Political Correctness has psychologically castrated us. This is true not just in America, but in almost all Western nations. People think that to even wish to continue in existence as a people is an act of racism and wickedness. Not everyone thinks that way, obviously, but enough do to mentally cripple us. And most conservatives don't understand what we're dealing with. They see the apparent liberal double standards and think that by pointing them out we can stop what's happening. But they don't understand that these double standards aren't really double standards, but a single standard aimed at the heart of our civilization.
You'll often hear conservatives note that it's a double standard to treat La Raza respectfully (McCain plans to speak at their convention), when a comparable white organization called "The Race" would be unthinkable as a respected group. Hillary Clinton can go to Wellesley and boast about how wonderful it is to have a college of, by, and for women, when men's college are now almost extinct, and any man who graduated from one and bragged that it was great to have a place that excluded the gals would be begging forgiveness within hours. When Don Imus got in trouble for his stupid off-the-cuff remark, he went on Al Sharpton's radio show to apologize (!). And, as I noted, this isn't just an American phenomenon. Belgium banned a protest march against the Islamization of Europe, but permits any and all verbal attacks on Christianity. You can scream from loudspeakers in France or England or Sweden that non-Muslims are infidels who deserve to be driven from the face of the earth, but you can get fined and forced to appear before a race hate tribunal if you even so much as suggest that Islam is pushy (ask Brigitte Bardot, who just paid a nearly $25,000 fine for saying that).
Conservatives often point out all these things and think that by noting the double standard, liberals will be shamed somehow into changing their ways. What they don't get is that to liberals those are not double standards. Liberals have a single standard, which is the destruction of our civilization. So it really isn't an inconsistency at all to permit attacks on Christianity but not on Islam, or to permit non-white interest groups but not white interest groups, or the permit female-only institutions but not male-only institutions (since men are the primary physical defenders of a civilization they need to be feminized, and exceptions are permitted, of course, for Muslims or for racial minorities as needed).
So liberals cannot be shamed into seeing that these things are double standards. We aren't completely gone yet, of course. Obama got into some trouble for having a race-hating minister. But nowhere near the trouble a white candidate would have gotten into if he went to a comparable white racist church for twenty years, gave that minister thousands of dollars, and called him his mentor. A white who did that would not only have been driven from the presidential race, but would have been forced to resign from the Senate in disgrace.
If I were to appear on a televised forum, and were asked my opinion regarding the likelihood that America will cease to have a white majority circa 2050, what could I say? If I said race doesn't matter and it's fine with me if we're a minority, I'd be praised at work the next day. If I were to say that it's a wonderful thing, and assert that whites are evil and deserve to lose their majority to more enlightened minorities, I'd be praised beyond measure the next day. People would be falling all over themselves to associate with me. But if I said, "You know, America is a part of Western civilization. It's good for any country to have some minorities because they bring some new ideas to the table. But everyone deserves their space, and I don't really think we could lose our white majority without it altering America into something different, as always happens in any nation when its majority is racially transformed."....well, if I said that all hell would break lose and I'd be hauled before a tribunal, ordered to recant and apologize, and then fired. I could say that China should remain Chinese or that South Africa should take care to always retain its black majority, but I'd be an outcast if I suggested whites should retain control of even a single neighborhood in a far corner of Iceland.
You asked how all this happened. Well, it would take volumes to explain it fully, but here's one brief notation. The emphasis the West (particularly the north European nations, including our founding British people) has placed on individual rights is used against us, and when combined with Political Correctness, it becomes devastating. Let's say, for example, that there's an institution that doesn't admit women. Liberals will argue that it's "discriminatory" and that any qualified person should be admitted regardless of gender. So we consent to that, and a few qualified women make it in. But it still remains overwhelmingly male, for the simple reason that men are better on average than women at the task at hand. We're then told that while individuals may vary in ability, it's unspeakable...even unthinkable...to suggest that groups vary at all. So if women are half the population, but only 8% of the people who qualify to get into the police academy, then the admission criteria for the academy must be discriminatory. We then have to lower the standards, implement quotas, and permit female-only (but not male-only) police organizations, etc.
This is the inevitable result of being unable to openly recognize that some groups simply are different than other groups. It doesn't mean that one group is inferior, just different, and those differences have real world effects. Japan absolutely, positively could not remain Japan as we have historically known it if someone other than the historic Japanese people dominated that country. It doesn't mean that Turks are "inferior" to the Japanese to say that, just that the Turks are a different people.
And if our Western nations end up with non-Western majorities, we will cease to be Western nations. I'm not a Gore Vidal fan (obviously!) but he was the type of scatter-shot person who occasionally said something profound. He noted that Norway had enough empty space to admit millions of people from overpopulated, starving nations (I think he mentioned Bangladesh at the time) but that if they did that they'd commit suicide, because those millions would vote to take the country away from the native Norwegians. Now, some people might say Norway could do this if they did it slowly and assimilated the immigrants to Norwegian ways. That Bengals could come in slowly, and by the time they were the majority they'd be devoted Norwegians ready to run Norway exactly as it would have been run if the demography hadn't changed at all. But that really doesn't work in the real world.
There are numerous reasons for that. First of all, we know from real world experience that some groups outperform others at certain things. If Bengals didn't pass the entrance exam for med school in proportion to their population numbers, or ended up being arrested in numbers greater than their overall numbers would indicate, they'd form a racial block to demand quotas and an end to racial profiling. So from the outset, they'd be an adversary presence in the country, at odds with the very culture itself. Not all of them, but as their numbers grew they'd force changes in what Norway as a nation means. That's just one example.
But beyond that, think of it this way. As much as I love Japan, I can't take pride in that country the way I can take pride in America. That's because my ancestors had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of Japan or the formation of the Japanese culture. America was still a growing land by near the end of the Ellis Island era. Immigrants who came here from Europe, even from non-British lands after the founding, took part in the nation's expansion to the Pacific and the populating of its open spaces. But we're now an established nation. We act astonished that some of the people coming here now from Nicaragua (or wherever) don't seem to care about the national heritage. Conservatives feel that if we just got rid of multi-culturalism everything would be fine, but you can't get rid of it when you have significant diversity. It's like those libertarians I once debated who said it would be okay to have open borders if we didn't have a welfare state. The problem is, even if we got rid of welfare state tomorrow, once we opened the borders the country would fill up with people who would vote it back in. If we got rid of multi-culturalism tomorrow, once the minority population got big enough they'd vote it back in.
We need to get over this idea that simply preserving one's heritage and borders is "racist". It isn't.
I apologize for being long-winded but I'm notorious for long posts!
You should respond that it is not likely and cite Bureau of the Census projections that the white population of the US will be 72.1% in 2050.