltimore County, Winchester, VA, or Hagertown Md. Those are the first places where children of blue collar whites can survive in the public schools.

If DC did not have immigrants, they would have to depend upon blacks to be janitors, cooks, construction workers, and valets. The white liberal elites realize that an economy that depends upon blacks for blue collar labor does not work.

Also, since the few children they have attend elite, all white (or Asian) private schools; white in DC do not worry about the effects of immigration on schools or the workplace.

Johnson said...

There was an episode in This American Life podcast "The plan"

Basically, African Americans think there is a conspiracy to kick them out of nieghborhoods. To me, it doesn't seem crazy to want the nation's capital to actually be safe after dark...?

Anyway, the point about DC is mirrored in the experience of ALL liberal elites. They simply rarely have to deal with the consequences of their pro-minority policies that lead to increased crime rates and lower community trust.

Robert said...

The same demographic change is happening in many major cities. The blacks are moving out of the inner cities and into older suburbs while the neighborhoods in the cities are either gentrifying or becoming barrios.

paulk said...

I know that there are technological reasons the MSM is becoming obsolete, but surely their self-imposed speech codes have a lot to do with it as well. What is the point of reading the New York Times or Washington Post on any story with a racial component? They are going to lie. People are drawn to news media to find out the truth about their world, to have it explained to them with information that accords with their own experience, not just to hear obvious truths denied and familiar lies rehashed.

I was listening to NPR's "Talk of the Nation" yesterday which was being recorded in front of a live college audience. The host, one of those interchangeable NPR neutered male, was interviewing black academics about Rev. Wright, and they were, of course, "putting him in context."

The NPR Wimp took a call from a man with a Southern accent. This ought to be good, I thought.

CALLER: I don't understand Rev. Wright. If he doesn't like it in this country, why doesn't he move somewhere else?

NPR WIMP (Very uptight): Because he was born here, because he's lived here all his life?

CALLER: I understand that, but if I was so unhappy in the country where I lived, and thought I was oppressed, I'd move somewhere more to my liking.

NPR WIMP (Who has had it with this kind of person): Well, maybe he just wants to make this a better country.

College audience cheers wildly. Bad man asking questions that are not allowed has been sent away. What a relief! Now back to understanding Rev. Wright's context and how he wants to make this country better.

Marc said...

Anonymous--

Um, where have you been? This is hardly news.

Steve,

I am amazed at how pertinent your blog can be sometimes. I live in one of those gentrifying districts in D.C. and just yesterday I stopped at two different corner stores run by African immigrants (I was looking for a certain brand of cat food which neither had) and I was shocked at how polite the stores' owners/employees were. This was underscored when an African-American man came into one of the stores and threw a huge fit because the storekeeper had difficulty understanding his request. (God, man, just repeat the question.) I remember marvelling at the difference: is it entirely cultural, or is there a genetic component as well? Will the influx of relatively high-IQ African elites modify the African-American gene pool in ways that might make blacks in this country more, um, well, there's no p.c. way to put this, so I'll just stop there and assume everyone knows where I'm going. Or do African immigrants keep mainly to themselves or intermarry more with whites and Asians?

Gentrification rocks, by the way. You walk by all the dilapidated houses and you know that in a few years they'll be all fixed up with happy families moving in. Great feeling.

Anonymous said...

The bad news from my perspective is that Anglo-Saxon dominance of American culture is coming to an end. The good news from my perspective is that the secular democratic experiment started by a group of Anglo-Saxon Freemasons in 1788 is likewise coming to an end. After the coming socialist collapse and resulting anarchy, people will return to the pre-State institutions of Tribe and Faith and we will finally be laying the groundwork for a free society.

The US is run by three super-majority white enclaves in D.C., Hollywood and Manhattan who are determined to make whites a minority everywhere else. Why this level of cognitive disconnect? As Steve himself has pointed out, whites are too obsessed over status games with other whites to protect their own group interests.

Keep calling 'em as you see 'em bro.

--Doug

ambler said...

Most of the "DC elite" assuredly do not live in the District itself, but in nearby counties in NorthernVA and MD.

When discussing Washington, people often make a big mistake in looking at the District alone. (Steve is generally not one of these people, but in this case he's straddling the fence). The urbanized area does not somehow abruptly end at the borders of that 60-sq-mile track of land, defined in the 1700s. DC itself is 600,000 people, but the DC Area as a whole is over 5 million nowadays. Looking at DC alone is pretty literally like looking at one county of an urbanized region.

The point is, US-Blacks overall remain a steady 25% or so of the DC Metro population, and so are not pushing any overall broad demographic changes here. It's the nearby counties in VA and MD that have been receiving a lot of foreign immigrants (far more than the District itself, which gets intra-US migrants-- i.e. white yuppies). Lots of births and new immigration by these immigrants from all over the globe, mean that DC Metro Area is creeping towards hitting the ominous "49.9% non-Hispanic white". Local demographers predict the Metro Area will hit that level in 2009 or early 2010, in time to be recorded by the Census.

Just thought I would share that good news. If you are lazy, my point is neatly summarized by this Obama ad: http://tinyurl.com/5g4vnh

;-)

Anonymous said...

Have you noticed that comedy central is promoting Hispanic comics like George Lopez and Carlos Mencia? They must not be worried about the bottom line.

manindarkhat said...

Nobody ever stops and counts. Counting is racist.

Not when it's used to prove that minoritiesandwimmin are being discriminated against.

Anonymous said...

The entire business where the wealthy classes fled the city, leaving it to the barbarians, never made sense. Why should wealth producers should spend an hour a day commuting while indolents could walk to the same job, if they could hold it down? Craziness. Yet this was the result of our crazy modern cocktail, of liberal policing combined with welfare in cities that built up large low-class populations when they lacked those "civilized" policies to decivilize them.

In Europe, thing shook out the sensible way: the poor were banished to the marginal burbs. This is why Paris is surrounded by the banlieus, as versus being one itself. I'm not sure why things happened more sensibly there. but they did. Perhaps the overall higher gas taxes and better public transport exerted enough centripetal effect to counteract the urge to flee. Or perhaps they simply lacked the critical mass of violent underclass types.

In any case, in the years since the exodus of whites from our cities, the fear has gradually decreased as we've learned how to insulate, legally. Which is, to segregate by price (which is race neutral, and thus kosher). And so timid whites are gradually recolonizing the inner cities, block by high-priced block.

I suspect that the long-run will see America looking more like Europe: the underclasses will be pushed out to the distant burbs, places like Prince George's county in Maryland (near DC). This process is already fairly complete in Manhattan, and is pushing outward from there. In DC you see the same effect as the (white, rich) "northwest" pushes another block east every year or two.

agnostic said...

Thinking that Hispanic immigration will lead to a more vibrant culture is an East Coast bias. I'm originally from there, and it was a real shock to move to the Mountain Time Zone where almost all Hispanics are Mexican.

Compared to the Hispanics of the East Coast, who largely come from regions with substantial African genetic and cultural influence (the Caribbean, Colombia, etc.), Mexicans and other largely Amerindian Hispanics:

1) Cannot write or play good popular music.

2) Cannot dance.

3) Are less physically attractive.

4) Are less verbally adept.

5) Have lower improvisational skills.

6) Aren't as funny or skilled at comedy.

And so on. Where the phenotypes of the population are more Amerindian than African, you don't get much cultural vibrancy.

But who wouldn't be in favor of cutting off Mexican immigration and importing more Shakiras?

RKU said...

Steve raises a very valid concern regarding how boring Latinos are and the terrible weakness of their population in producing large numbers of sports stars, entertainers or other media celebrities. And obviously this problem for America will only grow more severe as the Latino population continues to grow.

Furthermore, there's really almost nothing we can do about this problem. Even if legal and illegal immigration were absolutely halted---which will never happen in a million years!---the bulk of current Lation growth is coming from domestic births. What to do?

I know! Blacks are tremendously *over-represented* among sports stars, entertainers, and media celebrities, so all we have to do is import a huge number of additional blacks from Africa, which has a plentiful supply!

I fully expect ISteve and VDare.com to begin calling for huge increases in black African immigration to solve the problem they've now highlighted...

Anonymous said...

And what we forget on the west coast is that a significant percentage of blacks in the east are Puerto Rican, which makes them Hispanic.

eh said...

More of the usual idiocy from the WaPo. You were expecting something different maybe?

Lucius Vorenus said...

Anonymous: Wait a minute!!! Did you just say that one quarter of the kids under five are hispanic? In the whole country? Holy crap.

Even people at iSteve don't realize how catastrophic our demographic situation is:

Of U.S. Children Under 5, Nearly Half Are Minorities
washingtonpost.com

...Forty-five percent of U.S. children younger than 5 are minorities...

Statistical Abstract of the United States
Section 1, Population
[see especially Table 8 & Table 9, pages 11-13]
PDF FILE: pop.pdf

JPEG IMAGE - Table 8, page 11, "Resident Population by Race, Hispanic Orgin, and Age: 2000 and 2006"

I'd strongly, strongly urge you to glance at that JPEG of Table 8 from the current Statistical Abstract, paying special attention to the far right column, where Caucasian numbers have collapsed, from 16 million in the 45-49 age group, down to a mere 11 million in the 0-4 and 5-9 age groups.

When you combine the collapse in the numbers of young, productive Caucasians with both the pending explosion in older, unproductive Caucasian Baby Boomers, and the explosion in young, unproductive third-world minorities, you realize that whole Ponzi scheme can't continue to function for much more than 10 or 15 years [if that]:

Senior benefit costs rise 24% since 2000
usatoday.com

The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis...

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer
heritage.org

...When the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes)...

Circa 2020, when the apex of the Caucasian Baby Boom bubble begins to move off the tax-paying rolls, and onto the tax-consuming rolls [to the tune of $27,289 per Caucasian Baby Boomer per year], and as those 45% of the children in the USA today who are third-world minorities grow up to create their own families, at a cost to the treasury of $19,588 per family per year, the whole tower of cards will simply collapse.

Prepare accordingly.

PS: Given that their criminality numbers are, like their IQ numbers, a good standard deviation worse than Caucasian criminality numbers, then, circa 2020, when this 45% of our population which is minority moves into its most violent years [when these kids are in their teens and early twenties], you also need to be prepared for the fact that atrocities like the Eve Carson slaying will be not once-in-a-generation horrors, but rather regular features of the nightly newscast.

Again: Prepare accordingly.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Steve Sailer: Huh? The Hispanic total fertility rate was 2.96 babies per woman per lifetime in 2006 -- that's 59 percent more than the rate for white women. That's not "slightly." And it's also a lot higher than the rate for blacks, Asians, and American Indians.

Derbyshire ran the numbers a few months ago; his graphic is particularly frightening [remember, most experts believe that you need a TFR of 2.10 just to tread water]:

U.S. Fertility
Thursday, December 20, 2007
corner.nationalreview.com

DERBYSHIRE JPEG: US Fertility by Race

Lucius Vorenus said...

Steve Sailer: The abstract logic is too seductive -- Young people are creative; lots of young people are Hispanic. Ergo; lots of creative people in the U.S. must be Hispanic! Except, they're not. In Miami, sure, but definitely not in Hollywood, which happens to be at the center of the largest concentration of Hispanics in America.

I can't prove this with any sort of definitive reference to published demographic numbers, but I'd be shocked if Miami's "Hispanic" refugees from Cuba weren't in fact Caucasians descended from the Spanish and the Portuguese [and maybe even the English and the Scots].

And to compare the descendants of Caucasian immigrants in the new world with the Aboriginal & Mestizo peoples of the new world is like comparing apples and oranges [given that their IQs differ by at least a standard deviation, not to mention their criminality propensities].

BTW, a few years ago, Theodore Dalrymple wrote a haunting piece, Why Havana Had to Die, which does a pretty thorough job of describing what happens to a society when all the smart, productive, moral people pack their bags and flee, and only the stupid, lazy, and criminal are left behind.

I'd also recommend his piece, What We Have to Lose - both of these essays serve as excellent companions to the stunning visual spectacle of spending an afternoon reading and contemplating all the stories gathered at The Fabulous Ruins of Detroit, which tells exactly the same story, only in pictures.

Anonymous said...

There is no relying on political answers to the immigration problem anymore. All the politicians are stupid, lazy, and/or corrupt.

The only response to the immigration mess is a personal one - have more kids of your own. It's not as depressing as fighting your politicians because most people can actually succeed at having more kids.

Anonymous said...

The gentrification of every US city is well under way. Without the '64 civil rights act and the voting rights act it would've happened already. Cities have finally started to get a grip on the problems that drove the middle class out and with an aging population and declining fertility people aren't quite as worried about good schools or safety anymore. It doesn't hurt that the federal government has been pouring hundreds of billions specifically into cities for "redevelopment." Cities get big government money, agriculture gets big government money, and the suburbs basically get ignored.

Oh, and the price of gas is going up.

Kent Brockmann said...

Claro. Es ya demasiado tarde y no podemos salvarnos. El futuro de los estados unidos sera un futuro hispanohablante. Estaran aqui.

Y yo por mi parte les doy la bienvenida a nuestros nuevos jefes latinos, y les ricuerdo que como persona conocido de la television, puedo ser util a conseguir blancos a trabajar en sus minas de sal subterraneas.

scottynx said...

Rku says: "Even if legal and illegal immigration were absolutely halted---which will never happen in a million years!---the bulk of current Lation growth is coming from domestic births? What to do?"

But that doesn't mean immigration doesn't matter. The pew hispanic center's recent 2050 population projections had an alternative low-immigration scenario where the US hispanic population rises to 99.84 million instead of 128 million under their expected mid-level projection or their higher immigration scenario where we end up with 158.7 million hispanics. 99.8 million vs 128 million isn't a tiny difference to sneeze at. And the differences in hispanic population sizes between those two scenario's would only grow as time goes on past 2050.
source:
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/85.pdf

Go out far enough (i don't know, 2100 maybe?) and continuing our current immigration policies would double the hispanic population vs what it would have been if we had dramatically lowered immigration right now. That's significant.

-pjgoober@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

there's really almost nothing we can do about this problem.

I agree we should just ignore it and maybe it will go away. Our children and grandchildren will be so glad we didn't worry ourselves with such things.

steve wood said...

The whitening of DC is especially amazing when one considers that, back in my youth in the 70's, the city's population was more than 70% black.

On the other hand, DC's boundaries, fixed for 200 years, make this seem more unusual than it is:

Manhattan is richer and whiter than ever. Statistically, it's less obvious because the numbers are buried in data for the huge, sprawling city as a whole; but it's empirically obvious to anyone who has known the city for a long time.

Center City Philadelphia, is booming, expanding ... and overwhelmingly affluent and white. Once again, the change is less obvious because the data get lost in statistics for the entire city, which is much larger than DC and which is collectively neither particularly white nor particularly affluent.

DC, on the other hand, is a relatively small city that has not expanded its boundaries since being founded. Therefore, the trend stands out more here than elsewhere.

It is now fashionable for upper middle class people to live in the city not only when they are young - which has always been more or less true - but even after they have children and when they grow old, which is a big change indeed. The dramatic expansion of the upper middle class in the last 20 years has made the whiterpeople urban lifestyle available to more Americans than ever before; our urban society is becoming more like Europe (or LatAm, for that matter), with the "rich" enjoying the convenience of downtown life while the "poor" are pushed to the margins. DC is special only because the margins are not within the city itself and thus are not counted in the same mix as the wealthy center.

ambler said...

Most of the "DC elite" assuredly do not live in the District itself, but in nearby counties in NorthernVA and MD.

When discussing Washington, people often make a big mistake in looking at the District alone. (Steve is generally not one of these people, but in this case he's straddling the fence). The urbanized area does not somehow abruptly end at the borders of that 60-sq-mile track of land, defined in the 1700s. DC itself is 600,000 people, but the DC Area as a whole is over 5 million nowadays. Looking at DC alone is pretty literally like looking at one county of an urbanized region.

The point is, US-Blacks overall remain a steady 25% or so of the DC Metro population, and so are not pushing any overall demographic change. It's the nearby counties in VA and MD that have been receiving a lot of foreign immigrants (far more than the District itself which gets intra-US migrants-- i.e. white yuppies). These foreigners (certainly not just Hispanics) keep increasing in number everyday via births and new immigration. The result is that DC Metro Area is creeping towards the ominous "49.9% non-Hispanic white". Local demographers predict the Metro Area will hit that level in 2009 or early 2010, in time to be recorded by the Census.

Just thought I would share that good news. If you are lazy, my point is neatly summarized by this Obama ad: http://tinyurl.com/5g4vnh

;-)

American Goy said...

I always laugh at the "tough line" on immigration politicians, and "getting tough" policies on immigration.

I got new for you people - the whole reason the border is so porous, and why there are so many Mexicans (and why they are allowed to come) is to lower wages for ordinary American citizens.

That's it - purely a business reason.

Similarly, for the high end, high profit workers, the hordes of H1B visa Indians are allowed into the country for one reason - the SAME reason.

To lower wages of high end Americans.

After 9/11, a SANE country would re-evaluate its immigration policy and its open door policy.

Or at least would control the inflow of people into it.

But no, not the Yoo Ess of Ey! Come on in, the borders are a joke, and our security is an even bigger joke!

See, business trumps all.

One last thing - since we live now in the global market, where workers from USA compete with prison labor in China and child labor in Bangladesh....

The theory of globalists is that by this global market, the living conditions of Bangladeshis and Chinese will be improved.

That is what we are being told on TV...

But no one in power, none of the Washington elites, tell us that perhaps, just perhaps, it will be the other way around - we, Americans, will get much closer to living standards in Bangladesh than they will come closer to ours as a result of this global open market.

Kintaro said...

I work on the west side of LA and have been seeing more and more the Latin-American-immigrant-mother-pushing-full-baby-cart-with-help-from-grown-children types more and more there. I live on the east side, and over there it's of course gotten to be totally commonplace, esp in the past few decades. Now you're starting to see it everywhere.

Martin said...

In other words, immigration is great because it makes D.C. less black. I would just like to hear the liberal swells in Washington admit it.

H. said...

It does indeed seem that DC is as insular as Versailles under Louis XIV when it comes to what's happening out west. I had a friend from the east coast who could never understand my bias against Hispanics until he moved to LA. To say that Mexicans produce fewer celebrities than blacks is a hideous understatement, too. They produce little but trouble, including beating up on blacks, and are proud of it.

David said...

agnostic said

But who wouldn't be in favor of cutting off Mexican immigration and importing more Shakiras?

I am not in favor of it. Why not import more Mozarts?

The whole "we want a vibrant culture" is a crock. We already have enough hip-hop bass beats being dropped on every street in every city and town. Idiocracy, anyone?

Anonymous said...

"But who wouldn't be in favor of cutting off Mexican immigration and importing more Shakiras?"

Agnostic,

Colombia probably doesn't have too many Shakiras. From her Wikipedia bio:

Shakira was born on February 2, 1977 in Barranquilla, Colombia. She is the only child of Nidya del Carmen Ripoll Torrado, a Colombian of Spanish and Italian ancestry, and William Mebarak Chadid who is of Lebanese Maronite descent.

- Fred

Anonymous said...

Agnostic, the DC area's hispanics are mostly mestizos and amerindians, with the big groups being Mexicans and Salvadorians.

Steve, "it's raining whites" is very funny. Makes me think of the gay disco album, which is an especially good turn of phrase since the stereotype of gays leading the first wave of gentrification is really true in DC.

When I first lived there in the early 90's, Dupont Circle was still pretty grimy with most of the whites obviously gay. Ten years later, Dupont had become fully yuppified and very expensive, and the gay townhouse rehabbers had moved north to Columbia Heights and south to the area around Eastern Market.

Anonymous said...

Oh, this is grand. Steve Sailer, who has deleted untold numbers of white nationalist postings on his website over the years, bitching now because his homeland, his nation, is in fact quickly turning brown...and, oh dear, it's happening fast enough to presumably cause Steve to wonder about his own children's future.

Here's the news, Steve: without white nationalism the nation will turn non-white. Is that so hard to parse, genius? How hard is that to figure out?

You are a spoiled, creepy, hypocrite boomer who deeply desires the return of the white society you inherited from the previous generation but, alas, it is now squandered...

Oh, well. You never wanted to lobby for overt white nationalist policies that would have actually preserved the white society anyway, because that would've upset certain powerful minorities. That would've hurt people's feelings.

The truth is that during the entire period of this radical transformation from white to brown you looked down upon white nationalists as inferiors, and, yes, even morons. While casual intellectual observers of the demographic war, such as yourself, maintained the moral high ground. It was all so amusing from a distance.

Obviously, now in 2008, the harsh reality is crashing through your carefully cultivated intellectual safety zone. But keep telling yourself that you are the big, scary high IQ genius who communicates the edgy but nuanced views on race relations, while the actual ill-mannered white nationalists are the nitwit proles who just don't understand the modern world. Keep telling yourself that as all of your memories of Classical America are drowned in the new brown U.S.S.A.

Anonymous said...

One simple answer, folks: have more kids. You'll probably never stop the invasion. You can try, but it's going to be very depressing most of the time. Having just one or two (or three) extra kids may not help the balance in our favor that much, but it's a satisfying and successful way of feeling like you're doing something.

bigboy said...

guest007 wrote:


“If DC did not have immigrants, they would have to depend upon blacks to be janitors, cooks, construction workers, and valets. The white liberal elites realize that an economy that depends upon blacks for blue collar labor does not work.”

And who do you think did those jobs back in the day-the 40s, 50s, and 60s? Things worked just as well back then when blacks were doing the “blue collar work” in DC as they do now, with the exception that there is a massive pool of workers from Latin America keeping those wages very low.

Additionally, attitudes amongst the lower-income blacks to such work have changed. They are less willing to do such work or are more willing to do such work begrudgingly today. Incidentally, many "blue collar" workers in DC are in fact Africans from West Africa or the Horn of Africa. They appear to provide the bulk of the cab drivers and parking lot attendants in the area.

bigboy said...

arc said...

“I am amazed at how pertinent your blog can be sometimes. I live in one of those gentrifying districts in D.C. and just yesterday I stopped at two different corner stores run by African immigrants (I was looking for a certain brand of cat food which neither had) and I was shocked at how polite the stores' owners/employees were. This was underscored when an African-American man came into one of the stores and threw a huge fit because the storekeeper had difficulty understanding his request.”

I wonder if these store owners were Ethiopian or Eritrean. In my experience, many of these small shops in DC (similar to Korean grocery stores or bodegas) are owned by these people. I had a supervisor who was from Ethiopia. I believe he was Amhara (the highland Semitic-speaking group in that country). He was an Orthodox Christian. According to him, his people had been Christian since the 4th Century and had their own system or writing. He had, in a subtle way, a feeling of superiority relative to African Americans. He was also extremely polite. He looked like a brown-skinned Arab or Asian Indian.

Marc said...

I wonder if these store owners were Ethiopian or Eritrean. In my experience, many of these small shops in DC (similar to Korean grocery stores or bodegas) are owned by these people. I had a supervisor who was from Ethiopia. I believe he was Amhara (the highland Semitic-speaking group in that country). He was an Orthodox Christian. According to him, his people had been Christian since the 4th Century and had their own system or writing. He had, in a subtle way, a feeling of superiority relative to African Americans. He was also extremely polite. He looked like a brown-skinned Arab or Asian Indian.

There are a lot of Ethiopian/Eritrean stores and cultural centers in my area, and one of the two I posted about was owned by Ethiopians. There were posters about Ethiopia all over the store. The other one - the one where the African-American customer threw a fit over his lottery ticket (I didn't include that part because it seemed *too* stereotypical, but hand to God it's the truth) was run by a West African, though. No posters, but I could tell by his facial features. Very polite man. I worry a bit for his children, assuming he has any.

I've noticed that a lot of Third World immigrants harbor feelings of superiority toward African-Americans too. We had a Kenyan lawyer at my last place of work (an AIDS clinic in Baltimore) whom we had to fire because she couldn't hide her contempt for her African-American clients. I also have a friend who is Sri Lankan who once said, and I quote, "There is no reason for anyone in America to be poor!" when talking about African-American underachievement. And don't even get me started on my Mexican-American housemate. I think people from the Third World who come over here are amazed at the opportunities that alot of African-Americans don't even seem to see.

roissy said...

Gentrification rocks, by the way. You walk by all the dilapidated houses and you know that in a few years they'll be all fixed up with happy families moving in. Great feeling.

marc, i live in one of those rapidly gentrifying hoods in DC and though it has come with much welcome relief it has also meant much higher rents... well, pretty much more expensive everything... and a condo market with seeming immunity from the housing crash in the outer burbs.

btw, do you live near adams morgan or down by T st? that's where most of the ethiopian owned corner stores are located. T st from 15th east is really coming up. you can tell by the newly manicured lawns and attention to landscaping.

They Live said...

"Anonymous said...Oh, this is grand. Steve Sailer, who has deleted untold numbers of white nationalist postings on his website over the years"

I have to take issue with this statement, Steve enabled comments only about 18 months ago from this post onwards:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/12/malcolm-gladwell-strikes-back.html

So its hardly years yet.

You do have a point though, when one is a nice cuddly white liberal hanging out with lots of other nice cuddly white liberals its easy to keep telling each other that the multicultural project is workable and normal.

Once you've been exposed to some reality, once you've put the sunglasses on, and become aware of group differences, human diversity etc its very hard not to find oneself moving towards a white nationialist viewpoint.

So, your criticism is unfair, Steve has probably set more people on that path than any white nationalist, whether thats what he intended.

MensaRefugee said...

There is no relying on political answers to the immigration problem anymore. All the politicians are stupid, lazy, and/or corrupt.

The only response to the immigration mess is a personal one - have more kids of your own. It's not as depressing as fighting your politicians because most people can actually succeed at having more kids.

Posted by Anon at 5/01/2008


Well maybe it would help. Or maybe it would just provide more teats to the governmental taxation and welfare system for Non-Performing-Minorities to suck off on.

Doom your children to a life of increasing taxes, servitude and fear? Just because it gives you the illusion you are in control? Or just not have them?

Tough Choice.

kurt said...

The anecdotal evidence from the last 10 postings or so suggests that immigrants, even ones from Sub-Saharan Africa, have good work ethic and entrepreneurial spirit. Assuming these observations are representative of immigrants in general, does this not suggest that immigration is indeed good for the U.S.?

Many of the technology start-ups in silicon valley have Chinese and Indian co-founders, and most of my semiconductor customers are non-white (mostly Asian, some Latino). Also, San Jose has a lower than average crime rate, as compared to other cities of comparable population in the U.S., despite be chalk full of immigrants (both Asian and Latino).

Argent Paladin said...

A couple of posters have brought up a phenomenon which I might be able to explain.

Why are Mexicans in America, in general, talentless and below-average but other Latinos are not?

Why are African-Americans below average but African immigrants not?

Two reasons:
Self-selection bias- Mexicans just need to walk a little bit to get to America. Other's need to put in a bit more effort. African-Americans are born here but Africans have to expend a lot of effort to get here. This means that only the more motivated, intelligent and resourceful people make it to America from, say, Eritrea.

Generational effect= Immigrants are generally hard-working for another reason- they appreciate the level of material prosperity that America allows. Those born into it, however, do not. African-Americans are all born into it. In addition, many don't work for what they have because so many survive on government largesse.
Finally, affirmative action and identity politics kills work ethic and general courtesy. If you believe that your behavior dictates your success, you will strive to be nice and to fulfill your duties. However, if you believe that others dictate your success or failure (whether through conspiracy theories, racism, etc) then why put in the effort?

Lucius Vorenus said...

Anonymous: The only response to the immigration mess is a personal one - have more kids of your own.

Yes, it is true that the only solution to the impending demographic collapse of the civilized world is for smart people to start making babies again.

Of course, the problem is that there is a 25 to 30 year gap between the start of a pro-natalist movement and that point [in the far-distant future] when such a movement begins to yield fruit.

I.e. it takes Caucasian [or Asian] children about 25 to 30 years to make it through undergraduate school, and graduate/professional school, and into the early years of apprenticeship in some career path, before they get to the point where they are truly productive members of society.

And if you look at it from the point of view of 2008, that means that any hypothetical pro-natalist policies which could have benefited us in the here and now would have to have had their inception no later than the Carter and [early] Reagan administrations - circa late 1970s to early 1980s [if not the Ford & Nixon eras prior to that].

But, of course, no one was paying any attention to demographics back then, in the early post-Griswold and post-Roe era, when Caucasian fertility first plunged below replacement level.

Likewise, any pro-natalist movement we ourselves undertake - and let us pray that such a movement can be founded and gain momentum and flourish - but any such movement we should undertake will not have any noticeable effect on the greater society at large until about 2035.

[And, by my calculations, the USA will either have collapsed and disintegrated into chaos - or will have devolved into a Stalinist totalitarian state - long before 2035. Ergo my repeated admonishments: Prepare accordingly.]

Lucius Vorenus said...

Kent Brockmann: Y yo por mi parte les doy la bienvenida a nuestros nuevos jefes latinos...

Babelfish suggests that this might translate as I, for one, welcome our new Spanish-speaking overlords.

steve wood said...

The entire business where the wealthy classes fled the city, leaving it to the barbarians, never made sense ... Yet this was the result of our crazy modern cocktail, of liberal policing combined with welfare in cities ...

In Europe, thing shook out the sensible way ...


No doubt crime played a role, but the American middle and upper middle classes have always shown a tendency to move outward from the city center. I think it's an Anglo-Saxon thing, a desire to own a bit of the countryside and live in green, quiet surroundings. The situation in the UK is not so different from that in the US, with many cities containing blighted central areas surrounded by peaceful, prosperous suburbs. Now that our society's break with its Anglo-Saxon roots is almost complete, we're seeing a less British and more continental attitude toward urban life emerge. (I'm not cheering for this change, any means - quite the reverse, in fact - but rather stating a fact.)

And who do you think did those jobs back in the day-the 40s, 50s, and 60s? Things worked just as well back then when blacks were doing the “blue collar work” in DC as they do now, with the exception that there is a massive pool of workers from Latin America keeping those wages very low.

And where did those blacks come from? Not from DC, originally, nor from Philadelphia nor Chicago nor any other big city outside the deep south. They came to DC and other cities of the North and border states as part of a vast migration from the south - just not as FAR south as the current labor pool.

If there had been no such black migration, labor costs in the era you describe would have been higher, just as labor costs today would be higher without Hispanic migration.

Now, you may say that's a good thing, and maybe it is. However, it's funny that I never hear the anti-immigration crowd come right out and admit that all of us - ALL of us, not just the rich - would see a significant rise in the cost of living if the flow of immigrants were turned off. I think it would be a very interesting exercise for Steve or someone of a similar statistical bent to figure out how much more things would cost if there were no source of cheap labor.

Here's a quick example: The apartment complex where I live uses (of course) 100% Hispanic labor to maintain the extensive grounds and interior public areas. If there were no Hispanic immigrants in suburban Philadelphia, the owners would have to hire locals. How much more would it cost to maintain the buildings? How much of that cost would be passed on to me in the form of higher rent?

B. Durbin said...

You know what? I don't care if a quarter of the kids in this country are Hispanic...

...as long as they're American.

I say this because one of the most American guys I know is a Spanish-speaking, American-born person of Chilean heritage. And English is his first language. So I don't see a problem as long as the immigrants try to join the culture. Sure, add to it whatever you want as long as you don't try to turn it into a copy of the place you left.

Anonymous said...

Eritreans and Ethiopians look almost like white people with black skin. Their attitudes are what I would consider white. Tend to be cheerful, confident, competent, polite, and alert. That's what has been bred into their culture. They do not have a history of hoodoo-voodoo or cannibalism.

Compared to other Hispanics, Mexicans are good workers. They are kind of shy and quiet and reserved, but they generally are pretty nice in my experience. They seem to tend towards a communal labor mentality.

The Hispanics who are loud asses invariably have that Arab look. They are the only Hispanics I have seen really harping against the Gringo. Probably goes to the deeper instinctive Arab-European cultural conflicts.

The white Cubans also have a reputation as stuck up exploiters, but then again that is why they were kicked out of Cuba. But they are are also entrepreneurial and smart.

Ricans tend to be pretty chill, but also crime ridden in more of a lazy way than a nasty or aggressive way. They have a reputation for all being on welfare.

Johnson said...


So, your criticism is unfair, Steve has probably set more people on that path than any white nationalist, whether thats what he intended.


Again, this is the problematic linking of all immigration with general problems of diversity.

I don't think anyone will argue that high IQ immigrants that allow the US to take the best human capital around the world (regardless of race) is reall a bad thing for the country.

The problem is that white nationalists look down on ALL non-white races, even Jews. Even though the Jews are probably the US's best asset in economic conflicts with China over the coming decades.

ben tillman said...

"The Hispanic total fertility rate was 2.96 babies per woman per lifetime in 2006 -- that's 59 percent more than the rate for white women."

The length of generations is also shorter, so the difference compounds much faster.

c23 said...

b durbin, you have no clue. You think Chileans are remotely the same thing as Mexicans and Central Americans who make up the great majority of recent Latino immigrants, just because they both speak Spanish? Wrong. Chileans are racially and culturally different from them.

If you want assimilation, explain how the 34% of Californian children who are white are supposed to assimilate the 46% who are Hispanic:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=7&cat=1&rgn=6

Steve Wood, it's true that your apartment's landscaping would be more expensive without Hispanic immigrants, but so what? Nobody needs landscaping. Plant something simple like some hardy grasses that can be automated by an automated sprinkling system and mowed twice a month (there are robotic lawnmowers that work pretty well nowadays), and it won't really matter. Or just install a hardscape. This may not be to your aesthetic preference, but I doubt that living in a barrio or a favela would be either. Cheap landscaping isn't worth selling out our country.

What's more, Hispanics, like everyone else, stimulate the demand side of the economy too. They make crowded cities more crowded, and they have more mouths and gas tanks to feed. And your landscapers are almost certainly using Medicaid, WIC and other taxpayer funded programs. Whether you're coming out ahead in the end is questionable.

RobertHume said...

Durbin,

On an individual level I probably like Hispanics as much as you. But it is the *average* IQ that counts. As the average IQ of our nation declines so will the average standard of living. The average White may be above average, but the discrepancy between the average Hispanic and the average White will be attributed to racism and that will aggravate conflict in our society. This unacknowledged difference in the average IQ is the cause of Rev. Wright's angry sermons ... he deduces suppression and racism, whereas the cause is a difference in average IQ.

poor richard said...

But people have a collective life, not just an individual life. Whites in general tend to be blind to their own collective life, for whatever reasons. Maybe it is all the advertising that convinces whites that buying that new mass produced phone or car or piece of clothing makes them an "individual."

So Jose the Mexican guy does have his life as Jose, who goes to work and has his buddies (who might or might not be Latino), maybe has a girlfriend, has his favorite bands and TV shows (which might or might not be Latin or Spanish). But periodically, that collective life is "activated" for some reason, usually a collective threat. Then he is 100% Mexican, and all the white or black or Samoan friends and TV shows don't matter. That's just the way it is.

Same goes for whites. It is just that whites have been very strong for a long time in North America. So strong that the "collective danger" buttons barely get touched, and whites have little or no awareness of their collective lives. This is true of most of "mainstream America," but less true in places like the South or ethnicky cities where whites do have collective awareness of who/what they are.

Look at who votes for Obama: it is the whites who probably just know a few "Joe sixpack" blacks friends from work or media, but have no real experience of white or black collective consciousness. Whites out in Montana and places like that.

But part of that very unbalanced white collective consciousness is that whites have been an overwhelming majority. Whites have steamrolled every other race for centuries, and have been so successful that they don't even think of themselves as "ethnic." They think they are just "normal."

That very real longstanding white supremacy has made whites not only blind to their collective interests, but corrupted by too much cultural hegemony. It goes both ways. Whites do not have a realistic assessment of who they are, their strengths and weaknesses, because everyone else has been too weak to assert anything to the contrary. The worst of these are the latte liberals who want to white-wash the world.

Excess of strength breeds stupidity, and that is what has happened up until now.

Those days of overwhelming white hegemony are coming to a very swift end due to demographic change. The consequence will be twofold. Whites will become more racially conscious in terms of noticing differences and knowing who they are. Whites will also have to become more honest and realistic in their dealings with Blacks and Mexicans in this country.

Whites will remember that they are a natural race with finite capabilities and aptitudes. Good, because dealing with external limitations is the only way people can know and appreciate who and what they are.

Lucius Vorenus said...

RobertHume: This unacknowledged difference in the average IQ is the cause of Rev. Wright's angry sermons ... he deduces suppression and racism, whereas the cause is a difference in average IQ.

And do you know how close Barack & Michelle are to carrying this anger straight into The Big House [with all the policy implications their victory would portend]?

From this morning's London Telegraph:

Michelle Obama: Barack has hit boiling point
By Tim Shipman in Raleigh, North Carolina
Last Updated: 1:11PM BST 04/05/2008
telegraph.co.uk

If I were a betting man, I'd say that McCain beats Obama this fall [although McCain is perfectly capable of blowing it on his own], but I doubt that McCain's margin of victory will be much more than 51-48 [52-47 would be a massive landslide], and it might look a whole lot more like 50.5 to 49.5.

And that's the best we can hope for in 2008, when the DEMs run a racist, hate-filled, crypto-Stalinist kook like Barack Hussein Obama.

Circa 2020, as Caucasian numbers plummet [or, at best, tread water on the GOP side of the aisle], and as third-world numbers explode, it will be mathematically impossible for the GOP to win elections anymore.

Again: Prepare accordingly.

David said...

it's an Anglo-Saxon thing, a desire to own a bit of the countryside and live in green, quiet surroundings.

It's only a coincidence that those greener surroundings are also a lot whiter - i.e. "Anglo-Saxon."

Martin said...

"poor richard said...

But people have a collective life, not just an individual life......"

Well said. The collective life of whites has been reduced to mass entertainments. NASCAR, Seinfeld, the latest comic-book movie, The Tonight Show, Sporting Events.

And even all that is becoming highly segmented down to the smallest market niche. Whites, as a people, really don't exist in this country anymore.

ben tillman said...

The anecdotal evidence from the last 10 postings or so suggests that immigrants, even ones from Sub-Saharan Africa, have good work ethic and entrepreneurial spirit. Assuming these observations are representative of immigrants in general, does this not suggest that immigration is indeed good for the U.S.?

No.

This is our country, and the qualities of others who covet it are as irrelevant as are the qualities of a man who covets your wife.

ben tillman said...

I think it would be a very interesting exercise for Steve or someone of a similar statistical bent to figure out how much more things would cost if there were no source of cheap labor.

There's no calculation to be done. Wages and prices would rise by the same amount.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone will argue that high IQ immigrants that allow the US to take the best human capital around the world (regardless of race) is reall a bad thing for the country.

High-IQ whites will make that argument.

sunzhu35 said...

American Goy I agree with what u said lemme just elaborate a little bit - while the indians and chinese might come here on H1 visa and displace some, they'll never displace the euro majority as a people and are therefore inherently more loyal unlike mexicans. IMHO having a surplus of smart people even some foreigners is never a bad thing.

Congrats Paladin, u have hit on something that few people even think about, the difference between the quality of immigrants of mexico and others are basically when the plane ticket costs u 7 years worth of your income that leaves out a very small portion of 3rd world country's population who can afford that(like my own mom and pop from india) while in mexico's case most of the people just walk in and the people who come here are obviously the rejects of mexico, the people who couldn't make it in mexico relatively speaking, therefore the worst group from mexico is crossing the border, not the smart euro elite who controls the country - why should they?.

One thing about white nationalism- if it weren't so exclusive and edgy, If they tone it down and work within the political system without the overt militancy IMHO they would have a lot of support esp. for important issues like mexican invasion.