Race in France: A Sketch based on First- and Second-Generation Immigrants
/in Featured Articles, Muslim Immigration/by Guillaume DurocherFrance, notwithstanding its monarchist, Republican and Gaullist traditions favoring a centralized and sovereign Nation-State, is subject to the same globalist tendencies as other Western countries. There is the same trend towards borderlessness in all spheres, notably demographic, economic and political. The result is the constant undermining of the French nation.
These trends are interlinked and mutually reinforcing: European free movement rules outlaw systematic immigration checks at the country’s borders, economic elites demand low-wage immigrant labor to stop companies from bleeding out of the country through offshoring, and the European Union’s ideology of total disregard for ethnic and cultural realities — all peoples being equivalent and interchangeable — prevents any serious discussion of immigration and ethnicity.
No doubt the most serious trend, because it is irreversible barring a terrible civil war, has been demographic borderlessness and non-European migration. Discussion of ethnicity is barren in France compared to the United States. There is a virtual ban on ethnoic and religious statistics — notionally reflecting the official Republican ideology of absolute “colorblindness” since the French Revolution — meaning one is often left to speculate on the performance and status of different communities, or rely on potentially less-trustworthy non-official sources. There is little knowledge of research in human biodiversity and even a famous anglophile, relatively heterodox French demographer like Emmanuel Todd has only mentioned The Bell Curve to dismiss it as typical of the work produced by racist North Americans.
Notwithstanding this, many in France intuitively feel that the French population is becoming Balkanized through non-assimilable mass non-European immigration, resulting in a fracturing of the country along ethno-confessional lines. This process is probably more advanced in France than any other European country. As expected from a race realist perspective, the data show that, rather than interchangeable parts, non-White immigrants to France lag behind the native French in areas related to education and employment. Read more
Immigration and the Republican Party — Further Points
/in Costs of Multiculturalism/by Kevin MacDonaldRe the article by Prof. James G. Gimpel discussed in “What does becoming a minority mean for the social status of Whites?“, there are several other interesting findings:
- Putting Republican Latinos on the ballot doesn’t make Latinos vote Republican. ” Remarkably, Latinos in California appear to vote overwhelming Democratic even when Republican Latino candidates are on the ballot opposing Anglo Democrats.”
- “The propensity for immigrants, and especially Latinos, to be swing voters has been greatly exaggerated by wishful-thinking Republican politicians and business-seeking pollsters who refuse to acknowledge the stability of individual party identification (Green, Palmquist, and Schickler 2002). Entrenched patterns of party loyalty change very slowly, over decades, and are not ordinarily subject to wild swings in response to campaign stimuli.” . …
- “In extensive national surveys, major immigrant groups prove to be more liberal than the native-born on matters such as government spending and income redistribution, the government role in healthcare, and government efforts to stimulate the economy. Immigration is but one of a long list of issues on which the foreign-born population is out of sync with the Republican Party (Hawley 2013)” [and White America]. Read more
What does becoming a minority mean for the social status of Whites?
/4 Comments/in Costs of Multiculturalism, Featured Articles, Racialization of American Politics/by Kevin MacDonaldThe recent study by Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson on the reactions of Whites to becoming a minority (discussed here) included a manipulation where experimental subjects (all Whites) read an “assuaging paragraph” intended to calm their fears about the impending minority status of Whites. The paragraph was a very authoritative sounding claim that “despite the shift in the demographic make-up, the relative societal status of different racial groups is likely to remain steady” and “White Americans are expected to continue to have higher average incomes and wealth compared to members of other racial groups.”
This was merely an experimental manipulation. The experimenters did not argue that the assuaging claim about White social status was true. But, given that they are proposing that fear of loss of social status is indeed the central mechanism underlying all their results, it is important to think about whether it is true or not. Again, the model they propose is that White people confronted with their impending status as a demographic minority fear a decline in their social status. This then motivates them to adopt a variety of positions associated with conservative politics in America, such as opposing a government role in healthcare, favoring more defense spending, and presumably opposing gay marriage, abortion, and restrictions on gun rights.

As the above chart shows, it’s not the case that Whites “have higher average incomes and wealth compared to members of other racial groups.” Asians have had a higher average income ever since they became a demographically significant group. Moreover, in states like California, Whites are losing out in competition with Asians and Latinos for valued resources, such as admission to the University of California (“California students feel UC admission squeeze“). Whites (26.8%) are now the third most common racial group in the UC system, following Asians (36.2%) and Latinos (28.8%) (the latter doubtless boosted by the rule that students in the top 9% of their high school graduating class are automatically admitted; Blacks are underrepresented because race cannot be used as a criterion and there are few all-Black high schools as Latinos have colonized many formerly Black areas. Immigration has huge costs for Blacks as well as Whites).
Another aspect of the future decline in the economic position of Whites is highlighted in a recent report by James G. Gimpel, a professor of government at the University of Maryland, posted by the always valuable Center for Immigration Studies (Immigration’s Impact on Republican Political Prospects, 1980 to 2012). Importing millions of poor, uneducated people will be an ever-increasing drain on society as a whole and will lead to political power for redistributionist policies that will hurt Whites. Read more




