Diversity, Politics, recent

How Can We Manage the Process of Western ‘Whiteshift’?

We need to talk about white identity. Not as a fabrication designed to maintain power, but as a set of myths and symbols to which people are attached: an ethnic identity like any other.

In the West, even without immigration, we’re becoming mixed-race. This is not speculation, but is virtually guaranteed by the rates of intermarriage occurring in many Western countries. Projections reveal that faster immigration may slow the process by bringing in racially unmixed individuals, but in a century those of mixed-race will be the largest group in countries such as Britain and the United States. In two centuries, few people living in urban areas of the West will have an unmixed racial background. Most who do will be immigrants or members of anti-modern religious groups such as ultra-Orthodox Jews. The reflex is to think of this futuristically, as bringing forth increased diversity, or the advent of a “new man.” But, if history is our guide, things are likely to turn out quite differently. Many people desire roots, value tradition and wish to maintain continuity with ancestors who have occupied a historic territory.

This means we’re more likely to experience what I term “whiteshift,” a process by which white majorities absorb an admixture of different peoples through intermarriage, but remain oriented around existing myths of descent, symbols and traditions. Naturally there will be contestation, with cosmopolitans lauding exotic origins; but most people will probably airbrush their polyglot lineage out of the story to focus on their European provenance.

We see this process of selective forgetting and remembering time and time again among ethnic groups in history. In Turkey, for example, many groups represented in the ethnic majority’s DNA have been forgotten. Most Turks trace their origins to Central Asia, neglecting their Byzantine Christian ancestors and the large number of immigrants who arrived from far-flung parts of the Ottoman Empire.

Whiteshift has a second, more immediate, connotation: the declining white share of the population in Western countries. Whites are already a minority in most major cities of North America. Together with New Zealand, North America is projected to be “majority minority” by 2050, with Western Europe and Australia following suit later in the century. This shift is replacing the self-confidence of white majorities with an existential insecurity channelled by the lightning rod of immigration. No one who has honestly analysed survey data on individuals—the gold standard for public opinion research—can deny that white majority concern over immigration is the main cause of the rise of the populist right in the West. This is primarily explained by concern over identity, not economic threat. I explore this data in considerable detail in the first part of my new book (from which this essay is adapted). Not everyone seeks to maintain connections to ancestors, homeland and tradition, but many voters do.

The loss of white ethno-cultural confidence manifests itself in other ways. Among the most important is a growing unwillingness to indulge the anti-white ideology of the cultural left. When whites were an over-whelming majority, empirically unsupported generalizations about whites could be brushed off as amusing and mischievous but ultimately harmless. As whites decline, fewer are willing to abide such attacks. At the same time, white decline emboldens the cultural left, with its dream of radical social transformation. The last time this blend of ethnic change and cultural contestation occurred, in fin-de-siècle America, the anti-WASP adversary culture was confined to a small circle of bohemian intellectuals. Today, the anti-majority adversary culture operates on a much larger scale, permeates major institutions and is transmitted to conservatives through social and right-wing media. This produces a growing culture-war polarization between increasingly insecure white conservatives and energized white liberals.

The Western tradition of opposing one’s own culture begins with the so-called “lyrical left” in the late 19th century, which lampooned bourgeois values. After the First World War, the cultural left turned against the nation, to the point that by 1930, according to the liberal George Orwell, “in left-wing circles, it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman.” In the more diverse United States, the lyrical left’s critique took the form of an attack on their own ethnic group, the Anglo-Protestant majority, whom they saw as oppressing European immigrants and enforcing puritanical laws such as the prohibition on selling alcohol. In the 1960s, this countercultural movement, which I term left-modernism, developed a theory of white ethno-racial oppression. Its outlook superseded the logical, empirically grounded, left-liberal Civil Rights Movement after 1965 to become a millenarian project sustained by the image of a retrograde white “other.” Today, left-modernism’s most zealous exponents are those seeking to consecrate the university campus as a sacred space devoted to the mission of replacing “whiteness” with diversity.

It’s important to have people criticizing their own group: What Daniel Bell termed the “adversary culture” spurs reform and creativity when it collides with the majority tradition. But what happens when the critics become dominant? In softer form, left-modernist ideology penetrated widely within the high culture and political institutions of Western society after the 1960s. This produced norms that prevented democratic discussion of questions of national identity and immigration. The deviantization of these issues in the name of anti-racism introduced a blockage in the democratic process, preventing the normal adjustment of political supply to political demand. Instead of reasonable trade-offs between those who, for example, wanted higher or lower levels of immigration, the subject was forced underground, building up pressure from those whose grievances were ignored by the main parties. This created a market opportunity which populist right entrepreneurs rushed in to fill.

Ethno-cultural change is occurring at a rapid rate at precisely the time the dominant ideology celebrates a multicultural vision of ever-increasing diversity. To hanker after homogeneity and stability is perceived as narrow-minded and racist by liberals. Yet diversity falls flat for many because we’re not all wired the same way. Right-wing populism, which champions the cultural interests of group-oriented whites, has halted and reversed the multicultural consensus which held sway between the 1960s and late 1990s. This is leading to a polarization between those who accept, and those who reject, the ideology of diversity. What’s needed is a new vision that gives conservative members of white majorities hope for their group’s future while permitting cosmopolitans the freedom to celebrate diversity.

Cosmopolitanism and what I term ethno-traditional nationalism are both valid worldviews, but each suits a different psychological type. Imposing either on the entire population is a recipe for discontent because value orientations stem from heredity and early life experiences. Attempts to re-educate conservative and order-seeking people into cosmopolitanism will, as the psychologist Karen Stenner notes, only generate resistance. Differences need to be respected. Whiteshift—the title of my book, as well as the word I use to describe my approach to the subject—isn’t just a prediction of how white identity will adapt to demographic change, but a positive vision that can draw the sting of right-wing populism and begin to bridge the “nationalist–globalist” divide that is upending Western politics.

We are entering a period of cultural instability in the West attendant on our passage between two relatively stable equilibria. The first equilibrium was based on white ethnic homogeneity, the second on what the prescient centrist writer Michael Lind calls “beige” ethnicity, i.e. a racially mixed majority group. In the middle lies a turbulent multicultural interregnum. We in the West are becoming less like homogeneous Iceland and more like homogeneous mixed-race Turkmenistan. But to get there, we’ll be passing through a phase where we’ll move closer to multicultural Guyana or Mauritius. The challenge is to enable conservative whites to see a future for themselves in whiteshift—the mixture of many non-whites into the white group through voluntary assimilation. (Unmixed whiteness is not about to disappear and may return in the long run, but this is getting ahead of the story, so I hope you’ll read on.)

* * *

Right-wing populism in the West is different from its Eastern European variant for two main reasons. First, it is not about recovering from national humiliation or pining for a better time before democracy arrived when a strong leader gave society a clear direction. These were important motivations for inter-war fascists like the Nazis, Mussolini, Franco or the Hungarian Arrow Cross, and remain important in Russia, Greece and a number of Eastern European states. Second, immigration is less important outside the West because migrants tend to avoid or pass through Eastern European states. It’s a factor in some ex-Communist nations (if inside the EU), such as Hungary, which are not used to it, but the issue often ranks lower on voters’ priority lists. Many of the forces that matter in the East count for less in the West, and vice-versa.

Anyone who wants to explain what’s happening in the West needs to answer two simple questions. First, why are right-wing populists doing better than left-wing ones? Second, why did the migration crisis boost populist-right numbers sharply while the economic crisis had no overall effect? If we stick to data, the answer is crystal clear. Demography and culture, not economic and political developments, hold the key to understanding the populist moment. Immigration is central. Ethnic change—the size and nature of the immigrant inflow and its capacity to challenge ethnic boundaries—is the story.

Indeed, if history is any guide, we shouldn’t be asking why there is a rise in right-wing populism but why it hasn’t materialized faster in places such as Sweden or the United States. The Swedish state will adapt to any ethnic configuration, but this is much trickier for the Swedish ethnic majority. While Sweden can make citizens in an afternoon, immigrants can only become ethnic Swedes through a multi-generational process of intermarriage and secularization.

Whiteshift explores two interconnected topics: white ethnic majorities and the white tradition of national identity. Put simply, ethnic groups are communities that believe they are descended from the same ancestors and differentiate themselves from others through one or more cultural markers: language, racial appearance or religion. They are also typically attached to hazily defined “homelands.” Nations are territorial-political communities with clear territorial boundaries and political aspirations, which ethnic groups need not have. Ethnic groups, like the Jews, unite around common ancestry, whereas nations—such as Switzerland—can be multi-ethnic. White majorities in the West are every bit as ethnic as minorities are, but, for many, their sense of ethnicity and nationhood is blurred. If you’re white, you may think, “I don’t identify as white, only as British.”

This arises because being white in a predominantly white society, like being heterosexual, doesn’t confer much distinctiveness. Even groups that are minorities, such as WASP Americans, may have a weaker identity because their ethnicity forms the national archetype and thus is confused with it. Likewise, those at the cultural centre lose their identity: pronouncing words in a Thames Estuary accent, like most British TV anchors, similar to sporting a flat Midwestern accent in the United States, means you won’t think you have an accent at all, even though you do. On the other hand, Britain is very different from the world’s other 195 countries, so when you’re abroad, your British nationality is unmistakeable. Nations also promote themselves more vociferously than ethnic groups. The fact that Britain is a political unit with a budget means the British nation has taken steps to inculcate identity in its citizens in a way the white British ethnic group has not. Finally, norms may discourage white identity: Expressing white British identity is frowned upon due to the expansion of the meaning of anti-racism that has taken place since the 1950s. Taken together, this means majority ethnicity is backgrounded in everyday life.

If you’re like most white Brits, your ethnicity is hidden at the centre of your national identity. It’s present in the way you imagine your nation. You notice that non-white Britons are minorities. The racial image that comes to mind when people think of a typical Briton is a white one, which won’t pose an identity issue for you because you fit it.

You’ll tend to feel an uncomplicated connection to people from Britain who lived in the country prior to 1945, 1745 or even 1245. Minorities’ sense of British national identity is less straightforward. As a thought experiment, imagine how your British identity might change if the country had been founded and inhabited by black people until the first major wave of whites arrived 65 years ago.

Because Western nations were generally formed by a dominant white ethnic group, whose myths and symbols—such as the proper name “Norway”—became the nation’s, the two concepts overlap in the minds of many. White majorities possess an “ethnic” module, an extra string to their national identity that minorities lack. Ethnic majorities thereby express their ethnic identity as nationalism. In Hazleton, Pennsylvania, where the issue of illegal immigration divided whites and Hispanics in the 2000s, whites signalled their identity with the national flag, not a special white symbol. In England, conservative working-class whites use the English flag as a badge of ethnic identity (though it loses its racial connotations during the World Cup).

When it comes to “seeing” our nation, we all wear a distinct pair of ethnic glasses. Minorities’ spectacles give them a clear sense of where their ethno-symbols end and national ones begin. White majorities don’t, because many of the national symbols they think about, like Thanksgiving in the United States or Joan of Arc in France, double as white ones. As the white share of nations declines, a thin, inclusive, values-based nationalism is promoted by governments that sidelines symbols many whites cherish, such as Christopher Columbus or Robin Hood. In addition, some minorities challenge aspects of the national narrative like empire or Western settlement. This lifts the fog for many whites, making them aware of their exclusive ethnic symbols by separating these out from those that are inclusive, like the Statue of Liberty. Combined with falling white population share, this raises the visibility of white identity, drawing it out from beneath the shadow of the nation.

Stepping back from the tide of history, we can see that ethnic majorities in the West are undergoing whiteshift, a transition from an unmixed to a mixed state. American history offers a preview of what we’re in for. We should expect a civilization-wide replay of the ethnic divisions that gripped the United States between the late 1880s and 1960s, during which time the Anglo-Protestant majority declined to less than half the total but gradually absorbed Catholic and Jewish immigrants and their children into a reconstituted white majority oriented around a WASP archetype. This was achieved as immigration slowed and intermarriage overcame ethnic boundaries, a process that still has some way to run.

Rachid Kaci

Notice that identifying with the white majority is not the same as being attached to a white-Christian tradition of nationhood. Only those with at least some European ancestry can identify as members of the white majority. However, minorities may cherish the white majority as an important piece of their national identity: a tradition of nationhood. Rachid Kaci, a French centre-right secularist of Algerian-Berber origin, writes: “The Gauls…are our collective ancestors, since they inaugurated [French] history down to our days, via Clovis, Charles Martel…the Revolution, Napoleon…One who wants to be considered French adopts this history, or rather, lets himself be adopted by it.”

In the United States, some 30 percent of Latinos and Asians voted for Trump and many lament the decline of white America. In surveys taken soon after the August, 2017 Charlottesville riots, 70 percent of polled Latino and Asian Trump voters agreed that “whites are under attack in this country,” and 53 percent endorsed the idea that the country needed to “protect and preserve its white European heritage”—levels similar to white Trump voters. In fact, non-white Trump voters express a much higher level of sadness at the passing of a white majority than white Democrats. A key question for the future of American politics is whether new generations of Hispanics and Asians will move closer to, or further from, the country’s white-Christian traditions.

* * *

Is a common national “we” not the solution to all this? I’m afraid not. Political scientists often differentiate “civic nations,” defined by loyalty to the state and its ideology, from “ethnic nations” united by shared ancestry. All Western countries have been trying to promote civic conceptions of nationhood to include immigrants, but the populist right shows that limiting nationhood to “British values,” the American Creed or the French Republican tradition doesn’t address the anxieties of conservative voters. These universalist, creedal conceptions of nationhood are necessary for unity, but cannot provide deep identity in everyday life. On the other hand, ethnic nationhood, which restricts citizenship to members of the majority, is clearly a non-starter.

But things aren’t so black and white. There is a third possibility: ethno-traditional nationhood, which values the ethnic majority as an important component of the nation alongside other groups.

Ethno-traditional nationalists favour slower immigration in order to permit enough immigrants to voluntarily assimilate into the ethnic majority, maintaining the white ethno-tradition. The point is not to assimilate all diversity, but to strike a balance between vibrant minorities and an enduring white-Christian tradition. This is the view of many conservative white voters, even if there is an important (if tiny) tranche of exclusionists on the far right who dream of repatriating minorities.

As we saw with minority Trump voters, it’s important to recognize that a significant chunk of ethnic minorities are ethno-traditional nationalists because—like Welsh nationalists who don’t speak Welsh—they are attached to cultural features that make their nation distinctive. Note the difference: They are not members of the ethnic majority, but are members of the nation with an attachment to its traditional ethnic composition.

One often sees this among, say, outsiders who have moved to ethnically distinctive regions like Cajun country or Cornwall and oppose rapid erosion of the Cajun/Cornish share of the local population. At the national level, this means some ethnic minorities—especially Hispanics and Asians in America—have a vicarious attachment to the white majority and support majority ethnic aims such as reducing immigration or resisting affirmative action. As minorities increase in size, an important question for electoral politics is whether they will incline towards ethno-traditional nationalism or multiculturalism.

Adapted from Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities, by Eric Kaufmann, Abrams Press, New York. Copyright © 2019 by Eric Kaufmann. Follow Eric on Twitter @epkaufm

Featured image: An immigrant family in the baggage room at Ellis Island, 1905.


  1. codadmin says

    You can’t fundamentally change a civilisation without seeing fundamental changes.

    The changes will no doubt play out on bizarre ways we can’t even imagine now.

    Here’s my theory. Mass conversion of whites to Islam in Europe if demography changes like is predicted. The ‘globalist’ elites are already de-facto Muslims themselves, including the Pope.

    • Michel Houellebecq says

      Stop ripping off my ideas.

      • Aristodemus says

        Islamic Europe, from a long historical perspective, wouldn’t be any stranger than Christian Europe. It could have happened several times, had the Mongols or Tammerlane invaded in full force, or the Turks not been checked at Vienna in the 16th and 17th centuries. It could still happen.

    • Harland says

      The USA will turn out like the Austro-Hungarian Empire: a babel of languages, nobody can understand each other, no shared cultures, mutual hostility, and eventual breakup into warring states.

      Kew of Singapore was baffled that America chose this route. He knew firsthand how shitty a divided nation was and couldn’t comprehend why anyone would seek to repeat his situation.

      • Ralph says

        “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” – Lee Kuan Yew

  2. Rosenmops says

    “In the West, even without immigration, we’re becoming mixed-race. ”

    You mean even without MORE immigration. Many of us are old enough to remember when the West (apart from the USA) was almost entirely white.

  3. Whites will still be the majority as many Hispanics should technically be considered white.
    Even if whites become the “minority-majority”, it doesn’t mean that western culture will be lost as non-white people can follow western values.

    • WW says

      Amen. We have an American culture. We used to call it a melting pot and it picked the best from all cultures that came here. This inconveniently did not grant leftists enough power. So they threw the melting pot out to Balkanize the nation. They will feel no regret when that tears the nation apart. The modern left are traitors to the nation and to democracy.

      • Jim Matlock says

        I think most of them will feel regret. It will come as hindsight and as a consequence of their own misery due to the evils unleashed by centrifugal forces inherent in a Balkanized society.

    • Nobody Important says

      Well, they are not considered White. It is the EEOC that makes those decisions, not you and me. They get a leg up on “Whites.” If I had a Spanish surname, I would ride that gravy train by checking the “Hispanic” box too.

  4. Shamrock says

    “No one who has honestly analysed survey data on individuals—the gold standard for public opinion research—can deny that white majority concern over immigration is the main cause of the rise of the populist right in the West.”

    I, like many whites and other minorities, am not against immigration. What I am against is uncontrolled immigration both in terms of numbers and who we are letting in.

    I want immigrant numbers to be controlled so we can adequately integrate them. I don’t want people coming in who leech off our welfare without contributing.

    I don’t want people coming in who don’t want to incorporate western values but want to impose their own on us.

    Immigration should benefit the countries accepting them.

  5. mitchellporter says

    “We in the West are becoming less like homogeneous Iceland and more like homogeneous mixed-race Turkmenistan”

    Sorry, what, we’re all becoming Turks? What nonsense.

    Western societies are now multiracial societies with a white majority, a salting of all the world’s major ethnicities, and a Jewish elite. This “new homogeneity” is a complete fantasy that will never come to pass, not least because genetic engineering and artificial intelligence will take over first.

  6. bumble bee says

    Well the author is throwing around some fairly big words here that have no real definition. What is exactly meant when the author uses, “protect and preserve its white European heritage”? So can the author give examples of what white European heritage means? Is it code for racism, oppression of others? Is it code for Christianity, which many liberals would like to at the very least neuter the faith if not outright destroy it?

    So what is the agenda of this article? It seems the author believes that anything related to European heritage is something that no longer has value and would very much like to see anything relating to that heritage removed, forgotten, negated, and ultimately thrown into the fires of history. Would the author then advocate for the removal, negating, and so forth of any of the other ethnicities that comprise this country? I find it remarkable that current dialogues are fixated on “white culture” and how evil it is, without any regard to so called evil associated with every other culture.

    No what we have here is another attempt to get people to disown their cultural identity rather than fostering a communal celebration of all ethnicities and all the positives they bring. In other words views like the author is trying to put forth do not want or cannot accept that true ethnic diversity is being able to respect and participate when one can in another culture. I do not want to go to Europe, Asia, Africa, Americas and have an ethnically homogenized culture because some ignorant social push cannot deal with it. We already see this happening in the US, though not culturally but economically. When visiting another part of this country we now see the same stores, the same restaurants, the same clothes. If I want to visit New England, I want New England culture and lifestyle, the same can be said for any other part of this country. That is what makes life rich and interesting.

    What I will mention with regard to white European culture is that most white Americans have lost that culture. In fact I will be so bold as to say that most white Americans are not even sure where their ancestors descended from. The so called WEC that seems to be destroying all that is good in the world, is not so European here in the US, as our American heritage has supplanted any vestige of the European variety.

  7. Conservative Cosmopolitan says

    “What’s needed is a new vision that gives conservative members of white majorities hope for their group’s future while permitting cosmopolitans the freedom to celebrate diversity.”

    You must be kidding. I don’t even know where to begin with this.

    First off, “white” is not a culture or an ethnic group. My Sicilian and Italian grandparents were always at odds with each other, and when my Sicilian/Italian mother married my father, his Irish grandmother hated her. Meanwhile, my father’s father (Northern Irish/German/French) pretended he was only French. “White” is many cultures, many languages, and can be just as tribal as any other group of people. The other white kids when I was growing up called me a mutt because of all the aforementioned ethnicities present in my person, while they’re forebears had all kept to their own. And yes, I’m born and raised in a “cosmopolitan” area, full of people from every spot on this planet.

    I myself married someone with a white grandfather from Spain, a black grandfather, and the rest is Aztec and Maya. Our children are “diverse,” and look it, but because of their lighter skin, people constantly place them as white…like on doctor forms, that I did NOT fill out, and race is magically filled in for them by the black secretary. Oh but there’s also the times when white delivery men won’t deliver MY packages to me at my own home, without checking ID that I live there (Hello, I opened the door for you?!) because my last name doesn’t fit my face, or when on checkout lines at the store, the cashiers always prematurely ring up our goods because they assume my spouse (who I’ve been talking with and using the same cart as this whole time) is a complete stranger to me. Then there was the Hispanic nurse at the hospital who refused to put black on my newborns’ forms (along with all the other race boxes we had checked) because, well, since my spouse spoke Spanish, he wasn’t “really” black, so our child must not be either.

    The point of this other than ranting? I would really love if my children could go grow up being judged on their individual personhood, rather than by what some schmuck assumes about them. However, as a “conservative cosmopolitan” (new concept for the author perhaps?!) I have enough clarity to know that this will not happen, at least not usually. And that is a sad thought.

    • Jim Gorman says

      I believe someone said “the content of their character, not the color of their skin”.

      • Cosmopolitan Conservative says

        Yes 🙂 I think we desperately need to spread that quote around again; it’s not used enough anymore. Maybe flyers dropped by planes would get some attention.

      • E. Olson says

        That quote is racist, because it denies the legacy of slavery, and the continuing oppression of white privilege.

        • Larry Czaplyski says

          Silly! What legacy of slavery? What oppression of white privilege?

        • MMS says

          @E Olson you are either sarcastic (fine) or a fool… Our only real hope are those eternal words from MLK.

          Anyone who does not aspire to those words no matter what their identity is showing themselves for the bigot they really are or they just want to leverage the past.

          Aspiring to those words does not preclude the pragmatic appreciation for the horriable lecagy of past slavery / Jim Crow or the ramifications of that sorry past on our collective present…

      • gda53 says

        Was that the same someone who had more than 40 “affairs” and who apparently stood aside and watched as a friend committed rape?

        Asking for a friend.

        Like any other progressive, pontificating on other’s character does not also allow them to shine their light on their own character, or rather, the lack thereof.

    • E. Olson says

      CC – you bring up a very important point. It wasn’t very long ago that all white communities in the US could describe themselves as diverse because they had substantial populations of Irish, English, German, Italian, Polish, Dutch, Swedish, Jewish, and other European bloodlines, with associated Christian churches/temples and fraternal organizations, who were as often as not suspicious of each other and rivals to each other for political power and business connections. Whatever suspicions and rivalries might still be present, however, will certainly fall to the wayside if the Left continues to attack white privilege and Western culture.

    • Colin Smith says

      Could you even begin to describe what your children’s “individual personhood” is? Are we referring to their IQ, personality traits, temperament, or skills?

      Furthermore, what is their cultural grounding? Will they merely see themselves as everything?

      The problems you are describing concretely prove why diversity is too complicated. Moreover, Western individuality was an elitist construct which succeeded previous racial and cultural homogeneity.

      Always wonderful to reach the height of human achievement and then refer to oneself as an individual.

      Japan, South Korea, 1950’s United States, pre-1990’s Britain: did not experience these schisms.

      • Conservative Cosmopolitan says

        Individual personhood would refer, as stated above, to the content of their character. Their actions and respect toward themselves and others. What kind of citizen they are, what their temperament is, how they treat others. They may be able to check a gazillion diversity boxes, but those boxes are not who they are. Everyone who looks at those boxes projects their own biases onto them.

        They see themselves as people, living in this country, that have a duty to be productive citizens first and foremost. Everything else enriches it; it does not define it. What food they can cook or languages they can speak should only speak to their initiative as a person. Anyone can learn to cook tacos or pasta, to speak Spanish or Italian. I think a national, cohesive identity, enhanced by – BUT NOT DEFINED BY- personal background is what people should strive for. Adopt this country’s laws and traditions and make them your own, while still appreciating where your ancestors came from and the sacrifices they made to get here.

    • Nobody Important says

      White may not be a “cultural identity,” whatever the hell that means, it is a check box on every school, job and grant application. One that is a Mark of Cain if you are obliged to check.

      The drama between your Sicilian, mainland Italian and Irish grandparents had no relevance outside your own family. Imagine a world where checking an “Irish” or “Italian” box meant the difference between going to Harvard or going to Florida State.

      • Cosmopolitan Conservative says

        It did have relevance though. The Irish side got to work in movies and Broadway, the Italian side worked in factories and dump trucks. The Irish side got to be cops and firemen, while Italians were lynched in the south. Just because most people have forgotten history’s nuances does not make the nuances irrelevant.

    • Lert345 says

      Conservative Cosmopolitan

      The “Spanish grandfather” is a common trope among new world hispanics. Most of them have no idea what part of Spain he allegedly came from. It may be that a European ancestor gives them some ethnic panache so the claim keeps getting repeated.

      Or it’s possible they have the same grandfather – a dude who really got around.

      • Cosmopolitan Conservative says

        Yes, I’m aware of the tropes. I’m also a fan of history and can trace my family and my spouse’s back a few generations. But thanks for lumping me in with the group. You’ve proven my point.

    • maria says

      as an old saying says “think before you type” …

  8. Cosmopolitan Conservative says

    “First, why are right-wing populists doing better than left-wing ones? Second, why did the migration crisis boost populist-right numbers sharply while the economic crisis had no overall effect?”

    What does the author mean by “doing better?” According to the media and Hollywood, “right wing populists” (which I think here is code for “conservatives”) are the racist rural bumpkins in fly-over states. I assume “doing better” means not going away, not cowering in fear over being called racist or privileged, and beginning to take a stand against leftist lunacy. If my assumption is correct, then my answer to the question is that we are not “doing better” in numbers based on reactions SOLEY to unrestricted, unvetted illegal mass migration (or “immigration” as the author puts it), but rather we are “doing better” as more and more people realize how un-hinged democrats and the media have become (believe every woman -even with a lack of evidence-, abort babies near full-term because they don’t know how to make a decision or properly use birth control-, accuse all white men of some vague rapey half memory from decades ago-Kavanaugh-, or humiliate young teens because a Native American told them to, etc etc etc). These reasons, not the economic crisis, have made us “do better.” I think most conservatives are pragmatic enough to understand that the economy rises and falls somewhat cyclically, and are hard-working enough to get through the rough spots without crashing and burning and screaming for hand outs.

    • E. Olson says

      Doing better is likely about the rise is size of populist (anti-immigration) parties in Europe and “surprise” election results that favored Brexit and Trump. The appeal is mixed, however, as some fear the collapse of the welfare state due to the high costs to support masses of unskilled immigrants, while others fear increased crime, and others fear loss of cultural identity. Yet in all cases, the Left describes such rational fears as racism, Islamophobia, or xenophobia.

      • MMS says

        I fear only loss of fundamental freedoms such as speech… I for one have no problem with legal immigration but you better be prepared to respect the basics of our constitution and freedoms and be peaceful to all whether or not you agree with their choices, religion, speech, etc…

    • Saw file says

      @ Ricky
      That’s a valid and extremely pertinent point.
      I can’t understand how the CCP/PRC ‘issue’ keeps on keeping on, zooming along under the radar.
      Even at Quillette, it’s rare to see posts about China influence.
      You’d think that this insidious infiltration, into Western society, would be front and fore from a Auzie site.
      But then again, it gets less play than it should, here in Canada as well.
      Decades of CCP/PRC zombies have been educated in the West, and have learned.
      China is a serious danger to freedom.

      • Harmony Pax says

        Yeah, I agree. As a mainland Chinese zombie who stays in the US this really tells me that my descendants will never integrate or “whiteshift”. We are a serious danger to western freedom for sure. This has been true since I was a kid in the ’70s and ’80s. I am considering self deportation for this reason.

        • Stephanie says

          Harmony Pax, either you are not being sarcastic, or you have your head in the sand. The CCP has been vying for influence in the West for a long time, and the degree to which they have infiltrated politics is disturbing. Chinese immigrants in the know are part of the solution organising to fight it. If you deny there is a problem because you haven’t taken the first step into looking into it, I suggest you educate yourself. If you deny the problem for any other reason… Yea, please self-deport. You’ll fit in better in China, where no one can question the CCP’s obviously disturbing motives.

  9. @ Cosmopolitan Conservative – “I would really love if my children could go grow up being judged on their individual personhood, rather than by what some schmuck assumes about them.”


    @ breathnumber – “It’s amazing how so many words can be made to mean so little. Kudos to the author.”

    I fully endorse both these excellent sentiments. Thank you.

    And to my input; so what’s all this got to do with me kemosabe? I don’t really get what this essay is all about. To be truthful, I didn’t read most of it, just the first 4 paragraphs in detail and then skimmed across the remainder trying to see where the thread was going. It didn’t seem to arrive at any significant point. The journey was futile. Maybe I’m stupid, but I didn’t get it. I’m thinking that maybe it’s because of my strongly white conservative background and views on politics. Maybe if I was a woke lefty the content would scream at me, very important, must read.

    Oh well. Maybe it’s trying to fit into the left agenda of race division for the purposes of promoting identity politics and bringing on tribal warfare. Maybe someone might get triggered by it, but it didn’t fire me.

    Also, all this business about race doesn’t make a great deal of sense to me and I’m of the same opinion about people as Cosmopolitan Conservative’s comment that I quoted above. In fact I told my son the only rules I have of him courting girls is that if he brings home a girl with tramp stamps (tattoos, ink) on her, she’ll be going straight back out the front door. Of course if they’re in discrete private places, well I wouldn’t know, would I? Just so long as she’s a nice good girl. Race doesn’t matter to me at all. And besides, she’ll be his problem to deal with in the future, not mine, whatever transpires.

    So, I think the essay is really just gratuitous promotion of the author’s book. There’s nothing wrong in that, I do that sort of thing myself, and wish the author well, but it amazes me that if publishers are publishing material of this calibre, then I should start writing books myself. I’m not making much off the Internet. Go retro, go paper.

    Final comment to the author, if you paid money for the cover art mate, try to get a refund. It has got be the worst mishmash of ugliness, font and styles I think I’ve ever seen. Anyway to Mr Kaufmann, all the very best to you and I truly hope you make a lot of money from it.

    • Royce Cooliage says

      @Max Wilson I think I understood what the author is saying. I’ll do my best to summarize what I took out of it. Perhaps others can chime in here. (Perhaps even the author himself)

      Here goes:

      while it’s inevitable that caucasians will be the minority demographic in the US in the near future, we may be able to keep what I for lack of a better term I would call our white culture.

      However, the author makes clear that for this to work, we need to slow immigration into this country. The author also predicts that if we indeed stay “culturally white” whilst becoming more racially “beige”, we may end up expanding the definition of “white” to include mixed race people who assimilate into the white culture and blend in well. The author cites the adoption of Jews and Catholics into the expanded definition of white.

      I relate to this as I am a second generation Italian-American born in 1974 and raised in an affluent suburb. Growing up, so-called “regular” Americans would frequently make little “jokes” and comments to put me in my place to disabuse me of the notion that I too was a “regular American.” Now that I’m in my forties, I am indeed a regular white American. I think this is due in part to the fact that people’s attitudes towards Italian-Americans have changed over time. We’re not so “exotic” any more. However, it is also true that over time I have learned to speak, dress, and act more “regular American.” Not through concerted effort, but simply by virtue of going to school with and living and working with “regular Americans” (and perhaps using less hair gel)

  10. scribblerg says

    According to Yale we have 22 million illegals here, at least, already. Get rid of all them. Eliminate welfare of any sort for non-citizens and you’ll see another 20 million deport who have non-citizen status.

    Voi-fucking-la, problem solved. We should freeze immigration. Make all green cards and visas dependent upon not becoming a “public charge” as we put it. Hell, ban illegals from public schools and make an ER visit a mandatory deportation. They will self deport in droves. Tax the 150 billion in remittances out of from the U.S. at 50%.

    For good measure, cancel all but 10,000 of the 350,000 Chinese student visas currently open. Cancel all but 10,000 H1B visas. Put a 100 pct tariff on all services outsourcing to India and elsewhere. Make assimilation mandatory, all education and govt services provided in English only – if you can’t function in English and you aren’t a tourist we don’t want you here. We don’t want your illiterate children either. Implement e-Verify and lock any employer who violates up for 20 years.

    We’d change everything. Add in massive tax credits for having children for American citizens and then mandate 1 yr family leave, subsidized by taxes and the Feds, not employers. Ban abortion except in the case of abortion, incest and health. When ready, we revert to 85% European immigration. We’d be back to historic rates in 30-40 years. A bump in the road.

    IQ will go up too, as avg IQ is decreasing now. Anyone who wants to call me a racist I ask you, why on earth are Western nations not entitled to their historic racial and ethnic origins? Why on earth must I deny the importance of my whiteness and my Northern European heritage? Quite the opposite, I couldn’t be prouder of it and the U.S.

    Anyone who can’t see this I challenge to answer honestly a simple question. If the U.S. was 80% Chinese immigrant, would it be the U.S.? Japan? Try immigrating to those nations to boot, good luck. South Korea, ditto. They constrain immigration to preserve ethnic identity. This used to be noncontroversial.

    Until 1970 We were 85% white. Ann Coulter just had the guts to speak up about this with some great analysis to silence the squeamish. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-05-22.html Eric Holder was right, we are cowards when it comes to race, but not in the way he meant. I’m sick of being hated because I’m white and being found guilty of racism due to being white, male and conservative and having to be quiet and polite about it.

    None of that makes me racist. Many black people feel the same way. Most ethnicities and races do. The entire point of the modern world and the nation state order isn’t endless integration, rather it was working out ways to co-exist and cooperate without killing each other. I also think immigration and assimilation when managed well makes sense and some nations could experiment more with it than others but that has to be the will of the people in the U.S.

    We never discuss that we already had the will of the American people expressed on the subject of immigration. We never voted on providing health care and education to illegals, a single judge did that. We voted for tens of millions fewer immigrants, a fence, hardcore enforcement etc.

    Most of all, get this. We are a self-governing people, we aren’t going to be told to not be white anymore by some illegitimate elite who hate white people and the U.S. and the West and classical liberal order. We are a self-governing people, we aren’t the subjects of Progressive madmen. And this is why the Progressives are freaking out, because they see their “transformation” can be undone and rejected.

    Call me a racist, call me a fascist – I laugh at you. All I mean to say is that race and ethnicity are part of what define a nation. Read Ann’s article above, she says it so well.

    • E. Olson says

      scribblerg – I like many of your suggestions and I expect many would pass in an honest election. The problem is where would all the Democrats get their cheap nannies and gardeners, and where would Silicon Valley billionaires get their cheap coders and programmers, and where would meat packers, builders, and farmers get their cheap labor for jobs that American’s just won’t do anymore? And then there are all the schools that depend on foreign students to fill spaces, pay full tuition, and/or get state funding (for illegals), which also allows them to brag about how diverse they are and keep the “diversity and inclusion” administration busy. We also cannot forget the welfare industrial complex, which depends on unskilled immigrants to keep social workers, police, and prison guards employed and busy. Then you have states such as California, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas that would lose many seats in Congress and associated population based federal funding if the illegals were gone and weren’t counted on the census.

      Legal European immigrants could not possibly replace all the illegals from south of the border or Asia, because most are already shrinking from natural causes, many consider the US to be a barbarian state (what no free health care?), and they would expect to be paid well so no cheap nannies and meat packers. So your suggestions would mean that wages would need to rise for many jobs to attract Americans, which means fewer Americans would be on welfare, and more Americans would be paying taxes to shrink the deficit, and of course the costs of crime and negative social pathologies associated with uncontrolled immigration and joblessness would be greatly reduced, which means the US as a country just wouldn’t survive if these things were to happen. Its a good thing we have Congress and the courts to protect us from such dangerous error-prone thinking of the voters.

      • scribblerg says

        We don’t need to replace those immigrants. Your projections about wages are not accurate. Labor markets don’t really work in the aggregate, they work in the individual segments.

        Low wage workers would see wages increase and millions of Americans who have dropped out of the workforce would return. Automation would be applied as well, where economic to do so, and this would provide downstream employment to those companies and their supply chains. Wait until the entry salary is double what some guy’s baby momma gets on welfare – suddenly maybe he could be a provider. Get that today’s lowest rung jobs are often service jobs without even full time guarantees, low wages and no benefits or skill development. Working in a kitchen or doing landscaping – these lead nowhere. The avg, non-college educated, blue collar young person rightly concludes this nation has no path to success for them. Say you make 10 bux an hour – that’s 1600 a month. You can barely put a roof over your head, a car on the road and food in your mouth on that subsistence. Of course that kind of employment doesn’t support family formation. Think about it from the babymomma’s POV – they guy can’t support himself, he’ll likely be a drain on HER RESOURCES.

        Even more important? Working is everything in the U.S. Getting so many people off the sidelines, including recent legal immigrants, getting their hands on the first rung of the ladder of “the American dream” will change a lot culturally. This is also true for many minorities, including Native Americans – who desperately need to be taken off the Fed teet and cast out into mainstream U.S. society. Working as a value, as a moral imperative will become more much more real and doable for the working class. Right now they don’t believe in the American Dream of “hard work pays” correctly.

        Industrial jobs are what are needed. Trump’s trade policies are already resulting in the realignment of supply chains and smart deal making will see continued increases in domestic industrial production. These jobs have much more headroom and dignity. In fact, the importance of what we used to call “skilled labor” – CNC machine operators, electronic techs, welders etc – is clear. We want to focus on those kinds of jobs, not working the counter at a coffee shop.

        Labor markets in free societies are quite fluid and dynamic. One might even see older skilled laborers return to the workforce in retirement. Wanna see more convicted felons get jobs? Tighten labor markets, both employers and employees will figure out ways to deal with a criminal background. Hey, maybe felons will be the only ones willing to work in the rare earth mines we need to re-open in the U.S.?

        The hopelessness of the working class is quite real and it won’t be challenged until there is real oppty for them and social proof of social and income mobility. All we are doing today is confirming to them how much we hate them due to unlimited immigration and trade policies that exchange their jobs for cheap consumption for the short term ‘sugar rush’ for sleazy executives of big brands.

        As for the impact on education, I can’t wait. The entire edifice needs a market-driven reset and it needs lots of “creative destruction”. Hey, those entry level industrial jobs will be available to gender studies grads too, lol. And of course, they can always “learn to code”. But what I think is that most humanities profs and admins and majors will end up serving lattes and being poor. Sounds like justice to me.

        I love the idea of some gender studies prof having to get up a 5 in the morning to serve some welder his latte in the drive through at Starbucks as the welder drives up in his 100k welding truck rig, with his own Amex company card, and spends part of the 140k a year he clears out of his own contracting biz. Sounds like even more justice to me. And if all the feminists end up unhappy, well, that’s just bonus. One the reasons we need lots of low-skill type jobs will be to soak up all the folks who take up space and piss away tax money in education, govt, non-profits and “activism”. Destroying the education-govt complex will go a long way to accomplishing this. Those feminists want equality, let them work the cleaning shift overnight in an electronics shop, lol. Watching all those 1 yr technical school grads make 5x what she makes. I get a hardon thinking about all these scenes.

        As for filling STEM jobs, we are good to go. 35% of American STEM grads every year cannot find jobs in their fields. IT salaries (corporate IT, not straight software dev) have been stagnant since the late ’90s due to outsourcing, offshoring, immigration and h1b etc. Stopping all that would merely dramatically increase oppty for Americans with those skills. And if there are short term shortages, increasing wages and hiring will ensure college students aim at those fields with their majors.The U.S. congress investigated this and found that we have a huge surplus of American STEM grads, so no issues there.

        Economies always adapt and realign faster than people predict in free markets. One of the most interesting and untold economic stories of the 20th century is how U.S. didn’t organize WWII production top down via govt orders or intervene post WWII to “manage the transition from a war economy”. Industrial leaders had wide discretion to organize production, they were not taking management direction from fed govt hacks.

        After the war, many leftist economists were telling Truman to intervene in the economy, warning of collapse as all those military factories fell into disuse. But in fact, Truman decided to do nothing and all those industries retooled and refocused and the actual “disruption” to the U.S. economy was almost invisible. Production was realigned and growing again in under a single year.

        This should surprise nobody. The “magic” of free markets isn’t discussed much nor celebrated in our society anymore. But in fact, bottoms up, self-organization of free peoples operating in free markets with contract rights, a functioning banking system (despite the paranoids who see central banking as a conspiracy theory, central banking by govt arises due to private banking failures and can be done in a way the stabilizes financial systems of payment, credit etc – wildly changing currency values destroy trade), free labor markets and supply chains will always outperform any “planners” approach to industrial policy.

        Austrian economics teaches us why this is by focusing on the actions of individuals in economic settings versus meta abstractions and collectives. We see the immense value of the “knowledge of time and place” in economic decisions, wherein the persons nearest the transactions have superior knowledge to make pricing and other decisions. From a distance, so much context is lost. And in fact, at scale there are no planning approaches that can ever work in terms of pricing, wages, industrial focus.

        Govt is best to observe what works and focus on making sure the ecosystem of contract law, financial system and free markets are working. The rest will take care of itself far better than any “planner” will ever come up with. The U.S.’s economic success is a testament and proof of this basic truth of the superiority of free markets.

        You’d think every sentient person in the West would know this given its obviousness and that we own this phenomena socially. But nope, we don’t even discuss it or worship it any more. I grew up in a nation that actually valued “rugged individualism”, “American ingenuity”, “American can-do attitude” and the belief that I could make a good life for myself in America if I “worked hard and played by the rules”.

        That nation is gone, but we have the template for what works. Restoring it is far easier than people realize. We need to just peel back the socialism, freedom will take care of the rest.

    • Wendy Marchand says

      Bwah – hah – hah! Add in massive tax credits for having children for American citizens and then mandate 1 yr family leave, subsidized by taxes and the Feds, not employers. That would be so Canadian!

  11. Defenstrator says

    Yet another undereducated intellectual who is so unfamiliar with reality that he does not understand that white people are not a homogeneous group. They have vastly different political, cultural, and historical values that have caused them to kill each other in a scale unrivalled in human history. About the only thing more stupid than this mistake is ability to then apply it to the rest of the people on the whole planet.

    • Ralph says

      “Yet another undereducated intellectual who is so unfamiliar with reality that he does not understand that white people are not a homogeneous group.”

      That’s an unfair and incorrect statement. Nowhere does Kaufmann assert that there isn’t diversity among European-derived peoples. Nowhere does he say that a Scot, a Moldovan and an Afrikaner are all exactly the same.

      The factual reality is that, historically, Western countries have been populated and defined by European-descended majorities. To point to this truth is not to argue that white people are homogeneous.

      • Defenstrator says

        I understand your objection, however I have difficulty seeing how the identity of “white” is nothing else than a superficial and homogeneous grouping. Even the term European has more nuance.

        • Cumfarts says

          Do you usually socialize with white people? Try immersing yourself in a black, Latino, or Asian social scene. I think you’ll get what white means.

          • Nobody Important says

            It’s not the “social scene” that matters. It’s the check boxes.

    • Nobody Important says

      And this is relevant to the fact they are obliged to check the same box on EEO forms and bear the same Mark of Cain because of it how?

  12. Any essay that starts with “we need to” already has two strikes against it for me.

    First, who is “We”? It’s not me. I don’t think “we” need to “talk about white identity.” So who is “we” then? Presumably the author knows (?), but he doesn’t think it’s necessary to define his terms, because, I’m guessing, the group he is in – “we” – is the only group he is accustomed to talking to, and thus it is automatically “we.” For example, I doubt he means by “we” my own workplace in an inner city community. So right away he is already committing the crime” he believes of others: It’s an implicit racism and classism that presumes that the only people who really matter are wealthy, largely white people. Black people just listen I guess? Definitely working class and poor people are supposed to just listen, I doubt he means by “we,” poor Appalachians, or working class people in South Jersey. I see this casual use of “we” – really meaning a very small proportion of our society – increasingly in self-encapsulated intellectual and/or wealthy coastal progressives, who surround themselves with the same people, read the same books, go to the same upper class schools and camps, and generally assume they are the only people that matter, even as they tell us how racist we are or what “we need to talk” about.

    Even then, why do I listen to someone who starts off saying “we need to talk” and then proceeds to lecture me without defining terms? Why does he assume he has the power to make me stop and listen when he declares unilaterally that “we” need to “talk”? Only people with power do this–a parent tells their child, “We need to talk about that mess in your room.” A boss tells a subordinate, “We need to talk about your lateness problem.” A preacher tells his congregants, “We need to talk about your immortal souls.”

    I’m dissecting this language at length because this article is a poster child for one of the primary problems of “progressive” ideology: Its assumptions, in language, in audience, and in its arrogant lazy assumption of power.

    The biggest assumption is that everyone knows what “white” means. No, we don’t. The author doesn’t bother to define it. That’s because it actually has no meaning at all. “White” doesn’t mean anything–it is a huge category, and generally stands in for “Northern European” or more loosely, “the West.” But It is certainly not a culture. We can’t even define who belongs to it – as a Jew, I most certainly don’t feel ‘white,” nor do I look northern European (I’m rather dark skinned, and people constantly ask me “what I am”),but by his definition, am I white? Do I myself get to define my race, or does he? If so, why? In the assumptions here, “white” includes dark skinned Sicilians but excludes light skinned Indians or South Americans. There is no reason. There is no category. There is no shared culture. Europe itself has radially different cultures. Slavic peoples have literally never regarded themselves as European and indeed don’t even look similar. Yet they are included as “white.” Meanwhile, blond blue eyed Argentinians get scholarships as “Latinos,” which for some inexplicable reason, has come to mean “brown” even though – with the exception of native peoples and those descended from slaves – are every bit as European as the “white people” generally talked about.

    From the outside, it appears “white” has come to mean “the scapegoat/Other progressives can use to get more people to vote Democrat, and simultaneously to use as a shorthand for the Western civilization we want to destroy and remake” as opposed to an actual real category. Doubt me? Ask yourself why the terms are never defined and shift according to how the groups need to be used. Jews are both white and nonwhite; anti-semitism is evil when ‘white’ people attack Jews, but to be denied or ignored when ‘brown’ or Black people practice it. Latinos become white when they’re police officers or someone like George Zimmerman, but brown when they are poor migrants. Muslims somehow become a race even as its adherents number over 1.5 billion of every race, and somehow they are oppressed by “whites” even as many of their countries oppress countless other peoples and have been powerful cultures for centuries. And so on.

    Before this article was written at all, “we need to talk” about definitions, terms, assumptions. I think we would find that that is largely the entire problem.

    • Ralph says

      “Slavic peoples have literally never regarded themselves as European and indeed don’t even look similar.”

      Clearly you’ve never met or spoken to a Slavic person.

      Ask any Pole about Jan III Sobieski and they’ll tell you how he saved Europe from the Turks.

      I would argue that most Slavs, whether they be Poles, Russians or Serbs, see themselves as European, although not necessarily ‘Western’ in a cultural sense.

      • dirk says

        Instead of white (too broad and sentient a term), it is maybe better to talk of caucasoid, a biological/taxonomic term as explained 150 yrs ago by some ethnologist. Btw, in that case the Somali and Indians would also belong to that category. This categorisation is now considered as no longer valid, but I think, as broad clustering, still has a lot of merits. White is simply something for political mumbling , propaganda and shouting. Just only for on the PC floor. In the NLs we spoke, until some yrs ago, of BLANK, like the Afrikaanders do, but also the French (blanc), this has become white (wit) now, less offensive for blacks (???).

    • Serenity says

      d: “white” has come to mean “the scapegoat/Other progressives can use to get more people to vote Democrat, and simultaneously to use as a shorthand for the Western civilization we want to destroy and remake”

      You hit the nail on the head.

      The starting point of any radical ideology is a simple identification of the dangerous enemy to be defeated, destroyed or subjugated: white, bourgeois, non-Aryan, infidel, etc.


      Progressive radicals use identity politics to widen division between the groups, whipping up hostilities to create new waves of resentment to surf on, to build careers on.

  13. Morgan Foster says

    @ d

    Well said.

    “We need to talk” is something women say when what they really mean is: “You need to agree.”

    It’s every bit as annoying when academics say it.

  14. LilyR says

    The commenters here better tell the politicians and people of Europe there is no shared pan ‘European-ness’ and not just the right but the EU itself. As currently whether in Italy, Hungary, France or UK there is calls to not only look after the nation-state model but also Europe as a whole.

    Of course the people of Europe are not homogeneous and we all have different cultures and history – that have been constantly sharing ideas and wars.

    Not only are demographics going through a huge shift, mass immgration is being forced upon countries. The pipe dream of assimilation is just that at this pace. And that’s not even considering whether these people actually want to take on Western, European or nation-state values.

    I can’t help but feel most of the commenters have proved a point in this article and in general, that any talk of a white/European heritage is somehow controversial/racist or somehow made-up! Maybe America has never been homogeneous though the nation-states of Europe have been up until very recently.

  15. Desperate Dan says

    “but most people will probably airbrush their polyglot lineage out of the story to focus on their European provenance”

    Are you kidding? Everywhere in the world the “one drop” principle holds. One great great great grandfather who was (part) black/Polynesian/whatever, and that’s what people identify as.

  16. Eponymous Coward says

    Politically “we” are managing it already across the OECD, by changing voting behaviour at a rapid rate towards parties and people that want to slow down immigration – this is “populist” because it is “popular! PS I have a fundamental rule of articles – if the terms “we must talk” and “myths” are in the first paragraph, its going to be a polemic

  17. Ralph says

    Eric Kaufmann deserves credit for rationally and respectfully broaching this thorny, civilization-shaping topic. Unfortunately, a number of posters here seem hung up over Kaufmann’s use of the term ‘white’ as shorthand for European peoples and have largely ignored his substantive arguments.

    My only real disagreement with Kaufmann is when he asserts that “most people will probably airbrush their polyglot lineage out of the story to focus on their European provenance.” The opposite appears to be happening at the present time – a ‘flight from white’ among mixed-race people. It is not at all clear that new arrivals will be inclined to voluntarily assimilate into old white majorities given the negative identity assigned to European and European-derived peoples under current prevailing Leftist orthodoxy.

    • scribblerg says

      “Thorny” – oh. So the genocide of white people via “replacement migration” policies followed by leftist Western govts for the past 50 years in Western nations is just “thorny”?

      Add to this that we are self-governing peoples and all the laws we voted in were to work in the opposite direction. Or did you miss that too?

      The breezy tone of the author’s commentary, and your’s, is a testament to just how deep the subversion of our culture runs and how deeply so many have internalized the disinformation that makes up today’s “Clown World”.

      Wake up.

    • Richard says

      The author seems unaware that some South Africans and many Zimbabweans think things were better for their respective peoples under white rule, notwithstanding the obvious racism and de jure discrimination. Is it so wrong for “white” people to want to preserve that part of their culture, and, yes it is in fact entirely a white European thing, which makes possible living in any manner above abject poverty and despotism? Only an academic could be so uninformed about human nature.

      • Jen th toit says

        I reckon he knows diddly squat about a southern Africa.

    • Shan says

      Thanks for your measured comment Ralph – after reading the many and lengthy criticisms and hyperventilations (and much worse), I was relieved to read yours.

      Thanks to Quillette for publishing an interesting and challenging piece.

      • Ralph says

        Thanks, Shan.

        I agree – a number of the comments here are wildly unbalanced and misrepresent Kaufmann’s actual arguments.

    • Donnerhauser says

      @Ralph, I agree with you that Kaufmann does indeed deserve respect for his effort to approach the topic. I do also think you have a sort of point with your criticism of Kaufmann’s assimilation assertion, though I am not sure this is entirely down to leftist bashing of Europeans and it may be more due to “salad bowl” efforts at migration and culture instead (I appreciate these are not necessarily unrelated).

      These kinds of migrations are somewhat unusual given that historic migrations tended to bring about wars and conflict, whereas today they are generally peaceful (though social tension exists), so we are in somewhat uncharted territory here. This is a particular issue for European nations given they tend to define themselves by ethnicity, whereas the US can at least, in theory, fall back on “give me your tired, huddled masses” and other strains of more civic nationalism, though Kaufmann notes this is more questionable in practice.

      However, I am of the personal opinion that Kaufmann is largely correct in that “white” (or British or German or French or whatever) will be expanded to include people today who aren’t classified as such – an acquaintance of mine is mixed-race and identifies as such but in the future I can see him leaning more towards “white British” end of the spectrum, for example. I agree that some efforts will be made which will counter this but I think Kaufmann is broadly correct.

      If he isn’t then I can’t see any real result other than lots of ethnic tension as groups become huddled together and walled off (since the majority will not be redefined to accommodate them). You can see what that results in in many nations (this could result in a lot of nasty ethno-nationalism as well). However I am hopeful that this is more of an extreme negative example and is unlikely to happen.

      Kaufmann’s point about the majority’s “invisible heritage” is fairly solid as well. I once heard that “you get majorities to support removing discrimination against minorities by portraying them as receiving unfair treatment and once the discrimination is gone, they’ll be like everyone else. You don’t fight it by portraying the majority and the minority as two opposing groups, because then you shift the topic from one of fairness to one of group interests and the majority will see itself as a group under threat”. Indeed another quote echoed similar behaviour – “historically, emphasising group differences has led to violence and conflict rather than peace and cooperation. America is now making a dangerous gamble on this not happening”. I think trying to encourage people to consider themselves as groups with group interests will just lead to nations tearing themselves apart. Kaufmann’s approach seems to be trying to prevent this and encourage a steady assimilation that will allow a country to accept its new demography without fracturing or turning bloody.

  18. WILLIAM DAIS says

    You write “differences need to be respected.” Two points to that:
    1) It depends on what we are talking about; if I have the opinion that whites are evil, and can be vilified for their skin color, is that “difference” to be “respected”? Diversity for the sake of diversity across the board is idiocy. Discrimination must occur regarding ideas, to assess moral value.
    2) If you equate “respect” with “tolerate,” which would be logical, then do we really want to be a country where everyone tolerates everyone, and all actions are condoned? Patently untenable. Our culture was built to date on foundational values, that if ignored, should bring repercussions. And without culture, we cease to exist as a nation.
    The author would seem to be avoiding making the hard decision of drawing a line in the sand between moral and immoral behavior. This tendency toward cultural relativism is why we have the social problems we currently face. Our blanket “diversity” motto has brought us to the point of feeling like we have to accept antifa thugs beating people in the streets for wearing red hats. Not good.

  19. Fuzzy Headed Mang says

    There are often more genetic similarities between certain Africans and certain Europeans than between different African ethnic groups, or different European groups, proved by allele studies at Stanford and elsewhere. Race is an invented concept that under identity politics has become a golem

    • Francis Urq says

      Read Nicholas Wade’s “A Troublesome Inheritance”. The classification of humans into continental groups is supported by genome clustering studies.

      This isn’t a good thing. It isn’t a bad thing. It is simply a reality.

  20. Pingback: Populism, immigration and white majorities | Phil Ebersole's Blog

  21. GSW says

    “The biggest assumption is that everyone knows what “white” means. No, we don’t. The author doesn’t bother to define it. That’s because it actually has no meaning at all. “White” doesn’t mean anything–it is a huge category, and generally stands in for “Northern European” or more loosely, “the West.” But It is certainly not a culture.” @d

    “Race is an invented concept that under identity politics has become a golem.” @Fuzzy Headed Mang

    Yes, and Yes!

    The idea that skin colour somehow biologically determines culture is complete and utter bunkum and politically/socially toxic to boot. Humanity is all “mixed-race” if you go back enough generations. “Nations,” in the modern political sense, don’t exist until the 18th/19th century.

    “If you’re like most white Brits, your ethnicity is hidden at the centre of your national identity.” @Erik Kauffman

    This sort of gobbledygook is just a politely obscured shade away from the racial pseudo-science that blossomed in the late 19th and early 20th century. Yuck!

    • Nobody Important says

      What race box are you obliged to check on every school, job or grant application? Those who must check the “White” box and have all the disadvantages that accompany it are White. Science may not be able to define Whiteness, but the EEOC and its allied institutions such as academia sure can. ( I refuse to check those boxes as my form of protest against EEO, but that just means I am placed in the White category anyway.)

  22. Lightning Rose says

    Gobbledygook is the best word indeed for this article. Speculative fiction about what a given country “will” be in 50,100, or 200 years is a waste of pixels and bandwidth. Similar articles once were written about how very soon NYC would be buried under nine feet of horse manure; no one saw the internal combustion engine coming. Likewise, no one knew how the Pill, women’s education, or two-income households would affect “The Population Bomb.” Woops!
    Did the Peak Oil crowd envision fracking? Nope! Did anyone see the fall of the Soviet Union coming? Not really. Just three years ago, almost no one thought it possible that Donald J. Trump could win the White House and put the economy back on a footing we haven’t seen since Reagan.

    Now, to the business at hand: Does this author believe marriage will still be a “thing” two centuries hence? I doubt it! At best, we might have “5-year contracts” for the purpose of having children, renewable option. If we still have marriage, is the author aware that women tend to marry “up” in socioeconomic status? In other words, teachers marry doctors, doctors marry stockbrokers, baristas marry construction workers but very few construction workers marry bankers.
    It has been ever thus. With still vanishingly few black men occupying high-ranking positions, not sure where all this mixed-racialsim’s going to come from. People also couple based on similar upbringing and affinity of interests; like tends to follow like. Today it’s well known that the “marrying up” tendency has produced a 2-tiered society; educated elites and virtually everyone else. I don’t think there’s any way to legislate or engineer who people marry.

    How much mixing takes place will also depend on who’s in the “mix.” Hispanic/white, probably frequent. Many hispanics ARE “white,” and most after they’ve been here 10 years have culturally assimilated. Most derive from the originally European, Christian tradition anyway. Mixed marriages for Jews have been a done deal for a generation, except the ultra-Orthodox. Muslims? They’re going to strictly stick to pairings within their faith. Threats of honor killings can damp one’s intersectional ardor; and I can’t think of ANY sane woman not born into that culture who’s going to surrender 7 centuries’ worth of women’s progress to live under complete subjection, house confinement and a burkha. The question becomes to what degree is America open to Islamification, if Muslims will not assimilate. Do we allow their enclaves Sharia law? FGM?
    We allow the Amish and Mennonites, the Mormons and Hasidim to have their own ways, right?

    Descendants of India, Pakistan, Japan, the rest of Southeast Asia seem not only eager to assimilate, but to do so in such a way that the addition of their cultural heritage enjoyably enriches our own. However, I don’t see large-scale Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. taking over large swaths of America. China? That will depend on how, when, and whether China continues to assert itself as a superpower, and what they decide to do with that. If they try for worldwide cultural hegemony, complete with totalitarian surveillance, well, start brushing up on your Mandarin, folks, or maybe exploring how we’re going to push back. Otherwise, if we remain mutually dependent trading partners, the welcome we are currently affording the rest of Asia should also apply to them.

    One question though: Is it a GOOD IDEA to bring hundreds of thousands of “foreign” students here every year, let them take university seats that are thereby denied American kids, just for their money while they export our technologies, poach our intellectual property, most likely hack our secrets, and use all that to undercut us in the marketplace? This was never questioned under the globalist diktat, but in light of a more unstable, unpredictable world you have to wonder. We Americans tend to be very naive about the motivations of others! Davos Man needs to brush up on his Sun Tzu.

  23. Bab says

    Prof Kaufmann – good to see you on Quillette, its refreshing to see someone trying to chart a way forward rather than just trying to serve up red meat to their supporters. I do agree with you that the most natural antidote to both the toxic elements of the left and white is to blur the lines between the boundaries of their respective constituencies. Fortunately, this seems to be happening more or less organically – about half of all Black men in Britain have a white wife, for example, and at some point its going to become unsustainable for the New Left to insist that unambiguously white people are solely responsible for the world’s problems – there just won’t be enough of them to go round.

    My main reservation about your proposal is that the more successful nation states are constituted by a distinct majority ethne, who as you say have set aside tribal sentiments to identify with the state more or less exclusively. Even in Europe, people don’t identify as Geats or Gotlanders or Angles or Saxons, they identify as undifferentiated English, Germans or Swedes, and that process of assimilation was essential to the viability of the state.

    Part of the tension that arises around minorities is that the majority perceives there to be “free rider” problem – even today, for instance, it is disproportionately Southern white men in the US that identify with the State to the extent that they are willing to fight and die for it. Far from being victimised by such structures, minorities overwhelmingly benefit from the stability conferred by these majoritarian countries – to the extent that droves of them each year flee tribal societies for countries that are relatively homogenous. In consociationalist countries like Lebanon, where people overwhelmingly identify with their own community, it is difficult to find people who will fight and die for the Lebanese state, although there are plenty willing to join sectarian militias. Exactly how the Western states pass through this crucible without becoming a society like Lebanon or the former Yugoslavia is anyone’s guess.

    • GSW says

      “My main reservation about your proposal is that the more successful nation states are constituted by a distinct majority ethne, who as you say have set aside tribal sentiments to identify with the state more or less exclusively.” @Bab

      Egad – what’s old in biological determinism is new again!

      The results of World War I seemed to confirm for some the popular late 19th century social darwinist opinion that multi-ethnic/cultural polities were weaker than ‘nation states’ like Germany or France. After all, the Russian, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian Empires were the big losers of the Great War.

      The problem with this kind of biologically-based read of international politics is that there’s so obviously little or nothing to it since multi-ethnic/cultural polities also stood at the apex of the international order for all of the 19th and 20th centuries – the British Empire, the U.S.S.R., and the U.S.A.

      So, I guess it’ll be back to the racial pseudo-scientific drafting board…

      • Bab says

        Hardly biological. Cultural. The genes of today’s Europeans are the same as they were two thousand years ago, when they were still a bunch of weak, perpetually squabbling northern tribes. We seem to forget that for most of recorded history, the Europeans lived in terror of the North Africans and the Eurasians, and not the other way around.

        The USA is an excellent example of a country constituted mainly by a distinct majority ethne, especially during the time period that you mention. Less so for the Soviet Union, admittedly, but then again it was never an unambiguously successful society.

        • GSW says

          “Hardly biological. Cultural. The genes of today’s Europeans…” @Bab

          Aha, non-biological cultural genetics. Now I get it!

          “…two thousand years ago, when they were still a bunch of weak, perpetually squabbling northern tribes…”

          So I’m guessing that in your 2000 years ago world the Roman Empire folks, (a multicultural bunch if there ever was one,) were dusky “Mediterraneans” and so not real “white” Europeans??

          “for most of recorded history, the Europeans lived in terror of the North Africans and the Eurasians..”

          Not when they were Christians, as was largely the case in the Mediterranean world until the arrival of Islam. The division was religious, not genetic.

          Your problem here is that skin colour “races” and social darwinism are toxic fantasies that fail the smell test when matched against the real world outlines of history or biological science.

          • Bab says

            “Not when they were Christians, as was largely the case in the Mediterranean world until the arrival of Islam. The division was religious, not genetic.”

            Getting somewhat off-track, but probably the object of greatest fear for the Romans were the Carthaginians – “Hannibal ante portas” and all that.

            Again, I am not positing that there is any substantial genetic difference between Europeans and North Africans, given that it is only 250 generations or so since the ancestors of the current Europeans migrated to Europe via the Levant. Its also probable that Europeans were dark-skinned, until the transition to a grain-based, Vitamin-D deficient diet around 5000 years ago required light skins to make the most of the scarce sunlight available.

            To get back to my original point – the stability of a nation state is correlated with the presence of a solid majority ethne. It hardly matters what colour the ethne is – Botswana, for instance, is one of the more successful and stable African countries. Its national culture is largely drawn from that of the Tswana ethnic group, which makes up 85% of its population.

  24. Klaus C. says

    “The point is not to assimilate all diversity, but to strike a balance between vibrant minorities and an enduring white-Christian tradition.”

    But the Christians are dying out amongst the white ethnic population, as religion inevitably retreats. I don’t see it as a very meaningful descriptor of modern Western culture outside of the US, but even there Christianity is in decline.

    Personally I’ve never identified as “white” because it seems a trivial way of thinking about myself. I may identify my cultural heritage as “Western” or “European”, which is more meaningful. And the aspects of Western civilization I personally identify with are not religious.

    I would suggest that outside of the US, many of the conservative white voters use the word “Christian” not to reflect any deep personal commitment to Christianity (which often seems quite alien and exotic to those from a Western but non-religious background), but merely as a term meaning “not Muslim”.

  25. Harmony Pax says

    What people fail to recognize here is that any process of “whiteshift” causes the people who are shifted white to close ranks against anyone different. During the 1900s immigration wave, immigrants closed ranks against blacks and that was incredibly messed up.

    I’ve seen Latinos and Asians close ranks against blacks as well and one huge example was the LA Riots. It’s incredibly bad that people who are new to the country are discriminating against people who have been there since the nations founding.

    If people start defining themselves against blacks or whomever the outgroup is, whether it’s Muslims or Mexicans or whatever. It has the potential to cause a lot of enduring problems by getting the outgroup to form a reactive sense of identity.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @Harmony Pax

      “I’ve seen Latinos and Asians close ranks against blacks as well and one huge example was the LA Riots. It’s incredibly bad that people who are new to the country are discriminating against people who have been there since the nations founding.”

      LA Riots?

      Are you by any chance referring to those riots where “people who have been there since the nation’s founding” were torching and burning businesses owned by the “people who [were] new to the country”?

      • sorethumb says

        Maori/Pacifica robbing (and killing) Indian dairy owners in NZ

    • Bab says

      Harmony – I know you mean well, but this is the sort of crude moral essentialism that the New Left employs that tends to rub people the wrong way. I am not going to defend the actions of every Korean shopkeeper, but to insinuate that Koreans were the villains of the piece, and that the Blacks were the poor, unsullied victims is incredibly ham-fisted – if not racist in itself.

  26. James Lee says


    You crushed it.

    Bottom line- “whiteness”, “white privilege”, and now even the radically redefined “white supremacy”*, which according to the New York City public school system includes evil “white” concepts like objectivity and individualism- these are the contours of the new racial scapegoat around which “liberal” political parties are organizing.

    It blows my mind, but these people appear to want a race war.

    The only way I can make sense of it is that the Western Liberal regime is fragmenting, as it presents no coherent set of positive values from its own side. It is laughable to think that the five minutes old sacred values of Diversity and Inclusion can provide enough social glue to cohere together a society under the Putnamian weight of disintegrating social capital.

    (And of course, Diversity and Inclusion don’t really mean diversity or inclusion, but are linguistic deceptions fundamentally characteristic of all radical social engineering projects.)

    The bank of social capital provided by centuries of pre-Liberal Judeo-Christianity is empty. Modern Liberal societies have nothing around which to cohere, and in their anxiety and confusion they have even turned on what had been considered foundational Liberal values such as due process and the presumption of innocence.

    The Soviet Union used to be an effective enemy around which to rally. Amazingly, some liberals are still trying to revivify that corpse. Following the collapse of the Iron Curtain, the 9/11 attacks and the War on Terror provided some centrifugal force, but not enough, plus such a scapegoat interferes with key aspects of the globalist agenda.

    And so we witness the rise of “whiteness”, the brand new scapegoat for Western elites.


    • @james lee, great comment. My question is, what do you think is next?

  27. Abraham says

    I greatly admire Kaufmann’s optimistic and enterprising effort. However, the approach is grounded in racialism, and so the struggle is lost at the start. For Kaufmann, the only real hope can be in the eventual acceptance of ethno-traditional nationalism–i.e. having it both ways, racialism AND an allegiance to a civic state. This is beyond optimistic, though. Already the racialism unleashed in the US is destroying our education system. Richard Carranza in New York stands for legions. His project is racist at its core and in its practice. The attack on whiteness is serious, and it is racial and racist.

    Kaufmann’s approach is also, for Americans, a betrayal of a still unfulfilled American idea that is expressed in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights. That is a rejection of racialism for humanism and for equality and rights over which the State and its bureaucracies have no authority because they are given by our “Creator” (read that as God or nature or history or whatever you can make of it). That part of the American historical vision is still worth fighting for, struggling for. And it is slipping through our hands.

    • Doug F says

      Yes, and it is terrifying. And more terrifying that is not obvious to most.

  28. augustine says

    Various comments in this thread suggest that referencing the race of others at all is wrong, whether on a personal or societal level. Some go farther and say, in effect, that race is an illusion or an artificial construct. This shaming language sounds like an attempt to effectively shut down the legitimate expression of people in their normal, observable tendencies to affiliate with their own kind by some combination of cultural, ethnic and racial preference. In reality there are no hard lines in any of these categories. Does that mean we should advocate abolishing categorization itself because the boundaries or definitions are problematic?

    The modern liberal project has fiercely promoted identity politics by race and gender to achieve its progressive goals. This campaign is attacking whites in particular and others who socialize naturally with these identities in mind (when in human history have they not been in mind?). The West has blossomed in large measure because we have managed to subsume racial or tribal identity under broader principles, but those identities have retained some value and are with us still. Their erasure is not an end goal for most people.

    • Klaus C. says

      “Some go farther and say, in effect, that race is an illusion or an artificial construct.”

      This is not the view of contemporary “identity politics” which tend to go in the opposite direction, ascribing all kinds of improbable significance to “racial identity”.

      The idea of race being largely illusory is held more by scientists and traditional humanists than by “the left”, and it has a lot going for it. What we identify as “races” are transitory products of geographical isolation, of little importance in the long term process of human evolution, particularly in the modern mobile world.

      What’s of much more importance is culture, and this article’s insistence on conflating Western culture with “whiteness” is playing the same unhelpful game as the identity politics of the other side.

      People of any colour can adopt Western culture, as we’ve been seeing in the increasingly “Westernised” cultures all over the globe.

      • Bill Miller says

        Genetics and forensics can easily distinguish races today.
        There are border cases but that does not make the concept superflous. One can generate a continuum of shades from green to red but nobody would say that green and red are the same and the concept of color is superflous.
        In biology scientists define separate species(!) with SNP-differences on a similar level of difference we have between human races.

      • augustine says

        Klaus C.,
        There does seem to be a conflicted vision between those who deny the concept of race and those who use the idea of racial identity to make their stand politically. But this dichotomy itself is illusory. One group is in denial of race and the other asserts that race plays no role in prejudice and inequality– except for the existence of racism founded on false perceptions. Both views are propelled by the idea that believing race has significance is a key problem that must be overcome. They are ideological handmaidens.

        Those who hold that race is illusory cannot refer to racial inequality, white privilege or even racism, logically speaking. I had a recent conversation with a minister, who holds an advanced degree in psychology, who introduced his group to “white privilege” via a short film where of different races step back and forward according to their “privilege” in life. Talking with him further he suggested that race is not real. So here is an example of teaching white privilege and denial of race in one day. He, too, was enthusiastic about culture, and when I asked how he would refer to a white South African who had naturalized in the U.S., he said that person would be an African-American.

        This approach doesn’t make much sense for most people. Saying that race is “transitory” would seem to suggest that it should be made not to matter in human affairs but, again, this looks like an attempt to rob people of an aspect of their existence that matters to them. Who gets the power to usher in change like that, across the whole world?

        Race and culture are different in so many ways it is silly to conflate them, or say that one matters more than the other. Both may be ultimately transitory, but we might agree that it is culture that gives us the best means of directly improving our lot as groups and as individuals in the near term. Traditionally this has occurred more or less along ethnographic and religious lines. Western culture did not arise from Persia or Abyssinia or the Orient, or the people therein. Why it should trouble anyone that such patterns have not been obliterated by now is a mystery to me.

        • Klaus C. says

          “this looks like an attempt to rob people of an aspect of their existence that matters to them.”

          But to whom does it matter, and why? As a middle class white European living in white majority Australia, my “race” certainly doesn’t matter to me in any personal sense. Cultural heritage yes, race no.

          Race does matter to most minority indigenous people in this country, for obvious reasons, given that for most of the time since the British invasion they’ve been heavily oppressed and disparaged, and are still subject to much racism today.

          Regaining pride in their cultural heritage and status as an indigenous people inevitably involves them attaching importance to their race, given that their oppression was “justified” by the invaders on racists grounds.

          Unless one is a member of a population that has long been subject to racism, it’s hard to make a non-racist case for attaching personal importance to one’s race. People can legitimately feel a strong attachment to their cultural and ethnic heritage without having to bring race into it.

          As for “white privilege”, it’s a dubious concept because it usually simply means “lack of unfair disadvantage based on race”, which should not be regarded as a “privilege” but an expectation we should demand for everyone.

          • augustine says

            Klaus C.,
            Certainly ethnicity seems to be more important to people than race. In this way race is a construct that is artificial but it is also a useful reference that reflects reality on some levels, hence its wide adoption as a tool that enables us to make the world around us intelligible.

            Under times of relative peace and economic success, there isn’t much use in referencing or even acknowledging one’s own racial categorization. Some political movements, however, insist that we have a stake in our racial identity whether we like or not. In the West, Leftism seeks aggressively to assign oppressed victim status to all non-whites, and the language you use here reflects this. It is a vile and destructive ideology that continuously reminds victims they are victims, and makes certain oppressors know they are oppressors, so that its supporters can claim to be the emancipators. It is the path to power for a few, not the way to a better world for all concerned.

    • Abraham says

      Many of us who object very strongly to racialized politics and policies, and support the idea of a civic state at that level, also support very strongly people’s rights to affiliate freely at the level of society and culture and so on.

  29. bobo says

    I’m a Polak by birth. I despise Germans to this day because of their crimes during WWII. I wanted revenge for a long time. Those who are members of a group that at one point felt the sting of discrimination do not just forget what happened to them. The same applies to America. You can count on it.

  30. Doug F says

    Wow. You try to dress things up as white versus not white. That is not important at all. The issues facing us are will we live in a society based on Judeo Christian foundations (I am not religious btw) or Islamic foundations or the strange hybrid experiment going on in China. Will our societies support freedom and all the inherit problems, or embrace some form of tyranny?

    This is not a race discussion. It is a cultural discussion. Trying to frame it other ways seems like an attempt to muddy the waters.

  31. First off, you have no freakin’ clue what the West will look like in two centuries. For all we know, the entire world could be united as one race in opposition to some alien race that we pissed off in our galactic explorations.

    But more to the point, I think you’re wrong that the idea is to somehow explicitly protect the whiteness of the various Western societies. I don’t think that’s what the populist-conservatives are really asking for. The point is that the West has a culture and traditions that are only coincidentally defined by race. Whites have rarely defined themselves, their culture or their traditions in racial terms.

    The point is that the progressive left, or left-modernists as you term it, wants to destroy Western culture and traditions because they are Marxists, and for Marxists, culture and traditions stand in the way of socialism. With the economic argument for Marxism completely obliterated by the facts of history, Marxism has turned to the cultural argument: that Western culture and traditions must be destroyed because they are a product of whiteness, and thus inherently oppressive to everyone else.

    So the populist-conservatives are not trying to protect “whiteness”; they are trying to protect the culture and traditions that have built these incredibly prosperous and successful societies. People who are not white are absolutely welcome to join it if they actually desire to do so, but the populist-conservatives do not believe that non-whites have a right to join in on their own terms, subverting it in the process.

    It’s only if you racialize everything about these cultures can you come to a position that the populist right is somehow seeking to protect whiteness. There’s nothing white, for example, about Thanksgiving. Americans of all races celebrate it, even though almost none of us can trace our ancestry to the participants.

    You really need to rethink what you’re saying here.

  32. bill53 says

    This “whiteshift” concept is nonsense, black folk in particular hate white Americans. Everything black America does is in opposition to white Americana even down to names and how they are spelled. That is OK, who can blame them we brought them over as slaves. We had a good run, but the West and the United States are finished. Both are unwilling to defend themselves or their values against the secular from within and muslim horde from the outside. The average length of empire is 250-275 years. So we had an average or slightly better then average run considering our decline will take about 50-100 years. I won’t be around for the breakdown, so I don’t really care. The only thing that concerns me is the West and the US may lash out with our big military industrial complex as we decline, The Brits had a US dominated world to look forward to. The US on the other hand has a Chinese communist/muslim dominated world to look forward to and It isn’t pretty…..

  33. Peter Wood Fan says

    Re: racial monoliths. Here’s a very brief thought experiment you can conduct:

    (This, by the way, is simply based on a lifetime of observation and education, and in no way is intended to disparage or disrespect anyone.)

    OK, you’re walking down the street and you see a white man under 30, wearing headphones, and slowly bobbing his head to the music. What assumptions do you make about what he’s listening to? Rock, hip hop, folk, metal, classical, EDM, etc??

    Now you see a young black man wearing headphones, slowly bobbing his head to the music. What do you assume he’s listening to?

  34. Howdy says

    Take a look at biology and consider that the best bet for future generations is to mix with the peoples each ethnic group became estranged from after, what some like to call, “out-of-Africa”.

    We all came from the same place and, in a way, speciated into ethnic groups due mainly to that grouping and moving apart. We then bred ourselves into mutation groups partly from not having as much gene material for variance. You might not mind having red hair, but plaque psoriasis sucks (not that the two are connected); or you might not mind being immune to malaria, but death at 46 from cycle-cell anemia is no fun mutation (they are related).

    We can wait on (and accept everything that comes with) gene editing or we can chose mates with a little more forethought for a healthier progeny.

    We know, scientifically, that we are all ONE “race” and that our differences are simple variations in gene selection. All this racism BS and old, ugly, ignorant flames of hate, mistrust, and blame does nothing to improve life for anyone. This just heads us back to an evil place we should have kept moving forward from.

    I personally hope that any offspring of mine chooses someone with enough genetic variation from themselves that the next generation has a better chance of inheriting healthy genes. I could care less what color eyes, hair, skin they may have or how tall, short, thin, stocky…whatever the variations of humanity. My choice would be healthy children. “Racism”, from anyone, is asinine, ignorant, and evil.

    • Howdy says

      choose mates… and whatever other I missed. I clearly needed to edit a little better. Apologies.

  35. dirk says

    The Chinse ambassador in the NLs, interviewed recently about Chinese/Dutch relations, defended the re-education camps in the West(= homogenisation into Han Chinese citizens) as a necessity to stamp out diversity and terrorism (he mentioned our clemency with the muslims in Molenbeek, Brussels). We, once, showed to much understanding for their culture and faith, he said, and therefore had to crush their resistance.The Uygurs have to be, first and foremost, Chinese citizens, as is also the case in France, he said.

    Quite different approach as we are used to in Europe (less France) and the US.
    Whether the Han (and the Uygur) are white or yellow is less relevant here, as I see it.

  36. Ralph says

    In response to some of the comments above: Just because identity can be multi-layered and some individuals or peoples don’t neatly fit into categories, it doesn’t mean that group and national identities are thus completely meaningless and Western countries can switch demographic majorities through large-scale immigration without any consequence.

  37. Stuart says

    if the peoples of the world are scrambling over rough terrain, boarding dangerous lifeboats and risking their lives to come to white western countries, then there must be something worth preserving about the west and its traditions and values that were established by whites

    • dirk says

      That’s exactly how our chinese ambassador (in the NLs) sees it: Europe good for about 90% of the UN values, but seemingly has lost confidence in itself (see its problems with terrorism, immigration, Brexit, economic crises), and by that also is now much less an attractive model for China.

  38. J. Edwards says

    Another Jewish author and known Zionist and a Jewish publisher attacking white identity – yet a review of their tweets will show they support an Israel as a Jewish State, no non-Jewish immigration and high walls.

    This pattern is repeated by Jews not just in the US but in Canada and the UK too.

    Why is it ok for Jews to be racist, bigoted and ethnocentric yet these same people attack white people for daring to mention that illegal immigration should be stopped.

    While white racism in South Africa is decried – the BDS movement is hypocritically called racist! It’s time for Jew to shed the crocodile tears and permanent victim status and start seeing themselves as perpetrators. After all, the Palestinian people are a Semitic people too. As such it seems the State of Israel is the most anti-Semitic state in the world.

    • Serenity says

      Eric Kaufmann: “…we’re more likely to experience what I term “whiteshift,” a process by which white majorities absorb an admixture of different peoples through intermarriage.”

      Trotsky: “I rather leaned toward the prognosis that the Jews of different countries would be assimilated and that the Jewish question would thus disappear”

      Eric Kaufmann, the anti-Semitic rant of J. Edwards (see above) is a timely reminder that social engineering of radical left once again will purge not only the “members of anti-modern religious groups such as ultra-Orthodox Jews”.

    • Bab says

      Complete nonsense. The author is a quarter Chinese and a quarter Latino and has lived just about everywhere in the world except for Israel. If you’ve actually read any of his works, particularly his book about the Anglo-Saxons, you’d realise that he is more sympathetic to white identity than most authors writing in this space.

      • David V says

        Anti-Semitism manifests itself by being consistently deranged and obsessive. They can never prove that there is some Jewish conspiracy to undermine the West by using Muslim and black interest groups, or prove that Leftism is somehow intrinsic to Jewish culture and religion. After all, Communism is virulently anti-religion.

        • John Smith says

          Saul Alinsky would disagree. When people would accuse him of being a Marxist, he would say: Not really, I’m just jewish.

    • John Smith says

      Isn’t it interesting that there’s no word for anti-gentile hate among jews. And yet we know the phenomenon exists. If something doesn’t have a name that can be quickly related to an idea, it will fail to achieve traction. And how do such ideas achieve traction? You guessed it: In academia and then in media.

  39. David of Kirkland says

    Those who celebrate minority majorities in the West, wonder if they’d like the same elsewhere, where no place has any special culture. Like a Japan where less than 50% are ethnic Japanese, China with less than 50% ethnic Chinese, India with less than 50% ethnic Indians, Nigeria with less than 50% ethnic Nigerians, Mexico with less than 50% ethnic Mexicans, Russian with less than 50% Russians (or are they just white?), etc.

    • Harmony Pax says

      In fact the Gulf Arab cultures have put this into action. There are more foreign born people there than there are local born people. You’ll meet more Indian descendants in Dubai than local people.

      • Ralph says

        The key difference being that, unlike Western countries, the Gulf Arab states don’t encourage migrant workers to settle permanently and generally don’t allow them to become citizens.

    • CHinese in Montreal says

      I don’t mind. If you have been to Shenzhen, Guangzhou, or other large chinese cities, you would find there are plenty of non-Han “laowai” from Europe to Africa doing business, studying and working in China, and I absolutely think it is a fantastic thing. It shows that my country truly comes a long way and it attracts people from around the globe. Oh, not to mention numerous underground Ukraine “models”. Our birth-rate is lower than that of Japan, we should encourage immigration to keep the economy going.

      Speaking of Japan, apparently Japanese don’t think their 20 years of stagnation is as good as folks on this website pretend to think,.https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2019/05/27/commentary/japan-commentary/japan-begins-immigration-experiment/#.XO0Y5tMzZQI

      • dirk says

        Hello Chinese, I just here read that in Guangzhou and Shenzen, the blacks and traders from Africa are no longer called -hei ren-, but -hei gui-, black devils. What about that?? And is it true what I read?

        • CHinese in Montreal says

          Possible. Anti-black racism is quite common in China, from my observation, but anti-white racism is very rare. We still have a long way to go to be a civilized country, unfortunately.

      • Elizabeth says

        @Chinese in Montreal

        You virtue-signal like smarmy Baizuo, but don’t address the actual scenario posed: the Han being displaced as the majority ethnic group in China.

        With Africa set to add 3 billion people this century, I suggest we send at least 1 billion to the PRC, you know, to “keep the economy going.”

        You don’t object on any level to an African ethnic majority in China, right? Because that would be “fantastic” and “civilized,” right?

        • CHinese in Montreal says

          Life must be easy for you if anybody who doesn’t think like you do are automatically dismissed as virtue signaling.

          And seriously, stop using that word baizuo, it is as Chinese as general tao chicken :).

          Sorry if I don’t masturbate to some mythical Han ethnicity that magically connect me with 1.3 billion people. I have connection with my friends, my families, my colleagues that’s it. Stupid war and conflicts fought over these abstract concept that (like religion) lose power if we simply stop believing them. The place I am from, 2000 years ago are barbarian region and was conquered by the first emperor of China. I may be Han today, but who knows
          how many “barbarian” blood that I inherited? Just like Italian, Polish, jews and other non-nordic whites are not deemed white 100 years ago and suffer the same discrimination that muslims, Chinese, latinos and other immigrants suffer today, and magically they are now considered white enough for white-supremacists today, pretty funny if you think about it. It is rather stupid to be attached to something as self-contradictory and arbitrary as race. We are all African, how about that?

          PS one evidence that I don’t care is I am currently living in a country that is majority non-han and trust me I don’t wake up every morning yearning to go back and live with my people, just as I have foreign friends who have lived in China for years and they don’t seem particular distressed. As profs kaufman said in his book, we are wired differently. Some people do care (authoritarian personality and traditionalist personality), that is fine with me.I simply don’t.

          PPS I don’t think I will support “importing” Africans to China. Please, we are not whites /s But if economic necessity dictates, I have no problem with seeing more African friends coming to China to work, study and do business. or any other race and ethnicity. I promise I won’t start panicking and be paranoid about some jewish plot of population replacement.

          • Elizabeth says

            Guess I touched a nerve. The fact you get angry over a diaspora-derived Chinese term being used to ridicule your views is revealing.

            I actually deeply admire East Asian cultures, generally welcome non-Muslim Asian immigration to the West, and am having my children learn Mandarin (I studied Japanese).

            It’s not worth responding to your errors point by point. Your ignorance is nicely summed up by repeating the anti-American myth of “Italian, Polish, jews and other non-nordic whites are not deemed white 100 years ago.”

            All European peoples, including Ashkenazi Jews, were always considered legally “white” (and part of European civilization) throughout American history, which is why they could immigrate. A few random, hyperbolic comments to the contrary do not change that. Only non-European or admixed groups, like Middle Easterners or Latinos, had to actually argue their status to be considered “white.”

            Since you can’t handle basic history, it’s not worth getting into a complex subject like population genetics (hint: we’re not all “African” but the product of multi-regional evolution).

            What’s telling in the end, is that for all your recriminations and posturing, you reject mass immigration of black Africans to your ethnic homeland. That sort of utterly shameless hypocrisy is what fuels white backlash.

  40. gda53 says

    They should have listened to the most brilliant politician of the 1960’s, Enoch Powell.

  41. Barney Doran says

    Once blond is gone, it will be gone forever. Glad I won’t be around for that sad day.

  42. Nobody Important says

    What does Whiteness mean? Look at the check boxes that appear on every school, job or grant application and you’ll find out.

    Affirmative action is the ignored elephant in this article. It is utterly pointless and irrelevant where your ancestors really hailed, what matters is how the EEOC classifies you now.

    There is no greater Mark of Cain than being obliged to check the “White” box (and Male box) on those forms.

  43. John Smith says

    Where jews are a minority, diversity is good. Where they are a majority, diversity is bad. That is all ye know and all ye need to know so get it straight.

  44. John Smith says

    If you want to see what a country does that cares about its people and culture, look to israel. Even liberal jews in the West defend israel’s “right to exist as a jewish state”. The only such state that apparently has this right. Jews would never allow, say, Somalians or the Chinese to be the keepers of their traditions, religion, culture, history etc. Of course, not. But what are we (with MUCH help by jews) doing in the US and Europe? Flooding ourselves with people of non-European descent and adverse cultures and rather than assimilating them, what do we do? We teach them to hate the majority population. Sounds like a real recipe for success. Who would do this to themselves? Certainly not jews.

  45. Sean says

    Whiteness is not based on superficial characteristics like ethnicity or culture. That’s only an illusion produced by the mind’s tendency to stereotype. Whiteness is a combination of values, that are usually found in combination because they work in combination. These are values such as emphasis on mutuality in exchange, minimization of in-group preference, deferred gratification, etc. White societies are high-trust societies, where people are secure in their persons and property. That’s why everyone wants to live in a white society, even if they don’t intend to practice white values themselves.

  46. Kevin Herman says

    Many people who consider themselves Latino also identify as white and if you were to look at there genetic background and appearance they pretty much are. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio if you showed pictures of people who look like them to black people that had no clue who they are and what there surnames were they would tell you they are white guys.

    • Sam says

      Kevin I agree. They always use a very narrow definition of white. Really, what they seem to aspire to is the elimination of white culture. But they have ever-changing definitions of what white people and white culture are. So if they can’t identify it how can they eliminate it? At this rate, in 300 years they will still be looking for racists. Like an anorexic who can’t be thin enough, the chattering class will never feel homogenized and diversified enough. Right now, politically in American populism, you have Scottish, Irish, Black, Lebonese, Greek, Muslim, Italian, Jewish, Cuban, Asian heritage spokespeople regularly on tv and twitter promoting MAGA….. So if it’s this diverse .how on earth do they expect it to disappear? My prediction is that none of this hand wringing will last long when a pandemic or war or natural disaster occurs which is big enough to pull us away from our smartphomes. Then people won’t be looking to see if you’re using the right pronouns or being a terrific enough ally to the latinx community or if you made sure your 5 year old’s birthday party didnt culturally appropriate an indian necklace. Instead they’ll be asking for a hand.

  47. Clobachard says

    Non-whites will be culled like the muslims in Cordoba. Europe will be white again. I have no doubt and look forward to it. Whites have a right to their own homelands and don’t need to apologize for anything that comes next. People have always been tribal and nothing will change that. One can’t compare the US to Europe because Europe is not a nation of immigrants.

  48. dirk says

    Why do Africans flight to Europe? For the particular combination of material wealth and clement, socialist laws (meant for their own, less capable people and for some war fugitives). Otherwise, they would have gone to Saudi Arabia (closer and richer) or to China (where a few traders are right now, but only in enclosed territories such as Senzhen ). I still can’t imagine , Africans in Japan or China? It’s simply too far fetched for my mind!

  49. Pingback: In The Lies That Bind, Kwame Anthony Appiah Takes on Identity Politics | TrumpsMinutemen

  50. Pingback: In The Lies That Bind, Kwame Anthony Appiah Takes on Identity Politics

  51. Sam says

    I stopped reading halfway down when he got to the point where he expressed the goal was preventing right wing populism in Europe and America from growing. As if that’s an ideal. Or even something that can be directed or moved about like a horse out of a stable. The barn door is flung open, sorry. You can’t push all that back in. Maybe right leaning populism is a healthy thing, ever think of that?

Comments are closed.