Racial Politics in Latin America: What Race in Another America Tells Us About Our Destiny, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

Racial Politics

What should we make of this history? Given a chance, the left did eventually rise to power as expected, riding a wave of support from impoverished Brown and Black voters in nations where Whites were usually a minority. But just a few years later, many of these same nations voted the left out of power again. How could this happen? Are race and demography less important than the Dissident Right imagines?

The answer is no, race matters enormously, but election results are the product of several different forces that are pushing in different directions simultaneously. The first of these is the one that is most apparent from this history — pendulum effects that swing elections back and forth depending on the public’s view of the government’s performance. In Latin America’s case, just about every government has struggled with persistent poverty, crime, and corruption, so these pendulum effects tend to work against whoever is in power. The effect is so strong that, unlike the United States, major political parties often come and go, exiting the stage once their brand has become too tarnished.

Beneath these pendulum swings, however, there are strong structural forces at work that continue from election to election. Race-based voting is one of the most important. A close examination of elections held across the region repeatedly shows that leftists rely heavily on support from Browner and Blacker voters who are usually poor, while conservatives rely heavily on Whites and Whiter mestizos (who are typically over half European genetically).

One illustrative example is the 2018 election of Jair Bolsonaro, the new right-wing Brazilian president dubbed the “Trump of the Tropics.” Bolsonaro drew his support from the Whiter southern part of the nation and the socially conservative rural heartland. His leftist opponent did better in the northeast, which is mostly Black and mulatto, and the northwest, which is substantially Indigenous. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Bolsonaro also did better among Whites who live closer to the crime-ridden areas of major cities and a bit worse among Whites who live further south, a safe distance from the mayhem.

These racial patterns repeat themselves throughout the region. Argentina’s conservative president Mauricio Macri won his 2015 election by winning the Whiter heart of Buenos Aires and most of Whiter central Argentina. The conservative Sebastián Piñera won in the Whiter parts of central Chile and Santiago. The conservative Iván Duque Márquez won in Colombia in the Whiter sections of Bogotá and the center of the country.

The leftist Nicolás Maduro won his last competitive election in Venezuela in 2013 in heavily Brown and Black areas of the country, while losing the Whiter areas of the east and west. The leftist Evo Morales consistently wins reelection in Bolivia with the support of his Indigenous base in the Western highlands.

The exception that proves the rule is Uruguay, the Whitest nation on the continent. It has continued to support the Broad Front, a leftist coalition that includes socialists and communists and touts legalized pot, abortion, and same-sex marriage among its policy achievements. Such leftist politics are typical of Whiter nations that have yet to experience the full benefits of diversity.

In most other Latin American nations, these racial voting patterns persist despite the presence of an important moderating influence — a large mixed-race population that seems resistant to explicitly race-based political appeals. Leftist academics bemoan this resistance, usually attributing it to a lack of social awareness and widespread acceptance of the theories of mestizaje and racial democracy, which argue that mixed-race societies do not suffer the same levels of racism and discrimination as other places like the United States.

Surveys of Latin America’s poor do not support this notion. Latin America’s mixed-race populations are well aware of existing racial disparities, they just do not strongly identify with them. This points to a different explanation that is less favored by leftists: genetic similarity theory, which says that people are more altruistic and less hostile to those who are genetically similar. This explanation is borne out by interviews with mixed-race voters.

“Do I value my Blackness? Of course! I take pride in it,” said one Brazilian mulatto in an interview. “But am I only Black? No!  I also am descended from Indians and from Europeans. Should I disdain these heritages? Why shouldn’t I value all my heritages? Why should I pretend I only have one heritage when this is just not true?”

The Oligarchy

Magda Rubio had just announced her candidacy for mayor of a northern Mexican town when she received a disturbing call. “Drop out,” said the voice on the line, “or be killed.”

Politicians and journalists are regularly assassinated in Latin America. The blame usually (and conveniently) falls on criminal gangs that are trying to gain control of the local police or obtain profitable government contracts. In truth, the motive is frequently unclear. It is easier to identify the trigger men than to determine who is really behind a hit.

Race is an important driver of Latin American elections, but it is not the only one. The other is a reactionary elite that has ruled over the region for centuries. Wealthy oligarchies supported most of the coups that occurred prior to the recent rise of democracy. Today, they rely heavily on private security and are believed to be behind most of the violence directed against Indigenous people who oppose their logging, mining, or other business interests. Rural areas can sometimes feel like the Wild West.

Business elites who live in wealthy urban neighborhoods are just as influential, but they usually rely on more refined tactics. These include campaign contributions, substantial control of political parties, and control of the media, which is overwhelmingly conservative. This influence is magnified by powerful business associations that provide a vehicle for coordinated action.

When that is not enough, outright corruption is another option. Vote buying, revolving door hiring of government officials, and bribes are tried and true methods. If elected leaders are still uncooperative, they can sometimes be removed through legal means, a tactic euphemistically referred to as a “soft coup.” Various forms of violence such as military coups and assassination are usually only used as a last resort. For many politicians, however, the ultimate choice is the same: a bribe or a bullet.

The power of the oligarchs is most evident in the poorest nations where Whites are a tiny minority. In Guatemala, Honduras, and Paraguay, for example, wealthy elites have repeatedly shown that they will do whatever it takes to maintain control. Unsurprisingly, given this track record, 79 percent of Latin Americans now believe that their governments primarily serve the wealthy elite, a percentage that has been steadily increasing in recent years. Confidence in democracy has fallen to historic lows.

Oligarchical power is hardly unique to Latin America. According to Robert Michels, a sociologist who developed a theory known as the iron law of oligarchy, such power dynamics are inevitable. Indeed, some argue that the United States itself barely qualifies as a democracy.

But there is an important difference between Latin America and the United States. Latin America’s ruling elite is not actively hostile to White interests. Whiteness is celebrated by the media, not demonized. There is no significant elite-led attempt to demographically swamp Whites with non-White immigration. Leftist politicians are more tolerant of migrants, but they are held in check by opposition from the right and widespread xenophobia among their own voters.

Latin America’s elite are less hostile to Whites for a reason. First, the vast majority of them are White. After centuries of living in societies where Whites have always been a minority or nearly so, they harbor fewer illusions about the purported benefits of multiculturalism or and they realize the genuine threat of leftism.

Second, while a causal connection is difficult to prove, the relatively small size of Latin America’s Jewish community probably also plays a role. The nation with the most Jews in the region is Argentina, where they constitute about 0.4 percent of the population. Jewish communities in other Latin American nations are much smaller, both as a fraction of the overall population and in absolute numbers.

Historically, Latin America was never a preferred destination for Jews. In colonial times, they were banned from Spanish-controlled territories. Suspected Jews were subject to the Inquisition and could be burned at the stake. Most did not begin arriving until the late 1800s, with many not coming until the 1930s after they had been turned away by the United States, their first choice.

As was true across much of the Western world, some involved themselves in leftist activity and this often provoked a backlash when right-wing dictators came to power, most notably in Argentina. By the late twentieth century, however, they found themselves being attacked by the left too, usually for their support of Israel. An attempted alliance between Jewish groups and Black activists in Brazil fell apart. Leftist leaders like Hugo Chavez frequently attacked Israel and Zionism as racist. Chavez himself was accused of holding anti-Jewish views, although he denied it.

Jewish influence over the region’s conservative media appears to be minimal. Jews often feel unwelcome and frequently hide their identity. A 2011 poll conducted for the ADL found that most Argentines harbor borderline or openly anti-Semitic views. Partly as a consequence, the Jewish population is now dwindling due to a combination of assimilation, intermarriage, and emigration to the United States and Israel.

Lessons for America

If Latin America says anything about America’s future, it is that it will be racialized and brutal. All across the Americas, as the percentage of Whites declines, societies become bleaker and more dysfunctional. Nations where Whites are a small minority usually become dystopias characterized by tiny islands of gated affluence surrounded by overwhelming amounts of Brown and Black poverty and crime.

But this is not the only lesson. Latin America has also demonstrated that race is centrally important in elections, especially as Whites approach and become a minority. These racial divisions persist despite the presence of a large mixed-race population that is less receptive to explicitly race-based appeals than populations in other nations that are more genetically distinct (such as the United States).

This experience in Latin America sheds light on the United States, where there are already signs that a similar political transformation is underway. The last decade alone has witnessed the development of a new 20-point gap in White support for the two parties in the United States, something that is directly traceable to demographic change. College-educated Whites in blue America have drifted left during this period, but this change has been overwhelmed by a larger rightward shift among other Whites, particularly working-class Whites, who are less indoctrinated and more exposed to diversity. Overall, the politics of both the left and right have become dramatically more racialized in just the past few years.

This process has just begun. The psychological basis for a coming White awakening is well-established by scientific studies. Moreover, of the roughly 40 percent of White Americans who still regularly vote for Democrats, almost half describe themselves as moderate or conservative. These are the voters who are most likely to shift right over the next decade as Democrats drift further left in the face of ongoing demographic change. Over time, future White voting patterns may approach those that already exist in the more diverse South, where 80–90 percent of Whites regularly vote for Republicans. Skeptics who insist that left-leaning Whites will never wake up are usually focused on an unrepresentative subset of hard-core leftists that comprise perhaps 10–20 percent of the White population. Such skeptics are missing the larger, long-term trend.

Another lesson from Latin America, however, is that oligarchies matter. Wealthy oligarchs play an outsized role throughout the region and in many nations their power is absolute. This lends credibility to those who argue that any shift in White voting patterns in the United States will be meaningless because the GOP is beholden to an American oligarchy that is hostile to White interests. These concerns are valid. America’s hostile elite is a problem.

Such observations assume, however, that America’s elite cannot or will not change. This is certainly possible, of course. America’s oligarchy could continue their support of the multicultural status quo, which is now on track to transform Whites into a minority over the next few decades. If this happened, the end game would probably look like South Africa, where the oligarchy has maintained power by corrupting the political class and leaving Whites to fend for themselves (see South Africa’s Protection Racket). It remains to be seen how stable such a situation would be. It might lead to civil war.

But that end game may never arrive. Another possibility is that an awakened White America may simply defeat the oligarchy, forcing them to change course or be pushed from power, replaced by new elites who are eager to take their place. Political parties always change and adapt in response to changing times and there is ample evidence that the United States — including the Republican Party — is currently undergoing a political realignment.

A third possibility is that the oligarchy could realize their interests are better aligned with the White population and shift in their direction voluntarily. Any alliance between a wealthy elite and the left is inherently unstable. It is possible that the oligarchy might wake up too, along with most of the rest of White America. If this occurred, the results would probably look like Latin America, which has repeatedly shown that Whites can maintain control, even as a small minority, so long as they are sufficiently aligned with the oligarchy. Jewish elites could be expected to oppose such a strategy, but they are also coming under fire from the left, just like in Latin America, so it is possible that they might change sides, too.

A final possibility is a hybrid of the others, with different elites using different strategies in different parts of the country. This scenario would be rooted in the fact that as the nation becomes majority-minority, most of the change will be concentrated in the southern half of the country. Under this scenario, elites in a region stretching from California through Texas and across the South could respond by following the left-leaning multicultural strategy. Elites in the north would follow the right-leaning Latin American strategy, aligning themselves with Whites who would still be a majority in that part of the nation.

If this happened, it could become the basis for national partition. Such partitions frequently occur when nations become too divided ethnically, politically, and geographically. Such an outcome is also predictable from studies of ethnic conflict.

The Coming Storm

Living in the current year, it is easy to become discouraged by our present trajectory, but the odds that the world’s White population will be permanently transformed into a repressed minority are small. As history has repeatedly shown, Whites tend to rule, not to be ruled.

Change is coming. With luck, it will occur peacefully, as our ruling class is democratically replaced or wisely shifts right to save itself. It may otherwise be expressed violently through military coups, revolutions, or war. Either way, change will come.

Our wiser leaders of tomorrow are probably just young adults or children today. Some have probably not yet been born. It will be this younger generation of harder men that will lead us from the abyss.

That future can be found in Latin America. While many stories from the region illustrate this point, one from Haiti seems appropriate. Haiti is today ruled by a mulatto elite, but the truly rich and powerful are White foreigners. This was the world one young White American was visiting the night of the 1991 coup that ousted Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

I remember the night of the coup, I was asleep in bed. At about one o’clock in the morning I heard loud explosions, gunfire, chanting, screaming. I got up and looked out of my bedroom window. I was up on the side of a mountain and I could look down over the whole city. I saw different places on fire and I could tell there was something wrong.

So I went outside to ask the night watchman what was going on. He was listening to the radio and said something happened to Aristide. I asked myself, “Am I the good guy or the bad guy?” I didn’t know. I didn’t know if the average Haitian would look at me as a White, a blanc, as the enemy, or if I was just someone that was not involved in the situation so they wouldn’t even bother me. I didn’t know what to do and I heard people chanting, coming up the side of the mountain. I could see different places on fire already on the mountainside.

So I turned around and went back to my house. I went back into my room and packed my backpack and I took the machete from under my bed and I went back outside to the night watchman. I asked him what we should do, and he said he didn’t know. So we hid. It was a bright moonlit night and we hid in the garage. I could see now there was a crowd out in front of the house, probably 200 people, flaming torches and machetes, and of course I start sweating bullets.

They started chopping down the fence and the night watchman said, “We have to go out, otherwise they’re going to come in here.” So I just kind of took a deep breath, and the two of us walked into the moonlight and held our machetes. And I just remember looking up and at that point I could hear them yelling “Blancs, blancs, blancs restent ici,” meaning, “Whites stay here, Whites live here.” And then, one by one, they started running away.

He was relieved, but confused. It took a few days, but after watching soldiers gun down enough of the locals, the reason finally dawned on him.

Well, that’s when I realized that the military was on the side of the rich and that, as an American, I had nothing to worry about. And that was the case most of the time in Haiti …

There’s no way that the Haitian peasants can rise up. You have one section of the Black population which is now aligned with and making money with the rich. Not much, but more than they could make as a farmer cutting mangoes. So now they have a gun and are in control. They’re making a few bucks. The rich tell them to go out and take down some village, shoot up a couple of people, chop their face off, leave them in the street, and they’ll do it.

This is the real story of Whites in multicultural societies. With rare exceptions, it is not a story of submission, but of dominance. Indeed, to anyone who is not entirely numb to the fate of the world’s non-White peoples, this history has frequently been horrifying.

In Latin America, this has included genocide-levels of death and destruction waged against its Indigenous peoples during colonial times that included widespread biological warfare, massacres, and rape. In just the past few decades, it has included the obliteration of countless villages and wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.

Few Americans know this history, but that does not make it any less real. White people can be vicious. Sometimes it is for profit, sometimes it is for survival, but the result is almost always the same.

By choosing to threaten the world’s White populations, our ruling elites are playing a very dangerous game. The question is not whether Whites will awaken, because we will. The real question is far more cold-blooded.  When we finally do wake up, just how brutal will we be?

Patrick McDermott is a political analyst in Washington, DC.

15 replies
  1. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    I believe that what is missing from this analysis is the difference between the “mixed” in for example Brazil, and the US. In the US, no Mullato or Mestiso would concede that (s)he has two heritages, it’s all about being a hyphenated American – “African”, “Latin”, etc.
    Additionally, the populations in SA are still, generally speaking, tied to the old views of the RC Church, which saw Jews as hostile, unlike the milquetoast congregations of the US (and Canada) who see Jews as “the chosen”. While touched on in the article, that is a huge difference. As a hostile elite, the Jews in Latin America have to be the Marrano, whereas here, they wear it on their sleeve. As long as the elite in SA are seen as fellow RCs (hostile to Jews) the instability may continue but Whites will be relatively safe, politically speaking.
    Finally, it is important to recognize that “the left” in Latin America is still actually “left”. They are opposed to the fat cats lapping cream while the rabble starves. They want a more equitable sharing of the nation’s wealth, particularly where natural resources are involved. I have never heard of Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, or for that matter Chile under Allende calling for mass immigration and open borders, other than to those who want to leave.
    The reference to Haiti was telling, but incomplete. The US has meddled in Latin America for decades. If anyone thinks they weren’t involved in undermining the Perons, the Kirchners, Lula, Dilma, and many more, they are delusional. The stream of those central Americans now invading the US is their revenge.
    Returning to the elites, I suggest that the concept of the 18th and 19th century liberal elites is still stronger in Latin America than in the US (and Europe). Wealth used to be land based. During the industrial revolution, while peasants were being forced from their lands, and craftsmen stripped of their ownership of their trade, the liberals were the ones building mill towns with workers cottages and tenements, access to nutrition, and providing education to children. They used their wealth to better their towns, counties, and country. That concept was not unlike the founders of the US. The elite, generally, was not hostile, it wanted to retain control, but understood the need to be benevolent, and do what was best for the nation. That concept is long dead and buried, and most Whites in the US don’t understand that. In Latin America, however, because of the lack of “the other”, the elites are more cautious.

  2. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    The Jewish population of Buenos Aires is 8.22 % [ Wikipedia ]. It is the home of Eduardo Elsztain, simply dubbed ” the Owner “, since he owns everything: even co-Owns, with the Government, the national Mortgage Bank. And we all remember 2008; don’t we ? Particularly if it criminally rendered us homeless !

    Regrettably, even unforgivably, McDermott is woefully, inexplicably and unacceptably incomplete for this readership !

    Never mind a mere 0.4 %: Lenin preferred quality over quantity in his movement too.

    Already in my previous several comments I mentioned Eduardo Elsztain in connection with their ” Andinia Project “, and the fact, that Herzl, in his DER JUDENSTAAT, contemplated Argentina in lieu of Palestine. McDermott mentions their immigration to Latin America as occurring during the late 1800s. Well – Basel was in 1897. But they also came in numbers much earlier.

    The Moderator will pull his hair out, and, worse, possibly the remainder of mine, were I to paraphrase the complete, but ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL Wikipedia section on Elsztain. ONLY after reading that attentively, will you augment your vital, complete pattern recognition.

  3. Vergissmeinnicht
    Vergissmeinnicht says:

    Hello, I’m from Brazil.

    My understanding is that though ~50% of Brazilians say they’re White, only ~25% have MORE than 85% European ancestry (many will disagree but I think someone who is at least 85% European IS European – clearly, in the case of Brazilian the White genetics come mostly from Iberia and Italy (such as myself), and it’s well-known we can NOT expect Anglo-Saxon-like achievements from these peoples).

    Brazil is becoming more and more anti-White, the future surely looks bleak… I think it’s due to a mix of factors: Black people are getting more and more ‘educated’ i.e. getting indoctrinated by neo-Marxists at universities, Blacks are becoming more middle-class i.e. they now have Netflix, Internet etc. so they now, for the first time, watch/listen/read to the American media, and we know how anti-White it has become in recent years…
    I don’t know what the future will bring; I hope I’m wrong but I think Brazil won’t anymore be a place where Blacks and mixed-race either don’t mind or admire the White Race (as it used to be), I think it’ll be more like Black Lives Matter stuff…
    Perhaps the only hope for Whites in Brazil (and Latin America, as a whole): The Dissident Right ideas on racialism become dominant in the West, then Latin American countries will follow.

    Another thing: Brazil is become more and more non-White, it’s turning into Ecuador or the like… Due to lower birth rates from Whites, miscegenation (every time I go downtown I see a lot of White males with mulatto females, I think to myself “I this rate the White Race is over in Brazil in 50 years!”), and obviously the people who are smart enough get out of Brazil as to migrate to the West are mostly White. In 2040-2050, when America turns minority White, Brazil will be self-reported 30%-38% White (it was 47% in 2010, down from 52% in 2000) i.e., in reality, 15%-20% White…

    [Sorry for my less-than-perfect English.]

    • Vergissmeinnicht
      Vergissmeinnicht says:

      I’d like to add some errata and addenda, may I?

      Perhaps it’s more like ~30% of Brazilians who are White, instead of 25%…

      I live in São Paulo, the 4th Whitest state; the city I reside is self-reported ~69% White.

      This was a hyperbole: I think to myself “I this rate the White Race is over in Brazil in 50 years!”; Regarding White females: I rarely see ’em with non-Whites, but just like the American and Euro ones, they ain’t poppin’ White babies tho’, are childless instead…

      Important: The Brazilian Media and Entertainment Industry, UNLIKE in America is not anti-White (as of now, at least); but, I can’t recall it as pro-White, ever… In any case, in recent years, tho’, it has turned into pro-minority! In Brazilian television, the anchors, pundits etc. are NOT conservative in social terms (same-sex marriage etc.) – so, I guess this article’s author erred there.

  4. Alfred
    Alfred says:

    While I have enjoyed these two articles the summation I must take exception to as being unrealistic.

    The group which Kevin MacDonald has documented is NOT going to stop until Whites are GONE. Even their lapdog whites.

    “What is Israel to do?…Israel has been building nuclear weapons for years…What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a nuclear winter?…The ultimate justice?” Professor David Perlmutter – The Los Angeles Times April 7, 2002

    “Martin Van Creveld, a prominent professor of military history at the prestigious Hebrew University in Jerusalem, told a Dutch magazine the following in 2002: ‘We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force.” He went on to say “Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.” (The original interview appeared in the Dutch weekly magazine:Elsevier, 2002, no. 17, p. 52-53, April 27th, 2002).”

    They INTEND the genocide of the White race, make NO mistake about it.

    No other mythology so reeks of an insane lust to torture, to kill, to destroy, to create only desolation and nothingness. And this spiritual force has characterized the activities of the Jews throughout history: they can only destroy. And the few Jews to whom we should be profoundly grateful, notably Marcus Eli Ravage, Oscar Levy, and Maurice Samuel, have been so candid as to tell us the truth explicitly: “We are intruders, we are subverters.”–”We Jews…today are nothing else but the world’s seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners.”–”We Jews, we the destroyers, will remain destroyers forever.”

    This is a cardinal fact that we must take into account in our estimates of the present. It is obvious that the Jews derive great profits from the many forms of subversion–from pornography and the incitement to degeneracy, from class warfare, from wars between nations of our race, from the inflation of counterfeit currencies and the impoverishment of our people, and from many similar activities. (5) But it we consider such things from the standpoint of the race, not from the standpoint of the individual Jew who battens on us, is it not likely that the material profit counts for much less than the spiritual satisfaction? And if we consider some of the Jew’s work, I cannot see how it could conceivably yield a net profit. What monetary gain can they have obtained, or intended to obtain, by spending vast sums to incite the niggers to rape, murder, and arson? What profit from destroying civilization in Rhodesia and making that land again a land of savages? What can the Jews in South Africa gain in material terms from their present intensive effort to destroy the white population and make of that country another Rhodesia? Is it not obvious that they could squeeze much more money out of the White population by peaceful parasitism and without inciting the racial hatreds that disrupt the economy and could conceivably bring retribution upon themselves? The only explanation, it seems to me, is that with their race as a whole spiritual considerations are paramount, paramount over profit and even over self-preservation. One can foresee the logical end in a future that may not be too distant: one can see the last Jews dying with exultation on the surface of a planet from which they have exterminated all other human beings, all animal, all vegetation, all life–a planet of which they have made “a desolation of desolations.”

    Revilo P. Oliver, late Professor of the Classics, University of Illinois at Urbana

  5. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    There is a “wake up” threshold for all humanity, not just whites, and it consists of threats to the self, food and water supply, and immediate friends and family members. I am loathe to reference jews, but Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is quite useful in predicting when “wake ups” will occur. Self actualization, esteem, and belonging can and have all been breached and nullified in the US today for whites, and there is no uproar, only a quiet grumbling. Next on the list are safety and psychological needs which concern the actual physical self. When these are threatened, people of any race wake up really fast. This is why consumerism has taken on such a heightened role in western society. Consumerism is the proverbial bread and circuses which attempts to put enough cheap food and entertainment on the table for whites so that their wake up can be delayed indefinitely, and various elites can have their way with us and our environment without rousing a sleeping white giant.

    When the shelves at the grocery store are empty, THEN you will see the wake up, much as you do in places like Venezuela and African nations which periodically self destruct under waves of extreme poverty. One may be dismayed that such a wake up might never happen in this case here in the US with our seemingly boundless ability to produce cheap food and mind numbing entertainment, but an ever increasing population of humans within this century, topping us out around 12 – 15 billion people by century’s end, and the majority of them from Africa and other third world locations, will tax the ability of all the world’s production centers to keep food readily available and entertainment flowing. At this point, the whole rotten goose egg will break open, if it hasn’t already, and the “too many rats in a cage” scenario will play out violently everywhere. Whites are expected to be far less than 10% of total world population at this point. It probably will not go well for us. Let’s hope we can see some manner of wake up before the great die off.

  6. Tom
    Tom says:

    I think that the one thing established should be that multiculturalism and diversity are simply euphemisms for non-white nationalism. The Left has to be made to understood that all politics is racial and that its silly dichotomy pitting ethical “diversity” against evil “white nationalism” is simply imaginary bunk. What we have in reality currently is the pitting of non-white nationalism against white nationalism. Non-white nationalism is currently winning in the West because a significant number of whites have directed their energies towards the former nationalism. Also, in some parts of the West, white nationalism has been criminalized while non-white nationalism has been given free reign by the laws of many western states. In other parts of the West, such as the US, the Left is well on its way toward total control of private civil society by passing laws ensuring that racial discrimination will serve non-white interests exclusively.
    In the face of this, many white activists envision a future exclusive white ethno-state as an antidote to white displacement and demographic shrinkage. Problem with this scenario in my opinion is that it is simply pie-in-the-sky given even current non-white population numbers existing in the West. Non-whites will never allow a white ethnostate to come into being in their midst because they recognize the advantages of living alongside white technological and economic prowess. To emasculate the Left, what needs to happen in my opinion is a total de-politicization of civil society such that the private freedoms of whites (and even non-whites as well) can be re-established. Whites can’t create successful private societies if leftist government bureaucrats are able to impose non-white quotas on any endeavor deemed “non-diverse”. For the time being, all white nationalists ought to be good small government devotees. A particular race or ethnicity creates a particular civil society and that civil society creates a certain type of state. This is a natural state of affairs for mankind. But what we have now is a state that is manipulating civil society to create a particular race or ethnicity that is completely unnatural and contrary to human instinct. Big government power has to be smashed in order for all the races to return to their normal development patterns.

  7. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    An excellent article. The lack of mestizaje north of the border makes for more volatile outcomes.

  8. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    The worst damage to the American continent was the introduction of black slaves. Native Americans descend from the Asians who came across the Bering Strait, managed to create advanced civilizations with writing, and built cities, pyramids, roads, transport systems, irrigation, politics and laws, the Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, etc. It could have developed as the Asian continent, but the black and indigenous mixture gave the sambo, mixed black and white mulatto, both of low IQ, the Indian with white gave an individual of IQ acceptable and quite civilized in relation to the mulatto and sambo.
    The worst race of all is the Negroid and the Jews use it as a biological weapon. Final goal, degrade to master.

  9. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    My forecast for the USA is that there will be a territorial racial balkanization of the country, for example, Brazil are two countries in one ..

  10. Luke
    Luke says:

    “The real question is far more cold-blooded. When we finally do wake up, just how brutal will we be?”

    Were I to provide a lengthy answer to this question, I doubt the moderator would approve my comment for posting.

  11. Hugo Acosta
    Hugo Acosta says:

    In LatAm, catholics vote conservative, judeo-christians sects vote liberal. Jewish’ elite in US subsidizes judeo-christians LatAm sects which, by the way, are rising up faster than catholic churchs in urban outcast preferences since 1980s. I’m Mexican and Mc Dermott forgot to take ‘The Catholic factor’ in his maps. For example, that map of Brazil clearly shows the partition between catholics and judeo-christians sects.

  12. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    The key takeaway from this article is Jewish power in the U.S. Although Jews make up only 2% of the population, they might as make up 75% given their control of the media, publishing and entertainment industries. They own our politicians and are disproportionately represented on Wall Street, in senior (although not visible) positions in government, and in Ivy League admissions (25% at Harvard, even though non-Jewish whites make up 65-70% of the nation’s top students according to Ron Unz, who is himself Jewish). In addition, they have managed to Judaize Christianity in the United States. Their agenda is hostile to non-Jewish whites. If this control isn’t broken, non-Jewish white people in the United States are doomed and can expect what has happened in South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) to be their future. The only weapons of self-defense that non-Jewish whites have are organized boycotts, founding churches where freedom of religion allows them to avoid censorship and to organize (if your “bigoted” beliefs are your religion, there’s no much that anyone can do to prevent you from expressing them, although I wouldn’t expect to get tax exempt status), and educating other non-Jewish whites. Those are the legal steps that can be taken, but they won’t be enough.

  13. Ann Cianflone
    Ann Cianflone says:

    great discussion excellent commentary. Best site on the internet!
    Thanks a million!
    A Cianflone

Comments are closed.