I saw where John Derbyshire offered some considered opinions on how the geography of America will shift over the next generation. As well as those areas he considers largely impervious to the elements. I’ll note his perspective and where it varies with my own.
We shall of course be much more multiracial in 20 years’ time, with a huge indio-mestizo component, more East and South Asians and Austronesians, and big localized populations of Africans. The old 90-10 white-black U.S.A. of the mid-20th century will be fondly remembered only by white octogenarians expiring in retirement homes where non-white orderlies pick their pockets.
The result need not be unstable. Multiracial nations can be stable: Brazil, Malaysia. Contrariwise, monoracial nations have endured bitter civil wars: Spain, China.
Racial disaggregation in housing and schooling will be further advanced along the fault lines: black, indio-mestizo, other. “Other” will be a loose alliance of East and South Asians, white Hispanics, and legacy whites. Similarity in group profiles in behavior, intelligence, and personality, together with the common imperative to avoid concentrations of blacks and indio-mestizos, will override group differences.
There will be more high-wealth enclaves, as rich Chinese and white Hispanics settle here in hundreds of thousands. This may lead to a rise in employment of domestic servants–Austronesians and mestizos, probably–or perhaps robotics will take up the slack.
There’s a more than slightly false equivalence in his multiracial comparison. His position could just as easily be realigned as: “Black children can become chess grand masters just as whites. Here are examples of both.” But that doesn’t offer the reader an accurate landscape. Monoracial nations indisputably enjoy less internal friction than mulkuls. It is fundamental to the two models’ difference. Monoracial nations are in natural states of relative comity which, in exceptional times, are riven by ideologies and civil war. Mulkuls are the opposite. They exist in natural states of inter-group conflict, which must be managed to maintain stability. Sometimes they are managed well, often enough they are not. Though the concepts of exception and rule occupy opposite poles in each case. Derbyshire is far well acquainted enough with statistics to know which model he would wager on for peace and stability.
I also think his racial contours of housing and schooling are not entirely accurate. His view is one that many race-aware conservatives see as likely only because they mistakenly believe all parties are playing the same game. Of course this is anything but correct. Yes, the Asians and “white hispanics” will not want their children in black schools. But unlike whites, they will have both the will and power to not settle for an imperfect compromise of “loose alliances.” I think they will do as sentient creatures inclined toward life always have: they will draw boundaries around their habitat and strictly enforce them. And the “civil rights” apparatus will say sweet fuck all about it. Expect lots of variants on Shomrim. That means Asians will cultivate asian only schools in asian only neighborhoods. So to with the mestizos, muslims, jews, indians, and africans to the extent each group feels segregation behooves them. And where they believe it does not, what remains of white schools and neighborhoods will be open to their whimsey. They will have safe harbors at their discretion. Obviously, we will not.
I do agree that walled enclaves are going to become very chichi. Especially outside what will increasingly become red zones within the coastal megalopolises. If you can discern a means to profit from what will become a continual retreat from public spaces into constricting bands of security and autonomy–let me know.
The state ideology–“political correctness,” “the Narrative”–seems to me quite robust. I don’t expect it to change over the next 20 years.
The Harvard Crimson has surveyed this year’s graduating class. Fifty-nine percent declares itself “liberal or very liberal.” Only 14 percent say they are “conservative or very conservative.” These are the people who will be running the USA 20 years from now.
The Narrative on race–i.e. that all observed race differences in behavior, intelligence, and personality are 100 percent social in cause–should hold firm. The comforts, satisfactions, and rewards of adhering to the Narrative will keep the media and educational elites loyal, and most people will follow their lead.
I think this is half true. Liberalism will remain ascendant–though only until it has accomplished its intended purpose. Liberalism has metastasized into simply tribal warfare in a ghillie suit. It exists as a means to defeat enemies, not as a principled ideology which those antagonists intend to adopt for their own use after hostilities have concluded. I don’t see that even those on the political fringe like Derbyshire perceive this dynamic. If victory becomes assured, liberalism (as a stated principle) will be sloughed off like a snake’s skin. It is decidedly not on the right side of history. Though of course current appearances must be maintained for the traitors, dupes, and venal corporate-politicos.
I expect some measured tightening of the controls on dissent, for two reasons.
First, continuing failure of rectification programs will cause increases in cynicism around the margins.
This should be easy to police. Head Start has been failing for 50 years, but the elites still believe in it; and to the degree ordinary citizens know about it, they follow the elites.
Some extra policing will be necessary, though, to keep cynicism in check. Comment threads at major news sites will have disappeared. Public shaming will be more frequent. Psychiatry will have declared racism a mental disorder.
Second, the human sciences will deliver results discomfiting to the Narrative. This is bound to happen as geneticists, neuroscientists, and social psychologists probe deeper into human nature.
History tells us, however, that ideology, which rests on the emotions, is far more potent than science, which rests on the intellect.
There will in any case be less intellect around 20 years from now, as dysgenic trends push the bell curve leftwards and smart machines relieve us of the low-level intellectual labors that keep us alert.
So, again, not too hard for the authorities to control.
Agreed with all other than the “measured” aspect of tightening. I can not see why the tightening of controls will be measured in any sense. The Internet will be vastly more policed, with right-wing malcontents being routinely “outed” to career ruination until the remainder of the herd learns to keep its “moooing” quiet. And mere penury is probably optimistic. Holder continues to pace his boss in an admirable frenzy of erecting punji spikes around the country’s founding stock. Barring the dramatic, we will live to enjoy protections from online “hate speech” and criminal prosecution of the domestic terrorists engaged in the practice.
Social change will continue to be driven by technological advances. Smarter machines will wipe out ever more low-level jobs, swelling the numbers of “useless mouths,” disproportionately among low-IQ races (blacks, indio-mestizos).
The fact that the population is getting dumber as the machines get smarter will be an accelerant.
Self-driving vehicles will be revolutionary. Cabbies, truckers, bus drivers, and traffic cops will be nearly extinct by 2034. Much lower accident rates will bring dwindling demand for auto body repairmen, insurance adjusters, tow truck drivers, and EMS staff.
With ever fewer jobs for the left side of the bell curve, a universal dole–a federally-guaranteed minimum income–will be in force.
Augmenting the pacifying effect of the dole will be increased surveillance of underclass districts, perhaps employing drones; so crime may actually decrease, leading to a reduction in non-black fear of blacks.
This could push back against racial disaggregation but probably not by much. Non-blacks still won’t want their kids in schools with too many blacks and indio-mestizos.
Where did Derbyshire ever come upon the reputation for pessimism? What a starry-eyed optimist. Though I do think his assessment is very accurate regarding the proliferation of mouths. Many will likely be incapable or disinclined toward productive labor, though this will not impact the state’s determination to see them well fed, housed, and entertained. The welfare raft is going to grow very large. And all of those whites who made their Faustian bargain with democrats for entitlements in their dotage will watch in horror as the new majorities shift funding priorities from old to young. From whom to who.
Derbyshire also believes that the mollifying welfare carrots will be supplemented by more draconian enforcement sticks. That would certainly make our Mad Max world slightly less mad, though again who will wield political power to initiate such programs? Would Obama and Holder II be the architects of ghetto pacification zones? I won’t bother answering that. And so presumably Derbyshire envisions political levers being wielded by other hands. Whose I do not know.
With that tightening of the controls on dissent, the national politics of 2034 will have even less content than today’s.
Which is to say, practically none at all in regard to race. The US ruling classes today already have no differences among themselves on race issues. All cleave to the Narrative. All consider dissent on race topics to be “hateful.”
To the degree that party politics is of any importance, we shall be in a period of Democratic Supremacy. The Republican Party will either have contracted to its conservative (that is white, Christian, Southern) core and be nationally irrelevant, like 18th-century British Tories, or it will continue to offer the Narrative fronted by different personalities, as at present.
Probably the universal dole will be the last major domestic political issue. Even that will not be strongly contested; the need is too obvious.
Does Derbyshire actually believe this statement: “The US ruling classes today already have no differences among themselves on race issues?” Of course they have differences among themselves on race issues. What they don’t have a difference on is that whites must be dispossessed and disemboweled. After that, they agree on nothing. Derbyshire is mistaking priorities for principles.
Either warming or cooling could cause food crises in nations on the Malthusian edge in Africa, West Asia, and Central America, leading to Camp of the Saints-style mass migrations. With cheap modern navigation aids, this could include transatlantic flows. The United States has already received boat people from Africa.
I consider this a low probability, high impact event. As with the French in Jean Raspail’s novel, the Narrative will have been so thoroughly internalized as to make resistance impossible.
Again Derbyshire must sing himself to sleep with Bobby McFerrin every night. The leading elements of the Camp are already upon us. And it is no more a “low probability event” than Steve Sailer penning 47 columns in the next three days. What does anyone imagine Africa’s native unaided population carrying capacity is relative to present numbers? Or relative to double those numbers in 30 years? They will not and can not feed themselves…and eventually neither will anyone else. And when that day arrives they will break on our shores by the centimillions.
I wonder if the Spanish government will be issuing handgun bullets by that time?