Triumph of the Shrill

“Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain—even kill neurons—and shorten your life.”-Professor Lisa Barrett, Northeastern University

“SPEECH IS VIOLENCE!”-UC Berkeley students protesting ((((((Ben Shapiro))))))

“We are a carload of teenage girls going to the beach, it is going to get disgusting!”-Lee Russell

Inside Higher Ed recently ran a piece by Colleen Flaherty entitled “Poli-Sci for the Trump Era,” in which various academics lamented their inability to understand “Trump’s America”—in other words, America. These otherwise very bright and accomplished people don’t even have the most basic frame of reference with respect to the bedrock of the country they live in, so immersed in the Cult-((((((Marx)))))) bubble of the academy as they are. The “gun people” are mere abstractions out in the country, their rural environs only ever experienced en route to a vacation home. What’s more, they’re completely sheltered from the “multi-cultural” neighborhoods and areas the open borders immigration policies they advocate for create, areas that are, quite frankly, borderline unlivable (if you’ve ever been woken up by a rooster at five in the morning within city limits you know exactly what I’m talking about). The craft cocktail set move effortlessly from one gentrified neighborhood to another, or from the confines of the campus out to the suburbs, and never have to interact with either group of people their policies effectively pit against each other.

Flaherty’s article, if nothing else, shows how laughably out of touch these people are. One of the key points of the article was the need to “contextualize” Trump’s “rise” by looking at the Latin American political climate. Aside from the fact that they’re demographically about thirty years early, that certainly would’ve helped contextualize the Obama presidency and its rampant corruption, but if anything, President Trump’s victory was intensely, and uniquely, American. You’d know that if you ever deviated from your itinerary of symposiums and workshops and dinner parties, if you ever interacted with the average folks that service your car, or collect your trash, or drive cross-country to deliver produce to your local Whole Foods. Donald Trump’s populist movement doesn’t require an understanding of Latin America; it requires an understanding of America. The vast majority of people who’ve ever had to do real manual labor, or scrounge for tips, or punch a clock to get paid a pittance are going to hew to the conservative side of the spectrum given the often volatile nature of menial employment and the work ethic required to earn a living without turning to the government for hand-outs. I say this not to insult anyone, but if academics had to collect garbage or lay concrete for even a limited amount of time, say one summer between classes, they would have a far greater understanding of life for most Americans, and hence the appeal of Donald Trump, than any amount of secondary research into the banana republics of Latin America.

Flaherty’s piece links to an abstract by five academics—three from Cornell and one each from Swarthmore and Johns Hopkins—regarding the “unique threat to democracy at the present moment,” which is depressingly un-self-aware. So we have this paradox where academics are at once utterly oblivious to the psychology of their fellow countrymen, yet they are hyper-aware, if not telekinetic, regarding their motivations, the most central of which, it would seem, is race-oriented.

There is perhaps no more emblematic sign of our times than the Poop Swastika.

We’ve seen the pictures. We’ve seen the shit on the door handle. We’ve seen the University of Missouri’s not-at-all-overblown reaction to what many on the Right believe was either a hoax (such as, described as “itself a sort of editorial poop swastika” by the now-defunct Gawker) or a scatological gag, but it’s rapidly becoming apparent that this kind of Hate is turning into an epidemic. Earlier this year, another fecal swastika was found on the wall of a gender-neutral bathroom (this CANNOT be a coincidence) at the Rhode Island School of Design; campus safety officials initially believed the Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain Dharmic symbol of good fortune might constitute a hate crime. The local NBC affiliate reported that this was just the latest in “a string of incidents with feces.” Media Matters posited that, “The anti-Semitic and possibly anti-LGBTQ incident came during a continuing national surge in anti-Semitic threats and hate crimes.”

Steven Hayward wonders: “Isn’t this an anti-Semitic hate crime? Which would make it rather odd, since anti-Semitism is officially sanctioned on so many college campuses today and is an accepted faction on the left. Did Jewish students at Missouri join the protests?” The university’s Title IX office noted that the swastika may have been intended, “To offend and threaten a larger population of our campus community in addition to Jewish students.” The protests at the University of Missouri were meant to be centered on the demands and grievances of “students of color,” so I’m a little confused as to what, exactly, the swastika means to them outside of the seven blacks killed in German concentration camps (or close to .000001% the percentage of Jews killed; or the number of blacks killed by other blacks over the weekend in Chicago).

Alex Johnson helpfully points out: “For some reason, people thought [the poop swastika] was aimed directly at black people and that someone had to pay for this act (my emphasis).” A student—Jonathan Butler—went on hunger strike (who said irony died in the Nineties?) to protest that the university president resign due to the systemic and institutional racism on campus, begging the question what, exactly, could the university president have done about the creative display? For good measure, Butler threw himself on to the president’s car and claimed to have been targeted by the president because of his race. Prior to either of the scatological swastikas, the Legion of Black Collegians on the University of Missouri campus asked an intoxicated white student to leave their event stage, alleging that at some point during his removal the student said, “These niggers are getting aggressive with me” (I have on good authority he said, “This aggression is triggering me,” but I don’t let facts convolute the narrative); add these incidents together with the “racist bananas” at American University, the noose/shoelace at Michigan State University, the racial epithet graffiti at Eastern Michigan University, the Yale Halloween costume e-mail, the Items for Transformative Justice protest at Dartmouth, the Day of Absence fiasco at Evergreen State, the “heated and physical” exchange between a campus police officer and a Latinx Ivy League Conference attendee at Brown University, and so many others, and it is clear we still have so far to go to combat the systemic racism plaguing our institutions of higher learning and our society at large.

Or maybe it’s a gross manifestation of something much different. Judge Macklin Fleming saw this coming all the way back in 1969 in response to Yale University’s decision to establish a racial quota for each incoming class:

The faculty can talk around the clock about disadvantaged background, and it can excuse inferior performance because of poverty, environment, inadequate cultural tradition, lack of educational opportunity, etc. The fact remains that black and white students will be exposed to each other under circumstances in which demonstrated intellectual superiority rests with the whites… No one can be expected to accept an inferior status willingly. The black students, unable to compete on even terms in the study of law, inevitably will seek other means to achieve recognition and self-expression. This is likely to take two forms. First, agitation to change the environment from one in which they are unable to compete to one in which they can. Demands will be made for elimination of competition, reduction in standards of performance, adoption of courses of study which do not require intensive legal analysis, and recognition for academic credit of sociological activities which have only an indirect relationship to legal training. Second, it seems probable that this group will seek personal satisfaction and public recognition by aggressive conduct, which, although ostensibly directed at external injustices and problems, will in fact be primarily motivated by the psychological needs of the members of the group to overcome feelings of inferiority caused by lack of success in their studies. Since the common denominator of the group of students with lower qualifications is one of race this aggressive expression will undoubtedly take the form of racial demands–the employment of faculty on the basis of race, a marking system based on race, the establishment of a black curriculum and a black law journal, an increase in black financial aid, and a rule against expulsion of black students who fail to satisfy minimum academic standards.[1]

An Inferiority Complex is defined as: The lack of self-worth, a doubt and uncertainty about oneself, and feelings of not measuring up to standards. It is often subconscious, and is thought to drive afflicted individuals to overcompensate, sometimes marked by extremely aggressive behavior in compensation. A superiority complex is an attitude of superiority that conceals actual feelings of inferiority and failure by grossly over-compensating.

Jonathan Haidt notes: “And so the experiment continues, and it is likely to continue for many more decades unless the Supreme Court intervenes. Black students are (at least in some ways) the victims of the experiment. And in response to their legitimate anger, universities will now intensify their commitment to the experiment.” We’re already beginning to witness this with the massive concessions universities like Brown and Missouri have made to their vocal minorities. This should give us pause. Douglas Murray writes that there is a particular “definition of hate-crime which allows the victim (real or perceived) to be the arbiter of whether an offence has been committed. This privilege allows a list of people who believe they have been ‘trolled’ or ‘abused’ online over their ‘race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity’ to be arbiters as well as reporters of any and all such crimes. It is worth considering where this can end up.”

In any case there are real reasons for the achievement gap and our incessant attempts to rectify nature are only making things worse. The idea that egalitarianism is going to “fix” what ails the black and brown communities is utter fiction. In the 1920s, a number of American blacks took Soviet propaganda at face value and re-located to the USSR in order to escape segregation and systemic racism in America and find their own workers’ paradise. What did they actually find? Says Sean Braswell:

Comintern approved a $300,000 fund for propaganda purposes in Black America, and key African-American leaders and communist sympathizers were invited to Russia to be wooed by Lenin and other Soviet officials inside the Kremlin. One of those trained in Moscow was Lovett Fort-Whiteman, a Harlem bellman turned political activist whom Time magazine called “the Reddest of the Blacks.” (Fort-Whiteman would die in a Siberian gulag in 1939.) Others swayed by the charismatic Lenin included the Black poet Claude McKay. “If the exploited poor whites of the South could ever transform themselves into making common cause with the persecuted and plundered Negroes,” wrote McKay when he returned home, “the situation would be very similar to that of Soviet Russia today.”[2]

The situation in many African states is, indeed, very similar to the Soviet Russia of Claude McKay’s day (rampant corruption, food shortages, executions, etc.), though far from trying to establish common cause and working in tandem to better their respective countries, the blacks have decided the best course of action is persecuting the few remaining whites. Former South African president Jacob Zuma came out in support of confiscating white-owned property without compensation, and even went on to publicly sing a song about killing whites. The situation has accelerated since with a constitutional amendment legalizing white land expropriations. South Africa’s leadership is in thrall to socialism, much like their neighbors to the north, Zimbabwe, whose former leader, Robert Mugabe, forced a medical team to lop off part of his penis after a cancerous tumor was discovered there. The noted polygamist and his exaggerated rubber prosthesis decided, “We will not prosecute killers of white farmers.”

Like an African dictator, the would-be Leftist arbiter gets to be judge, jury, and executioner, enforcing subjective social justice by diktat. Compromise, like dialogue, is rendered impossible by this fundamentally unreasonable ideology. To the Left, everyone to the right of Hitler is Hitler. This kind of rhetoric is going to continue to embolden the fringes and further polarize our discourse. In the American context, our spectrum looks something like a door-stop: the further right you go, the smaller the desired government. So no, someone like myself is not Hitler, sorry to disappoint, and neo-fascists claiming to represent the American Right are using a European paradigm, not an American one.

The ability to engage in peaceable dialogue with people we disagree with is fundamental to our liberty, and affirming our views central to our sense of individual identity. Political spectrum quibbling aside, what the Left is doing is extraordinarily insidious. Their obsession with the collective, with “inter-sectional identities,” is sacrificing freedom and individuality at the altar of an ideology that patently refuses to engage with the world as it is, but instead seeks to re-make the world in its own image. If tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of eggs need to be cracked to make this particular rotten omelet, so be it.





Tommy Robinson Arrested for Calling Out Filthy Cockroah Moslem Gang Rapists

Roy Batty
Daily Stormer
May 25, 2018

When this man isn’t promoting trannies at free speech events and counter-signaling blood and soil nationalists or holding rallies in solidarity with Israel, he does a lot of good work.


EDL leader-turned independent journalist Tommy Robinson has been arrested in Leeds after confronting defendants outside a courthouse as they entered to face trial over sexual abuse allegations.

Robinson and his team were producing a live video for social media as several of 29 defendants accused of child sex abuse and neglect entered the courthouse.

In a video posted to social media, Robinson – a self-modeled defender of free speech – can be seen arrested by a team of police officers. He is put in the back of a police van, with officers telling him that he was being arrested for “incitement” and “breach of the peace.” 

That’s what the authorities want above all else: to maintain the peace.

It doesn’t matter if the peace is unjust, horrific and spells certain doom for the native peoples of the British Isles. So long as it’s peace, the authorities believe that it is preferable to a just war.

But I disagree.

Idk about you, but I’m willing to risk a war over preserving an unjust peace. 

RT spoke to Robinson’s producer, Caolan Robertson, about the confrontation outside of Leeds Crown Court and Robinson’s subsequent arrest.

“Their case has been going on for about a year,” Robertson said. “Tommy had all the publicly available information… and on that live stream he repeated the information that was already public. We were very careful with language [as to not risk being held in contempt of court].”

Videos already shared to social media show Robinson walking near the alleged rapists, goading them for comment. The men reacted aggressively before police intervened. 

These fucking sandniggers attacked Tommy and then the police intervened to arrest Tommy, nevermind that it was child rapist sandniggers attacking him.


My desire to fedpost about the day of the short rope and long drop increases with every news item I read coming out of the UK.

I think of Molotov cocktails, short troika trials, and pleas for mercy from people sobbing about “just following orders” that won’t go answered.

But whatever… that’ll come at the very end, not now when we’re just getting started.

The case in question has previously seen enraged picketing outside the courthouse, with protesters seen in April hurling and screaming abuse at defendants as they arrived at court. The case has seen 29 people charged in an inquiry into child sex abuse and neglect in Huddersfield.

The alleged offences took place in the town between 2004 and 2011 and involved girls aged between 11 and 17. Twenty-seven men have been accused of offences against 18 people, including rape and trafficking. Two women are charged with child neglect. In total, the 29 defendants face a total of more than 170 charges.

Robinson’s team told RT that they will now head to the police station, where they will try to find out more information about why Robinson was arrested. RT UK reached out to West Yorkshire Police for comment, but the force declined. A spokesman said that they could not comment as they “don’t identify arrested people.”

Robinson has previously been arrested for contempt of court after filming outside Canterbury Crown Court in May, for “incitement” after a protest in 2013, and was jailed for 18 months for mortgage fraud in 2014.

Latest reports indicate that Robinson has just been released from custody. 

Well good. He’s out again.

In my book, anyone that sheds light on the Moslem grooming gangs is doing good work for the cause.

Meanwhile, all of England is silent about what these vile aliens are doing to White girls.

I suppose they were too distracted by the Royal Wedding.

Honestly fam, I pray to God that He keep these people alive to see us come to power. I want to do to the UK normies what they did to the Germans after the war. RWDS will escort these people to the brothels and crack dens and basements where the White girls were kept by the Paki gangs.

There will be museums dedicated to the cravenness and cowardice of the average British citizen in the face of unspeakable evil.

They will all be forced to watch.

And then they’ll be executed…lol jk.

Egalitarianism is morally bankrupt

Pacifism is morally bankrupt, because you cannot be a pacifist unless other men are willing to fight and die to defend you and your belief.


Liberalism’s Moral Bankruptcy Has Bankrupted America


By Matt Patterson

Sometimes I like to play a little game with my liberal friends. Let us suppose, I say to them, that you have one hundred dollars with which you plan to purchase food for your family at a local grocery. Now let us suppose that I come along and rob you while you are on your way to the store, taking half of your one hundred dollars.

At this point I ask my friend: Is the robbery good or bad for you economically?  “Bad,” they invariable answer, for “I now have less money for groceries.” Then I ask them: Is my robbing you good or bad for the grocer?  “Bad,” they again answer, for “now he, too, has less money for his family.” Next question: Was it morally right or wrong for me to rob you? “Wrong, of course,” they answer, for “the money did not belong to you.”

Then, the coup de grace:  What if I planned to give your money to someone else, I ask, someone whom I felt was more worthy or deserving of your money?

At this point, many liberals begin to suspect they have been led into a rhetorical cul de sac, and cognitive dissonance sets in as they realize that an honest answer necessitated by their answer to the previous questions will conflict with their stated political principles and past voting habits. Some will nevertheless admit, “Well, it isn’t really for you to decide who gets my money….”

An alternate hypothetical: Ask any liberal friend whether it would be morally sound or economically advantageous for an individual to rack up mountains of debt, until the gap between what is taken in and what goes out can never be rebalanced, with the fiscal burden passed onto their children and their children’s children, who likewise have little hope of living debt free.

An honest answer is that such behavior, like the hypothetical robbery, is both morally wrong and economically deleterious. Yet the same liberals who can see the fault in such behaviors for individuals support exactly those behaviors on the part of governments; confiscatory taxation and unsustainable deficits and debt are, after all, the inevitable consequences of liberal governance.

It is not hard to understand why. Liberals rarely see individuals except in the abstract aggregate, and so often fail to see the trees for the forest. Some are cognizant of this blind spot in their liberal world view: Margaret Carlson recently admitted, by way of explaining the president’s inability to connect with individual voters going through tough economic times:

It’s a long time now since Obama was a community organizer. Even then, he might have been more comfortable dealing with communities than with individuals. Democrats are best with groups. If I break down on the side of the road, I hope a Republican stops — he’ll fix my flat and offer me a drink. A Democrat will get busy forming a Committee to Protect Women Who Own Vulnerable Cars.

Quite. And it is precisely this feature of liberalism that has led to the economic and spiritual wasteland it leaves whenever and wherever it is put at the controls of government. For the truth is there are no such thing as “groups” — there are only individuals. To say, for example, that this or that policy is good for blacks, or for women, is to overlook the vast differences that exist between individuals — differences in needs, wants, ambitions, life-experiences, temperament, etc., even if they may share skin color or gender in common.

To smooth out such differences, which are in fact the manifestations of the uniqueness of each soul, is to suffer from a tragic myopia that can only lead to destruction — of rights, of property. After all, these are things that “individuals” possess. To see only groups is to necessarily dehumanize; to dehumanize in theory is to oppress in practice.

The double standard is clear. Everyone can see whats going on.

On a practical level, liberal policies don’t work — conservatives have long known and decried this. Take the infamous “War on Poverty,” instigated by that very liberal president, Lyndon Johnson, in his 1964 State of the Union address. In the name of waging his “moral equivalency of war,” Johnson ushered in a golden age of government social spending (read: confiscation and redistribution of wealth) of a size and scope unseen since the New Deal heyday. And many of the programs created under the War on Poverty umbrella are still with us today.

And where are we now, 46 years later? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, these days one in seven — or around 44 million — Americans live below the poverty line. As the Washington Postprosaically put it, “That is the largest number of people since the census began tracking poverty 51 years ago.” Twenty-five years ago, President Reagan liked to tweak his liberal critics by saying, “some years ago, the federal government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” And yes, in 2010, it’s more true than ever: more people are poor today than before Johnson started his war.

The technical reason for the failure of Johnson’s War on Poverty, of course, pace Keynes, is that government spending — even if done with the best of intentions — stifles economic growth, which is the only thing that has ever lifted substantial numbers of people out of poverty. When Johnson robbed a taxpayer, who might have been on his way to buy groceries for his family, and gave that money to someone else, whatever temporary benefit was derived from those funds by the third party did not make up for the fact that both the taxpayer and the grocer were now poorer (the economic hardship has not vanished; it has just been “redistributed”).  Nor does it disguise the fact that such robbery was — and is — ethically reprehensible.

And that is the rub: Liberal policies fail practically because they are morally defective — they discourage the recognition of individuals qua individuals, and therefore encourage the adoption of policies that hurt individuals. One might say in fact that it is the moral bankruptcy of liberal ideology that leads directly to the economic bankruptcy of states and nations that liberals govern.

Conservatives who relish pointing out the disastrous track record of liberal policies ought to take greater pains to point out the moral dimensions of the debate. It has long been widely observed that Americans are a practical people; less often noted however, save by some astute commentators like Tocqueville, is that Americans have also always been a deeply moral people, and have always welcomed discussions of ethics in public policy. Many Americans could, I think, be made to see the tremendous moral lapses that lay in the very foundations of liberal thought — if conservatives are wise and capable enough to press the case.

When you see a person, not as an individual, who might have worked for and earned whatever money they have, but as a mere cog in a group (“the rich” for example) then it is easy to say, as Obama did, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” And if you see a person not as an individual who might have made some bad choices and is perfectly responsible for the consequences, but as a member of a group (the “disadvantaged” for example), then you have all the justification you need to rob from the one and give to the other, and you will have lost the capacity to see the injustice you have done to both, or care about the economic and social wreckage that follows.

Nearly half a century of the welfare state has made us poorer both individually and as a nation — our national debt now officially tops $13.4 trillion ($21 trillion 2018), or 92 percent of GDP, though the real number, according to some analysts who accuse the U.S. government of hiding how deep it’s really in the hole, could range as a high as $60-200 trillion. This despicable and debased condition is a direct result of the moral exhaustion of the modern liberal order, which treats humans as mere collections of similar skins and genitals — not as people.

The Entitlement State Is Morally Bankrupt

By Yaron Brook and Don Watkins 

After Rick Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, pundits everywhere smugly assured the world that Perry is crazy because, after all, the government can never really go bankrupt: it can always print money to pay its debts. Of course, that’s hardly a comfort to those who know what hyperinflation can do to an economy.

In any case, Perry can be commended for daring to violate the first law of politics: whatever you do, do not question entitlements. Despite the fact that the big three entitlement programs–Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare–have the U.S. government facing upwards of $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, they largely remain a third rail: touch not lest ye be voted out of office.

Why are they sacrosanct? Because, whatever else you can say about the entitlement state, no one disputes that it’s a moral imperative. Inefficient? Maybe. Expensive? You bet. But morally questionable? Absolutely not.

The problem with the entitlement state is not simply that it is bankrupting this country–the problem is that it is morally bankrupt.

The basic principle behind the entitlement state is that a person’s need entitles him to other people’s wealth. It’s that you have a duty to spend some irreplaceable part of your life laboring, not for the sake of your own life and happiness, but for the sake of others. If you are productive and self-supporting, then according to the entitlement state, you are in hock to those who aren’t. In ((((((Marx))))))’s memorable phrase: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

As we’ve argued in past columns, no system that treats you as other people’s servant can be called moral. What made America the noblest nation in history was that it was the first country founded on the idea that each of us has a right to live and work for our own sake, that it’s our own job to try to make the most of our life, and that the government’s sole purpose is to protect our freedom to do so.

Some have raised objections to this line of argument, however. Here are three of the most popular objections.

1. “The entitlement state is no different from insurance.”

When Social Security first passed, under FDR, most Americans regarded being “on the dole” as shameful. One way the program garnered widespread support was by positioning itself, not as welfare, but as insurance. Medicare would later take the same tack. You pay in when you’re young and healthy, and when money is paid out to you, you’re not going on the dole–you’re simply getting back what’s yours.

This was always a fraud. Your taxes aren’t invested in order to generate your future benefits–they are used to supply benefits to current enrollees. If a private insurance company operated that way, racking up $100 trillion in debts it couldn’t pay, it would be bankrupt and its executives would be sent to prison.

But the most vital difference is this: the entitlement state is involuntary. For the rational person, insurance is something he chooses to buy when he judges that a given policy represents a net gain. Even in a voluntary, competitive system where profit-seeking companies tailor policies to your individual needs, insurance isn’t for everyone. A young entrepreneur might rationally decide to forego homeowners insurance in order to make his fledgling business a success. But the entitlement state forces us into costly, one-size-fits-all programs regardless of whether we think it’s in our personal interest.

2. “The entitlement state benefits everyone.”

Far from offering genuine benefits, whenever the government takes people’s money and decides how that money is “best” spent, it makes life harder for rational people. A rational person needs the freedom to plan his own life, make his own choices, and support his own existence. Consider the impact of Social Security.

In a world without Social Security, the rational person would think about his own long range plans and interests. He might rationally decide that he loves working and never wants to retire, or that he’d rather invest his current income in growing his business today and start saving once he has established himself. When he does invest, he will think carefully about where to park his savings, consulting experts, judiciously diversifying. As a result he will know where his investments stand and why, and will not be at the mercy of a political process that might raise the retirement age, curtail promised “benefits,” etc. For him, Social Security is all downside. All its alleged benefits he could attain much better on his own.

So why is he deprived of this freedom to live and plan his own life? Because some people may choose not to plan.

Social Security, and the entitlement state more broadly, institutes a basic injustice: the rational and productive are sacrificed in the name of the irrational. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

3. “But what about those who can’t take care of themselves?”

Sure, some people say, most of us would thrive without the entitlement state–but what about those who can’t? What happens to them? Don’t they starve in the streets?

In any industrialized nation, it is only a fraction of a sliver of a minority who are unable to support themselves, and even in the days before America’s entitlement state, they didn’t starve in the streets. Most turned to friends and family. Many others turned to voluntary social insurance programs run by private mutual aid societies, like the Security Benefit Association. And some turned to private charities.

If Americans a century ago could flourish without an entitlement state, how much easier would it be today, when even most “poor” people own cars and color TVs?

The entitlement state was never needed to ensure that the unable got fed. It is and always has been geared, not to the unable, but to the unwilling: to that entitlement mentality that expects payment “according to his needs.” And by rewarding that mentality, we foster that mentality.

The entitlement state is geared to the unwilling at the expense of the willing and able. What could be greater evidence that it is morally bankrupt?



Why I Left the Left

The left no longer seeks to abolish the state, but to beg for benevolence.

This past Saturday I drove down to the local gun store in my quaint mountain town to pick up some bismuth shells, just in time for an early morning Sunday hunt. As I perused the impressive selection of bird bashers, a small fracas in my periphery began rising to a twangy crescendo. I rounded a rack of turkey calls to investigate, and found a few grizzled local woodsmen huddled around a fuzzy monitor bolted to the ceiling, barking the ghostly specter of Sean Hannity through its pixelated display. The men stirred.

“Paid Protesters!” One grumbled.

“((((((George Soros))))))!” Exclaimed another.

Arguments against the state were shelved more often than not in favor of presentations on a seemingly endless parade of ‘passive’ social injustices.

I winced and felt the hot flush of embarrassment creep across my face as the screen danced with black-clad anarchists, gleefully smashing windows and tossing trash cans. Overpowered with nostalgia, I thought back to the sparse coffee shops and dimly-lit dish pits where my comrades and I would plot our insidious coups, against the oppression of plate glass windows and aluminum trash cans, and couldn’t help but laugh at the idea that global billionaires were somehow tugging on the puppet strings. I’m afraid the truth is far more desperate.

I spent nearly a decade of my young life in ‘hard’ left movements. I spent my teens printing zines, organizing, squatting, and worshipping the ironically “bourgeois” intelligentsia that pandered to our leftist sensibilities. At the core of my ideology was a burning desire for liberty and an intense distrust of the state. In the beginning, I might saunter into the local cooperative and find an impassioned debate over the legitimacy of insurrectionary movements abroad, or the most practical way to pirate electricity without being discovered. Over time, the fiery rhetoric became dogma, penetrating my psyche right down to its id. I saw the state’s oppression in everything and everyone. I noticed behavioral patterns of violence and subjugation that seemed to reproduce to infinity. And through this new countenance, the changing face of leftism was obscured to me.

Egalitarianism is Bankrupt and is destroying the West.

The New Social Justice

Social Justice was always a welcome addendum to anti-statist leftism for me. I gladly assumed the mantle and answered the call to march for police accountability, for women’s rights, for the ethical treatment of gays. The concept of ‘intersectional Social Justice’ was then a contentious one among many left-wing radicals, seen by many as a willful distraction from the core anti-statist message of our ideology, and worthy of only a small devotion. To focus too heavily on social issues was said to the be the resting place of sleepy liberals. And liberals, perhaps even as much as skinheads or the police, were the bane of the radical left. They meant to co-opt our movement and reacquaint us with their ineffective and self-aggrandizing brand of sedition and hoped to lasso a few of us back into the electoral process (abstaining from which was radical dharma at the time). They were, in short, a generally unwelcome addition to our ranks, and would usually turn their backs at the first mention of truly anti-statist politik.

I had more exposure than most to the left-wing radical “scene,” as it were, traveling to convergence spaces and conferences, worker-owned collectives and the like. I noticed a shift in the demographic makeup of the movement that became more pronounced with time. Character archetypes abound in the radical sphere, from crusty professors to dreadlocked primitivists, (and that leftist holy grail, the disaffected executive, living, perhaps, in a yurt or some otherwise subversive structure on some land that probably doesn’t belong to him), became more and more sparse. There was a new contingent of leftists, a new archetype that had seemingly appeared out of nowhere. (The radical space was not exactly adept at coalition-building, keep in mind). These new figures were polished, soft-speaking, and shied away from the hardline agitprop of resistance. Gone were the ‘zines adorned with flaming police cars, replaced by new editorials that opined the importance of gender fluidity and other obtuse concepts. A new language began to congeal, an especially elitist dialectic that almost required translation to English.

The left was consumed by this new drive to expose the innate bigotry of the majority.

The new language was accompanied by new tactics. Affinity meetings that were once hotbeds of dissent began to seem more like kangaroo courts. Arguments began to spring from the nascent well of discontent, and “accountability” hearings were the new norm, a process more often than not designed to elucidate the accused’s latent homophobia or racism. Arguments against the state were shelved more often than not in favor of presentations on a seemingly endless parade of ‘passive’ social injustices.

The old radical paradigm, in rudiment, went like this: “America was founded upon slavery, therefore America is racist, We are here because we disagree with racism.” The implied understanding was that because we had all found each other through our mutual disgust with what we had determined was a racist system that unfairly penalized minority populations, then we had already rejected a racist worldview. Thus our deliverance and rebirth occurred. It was understood to be innate to our shared ideology, and therefore our collective will could be focused and our mutual intent had been decided. This formed the basis for an arguably unified front that could be assembled and directed at will. But this mutual understanding was being corroded by a new, pernicious force that had infested every corner of the space. Anti-fascist organizers were no longer satisfied by directing their ire towards governmental institutions or hate groups and instead turned the looking glass inward. The toxic rancor of racism was found in our own ranks, by God!

Racism was found by the New Left to be inherent in all “whites.” (Racism is now said in the left to be a confluence of power and bigotry. Minorities, lacking the key ingredient of power, are exempt from this distinction.) Cis-gendered people (those of us who identify with our birth sex) were asked to “make space” for those that were not. Special privileges to be heard were conferred to the most oppressed within the group. This led to a bizarre new struggle within the movement over who might lay claim to being the most truly oppressed. The left was consumed by this new drive to expose the innate bigotry of the majority, especially within our own sphere. Where activists were once excommunicated over allegations of collusion with the authorities, they were now cast out frequently by accusations of complacent prejudice.

Friend and Foe in the New Left

Truth be told, I do not disagree with many of these indictments of mainstream culture. Inequities are certainly rampant in our society and must be illustrated and corrected. But the new face of the radical left seemed to be devouring itself. Where we had once in unison identified the state as the malevolent genesis of our oppression, our peers were now the true oppressors. The state apparently had not been oppressing us nearly as much as we had been oppressing one another. Anecdote became empirical, and experiences became the radical eucharist. Personal accounts of bigotry were now to be equivalent to universal and incontrovertible truth. A culture of martyrdom arose wherein victimhood was conflated with benevolence.

The left has lost its traction by alienating average people.

In the time before this new left, the directive was crystal clear: to illustrate the oppression of the state as it occurs to most everyone in the country, in the form of endemic poverty, uncorrected sickness, bankrupt free trade agreements, and the formation of a global police state. Organizers could mobilize radicals en masse to demonstrate against these societal evils, recalling the controlled chaos of the Seattle WTO demonstrations, or the significant uprising in Miami against the FTAA in 2003. The scene had now become almost entirely disjointed, and the former amalgamation of radicals ceased to exist. The radical left had become an especially tiresome arm of the progressive centrists, now content to lobby the state for greater societal controls rather than demand its abolishment.

There was only a small faction of anti-statist minded radicals left in the fray, and it was in them (and me) that the responsibility to carry on the tradition of rejecting the state and fighting for liberty. Instead, they clung to the antique tactics of property destruction and rock-tossing. The problem being, these tactics were complementary ones, meant only to supplement a coherent and organized radical left movement that had ceased to exist. They were to be an organ of outrage designed to counterbalance a cogent and heady vanguard of intellectual radicals. These radicals have become dinosaurs, defecting for the higher moral ground of the new left lest they fall victim to the witch hunt.

A Wayward Movement

The left has lost its traction by alienating average people and turning its intent towards social issues that are codified for inclusion. And of course, their argument is no longer to abolish the state, but to beg for benevolence at the feet of a corrupt government. I could not fathom how a group of people could move in a linear fashion from the idea that the central state was incorrigibly corrupt to the notion that we could somehow force it to provide for our interests. In a time of endemic poverty, I could no longer bear the guilt of selfishly aligning myself with a movement that seemed less concerned with exposing a secret war in the Middle East than it was with exposing my friends and peers as patriarchal villains.

In my last dark days with the left, I pleaded for objectivity, reason, rationale. These requests fell on deaf ears and nearly always resulted in a collective tongue lashing against my perceived ignorance. Why, they demanded, could I not accept that my perspective was being undermined by my ‘whiteness’? Why, if I was so committed to change and righteousness, could I not separate the evil archonic male desire from my true self? My positions, they would argue, had become tainted, infected by my hetero-ness, my maleness, my caucasian-ness. The whole world was a giant quagmire.

It occurs to me from time to time, usually in the throes of insomnia, that the state may have supplanted these contentious narratives within the space to misdirect and discredit the radical left, although this possibility has ceased to be relevant. The sad truth to behold is that the last actors in the space took to the streets to smash Starbucks’ windows and foolishly posture when they should have been pleading with their peers to reconsider a truly anti-statist perspective. In a last hurrah of hedonistic self-satisfaction, they have delivered the final blow to the radical left.


From Radix Journal:

Soft totalitarian regimes can only be maintained by a sense of moral and intellectual legitimacy—the willing assent of the vast majority of the people. Without this legitimacy, the entire apparatus of cultural control either disintegrates or transforms into hard totalitarianism—the truncheons and the gulags. But here there is a major difference between Communism in Eastern Europe and the current cultural regime in the United States. As Sunic notes, “Behind the Communist semantics in Eastern Europe, there loomed a make-believe system nobody truly believed in and which everybody, including former Communist party dignitaries, made fun of in private. In America, by contrast, many serious people, politicians, and scholars, let alone the masses, believe in . . . the message of the media.” The people who dissent from the American consensus have been successfully relegated to the fringes. The gods are still worshiped.

Year of the Cuck

Year of the Cuck
“All my life I’ve been told the same old

Don’t step out, don’t test the mould
We know your kind, yeah we know you
So much better than you know yourself
See, the ones that won’t engage me
Are the same trying to cage me
But I can’t sit still and I won’t be tame
When the lights go out

Better know your enemy.”-Parkway Drive, “Shadow Boxing”

The West is being torn asunder by some of the most monstrous manifestations of levelling ideologies the world has ever seen. Variously and in various stages of Bolshevik central-planning and anarcho-tyranny, Western civilization is on the ropes, beset on all sides by the global revolt of the Under-Man Lothrop Stoddard warned us about almost one hundred years ago, the revolt urged on, aided, and abetted by the destructive forces of globalism. As Stoddard wrote:

Congenitally incapable of adjusting themselves to an advanced social order, the degenerate inevitably become its enemies—particularly those “high-grade defectives” who are the natural fomenters of social unrest. Of course, the environmentalist argues that social unrest is due to bad social conditions, but when we go into the matter more deeply we find that bad conditions are largely due to bad people. The mere presence of hordes of low-grade men and women condemned by their very natures to incompetency and failure automatically engender poverty, invite exploitation, and drag down others just above them in the social scale.

As we all know it’s all of these law-abiding, straight-laced Nazis in Middle America who represent the real threat to democracy. The under-tow of society only grows stronger as the degenerate and devious elbow their way from the shadows to the pedestal, and more and more unassimilable Third Worlders transform formerly high-trust, homogeneous nations into ghetto-ized holding pens for the world’s maladaptive and maladjusted. “Coexistence” is decidedly not on the agenda for the fomenters of unrest and degeneracy. It’s not enough for these people to simply be accepted, they need to dictate how you are going to live your life—forgetting that’s the very thing they were supposedly rebelling against in the first place. But once you get that first hit of grade-A smack that is “power,” well, amnesia is a funny thing. There is also the distinct possibility, increasingly likely, that for many on the Left it was never about live-and-let-live, mutual tolerance in the first place. “Tolerance,” after all, is only tenable insofar as what you are tolerating is tolerable. Returning to Stoddard:

In all these social revolutionary phenomena there is nothing essentially novel. There is always the same violent revolt of the unadaptable, inferior, and degenerate elements against civilized society, in atavistic reaction to lower planes; the same hatred of superiors and fierce desire for absolute equality; finally, the same tendency of revolutionary leaders to become tyrants and to transform anarchy into barbarous despotism.

The fact that there is little to no precedent in the low-IQ Third World for representative government, democratic or republican principles, or the rich philosophical tradition of the inalienable rights of man therefore positions the imported populations in modern Western societies at a “starting point” of estrangement, and when the majority inevitably cannot compete on the terms of merit, that precipitates an increasingly-violent expression of their alienation. Their violence serves the purpose of forcing the native population into frightened silence and isolation while their generally low aptitude in modern society allows for an unquestioning low simmer of disaffection and rage within these No-Go holding pens until they can next be galvanized to trample all over another Western institution. Exploitation is eminently easier in a population of Gambians, Hondurans, and Afghanis than in one of Anglo-, Teutonic, and Scandic stock. Additionally, the green-eyed jealousy of the brown-eyed wanting to destroy something beautiful should never be discounted, and this venomous jealousy is shared by the Under-Man in the gutter staring at the stars. Gustav Le Bon wrote:

The Bolshevik mentality is as old as history. Cain, in the Old Testament, had the mind of a Bolshevik. But it is only in our days that this ancient mentality has met with a political doctrine to justify it. This is the reason of its rapid propagation, which has been undermining the old social scaffolding.

The alien, the disaffected, the maladjusted—this “Coalition of the Fringes” and its expanding ranks are necessary to shred the existing social fabric in order to eventually consolidate power. We are witnessing the deterioration of cohesion and standards in real time. Turn on ESPN if you want to see the future of America—Jews, tokenism, and minstrelsy. There’s a reason their ratings are way down, and that is because most (white) Americans implicitly understand that this is an unacceptable future, though they either cannot or will not acknowledge this fact. They might dismiss the channel as having gotten “too political,” like the movies they’re no longer going to the cinema to watch. But you know what? This future is unavoidable unless the average American speaks up and objects to their dispossession. All of the forces of globalism are descending upon us. We live in a time of global ferment, as always happens when a period of prosperity and stability—a Pax Romana or Pax Americana as it were—draws to a close and there is a void of power to be filled. As I wrote in my very first article for The Anatomically Correct Banana, “The Great American Hootenanny on the Ashes of Liberty”: “Lenin’s ‘Useful Idiots’ are busy screaming about Privilege and Patriarchy while behind them supra-national bureaucracies scheme and a cabal of globalists consolidate power: nation-states out, super-states and multi-nationals in.” As Stoddard wrote in The Revolt Against Civilization:

Forward-looking minds are coming to realize that social revolutions are really social breakdowns, caused (in the last analysis) by a dual process of racial impoverishment—the elimination of superior strains and the multiplication of degenerates and inferiors. Inexorably the decay of racial values corrodes the proudest civilization, which engenders within itself those forces of chaos that will one day work its ruin.

It wasn’t just barbarian incursions that un-did Rome; it was an onerous tax code, a bottomed-out birthrate, a civilizational ennui, gross excess and decadence in the moneyed class coupled with its feminization, and a deeply-misguided foray into multi-culturalism. I would be remiss if I didn’t also draw your attention to a certain “internationalist” ethno-religious sect responsible for centuries of back-biting and double-dealing within Rome’s borders, either. The parallels are striking. Economic success, positive inertia, and a strong ethos of “Romanization” can ameliorate many of the “diversity” issues in a multi-ethnic or multi-racial society, but even with the U.S. economy flirting with an all-time high, we are seeing a significant erosion in the strong cultural cohesion necessary to keep a non-homogeneous population from completely atomizing. This happens naturally to a significant degree in multi-ethnic, -racial, or –religious societies anyway, but on a macro scale, there is a demographic tipping point at which no amount of acculturation or pressure to assimilate can stop the disintegration of a society into tribalism. The break-down then becomes inevitable, and we are extremely close to that inevitability, even with a white majority. The lesson is becoming increasingly obvious that there must be either a totality, or a singular racial or ethnic super-majority depending on the nation in question, or it risks, in no uncertain terms, its very existence (even then, there is no guarantee its consciousness does not eventually become corrupted). There are a small handful of exceptions like a Switzerland, a Belgium, or a Canada, but notice something about their racial composition (and even Canada was wracked with Quebecois separatist terrorism only a few decades ago). Finally, the model of territorially acquisitive empires is almost assured to eventually bear the rotten fruits of tribal strife. No one stays on the top forever.

On a practical level, multi-culturalism has made identity politics an inevitability. As Jared Taylor writes, “When minority communities grow they exert a powerful attraction on their members that fosters parochial loyalties. At the same time, when other minorities turn their backs on assimilation and carve out alternative identities for themselves—and gain clear advantages for doing so—the temptation to do likewise is strong.” The identity for me but not for thee preached at, not to, whites is unsustainable for anyone with self-respect; many, probably a majority, of whites will cuck and allow themselves to be drowned in Lothrop Stoddard’s Rising Tide of Color, but others will rightly see that their formerly homogeneous nations are being obliterated to make room for the teeming masses of planet earth. Welfare and immigration policy have, at this point, mutated into emotional blackmail, the accusation of “racism” the Sword of Damocles hanging over every conversation pertaining to the sustainability of a nation on our present course.

There is a world of difference between what we might wish were true and what is true. I am an honest person, and all evidence continues to point to the contrary that un-checked diversity is a killer—of people, of cultures, of nations, of spirits. Many of us probably know fiercely patriotic, “based” non-whites, and we should be readily embracing them as allies, but the unfortunate fact is there is a very real paucity of them, and most people in general will continue to hew strongly along tribal lines because that is basic human nature.

As I’ve covered elsewhere, smaller government and maximal liberty are values only 26% of Hispanics and 32% of blacks in America share, as opposed to 62% of whites. So politics becomes less a difference of opinion and more a do-or-die battle on the streets and in the ballot box. The Left realizes this, but too many on the Right seem to think we’re dealing with 1950s demographics where reasoned appeals and debate are going to sway people hostile to your very existence. I’m not advocating an abandonment of reason, but an awareness that for many non-whites who feel estranged from their identity in majority-white nations, racial or ethnic identity will always supersede other factors; hell, most blacks vote against their best interests in the Democrat Party simply because they are resolved to racial solidarity. Donald Trump was celebrated for getting a pathetic 8% of the black vote, which is actually lower than the percentages for George W. “Doesn’t Care About Black People” Bush in both the 2000 election (9%) and the 2004 election (11%). It is only something to crow about if you frame the 2016 election against 2008 (4% for McCain) and 2012 (6% for Mittens). Granted, a vote for one of those three clowns isn’t in anyone’s best interest unless you work for a defense contractor or you’re an internationalist Jew, but you get my point. Come to think of it, those 8% of blacks may have voted for the same thing in light of the fact that nothing’s been done about our wide-open borders or the fact that the on-going fiasco in Syria is neo-conservatism incarnate.

Until next time.

Xoxo JQP

Indulge In Some Metaphorical Paranoia

Long ago, Asia wanted to conquer the West. Its first foray, through Mongols, had gone well until it became clear that resistance would be too strong and thus, the invasion too costly. In the grand tradition of plotting over tea and chess, the overlords of Asia met with clasped hands and faintly glowing dark eyes.

“We cannot challenge them directly, so instead we will follow the most devious of strategies: we will turn them against themselves,” said one Minister from deep in the rolling hills.

“How can this be done?” asked another.

The Minister from the city spoke up: “We will use two strokes of the axe: first, we will spread the worst of our own society to them, and then, we will turn them against themselves by making them compete against us to be more like us.”

As he explained his plans, the others agreed: this was indeed a subterfuge of many subtle layers, misdirections, deceptions, deflections, camouflage, and obfuscation! It made them feel intelligent and powerful just to think of it.

This was many centuries ago.

The initial foray came through the development of the Mongol System: a society based on universal tolerance but the idea of ideology, or something which was not real but still tangible to which people swore, like the idea of allegiance to a grand lord who made sure that all were tolerated. Every religion was welcome, and every tribe.

Next, they sent forth disguised Ministers of their religion, who went to study the ways of the West. Knowing that their prey was prone to curiosity, they simply asked questions. All of their questions sought a single answer: whether the question of religion must involve anything more than the individual.

At the same time their merchants, pushing aside those of the middle east, worked their way into the cities of the West. Here they offered new products, designed not to make life better, but to make the individual stand out more. Makeup, wigs, finery, jewels, and other personal accessories changed the way the people of the West saw themselves.

Simultaneously, their princes and consuls began making treaties with those branches of the enemy nearest to them. To these they wedded daughters, and brought many other young girls who they married off to the nervous intellectual types who lacked the confidence in the physical world that they found in the world of letters. These made mixed-race people who were partial to both sides of their heritage, even when almost invisible.

Finally, the scribes and priests began circulating a mythos of the individual among the cities of the enemy. In this, there was nothing greater than what the individual wanted at the moment; not the order of nature, the circle of life, the golden chain of being, the divine, or even the logical. There was only human choice, much like there was in the bazaars of Asia.

Centuries passed as this continued, like a great in-joke among those in the know.

Eventually, the mixed-race vassal states began to probe the enemy. Having a hybrid identity, they wanted to be of the enemy, but never could be, and this filled them with resentment. These people were still ruled by an elite who were genetically of the enemy, and the common people resented them for that reason alone.

Over time, the common people — aided by neurotic intellectuals from all over the world — gained enough power to overthrow their elites. At this point, the subterfuge became intense: the new regime advertised itself as bringing freedom to all, much as the enemy had, but in a new form. In this form, everyone was equal instead of merely free. Equality was enforced by man, not nature.

This enabled the vassal states to compete with the enemy. Their goal appeared to be war, but that was a side-effect; their actual goal was to force the enemy to adopt their own Asiatic way of thinking. They wanted to inject their viral DNA into the enemy, then subvert it. They did this by competing with it on ideological grounds, instead of mere achievement.

As the enemy adopted this new way, it make them weak and splintered their society. Instead of having kings as they once did, now power was something constantly fought over. Eventually, the enemy mustered its strength and defeated the vassal states, but the vassal states despite losing the war won the genocide. Their ideas hopped over to the enemy who adopted a form of them in order to compete with the vassal states by offering its citizens more freedom than the Asiatic system even could.

Now the enemy lay in ruins, defeated by its own people who insisted fanatically on a fantastic dream that Asiatics championed but were always insincere about, so were immune to on their own soil. The ancient lords of Asia laughed at their victory. The conquest was complete.

Five Charts That Show Why a Post-White America Is Already Here

If you’re under 18, the future is now

The sweeping racial changes transforming the United States come with an important demographic dimension: age. The waves of Hispanics and Asians and multiracial Americans reshaping the country’s population are full of young people, who by some measures already outnumber their white counterparts. The trend was punctuated by the arrival in 2011 of the first “majority-minority” birth cohort, the first in which the majority of U.S. babies were nonwhite minorities. Consequently, the racial makeup of the nation’s younger population is beginning to contrast sharply with that of baby boomers and seniors.

For most of U.S. history, the white population has been viewed as “mainstream” society, with sociologists viewing the assimilation of immigrants and ethnic minorities as dependent on their adoption of its way of life.1 Not coincidentally, whites were the numerically dominant racial group in the United States during that same time. (Between 1790 and 1980, whites ranged from 80 to 90 percent of the population.) But whites’ tenure as America’s mainstream population is on the wane, in a demographic sense.

The most recent information from the census and elsewhere shows how quickly the shift is happening. From 2000 to 2010, a decade during which the white population as a whole grew by just 1.2 percent, the number of white children in the United States declined by 4.3 million. Meanwhile the child populations of Hispanics, Asians, and people of two or more races were increasing. In comparative terms, whites constituted just 53 percent of America’s young people (down from nearly 70 percent in 1990) while Hispanics constituted 23 percent (up from just 12 percent). Smaller white populations already are evident in institutions that serve youth, such as elementary and secondary schools, and census projections show the white child population continuing to decline for years to come. White children will become a minority of children under age 18 well before 2020, and, soon thereafter, the white population as a whole is projected to begin to decrease.

For most of the lifetime of today’s young people—nearly one-half of whom already are members of racial minorities—America’s white population will be shrinking.

The reason for the divergence is straightforward: In the white population, there will be fewer births than deaths, and nowhere near enough whites emigrating to the United States to make up the difference. Both of those trends are expected to continue, even as the minority child population will continue to rise, regardless of future immigration scenarios. With white fertility below replacement level, there will not be enough births to keep the total white population from falling. At the same time, there is a growing presence of new minorities among women of childbearing age, a result of the immigration of relatively young adult populations from Latin America and Asia in previous decades. Although minority fertility rates are gradually decreasing overall, the crude birth rate (births per 1,000 persons) among most minority groups remains higher than that for whites.

One corrolary to these shifts is that the white population is aging more rapidly than that of other racial groups. The 2010 census indicated that the median age for whites was 42 years. For Asians, it was 35.4. For Hispanics, it was 27.3. And for the population marking “more than once race,” it was a staggering 19.9. Overall, just 7 percent of the minority population was age 65 or older, while 16 percent of the white population had already reached that milestone. In the years to come, the slowly growing white population will begin an accelerated aging process, while higher fertility and immigration rates mean that the minority population will not age nearly as rapidly. By 2030, approximately 26 percent of the nation’s whites but just 13 percent of minorities will be seniors.

Like the nation as a whole, 46 states and the vast majority (86) of the 100 largest metropolitan areas registered declines in their white child populations between 2000 and 2010. Amid pervasive losses in the white child population, Hispanic youth populations grew in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and in all but one large metropolitan area (Los Angeles); in Texas, which led the nation in child population growth, 931,000 of the 979,000 young people the state added (or 95 percent) were Hispanic. Asian child populations declined in only two states and three metropolitan areas, and child populations of two or more races expanded in all states and in 96 of the 100 largest metropolita areas. In all, ten states and 35 metropolitan areas had minority-white child populations as of 2010.

The diversification of the U.S. population from the bottom holds more than just demographic significance. It reflects an emerging cultural divide between the young and the old as they adapt to change in different ways.

The cultural generation gap can be linked partly to the sharp racial distinctions between the baby boomers—who are mostly over the age of 50—and their elders, on one hand, and, on the other, the younger generations: the millennial generation and young members of generation X and their children, who constitute the population under the age of 35. Baby boomers and seniors are more than 70 percent white. In contrast, millennials and young generation Xers and their children are more than 40 percent minority. At the extremes of the age spectrum, the differences are even more pronounced: As of 2010, slightly more than one-half of children under age five were white; in contrast, the oldest age group was 85 percent white.

But the cultural generation gap is also a product of the specific eras during which the different groups were raised and became adults. Conceived during the prosperous post−World War II period, the baby boomers brought a rebellious, progressive sensibility to the country in the 1960s, 1970s, and beyond. With the help of the programs of the Great Society, they became the most well-schooled generation to date and the epitome of America’s largely white, suburban middle class, with which most of today’s adults now identify.

Yet the baby boomers also came of age at a moment when the United States was becoming more insular than it had been before. Between 1946 and 1964, the years of the baby boom, the immigrant share of the U.S. population shrank to an all-time low (under 5 percent), and the immigrants who did arrive were largely white Europeans. Growing up in mostly white, segregated suburbs, white baby boomers did not have much interaction with people unlike them. Although baby boomers have been interested in righting domestic wrongs, such as racial discrimination, and bursting glass ceilings, they are now joining seniors in voicing sharp resistance to America’s new racial change. A 2011 Pew Research Center poll shows that only 23 percent of baby boomers and seniors regard the country’s growing population of immigrants as a change for the better and that 42 percent see it as a change for the worse. More than one-half of white baby boomers and seniors said that the growing number of newcomers from other countries represents a threat to traditional U.S. values and customs.

The Pew survey found marked differences between baby boomers and millennials—who are known for their racial inclusiveness—with regard to agreement that the following are changes for the better: that more people of different races are marrying each other (36 percent versus 60 percent), that the population of Hispanics is growing (21 percent versus 33 percent), and that the population of Asians is growing (24 percent versus 43 percent).

Underpinning the generational divide are shifts in what demographers call old-age dependency and child dependency, which now have a distinct racial dimension. By 2020, the old-age dependency ratio for whites will exceed the child dependency ratio, and for the two decades that follow, white seniors will outnumber white children. That stands in marked contrast to the position of Hispanics, whose youth dependency will remain well above 45 through 2040, even as the old-age dependency ratio inches up to 21.

To put it another way: Although new minorities and immigrants are driving the increases in the younger and labor force–age populations, the growth of the senior population is driven by the mostly white baby boomers. The result is a potential for conflict. There is no question that the primary concern of working-age Hispanics—and to a lesser extent Asians and blacks—will be their children rather than the older dependent population. For working-age whites, elderly dependents will be a primary concern as well as their own future well-being as they enter their retirement years.

The cultural divide opening between the older, whiter and younger, more diverse generations will require adaptation on all sides, and policymakers and citizens alike will need to approach these changes with a long view. Rather than seeing the inevitable changes as damaging to the American way of life, it behooves the nation to consider the future, and prepare now for a country that will be majority-minority.

  1. Early views of assimilation typically depicted mainstream Americans as whites of Northern and Western European heritage, not as those whites who arrived later from Southern and Eastern Europe. See Milton Gordon, Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and Natural Origins (Oxford University Press, 1964). See also chapter 1 in Richard Alba and Victor Nee, Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and American Immigration (Harvard University Press, 2003).

Reprinted with permission from Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America by William H. Frey (Brookings Press, 2014).