Mark Steyn on the World's Most Important Graph
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Follow @steve_sailer
The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Commenters to ignore (one per line)
Commenters to follow (one per line)
Trim Comments?
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSSPastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
I enjoy Mark Steyn’s writing and the way he speaks. The accent is also an interesting mix of gruff and cultured. Like a Canadian Feynman. It is a shame his profile is not higher, but that can be said about quite a large number of people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAUAA8jkF4k
The future of the West.
I detest videos that have no text. Waste of time. Much preferable to scan through (several) pages of text to get the gist of whether the author has anything useful/interesting to say. Mark Steyn’s video is too slow to be relevant/read.
Maybe the cadence is more reassuring for people who are just coming to terms with these realities, but for those already in the know...
World’s most important trend: Well known mainstream conservative pundits like Ann Coulter, Rush, Mark Steyn and Michael Savage (among others) sound more and more like Steve Sailer as time goes on. What did Ann Coulter spending most of her time doing 10 years ago? Defending George W. Bush.
I’ve always considered Mark the best in this category of pundit. I always enjoy listening to him.
I like him on Rush better than Rush; he’s funnier.
“One of the rare surviving heterosexuals in Belgium…”
I loled.
Steyn is one of the funniest guys in the pundit business. Excellent writer too. His piece on the Trump rally he attended in Burlington might have been the best essay on the Trump campaign experience (along with Tucker Carlson's January piece in Politico).
Doesn't follow his insights as far as Steve does, but he's almost always a great read/listen. Fox should give him a spot next to Carlson. Just have to keep him from going too esoteric (a big challenge, as it would be for Steve in a more prominent media position).
Even running the video at 2x speed, Steyn was still too nattering.
Maybe the cadence is more reassuring for people who are just coming to terms with these realities, but for those already in the know…
Of course the graph means something but it probably doesn’t mean just what it seems to.
I recently read a book on the post colonial wars in Africa called ‘The Fate of Africa’ And I also recently saw again the movie “Soylent Green’. What do these very different works tell us.
I would guess that they are predicting not a slow slide into universal misery but rather the prospect of very large scale genocide to normalize the planet. I think it is likely to begin very soon. The first step would be when the Europeans simply no longer rescued the Africans adrift in the Mediterranean. Or they might just tow them back to land. There would be an outcry from the tender hearted but it seems inevitable just as the Trump wall will in retrospect seem inevitable.
The fast breeding poor races will be contained. The only reason the graph climbs so precipitously is because the extrapolation assume that the excess population can escape to West. Simply shutting the door brings that to a halt. So the graph is bound to flatten out starting in maybe ten years when America and Europe have had time to adjust politically to the idea that they will have to turn away refugees.
Many of those turned away will perish and some office seekers will label any such policy ‘genocide’. But it will be very different from the Nazi genocides. Jews in Germany were a tiny minority. Here we are dealing with a smothering majority.
Slavery of Germans ended in ancient Germany when Arminius was able to defeat the Roman in the Teuetburger forest. Slavery declines everywhere that the populations could mount an effective military defense. That’s why Africa became the source of modern era slaves. Africa had no effective armies. That’s still true today. Africa cannot resist the West or the East if they choose to move against them. This means that if public opinion in the West (or the East) decides to solve the African population problem by force – Africa will be powerless to oppose them. It is not likely that anytime soon that the US or China will mount a program to depopulate sub-Saharan Africa but if they do there is little that Africans could do about it.
So the ever climbing graph line is deceptive. The real question is when there is a change in the politics of the developed world that deals with African overpopulation.
We are not in a Soylent Green world. Our time today is about the period predicted in the film but most of the predictions have not occurred. For example in the movie the women are sex slaves called ‘furniture’. In the real world we worry and dither about ‘micro-aggressions’. In the movie everyone is hungry but in the real world we are overweight and have diabetes. The cities of Soylent Green are clogged with air pollution but in the real world in America we have better air and water than ever before.
The reason is obvious – people see a bad future ahead and take steps to avoid it. Similarly we see this graph and will work to keep it from becoming real.
'Rational' analysis of this type, ie whites will someday 'see sense' just simply doesn't work in this instance.
What you ignore is the sheer sub-nematode imbecility and unwarranted arrogance of Economist-types, who basically run the world, and the sheer malicious evil of the left.Replies: @Pat Boyle
I recently read a book on the post colonial wars in Africa called 'The Fate of Africa' And I also recently saw again the movie "Soylent Green'. What do these very different works tell us.
I would guess that they are predicting not a slow slide into universal misery but rather the prospect of very large scale genocide to normalize the planet. I think it is likely to begin very soon. The first step would be when the Europeans simply no longer rescued the Africans adrift in the Mediterranean. Or they might just tow them back to land. There would be an outcry from the tender hearted but it seems inevitable just as the Trump wall will in retrospect seem inevitable.
The fast breeding poor races will be contained. The only reason the graph climbs so precipitously is because the extrapolation assume that the excess population can escape to West. Simply shutting the door brings that to a halt. So the graph is bound to flatten out starting in maybe ten years when America and Europe have had time to adjust politically to the idea that they will have to turn away refugees.
Many of those turned away will perish and some office seekers will label any such policy 'genocide'. But it will be very different from the Nazi genocides. Jews in Germany were a tiny minority. Here we are dealing with a smothering majority.
Slavery of Germans ended in ancient Germany when Arminius was able to defeat the Roman in the Teuetburger forest. Slavery declines everywhere that the populations could mount an effective military defense. That's why Africa became the source of modern era slaves. Africa had no effective armies. That's still true today. Africa cannot resist the West or the East if they choose to move against them. This means that if public opinion in the West (or the East) decides to solve the African population problem by force - Africa will be powerless to oppose them. It is not likely that anytime soon that the US or China will mount a program to depopulate sub-Saharan Africa but if they do there is little that Africans could do about it.
So the ever climbing graph line is deceptive. The real question is when there is a change in the politics of the developed world that deals with African overpopulation.
We are not in a Soylent Green world. Our time today is about the period predicted in the film but most of the predictions have not occurred. For example in the movie the women are sex slaves called 'furniture'. In the real world we worry and dither about 'micro-aggressions'. In the movie everyone is hungry but in the real world we are overweight and have diabetes. The cities of Soylent Green are clogged with air pollution but in the real world in America we have better air and water than ever before.
The reason is obvious - people see a bad future ahead and take steps to avoid it. Similarly we see this graph and will work to keep it from becoming real.Replies: @Anonymous, @Simon in London, @Anon, @Mark Caplan
Sorry, but you’ve got it wrong.
‘Rational’ analysis of this type, ie whites will someday ‘see sense’ just simply doesn’t work in this instance.
What you ignore is the sheer sub-nematode imbecility and unwarranted arrogance of Economist-types, who basically run the world, and the sheer malicious evil of the left.
The fast breeding poor races will be contained. The only reason the graph climbs so precipitously is because the extrapolation assume that the excess population can escape to West. Simply shutting the door brings that to a halt. So the graph is bound to flatten out starting in maybe ten years when America and Europe have had time to adjust politically to the idea that they will have to turn away refugees.
————————————-
The people in charge of the west at this time would condemn themselves for being racist for turning away anybody. The young people dont know anything except liberalism. The only thing that would save Europe would be a civil war, which may happen anyways.
Steve, why haven’t you written a book?
There’s a fair chance it could become a best-seller and have an outsized impact on the public consciousness compared to your blog posts. It wouldn’t be hard, just collate a bunch of your best posts.
I wouldn’t say his video is slow, I’d say it’s methodical. More methodical than most other similarly themed videos, so maybe we’re not used to his level of presentation. For example, pointing out that five out of six of western Europe’s leaders are childless, and beautifully describing this poignant statistic as “Europe’s demography writ small” reveals an insight that many other pundits might miss. Like you, I also have a tendency towards attention deficit (not a put down) and usually want to rush to the conclusion, but I think I’ll always have time for genuine eloquence.
I’ve said it before, but in my personal, purely anecdotal experience, the flow of values has been in the wrong direction.
I grew up in the middling midwest, and my cohort was, probably not racist, but certainly casually, unconsciously HBD, and casually, unconsciously center-right.
Those same people (and by this I mean literally the same people-not the same cohort, not the same geographical and social class-the identical individuals, 30 years older), by and large have swallowed the progressive pill. HBD would be unacceptably racist to them. High school buddies who were utterly grounded now drive Prius. Girls I would have dated go to the women’s march, want to wear pussy hats, and idolize Obama. Soldiers accept women in the rangers, gays in the ranks, and trans people dressing however they want. And these are the middling middle class: families with nearly grown kids and perhaps even grandkids-not childless catwomen, lonely progressive betas, or artists/eccentrics.
It really surprises me to read (as I have several times) that science/engineering folks tend to trend Left. Again, when I grew up, engineers were solidly Right-essentially the nerds from high school saw the real world (and were intelligent enough to understand the real world) well enough to see through the Progressive myth.
In my experience, Trump supporters really are the lower/working class. What Reagan counted on: middle class conservatives (or the silent majority): doesn’t really exist, and isn’t really in Trump’s corner. I think Trump is too radical for them: they still support the system, and Trump is outside of it, and thus they don’t like him. They are probably hoping for some kind of Eisenhower figure: respected conservative that will, within the system, nudge it a little.
In theory, you could say that if things could change that much in 30 years, they could change that much in the next 30. And perhaps they will.
joeyjoejoe
In my view, this makes sense: because of engineers' proclivity for scientific reasoning, which requires a certain reductionism in abstracting out real features of the world, they have a tendency to view society as an optimization problem and will abstract out any significantly human concern that cannot be reduced to quantitative analysis. Traditional concerns - such as family, marriage, nation, and religion - that are not amenable to such an analysis, are viewed as irrational. Efficiency and utility are king. They are therefore on board with an anti-human technocracy and efficient global markets that our liberal elite favor.
This is a non-regional English accent (from the British Isles/Home Counties)..
It threw me off as I thought he was Canadian..
I recently read a book on the post colonial wars in Africa called 'The Fate of Africa' And I also recently saw again the movie "Soylent Green'. What do these very different works tell us.
I would guess that they are predicting not a slow slide into universal misery but rather the prospect of very large scale genocide to normalize the planet. I think it is likely to begin very soon. The first step would be when the Europeans simply no longer rescued the Africans adrift in the Mediterranean. Or they might just tow them back to land. There would be an outcry from the tender hearted but it seems inevitable just as the Trump wall will in retrospect seem inevitable.
The fast breeding poor races will be contained. The only reason the graph climbs so precipitously is because the extrapolation assume that the excess population can escape to West. Simply shutting the door brings that to a halt. So the graph is bound to flatten out starting in maybe ten years when America and Europe have had time to adjust politically to the idea that they will have to turn away refugees.
Many of those turned away will perish and some office seekers will label any such policy 'genocide'. But it will be very different from the Nazi genocides. Jews in Germany were a tiny minority. Here we are dealing with a smothering majority.
Slavery of Germans ended in ancient Germany when Arminius was able to defeat the Roman in the Teuetburger forest. Slavery declines everywhere that the populations could mount an effective military defense. That's why Africa became the source of modern era slaves. Africa had no effective armies. That's still true today. Africa cannot resist the West or the East if they choose to move against them. This means that if public opinion in the West (or the East) decides to solve the African population problem by force - Africa will be powerless to oppose them. It is not likely that anytime soon that the US or China will mount a program to depopulate sub-Saharan Africa but if they do there is little that Africans could do about it.
So the ever climbing graph line is deceptive. The real question is when there is a change in the politics of the developed world that deals with African overpopulation.
We are not in a Soylent Green world. Our time today is about the period predicted in the film but most of the predictions have not occurred. For example in the movie the women are sex slaves called 'furniture'. In the real world we worry and dither about 'micro-aggressions'. In the movie everyone is hungry but in the real world we are overweight and have diabetes. The cities of Soylent Green are clogged with air pollution but in the real world in America we have better air and water than ever before.
The reason is obvious - people see a bad future ahead and take steps to avoid it. Similarly we see this graph and will work to keep it from becoming real.Replies: @Anonymous, @Simon in London, @Anon, @Mark Caplan
I’m amazed you think it’s the *Africans* at risk of genocide. The European races are busy auto-genociding right now. Their leaders would rather exterminate every white European than turn back the boats.
I can't of course predict the future . Stop! That's not quite right. I predict the future all the time. What I can't do is predict the future accurately. It strikes me that Steve's graph is a prediction and so is likely to be wrong. People will read about it and act so as to assure that something else happens.
Blacks are an unnecessary race. If their population increases that won't effect their utility to the rest of us on the planet. Maybe thirty thousand years ago some groups of Anatomically Modern Humans left Africa. Some became East Asians and other became Caucasians. Those who stayed behind remained Africans.
Those who went to Europe met the Neanderthals but the Neanderthals became extinct. It seems to me that evolution has not ended and we may lose another couple of branches of humanity. It's hard to imagine that groups like the Australian aborigines will endure much longer. The English already have eliminated the Tasmanians.
I quiet agree - modern Europeans act as if they are intent on self destruction. I don't understand it but Japan also seems on a route to oblivion. I suspect that there will be some socio-political change. I can't imagine any mere social change improving the prospects for Africans.
We are at the cusp of the biggest event in human history. We will soon have machines that can out think us. So maybe it won't be our decision at all.Replies: @AnotherDad, @Lurker
I loled.Replies: @The Millennial Falcon
Same here.
Steyn is one of the funniest guys in the pundit business. Excellent writer too. His piece on the Trump rally he attended in Burlington might have been the best essay on the Trump campaign experience (along with Tucker Carlson’s January piece in Politico).
Doesn’t follow his insights as far as Steve does, but he’s almost always a great read/listen. Fox should give him a spot next to Carlson. Just have to keep him from going too esoteric (a big challenge, as it would be for Steve in a more prominent media position).
'Rational' analysis of this type, ie whites will someday 'see sense' just simply doesn't work in this instance.
What you ignore is the sheer sub-nematode imbecility and unwarranted arrogance of Economist-types, who basically run the world, and the sheer malicious evil of the left.Replies: @Pat Boyle
No, I’m sorry. You seemed to be happy in your fatal pessimism and I interjected some unwanted optimism.
It threw me off as I thought he was Canadian..Replies: @The Millennial Falcon
He’s Canadian but he spent most of his formative years in the UK.
Steyn is more of a subversively witty dinner party guest than a didact. Not always about efficiency of information delivery.
Isolate the sub-Saharan Africans. Contain the sub-Saharan Africans. Isolationism needs to be thought of as something that the American Empire does to other regions and nations. The American Empire is going to have to isolate many parts of the world from the nations and regions settled by European Christians. The Russians, Chinese and Japanese don’t want these people moving to their countries anymore than we do.
When the current members of the American Empire’s ruling class seek to tarnish someone with the “isolationist” appellation they are attempting to suggest that you want to wall off the United States. The newer and much more relevant use of the word “isolationist” is to suggest that many parts of the world are so troublesome and their populations so problematic that the prudent thing to do is to isolate and contain that population where they are.
Please forgive me for amazing you. I was quite resigned to a Hillary election and then something amazing happened.
I can’t of course predict the future . Stop! That’s not quite right. I predict the future all the time. What I can’t do is predict the future accurately. It strikes me that Steve’s graph is a prediction and so is likely to be wrong. People will read about it and act so as to assure that something else happens.
Blacks are an unnecessary race. If their population increases that won’t effect their utility to the rest of us on the planet. Maybe thirty thousand years ago some groups of Anatomically Modern Humans left Africa. Some became East Asians and other became Caucasians. Those who stayed behind remained Africans.
Those who went to Europe met the Neanderthals but the Neanderthals became extinct. It seems to me that evolution has not ended and we may lose another couple of branches of humanity. It’s hard to imagine that groups like the Australian aborigines will endure much longer. The English already have eliminated the Tasmanians.
I quiet agree – modern Europeans act as if they are intent on self destruction. I don’t understand it but Japan also seems on a route to oblivion. I suspect that there will be some socio-political change. I can’t imagine any mere social change improving the prospects for Africans.
We are at the cusp of the biggest event in human history. We will soon have machines that can out think us. So maybe it won’t be our decision at all.
The West is committing suicide and yielding its territory to nitwit foreigners, who even if they don't flat out conquer must either be expelled or will trash the white gene pool. White people have to radically wake up and then become brutal race partisans to save the West. It looks bleak, for the greatest race in history--just to survive in pockets.
Japan's merely in temporary population decline before bouncing around to some reasonably stable population. (Sort of like your car after hitting a bump.) The Japanese haven't/aren't letting in a bunch of foreigners, and unless they suddenly cuck, a generation out, 100 years out, Japan will still be pleasant prosperous and Japanese. Sure a bit higher fertility now would be good. But it's a crowded island, the higher fertility will come naturally through selection as population pressure eases--wages rise, housing costs fall. And they should probably nuclearize now (put the warheads together and arm their rockets)--off the books if necessary--under the US umbrella, rather than wait until the Chinese reign supreme. But, overall? The Japanese still own their nation. I've got Japan envy.
I recently read a book on the post colonial wars in Africa called 'The Fate of Africa' And I also recently saw again the movie "Soylent Green'. What do these very different works tell us.
I would guess that they are predicting not a slow slide into universal misery but rather the prospect of very large scale genocide to normalize the planet. I think it is likely to begin very soon. The first step would be when the Europeans simply no longer rescued the Africans adrift in the Mediterranean. Or they might just tow them back to land. There would be an outcry from the tender hearted but it seems inevitable just as the Trump wall will in retrospect seem inevitable.
The fast breeding poor races will be contained. The only reason the graph climbs so precipitously is because the extrapolation assume that the excess population can escape to West. Simply shutting the door brings that to a halt. So the graph is bound to flatten out starting in maybe ten years when America and Europe have had time to adjust politically to the idea that they will have to turn away refugees.
Many of those turned away will perish and some office seekers will label any such policy 'genocide'. But it will be very different from the Nazi genocides. Jews in Germany were a tiny minority. Here we are dealing with a smothering majority.
Slavery of Germans ended in ancient Germany when Arminius was able to defeat the Roman in the Teuetburger forest. Slavery declines everywhere that the populations could mount an effective military defense. That's why Africa became the source of modern era slaves. Africa had no effective armies. That's still true today. Africa cannot resist the West or the East if they choose to move against them. This means that if public opinion in the West (or the East) decides to solve the African population problem by force - Africa will be powerless to oppose them. It is not likely that anytime soon that the US or China will mount a program to depopulate sub-Saharan Africa but if they do there is little that Africans could do about it.
So the ever climbing graph line is deceptive. The real question is when there is a change in the politics of the developed world that deals with African overpopulation.
We are not in a Soylent Green world. Our time today is about the period predicted in the film but most of the predictions have not occurred. For example in the movie the women are sex slaves called 'furniture'. In the real world we worry and dither about 'micro-aggressions'. In the movie everyone is hungry but in the real world we are overweight and have diabetes. The cities of Soylent Green are clogged with air pollution but in the real world in America we have better air and water than ever before.
The reason is obvious - people see a bad future ahead and take steps to avoid it. Similarly we see this graph and will work to keep it from becoming real.Replies: @Anonymous, @Simon in London, @Anon, @Mark Caplan
I agree that the graph doesn’t really matter.
Whether Africa has 500 million or 5 billion, the fact will be the same.
TOO MANY will come to the West, and they will keep on coming and they will colonize white wombs and Europeans will come to look like North Africans.
Aesthetics matter. Each people have a special aesthetics that deserves to be preserved and appreciated.
Aestheticide or Phenocide is wrong. Suppose all horses were turned into mules by breeding with donkeys.
Also, race-mixing is self-defeating since it destroys the very object of desire. If Negro men really think blonde white women look best, their mixing with such women will destroy such phenotypes forever. If indeed mixed-race people look best, then black men should go after mulatto women, not white women.
I think this is not a Europe vs Africa + Muslim world conflict but rather a Subsaharan Africa vs the rest of the world conflict. The arabic countries, the near East, South Asia, East Asia, South America, North America – everybody is in danger of getting overrun by Subsaharan Africans
I have a different mental association…
Perfect metaphor for PC.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/804685/crocodile-attack-zimbabwe-pastor-walk-on-water-Jonathan-Mthethwa
I recently read a book on the post colonial wars in Africa called 'The Fate of Africa' And I also recently saw again the movie "Soylent Green'. What do these very different works tell us.
I would guess that they are predicting not a slow slide into universal misery but rather the prospect of very large scale genocide to normalize the planet. I think it is likely to begin very soon. The first step would be when the Europeans simply no longer rescued the Africans adrift in the Mediterranean. Or they might just tow them back to land. There would be an outcry from the tender hearted but it seems inevitable just as the Trump wall will in retrospect seem inevitable.
The fast breeding poor races will be contained. The only reason the graph climbs so precipitously is because the extrapolation assume that the excess population can escape to West. Simply shutting the door brings that to a halt. So the graph is bound to flatten out starting in maybe ten years when America and Europe have had time to adjust politically to the idea that they will have to turn away refugees.
Many of those turned away will perish and some office seekers will label any such policy 'genocide'. But it will be very different from the Nazi genocides. Jews in Germany were a tiny minority. Here we are dealing with a smothering majority.
Slavery of Germans ended in ancient Germany when Arminius was able to defeat the Roman in the Teuetburger forest. Slavery declines everywhere that the populations could mount an effective military defense. That's why Africa became the source of modern era slaves. Africa had no effective armies. That's still true today. Africa cannot resist the West or the East if they choose to move against them. This means that if public opinion in the West (or the East) decides to solve the African population problem by force - Africa will be powerless to oppose them. It is not likely that anytime soon that the US or China will mount a program to depopulate sub-Saharan Africa but if they do there is little that Africans could do about it.
So the ever climbing graph line is deceptive. The real question is when there is a change in the politics of the developed world that deals with African overpopulation.
We are not in a Soylent Green world. Our time today is about the period predicted in the film but most of the predictions have not occurred. For example in the movie the women are sex slaves called 'furniture'. In the real world we worry and dither about 'micro-aggressions'. In the movie everyone is hungry but in the real world we are overweight and have diabetes. The cities of Soylent Green are clogged with air pollution but in the real world in America we have better air and water than ever before.
The reason is obvious - people see a bad future ahead and take steps to avoid it. Similarly we see this graph and will work to keep it from becoming real.Replies: @Anonymous, @Simon in London, @Anon, @Mark Caplan
My understanding is the graph projects that 4 billion Africans will be living in Africa alone in the year 2100. Obviously there will be hundred of millions of people of African ancestry living on other continents too. Those migrants and descendants of migrants, mainly in the developed West, are not specifically broken out in the U.N. population projection.
Prince Harry is doing his part.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/meghan-join-prince-harry-pippa-10418608
More than 10 times as many humans have been alive in human history as there are alive today. The discrediting of the myth he references is a quick Google.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-are-the-demographics-of-heaven/
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/mythbusters/more-people-alive-than-ever-lived.aspx
I can't of course predict the future . Stop! That's not quite right. I predict the future all the time. What I can't do is predict the future accurately. It strikes me that Steve's graph is a prediction and so is likely to be wrong. People will read about it and act so as to assure that something else happens.
Blacks are an unnecessary race. If their population increases that won't effect their utility to the rest of us on the planet. Maybe thirty thousand years ago some groups of Anatomically Modern Humans left Africa. Some became East Asians and other became Caucasians. Those who stayed behind remained Africans.
Those who went to Europe met the Neanderthals but the Neanderthals became extinct. It seems to me that evolution has not ended and we may lose another couple of branches of humanity. It's hard to imagine that groups like the Australian aborigines will endure much longer. The English already have eliminated the Tasmanians.
I quiet agree - modern Europeans act as if they are intent on self destruction. I don't understand it but Japan also seems on a route to oblivion. I suspect that there will be some socio-political change. I can't imagine any mere social change improving the prospects for Africans.
We are at the cusp of the biggest event in human history. We will soon have machines that can out think us. So maybe it won't be our decision at all.Replies: @AnotherDad, @Lurker
Huh? These two couldn’t be more different:
The West is committing suicide and yielding its territory to nitwit foreigners, who even if they don’t flat out conquer must either be expelled or will trash the white gene pool. White people have to radically wake up and then become brutal race partisans to save the West. It looks bleak, for the greatest race in history–just to survive in pockets.
Japan’s merely in temporary population decline before bouncing around to some reasonably stable population. (Sort of like your car after hitting a bump.) The Japanese haven’t/aren’t letting in a bunch of foreigners, and unless they suddenly cuck, a generation out, 100 years out, Japan will still be pleasant prosperous and Japanese. Sure a bit higher fertility now would be good. But it’s a crowded island, the higher fertility will come naturally through selection as population pressure eases–wages rise, housing costs fall. And they should probably nuclearize now (put the warheads together and arm their rockets)–off the books if necessary–under the US umbrella, rather than wait until the Chinese reign supreme. But, overall? The Japanese still own their nation. I’ve got Japan envy.
Put down the Mountain Dew and Red Bull.
I can't of course predict the future . Stop! That's not quite right. I predict the future all the time. What I can't do is predict the future accurately. It strikes me that Steve's graph is a prediction and so is likely to be wrong. People will read about it and act so as to assure that something else happens.
Blacks are an unnecessary race. If their population increases that won't effect their utility to the rest of us on the planet. Maybe thirty thousand years ago some groups of Anatomically Modern Humans left Africa. Some became East Asians and other became Caucasians. Those who stayed behind remained Africans.
Those who went to Europe met the Neanderthals but the Neanderthals became extinct. It seems to me that evolution has not ended and we may lose another couple of branches of humanity. It's hard to imagine that groups like the Australian aborigines will endure much longer. The English already have eliminated the Tasmanians.
I quiet agree - modern Europeans act as if they are intent on self destruction. I don't understand it but Japan also seems on a route to oblivion. I suspect that there will be some socio-political change. I can't imagine any mere social change improving the prospects for Africans.
We are at the cusp of the biggest event in human history. We will soon have machines that can out think us. So maybe it won't be our decision at all.Replies: @AnotherDad, @Lurker
Mostly disease rather than direct action is the revisionist position.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/mythbusters/more-people-alive-than-ever-lived.aspxReplies: @Peripatetic commenter
So, FiveThirtyEight got the Presidential Election and the SuperBowl wrong. JustSayin’
People keep thinking that the future is going to be a simple continuation of the past.
It is not clear that that is true.
I grew up in the middling midwest, and my cohort was, probably not racist, but certainly casually, unconsciously HBD, and casually, unconsciously center-right.
Those same people (and by this I mean literally the same people-not the same cohort, not the same geographical and social class-the identical individuals, 30 years older), by and large have swallowed the progressive pill. HBD would be unacceptably racist to them. High school buddies who were utterly grounded now drive Prius. Girls I would have dated go to the women's march, want to wear pussy hats, and idolize Obama. Soldiers accept women in the rangers, gays in the ranks, and trans people dressing however they want. And these are the middling middle class: families with nearly grown kids and perhaps even grandkids-not childless catwomen, lonely progressive betas, or artists/eccentrics.
It really surprises me to read (as I have several times) that science/engineering folks tend to trend Left. Again, when I grew up, engineers were solidly Right-essentially the nerds from high school saw the real world (and were intelligent enough to understand the real world) well enough to see through the Progressive myth.
In my experience, Trump supporters really are the lower/working class. What Reagan counted on: middle class conservatives (or the silent majority): doesn't really exist, and isn't really in Trump's corner. I think Trump is too radical for them: they still support the system, and Trump is outside of it, and thus they don't like him. They are probably hoping for some kind of Eisenhower figure: respected conservative that will, within the system, nudge it a little.
In theory, you could say that if things could change that much in 30 years, they could change that much in the next 30. And perhaps they will.
joeyjoejoeReplies: @Ian M.
I’m an engineer, and indeed, this has been my observation. There is a tendency among engineers to be libertarian compared to the general population, but in my opinion, that’s not much better.
In my view, this makes sense: because of engineers’ proclivity for scientific reasoning, which requires a certain reductionism in abstracting out real features of the world, they have a tendency to view society as an optimization problem and will abstract out any significantly human concern that cannot be reduced to quantitative analysis. Traditional concerns – such as family, marriage, nation, and religion – that are not amenable to such an analysis, are viewed as irrational. Efficiency and utility are king. They are therefore on board with an anti-human technocracy and efficient global markets that our liberal elite favor.
How does he know the migrants will once admitted go on welfare? They will largely work and send back home remittances.
It’s not genocide when it’s a voluntary process that plays out over 4 generations based on many millions of voluntarily choices of whites entering into liaisons with non-whites that produce non-white progeny.
There's a fair chance it could become a best-seller and have an outsized impact on the public consciousness compared to your blog posts. It wouldn't be hard, just collate a bunch of your best posts.Replies: @Mr. Anon
I agree.
There is a legitimate ethical issue that no one seems willing to discuss:
Is it ethical to transfer reproductive potential (technology, food, etc.) to populations that are incapable of providing it to themselves — even if one believes it likely they will eventually be able to do so?
The keyword here is “likely”.
The downside of being wrong in this bet is that the population in question will go exponential and displace the providing populations resulting in a catastrophe.
A prudent ethic would therefore restrict aid to establishing that the population in question actually can support its own reproductive potential, rather than providing that potential.