Introduction

According to recent estimates of population diversity, America will be a very different country demographically over the next few decades.  By the year 2050 or even before, there will be much more ethnic diversity than today.   For example, the White majority that exists in 2023—approximately 58% of the total population—will slowly disappear in yearly increments.  If immigration, both legal and illegal, continues at the same rate, Whites or people of Caucasian heritage will constitute around 46% of the nation’s population at mid-century.  As a plurality, Whites will be no more than a dominant minority among other ethnic groups.  The consequences for White leadership in national politics are dire.  Demography is destiny, according to historians.

The Republican Party, provided it survives in its current form, will be more diverse in its make-up.  There will be considerably more black and Hispanic members who share a moderate conservative point of view.  As a result, White advocates would not be welcome in their ranks, especially if they insist on promoting an unqualified pride in their European heritage and accomplishments.

The need to rewrite history to favor certain ethnic or racial groups would still be an ongoing requirement for “underprivileged” minorities, in spite of their political affiliation.  In the Democratic Party the specter of “Critical Race Theory” and “Systemic White Racism” will be diminished; however these issues will still be central to political discourse for left-wing militants. Without victimization and oppression, many social programs based on prejudice and racism would have no foundation.

For the most part, White activists would feel more at home as independents, reserving the right to support candidates of any party that share their beliefs.

The orientation of American politics will reflect in part the status of international relations.  The following “tour d’horizon” or political overview will highlight the major problems that will be at the center of American political strategies over the next thirty years or so. Following this presentation, a group of panelists will discuss the fate of White advocacy in a “plural” America and a world in constant turmoil.  There will be a variety of opinions, both left-and right-wing.

To resist inclusion in a racially blended society, White advocates will have to devise new ways of making their presence known and defending their past and future existence in a country that is intent upon “browning” and eliminating its White citizens through miscegenation, regulation, and “affirmative action.”  Progressives reassure their followers that the “face of evil” will disappear with the eradication of “Whiteness.” This mantra will dominate progressive politics for years to come.

Issues that concern us the most

1)  The presence of China as a growing threat to American hegemony, especially in the Far East.

Within a relatively short period of time, China is scheduled to become a highly competitive, if not dominant economic power on the world stage.  From a military perspective, the Chinese navy will rival America’s fleet in the Pacific.  Its military assets will be comparable to the fire power of American forces…to the extent that the United States would be hesitant to engage in a land or naval war to challenge any Chinese attempts to dominate Taiwan, South Korea or other areas in the Far East that are allied with America.

In a relatively short period of time, Chinese space engineers have reached a degree of parity with NASA.  The CCP has “weaponized” its satellites in orbit; China’s political and military influence is spreading unimpeded throughout the world. The Monroe doctrine and our concern for the security of our borders seem outmoded.  The Chinese know that we will not go to war over an outpost in Peru or other countries in South America.

If the Chinese infiltrate America in a commercial context, they will impose a style of governance and behavior that would exclude minorities from any top managerial roles.  Only the best and brightest among the White population would be favored for positions of responsibility. Meritocracy would be paramount. Blacks would be viewed with suspicion if not disdain by Chinese executives.  “Inclusion and equity” would never be high priorities in their corporate hierarchy.

2)  The Southern border:  Millions of illegal migrants are flowing into America at the southern border.  This massive immigration is radically changing the very culture of our nation.  If nothing is done to stop this influx, what will our future be like over the next few decades?

Drug dealers are brazenly exporting Chinese-produced opiates through Mexico into the southern border states.  Young people are dying from overdosing on various opiates at an alarming rate.  White advocates in positions of authority could take a leading role in interdicting these substances at the border and preventing their distribution to the heartland of America.

3)  From Unity to Disorder: a political consensus in Washington seems unlikely in the years to come.  Tribalism and identity politics have divided our nation into warring clans unwilling to compromise. The radical wings of both parties have an undue influence on national policy.  “Divide and destroy”—the Caesarian maxim for military conquest—is being applied in politics.  The middle ground of years past has given way to fierce opposition and “victory at all costs.” Party loyalty and solidarity are expected of both Republicans and Democrats in Washington.  White advocates, if at all possible, should try to support and encourage sympathetic politicians to promote issues that stop the demonization of White activists.  These will be discussed in some detail later in our text.

4) European stability.  Can NATO survive Ukraine?  What is America’s role in assuring peace and prosperity in modern Europe? The nationalist trends in European politics are resurfacing in a time of crisis.  The American military umbrella is no longer a defense of last resort.  Minor countries such as Portugal, Greece, Italy, and the Baltic states do very little militarily to assist other member states in peril.  Do the French really want to shed blood and tears for the security of Lithuania?  Their defense of Poland precipitated the Second World War (they declared war on Germany) with disastrous consequences for millions of people.

White advocates would come to the aid of NATO in times of grave crisis, but not to defend the Baltic States on issues related to territorial integrity.  Modern warfare will be highly destructive; it is conceivable that Western civilization would not survive a nuclear conflict with either Russia or China. Great caution must be exercised when dealing with military commitments.

5) Education: Should members of the audience praise our role in developing European-American culture or—as radicalized progressives routinely do—is it right to demonize “tainted” White leaders of the past?  What should we teach immature minds in kindergarten and grammar school?  Conservatives and White advocates must oppose “woke” philosophies and those teachers who foster brainwashing in public and private institutions.

The 1619 project which underscores the so-called major role that slavery played in creating the modern world must not be a required course for young and gullible minds.  Teachers and/or administrators who enable children to “transition” from one sex to another should be censored or dismissed.

Parents should have the right to protest reading material they find inappropriate.  The role of Whites in history must be defended and not universally condemned.  “Systemic white racism” should be denounced for its inaccuracies and blatant propaganda in associating skin color with collective guilt.

Open debate and supportive arguments

Panelists:  A local newspaper reporter, Gregory Winters; university professor Jacqueline Lagarde, language specialist; graduate school student Efrahim Zehgreb, son of an Israeli immigrant; moderator: high school civics teacher, Michael McCarthy, an experienced history instructor.  Location: a high school conference room.  Students and invited guests are present but non-participatory until the end of initial comments.  The discussion group is sponsored by the student government and concerned faculty members at the high school.

Subject: Can America survive as a viable democracy in the years to come?  Are Whites truly necessary and will they accept their newly imposed parity roles after centuries of being the dominant demographic force in American politics?

Michael McCarty (moderator) made a brief presentation related to the multiple issues above.  He indicated that each panelist had been assigned a subject to discuss.  Panelists will first offer their opinion; afterwards, questions will be taken from other panelists and those in attendance, if time permits.

In order of presentation, Gregory Winters, journalist, will talk about the role China will play in reshaping American foreign policy.  In as much as White advocacy is also an issue on the agenda, how would Whites be affected in dealing with their Chinese counterparts from a political perspective?

Gregory:  Thank you, Mike, for giving me this opportunity.  But first, in the interest of racial equality, I notice that we don’t have any African-Americans on the panel.  How come?

Michael:  There was no malice or prejudice on my part.  I asked three of my black colleagues if they would participate.  They all declined with various excuses.  I have done due diligence.

Gregory:  Point taken.  Since we are all limited in time, I will say that China has plotted its ascension as a world power for many years.  As we should know, it’s due to a number of factors, in particular their theft of industrial and scientific secrets.  After they entered the World Trade Organization under the Clinton administration, their industrialization took off.  They also embraced space age technologies and sent satellites into orbit in record time.  Their space program is now competitive with those of other nationalities.  They are very much aware of how modern warfare will be related to controlling satellite communications.

Commercially, the Chinese dominate their Asian rivals.  Their reputation as highly successful businessmen goes back thousands of years. They are rapidly becoming an outstanding force in international commerce, especially in Third World countries.  The Chinese aspire to global dominance and have the strategies and patience to achieve these aims.

Since the Chinese, sub rosa, are racist themselves, they would understand the White advocates’ desire to preserve racial homogeneity or at least have their unique contributions to the evolution of Western society be respected.  Nonetheless, Chinese work habits and moral tenets would have to be accepted by people under their authority.  After a period of adjustment, Whites and the Chinese would be more compatible than other minority groups.

Michael:  Thanks for your comments, Gregory.  Are there any questions from the panelists?

Jacqueline:  As a first-generation French woman, I have serious reservations about your characterization of the role the French played in the Second World War, but we’re not discussing that topic.  The Chinese I know on a personal level are law-abiding, hard-working, and very respectful of social order.  They are not prone to violence or criminality.  As immigrants, they have contributed to French and American society; in no way are they a burden on taxpayers.

Michael, I agree with your analysis of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and China’s military goals.  To date, they are not an immediate threat to America’s hegemony; nonetheless, as you point out, they seek domination as a long-term strategy.  Remember the saying: keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.  We should not sever ties with China, but negotiate in good faith. They are our primary competitor on the world stage.  By the way, Mandarin is a very difficult language to learn.  It’s something students should consider when preparing for future careers.

China is assuming a larger role in Middle Eastern diplomacy, as seen in their recently brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Given that Russia and China are clearly allies in the Ukraine war and that Russia and Iran are close, the suggestion is that there is an emerging axis of power arrayed against the West that could spell the end of Western hegemony.

Efrahim:  Israel deals with China, but at arm’s length.  Chinese merchants have ongoing relations with the Iranians who have sworn to destroy Israel in any manner possible, and as Michael noted, there may be an emerging bloc of nations that are hostile not only to the West but also, it should be noted, hostile to Israel. The reproachment between Saudi Arabia and Iran is very worrisome to Israel, and Russia has been supporting the Assad regime in Syria which Israel has been attacking for years, and Russia is allied with China. Supporting the natural divisions in the Middle East has been a long-term strategy for Israel, but it may be breaking down.

Sorry, if any of you are White advocates.  Israel has only one limitation and that’s religion, but that really comes down to ancestry.  In a practical sense, you must be  ethnically Jewish to live permanently in the country.  Promoting White-only aspirations would be totally unacceptable for Israelis.  Their population is racially mixed, although there is certainly a lot of discrimination and hostility toward Ethiopian Jews.  There is, oddly enough, a large Arabic population who are Israeli citizens—second-class citizens to be sure, given that the official ideology is that it is a Jewish state with all that means for immigration laws, etc..

I admire China’s ambitions and spectacular rise to power, but I would not want to live under their control.  As a Buddhist and atheist country, they would not tolerate orthodox Jews and their traditions.

Michael:  Thanks, Efrahim.  In the interest of a broader viewpoint, let’s take a question or two from the audience.

Jonathan, an honor student who is a history buff:  I know a few Chinese in the community.  I agree that they are hard-working but a little reclusive.  They want their children to succeed in school.  They don’t socialize much.  Also, if you talk about White advocacy in class, my classmates hiss and boo and call you names. So-called White supremacy is a seen as a symbol of racial hatred, and even the idea that White people have interests as Whites, such as ending or reversing the non-White demographic transformation, will get into trouble if you mention it in a favorable manner.  My question: do you think my generation will have to fight China militarily or will our two countries continue to tolerate each other without getting into a war?

Michael:  I think I can handle this one.  Everything points to hostility but not, I hope, an out-and out-war.  We would simply destroy each other as well as world civilization.  Nuclear holocaust is unthinkable.

More than likely, we will deal with the Chinese as commercial rivals first, and militarily second.  My one fear is that neo-cons and warmongers in Congress would do the worst possible thing and engage in open hostilities with the Chinese military.  If that occurs, all bets are off.

Okay, let’s proceed to the next subject: immigration and the southern border.  Given the breadth of this topic, we could spend hours discussing its ramifications.  Let’s try to keep our comments as brief as possible.

Gregory, I’ll turn the floor over to you for this one.

Gregory:  Thanks, again.  As you said, immigration, both legal and illegal, is very complex.  Succinctly, let’s confine ourselves to the massive invasion of America by illegal migrants and its immediate consequences.  As everyone knows, the Biden administration has essentially encouraged this disaster.  Over the next two years, if nothing is done, there will be millions of additional migrants who will cross our border and spread throughout the country, hoping to stay free and remain in America as legal migrants.  Given the situation that now exists, there is little that can be done to prevent this from happening.  I don’t see any resolution in the near future unless the White House cracks down—and they won’t because they quite reasonably think that the future belongs to the left when these people vote.

Fox News has been covering this issue like a wet blanket; the other channels only occasionally.  Most Americans—both Republican and Democratic—want this crisis to be resolved quickly.

As we mentioned previously, White advocates will be negatively impacted in the long term since brown-skinned migrants will tip the demographic scales.  We tend to forget that illegals from some 160 countries are flooding across the southern border in addition to those from Central and Latin America.

I don’t foresee the Han Chinese, wherever they get into power, persecuting Whites who celebrate their cultural heritage with pride.  Racial homogeneity is important to the Chinese.

Michael:  Good points, Gregory.  Quickly, panelists: anything to add?

Efrahim:  Israel is a country founded exclusively by immigrants.  I’m sympathetic to whites who feel political power being taken away by a flawed immigration system that favors the foreign-born over native residents.  We Americans are surrendering our autonomy to illegal migrants who are not familiar with democratic rule, and as soon as they get here, they are propagandized to hate everything about White America.  What other advanced country would willingly do this?

This observation provoked an exchange of comments that ranged from the outraged to the compassionate.  However, the Third World was opening its prisons and insane asylums and sending the inmates hasta el Norte; somewhat privileged migrants from foreign countries were simply crossing the border in search of a better life and a higher salary than back home.  As we all know, vetting for asylum seekers is deeply flawed and the Border Patrol agents are overwhelmed, and the Biden administration under the direction of Homeland Security head Mayorkas has been actively promoting it, although they seen an election coming up and are at least trying to talk tough.  But drug dealers for these reasons are crossing the border almost with impunity. Other contributors invoked compassion; they shared President Ronald Reagan’s assessment of the migrant hordes before granting them amnesty in 1986: If they are ambitious and hardy enough to undergo the arduous trip to reach our border, they should be rewarded.  They’ll make hard-working and dedicated citizens in the future. God bless them!

This contradicted President Dwight Eisenhower’s approach to illegal immigration in the mid-1950s.  In an effort to create jobs for Korean War veterans and control Mexican immigration, hundreds of thousands of illegal (and legal) migrants were rounded up and deported under what was called pejoratively “Operation Wetback.” Overall, some 1.3 million Mexicans were expelled.

Summarizing our positions

By and large, both the panelists and audience members agreed with previous comments on NATO’s role in preserving European stability and secondarily the precarious future of American society when party loyalties and identity politics could determine the fate of our nation.  In fact, there was some concern about how Whites would be treated at the ballot box, in the judicial system, and in a multi-cultural Congress.

The subject of education drew he most attention since the way our children were taught was essential to their well-being.  We desperately needed well-trained and inquiring minds to insure our survival in the years to come.

Michael:  That was a spirited overview of our political future.  There were some great ideas we should all think about.

Education concerns all of us, especially our gifted high school students who are with us today.

As parents, we are worried about a lack of say-so in curriculum matters, especially when very young children are forced to learn sexually-charged information that goes against family values.  We’re not talking about college literature courses, but textbooks selected for kindergarten and grammar school children who are too immature for suggestive information and graphic illustrations of sex acts.

Jacqueline, if you will, as an educator what are your thoughts on this topic?

Jacqueline:  Thanks, Michael, for handing me a real hot potato!  Well, for starters, we don’t want teachers introducing material that immature student minds can’t handle either emotionally or intellectually. Good education is founded on learning information that is fact-based…not skewed to fit a political or religious ideology.  Indoctrination doesn’t have a legitimate place in the classroom. Talking to kindergartners about sexual intercourse is ridiculous: what purpose does it serve?

Encouraging very young people to choose their sexuality as though nature were irrelevant is also hard to understand.  We are formed in the womb as male and female.  DNA and chromosomes determine our femininity or masculinity.  How we feel about ourselves at 15 will not necessarily reflect our opinion at 21 or 22.  There are tragically “trans” individuals who, as mature adults, regret their sexual preference choice as a teenager.

By then, it’s too late and their lives are destroyed.  The medical establishment and those surgeons who perform sex change operations get very rich in the process.

Parents who signed off on the genital mutilation of their children should be held criminally liable for child abuse.  These, of course, are my views.  I have three children and I couldn’t imagine approving this barbaric experiment to right Nature’s supposed “wrongs”—as they say.

Michael:  Thanks, Jacqueline.  On the other hand, let’s agree that if a mature individual, well into adulthood, after underdoing psychological counseling, chooses to transition medically, there’s little society can do.

However, leading a teenager in the wrong direction is obviously abusive and potentially criminal.  Concerned parents and teachers should intervene for the sake of the child.  Hospitals should refuse to perform sex change surgeries on teenagers.

After some give and take from the audience, the moderator and panelists came to the conclusion that a rapidly evolving society was not predictable and was becoming increasingly hostile to people of Caucasian descent.  For White advocates to survive in positions of authority, they had to garner both political and economic support from every possible source.  Their freedoms were slowly disappearing in the new progressive world; unless they were proactive, their kind would be relegated to undeserved mediocrity and condemnation.

It was a certainty that once in power, minority leaders would evoke past misdeeds as a justification for penalizing White people and restricting their ascent to power of any sort.  The current obsession with “reparations” for slavery and segregation are symbolic of current and future distortions of historical “transgressions.”

Since 1964/1965 the American people have given trillions of dollars in tax revenue to create a Black middle class and right the so-called inequities of past decades.  In 2023, there is no racial segregation or discrimination either de jure or de facto.  Minority billionaires abound in North America and a prosperous black middle class is apparent in most cities.  The so-called victims of slavery are impossible to find; there are no accurate records of enslavement. Yet talk of reparations is in the air, with a panel convened by the city of San Francisco is advocating $5 million for each Black person, eliminating personal debt and tax burdens and doling out guaranteed annual incomes of at least $97,000 for 250 years!

If reparations as such were enacted into law, who would receive “compensation” and who would pay?  We would be facing the illogical result of enforcing a ruling in which blacks themselves would be involved in paying for the abuse their forefathers endured over 150 years ago.  This unqualified insanity is fostered by the zealotry of minority legislators who will seek any means to humiliate their White “masters” of the past.

The future that awaits us is fractured.  In an effort to “right the wrongs of the past” progressive ideologues have refused to acknowledge the vast improvements made in race relations.  A veritable industry of racial division has blossomed throughout the political spectrum.  Until we have “atoned” for our sins, we will be forever branded as oppressors who must be punished.

Asians on the other hand are neither celebrated nor given their “month of recognition.”  The remarkable ascent of Ashkenazi Jews is deliberately downplayed, if not ignored by the national media—with the encouragement of Jewish activist organizations concerned that people will come to think of Jews as a dominant elite.  As Hispanics grow in popularity and numbers, they are less and less singled out for praise and recognition by the press.  The “narrative” is driven by a feverish effort to promote blacks by any means necessary.  Their presence in entertainment and television commercials is obligatory.  If a company runs ads without black actors, they will suffer the whiplash effects of public denunciation and accusations of racism.

It is obvious that our country cannot function in an equitable manner with a repressive narrative those in power deem sacred.  White advocates are condemned to exclusion and “deplatforming” unless leaders of great courage and vision can take up our cause.  Otherwise an Orwellian future of negativity and mind control will haunt us in our efforts to achieve equilibrium and happiness.