12 June 2012

When America lays herself down to sleep



The more able and the less able: they have always found a way to co-exist on planet earth.  Conquest and forced tribute was one way. Conquest and slavery was another.  Conquest and political domination was a third.



But such were the ways of the past.  Today, for the first time in recorded history, a world-wide consensus holds (more or less) that naked conquest is Not Alright.  Now that the inhabitants of every square inch of the globe have a fellow in a swivel chair at the U.N. claiming to speak in their name, colonialism is no longer the done thing.

But the More Able cannot help but dominate the Less Able.  The Cold War took foreign conquest underground, and what had once been done by plunking down a flag and a cross was now pulled off via spies, discreet assassinations, coups, death squad training, and the like.




Even that great chess match drew to a close, and we are today left with one bloated power whose military tentacles circle the globe. A power who patrols the world's seas from the South Pacific to the Gulf of Aden to the Caribbean.  Despite this pseudo-empire on which, like her 19th-century cousin's, the sun never sets, America does her best to paint a rosy face on world dominance.

But no empire lasts forever. The vultures have been circling for years squawking of the U.S.'s demise.  The question is not 'will she fall?'--what goes up must come down--but 'when?' and 'what comes after?' Who shall be the 21st century's 'more able?'



International relations, like nature, abhors a vacuum.  Should the U.S. tumble from its perch, others will rush in to fill the void.  Those unaware of human biodiversity--almost all mainstream analysts today, including those at Stratfor--are missing a major bit from the toolkit, and their analysis suffers for it.  Only amateurs are left to ask the race-realist questions.  Two valid ones are, 'is Euro-America on the decline?' and, if so, 'who shall rush in to fill the geopolitical void?'





I. Is Euro-America vanishing?


It is likely that at the height of their powers, the Sumerians, Egyptians, or Assyrians couldn't have imagined future generations picking through the rubble of their vanished greatness.  Yet here we are.



The U.S., great though she is, can hardly be called an Anglo-Saxon country today, at only 64% European, with even this group a patchwork of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Mediterranean, Slav, and much else.  Yet as it was founded and launched into greatness by Anglo-Saxons, and continues to be dominated by their institutions, we shall refer to it as such.

As it happens, Anglo-Saxons have dominated the planet for the last 200 years.  They are one of the most adventurous and inventive ethnic groups of the modern age.  Albert Gehring fawningly spoke of 'the dogged resistance of the English soldier' and 'the indomitable energy of the Yankee speculator.'  What could lead such a powerful people to its demise?


1) Too much immigration?

Since before the U.S. was a nation, colonists fretted about the burden of newcomers.  Back then, the worry was economic rather than ethnic: The indigent were a strain on the public purse.

As far back as 1639, the settlers at Plymouth, Massachusetts, required the removal of foreign paupers and by that requirement perhaps began the practice of deportation to Europe from this country.(1)

The question is still salient, but others have appeared. Here are the U.S. Census numbers from 1790 to 2010:

 

Last year, more than 50% of babies born in America were non-white.  If current immigration and fertility trends continue, where is the U.S. headed?





The Brazil model

Some suggest the U.S. will slowly become 'Brazil North'--a small white upper class, an enormous brown mixed middle, with Amerindians and Blacks at the bottom.  A rise in violent crime to the point where all middle-class people live in gated (15-foot barbed wire with armed guards) communities, while the poor masses subsist in giant slums of corrugated tin shacks.  Still a dynamic economy, but far higher levels of corruption and crime than we know now.  Possible?



Maybe. One must remember, though, that historically Iberian colonisers have been much more willing to marry natives or Africans than NW Europeans have.  That 'great brown middle' in Brazil is the result.  Is it likely that NW Euro-Americans will start massively marrying outside their race/ethnicity?  Even if they don't, will overwhelming immigration levels make it a moot point?

Also: The white upper class in Brazil is not made of exactly the same stuff as its U.S. counterpart. The former is a mix of Portuguese, N. Italian, German, Levantine, Japanese, and others, and its culture reflects that.  So in a future 'Brazil North,' there's no reason to believe the white power structure in America would behave exactly the same as its South American neighbor's.


Demographic submersion model

The demographic submersion model could look like an Australia, where an alien people numerically overwhelms the natives, or (more likely) a Detroit or a California writ large--Whites fleeing the onslaught of a non-Euro invasion.  In the second case though, to where do the fleers flee?


Which leads to...


Civil Unrest --> Ethno-states model

Often in the past, we've seen centuries of slow migration leading to different ethnies living more-or-less peacefully side by side, only to watch--BOOM--as one spark sets the whole thing alight.  Everyone scatters to re-settle among their co-ethnics (with possible mutual slaughter along the way).  The break-up of Yugoslavia comes to mind, as does the partition of India.  Germans and Slavs were moved around in huge numbers mid-century while their great powers rattled sabers, as were Turks and Greeks in their enormous 1923 'swap.'


Could the U.S. follow in their steps?  It has never been as ethnically fractured as it is today.  Demographically speaking, we are on terra incognita.  At the very least, it seems unlikely that all Americans will continue to sit idly by as the Southwest becomes ethnically cleansed of non-Hispanics, and the inner cities ethnically cleansed of non-Afros.   Could ethno-states be in America's future? De facto, if not de jure? (I stay over here, and you stay over there, and no one gets hurt?) Possibly. Or...


Civil War --> Ethnic cleansing model

Again, history is rich with examples of co-habiting peoples where the old-timers turn on and chase out the newcomers, by fair means or foul.  The Armenians from Turkey, the Indians from Uganda, the English from Zimbabwe, the Jews from just about everywhere...

When it comes to deporting illegal immigrants, the U.S. has never shied away, from 1798's Alien Act to 1954's Operation Wetback to the record 400,000 deported by the U.S. just last year.  Deporting legal immigrants, however, would be something new. (We have interned but never expelled them.)

Can one imagine a future U.S.A. where mass deportation of legal immigrants exists?  Absent an internal war or some other terrible crisis, it seems unlikely.  Of course, many things exist in America today which sixty years ago would have seemed unlikely in the extreme.



2) Dysgenic breeding?



Uncontrolled immigration is not the only way for a people to, in the words of Thilo Sarrazin, 'abolish itself.' Breeding practices can change its character in remarkably short time.


The least able having the most children

The well-bred have always feared the hordes of the ill-bred, but until recently Malthus saw to it that the former left as many if not more descendents than the latter.  At its inception, the modern welfare state's champions included a number of avid eugenicists. They supported it only on the condition of sterilization for the insane, feeble-minded, alcoholics, and criminals.  These men (correctly) imagined that modern medicine being what it is, the offspring of the less able risked quickly outnumbering those of the more able, leading to mass degeneration.  Proof of this can be seen today in the U.K.'s white and the U.S.'s black underclasses.

The most able having the fewest children

Audacious Epigone has shown that fertility is lowest among the most educated, but not necessarily among the most intelligent (if those most intelligent are also religious).



 


JayMan has shown a definite dysgenic breeding effect in Afro-American women, whose smartest have the fewest children.




For intelligent Euro-America in any case, if there is a demographic future at all it appears it will be a highly religious one--and even these folks will be but a small minority of the country.


Late parenthood a danger?

Some have tried to connect today's apparent epidemic of autism with advanced maternal and/or paternal age.  Could the unprecedentedly late ages at which so many educated women are bearing their first child have an overall effect on the fitness of the 'smart fraction' of the population?




3) What will rush in to fill the void?

Of all the geopolitical predictions now bandied about, the U.S.'s decline--even if it's a slow one--does seem likely.  America has taken on the dimensions of empire, and all empires meet their end, be it with a bang or a whimper. 

As the Berlin Wall fell, optimistic pundits predicted a transition from a 'bi-polar' to a 'multi-polar' world. What they got was 'uni-polar.'  When the military tentacles of the U.S. do finally begin to loosen their grip on the planet, who might slide in to take their place?  'Their British cousins?' one might be tempted to say, but if there is any sure bet today it is that the British are flushing themselves down history's toilet as fast as they possibly can. No, it will be someone else. Another Anglo-Saxon people--Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders?  Possibly. Or perhaps...


Germans?



Bar none the most potentially powerful country in continental Europe.  Were always smart, organized, and ruthless, but only unification in 1871 allowed them rise up and unleash their full strength on Europe.  Forced to give up her military (and most of her heavy industry, which she later got back) after WWII, this country has wallowed in contrition for the last sixty years, even chaining her financial fortunes to profligate southern Europe to prove what a 'team player' she is. It won't last. When the last of the properly contrite Germans die off and the guiltless take over,...?  The 1890s all over again? Or will Sarrazin's prophecy come true?


Russians?



Many count Russia out, as her birth rate is plummeting and she's swimming in alien immigrants.  The boundaries of the empire have shrunk since Soviet times, but Russia is still geographically the largest country on the planet, flush with natural resources, and trails a number of client states. Russia has also been discreetly reaching out to Germany, China, India. Seems unlikely Western-style liberal democracy will catch on here; autocrats can have a lot of leeway.   She has put the fear of God into her neighbors for centuries, and as America weakens so will its influence in Central Europe.  The big bear shaking itself out of hibernation?


Chinese?



China has had the technological means to conquer the planet for centuries, so why hasn't she?  Some outsiders saw in the 'Middle Kingdom' a smug self-satisfaction that all they needed was already theirs, so no reason to go searching for more.  China turned inward while Europe turned outward.  And today? An intelligent, disciplined powerhouse that is about to replace Uncle Sam at the top of the food chain? Or an internally shaky powder keg more likely to fall back into one of its endless civil wars?  Its back-door colonization of Africa, in any case, has eyebrows raised (and a U.S. military response already beginning).  Do the Han have what it takes?


Japanese?



Like the Germans, the Japanese used their late 19th century industrial boom to reach out and grab themselves some lebensraum. And like the Germans, they lost it all after WWII and were left militarily neutered.  But both peoples are powerfully organized, intelligent, and diligent.  Its demographic situation seems dire, but Japan is a very crowded island.  With a weakened America out of the picture, could it reach again for its colonial dreams of yore?  Or is this a people destined to 'abolish itself' through sheer lack of baby-making?


_______?

Some other group?  As Cochran and Harpending have pointed out, natural selection has been racing along these last 10,000 years, and we've no idea where it's going next.  Greg Cochran (h/t HBD Chick):

“[That human evolution has continued] means that people were different in the past, enough that we’ll have to take it into account when trying to understand history. Ultimately it may cause us to radically reevaluate some of our historical ideas — the past may never be the same again.”

The take-away is that people in the future will be different too. How? Can we imagine new ethnic hybrids, like we ourselves once were? Anglo-HispanicsRusso-Chinese?  Is there some potent mix waiting to happen and invade a new geopolitical niche? Or are we on the cusp of genetic engineering which will render all such questions moot?

*       *       *

When Euro-America lays herself down to sleep...

No one knows what will happen. It might as well be asked of any of history's great ethnies. One observes the great works of Antiquity while looking in puzzlement at the current occupants of Rome and Athens.  Or struggles to reconcile their epic conquests of yesteryear with the listless peoples of latter-day Baghdad and Cairo.  Portugal's globe-circling colonial empire was a marvel, but has shrunk today to just a blip on the map.  Can we doubt that future schoolchildren will find it hard to reconcile the mighty Anglo-Saxons of yore with the pitiable remnant left before their eyes?


A happy ending is in the eye of the beholder.  While it is nearly sure that Anglo-Saxons will outlive their glories, it is a comfort to some if they survive at all, even in mongrelized or unrecognizable form.  What is sure is that human groups will, as they have since we've been walking on two feet, continue to mix and mingle in unpredictable ways.

The English were a cocktail (Celtic-Germanic-Scandinavian) that ended up wildly successful.  But can't the same be said for the ancient Hellenes? And Romans? And Persians?  The powerful Han Chinese are themselves a mix of older groups, as are the Japanese and the Slavs.  From the zoomed-in view, the demise of our ethnic group, or as Sailer calls it our 'slightly inbred extended family,' is a tragedy.  There is simply no way around it.  From the zoomed-out view, the observer of planet earth waits with bated breath to see what ethnic brew the little hairless monkeys will come up with next. 

Cold comfort, though, for me and mine.

7 comments:

Paul sent me said...

So remarkably provocative and thoughtful. The idea of the United States as Brazil North makes me think there will be a soft, but unpleasant, landing for all of this.

Civil war and civil unrest are not the same thing. We'll have plenty of the latter as we adjust.

Anonymous said...

I think the basic formula for external national success is average IQ times one over the corruption index (as a proxy for a bunch of other things) times size.

(For internal success it's just average IQ times 1/CI.)

Britain became very externally powerful for a time despite being average in size and one among many in terms of high average IQ because they had a big advantage in 1/CI.

America could do the same thing on a larger scale despite a lower and gradually lowering 1/CI because it was so much bigger.

Denmark couldn't despite having the IQ and a much higher 1/CI because they were too small.

(Holland was just big enough and expanded before Britain but was too small to compete when Britain followed suit soon after.)

In the end i think immigration (in ancient times mostly via slavery) brought many civilizations down because it reduced the nation's 1/CI.

(This isn't to say immigration has to be bad just that as well as needing to maintain average IQ you also need to maintain average 1/CI which requires slow immigration and assimilation.)

If correct and the destruction of the west is the inevitable consequence of mass immigration lowering the average IQ and/or the average 1/CI then i think that means no-one is likely to recreate American global hegemony in the short term because no-one will have the three factors
- average IQ
- 1/ CI
- size / numbers
in the quantities needed to produce the kind of total score the US had in the period 1850-1965.

Germany and Russia are maybe potentially the closest right now but it won't last unless they halt immigration.

Japan, Korea, Taiwan are maybe next in line after that and with currently brighter prospects than Russia or Germany if their 1/CI continues to move in the right direction (i think i'll call it DI for Denmark index from now on).

(If it was studied enough i think DI will turn out to be a number directly related to having a population that is both maximally homogenous and maximally exogamous i.e. not only all the same ethnicity but also where as much as possible everyone is equally related to everyone else. Hence why smallish homogenous countries with a long history of exogamous marriage like Denmark, Iceland etc have the highest DI.)

China and India may have the IQ and size but not the DI imo (at least not yet).

So barring some kind of Anglo (by which i mean northern or northernified euro) resurgence i think that leaves a multi-polar world (possibly with a vastly reduced carrying capacity).

One possible exception to that could be a Russo-German axis but it would be very short-lived if they can't control their borders.

Longer term if i had to bet i'd bet on a medium sized island with a high average IQ population and a DI moving in the right direction *if* they were in a world where the competition from bigger countries was relatively weak i.e. Japan, but only if they learn from the Anglo mistake vis a vis immigration. Even good immigrants need to be allowed in slowly and assimilated.

M.G. said...

Paul sent me--
Thanks for the kind words, glad to see a Paul Kersey fan here. My blog name is an homage.

Your point about 'war'/'unrest' is a good one, and I've now changed the wording in the post to reflect that. Basically I think an 'unrest' period followed by more or less voluntary ethnic re-settlement is more likely than an internal 'war' with massacres, forced re-settlement, and/or deportation. Only time will tell.

An argument can be made that a racial unrest period is already underway with the mass black-on-white violence we're seeing today. Something there will have to break sooner or later.

M.G. said...

I think the basic formula for external national success is average IQ times one over the corruption index (as a proxy for a bunch of other things) times size.

That sounds reasonable. 'Size' in these days, of course, means your country's borders, but in the past those little states like England, Holland, etc. increased their size (and access to natural resources) many times over with their colonial acquisitions. Today that's a no-no, but I think it'll make a comeback at some point.

In the end i think immigration (in ancient times mostly via slavery) brought many civilizations down because it reduced the nation's 1/CI.

Yes, this was Tenney Frank's and many others' argument about ancient Rome, that they shouldn't have imported loads of eastern slaves and then manumitted them like mad.

(This isn't to say immigration has to be bad just that as well as needing to maintain average IQ you also need to maintain average 1/CI which requires slow immigration and assimilation.)

This gets trickier all the time. In the part of France I live in, there are many Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian surnames, but they don't really seem to stand out from other white French. Of course, the future of Arabs in France or Pakistanis in England--will it look the same?

no-one will have the three factors--average IQ, 1/ CI, size / numbers--in the quantities needed

The size question interests me greatly. In this Pax Americana it's easy to get lulled into forgetting that most of history has been about land grabs. Who knows if in a 50- to 150-year timespan, intelligent peoples with small landmasses won't start claiming/invading other territories again.

Germany and Russia are maybe potentially the closest right now but it won't last unless they halt immigration.

Agree, and here again, is it possible Germany makes another land grab? We're living in this little historical interlude of 'keep your hands to yourself,' but only because the American military monster keeps a lid on everything. Besides that factor, two things I really see preventing new conquests are:

(1) Null fertility in the first world. Colonialism/lebensraum was about giving some space to your growing population, but those peoples today are at near zero pop. growth.

(2) Nukes. Some people think the nuclear arms race did more than anything else to put a stop to world wars. Don't know if that's true, but the members of the nuclear club seem (for now) disinclined to go to war with each other. Will that hold?

If it was studied enough i think DI will turn out to be a number directly related to having a population that is both maximally homogenous and maximally exogamous

Very much agree. Multi-ethnic and esp. multi-racial nation-states are inherently unstable, but so are highly inbred ones (esp. FBD inbred). And of course the 'which groups' is important too--Co-existence between Bantus and English is fundamentally different than co-existence between Flemish and Walloons, but both can cause problems.

Longer term if i had to bet i'd bet on a medium sized island with a high average IQ population and a DI moving in the right direction [...] i.e. Japan

A fair bet. If Japan starts having kids again and the U.S disappears from those waters, watch out east Asia.

(Also, if you're not Greying Wanderer, you have an uncanny similarity to his thought-provoking commenting style.)

Anonymous said...

"'Size' in these days, of course, means your country's borders"

In priority terms i was thinking size as in minimum numbers i.e. the Scandinavian countries having too few, and also relative numbers vis a vis the global competition but yes physical size and resources after that

.
"Yes, this was Tenney Frank's and many others' argument about ancient Rome, that they shouldn't have imported loads of eastern slaves and then manumitted them like mad."

And the critical thing imo is it doesn't matter if they're good immigrants. As long as there are too many at once the decline in collective group cohesion will outweigh any benefit.

.
"In the part of France I live in, there are many Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian surnames"

I guess it's a function of the rate of immigration and the rate of assimilation where the second needs to be higher than the first. The more different a group is culturally and by religion the slower the rate of assimilation will be - if at all - and even then only with great pressure.

I expect there are ways to test for willingness to assimilate.

.
"Today that's a no-no, but I think it'll make a comeback at some point."

If there's no hegemonic superpower i think it could make a comeback very fast in places like Africa and more gradually elsewhere depending on the regional superpowers (or lack of same).

.
"intelligent peoples with small landmasses won't start claiming/invading other territories again."

Of the industrialized countries i'd expect the Israelis to do so at the first opportunity, China with Taiwan maybe, maybe Russia over somewhere etc.

.
"is it possible Germany makes another land grab?"

I think the western countries will take a while to adjust while everyone else gets into a wild free for all.

.
"two things I really see preventing new conquests are:
(1) Null fertility
(2) Nukes."

Yes agree.

.
"Co-existence between Bantus and English is fundamentally different than co-existence between Flemish and Walloons, but both can cause problems."

Yes, unless you're a cohesive whole (more or less) you'll never be operating at maximum synergy even if the component parts are themselves both okay. If they're not both okay then it's much worse.

.
"(Also, if you're not Greying Wanderer"

I'm really lazy about typing a name despite writing long comments - tis odd.

Anonymous said...

Integrity of citizenship is important to the world for the simple reason such integrity is the source of all knowledge about what works and what doesn't work in social organization. When citizenship ceases to represent the principles upon which a society is founded, the experiment represented by that society is destroyed and consequent events in it uninterpretable chaos. Experiments need controls and if there is one thing we learned from the Enlightenment and Protestant Reformation it is that revelation must be accompanied by experimentation.

The American Experiment has already been severely disrupted by early 20th century immigration from portions of Europe that supported theocracy during the Protestant Reformation and Enlightenment. This resulted in the centralization of powers during the 20th century replacing the laboratory of the States with strong central governmental control, in direct contravention of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution,. This then resulted in the immigration liberalizations of the last half of the 20th century and the present condition in which massive amnesty programs for illegal immigrants are routinely proposed and passed as a means of importing not only labor but voters and activists from cultures that have no history of successfully resisting theocratic rule. That this pro-theocratic liberalization came primarily from the founding culture of Western theocracy, Judaism, is an important, if heretical, topic under the current theocracy that dominates thought in the United States. See http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/paper/ABERNET3.PDF "Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review" by Prof. Kevin MacDonald. It is always the case that the most threatening ideas to a theocracy are heresies -- and this is no exception.

JayMan said...

I made a blog post response to this:

Dark Times Ahead? | JayMan's Blog