Whites Are Going Extinct? Huh?

The main White nationalist trope is that Whites, meaning Europeans, more or less, are going extinct. However, let’s look at some quick figures.

Number of Whites worldwide, 1910: Unknown, but way less than now.

Number of Whites worldwide, 2010: 1 billion+. Way more than in 1910.

Over a century, our numbers have grown dramatically. So we’re going extinct? Huh? The truth is that our numbers are growing, just not nearly as much as the others are. Plus there’s been some interbreeding, but actually not that much.

Anyway, the other races all count half-breeds. Using WN standards, Blacks would have to throw out 95%+ of the Blacks in the US as mongrels. After all, they’re all screwed up with that horrible 15% White in them. Totally ruined. Not Black anymore at all. Clearly non-Blacks.

Asians do the same thing. They count those horrible mongrelized Mongolians, with their disgusting 14% Caucasian contamination, as pure Asiatics. And are we counting Australoids as a race or not? If so, let’s toss the 120 million Japanese. After all, they’re ruined with 40% Australoid Ainu contamination.

The White nationalists have set themselves up to lose this game by idiotically handicapping themselves with a massive purity setback, while the other races are all getting serious points ahead by blowing it all off and going by majority rules. If White nationalists want so bad to win this race, why are they handicapping themselves so badly that they are almost sure to lose?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

26 thoughts on “Whites Are Going Extinct? Huh?”

  1. Obviously, the genetic footprint left by Europeans is huge, issues of racial purity aside.

    There are 243 million mestizos in Latin America, comprising 50 percent of the population. White Latin Americans are 190-203 million or 33-37 percent of the population. The whites there have Amerindian and African admixture, but the Mestizos — by definition — have European admixture. The white phenotype, especially in America, is not going to go away, given that a white person who intermarries has the numerically greatest likelihood of doing so with a mestizo. I’ve seen the offspring of such marriages, and they generally end up looking pretty white. I had a half-Mexican girlfriend, and she looked just as white as I do (and I’m of entirely European descent) — possibly more so, given that she had green eyes and I have brown.

    When I grew up in California — a more diverse state than the one I currently live in — I recall that Euro-Mexican and Euro-Asian hybrid kids in my school were generally thought of as white by the other kids, and basically fit into the dominant culture. The one-drop rule only applies to blacks — a person with black ancestry can only be regarded as white if they possess no visually identifiable sub-Saharan African features. My understanding is that it is not like that in Brazil. There, a person can possess certain physically identifiable African features and be regarded as “white” or “pardo” (brown).

    1. c666 The one-drop rule only applies to blacks — a person with black ancestry can only be regarded as white if they possess no visually identifiable sub-Saharan African features.

      it depends on how you’re looking at this. When walking down the street and and every day life, then yes.

      but once word gets out that you’re got some blk in ya, and I don’t mean like one of Tiger Wood’s side pieces, you become the other.

      google Homer Plessy

    2. I think this is a pretty accurate description of racial designation in the US today. The invisible blackness concept is too abstract for alot of people to take seriously, so it would seem many of those with limited amounts of African ancestry (e.g. quadroons and octoroons) can gain social acceptance as white nowadays. However, visible signs of admixture like kinky hair act still act as alarm bells for whites.

  2. Dear Robert
    There are actually over a billion whites in the world, but as a share of the world’s population, whites are surely shrinking and have been shrinking at least since 1950. It is estimated that in 1492, whites were 10% of the world’s population. After that it went up fast, before it started to decline again. Today we are at around 16%.

    White nationalists are also handicapping themselves by thinking in terms of a dychotomy of whites and non-whites instead of thinking in terms of a polichotomy. This prevents them from making alliances with one or more of the non-white groups when whites become a minority. When defending group interests, you sometimes need allies, just as countries sometimes need allies in war.

    Regards. James

  3. Mongolians are really 14% caucasian? I had no idea.

    Anyway I agree at least a little bit with your “anti-purity,” sentiment. Without a doubt I consider excluding Meds, Finns, Magyars and Slavs ridiculous of course. As far as the Near East goes, well, the 35% White figure for Turks is probably close to correct, and there are a lot of Iranian, Lebanese and Pashtun Whites. Arab whites exist but I don’t think there are that many (mainly Lebanese/Syrian Christians). There are two issues however.

    1. Islam– they’re part of our extended family. If the Italians are first cousins (to N. Euros) they would be second cousins or further– but still related, just less so. Nonetheless what if your second cousin was a crack addict? You might require him to quit before letting him back in the family. That’s how I see it, these white Near Easterners can’t be part of the White family until they give up Islam (Afghans have to give up homo-pedophilia too).

    2. What would the advantage be in many cases? I’m not even in favor of enormous levels of immigration from even the Whitest countries unless under specific circumstances, and I’m generally isolationist on foreign policy. So while I’d accept a White looking/White acting, non-Muslim, English speaking Persian or Lebanese, say, I don’t know what accepting an Iranian living, Farsi speaking (even if non-Muslim) Persian would entail. I’m not in favor of invading or being involved in any way with them, so what does calling them White do for us?

    As far as S. American Whites or mostly Whites, we have to have fairly strict standards but I certainly don’t want to exclude all of them.

  4. I refuse to consider a grouping an official “movement” unless and until they start electing some individuals and who don’t disavow the title. This being the case, all these theoreticals
    are amusing sideshows.

  5. “The Passenger Pigeon or Wild Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) is an extinct bird, which existed in North America. It lived in enormous migratory flocks – sometimes containing more than two billion birds – that could stretch one mile (1.6 km) wide and 300 miles (500 km) long across the sky, sometimes taking several hours to pass.

    Some estimate that there were three billion to five billion passenger pigeons in the United States when Europeans arrived in North America. Others argue that the species had not been common in the Pre-Columbian period, but their numbers grew when devastation of the American Indian population by European diseases led to reduced competition for food.

    The species went from being one of the most abundant birds in the world during the 19th century to extinction early in the 20th century.”

    Things can change very quickly. If present growth rates continue, Somalis and Gypsies will be the majority of the European population by 2100 (which is, admittedly, like saying, if my kid brother continues to grow at the rate he is, he’ll soon by 20ft tall, plus Gypsies and Somalis in Europe are to some degree predatory or parasitic populations and so are unlikely to outstrip their “prey”/”host”).

    And extinction is a very strong, but even small amounts of introgression can change the character of a group a lot (though not necessarily in a negative way).

    Plus, the White demographic pyramid looks very different to how it did. The projected population of Europe and North America that is White will nosedive.

    ….

    Regarding this and eugenics generally – while it would be inappropriate to be completely obsessive, I don’t think it’s too much to expect White mainstream people (or a Liberal in particular, but also a Conservative stripe) to have some degree of concern for what the people of the future are like (and whether they’ll have any traits that are honestly worth valuing or which are self supporting).

    I think most people actually are fairly closer to this than its antithesis, but you can’t really let people who say “Well, the important thing is equality and treating people equally – it doesn’t matter if that fails to preserve or differentially reproduce traits that you value” stand, or else it’s a race to the bottom.

    Figuratively speaking, to badly mangle a paraphrase for the purposes of my argument, it’s better to be Socrates or Helen as a thief or even a murderer than it is to be a fool or hag with no blood on your hands. And so much the worse for the fool and the hag if they think otherwise. (Some folks hate the implications of this and the possibilities of abuse here, but more good will be in the world from wrestling with those implications forever than trying to find an easy solution and dispense with them.)

    1. Sorry if I’m rambling in a crazy-looking fashion over your blog btw Robert. Not really so much entirely a response to you as also drawing in some thoughts I’ve had building up upon reading some of the more extreme Liberal Utilitarian types on the net and their attitudes to anyone trying to preserve their people. Feel free to delete this if you feel it’s excessive and off topic.

  6. I don’t really care about maintaining our numbers. There’s more than enough whites or any people to go around. I’d prefer the whole damn human race to stabilize and then decline. But this is only possible if we have control of our borders. But we don’t. So, the pro-natalists make one good point. If we have the choice of overpopulating our lands with more whites or with more third-world immigrants we’re probably better off with more whites. The best scenario would just be stabilization and no immigration. And lower, cooperative fertility rates in every nation around the world. Competitive birth-rates are scary. You see it India with Muslims and Hindus, you see it in America with Mexicans reconquering the Southwest, and you see it in Israel with Jews and Palestinians.

    1. The overall Indian birthrate has actually been in long-term decline since the 1960s, as has been Mexico’s. Mexico’s fertility rate is at break-even currently (2.1), and India’s is at 2.7 (from around 5 or 6 in the 60s). 2.7 is of course still way too high, but the decline is still in progress.

      The only example you list that makes sense is Israel, which is primarily a demographic contest between Palestinians and Haredi / religious settler populations. The non-settler/Haredi population of Israel (maybe 70-80%) shows the traditional European long-term fertility decline.

    2. >I’d prefer the whole damn human race to stabilize and then decline. But this is only possible if we have control of our borders.

      The fertility rate of the human race has already been in undeniable decline ever since the 1960s. Look up the numbers. The total fertility rate of the world has declined for every single five year span since 1960-1965.*

      There are a lot of excellent arguments for closed borders, but controlling fertility is not one of them. Economic development takes care of that.

      * Check out http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=PopDiv&f=variableID:54

        1. Fertility is in decline but Illegal Mexicans in the US have a fertility rate far above that of Mexico, at a whopping 3.5. They’re having a baby boom here due to the better economic situation, the desire to have American children and get a foot in the new world, partly because many are from the lowest rungs of society, and partly because they feel they own the southwest. In this case, it’s good to close borders. They’re have a different sense of what “crowded” is, coming from Mexico.

          And no, some nations have actually gone up. Yes, on the long run things have been decline but India has the longest running family planning program and they’ve kind of given up on it and are still way too high considering their population. Some places in Africa have actually returned to high 6+ fertility rates and their populations are starting to get huge.

          I’ve looked them up. This is something I follow quite closely. Mexico’s actually at 2.3 btw if you go by CIA factbook statistics. And even with their immigration run off they still grow at 1.1% per annum which is way too high, IMO.

    3. If we have the choice of overpopulating our lands with more whites or with more third-world immigrants we’re probably better off with more whites. The best scenario would just be stabilization and no immigration.

      I agree.

      The following article says the real unemployment rate could be up to 22% right now. We are more than full up and don’t need any more people.

      http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/careers/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate/19556146/

      Then again, though I am freaked out by the YouTube videos of people like José Ángel Gutiérrez, the continuing economic collapse may send some of the illegal immigrants home. Also, the fact that the earth’s population is in overshoot may put a bit of a damper on his reconquista project.

  7. Dear fpy3p
    I wasn’t thinking of any particular race. I much rather keep race out of politics altogether. However, if politics becomes racialized and if there is no longer any racial majority, then the smart thing is to seek an alliance with some other race that has interests close to one’s one race.
    In Peru, I can see an alliance between whites and mestizos against blacks and indians, and in Bolivia there may be an alliance between whites and mestizos against indians. The important thing is to stop thinking in terms of a two-way racial division when in fact there is a multifarious racial division.
    Imagine a parliament in which the socialists have 40% of the seats and 4 capitalist parties each have 15% of the seats. If the socialists are smart, they’ll seek a coalition with one of those 4 capitalist parties. If they want to remain pure and reject any co-operation with any capitalist party, they’ll force the other 4 parties to work together and exclude the socialists from power. In such a case, the socialists would be behaving like the white nationalists with their obsessions about racial purity.
    Don’t exclude people who are willing to co-operate with you simply because they aren’t 100% like you. That’s like refusing to do business with people of a different religion, race or nationality.

    Cheers. James

  8. The White nationalists have set themselves up to lose this game by idiotically handicapping themselves with a massive purity setback, while the other races are all getting serious points ahead by blowing it all off and going by majority rules. If White nationalists want so bad to win this race, why are they handicapping themselves so badly that they are almost sure to lose?”

    I would have thought it obvious. It’s like an exclusive club – who wants to join a club that just lets ANYONE in?

    WNs are like those obsessive fans of obscure bands who hate it when the band has a hit and then becomes popular with mainstream audiences.

    Much better for the fragile self-esteem of these types to have something exclusive to be part of, even if it means everyone else regards you as a bit of a dick.

  9. I would be highly sceptical of a number close to 1 billion whites. Don’t many whites in America have Native American ancestry? And some others might have some black in them. What about Hispanics? So many that look white have actually some Native American in them. It’s only really Western and parts of Eastern Europe that’s pure white.

  10. “Number of Whites worldwide, 2010: 1 billion+. Way more than in 1910.”

    Wrong. I personally checked the statistics on this about a year ago. I noticed that Slavs, and Arabs/Muslims/Middle Easterners categories did not exist, and we were being miscategorized as “whites” and “Asians,” when we are two entirely unique races.
    So, I looked at Slavic nation population statistics, and Slavic diaspora statistics… Guess what. We might even outnumber the East Asians that are famously said to be the biggest % of the global population. And, we’re usually considered “white,” so most “whites” on Earth are actually Slavs, not “whites.” That means the statistics for “whites” are GREATLY exaggerated by adding people into it who don’t belong there. You guys are so f**king close to extinction that you’re probably less than ten million total worldwide. This wasn’t even factoring in the Arabs/Muslims miscategorized as “whites” either.
    It gets better. Most “whites” only have somewhere from zero to two children, which means that tine population will cut in half every generation until you all stop only having 0-2 kids. And, you’re not going to stop only having 0-2 kids… Because “whites” have a huge infertility problem caused by things like pesticide exposure. The great increase n non-“whites” in Europe is not caused simply by mass-immigration alone… It’s caused by mass-adoption of non-“whites” because of a “white” infertility crisis.
    “Whites” are in fact going extinct. And, they have had numerous near extinctions throughout history due to not bathing or washing their hands (I am not making this up, look up on the great plagues of yore).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *