When America lays herself down to sleep

Image source

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?'

Image source

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.

Ancient ziggurats

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?

 Image source

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.'

Image source

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).

Source: Audacious Epigone 

 

 Source: Audacious Epigone

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?

Source

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-Hispanics?  Russo-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.