Here is my theory regarding the fate of America, I would be grateful to hear what people think.



NB: This post will often use the term race. I know that ,strictly speaking, race is not a legitimate scientific concept, but I cannot, on the other hand accept the argument that it is a purely social construct. I am going to take a commonsense approach and say that a tribe of pygmies from the African Congo, looks and behaves in a very different manner from the native residents of a rural village in Japan, and both of these two groups look very different again from the native members of, say, a tennis club in Sweden. I would say that these people represent three different races; however, because I agree that race is not a valid scientific concept, I will put quotation marks around the word whenever is used below; i.e. "race."



So, let's start at the very beginning, 1776. This was the year that America was established as a country - a new Republic. In 1776, White (Anglo-Saxon) Protestants comprised roughly 80% of the nation. With the benefit of immigration from Northern and Western Europe, the White share of the population rose to 90% in 1920, where it remained until 1950's. Just 15 years later, on 3rd October, 1965, a Democrat President: Lyndon Banes Johnson, sat at a table on Liberty Island, and with the Statue of Liberty towering above him and calmly signed America's death warrant. He had ratified the "1965 Immigration and Nationality Act" (INA). Don't worry, said LBJ to the huddle of press reporters and photographers covering the story, this is "nothing "revolutionary", you wont notice anything much at all in America will change now that this Bill is ratified.



Before the INA was passed the US had used a quota system which saw immigrants chosen on the basis of race and ancestry and which heavily favoured candidates from Northern and Western Europe. After the INA was passed in 1965, this changed dramatically. The new legislation shifted the mainstream of immigration to Africa, Asia and the Orient.



In 1960, seven out of eight immigrants were White (European), by 2010, nine out of ten newcomers were immigrants of colour from outside Europe, many of them came from the third world.



Around 1950, America's national population of White Europeans started to decline. It fell gradually over the years reaching just over 60% in 2018. The White European percentage of America's population is continuing to fall and the point at which it will come to comprise less than 50% of the nation's total population is referred to as as the point at which Whites (European) in America become a "majority - minority". According to the federal census bureau the "majority - minority" crossover is predicted to occur in 2042. In other words, the United States will become minority White (European) in 2042. During that year,, White (European) will comprise 49.7% of the population in contrast to 24.6% for Hispanics, 13.1% for Blacks, 7.9 % for Asians and 3.8% for mixed-"race." Every year for many years to date, the US Census Bureau (USCB) has released race and age statistics for the American population (national). The figures released by the USCB for the year 2017 were particularly interesting, firstly, because they provided - for the first time _ evidence of an absolute decline in America's White (European - descended/non-Hispanic) population. This had not been expecyed to occur until the next decade. Secondly, the 2017 USCB statistics for race and age also revealed that there were now more children in the US who were minorities than who were White, at every age from 0 to 9 years of age. So we can say that in 2017 the US was on the cusp of seeing the first minority White (non- Hispanic) generation , born in 2007 and later, which some at the time dubbed, "Generation Z - PLUS"




I was born in the USA (like Bruce Springsteen), but when I was 8 -years-old my father was transferred to Sydney by the company he was working for, so we all flew over to Oz. I spent 20 years in Australia, then when I was 30 years old I met a nice English girl in London while I was on vacation in the UK, and we got married. The next 25 years of my life I spent living in the green and pleasant, rural county of Hertfordshire. I am telling you all of this not because I imagine you are likely to be fascinated with my personal life, but rather to emphasise that I have a good knowledge of the West and, in particular, the Anglo-sphere ( i.e; America, Australia and the UK). Because I enjoy travel, I have also visited many different parts of the third word, including: Indonesia, Egypt, Brazil, Nigeria, India, Vietnam, Cambodia and Mexico City. Obviously , I do not have the kind of detailed knowledge of third world culture and society that I have of the West, but know all I need and want to know, namely, that President Trump was correct when he referred to third world countries as "Shit-Hole" nations. Countries in the third world can be fun and exciting for Westerners to visit as all of them have impressive tourist attractions you can visit; and that's really the point I'd like to emphasise, namely, they are great for cashed-up Westerners to visit for a three week, but actually LIVING in them on a long-term basis is not a remotely serious proposition. It's one thing to visit Mexico for a holiday, quite another to immigrate there and live in say, Mexico City. In Mexico City: there is litter and rubbish strewn all over the place (as well as human faeces, used drug syringes, vomit) because the Mexicans have no qualms about just throwing their rubbish out into the streets; the piles of rotting rubbish breed vermin, fleas, lice, cockroaches and these, in turn, spread various types of disease; and getting sick is not a good idea as the medical facilities are sub-standard at best; in many places there is no potable, running water and residents are forced to drink water that is dirty and unsanitized, this is another cause of illness; services like electricity are not reliable and living without electricity for days on end is a miserable experience. Crime rates are very high (high incidence of murder and other violent crimes; severe problems with drug abuse/addiction are endemic, child prostitution, rape, illegal gangs/drug cartels); the quality of public schooling is abysmal; the police force and the city's politicians are pretty much all corrupt and most years the poverty rate is high, as is unemployment. And the list of dangerous, unhealthy, depressing, harmful, ugly characteristics goes on and on.



Now consider First World, Anglo-sphere countries like: Australia, the US, the UK, Canada. In these countries: town and cities are not strewn with filthy, rotton disease-carrying rubbish, people do not simply throw their household (and other) trash into the streets; rates of violent crime are relatively very low in comparison to those of third world cities, the economy is generally sound or even good; first world nations are highly technologically advanced, they are successful, peaceful and prosperous; they are orderly civil and democratically sound; public schools and hospitals are are at the very least, satisfactory; if people genuinely want to work, then they can almost always find a job; the political system is not riddled with corruption (I do not mean to say there are no corrupt politicians in the West at all, I mean there are always one or two "bad eggs" like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton in the US) merely that what corruption there is, is nowhere near the scale of that which currently exists in place like Mexico or the Republic of South Africa or Colombia).



Anyway, I was thinking about all of this and the question occurred to me: "Why is it that the most successful, peaceful, civil, prosperous, technologically sophisticated, politically sound First World/Western countries are so rare and so few, and why do they all clump together in one tiny corner of the globe, i.e. North Western Europe. (BTW: I know that Anglo-sphere nations like the US and Australia, say, are , geographically speaking, a long way away from "mother England", but that's where the majority of the populations of these two countries came from. I mean if you're a White (non-Hispanic) American, there's a pretty good chance that you would be able to trace your ancestry back to England or Western Europe. Like I mentioned earlier I was born in the US, (I'm White European), and I have traced my ancestry back over 350 years to York in England using a website called "Heritage." Lots of White Australians are keen to trace their ancestry in order to see if they are descended from the English convicts that were brought to Australia in 1788 and the years thereafter. (In Australia it's cool to be able to prove that you are of convict stock; why, I don't know (?) Getting back to the question I asked myself why are the very best modern nations so relatively few in number, and either Anglo-sphere nations that were originally English colonies or nations (like France, Germany and Holland, for example) that are located in North/West of continental Europe ? And why does the rest of the world essentially consist in varying degrees of failed third world states.



Why is it that we have a post - Enlightenment portion of the world and a pre-Enlightenment portion of the world. To put it very blunt: "Why are there so many "shit-hole" countries"? Of course the moment I say this, apart from having people think I am an ill-mannered, rude, oick, many Liberals and Progressives reading the post will become really outraged: "Oh my God, you are SUCH a RACIST for saying that. Shame on you"? Which is convenient for them because it lets them off the hook and they do not have to answer the question.



OK, before I continue, I'd like to narrow the scope of things a little to consider just the last 250 years of history, and concentrate on just two Western countries the UK/England and America (I know that Australia, Canada, New Zealand are Western (First World) nations too, but they are "small fry" and I'm interested in looking at the mighty giants, the major "movers and shakers" of the West). For example, in this period England built one of the greatest Empires the world had ever seen, and also in this time America grew to become the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world - more powerful and wealthy even than Great Britain. For much of this 250 years the vast majority of the populations of England (the UK) and the US were White Anglo-Protestant.



Why is it that the white-skinned people who lived for centuries in a small corner of the globe, namely that little patch of dirt tucked away in the North-West of Europe called England were able to create the massive British Empire, and why is it that they were able kick-start and, over the decades and centuries, successfully guide the ongoing building of the mighty Republic of America - the strongest, most powerful and most righteous (humane, just, morally upright, etc) nation the world has ever seen. And why is it the case that most of the rest of the worlds' nations are occupied by "people of colour" who are not descended from the modern-era's natives of North/West Europe) and those nations are all "shit-holes"



The answer is CULTURE



I apologise to any "Limousine-Liberal" cultural relativists who will find this distressing, but the fact is that western (First World) culture is superior to all others and this can be OBJECTIVELY demonstrated when different cultures are evaluated based on the only fitting standard for judging a society or culture - the degree to which it is life - affirming or anti-life (life-denying).



Pro-life culture recognises and honours man's nature as a RATIONAL being who needs to discern and produce the circumstances that his survival and flourishing depend on. A life - affirming culture promotes reason and the rules of logic, man's natural rights, individualism, self-responsibility, competent self - regulation, productivity, science, technology, language, art and literature depicting man as efficacious in the world, minimal republican government and so on. Western (First World) culture is the prime example of this type of culture; it exhibits levels of freedom, opportunity, health, wealth, comfort, productivity, innovation, satisfaction, comfort and life-expectancy unprecedented in human history. When the populations of the UK and USA were mainly White (say, at least 8)%) White European their societies exemplified this superior Pro-life culture. The percentage of the UK population that are White (Anglo-European) is 82%; in 1960 the the population of the US was 88% White European. Today, the White European percentage of the American population has dropped to 61.8% and it continues to steadily fall. By 2042 it will be just below 50%. (If you are an average White (European) American who has children and perhaps grandchildren, these statistic are very, very bad news, and I will explain why this is below).



While I have just sketched out the hallmarks of a robust Pro-life culture, I did not define the term "culture" itself. "Culture" is actually quite a difficult word (noun) to define as it can connote many complex, multidimensional meanings.The definition that come closest to the sense in which I am using the term "culture" was one I found in a Collins dictionary..."Culture consists of activities such as the art, science and philosophy, which are considered to be important for the development of civilization and of peoples' minds. If ever you've been to England you will know that it is a country with a very rich culture. The native English people are obsessed with their past and take great care to preserve their cultural history. As you walk around London you cannot help but be astonished by the magnificent old buildings, bridges, monuments, statues, palaces, museums and so on, and it dawns on you that the English people have, for many centuries, been a remarkably clever, imaginative and creative "race". Equally, America is a incredibly clever and creative place, it must have been to have put a man on the moon in 1969 (that was the COOLEST thing I have ever seen in my life), built the Empire State building,, have developed the world's most advanced medical, communications and military technology, have created "Playboy Magazine" (thanks Hugh !) and so on.



So, the way I see it, an advanced civilization (like the modern West), is one that has an advanced culture, and to create an advanced culture requires a people with sharp brains. By "brains" I mean the capacity for high-level rational cognition, for impulse/cognitive control, foresight, abstract thinking, planning, a good working memory, sustained /focused attention, problem-solving ability, competent emotional control and competent self-regulation among other things. These mental abilities are localised in a part of the brain called the pre-frontal cortex and your score on a professionally-designed and administered IQ test provides a pretty accurate estimate of how good or bad your ability to perform these mental processes actually is.



My theory is that if a country has a relatively low average IQ it is likely to be a Third World (or "Shit-hole" Country as President Trump would say). The average IQ score for White (Anglo-European descended) Americans is 99 points, for the UK it is 100 points, for Australia, 100 points, for Canada, 101 points, for New Zealand, 100 points. So in the West's Anglo-sphere, the average IQ score is, let's say 100 points. This figure has been stable for most of the 20th and 21st century; therefore we can say that when the majority (80% to 85%) of a country's population is White (of North-West European descent) it will be an advanced First World country. History confirms this. Non-white (coloured) Third Word countries have average, national IQ scores substantially lower than 100 points; for example the Republic of South Africa has an average IQ of 70 points (very low), Mexico has an average IQ of 87 points, the African - American population of the US has an average IQ of 85 points, ( i.e; one Standard Deviation below their White compatriots), China, - which was once believed to have, like a number of other other East Asian countries a relatively high average IQ of 105 points, though this figure has recently been challenged by mainstream psychologists working in the field, so I am unable to give a firm validated figure for average Chinese IQ at present at present..



Let's take a quick look at the predicted race demographics for the US in 2060. By 2060 the United States Census Bureau predicts the following racial groups will together comprise the national population of the US. As well as the proportion of the total population that each "racial" group is forecast to make up, I have included each groups average IQ...



White (European/Non-Hispanic) 44.29 % Average IQ = 99 points First World, advanced culture, civil society)


*Hispanic (mainly Mexican) 27.5 % *Average IQ = 85 points (Third World)


*Black/ African-American 19 % *Average IQ = 75 to 85 points (Third World)


*Asian- American 9.1 % *Average IQ = no data available (due to the tremendous diversity if nations from which "Asians" have immigrated, for example: Korea, India Cambodia, Burma, Tibet, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri-Lanka, Bangladesh, Taiwan, China, Nepal Loa, Buthan, Vietnam, and so on and on)

* Mixed-Race (two or more) 6.74 * Average IQ (no data, estimate 85 - 90 points)



To sum up, as the number of White (Europeans/Non-Hispanic) Americans continues to decline over the decades ahead, the number of Hispanic, Blacks/African Americans and Asians is predicted to continue increasing (through immigration and relatively high birth rates). This means that the average IQ of the American nation will fall increasingly lower. Should it drop to somewhere between 80 and 85 points then it is "End Game"; the US is now officially a Third World "Shit-Hole". If you don't believe me it's already happened in California (check it out for yourself).



WHAT TO DO ?



How can the US extricate itself from the Third World "death-spiral" into which it has plunged ? The political approach that I support is called "cultural distance nationalism." This kind of nationalism is based on the insight and understanding that people's background cuture can affect their ability to fit into a modern, advanced, First World society and to perform the roles needed to support and maintain its: civic; occupational; economic; technical, etc institutions. In short, the cultural distance nationalist takes the view that we are better off if our (First World, Western) country is dominated numerically, demographically, politically, at least in fact if not formally by people from the First World i.e; White people from Northern and Western Europe (who, for example, are native White English people or the descendents of such people) than by people from countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Iran or any of the Sub-Saharan African nations that have failed to advance


The obstacles that would have to be overcome in order to make a case for "cultural distance nationalism" are formidable. For instance, this position requires that we would need to be forthright, open and brutally honest in acknowledging the dramatic differences between First and Third World countries, their deep roots, and being truthful about the homegrown conditions, dysfunctions and failures that hold countries back: relatively low average IQ; Kleptocracy; political corruption, lawlessness and high rates of crime; weak institutions; the inability or unwillingness of leader to provide for the basic needs of their citizens and also asking some very hard questions about why these conditions continue to persist.


Embracing "Cultural Distance Nationalism" means, in effect, taking the position that the United States will be better off with more Whites and fewer non-Whites. But it is taboo to advocate this stance in America, the shackles of political correctness forbid it ! My final point is that it is important, however, to bear in mind that what happens to America will NOT be determined by political correctness, but by REALITY and FACTS regarding whether cultural differences really matter, whether they are stubborn, and whether they have any consequences.


Regards


Dachshund