In the media there is much noise about “white extremists,” a group said to be a threat to our (largely imaginary) democracy. There indeed exists an ill-defined collection of racial advocates covering a spectrum from militias in the woods of Idaho to groups calling themselves the Dissident Right, Alt Right, Race Realists (they are not), and White Nationalists (hereinafter WhyNats, not too accurately to indicate all collectively).
As things stand now, they are hardly a threat to anything. The militias are too few to amount to much and the rest a cross between a hobby and a social club. Their websites, such as Vdare.com have substantial circulation but advocate neither crime nor violence. Their intellectual leaders, highly intelligent and of academic respectability, are much given to conservative romanticism, dreaming of an impossible “white imperium.” Dangerous, these latter, I think are not.
The appeal of White Nationalism is clear. It is a reaction against horrific rates of crime by blacks, cities made into no-go zones, unnecessary immigration from the south, imposed social engineering, degradation of standards, destruction of a valued culture, and the racial discrimination embodied in “affirmative action.”
WhyNats point out, correctly enough, that an all-white country would not have had slavery, perhaps the Civil War, Jim Crow, race riots, burning cities, rates of crime a wonder of the world, degraded education, and so on. The elders of the movement remember a white world in which children could play blocks-wide hide-and-seek after dark in safety, leave their bikes anywhere and find them on return. This world existed. I was there.
But we live in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. While WhyNat opposition to crime and immigration addresses real problems, their obsession with race and reverence for whiteness smacks of the Roman senate of 450, in late collapse. Some write of establishing a white dominion in which Eurowhites would have their proper place as masters of the world. But this is not an age for the thinking of Cato the Elder (“China screwenda est.”) Other races and peoples rise. We don’t have to like it but we have to deal with it.
So what is the state of racial affairs in the Great Squirrel Cage north of Mexico? Could massive unrestricted immigration from Latin America or black crime and dysfunction lead to a social explosion, as WhyNats believe and sometimes hope? What influence do WhyNats have? What is the actual racial composition of America and where might it be leading?
Facts:The US is now thirteen percent black, eighteen percent Latino and climbing, six percent Asian and climbing, and two percent Jewish. (These latter of course are white but WhyNats seem to regard them as another race.) Over half of children eighteen and under in America are not white, making a non-white majority an arithmetic inevitability. California is more Latino than white. Texas has an absolute Latino majority. Hispanics now vote in numbers that have both parties courting them. No white imperium is likely to come of thi in Americas.
Nor abroad, where Whites diminish both in influence and as a proportion of world population, the white colonial dominion has receded faster than it grew. Europe tears itself apart with wars and invites heavy immigration from Africa. The economic and technological centers of gravity of the world move eastward. China is more powerful than the Europe that recently ruled the world, Japan than any but perhaps Germany of the minor countries that collectively we call Europe. Psychometrists point out that East Asians are more intelligent than Eurowhites. A white imperium, anywhere, seems unlikely. Whether it would be a good idea doesn’t matter. It isn’t going to happen.
Latinos? America on average seems insufficiently concerned about them to mount any concerted policy. While many Americans and some states strongly oppose immigration, others don’t. Multitudinous “sanctuary” states, cities, and other jurisdictions protect illegal immigrants. Some order their police not to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The mass deportations of tens of millions desired by many WhyNats are nonsensical. In any event most Latinos, being citizens, cannot be deported. Being angry about this doesn’t change it.
A problem for WhyNats of deportational leanings is that Latinos simply are not behaving badly enough. In California, relations between Latinos and their outnumbered white neighbors can best be described as boring. Even in Texas, opposition seems more to immigration than to immigrants, with no race riots or lynchings. None of this makes deportation, or other concerted policies against Latinos, at all likely. When something isn’t going to happen, it doesn’t matter whether it would be a good idea.
While WhyNats object to immigrants on practical grounds, often justified, many of their complaints are nonsensical. Some defects of immigrants are said by WhyNats to be genetic and immutable: high birth rates, the carrying of diseases, the throwing of trash everywhere, low intelligence, and illiteracy. Little of this is true, and none is immutable. For example, the CIA World Factbook puts literacy in Mexico at 95 percent, total births per woman at 1.73, average age at first birth at 21.3. (Note: In recent years the total births in the Fact Book has been at very barely over 2.1, replacement. The 1.73 figure seems odd. In any event, the population is not exploding.) The Mexican middle class, among whom I live, is no more criminal than the white American middle class. Mexico is not remotely a place of adobe huts and donkeys. For example, the country has a great many universities and symphony orchestras. A booming business in medical tourism exists with gringos thronging across the border for good and far cheaper care. All of this can easily be confirmed online. Check any Mexican city in Google photos and look for trash.
The California Institute of Technology, perhaps the country’s most demanding technical university, does not practice affirmative action. According to the federal National Center for Education Statistics, the proportion of Latino students has risen from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 22.3 percent in 2021. (No stats given for WhyNats.)
Since the sixty million Latinos show no sign of leaving, it might seem reasonable for WhyNats to accommodate to reality and encourage amicable relations. They don’t. They can’t. Their real objection to immigration is to racial intermarriage, which they call miscegenation, probably because of its faintly obscene ring. They regard it with squeamishness and anger. In today’s America, this attitude is thought disgraceful, though of course most racial, ethnic, and even religious groups have opposed outmarriage.
Who opposes what makes no difference. Latina girls are often disastrously pretty. Speaking native American English–language being a major marker of difference– and pecking at their cellphones like everybody else they will not seem very foreign. Young Anglo men will not be repelled. At all. Even a little. Talking about whether intermarriage is or isn’t foul and against God is as pointless as discussing whether to accept gravitation.
Finally, WhyNats seem to form their notions of Latinos by focusing on recent arrivals, who in fact are poor, badly educated, seldom speak English, and are a genuine burden on society. They are a compelling argument for closing the border. However, closing the border does nothing about Latino citizens north of said border.
Further, America depends on Latin labor in agriculture, construction, the hotel industry, restaurants and, increasingly as receptionists, secretaries, and bank clerks. The business world, wanting the labor, quietly favors immigration. Assimilation runs apace. Few Americans will greatly object to Latino dental hygienists, bank tellers, and sales clerks who speak English. Employers are not about to fire valued employees on political enthusiasms of others. Maybe they should but certainly they won’t. Follow the money.
The tepid reaction to the Hispanic presence is astonishing, given the magnitude of the influx. The pot, it seems, is melting, and will.
Unless, of course, Washington encourages immigration beyond America’s remarkable willingness to tolerate it. Stay tuned.
Note that WhyNats, despite considerable public support, have little influence. For example, they have failed to have the Dreamers made illegal, much less deported. Failed to build The Wall or close the border. Failed to have birthright citizenship abolished, or to deport enough illegals to matter. Even if all of these measures were enacted, the sixty million would remain. If I were a WhyNat, I would say, “We need to deal with reality, because it will assuredly deal with us.”
The political dilemma for WhyNats is that if they promote assimilation, which would make for domestic tranquility, intermarriage will rresult. Discouraging intermarriage would require maximizing hostility between whites and Latinos. A or B, but not both. Some might reason that the country does not need another undeclared race war. The only way to prevent amalgamation would be for Congress to institute strict racial segregation and make intermarriage illegal. To call the prospects of this minuscule would be vastly to exaggerate the probability.
Blacks= These are another matter entirely. Here WhyNats have a stronger case with much more potential traction. Blacks, not non-whites in general, are America’s racial third rail. It is here that racial battle lines will be drawn, politically or otherwise. Asians are not fond of blacks, who commit all the attacks on them that one reads about. Latinos don’t like them. Many, many whites who do not call themselves WhyNats are very, very angry over the hooligan antics of America’s darker citizens. Blacks are ready to fight. They are not alone.
This isn’t fixable. The American Africans amount to a foreign country distributed through the United States, embodying an utterly alien culture. They control the cities. Bloc voting gives them powerful influence in elections and their oft-demonstrated willingness to burn cities if crossed makes government at all levels loathe to confront them. Their violence keeps others out of their regions. Whites kowtow, rewriting the past and vulgarizing the culture.
This can’t go on forever. As conditions in America grow worse on many fronts, it could blow. Federal control of the media and heavy penalties for speaking out about crime and who commits it keep the lid on now. But, or so I think, the numbers who don’t call themselves WhyNats, but increasingly agree about crime, grow.
Unlike immigrants, blacks actively oppose assimilation, those essaying it being called Uncle Toms. They use contrived names for their children–Deewan, Latoya–to maintain distance. The ghetto, the heart of black identity, has almost no contact with the surrounding country. Any police reporter, as I long was, knows that you can ride for entire shifts in these regions and never see a white face.
There seems no solution. Illiteracy, illegitimacy, drug addiction, and crime prevent rapid melding of black and white,, which in any event nobody seems to want. These failings are hidden to the extent possible by the media. Hiding a problem doesn’t make it go away. High school “graduates” reading at a second-grade level will be unemployable for the next fifty years. For a variety of depressing reasons, the ghettos are intractable. Blacks show no sign of solving their problems themselves and whites can’t do it for them.
At the same time blacks, more politically influential than WhyNats, if not actually controlling the culture, at least powerfully and destructively flavor it. This may yield a ramshackle, juryrigged, miserable racial standoff, but not a white imperiu
This may yield a serious racial explosion. The Floyd riots revealed the depth of free-floating hostility in America, the potential for generalized uprising. The level of black crime, often racial, is such that, coupled with cultural immiscibility and apparent incapacity to live in accord with the norms of America’s other races, could blow up.
Asians? They are the polar opposites of blacks. Six percent of the country, they are smart, successful, abide by the law and, in general, have the virtues of whites but in greater degree. They dominate America’s high-end high schools and the best technical universities. Perhaps worse from a WhyNat point of view, Asian women run to smart and beautiful. This matters. Unsurprisingly, Asians assimilate well and rapidly. This is not reversible.
They provide a grossly disproportionate share of scientists and engineers, chiefly in the hard sciences and information technology. Blacks and Hispanics are almost absent in these fields. This, combined with the declining quality of American schooling and low rate of entrance of whites into STEM fields, suggests another reduction of the influence of whites, in America and then in the world. No imperium here.
Jews, at two percent of America, control finance, the Ivy League schools, publishing, the media, Hollywood, and the State Department. For reasons mysterious to me, their former intellectual predominance has gone largely to Asians. However, friends in New York tell me that Jewish donors keep the symphonies alive while the musicians increasingly are Chinese.). Others, it seems, have to maintain white European culture.
So: In sum, Latinos predominate in the Southwest, blacks control the cities and the culture, Jews and increasingly Asians the intellectual fields. Whites fade. America is turning darker, cannot control its cities or prevent crime, loses international influence, depends increasingly on nonwhites both for high intelligence and blue-collar labor. How a white imperium will come of this is not clear.
Why the hostility of WhyNats to other races? Conservatives all, they share the usual uneasiness of that species with the unfamiliar and different. The antipathy is not exclusively racial. In the NativistRevival of the Twenties, those of largely English ancestry were hostile to Catholics, Italians, and the Irish. In their revulsion against the foreign they differ from liberals, who tend to prefer a cosmopolitan world.
Yet it is worth noting that opposition to immigration is often justified. Many WhyNats or fellow travelers are blue collar and have genuine reason for disliking immigration from the south. A CNN executive in Washington does not have to worry about her job being taken by a recent immigrant who will work for five dollars an hour. A white guy in Flint does. Another reason I think, is that most WhyNats know almost nothing of other races and cultures, especially Latinos. If I believed Mexico to be as most WhyNats apparently believe it to be, I too would regard immigration with horror.
WhyNats have never lived in, say, Guadalajara, a modern city of excellent medical care, books stores of the first order, internet, many universities, and on and on. WhyNats disproportionately see only uneducated border crossers. Mexican cardiac surgeons and systems programmers do not swim the Rio Bravo.
Whither now? WhyNats lack sufficient popular support to effect anything so dramatic as racial cleansing in an increasingly cosmopolitan country. They also suffer from having politics guaranteeing failure. In particular they see the world as divided between whites, a master, or at least superior, race, and everybody else. An argument can be made for this in terms of five centuries of white dominance in science, technology, art, music, government, and so on.
However, their attitude requires them to regard with contempt the Chinese, Japanese,, and Koreans. These rapidly and visibly replace whites as the preeminent peoples of the age. Recognizing only two categories, white and nonwhite, makes racial compromise impossible. For example, it puts an aborigine in a loin cloth in Australia in the same category as a Chinese theoretical physicist. In an increasingly intermixed world this is not practical politics.
But WhyNats are in a yet more difficult position politically. Slavery and colonialism, chiefly engaged in by whites, suffer intense opprobrium today. Whites other than WhyNats can say, “Yes, these were great evils but no living American has ever owned or been a slave., and all other peoples have engaged in slavery in the past, so bugger off.”
But WhyNats cannot afford to criticize slavery. They almost have to justify it. Some even argue that blacks liked being slaves. This will not fly politically today. Conservatives all, WhyNats esteem the Founders–Washington, Lee, Jefferson, and so on. All held slaves. Of course it was what WhyNats call the Historic American Nation, meaning themselves, who introduced slavery in 1619 as part of the colonial pillage then in progress. To speak ill of slavery would be to accuse these revered men of what is widely regarded as a hideous crime. It would also give support to anti-white factions active today in politics, such as BLM, the Woke, and the Reverend Al
The future? My guess is that white nativism will die out as it did after the Twenties, when Irish, Catholics, southern Europeans and so on assimilated. “Mexicans” born and raised in America, completely acculturated, will be regarded simply as Americans. The country will not divide into whites and everybody else, but…blacks and everybody else, and therein lies…what?
Ultimately WhyNats are doomed because they think in terms of race, not politics, yet they cannot change since race isboth immutable the center of their view of the world. They see the races as being in Darwinian struggle for survival, comity being defeat. Politically this is impractical. The non-white category includes Australian aborigines and Chinese nuclear physicists, the Indian CEOs of IBM and Microsoft and Brazilian indigenes living in loincloths in the rain forest. Lumping these together as one category seems…well, imaginative. It assuredly isn’t going to work. It is not clear that race is immutable in a socially practical sense. Latinos born and raised in America will become culturally American. and, as college students, will seem far less alien that a high-school dropout from Wheeling.
Where arewe headed? To hell in a handbasket.