From 85% White to Minority in Our Own Country by 2050

Between the falling birth rates, chain migration, anchor babies, and the planned demographic changes by our social engineers, non-whites will be the majority by 2050 or sooner if Democrats get back into office. They would open the borders again. There is no reason to think otherwise. If you think they will be nice to white people, you are sadly mistaken.

For some reason, Democrats decided white people can’t have their own country. Possibly, it’s because they see them all as future Democrats they can manipulate due to their neediness.

But I still hold that we cannot discount culture and other environmental factors.

Thanks for your analysis! But I deliberately wanted to exclude the cultural / environmental factors! I was interested purely in the genetic component.

Your answer ("I.Q. of 94") is, indeed, sensible!

I suppose that one could formulate the explanation as follows: The child's I.Q. would not be the pure mathematical average of "90" because the parents - despite having (supposedly) well-defined I.Q.s of "80" and "100," respectively - are derived from the same wider population, which displays a distribution peaking at "100." If instead we took two other parents - the mother from a long-established and hence stable population of 80s (i.e., where the Gaussian curve peaks at 80), and the father from an equally stable population of 100s - then the offspring would have an I.Q. of 90.

But since, in reality (or, at least, in this thought experiment), the two parents come from the same basic "stock," we would expect (besides the mere mathematical average) the "regression towards the mean" to take effect.

Right? (You obviously have more competency in this field than I.)

But if we took two individuals from entirely separate gene pools (as far as that is possible in the human species), the "regression to the mean" would have less effect, richtig?

Regards,

Our only way out is to make good citizens. When was the last time you heard a discussion on citizenship. Being against immigration doesn’t take you anywhere. The goal is good citizenship. Be one and teach others.

The basic prerequisite for doing what you propose is to start with a small-enough inflow so as to be able to handle it!

Your proposal is all very noble-sounding - but impossible to implement if our nation is flooded by tens of millions of people in large part unwilling to be assimilated.

Indeed, the prevailing (leftist) narrative propagated by the Dem Party and the mass media and higher education is that the newcomers shouldn't listen to the "oldtimers" or allow themselves to be "trained" by them! On the contrary: They are being exhorted to cling to their foreign folkways and languages and to spit on native Americans (who are all ray-cists!).

Regards,

You are framing civilization as biologically tethered to race, whereas history suggests it is driven by the transmission of ideas, institutions, and values.

History shows that “Western civilization” isn’t killed by demographic integration; it’s weakened when we abandon the meritocratic and cultural standards that define it in favor of identity-based alarmism. I don’t believe the West is a fragile inheritance that expires with a change in demographics; I believe it’s a standard that survives as long as people choose to uphold it.

The Western tradition has always been an evolving synthesis, not a static demographic closed loop. Equating cultural survival with a specific racial composition ignores that civilizations have historically thrived or collapsed based on their internal stability and adaptability, not just their ethnic makeup.

You say it isn’t comparable, but that’s precisely the point: every generation views their own era’s demographic shifts as a unique, existential ‘onslaught’ that previous generations didn’t have to face.

When Benjamin Franklin warned that German immigrants were ‘swarthy’ and would eventually make Pennsylvania a ‘colony of aliens,’ he believed it was an unprecedented threat to the English culture of the colonies. When the Nativists of the 1850s formed the ‘Know Nothing’ party, they were convinced that the influx of Irish and German Catholics would destroy American republicanism and end Western civilization as they understood it. They were just as certain of that ‘onslaught’ as you are today.

You’re arguing that this time is different because of race, but that assumes race is a static, objective pillar of Western civilization rather than a social construct that has been fluid for centuries. By refusing to engage with the historical reality of how the ‘American mainstream’ has repeatedly redefined itself under pressure, you’re missing the actual mechanism of how this society has survived and thrived for over two hundred years. If you think the outcome this time will be ‘cataclysmic,’

Culture and shared American values should be enforced - no matter the ethnic origins of the peoples

My point is if people are going to throw the term “white” around, the least they could do is provide a definition. Many hispanics consider themselves white. I’m guessing the author does not concur.

I would rather not use the term - or any mention of "race" - at all!

But the leftists force us to do so!

It would be like arguing with a Nazi who is constantly making absurd references to "Aryan blood" or "inherent Jewish degeneracy." I would have no choice but to either summarily refuse to converse with him at all using his perverted terminology, or attempt some form of stilted discourse without, every five seconds, mentioning how absurd his terminology is.

If it were suddenly prohibited to include a check-box for "race" on any govt. form, school admissions form, job application, etc. or to mention it during job interviews, public debates, etc. - Dems would immediately and automatically lose about 90% of their rhetorical steam.

I hold my nose and reference "race" or "White" only because, in a rhetorical space created and dominated by the leftists, the only other alternative would be to steadfastly refuse to even "touch" the topic (since the terminology is so ill defined).

I use such terms here at FR mostly to cast scorn upon the leftist usage of the terms.

"The beginning of wisdom is the naming of things by their proper names." - Confucius

Regards,

MarlonRando — those perfectly illustrate the prevailing attitudes of the Founders and leaders of the 18th and 19th centuries. They are historically significant, but they actually reinforce my point rather than refute it.

They demonstrate that the ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’ boundaries were constantly being drawn and redrawn. The fact that figures like Franklin or Jefferson categorized people based on those rigid, narrow definitions—even excluding groups we now consider fully ‘white’—proves that these labels have never been static.

My point in bringing up the historical anxiety surrounding German and Dutch immigration wasn’t to suggest that the 1800s were a period of enlightened equality. It was to highlight that the ‘American mainstream’ is a moving target. The people who were once viewed as ‘swarthy’ like the Germans or culturally incompatible eventually assimilated into the very category they were initially excluded from.

My point remains that we should focus on the cultivation of shared values and a common culture—those are the true pillars of a stable society, not the rigid maintenance of past racial definitions.

No such thing as White pride. That’s comical. You have accepted the programming well. Beep Boop.

If one side (the Left) are constantly attacking you (a person of N. European heritage) for being "ray-cist" or "privileged" or what have you: You have the choice of either saucily tossing your curls and refusing to debate them (on account of the speciousness of / self-contradictions inherent in their logic and the ambiguity of their terminology) or to attempt some form of discourse. And unless you are willing and able to go all the way back to First Principles and explain and demonstrate to them, on a meta-level, that the are committing fundamental "category errors" and the like, then you'll have to fight them on their ground.

Even ceding the leftists some rhetorical ground and accepting their ludicrous definitions of "White," etc., it is possible to beat them. You can eventually demonstrate that they are employing a "circular argument" or such - all due to the fact that their basic terms are inconsistent.

Regards,

MarlonRando when a cell begins to divide in the womb, brother, culture doesn’t cause a brain cell to form, and for thousands of connections, dendrites, to reach out and bring order. It’s the proteins manufactured in the cells under the administration of the coding of DNA. The brain is a machine, not a social construct. Culture can get in the way. White people, when left alone, can do great things. Genes. Genes. Genes.

Marlon - you are describing the hardware, but you’re ignoring the software that actually runs the machine.

Yes, biology provides the foundation—the ‘brain as a machine’—but that machine requires specific cultural inputs and environmental conditions to reach its potential. History is full of civilizations that had the same human ‘hardware’ but stagnated for centuries due to cultural decline, while others flourished because they fostered innovation and critical inquiry.

When you say ‘genes are everything,’ you overlook that even the most brilliant brain will fail to produce a Newton or a Da Vinci if it grows up in a culture that suppresses the individual, lacks a scientific tradition, or provides no framework for advancement. Culture isn't just a ‘social construct’; it is the essential catalyst that determines whether that biological potential remains dormant or becomes an engine for progress. Focusing on genetics while dismissing the cultural values that actually drive achievement is missing half the picture."

wardaddy I don’t know why whites beat everyone else on the civilization race

Climate
Geography
Neanderthal or other hominids dna

Sigh.. - When Northern Europe was still largely tribal and illiterate, the world’s most advanced civilizations—Sumer, Akkad, and Babylon—were flourishing in Mesopotamia. Geography (the Tigris and Euphrates rivers) allowed for the agricultural surplus necessary for the first writing, complex law codes, and urban planning.

As I mentioned, while Europe was largely feudal, China was experiencing a proto-industrial revolution, utilizing paper money, the printing press, and advanced metallurgy.

The rise of the West, beginning roughly in the late 15th century, was not a result of biological superiority, but rather a unique convergence of institutional, economic, and geopolitical factors:

Geographic Fragmentation: Europe’s geography—characterized by numerous coastlines, mountain ranges, and rivers—prevented the formation of a single, monolithic empire -- they fought each other. This intense competition between small, sovereign states forced European powers to innovate rapidly in military technology, navigation, and state-building just to survive.
The Printing Press and the Circulation of Information: The rapid dissemination of ideas following the invention of the movable-type printing press allowed for the democratization of knowledge. This created a cumulative feedback loop of innovation that wasn't possible in systems where information was controlled by a priestly or bureaucratic elite as in Mandarin china or Brahmin India.
Economic Institutions: The development of legal frameworks that protected private property, facilitated the accumulation of capital, and enabled global trade through joint-stock companies provided the material resources to fund exploration and the Industrial Revolution.

While genetics certainly influence individual cognitive traits, they do not dictate the trajectory of a civilization. If genes were the primary driver of civilizational success, we would not see the radical shifts in the global distribution of power that have occurred over the last 2,000 years.

Long before the Industrial Revolution, the Indian subcontinent was an economic powerhouse, responsible for roughly 25% of the world’s GDP in the 17th century. The Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1300 BC) established one of the world’s first systems of urban planning, standardized weights, and sanitation. Later, Indian mathematicians developed the concept of zero and the decimal system—the foundational "software" that enabled modern Western mathematics and computing. These were not just scientific curiosities; they were the essential infrastructure of global commerce and logic.

For centuries, China was the undisputed center of technological innovation. By the Song Dynasty (960–1279 AD), China had already mastered sophisticated metallurgy, invented movable type printing, and developed the magnetic compass and gunpowder. When Europeans were living in agrarian societies with limited literacy, the Chinese were utilizing advanced agricultural techniques, canal systems that moved massive amounts of trade, and a meritocratic bureaucracy that served as a model for governance. The idea that Europe has always been "ahead" is a perspective that only holds if you start the clock in the mid-18th century.

Civilizations succeed when they foster a culture of inquiry, maintain stable legal institutions, and participate in a competitive global market of ideas.

These are "software" problems, not "hardware" problems. Attributing the success of the West to a static genetic or climatic advantage ignores the historical reality that these achievements were the product of specific, replicable, and often fragile cultural and political structures—not an inevitable biological destiny. Focusing on "genes, genes, genes" is a way to bypass the hard reality that civilization is an ongoing, fragile achievement that must be maintained through values and institutions

“Culture or race

They are related

Cultures are created by people and generalizing that certain defined peoples have created certain cultures that outperform one another isn’t without substance

Of course the woke will claim Hunter gatherer nose bone culture is more accomplished that moon landing white culture anyhow”

—> you’re mixingup cause and effect —> it’s not that race dictates a culture’s capacity for achievement; it’s that specific environmental pressures and institutional frameworks—like the scientific traditions, property rights, and trade networks that fueled the Enlightenment—create the conditions for innovation.

Suggesting that certain races are inherently ‘better’ at civilization ignores the historical reality that power and technological leadership have always been fluid, shifting to whichever societies mastered the most efficient systems at the time. Reducing human history to a racial hierarchy misses the actual mechanics of why civilizations rise and fall.

read “Guns, germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond

For instance, native Americans didn’t have horses or guns but quickly adopted and adapted to them.

“no, of course Adam and Eve existed. Mankind was split over time into three great families. The families of Shem, Ham and Japheth. i’m a White European and so I’m a member of the family of Japheth. He was worshiped as the god Jupiter: the King of the gods”
????

The Bible describes these divisions primarily by geography, language, and tribe within the context of the Bronze Age world. Japheth is associated with the “islands of the Gentiles” and the northern regions, but the text identifies these descendants as specific groups like Gomer, Magog, and Javan (often linked to the Aegean and Anatolian peoples). There is no biblical evidence to suggest that “White European” as a distinct, monolithic racial category corresponds to Japheth.

Japtheth and Iupiter are not cognates — Jupiter is part of the Indo-European pantheon which includes the Indian Dyaus Pitar, the Greek Zeus Pitar - basically Dyaus = sky, Pitar = father.

You mentioned that Japheth was worshiped as Jupiter. From a biblical standpoint, this would be viewed as an act of idolatry—the elevation of a human progenitor to the status of a god. The Bible consistently rejects the worship of anything other than the Creator, and equating a son of Noah with the Roman deity Jupiter is a synthesis of pagan mythology with biblical genealogy, not a derivation from scripture itself.

btw, you do realize that many Europeans have at least some genes from the Canaanites via the Phoenicians, so partial descent from Ham

Cronos The black pride is because the blacks who are descendants of slaves were made to lose their ancestral ties.

There is no such thing as “White pride”, but there can be Irish pride or Swedish or Genovese etc.

Culture trumps genetics

Marlon No such thing as White pride. That’s comical. You have accepted the programming well. Beep Boop.

"White" is a modern, overarching category that was essentially invented as an umbrella term, whereas Irish, Swedish, or Genovese identities are rooted in specific histories, languages, and long-standing cultural traditions.

It's as daft as "Asian" pride

There is a massive difference in the culture, language, history and yes genetics of an Irishman v/s a Finn vs a Croat

There is a massive difference in the culture, language, history and yes genetics of a Manchu Chinese v/s a Tamil vs an Uzbek the only reason we have "black" as a group is because their ethnic and cultural differences were swept aside by slavery

Africans who come NOW to the USA have a deep sense of their ancestral roots and don't consider the blanket "black" term to have any sense.

What ethnic group are you? 'white' is a skin color

Even in the USA, a person from say Vermont is quite different from someone in Appalachia is different from someone in San Francisco even if they have the same shade of skin color

I dabble in genetics purely from a historical and AI mathematical point of view.

‘historical’ because i find it fascinating how “nationality” changes but the underlying genetics remain:
- so the famous case of Cheddar man having a descendent in Shropshire — Cheddar man was a hunter-gatherer. his descendants merged with Iranian neolithic agriculturists who them merged with Indo-europeans and then became “Celts” (though they most definitely didn’t call themselves that) , and then became Anglo-Saxons, then English
- the TurkiSH people in Anatolia have about 5% to 15% TurkiC blood, but are mainly descendants of people who have lived there for millenia - they were Romans, Armenians, Arabs, Turks, Greeks, Lydians, hittites, Hurrians, Mittani, etc. etc.
- the Netflix show ‘Barbarians’ shows this well when the Cherusci and other Germanic speaking tribes meet and say “the Romans call us Germanii - because they think we are just one, but no, they are idiots as they don’t see how different we are”
- I see the same in the past when the Elamites “became” Persians by merging; when the Sumerians “became” Akkadians, “became” babylonians, Assyrians, then Arabs etc.

ok, but I digress, you asked “But if we took two individuals from entirely separate gene pools (as far as that is possible in the human species), the “regression to the mean” would have less effect, richtig?’

Statistically yes, if you move from a single isolated populated to originally 2 - hmmm... yes, if you have two distinct populations with different stable means, the offspring’s expected phenotype would indeed gravitate toward the midpoint of those two population averages rather than the global mean, as the “regression” is now pulling toward the center of the respective parental lineage.

So then this is no longer a simple case of “within this dataset” but “merge these datasets after finding the mean within each dataset”

And then you add in the complexity of “how are tehse two datasets to be merged” and you have variance there + the variance within the dataset.

so you’ve identified the core of the statistical model, but the premise of ‘separate gene pools’ with fixed, stable IQ means is scientifically unsupported. Human genetic variation is continuous and clinal, not defined by discrete ‘stocks’ with locked-in IQ averages. Even if you were to select individuals from different geographic ancestries, you would still observe regression to the mean because IQ is a polygenic trait influenced by thousands of variants, and there is no evidence that these variants are sorted into distinct, stable IQ-based ‘populations’ as you suggest. The ‘mean’ is a statistical artifact of environmental and systemic conditions, not a biological constant tied to ancestral lineage.

This is a fascinating AI model training subject - at no point can you get - I think - more than 80% accuracy as the potential for variation is so insanely vast that you can’t be accurate more than that imho

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.