Ilana Mercer


by Ilana Mercer

An “aging white population [is] speeding [up] diversity,” blared a headline in The Hill. A clear case of confusing cause-and-effect. In fact, whites are dying-out because minorities are thriving.

The Hill headline should have read:

“Could speeding up diversity contribute to a decline in the white population?” 

We learn that “there are growing signs that the rate of change is increasing.” Well of course. America welcomes well over 1 million, mostly non-white immigrants a year.

If white lives mattered to the liberal establishment, an inquiry would ensue.

Is the enormous influx of legal and illegal migrants over decades playing a pivotal role in the decline of America’s founding population? A similarly sad fate was visited on their predecessors, the Amerindians.

On the one hand, we have the drastic, ongoing decline of America’s white population; on the other, a massive, incessant inpouring of minority immigrants, since 1965. A correlation between the two is palpable.

A large, well-controlled national survey conducted by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, in 2006, found that diversity immiserates and that the historic population is most affected. Perhaps protracted misery associated with loss of community hastens death.

The logic posits a zero-sum game. The native population has been swamped over time. Resources are scarce—especially when allocated by a wastrel, white-hating Administrative State.

Is it not plausible, then, that immigration social engineering, compounded by state policies that privilege non-white newcomers,  contributes to the population decline in white America?

Picture the following scene, set somewhere in what is Trump country, say West Virginia:

A pale patriarch must help his bright son choose a career.

What about pursuing the law?

That’s inadvisable (unless you become an immigration attorney). Law schools routinely reject working-class white males in favor of students who can show they’ve overcome the right kind of hardship.

Berkeley and others already make unusual hardships and life experience a crucial consideration in admissions. “Unusual hardship” is a racial cue for things like having been shot or quitting a gang. As commentator Steve Sailer wryly noted, “The kind of hardships” that’ll be given extra credit are “largely peculiar to preferred minorities.”

What about a degree in engineering? Inadvisable. Forget a knack for invention, for designing and fixing gadgets, inherited from Scottish ancestors. Forget your facility with math and physics. Chances are working-class, pigmentally challenged American lads, circa 2018, will be replaced by the 65,000 H-1B Indian visa recipients, imported annually by America’s technocracy.

I guess you could emulate the author of “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis.” Write a culturally compliant, elitist account of poor, white America. To pass muster with the left literati, “Hillbilly Elegy’s” author generally omits references to the systemic racial demonization and dispossession visited upon poor whites.

Industry magnates and lobbyists are forever countering with studies that employ the “impregnable” science of econometrics to prove that globalist activity creates more jobs than it kills. The studies invariably beg the question, as they assume facts not in evidence. In this case, the research assumes the new jobs will be as good as the old (vanished) ones. And that opportunities will be there for all.

To be fruitful and to multiply, people need certain conditions. Good jobs, for one. Prospects for the future, for another.

In the context of migration, consider just how ruthless central planners and their scientists are in “optimizing” and “managing” the natural world.

Liberals have developed a utopian vision of just how nature should behave. It must remain in perfect balance. To that end, they’ll exterminate harmless critters that violate the liberal idea of Order, of species correctness. For example, when a delightful flock of gentle conure parrots made San Francisco’s Telegraph Hill its home, radical environmentalists demanded that the flock—it has a complex, highly evolved social structure and bonds—be exterminated because it wasn’t indigenous.

While animals may not migrate illegally, or disrupt the preordained “natural” order—liberal central planners encourage non-indigenous peoples to mess with the social habitat of historic, host populations. Provided that the latter are Caucasian. If you’re a rainforest pygmy, liberals will fight for your survival.

Declining birthrates have long been the excuse advanced by immigration central-planners for sticking with mass immigration policies. The aging white population is not replacing itself, say proponents of dooms-day demographics. Young, Third-World immigrants are essential to shore-up the welfare state.

However, the now-waning West became great not because it was more populated than the rest of the world and outbred it. It became great because of its human capital—innovation, exploration, science, philosophy; because of its superior ideas, and the willingness to defend such a civilization.

America doesn’t need more people; it needs to protect its own people.

Editorial note; the late J Philippe Rushton told me that the original title of Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve was The End of Whitey

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube


This entry was posted in Current Affairs and Comment, QR Home and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Whiteout

  1. David Ashton says:

    There are millions outside England who would like to come and live in England. About a million pass legally through our customs each year, about half of them non English, and many remain legally or illegally. No-one knows how many illegals or descendants of illegals are here already, or who get in without checks and are allowed to remain, whether known or suspected criminals or terrorists.

    The idea of the in-house “intellectual” BAME/LGBTQI agit-prop periodical, misnamed “The Guardian”, which sets the tone for the ruling “elite”, is that anyone/everyone in the world has a human right to come and stay in England. (Our previous parish vicar, a left-wing “non-theist”, thought it would be a good idea for us to go and get the displaced persons, the sick and hungry, of the world, who couldn’t make it on their own, to go and get them.) For big-business and big-bureaucracy, England “needs” an unlimited influx for their skills and (cheap) labour, and to replace the falling native birth-rate, with costs pushed onto the taxpayer. For the innumerable refugees, unemployables and poverty-stricken, especially in overpopulating Africa, the Middle East or south Asia, they “need” England.

    Any “debate” has to be restricted to cost-benefit economics, since reference to cultural change, social conflict or national tradition, is incrementally outlawed, informally or formally, as reactionary “nostalgia” for an offensively “mythical” England, or as evil “racism”, this putting patriots in the same category of moral abhorrence as sadists who lynched Blacks or gassed Jews. Meanwhile, the education curriculum and novel poly-chromatic stage & screen presentations, however anachronistic or inappropriate, follow the sports-field and dance-music, in effectively preparing the ancestral homeland of the Anglo-Saxons for its ultimate replacement as an Afro-Asian domain.

    “But everything was all right. The struggle was finished. Winston Smith loved Big Brother.”

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.