The Curious Case Of America’s Waning Whites (Likely Britain’s, Too)

By ilana mercer

An “aging white population [is] speeding [up] diversity,” blared a headline on The Hill.

Once again, a Fake News outlet has confused cause and effect, giving readers the impression that the two trends—whites dying-out and minorities thriving—are spontaneous and strictly parallel.

The reverse is likely true. Corrected, The Hill headline should read:

Could speeding up diversity contribute to a decline in the white population?

We learn that “there are growing signs that the rate of change is increasing.” Well of course. America welcomes well over 1 million, mostly non-white, immigrants a year.

If white lives mattered at all to the liberal establishment, an inquiry would ensue: Is it possibility that an enormous influx of legal and illegal migrants over decades is playing a role in the decline of America’s founding population? (A similar, sad fate was visited on their predecessors, the Amerindians.)

On the one hand, we have the drastic decline of America’s white population; on the other, a massive inpouring of minority immigrants, since 1965. A correlation between the two makes sense. A large, well-controlled national survey, conducted by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, found that diversity immiserates and that the historic population is most affected. Perhaps protracted misery (associated with loss of community) hastens death.

The logic posits a zero-sum game. The native population has been swamped over time. Resources are scarce—especially when allocated by a wastrel, white-hating Administrative State. In hating on whites, civil society’s institutions are as culpable.

Is it not highly plausible, then, that immigration social engineering, compounded by state policies that privilege non-white newcomers, could contribute to a population decline in white America?

Picture the following scene, set somewhere in Trump country, say West Virginia:

A pale patriarch must help his bright son choose a career.

What about pursuing the law?

That’s inadvisable (unless you become an immigration attorney). Law schools routinely reject working-class white males, in favor of students who can show they’ve overcome the right kind of hardship. Berkeley and Texas, for instance, already make unusual hardships and life experience a crucial consideration in admissions. “Unusual hardship” is a racial cue card for things like having been shot, or quitting a gang. As commentator Steve Sailer once noted wryly, “The kind of hardships” that’ll be given extra credit are “largely peculiar to preferred minorities.” A Syrian refugee is bound to have a trump card in American universities, if Trump doesn’t deliver on his promise.

What about a degree in engineering? Oh, no, you can’t pursue that. Forget about a knack for invention; for designing and fixing gadgets, inherited from Scottish ancestors. Forget your facility with math and physics. Chances are working-class white American lads, circa 2016, will be replaced by the 65,000 H-1B Indian visa recipients, imported annually by America’s plutocracy.

Industry magnates and lobbyists are forever countering with studies that employ the “impregnable” science of econometrics to prove that all this globalist activity creates more jobs than it kills. The studies invariably beg the question, as they assume facts not in evidence. In this case, the research assumes the new jobs will be as good as the old (vanished) ones.

Speaking of the “new jobs”: Want to remain employed in the U.S.? Choose a profession, preferably service-oriented, that can’t be outsourced. Got the aptitude to probe the field of fiber optics? Bad idea. Better to become a gym instructor to the growing population of menopausal gym-bunnies.

Or, emulate the author of “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis.” Write a culturally compliant, elitist account of poor, white America. To pass muster with the left literati, “Hillbilly Elegy’s” eloquent author generally omits references to the systemic racial demonization and dispossession visited upon poor whites.

To be fruitful and to multiply, people need certain conditions. Good jobs, for one. Prospects for the future, for another. In this context, consider just how ruthless central planners and their scientists are in “optimizing” and “managing” the natural world. Liberals have developed a utopian vision of how nature should behave. It must remain in perfect balance. To that end, they’ll exterminate harmless critters that violate the liberal idea of Order; of species correctness. Thus when a delightful flock of gentle conure parrots made San Francisco’s Telegraph Hill its home, radical environmentalists demanded the flock—it has a complex, highly evolved social structure and bonds—be exterminated because it wasn’t indigenous.

While animals may not migrate illegally, or disrupt the preordained “natural” order—liberal social engineers encourage non-indigenous peoples to mess with the social habitat of historic, host populations. Provided they’re white. If you’re a rainforest pygmy, liberals will fight for your survival.

Declining birthrates have long been the excuse advanced by central planners for sticking with mass immigration policies. The aging white population is not replacing itself, say proponents of dooms-day demographics. Young, Third-World immigrants are essential to shore-up the welfare state.

However, the now-waning West became great not because it was more populated than the rest of the world and outbred it. The West was great because of its human capital—innovation, exploration, science, philosophy; because of superior ideas, and the willingness to defend such a civilization.

America doesn’t need more people; it needs to allow its own people to recover.


  1. When examing all the available sources – a persual of the UN website is highly instructive as a part of this – the only rational conclusion seems to be that globalist policies are a eugenics policy aimed at eliminating caucasians. My suspicion is this is for the very reason of making a dumbed down population more governmenable. That conclusion is speculative but what is actually being done is empirically observable.

    • John, thanks for a really good comment. My two immediate responses would be: (1) their targets aren’t just Caucasians, but honest, competent human beings of all races. (2) It isn’t just “globalists” that are doing these things. Not just the UN and their multinational cronies, not just the EU, but even “domestic” politicians want to dumb us down.

      I’ll stop here because it would take a full essay to go further. And it’s not on my list (sigh).

  2. [quote]”America doesn’t need more people; it needs to allow its own people to recover.”[unquote]

    A poignant conclusion, but while this essay contains some vicissitudes, I think the author falls into the trap of over-straining her analysis. Reading this, you’d be perhaps forgiven for thinking that the only option is to slash your wrists.

    I think the article is too negative. It almost reads like an elegy. If ‘something is going to be done’, which I will assume is what the author wants, then it needs to be from the position of a balanced perspective on things. We need to understand what’s really going on and good polemic highlights both the problems and signs of hope and points the way to a solution.

  3. “The aging white population is not replacing itself, say proponents of dooms-day demographics.”

    I hate to tell these doomsayers, but it’s “worse than they thought!” More than half of the countries in the world have fertility levels below replacement rates (see This includes pretty much all Western countries; and even children born to immigrant parents don’t bring the figures up to replacement. The lowest fertility rates of all are in places like Singapore, which are already very densely populated; but even in the US it’s below replacement. And as anyone who has been out West knows, the US is under-populated, not the reverse.

    I think Ilana may have hit nail on head when she says, “To be fruitful and to multiply, people need certain conditions. Good jobs, for one. Prospects for the future, for another.” But that’s a problem for everyone, not just for whites.

    I’m still scratching my head at the idea that some “liberals” want to exterminate parrots because they aren’t indigenous! I think they must be a bit Polly Gone.

  4. It ought to be obvious to all UK onlookers that until a little while after the Coronation in 1953 (when yours truly was a young boy spectator in the Mall) and in spite of having fought a ghastly second world war in the interests of “C” (certainly not in the interests of ourselves in our island fortress) we were still a united and white indigenous population.
    Little did we suspect what sort of invasion was being planned for us by individuals who, having received our ayslum and succour were planning to turn on us and repay us for our hospitality in the decades to come and were largely responsible for causing the Race Laws and Public Order laws to be enacted which, upon pain of punishment for disregard,prohibited the native population from discriminating against and therefore peacefully rejecting or ejecting the uniformed invaders (Powell’s description). The purpose of this invasion seems to me to change who we are into something so “diverse” (thanks Mr Blair and Miss Roche) that identity and stability fly out of the window and without any possible peaceful solution violence erupts.
    This leads me on to Sean’s very “plausible” article about Farage and UKIP, down the bottom, except that he is wrong about Farage and UKIP. Farage and UKIP are NOT against immigration and that was made very clear when challenged by Andrew Brons in the Europarl. Inbuilt into UKIP doctrine and this was reinforced both by Steve Woolfe before he quit and by others (JReesEvans) that discrimination would and will not be tolerated and that UKIP are not a “racist” party.

    Of course “racist” is smear word coined to frighten discussion on the matter but I am not afraid to discuss it, though UKIP are.
    “Racist” implies that you hate other races in order to close down debate. I say that it is not only normal but perfectly respectable to prefer to live amongst your own people and culture ( as Winston Churchill said) and that to sabotage the most perfect natural barrier any nation could wish for (“this precious stone, set in a silver sea, with a moat against the envy of less happier lands”) is crime against this section of humanity as it irrevocably changes who we English are and has already provided recent two cases of bloodshed, let alone the more ancient ones.

    Nevertheless Mr Farage and others pretend they are going to ‘control’ immigration by a points system, not in order to try to preserve the remnants of who we are but to continue to satisfy the needs of industrialists and politicians many of whom are definitely not English.

    Therefore our politicians can in no wise tell us to what levels immigration will reduce after Brexit (if at all) and none of them, including UKIP,, will allow the native English to assist in the control of this immigration by repealing all the anti-discrimination laws which are not only pushing the English to the back of queues but in some cases replacing them altogether, as we see on our TV screens.

    Mr Farage is such a lovely chap that he recently boasted that “single-handedly he had seen off the BNP” which until then was gaining ground . The BNP was a register of public discontent and that had to be diffused. Hence Mr Farage and the UKIP safety valve… So, in spite of the majority of Brexiteers expressing profound dislike of mass immigration no one, certainly not UKIP, will respond as suggested though UKIP will try to con the Labour heartands that they will do something about immigration..
    Indeed, so bad has the situation got in London that in the area around Margaret Hodge MP (sic), who gleefully saw off Nick Griffin in an election contest with the help of immigrant votes the Cockneys (whom Hitler could not dislodge with his tons of bombs) have quit in disgust!!!b

  5. Security is what the vast majority of humans want. If you offer a man or woman a guaranteed income of £25,000 pa or a ten percent chance of gaining an income of £100,000 most will choose the certainty of £25,000.

    When it comes to having and raising a family security becomes dramatically important. Amongst the poor security has historically largely come from the poor providing aid to one another. Not only that but there were many societies and organisations which helped and protected the poor such as unions, friendly societies and the co-operative movement. The mutual help is almost gone now amongst the poor native population in the UK (and most of the West) because they have been shifted from the slums they used to inhabit with the consequent destruction of the societies which had provided the mutual self help.

    At first when the native British poor were moved from the slums after WW2 there was a plentiful supply of what is now called social housing and was called council housing then, with lifelong tenancies, tenancies which could also be passed down the generations. These provided a secure base to raise a family. This situation remained until the 1980s.

    While the slum clearance was happening the organisations such as friendly societies and the co-operative movement shrank dramatically.

    In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher scuppered union power and did two things to greatly reduce the social housing stock. She created a Right-to-Buy for those in council housing which steadily reduced the existing stock of publicly owned properties to let at rents which those on low wages could afford and came close to killing off any new council housing.

    Had pre-1980 levels of house building been maintained with immigration at per-1997 levels there would have been something of a housing shortage but nothing like the crisis we now have. Thye problem is that immigration did not stay at re 1997 levels but skyrocketed under Blair and has remained huge since – see Last year there was net migration of over 300,000. – see .

    . In 2015 there were just 156,00 new homes started – see,

    The idea that the UK can somehow build itself out of the current chronic shortages is clearly nonsense as things stand..

    All this means that people who would be happy to have children are often put off because they cannot find a decent home. Even those who have children may be reluctant to have as many as they would like to have simply because their housing will not really accommodate extra children.
    The absence of a secure affordable home is surely the biggest barrier to starting a family, but the insecurity of work caused by globalisation runs it close.

    Immigration also causes further problems for the native British because of course immigrants compete for jobs, school places housing and medical care. But immigrants also form ghettos which create a kind of free masonry amongst the inhabitants of these self-created ghettos. This allows then to have the type of social support which used to be found amongst the British native poor. They also have a great advantage when applying for public services and general provision in that the imposition of political correctness by the British elite means that they are likely to be treated more favourably by officialdom for fear of accusations of racism. than the native white population. All of this gives them a greater sense of security and allows them to breed more freely.

    The perilous position of the native British population can be seen in the fact that where it was the native British poor who were at risk of experiencing crippling insecurity fifteen or twenty years ago, today it is virtually anyone who is either not rich or is old enough to have bought a property before prices rocketed who is seriously insecure.

Leave a Reply