"Well,I have never died yet".
 
Tell that to a Hindu!

well, I have never died yet.
so far, so good.

"It is  like dying.We suppose we'll die some day,but we are in no hurry".
 
I can't speak for Armor but for me death isn't suppositional,it IS inevitable.

"Sadly, I believe that humans in a society are to a large extent replaceable cogs."

I believe that you watch too much TV.

"I am not advocating for it. I believe it is inevitable."

Well, you sound a little as if you are advocating for it.

Even if you think that the Whites will soon disappear from the planet, you do not have to cheer the development. It is like dying. We suppose we'll die some day, but we are in no hurry.

I'm all for throwing out the Muslims and the illegals. My advocating we do so has anything to do with race, racism, fascism, and/or nazism.

"demograpics on an even keel" What does that mean? We are all replaceable cogs?

Sadly, I believe that humans in a society are to a large extent replaceable cogs. No society can exist and be strong without a critical mass of people. What does it matter if Robert Jones, or Hector Fernandez, or Indra Singh is the engineer that operates the railways. As long as they are roughly equally competent by virtue of education and supervision, the trains will run. If there is neither Jones nor Singh nor Fernandez to operate the train, it will not run. Nor will there be this Jones/Singh/Fernandez person working, paying taxes, voting, raising the next generation, and fighting in the army if/when necessary. That society will eventually fail.

Hence my emphasis, always, in this series of posts on population issues. I know there are other factors, but they are largely environmental. I some people here owill not agree, but to me population counts more than anything else.

_________________________
You are advocating/apologizing for the invasion then make such a statement? Show me one Hispanic nation/country that "Western Values" are strong.

I am not advocating for it. I believe it is inevitable. The US cannot close its borders. And even if it did, it cannot deport 20 million or more people. There isn't the will, and there isn't the way. Again, some will disagree, but that's their opinion.

So, I am simply trying to make the best of the situation. And yes, compared to Somalia, Pakistan, Algeria, Indonesia, and Malaysia, I would claim that Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and even (dare we say it) Venezuela, have Western values. They are mostly Christian, they do not oppress women institutionally, they have at least a partial tradition of democracy, they absorb Western culture through Hollywood movies and American and European TV shows.

The term "hispanic" comes from SPAIN, right? Sure there are local factors, but at the end of the day, South America is the residuum of the Spanish colonial empire. Spain, last time I checked, was part of Europe. For now at least.

@ Imhough 1

You seem very keen on having Europe "fade away".  Prematurely, I would say.  And such a development would certainly not be in America's long-term interest.  Whether Europe will fade away will very much depend on the outcome of the internal left-right struggle (in a cultural sense) that is going on in Europe.  For the moment, Europe remains the beneficiary of a  tremendous level of human and institutional capital.  The more relevant question is whether it can still act as a force of support in the cause of preserving freedom in the world, or not.  Most current signs are not favorable in that respect, but there are also counter-signs  (e.g. the replacements of Schroeder and Chirac are indicative of that). 

I do NOT believe that population "size" will be a very important factor in determining the outcome of the coming struggles with renewed forms of totalitarianism.   And I do think that the composition of the future 'democratic'-alliance will be determined more by immediate 'national' interests (in the sense of regional threats as opposed to the abstract ideal of preserving freedom in the world) rather than by anything else.   In any case, it is very unlikely that the Indian subcontinent would be able to remain 'democratic' as the center of "a non-aligned and non-aggressive block".  Not in their neigborhood!  And, believe me, despite their tremendous social and economic problems,  educated  Indians are very attached to their 'democracy' in the sense of freedom-of-speech and power-alternation, although they face (as the West does) the same internal assault on these values from their own radical left.    

Since we are speculating about the future, I cannot resist pointing out that your presumed "synergy with South America" is not a new idea.  Argentina was once, a century ago, one of the most advanced and richest large countries in the world.  But that "natural synergy idea" has been disproven many times before.  So, it is not difficult to predict that it will prove to be false in the future as well.    In today's world, geography is one of the least important obstacles imaginable, but conflicting cultural values certainly are.   If you would care these days to walk around Sillicon Valley West (just south of San Francisco) or Silicon Valley East (just west of Washington DC), you would begin to see that the future democratic alliance will likely be centered around India+USA+Japan+Australia.

P.S. You seem to have bought into the perverse idea that the previous US generation has arrogantly 'bossed around' (I forgot the specific verb you used) a number of countries. I would be interested to know which countries you had in mind? So, I could beter assess the specific media-induced and Academia-induced damage that is involved here.

While many in the US policial right denounce the massive social costs of Mexican illegals, they feel that this does not threaten the future of America the way that Muslims threaten the future of Europe.

Excuse me? "They" meaning you? I don't know where you live or where you read but I can tell you that many Americans and many on the right do in fact view the Hispanicization/Invasion of the US as a serious threat.

The number of Catholic Mexican suicide bombers has been fairly small.

And your point is what? That because they didn't need military weapons to take over S CA or S FL or Large parts of TX or N IL etc That the end result is not the same?

The mexicans are still nowhere near as well represented in criminal ranks as black Americans,and probably never will be, for cultural reaons

That is highly debatable because many Hispanics criminals are listed as white.

Further, some on the US right actually welcome immigration as a way of keeping American demographics on an even and growing keel, unlike the disastrous trends in European demographics.

"demograpics on an even keel" What does that mean? We are all replaceable cogs?

In the long run, I would predict that the Americas will be the place where "Western values" survive

You are advocating/apologizing for the invasion then make such a statement? Show me one Hispanic nation/country that "Western Values" are stong.

Your points are fair enough. I would counter that the population of Japan and Australia are too small to have any real impact on the how things go in the future. Japan's population seems certain to decline very substantially in the next generation.

http://www.ipss.go.jp/pp-newest/e/ppfj02/f_1_e.html

India obvious will have impact, and it is not at all clear to me how it will end up. It's unimaginable India will end up in the Muslim camp, and they seem very far removed from the China dominated camp, so they might end up with America by default and because of shared rivals and non-antithetical religions.

Rather than the three superstates, I could see a fourth distinct India-dominated block in which Japan and Australia are significant contributors, which separates itself from the American block, and is the most non-aligned and non-aggressive of the world groupings. It would still be most naturally inclined to support the American block, obviously

I am most certainly NOT looking forward to a combination of North and South America. But as Europe fades the US will be looking for trading partners, and South America is a large untapped market, has resources, has a decent population base, and is next door. A humbler US, making a concerted effort to woo back the nations that it arrogantly ordered around in the past generation, could do this, and in long run this is a more natural synergy than the US and India.

This is not a future I relish or want. I believe that we will look back at the late 20th century, just after the cold war ended, as the "best of times", and wonder how things went so wrong, so fast. But it the future I see as more or less inevitable once Western Europe fades from the stage, buried in an African and Middle eastern deluge.

Your "intuition"? I'm sorry, but your "intuition" is nothing more than a refusal to confront the truth about Europe's suicide.

Face it. White demographics in Europe are failing because whites are not having children. It's as simple as that.

Europeans have thrown off their Christian heritage which embraces fecundity. Instead, Europeans have adopted what the Pope calls a "culture of death". Abortion, birth control and euthanasia, which are the results of this cultural suicide, are the sole contributors to Europe's declining numbers.

I deplore Islam. I detest all aspects of its primitive barbarity, its ideological totalitarianism, its bizarre and diabolical embrace of murder and suicide for the sake of "Allah". However, neither Islam nor immigration is at fault for Europe's declining demographics. The fault lies squarely on Europeans themselves.

And your failure to recognize and admit that does no service to your race. Indeed, your attitude will merely contribute to Europe's extinction.

Wake up.

@ Imhough 1

Europe and North America have been the twin pillars of Western Civilization in recent centuries.  The mindless bashing of each other is a bad sign for the future of that civilisation.  There is little doubt that the rampant Anti-Americanism in Western Europe is the primary cause for this predicament, and has fed a (more limited) counter anti-Europe attitude at the American grass-roots level.  Nevertheless, the level of human capital and 'institutional wealth' (particularly 'democracy') in both Europe and North America remains unmatched anywhere else in the world. 

South America has over the past century shown tremendous volatility in economic performance and political development.  Presently, the political trend is not favorable again, and the likelihood of a widespread return to caudillo-ism (this time of the leftist variety) is very high.  Considering what communism did to Eastern Europe in the 20th century, your prediction that the Americas would "cleave together" seems very farfetched.   Also your claim that the (American) North "needs the South's numbers" is utter economic nonsense. 

Nevertheless, human history teaches that the eternal struggle between totalitarianism and freedom will continue, and that further conflagrations will be inevitable or unavoidable.   Given the current cultural state of leftist perverse selfhatred that prevails in Europe today, it is quite possible that parts of Europe will end up as part of a China-Eurabia axis in that struggle.  But the probability that South America could and would strengthen the US in that struggle is very remote.  Most medium-term signs suggest that it will be India+Japan+Australia that will be the US's main allies in the struggle to preserve freedom in the world in the foreseeable future.     
 

I said that immigration causes white birth rates to fall.

Atheling asked: How so?

It is my intuition. I think it is obvious and doesn't really need an explanation. But I can elaborate a little.

If it was not for third world immigration, there would be plenty of money around, and it would be easy to take the right measures to increase our birth rates. But if we try to take that kind of measure under the present circumstances, we know the biggest increase will be in the birth rates of immigrants. They thrive on subsidies. It is the same as in in Porto Rico and the French West Indies, where the population is brimming over. If we give them money, they reproduce. Europeans are different. They will not have many babies if they do not have a proper job, a proper place to live, and an acceptable future for their children. But the world is becoming less friendly for our children. The white population of Britain had stopped increasing because it was becoming crowded. Now it is predicted that thanks to immigration, Britain's population will soar to 75 million by 2050. And the new Britons will not be the quiet and polite Britons that we used to know. It is bound to have a disastrous effect on the indigenous birth rate.

Our welfare system (housing subsidies, family allowances...) was meant to support our own people. But it is now used to support the installation of immigrants and their baby production. It means less European babies.

Fifty years ago, European workers earned enough so that their wives could stay home and look after the children, and they would still be able to buy their own house. Now both parents have to work. As a result, they have less children. One reason why our wages don't go as far as they used to is that we have to pay taxes to help the immigrants settle. We must also pay for their social services and their jails, to hire more police, firemen, store watchmen, etc.

Due to immigration, unemployment is higher among unqualified workers, and their wages are lower. Unemployment and low wages mean they will have fewer children.

Many or our minimum wage jobs are subsidized, in particular in the administration. Originally, the aim was to help every European integrate into society. But many of those subsidized jobs are now set aside to be given to immigrants that we import from Africa and Turkey. The result is disintegration of European society, and fewer European children.

Our first subsidized housing projects were built for the less well-off in our own society. But gradually, the Whites have had to leave for security reasons. Immigrants made their life unbearable, and the schools had been destroyed. The Whites have to find a place somewhere else, at a price they can afford. A higher rent and a smaller appartment result in fewer children.

Based on demographics, which ultimately will determine economics, I don't Japan will be in any position to decide its position with regard to China in 2-3 generations. No one in the region holds any love for Japan, and that nation's glory post-war years are gone, never to return.

The Americas are the most religiously homogenous region in the world. To the extent that religion determines fracture lines, and it seems to these days, the Americas may cleave together. Certainly the North needs the South's numbers, and the South needs the North's advancement. All that back-and-forth between Bush and Chavez is just the background noise of history.

I'm just engaging in entertaining speculation, but regardless, no region of the world has a dimmer future (relative to present status) than Europe.

'fraid not Imhough1. Japan and China will never become allies, let alone join the same economic and military bloc. Moreover, the Americas are more likely to disintegrate than unite. Orwell was more concerned with class and power, and in fact was light years ahead of Marx.

@ markpetens
 
Thanks for clarifying the reason for your position.
 
I do not think that you can justifiably hang the label "neocon" around the necks of Giuliani and Romney because Podhoretz, Rosen, and Hoekstra are (or, rather, might be) among their multiple foreign policy advisers.   I have never heard Giuliani, nor Romney, argue that it should be an American foreign policy goal to achieve "democracy" in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter).   Giuliani, in particular, has repeatedly publicly stated that the US goal in the 'long war' with radical islam should be "victory", and nothing less.  With regard to Iraq he has defined "victory" explicitly as achieving a government that is "cooperative" and responsible in the war on terror, and that denies sanctuary to jihadis and helps restrain Iran.  Depending on further developments that leaves still many specifics uncertain, which is inevitable, but illusory talk about democracy in the Arab world is not to be found in the Giuliani stump speech, nor in Romney's.   I think that both of these candidates have many more foreign policy advisors from the 'realist' school, with old man Kissinger at the head, than they do have neocons.  

I would also expect their foreign policy to differ considerably from those of "the Albrights, the Clarks and the Holbrookes", because there is nothing in the recent record of Giuliani and Romney (at least the one pertaining to the ongoing campaign) that suggests any naivete about the nature of the United Nations, of strategic enemies like China and Russia, and of the 'allies' in Europe. With regard to the latter, they both recognise the continued commonality of interests with Europe, but they are also realistic about the changing nature of the 'body politic' in Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union and thus the unreliable nature of the 'alliance'. In my opinion, the contrast with Albright is very sharp, whereas the differences with Clark and Holbrooke are somewhat less severe.   Clearly these differences can only be usefully discussed in the context of specific foreign policy challenges, but the label "neocon" cannot be fairly applied to Giuliani nor Romney.  

"I wonder why Whites should be replaced at all...What you are saying is that you would rather be replaced by Mexicans...immigration causes White birth rates to fall".
 
I would have thought that too few babies (of any colour or ethnicity) is more likely to be the primary reason for too few adults.
 
If I am wrong then how  does one explain the existence of all those Mexicans?  

Well my 'misperceptions' are based on who are advising the campaigns, like Norman Podhoretz or a Stephen Rosen in the case of Giuliani, or a Peter Hoekstra in the case of Romney. How will their foreign policy be any different than that of the usual suspects - the Albrights, the Clarks and the Holbrookes - associated with the Clinton campaign?

"2. immigration causes white birth rates to fall"

How so?

@ lmhough1

What you are saying is that you would rather be replaced by Mexicans than by Muslims. I wonder why the Whites should be replaced at all.

"some on the US right actually welcome immigration as a way of keeping American demographics on an even and growing keel, unlike the disastrous trends in European demographics."

1. you don't need your country to become more crowded
2. immigration causes white birth rates to fall

@ Markpetens
 
It would be preferable if you would try to explain something or make a particular point, rather than just making cryptic assertions (which are obviously based on misperceptions).

On what basis do you call Romney and Giuliani "necocons" and "Hillary-lites"?   They certainly would not agree with your characterisations.  But, they would not be surprised, for they know how poorly the media in general are reporting (i.e. explaining) on current political events and on political positions of candidates.   
 

As catholics, and with a church centred culture, and heavy European influence (Spain) Mexican immigration into the US is FAR less threatening than African and Asian muslim immigration into Europe. 

While many in the US policial right denounce the massive social costs of Mexican illegals, they feel that this does not threaten the future of America the way that Muslims threaten the future of Europe.

The number of Catholic Mexican suicide bombers has been fairly small.

The mexicans are still nowhere near as well represented in criminal ranks as black Americans,and probably never will be, for cultural reaons 

Further, some on the US right actually welcome immigration as a way of keeping American demographics on an even and growing keel, unlike the disastrous trends in European demographics.

 In the long run, I would predict that the Americas will be the place where "Western values" survive, with "Eastern values" (state-control, limited capitalism) in the East  and Sharia/Islamic state in Europe and its environs.

As an aside, I was struck after writing the above that it looks an awful lot like Orwell's 1984 world organization, with three super-states running the world. England was indeed the setting of this novel in the mind-controlling super-state of Oceania. I don't recall if Orwell discussed the structure of the other two superstates in his future vision, but certainly the EU seems to be heading the Oceania direction.

When you see the Republican front-runners being Romney and Giuliani, aka as Hillary-lites, then it is hard to believe that mainstream Republicanism is not some form of neoconism.

1)  I agree with Atheling about the title, and also with most of the very useful commentary of RS (except for his last paragraph).
 
2) There seems to be a major misperception in Flemish 'conservative' circles about the respective natures and relative sizes of different segments of the American 'Right'.  I base this opinion mainly on the admittedly narrow sample of this website and that of 'In Flanders Fields'.  Perhaps a reason for this misperception can be found in the tendency of major European and leftist-American media to disproportionately focus (ususally by employing caricatures) on the so-called neocons (w.r.t. foreign policy) and on the so-called 'Christian right' (w.r.t. social/ethical issues).   For instance, I recall in the past reading several long - but interesting - articles on the Dutch-language part of this website, which seemed to reduce the American Right to a collection of neocons and "paleoconservatives".   Also, the relative importance of "libertarians" seems to be way over-estimated and, as RS suggests, these libertarians in many respects can be more properly referred to as "left-liberal" rather than conservative.  

3)  Another error would be to consider the blogosphere as being 'representative' of American political realities.   In any case, it is ludicrous for 'Vanishing American' to start off a paragraph by equating neocons with "mainstream Republicans".   That is indeed "incredibly myopic" and does suggest that his grasp of the 'big picture' of American politics is highly suspect.   The overwhelming majority of "mainstream Republicans" certainly has no sympathy for the (foreign) nation-building efforts and illusions of the small 'foreign-policy' elite that is habitually referred to as "neocon" and that consists almost exclusively of former 'lefties'.     

"They often have a classroom snitch attitude, and love to catch people out in some transgression of political correctness, the better to position themselves as enlightened and non-bigoted."

Did you read that, Marcfrans?

"[N]eocons or mainstream Republicans are the most politically correct of all those on the ‘right’, and the most prone to condemn and name-call those to their right."

In fact, the bogus conservatives who now preside over every formerly conservative institution in the West are name-calling their own troops, and are afraid to breach the left-wing political correctness.
I think we should try to create new institutions immune to leftism.

"What it all boils down to, again, is that many of the blustering neocons, despite their hawkishness on the Middle East situation, are themselves ‘surrender monkeys’ at home"

Especially on the immigration front. How can you be honest if you are inconsistent?

I'm surprised that The Brussels Journal found this piece newsworthy. I read a good sampling of the conservative press and blogs in the U.S., including occasionally the libertarian outlets, to which The Vanishing American blog evidently belongs. While I congratulate this blog on giving Vlaams Belang its due, its perception of U.S. Republican, conservative, and libertarian politics seems incredibly cramped and myopic. Reading it is like revisiting some 1970s leaflet battle between Trotskyist and Maoist sects none of whose memberships numbered greater than thirteen sectarians.

The politics of the Libertarian Party, and its perennial candidate Ron Paul, overlaps both the conservative and left-liberal movements here. It is conservative in its federalism (in the U.S. sense of that word) and support for a sound currency. It is left-liberal in its foreign policy isolationism and economic protectionism.

Its great epistemological flaw lies in its supposition, along with the Left, that by natural right the U.S. Founders meant only individual rights and not also moral obligations.

The problem in U.S. politics right now is that not a single on of the presidential candidates, Republican or Democratic, is presenting a sensible U.S. Mideast policy. For that one has to go to the policy articles published in The Claremont Review, especially those by Angelo Codevilla. Most of these are available online in the magazine's archives:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1127/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.881/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.753/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.898/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.768/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.908/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1032/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1369/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1180/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.824/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.968/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.842/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1238/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1271/article_detail.asp
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1394/article_detail.asp

Shouldn't it be "More PC Than Thou Game"?