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.

These aren’t ‘Marxist’ theories

One of the core tenets of Marxism is that people and societies are solely the product of their social and material environments, that there are no innate differences in people otherwise. This is why the Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao suppressed research in genetics, both human and agricultural.

You echo the same attitudes when claiming that there are no intrinsic differences between a German immigrant and a Somali immigrant to America.

The structures you’re describing—nomadic pastoralist dwellings—were highly efficient adaptations to the specific environmental pressures of the Horn of Africa, just as the early ancestors of many modern European groups lived in structures that would seem primitive by today’s standards

Yes, that's my point exactly. Sub-Saharan African societies are at roughly the same level of technological and social development as Europe was thousands of years ago, apart from the technology and other know-how that was imported to Sub-Saharan Africa by much-maligned European colonial empires.

You are creating a false dichotomy. Recognizing that culture and environment are the primary drivers of civilizational output (like the rise of modern states or the adoption of new technology) is not the same as claiming that biology doesn’t exist.

My argument is that the success of a civilization—such as the rapid modernization of Japan or the dominance of the Comanche as horse-mounted warriors—is evidence that human groups are highly adaptive and capable of immense change when exposed to new tools and institutional systems. You are attributing these outcomes exclusively to an immutable, innate ‘nature,’ which fails to account for why the world’s centers of power and innovation have shifted dramatically throughout history.

If success were purely a matter of fixed, innate racial traits, the power map of the world would have remained static for thousands of years. It hasn’t. The fact that it changes is proof that ‘software’—the cultural institutions, laws, and knowledge a society cultivates—is what allows people to reach their full potential. Ignoring that dynamic in favor of a purely deterministic biological model isn’t just bad history; it’s an intellectual blind spot that prevents you from seeing how civilizations actually function.

Again, you are mixing up ‘the current state of local technological development’ with ‘the innate cognitive capacity of the people living there.’ That is a fundamental error.

The history of technological development is driven by a massive set of variables—access to domesticable plants and animals, the ability to build large-scale irrigation, the presence of navigable waterways, and immunity to regional diseases. These were geographic accidents that allowed for the early establishment of surplus food, which in turn allowed for the specialization—writing, complex bureaucracy, science—that defines what you call ‘developed.’

To say that a population is ‘thousands of years behind’ because their ancestors lived in a different ecological niche is to mistake geography for biology. We see this debunked constantly: when individuals from these ‘less developed’ regions are raised in, and integrated into, high-functioning institutional environments, they frequently go on to achieve at the same level as anyone else.

The key word is “integrated”

Ie they should be made to accept the societal mores and culture of the culture they move to.

If your argument were true—that these people are biologically fixed at a lower stage of development—then we should see a total inability for these individuals to navigate, master, or contribute to modern systems. We don’t see that. We see people from all over the world entering modern, high-tech societies and succeeding. The bottleneck isn’t the ‘nature’ of the people; it’s the lack of the very institutional, legal, and economic infrastructure that you seem to think is a biological trait rather than a societal one

When a muscle of an athlete is exercised and challenged it grows. When the brain is exercise and challenged it grows.
Certain cultures, certain belief systems encourage growth. Certain cultures are stuck is the status quo.

Currently AI is challenging. Some have a Luddite response. The Luddites will have some temporary successes. But long range the Luddites will always be behind the curve.

If your argument were true—that these people are biologically fixed at a lower stage of development—then we should see a total inability for these individuals to navigate, master, or contribute to modern systems. We don’t see that. We see people from all over the world entering modern, high-tech societies and succeeding.

False Dichotomy Fallacy! It is incorrect of you to demand a "total inability" on the part of lower-I.Q. populations. The Gaussian Distribution of I.Q. is still in effect in such populations (their curve just peaks at approx. one Standard Deviation below that of the European ethnic population), so there is still a "tail-end" at the upper edge of the curve consisting of people capable of "navigating the world."

By the same token, people who are only four-and-a-half feet tall can still "navigate the world" - despite living in a world designed chiefly for adults who are, on average, at least a foot taller. They don't "fail utterly."

"We don't see that." We do see minority groups committing many forms of violent crime at multiples of what their proportion of the general population would lead us to expect.

I also suspect that your definition of "properly integrated" would be used as an all-purpose "backdoor excuse" to explain away any of their failures. Sort of a "No True Scotsman" Fallacy! (If, in A.D. 2433, Somalis in America were still a "problem group," you would simply explain that away with "lack of proper integration.")

But my main counterargument is: Why do we (the U.S.) even need to invite these sub-Saharan populations into our country? You admit (tacitly) that "proper integration" is a (politically but also practically) difficult task. But why not simply spare ourselves that task all together by not allowing them in in the first place?

Regards,

“false dichtomoy”

- Statistically you are incorrect because, unlike height, cognitive function is not a static ‘output’ independent of input. You are using the Bell Curve to argue that we should judge groups by their population averages rather than as individuals, which is fundamentally at odds with the Western tradition of judging people on their own merits, their behavior, and their contributions.

I wrote “and succeeding” not “surviving”

THEN, “We do see minority groups committing many forms of violent crime at multiples of what their proportion of the general population would lead us to expect.”

Crime is not a function of genetics; it is a function of the ‘opportunity cost’ of breaking the law and the strength of the social contract. When a society experiences high crime rates among certain demographics, it is almost always a sign that the local institutional framework has failed—that the state is not effectively enforcing the law, that social institutions (like the family and the school) have broken down, and that the ‘rules of the game’ are no longer clearly or equitably applied to everyone

If we have a crime problem, the solution is to increase the effectiveness of the law, restore the importance of the family unit, and demand adherence to civilizational standards—not to conclude that our entire social and legal system is powerless to manage anyone outside a specific genetic circle.

“I also suspect that your definition of “properly integrated” would be used as an all-purpose “backdoor excuse” to explain away any of their failures.”

your suspicions are both wrong and completely CONTRADICTORY to what I have ALREADY written above —

- Post 164: “they SHOULD BE MADE to accept the societal mores and culture of the culture they move to.”

- Post 147: “There must be strict education in American culture and values.”

- Post 141: “Education must be harsher - a very detailed study of history, civics and “ways to behave in this society” coupled with detailed language studies - not just reading 10+ books a year in English but also learning Latin, possibly Greek and at least one other language (can be Czech, can be Cantonese, can be Xhosa) along with more complex maths and science and kids to be FAILED in a year.”

alex "But my main counterargument is: Why do we (the U.S.) even need to invite these sub-Saharan populations into our country? You admit (tacitly) that "proper integration" is a (politically but also practically) difficult task. But why not simply spare ourselves that task all together by not allowing them in in the first place?"

That is an utterly different question from what you started off with:

post 77 "What would be the expected I.Q. of the offspring in this instance (one parent with an I.Q. of 80, the other with an I.Q. of 100)?"

Post 123 "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?"

So, first let's close that --> before we pivot to the political question of immigration policy, you need to address the premise you started with. You asked about IQ and separate 'gene pools' to argue that these groups are biologically fixed at a lower level of intelligence.

I’ve pointed out that intelligence heritability is not a static ceiling and that technological and social development is a product of environmental and institutional variables, not racial genetics. Your response was to shift the goalposts to the political question of 'why take the risk?'

If you want an honest debate, you have to acknowledge the errors in your first line of reasoning:

Do you concede that 'intelligence' is not a fixed, singular racial trait?
Do you acknowledge that your claim about 'gene pools' being fixed and stable is a misunderstanding of how human population genetics and cognitive variance actually work?

Address the science you brought up first; we can discuss immigration policy once you’ve accounted for the inaccuracies in your biological claims

spintreebob When a muscle of an athlete is exercised and challenged it grows. When the brain is exercise and challenged it grows. Certain cultures, certain belief systems encourage growth. Certain cultures are stuck is the status quo.

Currently AI is challenging. Some have a Luddite response. The Luddites will have some temporary successes. But long range the Luddites will always be behind the curve.

'certain cultures / belief systems' -- That is a crucial point. If we look at intelligence and civilizational success as a 'muscle' rather than a 'fixed biological asset,' the entire debate changes.

The Luddites were English people from the north west of England. Their descendants worked in a different, industrialized culture open to change

A successful culture is one that exercises the 'brain' of its people through high standards, rigorous education, and the enforcement of assimilation into a meritocratic system.

That is an utterly different question from what you started off with [...] Your response was to shift the goalposts to the political question of 'why take the risk?'

My later posting was not intended as a continuation of the sub-thread about "regression towards the mean" / the statistics of people of differing I.Q. mating and having children. On the contrary, I thought that we had "tied up" that conversation quite neatly! I even thanked you for your having enlightened me, and also admitted that your understanding of statistics was superior my own! I thus now feel abs. no need to (further) acknowledge anything!

My later posting was not predicated on any assumptions about "miscegenation."

Rather, the man thrust of the argument in my later posting was about the very necessity of importing people (from culturally diverse regions of the world) who "need" integrating.

This was not an instance of me "shifting goalposts," since your various postings presented multiple arguments; I was merely now turning to one of them I had not previously addressed. Namely: Aside from the interesting discussion we had about the I.Q. of offspring resulting from non-assortative mating, you also talked a lot about the need for "proper integration."

In my later posting, I took issue with the basic (unspoken - by you) premise of even needing to import anyone at all. You namely never provided an argument for our even "needing" to import such peoples - rather, you simply (cleverly) took that as a "given."

Regards,

your suspicions are both wrong and completely CONTRADICTORY to what I have ALREADY written above — - Post 164: “they SHOULD BE MADE to accept the societal mores and culture of the culture they move to.” - Post 147: “There must be strict education in American culture and values.” - Post 141: “Education must be harsher - a very detailed study of history, civics and “ways to behave in this society” coupled with detailed language studies - not just reading 10+ books a year in English but also learning Latin, possibly Greek and at least one other language (can be Czech, can be Cantonese, can be Xhosa) along with more complex maths and science and kids to be FAILED in a year.”

What about the much-simpler solution of not letting them in in the first place?

If we agreed that the U.S. has no choice but to let in droves of Third-World migrants (and I most certainly do not!), then, of course, the policies and measures might be worthy of consideration

But I don't accept your (as-yet justified) premise that the U.S. has no choice but to allow itself to be inundated with peoples who could be "integrated" only using such measures!

Regards,

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

which wasn't a closure for the previous thread of discussion.

Alex, we haven’t 'neatly tied up' the biological premise because your current political argument relies entirely on the assumptions you made at the start.

You’re asking 'why we need to import' these populations, but that question is predicated on the view that these populations are inherently dysfunctional or intellectually inferior—a view you established in your earlier posts about 'separate gene pools' and fixed IQ gaps.

If you truly believed that those earlier biological arguments were independent of your current position, you would have no problem conceding the points I corrected: that IQ is not a fixed racial trait and that intelligence is not a biological 'stock' determined by ancestral geography.

You haven't conceded those points; you’ve simply put them in the 'background.' I cannot address your political question about 'need' while your underlying premise remains that these groups are biologically 'lesser'—which is a scientifically inaccurate starting point.

Let’s be clear:

If you stand by your initial claims about 'separate gene pools' and fixed racial IQ, then your argument against immigration is based on biological determinism, not practical policy.
If you realize those claims were flawed, then we can have a real conversation about immigration based on actual social and cultural standards, rather than on the 'biological' stereotypes you introduced earlier.

Which is it?

You are proposing a solution (exclusion) based on the premise you introduced in your earlier posts: that these populations are biologically 'lesser' and therefore inherently unassimilable.

You cannot bypass the fact that your entire argument for why they shouldn't be let in is rooted in your initial claim that they are genetically incapable of meeting the standards I proposed.

If, as you claimed earlier, their intelligence is fixed and their 'nature' is the problem, then your exclusion policy is just a downstream effect of your biological essentialism.

First, you should acknowledge the inaccuracy of your biological claims before we move further to any sensible discussion

So, let's stop jumping around:

Do you concede that your initial claims regarding separate gene pools, fixed IQ, and inherent biological limitations were scientifically incorrect?

Or,
do you stand by your claim regarding biological limitations

If you stand by them, then the debate is about biology, not immigration policy, and you need to provide evidence that holds up to scrutiny.

Address this first before we mvoe on

If success were purely a matter of fixed, innate racial traits, the power map of the world would have remained static for thousands of years

This is a valid point when comparing European civilization to certain Asian civilizations - China, India, Persia etc. These Asian societies have waxed and waned in relative achievement in comparison to Europe at various times - i.e. more advanced than us during much of the Middle Ages, but later stagnating and falling behind.

In sharp contrast, you have the peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa who have really never advanced and never even approached, much less equaled, European or Asian civilization. That points to innate differences, not cultural cycles.

ek_hornbeck This is a valid point when comparing European civilization to certain Asian civilizations - China, India, Persia etc. These Asian societies have waxed and waned in relative achievement in comparison to Europe at various times - i.e. more advanced than us during much of the Middle Ages, but later stagnating and falling behind.

And the "waxing and waning" was not due to genes but shifting social, political and institutional conditions - culture and society in short.

Note also that when the Hittites, ancient Egyptians, Harappans, Akkadians and even the Zhou dynasty China existed, at that time Europeans were primitive hunter-gatherers or just starting agriculture - did that make them 'genetically backward'?? NO

read Conrad's 'the heart of Darkness' - the first chapter to see how civilizational achievements aren't genetic related.

In the first chapter of Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad reflects on the Roman conquest of Britain. He describes the ancestors of the modern 'Anglo-American' population—the people you seem to think are the only ones capable of civilization—as 'savages' living in a 'dark place of the earth,' prone to the very 'dysfunctional' behaviors and lack of technological development that you currently attribute to Sub-Saharan Africa.

If your theory of 'fixed, innate racial traits' were correct, the Roman Empire should have seen those ancestors as a permanently inferior, unassimilable 'problem group' and walked away, or predicted that they would never build a global civilization. Instead, those people were subjected to the 'institutional framework' of Rome—its laws, its infrastructure, and its systems. They 'waxed' from that primitive state to become the architects of the modern world.

Conrad’s point, and the historical reality, is that the 'darkness' is not a feature of the people; it is a feature of the lack of institutional development. When you concede that China, India, and Persia 'waxed and waned,' you are admitting that human potential is tethered to the system, not the blood.

The first commandment and basis of Judeo-Christian thought is”
Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and HAVE DOMINION OVER THE EARTH.

Culture and believers in this tradition
1) Value children and educating children

2) DOMINION means we control the tools and the tools don’t control us. We control the oxen and work animals, they don’t control us. We control the car, the factory. The car or factory does not control us. We control AI. AI does not control us.

My point was that differences in achievement between European and Asian civilizations are cultural, since at times one surpasses the other and vice-versa. In sharp contrast, Sub-Saharan Africa never produced anything resembling a civilization at all. The fact that other groups fluctuate between high and low achievement under different circumstances while Africans are low achievers (collectively) under all circumstances speaks to heredity, not environment.

read Conrad's 'the heart of Darkness'

While I admire Joseph Conrad as a writer (amazing stylist - I think Lord Jim and Nostromo are his great masterpieces - I'd also add Under Western Eyes), he was hardly an expert on questions of human heredity or cognitive testing. The bottom line is that IQ is 70-80% heritable (narrow-sense) and that a group of people with an average IQ of 80 aren't going to collectively achieve what a group of people with an average IQ of 100 can achieve.

Personally, I would have no problem if Latinos and Asians migrated legally

In other words, your solution to illegal immigration is to legalize nearly all immigration. That's like solving the problem of shop-lifting by de-criminalizing or legalizing petty theft.

It doesn't matter if millions of Meso-American peasants and slum dwellers come here legally or illegally, the net result will be the same - America will look like a Mexican or Guatemalan slum. I'm not sure what measures could be take to prevent this by "teaching US values" - putting them in a classroom to stare at pictures of George Washington won't change anything.

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.