 |
 |
 |
 |
In the Year 2050...
Many if not most of the people reading this will have passed from this
world. But, according to our federal overseers, that is the
year when “whites” will officially become a minority in the United
States.
Sill alive in 2050, assuming an average life-expectancy of 72 years, will be
today’s college students, now 18 to 22 years old. Since they are the
ones likely to be alive and affected by the white demographic implosion,
this article is written for them.
Who is “white”? Who is threatened?
How does the federal government define race? When the federal government
refers to “whites” , who is it talking about? Here’s what
the Census says:
“Census Bureau complies with the Office of Management and
Budget's standards for maintaining, collecting, and presenting data on race,
which were revised in October, 1997. They generally reflect a social
definition of race recognized in this country. They do not conform to any
biological, anthropological or genetic criteria.”
(emphasis added)
So if the Census isn’t using a scientific definition, then what
is its social definition of “white?”
The Census admits its social definition of “white” was invented by
the Office of Management and Budget, an agency of the federal government
headed up by the President’s political appointees, So its
social definition is really a political definition.
In 1997, when Clinton was President, the Office of Management and Budget revised its “Directive 15” to provide a new definition of “white”: “a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.”
Many of you may be surprised to learn that under this definition, all of the
Middle Easterners reported to be the 9/11 hijackers were “white.”
And under this definition, immigrants from Northern Africa such as Somalis
and Sudanese are “white.”
The OMB directive defines Latinos and Hispanics as having “Spanish
culture or origin, regardless of race”. But unless these Latinos or
Hispanics are identified as “black,” “Asian” or
“American Indian”, OMB Directive 15 will classify their race as
“white.” This seems surprising, since many if not most
Latinos/Hispanics are Mestizos, partially of Indian ancestry. Many others
are partially of African ancestry.
The Census projection about a “white minority” in the year 2050
concerned non-Hispanic whites. But the projected “white minority”
group did include all Middle Easterners and North Africans.
Therefore, if you consider the Census projections about the year 2050 to be
dire, know that they are still more dire than you think. If, as I do, you
define “white” Americans as European Christian American, the
projections substantially overestimate the number of whites who will
remain.
One writer has calculated that the true number of “whites” in the United States, as of today, is barely a majority - 52% of the population, or 148.5 million people. This includes all those the census identified as “white”, less Latinos, Hispanics, Middle Easterners, North Africans and Jews.
The bottom line is this: the federal government’s definition of
“white” is grossly overinclusive, and collects under that rubric
anyone who is not identified as sub-Saharan African/Black, East Asian,
Hawaiian or Indian of the whole blood. It is overinclusive from a
scientific standpoint, because it includes all Semites and Mestizos. It is
overinclusive from the cultural or religious standpoint, because it includes
those of non-European ancestry and non-Christian religious beliefs.
EXileMM believes the real significance of being “white” is not
biological, but rather cultural and religious. Therefore, the remainder of
this essay speaks of “white” Americans as European Christian
Americans.
What are the challenges posed by European Christian Americans becoming a
political minority in the year 2050?
For most of United States history, Christians of European descent have
constituted an overwhelming majority. At the time of America’s first Revolutionary War,
94% of its population was Anglo-Saxon, Scotch-Irish or German. Even in
America’s era of mass immigration, from 1840 to 1920, 88% of all
immigrants were of European origin.
Because they were such an overwhelming majority, European Christian
Americans never had to develop a racial, ethnic or religious identity. In
America, people were supposed to lose their ethnic identity. If immigrants
to the United States kept an ethnic identity for one generation, “the
American way” was that the identity assimilated after one or two
generations. Likewise, as far as religion is concerned, an American was
not supposed to “wear his religion on his sleeve.”
This ethic of assimilation was possible because America had an underlying
cultural and religious unity. America’s political ideals, as
enshrined in the Constitution, were distinct from Europe’s. But as was
reflected in its demographic profile, America’s cultural unity was
European and its religious unity was Christian. Traditionally, the United
States excluded non-Christian, non-European groups that threatened this
underlying unity, e.g. the Chinese Exclusion Act of the 1880s.
This relatively harmonious era ended in 1965 with the passage of the
“Immigration Reform Act”, which eliminated quotas on non-European,
non-Christian immigration. The intent and the effect of the
“Immigration Reform Act” is to reduce European Christian Americans
to a political minority. The Act threw open America’s doors to a
multiplicity of racial, ethnic and religious groups: Asian, African and
Islamic.
In this new American environment, there is no underlying cultural or
religious unity. The elites who are molding our new demographics seek to
impose a multicultural, multilingual and secular unity, i.e., a unity
founded upon an atheistic disunity. In this venture, they will fail.
Instead, elites are ushering in a new era of cultural/religious discord, and
ethnic/racial conflict Wittingly or not, they have engineered a Balkanized
America, one that shall replay the full history of continuous turmoil,
misery and violence endemic to that region.
If there is to be no European Christian “majority”, then other
racial, ethnic or religious groups will no longer constitute
“minorities.” In this unstable political environment,
characterized by fundamental disagreement about cultural and religious
matters, group tension, rivalry and conflict will increase. The demographic
decline of European Christian Americans will encourage other former
“minority” groups to try to supplant them as the majority or
plurality group.
In the United States, non-European non-Christian minority groups have
already developed a consciousness of themselves as minority groups. Not
having developed a group identity, European Christian Americans will enter
this era at a disadvantage. They are becoming not merely a minority group,
but a minority group not conscious of itself as a minority group. As
a result, they may find themselves not only outnumbered but
out-organized.
The reason why lies in group dynamics. As group consciousness increases,
individualistic self-consciousness decreases, each individual becoming less
of a “free agent” and more of a “team player.” Racial,
ethnic and religious groups begin to place a premium on an individual’s
loyalty to the group. Each group exacts a price from individuals who are
disloyal to the group. Groups whose members act independently will rarely
predominate over groups whose members act for the benefit of the group. For
example, in basketball, assuming two teams have comparable talent, the
winning team will be the one whose players work together.
In practice, this means individuals belonging to groups with group
consciousness will associate with and prefer members of their own groups.
Their decisions create Harlems and Chinatowns, but group consciousness and
group preferences are not manifested solely in ghettoes. Their effects can
be seen at the most affluent universities in the United States, where
different racial, ethic and religious groups voluntarily choose to associate
with and prefer members of their own group in dormitories, cafeterias and
extracurricular activities.
If individuals with a strong group identity wish to trade with or benefit
someone else, they will prefer a member of their own group. In doing so,
they do not merely benefit the other person, they benefit their own group.
They may reasonably expect that the other group members will reciprocate, in
which case they themselves will benefit in the future.
Individuals who lack a group identity, such as European Christian Americans,
will not act to benefit their own group. They will tend to interact with
individuals regardless of their group identity. Groups comprised of such
individuals will not benefit compared to groups comprised of individuals who
prefer their own group. In an environment characterized by competition
among groups, groups that fail to develop an identity or self-preference are
following a path to extinction.
Those who claim expertise in “social science” have documented that
some nonwhite groups are significantly more likely than whites to state an
explicit preference for their own race or ethnic group. For example, in a 1997 study. African or Black Americans
explicitly stated a preference for their own group by 33% more than
whites.
The reason for this discrepancy is that for decades, European Christian
Americans have been told not to prefer members of their own group. When the
European Christian American does show such a preference, he is accused of
racism, bigotry or discrimination. Often he is cowed into submission. And,
among other things, that submission is transforming European Christian
Americans into a political minority in an America founded by European
Christians.
At the same time they are telling the European Christian American not to
prefer his own kind, elites are indoctrinating other groups with
anti-Christian, anti-European propaganda. For decades, government schools
have been trying to deChristianize their students. They are now teaching a
revisionist history in which European leaders such as Constantine,
Charlemagne and Columbus are portrayed as imperialist villains.
Elites have declared a cultural and religious war upon European Christian
Americans. They foment hostility towards European Christian Americans.
They wish to deprive European Christian Americans of the mindset and means
necessary for self-defense.
In a nutshell, the challenge for European Christian Americans is this: they
will have to learn to fight for their religion, their culture and their
people.
What strategies, if any, can European Christian Americans adopt to protect
themselves and ensure their survival as a people?
First, in light their threatened minoritization, Christians of European
descent will have to cultivate an awareness and pride in their own religious
and cultural identity.
Next, just as other racial or religious minorities have developed
preferences for their own group, so too must European Christian Americans.
Just as other racial or religious minorities developed special strategies
and skills in order to survive, so too must European Christian
Americans.
For example, many racial, ethnic or religious minorities tend to congregate
in specific areas of the country, e.g. Mexicans in the Southwest or Jews in
the Northeast. By doing so, they concentrate their political influence so
they will be guaranteed some degree of political power. For example,
Hispanic Bill Richardson is Governor of New Mexico and Jewish Charles
Schumer is a Senator from New York.
African-Americans are an example of a group that has failed to congregate in
a particular region of the country. Their decision not to do so has
contributed to their continuing loss of political power. For example. as of
2000, black Americans made up over 13% of the United States population, yet
no black American currently holds statewide office, i.e. Governor or U.S.
Senator.
Instead of allowing themselves to remain randomly dispersed throughout the
United States, as though they remained a majority, European Christian
Americans will have to adopt a congregating strategy. Already, they are
developing a migratory pattern out of California and into the Northern Rocky
Mountain States, e.g., the Northwest Imperative. Historically, other
geographic focal points for European Christians are Appalachia and the
Ozarks.
Moving from the geographic to the demographic, we must remember that Census
projections about the year 2050 are based on a continuation of current
demographic trends. In other words, it ain’t over till its over.
Increasing the European Christian birthrate will help to reverse those
trends. As a practical matter, this means returning to American folkways
that were prevalent before the cultural revolution of the 1960s. One
example would be a return to traditional marriage after high school.
Another example would be a return to the skepticism shown by traditional
Americans for formal schooling and “higher education.”
As Phillip Longman states in his article The Global Baby Bust:
“So where will the children of the future come from? The
answer may be from people who are at odds with the modern environment -
either those who don’t understand the new rules of the game, which make
large families an economic and social liability, or those who, out of
religious or chauvinistic conviction, reject the game altogether[...]
Does this mean that the future belongs to those who believe they are (or who
are in fact) commanded by a higher power to procreate?
Based on current trends, the answer appears to be yes [...]
Those who reject modernity would thus seem to have an evolutionary
advantage, whether they are clean-living Mormons or Muslims, or members
of emerging sects and national movements that emphasize high birthrates and
anti-materialism.” [emphasis added]
Moving from the demographic to the economic, we may expect a continuation of
the current and organized trend of jobs disappearing from the United States.
In order to survive, European Christian Americans will have to reacquire
their previous adaptations to frontier living. This means buying land and
a returning to land-based economic activities - farming, logging, fishing,
hunting, quarrying, etc. Jobs, incomes, banks and “the dollar”
are on the way out. Land and precious metals are coming back in as reliable
storehouses of value. Exchanges may be made by precious metals or by
barter.
For European Christian Americans, the economic lifestyle of the future is
subsistence with independence. The Liberty
Dollar appears to be an ideal currency for the purposes of exchange and the
accumulation of value.
The most important survival strategy for European Christian Americans is
spiritual. Yes, as human beings, we must adapt to a rapidly changing
environment in material ways - geographic, demographic and economic. But we
are not merely organisms fighting for survival in some Darwinian scheme. We
are fighting for our culture and for the religion that gave rise to it. The
strength of will to fight for our religion proceeds from the Holy Spirit.
By daily prayer, we may draw freely upon the strength of Jesus Christ,
Christendom’s source of courage and fortitude for more than two
millennia. Over that long span of time, European Christians survived
imperial persecutions, foreign invasions and other demographic calamities.
With His help, we shall survive them in the future.
Alone, we are weak. With God, we cannot fail.
X - In Hoc Signo Vinces
Luke Exilarch
May 3, 2004