Saturday, March 24, 2018

Slowly at first, then all at once

While the Derb's most astounding statistic of our age--that the US has admitted more Muslims for settlement in the 15 years after 9/11 than it did in the 15 years prior--is an observation well taken, the most rapid increase in settlements have come not from MENA countries but from sub-Saharan Africa.

From 1990 to 2017, the number of people living in the US who were born in sub-Saharan Africa has increased 533%*. The number of foreign-born people living in the US who were born outside of sub-Saharan Africa has increased 110% over that same period of time:

If that rate of settlement growth continues--and the world's most important graph strongly suggests that if we do nothing it will not merely continue but will accelerate--we'll be looking at 10 million foreign-born sub-Saharan Africans living in the US another generation down the road. With TFRs of around 5 children per woman, that's somewhere in the ballpark of 60 million more sub-Saharan Africans living in the US by mid-century than live here now.

For three centuries the US and its antecedent has struggled to find a way for whites and blacks to live together if not in harmony than at least civilly. In three decades we're set to more than double the size of the country's black population, a population we've been unable to functionally integrate in 300 years. Under a president Kamala Harris, a trebling of the size might be closer to the truth.

The storm clouds of a Malthusian catastrophe are brewing on the dark continent. It'll be swell if the rains can somehow be blessed there. It is imperative that they not be blessed here.

As a great thinker is fond of saying, this will not end well.

* For some countries, Pew reports the population estimates as "less than X". In these cases, half the "less than" figure is used. For example, Lesotho shows "less than 1,000" migrants in both 1990 and 2017, so 500 is the figure used in both years.


Anonymous said...

It's going to get worse for White Americans, before it gets better.
We've been on top for so long and still dominate the major institutions,even if they often seem positively anti- white, that it's difficult for most Whites to imagine a future where we're a minority.
It's even more difficult for most Whites to imagine that our lives could be profoundly changed once we're a minority.
Most White Americans will go about their lives ignoring White Nationalist,who will be prophets without honor in their own country, until they get a glimpse of the future as a minority.
I think this "glimpse" will come sooner rather than later. Not soon enough to save the United States,but soon enough to save White Americans.
I believe this because once Blacks and Hispanics gain control of the Democratic party, and White Democrats are pushed aside or out, the Democratic party will become a vehicle for their ethnic interest.
Since Whites won't be needed to get nominated, candidates will compete with each other over who can get the most for their respective group,at the expense of White Americans of course.
I look for "reparations" for African- Americans to become a plank in their platform.
I don't know how they'll try to collect this,straight from the Treasury? Then what other government programs will suffer?
An extra tax on White Americans only?
Don't put it past them.
Hispanic support will be needed to get this plank,and they'll want something in return.
Automatic citizenship for anyone
who's here legally or illegally? Citizenship for whoever gets to America?
Both will be in favor of affirmative action.
Controlling only one party isn't controlling the country,however and Whites will still have the numbers for sometime to assert themselves when enough can see the future and are scared or angered by what they see.
In these circumstances when practically every legislative act, every judicial decision, and every executive order or even every word of the President will have racial implications,the country will be perpetually on edge.
Can you imagine a disputed election in such a scenario?
Both sides will think the stakes are too high to lose.
I believe it was the American historian Avery Craven who said something like,now I'm paraphrasing, "Democracy works best when the minority feels it can accept a loss at the polls without endangering its vital interest. "
I believe, if current trends continue, we will reach a state of affairs before the end of this century,where Whites feel they can't accept a loss at the polls, because time isn't on their side.
At that point White Nationalist will be seen as prophets and they will be honored, they will no longer be isolated and outnumbered. In fact their numbers will be growing from our time until then, though possibly not as fast as we'd like.
Keep up what you're doing AE,and Thanks!

Audacious Epigone said...


We're getting the first glimpses of it now in California. The Feinstein/de Leon primary race is one to watch. I suspect Feinstein will try to prostrate herself to non-white causes (like this, though not as embarrassingly) rather than stand up for white causes, but there will come a time when that is no longer the case.

I hope you're correct re: those who early looked down the corridors of time (like Jared Taylor), but the transition happened fast in South Africa and there doesn't seem much will to fight back there. Will such will be forthcoming in places where the transition is slower?

IHTG said...

Anti-blackpilling manifesto:

Feryl said...

Feinstein types think of people as plato that can be shaped in whichever way suits the prevailing or desired (as in, Kumbaya Multicult with Leftist elites ruling) ideology among white Western Leftists and the nations over which they rule.

It's this naivete that you see everywhere these days in Western countries that were founded by Anglo-Teutons. If South Africa goes the way of Zimbabwe, I don't think it'll concern elites all that much since hey, African countries should be run (into the ground) by Africans.

What will spark alarm among Western elites is if any historically white 1st world country becomes extremely dangerous due to restive non-whites. Thus far dangerous regions of Africa, the ME, Asia, and Latin America could be explained away as "undeveloped" countries that were victims of evil white colonialists and exploiters. White Westerners could take pity on these places, without having to actually spend much time (or no time at all) in these places in order to get a sense of what really goes on in these places (ignorant, violent, and corrupt people being responsible for horrible living conditions).

If California (or London) starts to more resemble Sau Paulo or Cape Town, perhaps that'll cure White Western liberals of the dangerous delusion that POC and white liberals can always team up together to attack white conservatives.

You can also bet that Soros type ideology and funding might lose it's luster pretty fast if gentry liberals find their turf under attack from enraged POC. As we all know, liberals have cynically passed many American blacks onto areas outlying the most fashionable districts (e.g. Baltimore being a dumping ground for blacks who once lived in NY or D.C.). But what happens when middle class whites flee and the remaining elite whites are surrounded by POC and foreigners? California in the 1950's and 60's was overwhelmingly favored as a destination for white normies; since 1980 it's been deluged with wave after wave of various ethnicities.

There's already a precedent for white liberals having a change of heart; white NY'ers started voting heavily for tough on crime/no-nonsense mayors in the late 70's and 80's, after Boomers of all types (but esp. blacks and Puerto Ricans) laid waste to much of the city in the 70's. Nowadays white liberal Millennials often mock Rudy Giuliani, since they only remember the tail end of the late 60's-90's crime wave, or they don't remember the crime wave at all.

BTW, I'd say that London is going to be as important as L.A. as a canary in the coal mine. New York and London are the two most important cities in the (Western) world. Right now the leadership of all three cities is increasingly delusional and irresponsible; although in NY, whites are much more likely to disapprove of DeBozo than POC are (once again, we find out that the East Coast is less retarded than the hippies Out West). Some of this can be put down to 1970's/early 80's NYC having already been thru a dystopian period, and some NY whites still haven't forgotten what run amok liberalism did to their city. Meanwhile, London has a Muslim (!) mayor and Los Angeles, since 1973, has had these mayors:

1) An American black
2)Two whites
3) A Hispanic (who looks Mexican)
4) Another Hispanic (part Jewish, though)

Recent elections also have had turnout of 1/5 of the voting eligible pop. or lower; I would think this is because of the rootless population, high social inequality, and utter cynicism. Perhaps a surge in crime (or ethnic unrest) would drive turn out up.

Feryl said...

Speaking of high crime eras, check out what a Republican gov. did in 80's California:

"Deukmejian largely made his career by being tough on crime.[citation needed] When he was in the legislature, he wrote California's capital punishment law. As a candidate for reelection, in 1986 he opposed the retention election of three Brown-appointed justices of the California Supreme Court due to their consistent opposition to the death penalty in any and all circumstances. One of them (the best known) was Rose Bird, the first female Chief Justice of the Court (and the first one to be voted off). Deukmejian proceeded to elevate his friend and law partner, Malcolm M. Lucas, from Associate Justice to Chief Justice, and appointed three new associate justices. Under Deukmejian, the California prison population nearly tripled – as of December 31, 1982, the total prison population stood at 34,640 inmates. By the end of 1991 the population had reached 97,309.[citation needed] He increased spending for the building of new prisons."

If another era of greater danger/unrest happens, will enough whites be left in CA to support this kind of crack down?

Feryl said...

Oh, as for the idea of a racial inferno talking hold eventually, trust me the liberals won't listen, or will just blame white racists for halting progress.

I do know that widespread racial mixing is highly unusual throughout world history, and the opposite of mixing, ethnic segregation with occasional periods of annexing, cleansing and/or enslavement is much closer to the norm. Lately on Isteve it's come out that for decades Western academics have adamantly denied that the presence of artifacts atypical for a given civilizational epoch indicates that the extant population was under some kind of attack or invasion by foreigners, as these unusual artifacts are explained away as the result of mostly peaceful trading and drama-free exchange of I.P.

Genetic researchers have found that these artifacts, in fact, tend to indicate the growing presence of ethnic groups formerly absent or rare in these regions. And such a presence usually means that the newly arrived ethnic group eventually left a heavy genetic imprint on the region, as they often overwhelmed the natives with force and sheer numbers. Englishmen are more Teutonic than Celtic, Brazilians are more European and African than they are native stock, Americans are more European and African than they are the original Mongoloid stock.

Modern Western liberals (well, liberals for several centuries actually) have claimed that ethnic conflicts are due to modern and decadent Caucasian ethnic groups. Tribes of Orientals, Africans, Pacific Islanders, and New Worlders supposedly lived in harmony and respected each other for millennia. Well, bullshit. That would be hard to swallow for past tribes who couldn't or wouldn't reject the presence of foreigners, who grew in numbers and power as time went on.

Feryl said...

I brought up sexual race mixing because, unlike what a liberals seem to think, such a thing in the form of men abusing another's tribes women is actually the most common form of this. But the dominant tribe tends to kill off or drive away so many people (usually men) of the other tribe that the dominant tribe remains heavily of their original stock. Moreover, much of the reproduction that occurs is intra-racial anyway, thus keeping up greater "purity". So in reality, the idea of a population becoming 90-100% a special new mixed race type is quite ridiculous, and though this came closest to passing in some parts of Latin America, there still are a variety of different ethnic types that exist there, with the elite classes remaining heavily European.

Western liberals idealize the racial demographics of Latin America (no more pernicious "one-drop" rules with which to shame mixed race people), but are utterly clueless of the class implications of ethnicity there, and the resulting tensions (Euro elites despising the darker skinned castes).

snorlax said...

@IHTG - Thanks, that guy put it better than I could.

Paul Rain said...

@IHTG: You are a stupid faggot, and stupid faggots like you are the reason that the right hasn't had a victory since overturning Reconstruction. KYS.

Audacious Epigone said...


Is that your account?

Important to separate handicapping odds and preferring various outcomes. The current situation, especially if the market plunges in the coming months--there's a lot that feels like 1987 atm--is going to make the mid-terms difficult for the GOP, and a Democrat recapture will be treated as a mandate to tie Trump's hands in every way possible.


That, in combination with the realization that while South Africa still exists in a global order where the monied nations--white nations--will not look kindly upon economic disruptions. They don't care about whites being brutalized, but they do care about productive farmers being brutalized. If the South African situation faces Europe, the US, or Australia a century down the road, we will not have the benefit of an outside force desiring general stability (beyond China to some extent, but counting on a sinitic savior is a desperate plan).

Paul Rain said...

AE- Given the Chinese opinion on what the Africans have done to ruin what the whites left them through pure stupidity and boneidleness, what will they think of us, who gave it all away on the orders of a few foreign aliens and the feelings of women and 'men' who think like women?

Makes being an African slave in Chifrica sound good.

IHTG said...

Me? Goodness no.

Also WTF Paul.

Anonymous said...

@AE: "...but the transition happened fast in South Africa and there doesn't seem much will to fight back there. Will such will be forthcoming in places where the transition is slower?"

From Infogalactic., "The Statistics South Africa Census 2011 showed that there were about 4,586,838 white people in South Africa, amounting to 8.9% of the country's population."

If you look at the accompanying map from which the above quote is taken showing the population density of White South Africans you can see how dispersed they are.
Little islands of Europeans surrounded by an ocean of Africans.
Given this dispersal and their relatively small population, I suspect they feel resistance is hopeless.
They're frozen with fear.
I don't believe this is new.
I believe apartheid was ended because psychologically they were already defeated,and were hoping for mercy.

From Infogalactic:
"Roughly 111 million ethnic Russians live in Russia, 80% of whom live in the European part of Russia, and 20% in the Asian part of the country."

From Infogalactic:
"At the 2010 Census there were 223,553,265 "White Americans", which includes 26.7 million White Hispanic and Latino Americans. That is, there are 196.8 million "Non-Hispanic Whites" (63.7% of the total population).

As you can see, if we just count Non Hispanic White Americans ,we're
larger than the number of ethnic Russians in Russia,(we alone are a Superpower) and unlike White South Africans, there are large swathes of our country where we are the overwhelming majority.
Our numbers and geographic dominance of entire States and regions give us time and options White South Africans lack.
I know the situation is dynamic and changing due to birthrates and immigration.
I know the age pyramids of the various ethnoracial groups might indicate that things are worse than I believe.
But our situation is definitely not such as to induce despair.
Even at half our current numbers we'd still be around the size of the British or German population.
While Britain isn't a Superpower, it's still a major power.
Germany could be,if it tried.
So the handwriting isn't on the wall for us, yet.
We can still determine what is written.
White American Nationalist must keep the idea of the White American Ethnostate before White Americans.
They must know it's an option .
That it's definitely doable!
Also we shouldn't assume all African- Americans or Hispanic- Americans (the Amerindians) are our enemies.
We can and should work with Nationalist from both groups.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Regarding the manifesto that IHTG linked sounds nice but runs counter to reality. Leftists can and have been blackpilled before. I know, I was a Democrat and a far leftist until about 2013 as well, about the time this guy said he moved to the right. Democrats were thoroughly blackpilled in 2010 when it was clear that Obama wasn't going to be the promised leader that he said he was going to be. Not a surprise that in 2011, OWS was established which re-energized the base again, even if OWS was ultimately a failure. It was enough to partially kickstart the youth interest in voting for Obama before, which was likely key to his 2012 re-election (also, Romney was painfully incompetent).

The ultimate issue with this bill and why it is having a yuge and bigly impact more than other times Trump has taken a beating is just how counter the whole budget runs to everything he ran on in 2016. A similar event happened when George HW Bush ran on "read my lips, no new taxes" in 1988 and then he raised taxes. He lost a lot of support, most of which was siphoned off by Ross Perot, securing Clinton's win. It's very much a similar thing here. 2020 could see some "independent conservative" like Perot talk tough about the borders and how he/she/xe could do the job that Trump couldn't and watch 5-10 percent of the vote go to this person.

Of course it's not worth it to speculate at this point but the Republican base has not handled things like this well historically. Especially his new additions of the white working class who went to vote for the first time in ages or switched over to being Democrats. These people are likely very skittish and will revert back to old habits in 2018 and 2020 if they don't think Trump has done enough. People (like me) voted in Trump because we assumed he would get results. As I mentioned in a previous entry, as of today, Trump is the Dealmaker in Chief who can't actually make any deals. It's not a good look going into a tough midterm.

Audacious Epigone said...

Paul Rain,

They're learning what we do--or did--well, like industrial manufacturing and software development. They're avoiding what we did to destroy ourselves, namely egalitarianism. And they're trailblazing where we have taken no serious actions, like genetic sequencing for intelligence.


Well put, thanks. Nice touch sourcing with Infogalactic, btw.

Random Dude,

how counter the whole budget runs to everything he ran on in 2016

Right, this is the crux of the matter. If we're relying on something similar to 2016 2.0 in 2018, it's not going to happen because almost nothing deplorables voted for in 2016 has happened. Some say Trump never intended to do any of them. I'm emphatically not one of then. I'm of a similar mind to the Derb--he has simply been outmaneuvered, outplayed, and backed into a corner of impotence.

Feryl said...

"A similar event happened when George HW Bush ran on "read my lips, no new taxes" in 1988 and then he raised taxes. He lost a lot of support, most of which was siphoned off by Ross Perot, securing Clinton's win."

There were a number of things that sparked a backlash from about 1988-1992; Wall Street troubles, Iran-Contra, the early 90's recession, the beginning of PC, crack-cocaine causing crime to escalate, etc. Clinton got much less than 50% of the vote. The early 90's was about the last time that many people really did expect elites to do better. Over the last 20+ years people have become very cynical and fatalistic about elites. We expect to be lied to, and we assume that most elites are greedy assholes.

Feryl said...

Also, America didn't want Bush to be Reagan 2.0 in the 90's. We were ready to move on. But since Clinton didn't even bother attacking elites who were quite vulnerable by the 90's, he didn't inspire much enthusiasm among lower class voters, thus his fairly mediocre performance. Clinton ended up being Reagan 3.0 with less defense spending, more welfare reform, and a balanced budget. And thus would politicians whore most Americans out for seemingly ever more, as elites have grown more opposed to accountability precisely as Americans have become more aware of the corruption.

Trump had the right idea, being the first strong candidate since Perot to be a real populist (e.g., intent on cutting down on practices used and abused by elites). However, Trump hasn't been able to fulfill most of the agenda; had he done so he would've been the first president since Nixon who genuinely was not slavishly devoted to protecting most or all elites.

Rien said...

"This will not end well"

Just spell it out man!

Option a) Unchecked growth: the sub saharans will eventually rule the world at 10 billion+. This collapses the world economy as there is no maintenance no new development, social unrest gives way to wars, nukes are used, plagues break out, and world population plummets to way below 1 billion. A slow rebuilding may occur if the world is still liveable for human beings.

Option b) Restricted growth: I call this the Chinese solution as westerners don't seem to want to go this way. A virus is developed that makes black sterile. Black population dwindles and possibly only survives in isolated spots at a few million here and there. The virus is eventually neutralised, but black population is kept in check (by other means, for example by letting them live in their own countries, with sealed borders (both directions).

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Right, this is the crux of the matter. If we're relying on something similar to 2016 2.0 in 2018, it's not going to happen because almost nothing deplorables voted for in 2016 has happened. Some say Trump never intended to do any of them. I'm emphatically not one of then. I'm of a similar mind to the Derb--he has simply been outmaneuvered, outplayed, and backed into a corner of impotence.

I agree because Trump started swinging right out of the gate and then was shut down by the ninth circuit. He had full intentions to do what he said he was going to do. It all went downhill from there.

That doesn't mean Trump is blameless as he has made several mistakes that only have made it tougher on himself. Compound that with the fact that he ran on being an elite dealmaker who would make sure his agenda was included and welp...

Audacious Epigone said...


Heh, you did it for me.

Split the difference: Stop the aid, stop accepting refugees (sink the boats), let Africa be Africa. Sure, it'll be a nightmare for awhile as the human population adjusts back downwards, but ultimately its more humane than any other options.

Random Dude,

The biggest surprise to me is that it doesn't appear that he's had a close inner circle that he really feels like he is able to trust. From the outside looking in, Stephen Miller seems to be the closest to that. Bannon was way too egomaniacal to fill that roll, and Trump didn't have that much of a history with him, anyway. We heard plenty early on about how Trump was friends with Roger Stone, but that looks like it was hyperbole put forward by Stone.

Feryl said...

Stone is kind of a hatchet man, more than he is a policy wonk. He's stayed out of the neo-con/Bush orbit, since they first gave Nixon the boot, then they forced their way onto Reagan's regime and fed him BS. Nixon and Reagan came from the libertarian West, the Bushes were Hawkish Yankees. Papa Bush is career CIA whose fingerprints were all over Watergate and the ensuing media frenzy. Then John Hinckley (who came from an elite family with Bush connections) tried to kill Reagan after Reagan "stole" the nomination from Bush , and also after the nationalist Reagan advisors butted heads with the globalist war monger Bush faction. I understand that the assassination attempt happened shortly after a major argument between the two factions that was settled by Reagan siding with his loyalists.

Stone called out the Pentagon coup as it was happening (esp. after Kelly started bragging about "babysitting" Trump); plus, he's been down this road twice before and he of all people saw it happening yet again. The integrity of our elites has been in a free fall since the early-mid 70's, and there's no way in hell that the Pentagon is ready to sing a different tune. Their retarded war mongering, "nation building", and treasonous support of high immigration levels have destroyed the long term viability of a GOP with broad appeal; the GOP is playing to an already niche and ever dwindling audience.

There are only so many times you can win the White House with a base of Evangelicals, gun nuts, and muh tax cuts nerds. But try telling that to people who are 50, 60, 70 years old and still act as though the cultural and demographic shifts of the past two or three decades never happened. America isn't the good guy anymore. Deal with it. Under 40 voters think that both sides have let us down way too many times. It's not 1985 or 1995 anymore, where one side is good and the other evil. Trump brought in tons of young voters, Independents, and cross-overs by calling out the Pentagon and the policies they've supported. That angered GOP die hards, esp. in the more Western states where people were turned off by Trump's gaudy persona (remember, strivers in the East are more materialistic, strivers in the West are more into lifestyle and spirituality; think yuppie vs hippie). That appeal indicates that he pushed the right electoral buttons, while gashing a big GOP nerve (anything associated with "national security"). Well, if the Bush era didn't cause heads to roll at the Pentagon, then what will? Every single candidate that's more conventional, all 15 or whatever, got bitched out by Trump in the primaries. The GOP's doddering "heroes" like Papa Bush and McCain were rolled out to moan about Trump not being a Real Patriot, and nobody cared.

If Democrat promoted race wars didn't do us in, then the Pentagon dragging us into military and policy schemes that almost no one asked for would.

Feryl said...

Remember when Robocop, Terminator, Halloween, etc. were exciting ideas? Like for the first 5 or so years after the original. Then the money men start demanding sequels and adherence to a formula. With each sequel, the movie becomes a paler and paler imitation of the creativity and atmosphere that fueled the first movie. Nobody likes Alien 3 as much as the first two movies.

The GOP has been giving us sequels to the war policy and immigration policy of 2003. And they're about as popular as Transformers 5, or Police Academy 7.

Anonymous said...

Immigration from Africa except for refugee Whites must be utterly cutoff. As to africa in general a nice clean plague selecting for low IQ would be a mercy.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> The biggest surprise to me is that it doesn't appear that he's had a close inner circle that he really feels like he is able to trust. From the outside looking in, Stephen Miller seems to be the closest to that. Bannon was way too egomaniacal to fill that roll, and Trump didn't have that much of a history with him, anyway. We heard plenty early on about how Trump was friends with Roger Stone, but that looks like it was hyperbole put forward by Stone.

I think Trump is the kind of guy who is friends with everyone but trusts nobody. Probably due to the cutthroat nature of New York City real estate.

Trump's fanbase also forgets that in the mid-90s, he was almost finished. The only thing that kept him going was some emergency loans from friends and family. If he didn't have that lifeline, we wouldn't have heard from him again. So not only is Trump fallible, he has come close to wiping out before, even in a domain that he has spent his whole life in.

Again, not willing to throw in the towel yet on him. However he should hopefully be taking stock in the fact that he has very few workable options in front of him to turn it around. He's done it before, we'll see if he can do it again.

234567 said...

@ Feryl -

Check your age bias. Many of us late boomers have been aware of all of this for decades. This isn't something we will be able to vote our way out of, as that is rapidly becoming riggable on a massive scale. Not that there has been much but controlled opposition for most of my life, but since Reagan it has gotten so bad that it really doesn't much matter if you go red or blue. Congressional voting record tells the story.

IF we don't get trotted to war (what if they had one and nobody came?), then the best hope is that we do get that financial reset, and a hard one. Will not be pretty, but it will focus people on reality, which many are trying to escape from in myriad ways. it also brings government into very sharp focus, which is long overdue. Collapse the dollar and things get ugly, but as in Argentina, the people find a way. And as in Argentina, the assholes always find their way into any government, and quickly. Argentina has swapped out twice, and the assholes still reside in government.

These immigration demographics are nice to validate what people feel or think based on their reality, but how do they stack up to places like Colombia or Malaysia? Who else is doing this type of crazy immigration? Who is not, besides Hungary and China?

It's a bitter pill, but rolling along BAU changes nothing in the favor of normal citizens. There is quite a tracj record for that, so I prefer to bring on the chaos and change.

BTW - I'm 65 Feryl, and a LOT of us get this. My "retirement" got shut down in 2008, so I am still working. I really think retirement was a bill of goods sold to us to make us work even harder.

With the thoughts you'd be thinkin said...

I think the driver will be Paris and France instead, the constant terrorism is I think is going to be increasingly influential in people's thoughts.

Audacious Epigone said...


The GOP has been giving us sequels to the war policy and immigration policy of 2003. And they're about as popular as Transformers 5, or Police Academy 7



the best hope is that we do get that financial reset, and a hard one

Emphatically agree.