The Next Fifty Years Of Race And Culture In America

Humanity has come a long way in a very short time. When one takes a moment to consider just how much has changed in our world within the last 50 years alone (a very small amount of time in the grand scheme of things), it isn’t difficult to be impressed by the sheer degree of change that has taken place.

In 1964, for example, the age of legal, state-sanctioned racial segregation in the USA was only just being brought to an end. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was still a global superpower. The last baby boomers were still being born. Human spaceflight was merely 3 years old.

Fast forward to the present day. The USSR is dead, baby boomers are beginning to retire en masse, we have semi-permanent research platforms in orbit, and the American president is black.

What will the USA and the rest of our world look like in another 50 years? I have a few predictions.

1. Enhanced Racial Tensions in the USA

The age of the minority-majority is coming very soon. The USA has always been a predominantly white nation. Demographers estimate that this will change during the early 2040’s thanks to low white fertility rates and extensive immigration. By 2064, this nation will have possibly been majority non-white for almost a generation. Most of these non-whites will be hispanic, though the black and Asian populations will grow significantly as well. That in and of itself is going to bring a big difference in perspective within this society.


Many whites do not feel entirely comfortable with the fact that they may soon be outnumbered in a land that was once undoubtedly their own, and they’re not going to ride quietly into the sunset as the social and political consequences of this demographic shift make themselves apparent. You will see the pushback in politics as demographic shifts begin to frame policy debates and party lines become increasingly racially defined, and with regard to population dynamics as white flight accelerates and the level of segregation increases (fortifying a dwindling number of white communities and increasing the number of minority-dominated areas).


Many observers assumed that the rise of Obama signaled a positive shift in the nature of America’s race relations and the beginning of a truly “post-racial America.” If America could finally tolerate a black man in its highest office, they reasoned, surely they would follow through with more positive views of and harmonious relations with their fellow Americans of all backgrounds.

Available evidence suggests that this view was optimistic, as Mark Potok noted in the New York Times just under a year ago:

Have race relations worsened since Obama was elected? The best data, two polls commissioned by The Associated Press, suggest the answer is yes. The number of Americans with “explicit anti-black attitudes” rose from 48 percent in 2008 to 51 percent in 2012, while implicit racist attitudes went from 49 percent to 56 percent. Another set of A.P. polls showed anti-Latino attitudes had climbed between 2011 and 2012.

Other evidence supports the A.P. findings. According to counts by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of hate groups in America rose from 926 in 2008 to 1,007 in 2012, while other types of radical-right groups rose much faster.

Potok goes on to argue that there is still potential for improvement, but I’m simply not seeing much room for optimism. The melting pot is not coming, and recent data is only adding further confirmation of this:


Public attitudes about race relations have plummeted since the historic election of President Barack Obama, according to a new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

Only 52 percent of whites and 38 percent of blacks have a favorable opinion of race relations in the country, according to the poll, which has tracked race relations since 1994 and was conducted in mid-July by Hart Research Associations and Public Opinion Strategies.

That’s a sharp drop from the beginning of Obama’s first term, when 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks held a favorable view of American race relations.

And just this month:

Nearly 9 in 10 people say race relations in the United States have not improved under President Obama, according to a new poll.


Obama did not bring “the melting pot” together; on the contrary, Americans of different ethnicities are only growing further apart, and there is little reason to suspect that this trend will not continue.

2. Increased Religiosity and Conservatism

Expect more religiosity and conservatism overall. This is a function of demography. Among whites, conservatives are rapidly outbreeding their more secular counterparts, and the outflow from these ideologies to more secular trains of thought is simply not keeping up (apples are not falling far from their trees). The majority of white children being born today are being born in conservative households and often are raised with religious values.


Those chickens are going to come home to roost within the coming 20, 30, and 40 years as liberal whites continue to decline as a percentage of their population. Combine this phenomenon with a non-white majority (non-whites being generally more religious and socially conservative than whites), and you’re going to see a significantly more conservative America during this century. Demographic weight is going to tip the balance in the culture wars to the more conservative side, and hot-button issues like abortion are going to be in the cross fire.

Some of the more progressive victories won during these recent culture wars (I include the gender wars among these) may be seriously challenged. Those on the left already lament the rollback of many progressive victories in recent years (ex: growing legislative war on birth control at the state level), but demographic realities will ensure that the assault is far from over.

3. The Recovery of American Industry


This prediction is more tenuous, but I foresee a positive outlook for American industry as labor costs in traditional destinations for outsourcing (e.g. China) begin to rise and erode the advantage they once enjoyed. Europe’s demographic issues will also benefit us by raising labor costs, and incentivizing some corporations (e.g. Mercedes) to move operations to the United States, a massive market that will maintain a much younger and cheaper (yet still highly capable) workforce.

America’s demographic strength will help it remain economically powerful well into the current century. Many of its competitors on the international economic stage are staring demographic crises directly in the face—they have very low birth rates and rapidly aging populations. The USA will be in a much better position to weather the entitlement storm brought on by the baby-boomers than Europe and even China, thanks to its higher fertility rates, younger population, and strong ability to attract young and talented immigrants from across the planet.

We may never see 1950’s-style prosperity here again, but I still think that there will be better times in America’s future. The current state of affairs is not, in my estimation, a permanent one.

4. The Marginalization of Fat Acceptance


Americans will get thinner. Awareness of the negative consequences brought by obesity is spreading rapidly, and has gone far enough already to constitute common knowledge. The discussion and promotion of anti-obesity measures has remained outside the realm of political incorrectness, and I predict that increasing awareness of the dangers associated with obesity will only enhance this reality. Add to this the possible arrival of several medical procedures capable of rapidly limiting obesity by the middle of the century, and I expect the anti-obesity campaign to ramp up significantly.


I see some parallels between our current cultural tangle with obesity and the one our parents dealt with when it came to smoking. Like smoking, obesity is going to become increasingly less of a tolerable social norm. The fat-acceptance movement, in my estimation, has no hope in the long term.

5. A Stagnant China

China will not be a superpower by 2064. Instead, it will be an aging nation with a stagnant (or even negative) economic growth rate, similar to its European counterparts today. It will remain a great power, but it will not occupy the role that the USA currently fills. Demographics will ensure this—low fertility rates will accelerate population aging and decline (along with the skills shortages and high labor costs that will accompany it), and imbalanced gender ratios will create legions of young, troublesome men with nothing to lose. China will get old before it gets rich.


What are your perspective on the next half century ahead of us?

Read More: The 15 Magical Years Of Womanhood

787 thoughts on “The Next Fifty Years Of Race And Culture In America”

  1. Interesting but I disagree about China. I believe they will take America’s place as the next global superpower in decades to come.

    1. I don’t think they will take Americas place (in 50 years) but they will be right on our tail followed by India(if they work on their issues). China still has a large percentage of their population still in “rice fields” or living in bad conditions as they are in their Industrial Age now. That will obviously change with time. I agree with your point.

      1. The problem is what China will do with all those people when the youth continue to flock to the cities on the coast. Those are already big cities, some with major pollution problems, and manufacturing in China is already being challenged by other neighboring nations for overseas shipping. Even Mexico is now challenging China for small American business who want the flexibility to order in smaller quantities without having to pay high import costs and rising shipping to get goods from China.

        1. They are already building cities, along with cities that mimic (counterfiet) other major cities elsewere. You still make a good point about importing though, as I have dealt with a wholesale distributor there. It’s all speculative though. Right now we see potential for immense growth there but that could change with the entry of more competition(Mexico).

        2. The same thing happened in the West in the 1920s. Remember the old song “How ‘Ya Gonna Keep ‘Em Down on the Farm? (After They’ve Seen Paree)”

    2. People have been predicting this for decades, but it’s still yet to come to fruitition. It will become a superpower, but it will not take America’s place.
      Why? Because it’s a communist country pretending to be capitalist, in hopes of obtaining all the benefits of the 2 systems with none of the consequences. Already, Chinese millionaires are moving their money to non-communist countries to protect their fortunes. As the county becomes richer, they will demand more freedoms and this will cause serious issues with China’s current policies. Their currenecy is already artificially kept low to help sustain their growth, but this too will not last.

      1. This is not really any different from other Asian countries that have gone through the same growth though. I don’t see why China could not have the success Japan or Korea does.
        And to be precise, China is more a capitalist country pretending to be communist.

      2. I wouldn’t call China communist any more so that the old Soviet Union, which actually resembled ‘state capitalism’ where the STATE owns all the shares and the members of the communist party receive the dividends. Still it was capitalism. Ture communism is theoretical and exists only on paper and cannot scale itself above the level of tribal custom. The closest thing to real communism in practice might be found on a Jewish kibbutz community. China is more feudalist in its roots.

    3. China doesn’t have the intellectual creativity to be a global superpower. Every military advance of note it has made has been acquired from somebody else (usually Russia). It has not made a scientific discovery of note in the modern era, and in fact the assumption now with any academic paper published in China is that it is fraudulent.
      Nobody in their right mind would develop a new industry in China, it has no Silicon Valley equivalent, and until such time its not even a credible threat at replacing the US.

    4. China has massive domestic problems that they mostly hide from the rest of the world. I see them and India heading for a war, as both have a massive surplus of young, sex-less men who see little chance of a good future.

    5. Chinese people don’t think independently, and can’t create like westerners can. So their game plan is based on cheap labor and efficiency exploiting borrowed technology others invented.
      China will never be the most powerful country because of this.

      1. The little yellow man was put on this earth to do one thing – TO COOK. Ask yourself, what do the billionaires in boardrooms always say at lunchtime? That’s right ”how about chinese”. They could afford ANYTHING, packy, french, indian, but it’s always CHINESE. Not japanese which is largely RAW. Japs have the taste of a cat, but the chinese have the sweet, the sour, the hot and mild. If there were only 10 humans remaining alive in a bunker, you would want one chinese guy because you’d need someone TO COOK. People should do what they do best. Look at the happy chinese teens swizzling a wok and compare them to the miserable chinese slaves in legchains assembling Chevy Volts in underpaid sweatshops. Everyone knows the GERMANS were put on this earth to make the finest cars. They are the metal magicians along with the Swiss, who were making watches with their bare hands before electricity. No one else in their right mind would do such a thing, not even japanese. It’s in their DNA. Do what you do best. Get to know your DNA. Women of every stripe shut up, breed and tit feed. THAT’S FREEDOM.

  2. A bit optimistic, in my estimation. It sounds reasonable, however one should take into account the huge racial hate industry that is increasingly becoming institutionalized. This industry wants nobody to get along, at all, no exceptions, and they are the primary motivators of riots, looting and racial hatred amongst minorities. I don’t see generations raised under this system, which are generally unquestioned and accepted as “good”, being very sympathetic at all, in any capacity, towards whites in the future.

    1. The Left is bringing up the so-called “Gender Wage Gap” again, which has been disproved over and over again. They do this to rile up women to get them to vote. Similarly, they start race-baiting to get minorities to vote. Ever notice that the whole Trayvon thing just happened to coincide with the 2012 election? Now we have Michael Brown right before the 2014 mid-terms. Coincidence? I’m not saying the Left shot these guys in a conspiracy, but they tend to be treated as bigger news items in the mainstream/Leftist media.

      1. Sure there’s a gender wage gap. Because most of the fatal and maiming jobs are done by men. It’s called proper and just compensation for sacrifices rendered.

    2. One of the best ways to eliminate “racism” is to get rid of welfare and laws that favour one group or another. Nothing aggravates one group of people than to have to pay for the irresponsibility of another.

      1. So how do you think non-whites feel about corporate welfare which goes almost entirely to white run corporations and its employees? Corporate welfare is more in america than poor people welfare.

        1. I’m not huge on it, but at least corporate welfare provides jobs, often to “inner city” folks. Fact is, when whites were the overwhelming majority, the country ran fine. When blacks and browns run it, say what you will, it will look A LOT like all the nations they run now. No sense in needing to prove that…look at the world around you.

        2. Corporate welfare is notoriously poor at job creation, you are usually paying $100,000-$500,000 per job. Alcoa, a company that employs almost entirely white people, gets 5.6 billion in free government money a year. It has 60,000 employees. This works out to about $94,000 per employee. This is the true welfare that is destroying America. Not some poor women in a trailer park, or barrio or ghetto getting $18,000 in federal aid. Corporate welfare is far more than poor welfare even proportionally.
          Corporate welfare rarely provides jobs to inner city folks because the reality is companies like Alcoa (mining) aren’t mining in new york or chicago, they are mining in wyoming, and we know what race lives there.
          When you consider over 305 billion a year goes out in corporate welfare to mostly white companies, with mostly white employees, and the job creation isn’t even there, it would be better to just give out $50,000 checks to everyone and end corporate welfare.
          As for America being fine when it was ran by white people, ever heard of the wild wild west? Ever heard of pioneer and settler times when 50% of the population was dying off from basic things like exposure and starvation? Ever understand that there are no trees naturally in places like nebraska and when homesteaders started showing up in planes states they mostly lived in mud huts because there were no wood to build houses. Oh, and don’t forget that their irresponsible agricultural practices of white americans in the heartland turned what was the breadbasket of the world into what is becoming the world’s largest basket case and desert aka the dust bowl on the planet.
          America was falling apart at the seems when it was white run, even as far back as the 1930s the lowest point in the country’s history, the leadership was mostly white and they ruined america and ran it straight into the ground.
          As for black and brown run countries. It is quiet ironic that you mention that, because Mexico is a brown country with a white leadership, go ahead and google it, their leadership is whiter than texas’s. And the whites there have managed to run it into the ground. As well Lulo da silva president of brazil points out that blonde hair blue eyed white people created the financial crisis of 2007 and once again ran the economy of the entire world into the ground.
          When you look at the top 10 economic countries in the world, about 1/3rd are arab brown oil states, 1/3rd are carribean black offshore havens or african oil states and the other 3rd are white banking centers where rich whites in neighbouring states run to (like luxembourg or liechtenstein)
          There are alot more factors than race in determinging a country running. But the soviet union certainly is a hell hole given all its resources and it is white run.
          When speaking of the future economies of the world, the experts tell you the future is as such:, you usually get BRICS
          South Africa
          Followed by MINT
          Finally you have the CIVETS
          South Africa
          No matter how you slice it, I don’t see a single white majority nation counted in the future growth of the world economically speaking. When speaking of white countries, bankers do however talks about the PIIGGS failing economic states of the world, who are failing due to financial irresponsibility of its citizens and politicians. They include:
          Great Britain
          So what you have is general world wild economic white decline. This is just factual

        3. Despite its situation now, it is still the largest country in the world, has amongst the most natural resources and this is what determines wealth. Right now the brics are behind because rich people from the brics put their money outside it. Same reason why American prosperity is falling. Rich americans put their money in the carribean or switzerland. Once Russia reaches the point where rich russians start using their billions in russia, it will easily catchup and surpass most of europe in wealth.

    3. As much as we’d like to pretend, these groups are not all connected. The “rioters” are who exactly, what specific act is a rioter doing? Rioting? What precisely is that? Standing in the street demanding a guy who was seen shooting a kid who was surrendering that the killer be charged with murder? Lets be real, if you shot any woman, gay, jew, etc 6 times who was surrendering or even charging you you’d be charged and arrested on the spot.
      The looters are mostly poor people who often form a small minority and they are professionals and go from city to city looting and selling the goods.
      Racial hatred amongst minorities. I don’t know where you live. I’ve lived in many countries. I lived in DC a majority black region. I do not recall any overt racist legislation that had been directed against the white minority, like whites cannot vote, or whites have no civil rights, or white schools will get 1/10th the funding. Can you tell me the state that has banned whites from voting or said whites are 3/5 humans?

  3. Not to nerd it up or anything, but I tend to agree with you on the stagnation of China and how “The China Problem” is not as a big of a threat as most scholars make it out to be. Take a look at their current export economy. As the nation brings in more revenue from their export economy, a certain desire for a higher standard of living increases, in which factories must now pay their employees higher wages to cull the threat of a drop in productivity. China’s current export economy is driven by low wage demands and high supply of labor. But these two factors will soon begin to develop an inverse relationship as wage demands increase as the supply of labor decreases due to the aforementioned aging population (think the phenomenon happening with Japan). China will then have to focus on selling products domestically, which will in all likelihood not be enough to keep it’s industry growing.
    I don’t know who the next superpower will be, perhaps India as their economy relies more on the service industry rather than exports – but that’s assuming they can ever work out their huge market inefficiencies and accepted methods of corruption. The next 50 years for global hegemony will be interesting indeed.

      1. In a war of what? In a conventional one-on-one military conflict the US could eliminate any nation in a matter of days.

        1. US could eliminate Russia or China in a matter of days ? That doesnt sound realistic…they probably would win but not that easy.

        2. Perhaps you are misconstruing the OIF and OEF conflicts as conventional military conflicts. They are not and are far from it. The US has the most powerful military the world has ever had. Desert Storm and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are more representative of conventional conflicts. Not only would the opposing nation be eliminated, it would be in humiliating fashion.

        3. I think your the one who is ignorant. Beating Russian IN A MATTER OF DAYS ? that is just wishful thinking. Their military is huge and you cant compare it to something like Iraq or Afghanistan.
          A war against Russia would bring the war to US. US cities would be bombed.
          What you say makes no sense..
          And dont forget, Russia was never defeated by anyone and many tried.

        4. I wouldn’t claim to be a complete authority but I was an 18C for 5 years so I would wager I’ve forgotten more than you will ever know about military capabilities. Our detection systems are better. Our offensive weapons are superior. We have far more strategically placed strike platforms than Russia or China.

        5. No they wouldn’t. Weapons systems have evolved to the point where massing of troops in concentration isn’t advantageous.

        6. Question was if they would win in 2 days. Thats what you said. And that is ridiculous.

        7. Conventional yes, but go all out nuclear and all bets are off:

          A massive thermonuclear launch against the U.S. by both Russia and China would be impossible to intercept completely, notwithstanding advanced defensive capabilities attained since the Star Wars program:

          And it only takes one successful warhead per city and military base to fry it like an anthill under a magnifying glass.
          No wonder the top brass on all sides concluded that the only way to win this “game” is to simply not play in the first place.

        8. Carpet bombing an enemy territory is one thing. Successfully occupying a hostile land for decades to come is quite another. How’s that Afghanistan thing working out as of late?

        9. Dude……. you are talking about Russia here not Iraq or Afghanistan. You seem to be the type that has no thanks to watching too many Hollywood movies where our military always comes out on top. Yes I agree we have better weapons than the Russians but a war with them would mean millions of Americans dying. Russia is a nuclear power and they have some damn

        10. There wouldn’t be carpet bombing. There would be precise strikes on tactical and strategic targets. Afghanistan is a cultural conflict- not a military one. The Taliban were defeated by a very limited number of US personnel and air power.

        11. True, but you were never able to exterminate them completely. That land has never been conquered by anyone in recorded history, and it is very likely that it never will be, save genociding the entire native population. How far will the ends justify the means would you venture to guess?

        12. I never stipulated “in 2 days.” In a matter of days yes, but you just fabricated that in there as a straw man.
          Napoleon and Germany are inanely irrelevant comparisons given the technological advances from those conflicts. There isn’t the need to physically occupy the country to eliminate them as a military threat.

        13. Which is why I specified conventional. Once you start taking NBC into the model it becomes completely unpredictable.

        14. In a matter of days would be less than 13 days in my book, or else it would be a matter of “weeks” then. That is also far fetched given the sheer size of those countries. Russia and China is far superior to Iraq so you cant really use that as a gauge. Their military resources are just on another level.
          Napoleon and Germany are relevant since US would face the same logistic problems as those countries. And they would have to face the Russian winter as well.
          Now I know that you love USA but really, what you said there is just dumb.

        15. In a conventional context it doesn’t really matter. They don’t have near the level of weapon sophistication that is needed to mount any significant threat to us in a conventional conflict. And like I stated originally, this applies exclusively to a symmetrical conflict.

        16. Agreed. But how far would you venture to guess one could push a conventional assault before the besieged target opts for the “solution of last resort” (this obviously excludes members who are not significant members of the atomic club here)?

        17. Yes, in a matter of 13 days the US could decimate any military threat Russia or China could pose to the US in a symmetrical environment. No question about it and you could ask any military analyst and they would agree with that assessment. There wouldn’t be any need to occupy as all methods of mounting any offensive measures against the US would be non-existent. The US would have complete naval superiority and nearly complete air superiority.

        18. Doesnt matter, as soon as the war started Russia would quickly improve everything…just as they did during WW2. Unless you could take and completely conquer the country in 2-3 weeks it would be long, dragged out war where both sides would be more or less equal. Do not compare Russia with Afghanistan or any other country that US went to war with lately.
          You can compare it to Japan. It would be a similar war. Long and hard.

        19. Yeah, Putin’s military analysts would all be telling him he had a chance and the minute he left the room they would be booking their tickets outta Russia.

        20. I think you overestimate the power of USA. As far as I know, they have never won a conventional war against anyone above banana republic level.
          Remember, they didnt beat Japan in conventional war.

        21. Then you should go ask your grandparents if the USA has ever won any conventional wars that benefitted them and indirectly you.

        22. Are you acting like you won WW2 alone now ? We were allied, you were not fighting your own war. Russia and England had fought their ass off before you bothered to lift your own ass off the couch.

        23. Largely alone. England was one of the only useful allies. I have nothing against Danes and don’t intend to disparage their efforts but it took Germany all of two hours to extract a surrender from them.

        24. What a stupid lie “Largely alone”. I can see why you are so unrealistic concerning a war with Russia with that weird mindset.
          U do know that Rambo was fiction right ? He is not a real person.

        25. Well, I think he is correct insofar as the U.S. could literally obliterate Russia on a superficial (military) level in a short time assuming they could somehow neutralize perimeter ( beforehand. Not happy to say it, but it really is true if you look at the actual volume and sophisticated strike capabilities of the U.S. (not against Americans here, but sometimes their haughty arrogance really does get one’s goat).
          Now, conquering and occupying that vast, frozen land without eliminating the entire native population beforehand? Err, no. Not gonna happen jack. Protracted guerilla resistance would squeeze them out over time. Americans are simply too used to certain levels of “comfort”, even in military settings, for them to be able to hold out for years, if not decades, in harsh alien lands where the locals revile them and miss no opportunity to send them off to meet their maker whenever the opportunity arises. This truth has been known for a long time and it remains just as true nowadays as it did back then.

        26. “And don’t forget, Russia was never defeated by anyone and many tried.”
          World War 1.

        27. Its how the Russian won WWII against the Germans. You’re argument is an old argument that doesn’t live up to reality. Now I would agree that air superiority is crucial. Do a quick search on utube on the seperoirity of the chineese and Russians.

        28. Agreed. The majority of the attrition in Europe against the Third Reich happened on the Eastern front.

        29. Yes, forgive me it was the Danes leading the charge in Asia, Europe, and Africa and not Americans. My mistake.

        30. We invaded a sandbox with less weaponry than washington D.C. and hardly any training on their part. Lets not use them as an example…

        31. It doesn’t matter how much weaponry a country has. If they don’t have weapon systems that can effectively counter our own- and they don’t- they are as useless as stones and a slingshot.

        32. Weren’t the Russians initially allied with Hitler during WW2 until Hitler hit them with the surprise attack (Operation Barbarossa)?

        33. I think it would be better if Russia obliterated American women and then America became occupied with Russian women.

        34. Russia was defeated by Japan in the Russo-Japanese War and several other wars against the Ottomans…And suffered huge losses against the Nazis, although Russia DID do most of the heavy lifting for the Allies during WW2!
          I agree that the United States would have a hard time against Russia however.

        35. We have a population not even half of New York what do you expect us to do ? But it wasnt US “largely alone” who won WW2.

        36. Im not talking about defeats in wars and battles. Im taking about getting taken over by another country because that country kicked ur ass totally. That never happened to Russia.

        37. That winter is a killer isn’t it? Not so much a paper Giant as Hitler proclaimed.
          The Mongols and Tartars occupied briefly and Napoleon advanced deep into Russia and Hitler was knocking the door in Moscow….But yes you’re right no sustained occupation of Russia.
          WW2 in my opinion I think the Nazis had the best military machine pound for pound.

        38. That winter is a killer isn’t it? Not so much a paper Giant as Hitler proclaimed.
          The Mongols and Tartars occupied briefly and Napoleon advanced deep into Russia and Hitler was knocking the door in Moscow….But yes you’re right no sustained occupation of Russia.
          WW2 in my opinion I think the Nazis had the best military machine pound for pound.

        39. They did have a limited front with Japan, though nothing comparable to what the US endured in the pacific. As for (northern) Africa, it was a concerted effort by the allies, in which the Americans did indeed play a crucial – if not truly exclusive – role.
          I was mainly referring here to the brunt of the manpower that the Soviets literally threw onto the Nazi war machine to stop it in its tracks. In terms of sheer number of casualties and utter devastation, they quite simply took the cake (think battalion after battalion of Soviet tanks annihilated by superior German armor, only for more to show up on the horizon, as well as a protracted scorched earth policy upon retreat going right up to Leningrad). In fact, you guys would have suffered a similar fate were it not for the two atom bombs that precipitated Japan’s surrender. American military predictions of the time estimated at least two million GI dead as the price to pay for taking the Japanese Islands (and especially Honshu) in a conventional manner.
          Note that I am trying to be historically honest here.

        40. Here’s an idea. Ship your average empowered American female on over to Siberia and see just how well she manages to slap down the locals into doing her bidding.
          My guess is there would be a lot more bitch slapping going the other way – for a short while at least until the harsh local hierarchy naturally asserts itself.

        41. That’s why I’m pointing out that the awesome power of the American military is great for zoom-bang! operations. On that level, they really do have others beat (though part of it still is by sheer volume alone, not always thanks to exceedingly more advanced tech when compared to similarly modern millitaries). It’s when you have to send in the boys and KEEP THEM THERE on the spot for longer periods of time that problems arise and homesickness starts to grow.

        42. The US had three major fronts. Germany was the only other nation in that conflict that was maintaining three fronts. To imply the US didn’t play a major role in WWII is absolutely retarded.

        43. Russia’s military doctrine is to use nukes when required. You’re arguing for the sake of arguing here…

        44. You mean lost battles. I’m talking conquering, taking over the country. No one did that.
          Yea everyone loses wars all the time. Just ask USA but Vietnam didnt conquer USA.

        45. Well America didnt even beat Japan in a conventional war. It was in fact a nuclear war, in the end. USA had to bomb two large cities full of civilians to win it. And they complain about 9/11 lol.

        46. Most of the attrition would happen crossing the Pacific Ocean to get here. Then they would have to deal with a population with enough guns to arm every man, woman, and child. Not very likely.

        47. If we went in a war to destroy a country outright, it would happen fast. Going in and trying to keep civilian casualty down or taking sides in a civil war is what bogs it down. We want to raze China…About a month, but a lot of kids go down too, like all of them.

        48. That’s where you are wrong. Following WWII the US could do anything they wanted as the only power with an atomic weapon. Russia didn’t have theirs until 1949. You think if roles were reversed Russia would have stopped in Berlin if Stalin were the only power with a nuclear option? Your grandparents would have been living in a communist country.

        49. Soviet losses being greater do not imply their efforts were more valuable to the collective victory. In fact I could easily argue the opposite. Case in point, Poland and China had greater combatant casualties than the US and UK. Soviet losses were more severe for a number of reasons. Many of which were self-inflicted with their incompetent leadership and staff structure. Shocking communists weren’t properly organized.

        50. Boy these Asians just don’t get it.Our technology is too great.
          You won’t be able to hit “the broadside of a barn” much less
          destroy the incoming force. Just imagine if we really had an unlimited defense budget. Hegemony over this planet as none before.

        51. Guest. You are exhibiting great ignorance.
          This man’s arguments are supported by both data
          and experience. This is like a cat that think’s it own’s
          human beings. It does not realize that it’s a cat .

        52. John- Why bother ? You are too intelligent for
          this crowd. Then again maybe it’s for the same reason
          i am.

        53. There is no comparison. Russian would not have
          time to scratch their ass. Over quickly and humiliatingly.

        54. BB guns vs. Battle Ships. We don’t have to occupy
          the land. We posses the greatest military that
          ever was in all of history.

        55. Spoken like a citizen of an unappreciative nation.
          The powerful will always be criticized.
          In the movies we only win wars ?
          US military is not “bullshit” and you better
          be thankful that we are not at ruled by a totalitarian
          or this planet would be subjugated.

        56. Obviously you have poor comprehension as well a fair amount of ignorance when it comes to real world military matters. NO-ONE on Earth is capable of beating the US in a conventional military war PERIOD.
          That is not Hollywood, It’s not speculation. Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc, actually prove this fact. When the US engaged each of these nations we annihilated them militarily. So they were forced to adopt a political/perception based strategy to overcome our obvious military superiority.
          For the last 40+ years, bad press on the news, and a American populace with no will to fight have been the only limit on the US’s ability to win wars [and by extension] the US GOV ability to wage them – as it should be – NOT any current foreign military.
          As someone who eat breaths and sleeps such “intel” for a living I advise that you just let this one go.

        57. I hate when people use Vietnam as an example of the US not being able to win a conventional/gorilla war, when in reality it proved just how superior the US was. Your ignorance on the Vietnam war is appalling.
          The US “lost” Vietnam, not because of military inability. In fact the US military Crushed the Viet Cong 10 times over. It was like a Ant vs a Kid with good boots and a magnifying glass. The US lost the political fight/perception war. It simply became impossible to achieve the political objectives the US set out to accomplish (never mind they changed repeatedly over the span of the conflict). And Johnson realized that the political will was lost on the American people to support the war, and began to lay the foundation for the eventual withdrawal that Nixon completed.

        58. LOL have you EVER read or researched anything on WWII?
          We get it, the Danish capitulated almost immediately, as well as most of western Europe. But don’t say delusional things to try and save national pride. The primary allied countries that were able to change the course of Germany’s eventual conquering of Russia was Britain and the US.
          The war on the Eastern front would have been over in less than a year if Hitler was not forced to divert resources to counter the Allied invasion in the west and in Africa.
          And lets not forget, that the US – mostly on it’s own – was simultaneously killing nearly every single Japanese soldier they encountered in the pacific. The war was already won when the bombs were dropped.
          The Bombs merely punctuated the inevitable to the Japanese, while showing future potential enemies that the US was not to be fucked with. (at least till everyone else promptly got a bomb too)

        59. I was referring to the losses that would have incurred had the US attempted to take Japan in a conventional manner. Not to any losses on the American continent itself.

        60. Are you mad? A significant assault against Russia would cause them to deploy “perimeter” insuring that the attacker would be annihilated by ICBMs if they were unable to contain the war conventionally. We are not talking about Afghanistan here (read this again, CAREFULLY this time around):

          At least the top brass in Washington and Moscow know all about this and have enough sense about them not to push it this far.

        61. I never claimed the Russians were particularly efficient or organized in the manner in which they dealt with the Nazi war machine. Matter of fact, they pretty much threw their very own people like dogs to the slaughter in order to compensate for lesser levels of technological prowess and organization (remember the case of one rifle for every two infantrymen? One guy got a rifle and you ran behind him, unarmed. When the guy in front of you dropped, you picked up his rifle and continued on. Oh, and you had the lovely “choice” between the Nazi machine guns up front, and those of your very own military police back in your lines, just in case someone decided to chicken out when the time came to fulfill his “duty” to his country).
          The Russians are admired here for sheer human sacrifice, loss, and suffering as a result, not because they were the most efficient and effective, nor even the most influential actors overall, during WWII. Someone who has lived all his life in the comforts of the North American continent has absolutely no idea what it is like to have one’s country completely devastated by war (not Russian here BTW, just have enough brains to appreciate a situation when I see one).

        62. Good thing I have spent significant time well outside the comforts of NA then. Including seeing countries completely devastated by war and other issues. I recognize the contributions Russia made. I know that taking Europe was made much easier by the resources being consumed on the Eastern front. Which was probably the most brutal warfare this planet has ever witnessed. However, I don’t think Russia survives without US intervention in the war and I do believe eventually US industrial power would have turned the tide against Germany. I certainly don’t think Russia played any significant role in Asia and by that fact simply cannot be called the primary reason the Allies won WWII.

        63. Isn’t it ironic that these people who claim to be “red-pill” and able to discern truth from the false reality presented to them by MSM are not able to do so when it comes to something of the magnitude of military capabilities?

        64. Arguing with people that have no idea about military capabilities is idiotic. It’s analogous to you and I arguing with a structural engineer about designs or something specific to their job.

        65. “Following WWII the US could do anything they wanted as the only power with an atomic weapon. ”
          You are right about that and I also wrote that elsewhere, however, just because you are not utterly completely Hitler evil, doesnt mean that you are one of the good guys.

        66. And who are the good guys? I thought the Marshall Plan was a pretty generous gesture. Yes, it had underpinnings in preventing communism spreading but it was nonetheless beneficial to people outside of America.

        67. My original comment referred to the enormous level of attrition suffered by Russians on the Eastern front, which puts them squarely into context as a major lever in the European theater – not globally – as far as WWII is concerned. Otherwise, we appear to be much in agreement here my good sir.

        68. Once upon a time, the world’s greatest super power was Great Britain, and they were beaten back by a tin-pot little colony called America. Nobody thought that would happen either. It brings to mind the phrase, “The bigger they are, the harder they fall.” Pretty much all the super powers in the history of the world were taken down by some little tin-pot military power that nobody rationally thought could do the job – see Alexander the Great, with a much smaller military, taking down the world super-power of his day, Persia.
          No doubt, the USA has the strongest military in the world, but the world has well shown that this too must come to an end. All of the superpowers have fallen when no-one thought they would, and always to a lesser power.

        69. Usually another actor rises up and occupies the void left behind by the declining actor. Maybe one day that will happen to the USA, but it isn’t even close to happening right now. The difference between the USA and any other state on the planet is as dramatic as it has ever been.

        70. Russia wasn’t defeated in WWI, rather, they had a revolution and simply quit fighting in WWI. Big difference.

        71. I think I’d disagree with that. It’s true that it does happen some of the time, the USA replacing Britain, and Rome replacing Greece come to mind, but there are plenty of examples where that doesn’t happen as well – Greece and Persia, as I said above (Greece should have never won, even Alexander’s advisors were urging him to accept the peace treaty Persia offered, since they thought it lunacy to fight Persia), and Egypt, (Lot’s of small outlying empires caused its downfall… by the time Greece/Rome took over, they were already well fooked). It’s true, once a vacuum is created, some other force often comes in to occupy it, but this seems to be as much an internal thing as external – ie. Rome changed from a Republic into a Dictatorship… Germany changed from Democracy to Dictatorship… Japan, China, etc. Quite often “the defeat” is from within. Who replaced Rome as a superpower, for example? People inside the country repalced the previous ruler, but no superpower replaced them per se. Who replaced Saddam in Iraq, is another where the change was internal. ISIS is not a superpower, but a power from within that no-one forsaw.
          For quite a while now, since the late 90’s, I have been suspicious that Capitalism would fall. Indeed, today it looks as if it might, to be replaced with Socialism on a Global Scale. Everyone was celebrating the demise of Russia in the 1990’s, which they thought wouldn’t fall (and it didn’t really – it was replaced from within – see Putin), and then everyone thought the Western System would never fall… and now it looks very likely that it will, but not to another superpower, instead to another political structure – and it comes from within.

        72. As has been explained to you repeatedly in a conventional war there is NO NATION ON EARTH THAT CAN TAKE US.
          NBC war all bets are off. My guess is that they will take that whipping with their tail between their legs before they go nuke.

        73. You guess wrong. I you were faced with total annihilation at the hands of a vastly superior foe in a conventional war and you had nukes as a weapon of last resort, would you really let them go do waste and simply roll over like a dog and die? I think not.
          You guys could woop any other nation on earth in a conventional scenario (and you sure love gloating about it), but you would not DARE touch a significant member of the atomic club like Russia in a direct military manner. You know it, I know it, and the top brass of both countries knows it. No point pretending here.
          And besides, who would want to take you? The greatest military power on earth in service to a land where the women rule over the men like a bunch of subservient eunuchs? Pleaaaaassee. See anything wrong with that picture there?
          The world may dread your military, but it secretly laughs at and pities your gender “relations”. Frankly, If I were a Noble Viking Warrior and someone pointed this out to me, I wouldn’t feel too hot either.

        74. Russia has half our population and it is shrinking. Much of their human capital was wasted by Stalin during World War II by throwing bodies on fires until they smothered.

        75. Russia has enough nukes to probably kill all human life by simply detonating it’s warheads in the silos they currently sit in. But China does not. I’m sure China could kill an awful lot of Americans, and create quite the mess here if they wanted to, but I doubt they’d succeed in complete annihilation before they ran out of warheads. While America would have no problems melting the entirety of the Chinese mainland into barren desert.
          So, in such a conflict, my money would be on a nominal victory for the US. Or whatever was left of it, anyway.

        76. Almost the entire world was allied against Germany… which, by the way, would suggest that THEY were the dominant power. The USA tipped the balance, but to suggest the USA “won the war” is an insult to the vast majority of people who actually lived and fought in said war.
          Including my own family, I might add.
          John Wayne was not real, you know.
          Normandy was not 100% American, you know.
          Aside from Germany, it is arguable that BRITAIN, was the biggest deterent to Nazism, since they and their colonies were the ones who stood up to the brunt of the attack – Pearl Harbour was mere… pearls… compared to what Britain endured.
          Come now. Let’s leave Blue Pill Hollywood behind us and acknowledge the Red Pill World.
          Even Canada did more than the USA to win the war, since they supplied Britain with, well, fucking supplies, while you Ameritards sat out the whole show, except for lending people money to fight with – which secured your dominance over the world afterwards.
          The entire GODDAMN WORLD was allied against Germany, for Christ’s sakes! Just like in WWI (Where the USA also balked and chicken shitted until the end), there is now way you would have won the war without the aid of your allies.
          You tipped the balance.
          Congratulations – and thank-you for FINALLY doing the right thing, as Winston Churchill suggested.
          But don’t get TOO full of yourself.
          Quite obviously, Germany possessed the best army in the world at the time, or it would not have taken so much of the rest of the world to defeat them! They had, like you know, less than a third the population of your own country… and fought against everyone else, quite successfully.

        77. I’m sure John McCain is told the same thing all the time by our “other” betters in the halls of government?
          You don’t seem to realize that thinking some men are “more intelligent” than others was exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent!
          Why should anyone have to explain to the mere proles why they should sacrifice everything? Only the assholes who’ve been in the military have any common-sense on these matters.
          Don’t they know why they should die for my fucking beliefs?
          How dare these plebes question my authority? Why, I write on the internet too!
          I’ve been in the military, therefore, let me sacrifice your life for you!
          I just cannot accept your non-acceptance of my plan for you to die to save my way of life…

        78. I think the British said that, didn’t they? Somewhere before they invaded the colonies?
          You are a scary person, John. You absolutely don’t serve anything that is in MY best interests.
          I hope the military retires you rather than promotes you.
          Seems all you fucking morons forgot about speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

        79. I’ll do and say whatever I wish cuntbag. I’ve earned that right. Not sure you have. Especially on this topic. How much experience do you have with foreign policy matters? None I suspect. As a Libertarian I was never a proponent of invading Iraq nor occupying Afghanistan. If US foreign policy were under my control we would not be involved in most of these conflicts. I’m strictly identifying the US military capabilities relative to other nations you retard. I’m not condoning they be utilized whimsically.

        80. I stopped reading at “Even Canada did more than the USA to win the war” due to its level of retardation.

        81. Yanks will be up for a rude awakening. They think they have superior military cause MSM told them so. They same MSM who told them feminism is for the good of the society. Wikipedia articles are pure bullshit jew propaganda. Stupid yanks refer to wiki articles on military technology and claim these are facts. I’m pretty sure these stupid yanks don’t a bit about scalar weapons system of Russia.Your f-35s are biggest junks , Su s are far more superior.And all of your aircraft carriers will be taken down by sunburn missiles.
          ut frankly speaking, Russia doesn’t need a war. If they just dump the dollar with China, it will be over yanks.

        82. You’re probably the least intelligent person on these boards. MSM depicts the US military in a far less capable position than they are really in. Also, my opinions are based on first hand experiences and observations.

        83. LOL, first hand experience.LOL. Being a cannon fodder is not equal to having first hand experience about military technology.
          “MSM depicts the US military in a far less capable position than they are really in”.USA has a conventional superiority is indeed a MSM jew lie.I consider CNN, FOX, TIME
          , BBC as MSM.
          Whatever yank, HAND!

        84. Are you capable of remotely supporting your baseless claims with anything other than tu quoque and ad hominem fallacies?

        85. If were bad guys you would be serving me fries
          in a fast food place in the country of the
          United States of Denmark.

        86. Hollywood fucked us ? We could fuck you and you couldn’t stop us. LOL ! Would the USSR have held out without lend lease ? And if they didn’t what would have been Britain’s fate
          had they had to face the full brunt of Nazi Germany ?
          THE U.S. HAVING NO ONE TO HELP WERE THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAD THE POTENTIAL TO DEFEAT NAZI GERMANY AND JAPAN AT THE SAME TIME WITH NO ONES HELP WHATSOEVER. We are arguably the most powerful nation militarily that has ever been in existence in the history of man.

        87. Praise Hitler ? We did learn a lot from the Wehrmacht.
          Going in less prepared would have insured more casualties
          with out substantial benefit to anyone.

        88. We do not need to take the ground as has been
          argued. Send us to our maker ? Not without retribution.

        89. I do not think that Russia would go nuke till they absolutely had to.Second you do have a point-We are a powerful military organization who’s men are run by the Vagina. This will change soon or we will use our own military against our own women ! LOL !

        90. Even today’s American government still hasn’t paid the Filipino troops who fought alongside them during World War II.
          Even then, Filipinos revere Douglas MacArthur more than his own country.

      2. Unless you’re in the military with your MOS/AFSC in military intelligence and give daily briefs to commanders on a consistent basis, I’m going give a gander that you probably have no idea what you’re talking about when you compare the military capabilities of China and the US. I could be wrong about your background, but if I’m not, then go ahead and continue reading your unclassified Chinese propaganda while the rest of us will stick to facts to make our assessments. I, however, will not discuss the matter further than this.

      3. The US could end the world if it wanted to. I’m not sure I would consider that “winning” but, in a no holds barred “war” (think WWI/II), the US would not “lose”. We would not be invaded and lose our country, we would turn the earth into a smoldering crater before we let that happen. One of the biggest problems that we’ve had since 1945 is that we’ve been unwilling to use our most destructive weapons again, and, as a result, the rest of the world thinks that we no longer have the will to do it (and they are probably right absent a credible invasion of the US).
        Very unpopular view coming up..
        If we’d dropped nuclear weapons on Vietnam, we never would have had the conflicts that have followed (until perhaps 9/11, when we could have dropped a few on Afghanistan). We’re like the bully in high school walking around with a Desert Eagle 44 in our pants. Once you get beat up a few times and don’t pull out and use your pistol, people start to think your a pussy and, no matter what they do, you won’t use the weapon. The weapon becomes more of a liability than an advantage because you have to have space in your pants, maintain it, carry it everywhere, but, if you’re not going to use it, you get no advantage from it.

        1. Yeah, because in Vietnam, where we were officially helping an ally in a civil war, the South would have totally appreciated us nuking their country. Also, Afghanistan is a highly mountainous country with low population density, not to mention that we were not at war with the country itself. Obama was right when he said there is such a thing as “dumb war” and you’ve just suggested some.

        2. If you dropped nuclear Weapons on Vietnam you would have been annihilated on your very own home soil by the massive counter-launch of Soviet and Chinese ICBMs aimed at America that would have been impossible to intercept in its entirety. Matter of fact, this would still happen today if someone ended up going psycho over at the Pentagon and ordered a complete launch against Russia or China, for instance. Nixon himself proposed the use of nuclear weapons against North Vietnam as a more “effective” alternative to Operation Rolling Thunder, but he was (rightly) railroaded by higher-level brass who knew what was really at stake here and what would happen if they dared to set THAT machine into motion.
          Don’t kid yourself. While the US may be the world leader as far as conventional armament and technology is concerned, it could never fully hedge itself against the cataclysmic consequences of MAD (mutual assured destruction). And it has rightfully avoided that terrible course of action ever since.

        3. US is not “unwilling” to use nuclear weapon, they are unable because so many other nations have them as well.
          US could have been the ruler of the world by now though: right after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, could have moved on to the rest of the world and forced everyone to surrender.

        4. US is not “unwilling” to use nuclear weapon, they are unable because so many other nations have them as well.
          US could have been the ruler of the world by now though: right after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, could have moved on to the rest of the world and forced everyone to surrender.

        5. Doesn’t matter. For it to work it needs to be at least 99% effective. It only takes one, repeat ONE, ICBM warhead getting through to reduce a city or above-ground military base to smoking radioactive rubble. I remember recent tests on interceptor vehicles under Bush 1 concluding a 33% hit rate. And that was with fudged data to boot (in order to keep federal research dollars flowing in). You may have access to tons of military data, but don’t think it is not without some clever level of “manipulation” to make things look real good. The Ruskies were not the only ones to cook the books here so to speak.
          Don’t kid yourself. No one, I repeat NO ONE, was capable of producing a 100% effective anti-ICBM shield, given sufficiently high numbers of warheads and decoys launched against them. The US probably does have the most advanced and effective system in that regard the world over, but it is by no means invincible.
          That’s why the Russians stockpiled so many nuclear weapons. They knew they could hold you guys by the balls simply by evoking MAD. And they still can, to this day. That is why you have to repeatedly keep invoking a symmetrical confrontation in order to gloat about your superiority. Yes, we get it. Conventionally, you got everyone beat. What you don’t seem to get through your thick skulls is that you are NOT invincible.
          Besides, who needs to take you militarily? Your very own women are destroying you from within through America’s billion-dollar marriage-divorce industry (not to mention all the leftist parasites feeding at the trough of the hard-working taxpaying class). Imagine that, returning home a decorated vet only for a bunch of brutish thugs in blue hauling you away from your very own home you yourself paid for. Don’t know about you, but if I were military I would DEMAND some serious answers from my state and federal legislators on these matters. Sheesh, talk about getting betrayed by your very own country.

      4. Oh, also, in particular regard to China. We don’t have to beat them in a war. We just have to wait for their demographic timebomb to hit.

        1. Well what about the demographic timebomb ticking in the West ? Feminism and hipster culture turning everyone into sissies and fags, dropping birth rates, everyone sucks at what they do because no one wants to work hard anymore etc etc.

      5. Too optimistic. Sure, you have the bombs. But they have the hackers. What good are bombs if they stop working, or turn on you?
        And, I’m not pro China, I’m just being realistic. Sounds like your mindset is still stuck in Vietnam mode. Newsflash: Computers > soldiers. Computers > planes. Computers > tanks. Computers > ships. Why? Because computers run all of them (well, except soldiers… to a degree, if you discount gps and coms). So it’s not the firepower that counts anymore, it’s the brainpower.

        1. you dont remotely hack bombs. you dont remotely hack tanks. hacking uavs is within the range of possibilty but fail-safes are in place in most military uavs now that the chance of wresting control of one is insignificant. i would be thoroughly surprised if manned fighters could be remotely hacked to any worthwhile extent. i have no 1st hand knowledge of ships but the thought of them not being able to defend against a hacking attempt is laughable.
          reality isnt a video game – hackers would play a secondary role in open warfare at best with our current technology.

        2. But you can remotely hack a nuclear power plant. You can hack a defense system. You can hack gps to give false readings. Think bigger, darling.

        3. i address the arguments you make, and not a moment before, hun.
          US nuclear power plants are thoroughly protected from internet and remote hacking, and are capable of closing themselves off to remotely based hacking if need be. hacking vulnerabilities found in nuclear plants are almost all related to systems that only communicate internally with other systems in the plant. taking advantage of this would not only require advanced knowledge of the system (or sufficient time to learn of it while in the field), but a direct, physical data link to the system (or a system that it communicates with). in addition, every US nuclear plant is built differently, which would most likely mean that you cant learn how to hack one, and from that know how to hack them all.
          hacking a strike teams gps system could prove problematic, but work arounds would be produced shortly after the first combat mishap from it.

        4. Point 1. Chinese already hacked a nuclear plant as a test.
          Didn’t read the rest, since you’re talking hyperthetically, or, as they say, out of your ass… Hun.

        5. 1. links please. all ive heard of was chinese hackers stealing piping plans from a company designing a nuclear plant. nothing of them hacking an actual nuclear plant.
          2. hypothetically*, and no im not.
 assume we dont have our own mass of hackers… chief.

        6. 1. Don’t have links (astonishingly I never bookmarked the webpages, how could I be so undiligent? Who knows). What to do, what to do… I have an idea, it might sound crazy at first, but hear me out… try google.
          2. {See above}
          3. Asian and Russian hackers are better. Just how it is, not how I want it to be. Note: I’m white, not Russian and fucking hate Chinese. I’m being unbiased here.

        7. i googled well before first responding to you. still nothing of hacking actual nuclear plants. that in addition to your condescending refusal to provide proof leads me to believe that you either misread, read an article that blew a situation out of proportion, or are full of shit.
          i dont have any solid proof of this next argument, but i am certain that the US cyber teams have shit under control. especially with the possibility of MonsterMind being created.

        8. Didn’t misread, or blow anything out of proportion. A nuclear plant in US unexpectedly started raising in temperature and they lost control of their systems and the Chinese were blamed (unofficially) for testing their hacking skills.

      6. No. But we could start a war and they would do themselves in with friendly fire in about two weeks because of their incompetence. Go watch a fairly crowded Chinese intersection at rush hour. Then come back to us with your thoughts on Chinese supremacy.

    1. Of course China will rule the world, aging? are you kidding, who needs another overpopulated Africa in the far east, United States will get dumber with more Hispanics who will make United States a second Mexico 🙂 and Asian immigrants will grow too, but most Asians are actually low IQ Indians or Filipinos, not East Asians 🙂

      1. Asians will never rule. They do not have the IQ for destruction that
        the white man has. Push comes to shove war becomes the answer.
        The last Asians that ” ruled” were Mongols and that’s due to “technology” (Recurved Bow).

        1. We will leave aside the Ottoman Empire which ended in the last century.
          Not sure what you mean about “rule” but the Japanese, Chinese and Indians have had various empires since the Mongol Empire ended.

        2. Technically the Ottomans are “Asians”.
          But they are Caucasians and Caucasians
          typically defeat other types people at wars.
          I am talking mostly about confrontation between races.
          Japanese won for awhile and were turned back and defeated.Orientals with some rare exceptions (Russo-Japanese war and the Mongols) cannot defeat the White Man !

        3. Ottoman turks are not caucasians. The word turk comes from the word go-turk, a chinese word used to refer to a group of rebellious tribes in far western china in the ancient period. The turks were one of the 3 major east asian groups to conquer europe.
          Historically, the mongoload has beaten the white most of the time. Further, the germans didn’t even count the slavs and russians as whites. They called them asian steppe animals and bestial asiatic hordes. We all saw what happened. Bolshevik jews and khazar mongol jews took over europe.

        4. You said “Asians” and Asians are not a race. There is no “technically” about it. But even if you want to make it a “race” thing by no stretch of the imagination are the Ottomans White. As such, Europeans lost countless wars against the Moors and later the Ottomans. Europeans were in the ascendancy last century but as for the future who can predict?

        5. europe and whites were historically conquered by asians 3 times, whites have still not fully conquered asia once. The russians even lose to the japanese. America tried but all the white countries couldn’t even take down china when it was a nation of boat people or vietnam when it was a 3rd world shit hole, how can the decaying white world beat china now with nuclear weapons and super sonic jets and modern tech?

        6. Europe has not been conquered by Asians at anytime.
          We did not lose the Vietnam war and we never tried to
          take china.

        7. Linking to Wikipedia, which often has incorrect information, is not an argument my fiend.
          Try again.

        8. Tell that to the huns, turks and mongols oh and the jews who control most of europe today.

        9. Huns were defeated.Ottomans only got so far.
          And what i consider the most capable the
          Mongols imploded on their empire although
          they did rule Russia for a bit. And the Soviet Union
          got revenge for it. Once again the white race rules the planet and has for about 500 years for a reason-They are conquers

        10. They have the brains, though. They’ve proven to be more intelligent than whites, with a better earning capacity.

        11. Why do you think Chinese people want to take over your country or “rule” in the first place? We don’t give a damn about ‘taking over’ the West. If genetics says that Caucasians, Africans etc. are better, so be it.
          Few people really want to “defeat” other cultures. Maybe ISIS wants to take over other countries in their region, but that’s it.

        12. Great at iq tests. make great citizens of any nation (on the whole). Obey the laws and such. One theory says that whites have the best iq for “new discoveries or concepts” especially as it pertains to destruction and just enough testosterone to pursue this course.

    2. Asians don’t give a rat’s ass about ‘defeating the West’, they’re just trying to get a nicer apartment and some Levis jeans.

      1. LoL, true. Many of them are simply looking to acquire the same trappings that we have built up here and are in the process of stupidly squandering away as we speak.

      2. You’re missing one crucial point: 19th century westerners didn’t care about owning an iPad either. Not that they were around – but you get my gist. As their quality of life increases they will start to demand more spare time (no more 14 hour work-days) and more luxury items.

        1. Except that Asia has its own versions of stuff like iPad, for example Samsung and Eee tablets. Asia has its own brand names of clothes. None of this leads to someone taking your job. None of this leads to people there wanting to “defeat the West”, Feudal Lord.
          If you’re worried about that, blame Western capitalists who are actually moving jobs to cheaper locations. The world is not a zero sum game.

        2. Blame the government for moving jobs. It is regulation and taxes that raise the costs of employment.

        3. What in the holy fuck are you talking about? Where the fuck did I say anything about defeating the west?
          My point was that China won’t be able to produce at the same low cost as they are doing forever. As the middle class grows they start to demand more and more spare time, luxury items etc. The brand is irrelevant. What matters is that the competitiveness of a Chinese laborer vs a western laborer will fall.

        4. My bad. I was also responding to other people in the thread who were harping on about some imminent Huntingtonian clash of civilizations.

      3. They could not TAKE our jobs even if they wanted to.
        Higher placed persons make these decisions
        With an aging population and a desire for a better life
        among the younger outsourcing may be not so attractive.

      4. Indirectly, American prosperity can easily be negatively affected, by huge numbers of non Westerners consuming limited natural resources that Westerners once had pretty much for themselves.
        The world’s not a zero sum game, but neither are non human resources limitless and infinitely cheap and replaceable either. Once a billion Chinese can afford Escalades and vacations around the world, they’ll help put a crimp on real living standards of many Americans, no matter how much they may like the culture.

        1. What you’re talking about sounds a lot like fuel issues. Remember that China has access to the Central Asian pipelines as well as the typical Middle Eastern oil. US oil tends to come from domestic and European sources.
          The US has not only the Bakken and Marcellus shales, but also conventional oil in Alaska and other areas that liberals don’t want us to touch.
          Tesla has been coming out with some affordable electric cars, and a lot of people living in parts of Europe and Asia that have expensive gas, drive electric cars. That electricity comes from natural gas, which is common in Chinese coal regions.
          I don’t think it’s going to really be an issue in a few years. Plus, the US will have plenty of Teslas to sell to Asia.

        2. There is unlimited energy in the Universe. Accessing it is merely an engineering problem to be solved. Humans have been increasing their access to energy for their entire existence.

        3. Electric cars suck mate. And the Tesla is a real piece of shit. Compared to fuel driven cars electric cars are significantly more expensive.

        4. Physics fail. There is most definitely not an unlimited amount of energy in the universe. The amount of energy in the universe is constant. The conservation of energy is perhaps the most fundamental principle in physics.

        5. If the amount of energy is constant you can’t run out of energy can you? That’s my point.

        6. No, but that leads into thermodynamics and the principle that entropy always increases – meaning you can’t extract infinite amounts of energy.

        7. Mate that’s unlikely to be a problem for human beings. The point is that we are not going to run out of energy.
          Is thermodynamics relevant for hydro power?

        8. Oh but it is. Entropy is an every-day problem for anyone who works with ANY system where energy is transferred. It’s relevant in everything from the engine in your car, batteries and nuclear power to hydro-power.
          It’s a very relevant problem in the lives of thousands of engineers every day.

        9. You implied that there was an endless source of energy that’s NOT true. No amount of engineering will get you a perpetual motion machine – again – because of entropy. In a crude way it can be described as the “organization” of the energy. Ordered energy is something like coal – once you burn it and make thermal energy that source is essentially gone – it is too disorganized to be used again.
          What I meant when I said that it’s an engineering problem is that engineers do calculations using these concepts every day. I did not mean that it’s just a problem waiting to be solved. No. There is a theoretical limit for the amount of usable energy and it’s nowhere near as trivial as you seem to think.

        10. My friend, I understand all that. I was speaking loosely because I am leaving comments below an unrelated post rather than ending into a physics forum to debate the finer details of theory. Let’s not argue when we both essentially agree.

    3. Right, but the same was said for Japan and South Korea. They both transitioned well out of the poor labor-for-export phase. I dont’ see why China would be any different, only on a much larger scale

    4. There is no hard and fast rule that there has to be a hegemon… After all, the west languished for a thousand years after the fall of the Roman Empire. Who will be the next superpower? Demographics seem to indicate that Europe and white America are demographically declining and set up for institutional failure (i.e. entitlements, monetary policy, lack of faith in democracy/political system, etc.). Japan and China both have major demographic headwinds. Africa and the middle east have all the positive demographics, however, they have none of the strong institutions or traditions necessary for global power. If you ask me, we are heading into another pre-WWI scenario with “balance of power” politics, and no true hegemon.

      1. ^ this. seriously, why do people think other countries not being broke and ghetto means that the US has to lose, particularly if it’s a nonwhite country becoming nonshitty.
        the west can have whatever ‘hegemony’ it wants. chinese culture doesn’t really have a concept of being a missionary state. people there just want to be left alone.

      2. We’re heading for an international anarchy, if you ask me. By that I don’t mean it’s going to be one big war with everyone versus everyone, but I do mean that international institutions, treaties and agreed-upon borders will collapse as western civilization collapses, which itself is something I think is inevitable given the current demographics of the western world and the eagerness of Islam to take over Europe. The certainties of the world we see today will suddenly start to evaporate faster than we could possibly imagine, somewhere in the next fifty years but no later

    5. They most likely will end up like south korea and japan, by the time their gdp hits 20k-30k per person, it will no longer be the prefered destination for slave labour. And the companies will move to somewhere more poor.

  4. “According to counts by the Southern Poverty Law Center” is not a source to be taken seriously

        1. But even broken clocks aren’t as pervasively wrong as the SPLC. Those guys’ statements’ correlation with observable reality, is much, much weaker than pure random. If y9ou bother asking them, they will insist that 2+2 is indeed 5, and the only people who claim otherwise, are doing so because of the Koch brothers. I’m not exaggerating.

        2. Except the current president, the media, and groups like SPLC take action specifically to cause tension. See they are absolutely right about an increase in tension… what they aren’t right about is the cause… that would be them and not “whitey’s racism.”

        3. Morris Dees is a dedicated deconstrutionalist Marxist. SPLC is not about right and wrong, it is simply a tool for him to use to help his fellow travelers attack our experiment in individual liberty.

      1. Within 10 years, males will be stripped of their right to vote and own property. Within 15 years, they will lose all their rights and be nothing more than thralls. Their brute strength and brawn will make them exceptionally fit for hard labor and servitude…and their tiny brains will never let them understand how girls enslaved them…or how to extricate themselves from a predicament that will last for centuries.

        1. And the wymmins will have sex with all of them, and wonder why they don’t give her praise behind her back, thus having her commit suicide at the rate of men today .
          Within fifteen years, most of these harpies will die out from losing too many wars, and not be able to produce children as war dryed up their womb thereby guaranteeing these harpies do not further contaminate the gene pool .
          What’s a matter, why the hostility, you and your girlfriend did not like my offer for a threesome?

        2. Soo typical of the simple, unsophisticated male…whenever a member of The Superior Gender tells them the unvarnished truth about their natural inferiority, they invariably reply with some utterly pathetic retort laced with sexual innuendo.

        3. OMG we actually *admire* your kind…once the gynocracy is firmly in place several years down the road, we will definitely make public the fact that the MRA’s were “smarter than most”.

        4. To “Jesse James”: Once the male gender has been subjugated to thralldom, I might consider purchasing you. Watching you cower as my servant and errand boy for the rest of your life will be soo much fun. I will indelibly etch in your heart and mind a feeling of reverence for and obedience to the concept of Girl Power.

        5. Eh.
          It’s more likely that within the next 15 years you’ll be sodomized for being too sassy.

        6. But I wasn’t feeding her. I was simply express joy at the thought of “her” being butt banged for being a bitch.

        7. Should that take place, the perpetrator stands a reasonable chance of forfeiting years and possibly decades of his freedom…his new home will be a small cage…appropriate for those with his mindset. On the good side, the thug will be afforded an extended period to reflect on this violent manifestation of his misogyny…

        8. this is a place for men to share ideas and sort things out among other men. if you must engage in nanny-boo-boo with women, do it somewhere’s else.

        9. Shush. I realize that what this place is for
          but when a woman comments here she should be able
          to take the heat or get out of the kitchen !

        10. lol… you turn your back to deal with one and another springs up behind you. Just ignore them man…

        11. Naw. Rapist’s never convicted…
          and you stand a reasonable chance of
          forfeiting years and possibly decades of piece of mind.. your perpetual fear will be a small cage…appropriate for those with your cunty mindset. On the good
          side, a bitch will be afforded an extended period to reflect on this violent consequence of her bitchiness

        12. Lol. Well, the remarkable shortcomings of the masculine gender when in comes to the mastery of basic verbal and grammatical skills is well established. *laughs*
          As for your chances of getting away with your sick fantasies, don’t be so sure. America has more males incarcerated than any other nation per capita…and, having seen some of those MSNBC documentaries, your stay will not resemble a weekend at the Hilton.

        13. And yet you wrote “when in comes to the mastery”….HaHa
          I mean if you are gonna be cunty at least do it well.
          Yeah. The fall of your rectum will surely precede the fall of man.

        14. “YoungExecutive” is probably how you classify your job in the mail room when discussing it with those not in the know. Now be a good little male and go play in the sandbox with the rest of the boys…

        15. Males such as the “Young executive” are most assuredly an admirable bunch. Their place of residence is invariably their parents’ basement…where they spend the day playing video games and rooting for their “team” in whatever sports they follow (usually all of them). From time to time, they emerge from below (both literally & metaphorically) to raid the refrigerator. Showers are usually taken on a weekly basis. If not for their moms, the sheets on their beds would remain unchanged indefinitely. They also enjoy the internet; which usually means a steady diet of porn…this tends to create some *really* disgusting white stains on the carpet. They sometimes frequent the so-called “Manosphere”…where they spend the day inveighing against females…betraying their bitter V-envy…and failing to realize that feminine power is something from which the male cannot and will never escape. *bitchy smirk* This daily routine (to describe it charitably) persists until somebody upstairs finally grows weary of playing maid to an individual often as much as 20 years beyond the age of majority…and requests that they vacate the premesis immediately if not sooner.

        16. Yeah. You’re definitley still reeling… That’s a manifesto you typed there.

        17. Yes, well your razor sharp wit…extraordinary insights…along with riding the “c*ck carousel” all day just proved too much for me to handle…
          *rolls her eyes*

      2. The SPLC exists purely to hate on White males. That is its primary objective, anything is just window dressing.

    1. Thank you for stating the obvious. Now just wait until someone finds out where Mark Potok resides. Hint, it’s no where near any section 8 housing.

  5. Prediction #4 can not be reconciled with your predictions about changing demographics. Obesity is a huge, huge problem in the black and hispanic community, much less so among whites. More blacks and mexicans = more fat, diabetes, heart disease, soda sales.

    1. in america and certain latin american countries(heavily influenced by american “culture”) perhaps. but most non american black women anywhere else on earth are nowhere near chubby or obese. even in brazil and colombia the black women are the more in shape one among the women.

    2. ‘Much less so among whites’? A little less so, at best. White Americans are pigs too, 80% of the time. It’s a joke all around.

      1. white american obesity rates are similar to white european obesity rates. multiculturalism is the elephant of a variable in the room. Take a walk through a city. Believe your lying eyes.

  6. #1- Yes, because there is a declining emphasis on assimilation as libtards want us to “accept” everyone for everything and act as if values that contradict what America was founded on should be endorsed.
    #2- No. Blacks and Hispanics are not conservative. They LOVE bigger government so just because they are religious doesn’t mean they will be supporting a government reduction. Also, plenty of children born into conservative families do not remain conservative during their voting life.
    #3- Depends on technological advances. Yes, labor will stop being outsourced, however if it is replaced with a technology that can be located in the US, that won’t improve the labor market that dramatically.
    #4- If medical advances are made that will allow people to be the lazy fucks they are while not getting fat then obesity will decline. However, if no medical breakthrough makes its way into the mainstream, I think obesity will continue in this fat lazy country.
    #5- I agree. China will be a world power but they have their own challenges to overcome. They will grow at a declining rate as does any nation that is a product of its own success.

    1. To point #4, childhood obesity rates are already dropping as parents and pediatricians are more aware of the issues. The obesity prevalence among 2 to 5 year olds has dropped by approximately 40 percent in 8 years—from 14 percent in 2003-04 to 8.4 percent in 2011-12. This is especially encouraging because preventing obesity early in life helps young people maintain a healthy weight into adulthood. About 70% of obese adolescents grow up to become obese adults. So, I think the inflection point on US obesity rates may have already been reached.

    2. Big government is globally a white thing as opposed to a black or Hispanic thing.
      Even socialist Venezuela doesn’t have as high of a living standard for welfare recipients as Canada or Scandinavia.

      1. I’m not addressing that on a global scale. Strictly in the US purview. We aren’t born with assigned political perspectives.

        1. If people of color in their own countries aren’t adopting leftist policies, then there must be a ‘factor X’ that influences them when they migrate to the US.
          Could this factor be white people? White Democrats using them as a political football? And could it also be… that if there were no black people in the US… that they’ll find another group to manipulate? Maybe that’s something to think about.

        2. I have no doubt that the GOP and Dems attempt to use racial issues as motivating factors to galvanize support for their causes.

    3. I guess that depends on what you mean by “conservative”. I assume most minorities vote based on racial interests first, this is true in any country of any race. But it’s pretty obvious that blacks and hispanics are not usually the type to tell you about gender theory or anarchist ideology or any such shit. That’s typically the realm of educated, upper-class whites. Race is simply such a primal ingrained identity that overrides all other differences.

      1. To me conservative is smaller government. To the GOP conservative is the same size government just in different applications than liberals. GOP favorites are defense, surveillance, religion, business, etc.

        1. Government influence is to be conserved. Government officials are the ones to be conserving it from being applied to the people.

  7. Considering that 0bama goes out of his way to throw gasoline on every smoldering racial issue that crops up in this country I’m definitely not surprised with #1.

  8. Athlone is DEAD WRONG about #5 and the scenario with China.
    China WILL be the premier nation of the 21st century because they will soon abolish the one-child policy and allow two again to stave off the future demographics problem. It’s currently in the works.
    Also the Chinese, like their Northeast Asian counterparts the Koreans and Japanese, are the world’s most docile, lowest crime, highest IQ, and socially and ethnically cohesive societies on the planet.
    China will thrive in ways we cant imagine as the decades pass. The USA on the other hand is a wreck. 3rd rate infrastructure, a ponzi economy built on Jewish “Federal” Reserve issued funny money, and surging demographics of low IQ, high crime, zero entrepreneurial, “gibs me dat” types.
    We’re screwed. Become an online entrepreneur like Roosh, and get the hell out of dodge.

    1. The first thing you need to understand about China is that it is run by communists and that communists lie about themselves all the time.

      1. This was the problem we had before the fall of the USSR. The US had so successfully spied on the Soviets that we were reading the same data their leadership was. What we failed to understand was that they were not only lying to us, but to themselves as well. When they fell we found out how weak they had been for a very long time.

      2. Communists who demand a whopping 3% income tax, state and federal combined. Get over the ‘Communist China’ rant. If you want to rant about communists then look down where you’re standing (I’m assuming you’re in the US). The communist country is right where you’re standing, right now. Yeah, China is a big mess in a lot of ways but they have way more sense of freedom right now than we do.

        1. I’m not denying that the US is in dire straits right now. I am saying that the Chinese are not as well off as they’d like you to believe.

        2. I agree with you. China isn’t any kind of awesome machine. But it is a free for all in a lot of ways. I had a Chinese roommate who wanted to start her own business. She fired up a website on GoDaddy in one day and her business was up and running. No licensing, no nothing. That has huge downsides too, though. Even my hero Rush Limbaugh falls for the ‘The Communists are over there’ ruse by the US gov’t. They really aren’t commies, imo. They just let the communist side save face after being obliterated in the communist vs. capitalist cultural showdown. Allowing the losing party to save face is a big deal in Asia. That’s why some old commies get to put on their suits, step out in front of the public every once in awhile and do something innocuous, like ban youtube or something. It’s just a face-saving thing, meanwhile the place is bonkers with capitalism. Put the most staunch libertarian in China and they will be calling for larger government within a week.

    2. The fact that you claim the Chinese are “docile” and that the USA has a 3rd rate infrastructure is demonstrative of a limited exposure to mainland China. They are much more tolerant of violence, especially male on female violence. The country is also rife with infrastructure issues which have already started to slow economic development.

      1. I didn’t notice any issues with that 300 mph Maglev Train when I was in Shanghai that’s for sure!

        1. As overwhelming as your anecdotal evidence is for your case, the lack of infrastructure is being singled out as a major reason for their current economic slowdown. Even more so than increasing prices. This problem will only exacerbate as they continue economic advances.

        2. You were very lucky not to have been one of the many crash victims caused by the low quality of the work installing the railway.

        3. The shanghai maglev is one of the most perfect examples of China. A very expensive, on the order of 1.2 billion dollars, project built for show that has little practical purpose. Think about it, it goes from the air port to Shanghai and that is it. Even worse is that Shanghai stop isn’t anywhere near any of their other transit centers.
          Perhaps most egregious is that the average speed of the maglev doesn’t exceed speeds that are already capable with far cheaper conventional high speed rail already present in both China and in Europe.

    3. It is far too late to stave off the demographic issues in China. It takes a long lead time to turn around an aging population. No matter what they do now they will get old before they get rich. If they did away with the one child rule, which they have already weakened, it would not immediately produce a change in the culture. How long did it take the EU to get to a TFR of 1.45? How long have EU countries been trying to change that?
      Also, a lot of the “growth” in China is artificial and illusory. They have built entire cities that are empty for no reason other than to goose their GDP. The political leaders know they have to make the economy go in order to stay in power. So they will lie as long as they have to, to make it look like they are succeeding.
      However I do agree that the US Ponzi scheme will crash and burn. You just don’t understand how much of a massive lead we have over the number two economy, China. We can fall a long way and still not have China overtake us. And we will fall a long way, and it will be painful like nothing this country has gone through. I hope it will not be as painful and destructive as the social reordering in Russia following the fall of the Soviet Union.

      1. Here is the thing about the currency ponzi scheme, it matters, it will hurt but it’s not going to utterly wipe the US off the map. Countries like Russia have already defaulted in the past and managed to recover due to the fact that they have something the rest of the world wants, it’s resources. The US has an abundance of resources, we have tons of natural gas, timber, minerals and foodstuffs. The US already pays farmers to not grow food so that we don’t bottom out the global market for foodstuffs.
        Really, the people who will lose if we default is China, because they gave us money for digital I.O.Us that we used to build missiles, bombs, tanks, warships and satellites. They have an empty promise and we have tangible goods from the exchange that the Chinese have no way of repossessing.

        1. Countries like Russia have already defaulted in the past and managed to recover due to the fact that they have something the rest of the world wants, it’s resources.

          They also have the means to stave off gunboat diplomacy and force their creditors to take the hit. Otherwise, regularly defaulting on one’s national dept with no means to strong hand the counter party does nothing more than wreak utter havoc on the local economy, as Argentina found out to its profound dismay.
          Now which country right now has the largest capacity at enforcing gunboat diplomacy while simultaneously preventing others from exercising it against itself? Why, the “land of the free” of course.

        2. China has a viable economy though, sure they lose everything they sunk into the American consumer economy in exchange for a bunch of worthless paper, but they still have all their productive capacity.
          The US on the other hand has allowed it’s productive capacity to atrophy and rely on Chinese made goods to maintain it’s standard of living. If the US defaults and the dollar crashes US citizens are looking at a downward correction in living standards to the order of 50%+. What do you think the effects of that will be?

      2. Empty cities are really a symptom of the real estate market, it’s not an attempt at fudging the books. If the communists were really making up numbers, the impact would be felt on the world economy. It’s an unlikely conspiracy. The Chinese economy is already closing in on the US economy, being overtaken is pretty much inevitable at this point.
        Not that I gloat about this, because as far I’m concerned the enemy is the liberal left in the West, not your state. In either case, China has no real intentions to outdo anybody save in wealth accumulation, so there’s really nothing to be threatened by unless you fall so low as to become easy economic prey, like Africa for example.

    4. You can’t become the premiere economy unless you are capable of developing from whole cloth new industries. Something China has not done in the modern era.

    5. How are you screwed when Chinese people don’t give a damn about ‘defeating’ the West. All the average Zhou is looking for is an elevator in his apartment building and a pair of Levis.
      People there also have way lower amounts of college degrees than the West so don’t sweat it.

    6. China doesn’t even have enough food or water for its current population. They can have as many babies as they want; they’ll all starve.

  9. Pretty much agree with most of what is written. I disagree that blacks or Hispanics will outnumber whites though. If conservative whites are starting to out-breed their secular, progressive counterparts, it won’t take long for them to do so with everyone else.
    Blacks are pretty a demographic dead-end at this point. They don’t breed much anyway. Hispanics are starting to go that same route. The only reason they are on an upswing is largely because of mass migration.
    Already we are seeing this in certain areas of the country. In Washington, D.C., for instance, whites are on a huge upswing in having children compared to other demographics in the area.

    1. blacks don’t breed much??? DUDE. They went from just 9% of the U.S. population in 1950 to nearly 14% today due to sheer outbreeding of the white population in that timeframe. That’s friggin’ huge

      1. Cut off the Welfare checks (which will happen when the money runs out) and they will fall back down below 10%.

        1. You clearly don’t know how welfare works do you? Welfare is only for a couple of years, not a lifetime like it once was, cut that shit out.

        2. nah, black women will fall in line once the welfare ends. like all women will fall in line once liberalism gets stamped out.

        3. I would start talking about how there are some 87 different welfare programs, many of which have no time limit. Or that there is always the SSDI scam. But I would be wasting my time.

        4. And I could also remind you how all of the “minority benefits” you probably think blacks receive end up going to white gays, white women, and Chinese and Middle-Eastern immigrants who build mini-marts in black communities which keeps black people’s money from generating amongst black people. But I won’t because I wouldn’t want to ruin your Stormfront-esque false reality of you being better than me because you have (blue, green, hazel) eyes and pale skin. Sit your ass down.

      2. No, that’s from intermarried kids being considered black rather than mixed.
        Black people and white people tend to have similar birth rates, but both European and Hispanic immigrants have higher birth rates. Some Hispanics are also black.

  10. Haha.
    That is wishful thinking for every US hick. The US standard of living has been decreasing for 40 years straight and there is no sign of recovery or reversal. If BRICS nations leave dollar you have another big problem.
    It is weird that the US, while being on the brink of collapse, has a population that thinks everything is going well.

    1. That’s because the upper class that can afford to invest in the Ponzi scheme ARE doing very well. Their money works for them and the rest of society works for them as well.

        1. I think technology will play a much more important role than many understand. Sure, they expect truck drivers and manual laborers to be replaced, but it is going to get really interesting when positions like financial analysts, surgeons, and pilots are replaced by technology.

    1. That would be interesting. They’d be too lazy to farm and too hungry not to resort to cannibalism. Fatty gene pool eradicated, problem solved. Lolz.

  11. Man, the topics are so
    complex. You can fill page after page about every one of them, but here’s my
    1. Racial Tensions in the USA are boiling. In one side
    you have a large urban, poor and degraded Black population kidnapped by Black
    politicians who benefits from exploiting the Civil Rights industry, blaming
    Whites of every disgrace Blacks suffer. While in the other side you have a fed
    up White population who is systematically demonized in media and dispossessed by
    the System to get the resources to have running a Welfare System who now favors
    minorities. Even more, Hispanic (mostly Mexican) population is now the first
    minority in the country and its dynamics can project it to be a relative
    majority in the coming years. Now, I may be wrong, but aside from some very
    conservative White sectors, I feel that White Americans don’t really care about
    America becoming a miscegenated society. What White Americans care the most is the
    loss of the values that made their country the most powerful nation in the
    World. And I think here is where most of the problems come. Law abiding White
    suburban Americans value hard working, a small government and raising children
    under the wedlock; while in the Black ghettos, the Welfare State has created a
    disastrous situation where illegitimacy, drugs and crime are the norm.
    Hispanics share most of the White values and are not that hostile to Whites, so
    I can see some kind of integration between them, also in the Southwest; however,
    in a precarious economic situation as it is now things are just going to get
    2. More than a religious and conservative revival I see
    that the status of some cultural wars is going to swing a little to the right.
    Yes, procreation under the wedlock is going is to be praised again, even
    rewarded. Yes, feminism is going to have some kind of collapse. Yes, some kind
    of control or little restrictions are going to be endured to abortion. Yes, misandry
    is going to slow down or even reversed at some extent. However, I guess we live
    in an era of narcissism where every social group is having its own party, so I
    don’t think a religious movement will be able to consolidate a vast majority of
    the population into a new national state of mind.
    3. All is about the World financial system. We are approaching an economic singularity. The financial system is going to collapse very soon; if after the collapse the World is able to create a productive financial
    system based on free on debt national sovereignty, every national economy will flourish.
    4. Americans cannot be fatter. Any coming change will be a positive one.
    5. Not at all. Same as #3, it’s all about the nature of the coming new financial system which will help to create a multi-polar World, one of those poles to be the Sino-Russian Axis. But, aside from that, China is a 5,000 years civilization, they have always found the way and this time it will be no different. As for the gender imbalance, Chinese have the money to import women from Russia, Central and East Asia; or they can clone their own women.

      1. Oh, I’m sure some fat ass will take you up on that challenge and prove you wrong. Mess up a satellite orbit because they are emitting enough gravity to pull it out of it’s path. Probably mess up the GPS system for months.

  12. Yeah, I see demographic trends heading in those directions as well. For a POC focused view I’m concerned about Latin-style racial stratification:
    I think like there’s more colorism than racism, to where Selena Gomez fits the all-American mold. Where the ‘acceptable guy/girl’ is more often dark / miscegenation than blonde but rarely a pure African, Asian or Indigenous. Like paper bag test.
    Like people who look more different are dissed more in this system. Like people got pissed off when the dark Indian girl won Miss America. But Obama, who is more Eurocentric looking, became the president.
    But, whatever it is, the next 50 years will suck ass for those of us who are atheists, working class whites, or people of color.

  13. Wishful thinking.
    Fiat money expansion is a giant bomb that will explode taking vast swaths of wealth with it. When the panic comes, there will be massive changes.
    All of Americas historic wealth will be gone, and there’ll probably be a War against Uncle Sam’s attempt to seize new wealth.
    As for race relations: as soon as Mexicans stay here to get a class consciousness, they’ll turn into liberals’ preferred minority. The civil rights movement is over. NYC, San Francisco already more segregated in housing than the Jim Crow South ever was. Combined with low fertility/high distinction, and black will be sitting ducks when people repeat the Compton, CA ethnic cleansing across America.
    The only wild card is if the future USA has open borders for the exploding African population.

  14. I think there’s a certain group of people who are putting way too much faith in interracial children to solve the racial conflict in the USA. I don’t believe these children will make a bit of difference because:
    1. Black America is already interracial. African-Americans are not 100% African. They are a mix of African and European DNA. Most whites in my experience see interracial children simply as “black.” Look at Barack Obama, he’s 50% white but White America pretty much just sees a black man.

    2. At best Racism will be replaced with Colorism. Black America has an entire language to describe skin tone that whites just don’t have. How many whites know what “redbone” is? How many whites know what “high yellow” is? What’s not really talked about, is in the black community lighter-skinned blacks are generally seen as more attractive and higher status than dark-skinned blacks.

    3. Humans will always find differences no mater how small. This is because life is actually a genetic competition. I think a good example of this is the Rwandan Genocide. I’d be surprised if anyone here could tell the difference between a Hutu and Tutsi, yet one slaughtered the other on a massive scale.

    There’s a lot of people who think the so-called “browning of America” is going to resolve racial tensions. I don’t think it will make one bit of difference. Diversity doesn’t actually create peace, it creates tension. Iceland is extremely peaceful, but it’s also the most genetically homogeneous place on Earth. A professor named Robert Putnam found that diversity actually caused people to be less trusting of each other and their neighbors. If you think about it, in a diverse community the genetic stakes are higher, and I think that’s real the source of tension.

    1. I think the Latin-style “browning of America” through ethnic mixing is going to definitely cause problems.
      White people might not know terms like redbone, but they do subconsciously discriminate less against POC with more Eurocentric features.
      Hence why Obama is more acceptable than a dark black guy with broader features would be.
      Regardless, diversity does create tension. As an Asian immigrant, I’m not sure what I should do about this except for the bigots’ recommendation to go back to my country.
      Assimilation is going on, but it’s more on the margins – like light skinned Hispanics, mixed race Asians, non-Muslim Arabs, guys that look and sound like Obama, etc.

    2. Somebody brought up Iceland and peacefulness before. Yet homogenous people throughout history have constantly invaded other places, causing lots of tension. To to use Iceland in current times as a way of proving that white people are less violent, more peaceful, or whatever way people want to say are inherently better than any other group throughout time is comical.
      Many things have gone into shaping the world along cultural and racial lines, including plain ol’ geography.
      Orania. Well I guess a place like that does work for the time being. If you can gather control of wealth, resources, and the distribution of them. Then build a place where only those that are in that position of control or have a commonality with them, and only allow them to live there. But of course, you have to not reveal all that went into making the ability to create that possible. Which hardly ever happens.

      1. Actually, my point about Iceland had nothing to do with whiteness but because they’re the most homogenous population in the world. When everyone is just like you, genetically, there’s little need for competition, now is there? Aggression towards outsiders? Well those are the people who are not like you, now aren’t they? I think you read some “white supremacy” into a point where there wasn’t any. What does that say about you?

  15. When the collapse of the dollar comes and food prices skyrocket the EBT lifestyle stops, the gas pumps stop, and just getting enough hideous for you Monsanto poison to stay alive will be the concern of the day. In such a situation whites are not “marginalized” they are waging massive bloody street battles fighting over resources with the blacks and Hispanics. If the government leaves well enough alone the whites win quickly over the blacks who starve. If the government interferes and goes robin hooding in the white communities to keep the blacks fed while turning a blind eye to large scale attacks by blacks on whites then revolution or extermination.

    1. What a bunch of ignorant, Ron Paul-style propaganda. The U.S. dollar can’t “collapse” unless the IRS refuses to accept it as payment for taxes and all levels of government in the U.S. refuse to prosecute people who steal dollars by, for example, robbing convenience stores. The dollar has value precisely because of this political construction.

      1. The dollar has value because people accept it for goods and services you moronic fuck. Right now you need it to buy oil – if you needed something else to do it the dollar would already be worthless. Zimbabwe accepted the Zimbabwe dollar for taxes as did all levels of government right up until the end but of course that’s beyond the U.S. border so there be dragons right?

  16. This is absolute horse shit. The only thing that will be coming is the inevitable economic collapse. Jobs are being constantly replaced by technology and outsourced. Also factor in the skyrocketing costs of living and hyper inflation, and well… you can see where this is all going. This is the end point of our civilization. The death of the middle class and the cultural and economic collapse of our society.
    The Anti Christ will soon arrive. Brace yourselves.

      1. Read some outdated 3,000 year old text. You know, the one that created the anti-christ. It prob has some keen advice on the topic. Maybe sacrifice your 1st born, or some shit like that.

        1. What is wrong with the collation of Bronze Age levant myths AKA the Old Testament? Most were written down less than 2,000 years ago.

  17. Think china dropped their one child policy so gender ratios should be back to normal then.

  18. Having lived in China for about 3 years, and counting, I can safely say that most people don’t know shit about China and this place will not challenge America’s position in any way. If I wasn’t on a restricted, slow-as-hell connection, I’d explain more, but anyone who has ever spent a meaningful amount of time in China knows what I am talking about.

    1. Thank you. I visited for two weeks and all this China threat is complete bullshit. They have a lot more problems than those who have never been realize.

      1. Yes, 90+% of the population here is simply incompetent. Inefficient, corrupt, backwards, uncivilized, etc. are just a few ways to describe things here. The whole China superpower thing is only propagated by uninformed speculators who have never set foot in the place.

    2. I’ve lived there and I know what you mean. There is a degree of thoughtlessness and immaturity, especially among males, that Americans could never even imagine. Chinese brains are simply on ‘snooze’ for 90% of their waking life, especially when behind the wheel. Witnessing the FIRST car in line at a stoplight blasting the shit out of his horn when the light turns green, as in ‘get moving assholes!’ is about the lowest point in the history of the human brain.

  19. These predictions:
    – Wishlist for aging and whiny PUA’s who’ve sullenly drank from the consurrvative kool-aid, yes.
    – Reality-based: Nah.

  20. The Chinese have created a monster. The well-intentioned one-child policy led directly to an imbalance in the population distribution of the sexes because of a cultural preference for male children. In the near future, up to one fifth of Chinese men will not be able to get laid. I shudder to think what the results of that will look like, but we’re all going to witness it in our lifetimes. For a demographic projection, see “Marriage Squeeze in China’s Future” at

    1. They could turn gay, what’s the big deal? plenty of good looking and/ or charming men. If China allows gay adoption they could have families as well

      1. They already are going gay in droves as they has always been latent anyway. Male worship cultures are basically gay from the start.

    2. Without the 1CP, China would have the economic strength of Somalia. A lot of non-Western countries, like India and Iran, have family planning programs.
      It’s a double edged sword but it’s better than living in the Star Trek episode “The Mark of Gideon”.

      1. This is actually debatable. There is every possibility that Chinese fertility rates may have fallen to present levels absent the one-child policy. Just about every nation in China’s neighborhood has gotten to sub-replacement fertility without their own respective 1CP’s.

        1. Except, most of China isn’t like Japan and Korea. Japan has a long history of widespread literacy, while China has a long history of non-widespread literacy.
          Much of China is more like Burma and Cambodia. Without the 1CP, which was bundled with policies like compulsory schooling and mandatory employment, the birth rate might be at Indian levels but no lower.
          Especially with the deleterious “baby boom” policy which the 1CP was supposed to correct.

  21. I was hoping Ebola would get out of hand, and maybe shave off a few billion people from mother earth. Great population losses (see medieval plagues) often boost labor demand and costs, creating a stronger middle class.

    1. They’d probably quarantine the areas where its worst, limiting its spread and wiping those parts out. So generally speaking, it wouldn’t do shit for labor forces at all.

  22. China has its problems but the population is racially homogenous, they will stick together even if they get poorer again. Whereas the “united” states are not united.

  23. From what I understand, whites haven’t even been a predominant race for the majority of human history. During the time of their predominance, however, look at how quickly we’ve advanced…

  24. Wow…the lack of research and though in this post is staggering.
    1. Increased racial tensions in the US. The data shows the opposite. Interracial crime is falling not rising.
    2. We are not becoming more religious, we are becoming less religious. Since 1998 (according to a Gallup pole) the percent of American’s not believing in god has nearly tripled from 6% to 15%. This is a good thing…countries that are less religious are happier (Norway is number 1).
    3. Recovery of American Industry. Unfortunately this isn’t going to happen. Three trends will make sure this doesn’t happen. 1) Our population gets dumber every year as the smartest reproduce the least and the dumbest reproduce the most, 2) the government makes the business environment more and more hostile and makes it harder for any business to grow and flourish and 3) government entitlements will continue to grow and make it less and less appealing for people to pursue opportunities in the US.
    4. Marginalization of fat people and that Americans will become less fat. Not a fucking chance. Childhood obesity has more than quadrupled in the last 40 years, is over 36% now and is projected to be over 50% by 2030. We will continue to get fatter. And in a democracy, majority rules.
    5. China to become stagnant. Asia will produce 40% of the worlds economic output by 2015. China will surpass the US in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) by as early as 2017 but for certain before 2020. We are basically the British in the 19th century. We had it all but squandered it with shitty governance. America will become marginalized (as England is now in the EU let alone the world stage) and China will become dominant. Sad but true. Pretending otherwise won’t fix it.

    1. Your reply is a regurgitation of mass media concepts that are incredibly misleading. And as far as research is concerned, edit your post and provide some links. He may be wrong but he’s making a prediction that is based off the extensive thought and study that is evident in each of his many posts. he’s also making some very insightful claims that soundly echo redpill thinking and the mentality of this blog IMHO. McGinnis, your articles get more and more poignant each time.

      1. How is an article that doesn’t support any of his claims that are so clearly at odds with pretty much any data one can find “based off…extensive thought and study”?
        I mean saying America is going to get thinner? Fucking retarded.

        1. I think it’s a pretty counter-intuitive post on the surface, however, look at the explosion of things like crossfit (and the crossfit games). I could point at Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity program but I don’t really consider that to be a valid submission since the government often says one thing but advocates another. The sense behind thinning of America is based off a few things, in my mind:
          1) Racial conflict, like any conflict, tends toward an environment of rigor and preparedness (as in people who live in a dangerous place will tend to focus more on self-defense than watching tv)
          2) People are rebelling against the “sedentary lifestyle” that the baby boomers created. Look at the popularity of standing desks
          3) Your prediction of economic decline doesn’t coincide with your concern about increasing obesity. Poorer countries don’t have many fat people.
          The comment “fucking retarded” is a signifier of emotional- based mentality and doesn’t indicate a strong level of logical left-brain thinking. Also, it’s rude. Make a real argument, stop calling people names n shit.

        2. I made my argument. The argument is that the data is black and white with regard to obesity. It has to do with portion size, the processing of food and American’s overall level of laziness that continues to increase as more and more tax payer dollars are spread to those who don’t work.
          So let me see if I understand your argument. You are saying that American’s will get thinner because:
          1) They are getting ready for race riots so will now trim down so they are ready to do battle?
          2) The problem is baby boomers being far? Have you even looked at childhood obesity numbers…they continue to climb so that clearly is dead wrong
          3) When America is in economic decline they will become thinner because we are poorer. Again, makes no sense. Look at the UK. Their obesity rates continue to climb even as they become less and less economically strong

        3. That’s incredibly reductive. First of all, yes, those are some possible reasons that the prediction will be accurate. Furthermore, everything tends to move in a cycle. There’s a plethora of historical evidence that shows similar trends between the decline of a predominant race and things like our rates of obesity, our acceptance of homosexuality, our allowance of feminism.
          What’s interesting about this prediction is that it proposes the decline of the white race and white anglo-american culture without an all-encompassing global decline. His point often seems to be that fate of the entire world isn’t tied to the decline of white America. I think it’s a fair point. Also, I think he’s saying that the factors you’re citing are really affecting whites the most. While the rate of obesity is high in blacks, the rate of reproduction is high enough to compensate for the decline that obesity and welfare introduces to their communities.
          And yes, if race riots become a threat, white men will gear up for battle. I’m not saying that in a threatening sort of way but I see that happening.

        4. Greek, Roman, and Carthaginian records show an increase in obesity, homosexuality, and feminism right before the decline of their empires. Check out “rise and fall of the roman empire” and “How should we then live” by Francis Schafefer.

        5. Dude, seriously? Francis Schafefer? They guy that didn’t believe in evolution? lol.
          Please don’t tell me you don’t believe in evolution and think the world is 6,000 years old. Because if you do, well there really isn’t any point in a debate based on science, reason and logic.

        6. Macroevolution is bunk and so is literal biblical history. If you do your research (you don’t since you’re too busy fucking underage girls, worshiping money, and boasting on internet forums) the preponderance of evidence points to humankind being a genetically engineered species.
          Lol, and don’t bother with mainstream scientific articles subject to the control of the intelligence community and elites, lol.

        7. If humans were engineered, we were engineered by someone that didn’t know what the fuck they were doing.

        8. I accept evolution as the current most valid theory. But jesus, you need to get a medal in reductive thinking. It’s astonishing how you take complex thought and distill it into tedious drivel. A bright future at fox news awaits you.

        9. That’s hundreds of hours of research there, buddy. Google is your friend. Jim Marrs, Zecharia Sitchin, Erick Von Daniken are good starting points, and so is the alternative media. Also take note of the flaws in Darwin’s Marcoevolution theory.

        10. I don’t know why you keep linking white nationalism/supremacy with biblical literalism. Once the pretty lies of the tribe are discarded there’s very little to protect the vibrants from the wrath of heavily armed and organized whites.

        11. It’s a sci-fi idea that is more plausible than the bible. I discount it though. My assessment is that each individual could be the fount of a new species.

        12. Scientific literacy is my friend. Also none of these people are presenting anything that hasn’t been proposed by real scientists such as Carl Sagan. Evolution has never been refuted and remains the most viable of all scientific discoveries. Much more so than ones governing gravity.

        13. “Scientific literacy” is subject to corruption. That’s the point the science-lovers invariably miss, time and time again.

        14. No it isn’t. Science is objective. If you don’t like the findings you are open to conducting your own experiments.

        15. I should’ve known by your avatar your predisposed bias.
          If your funding sources don’t like your studies or findings, good by to the funding.
          If your funding sources don’t like your studies or findings and you still try to publish them, say hello to biased peer review members (also under influence of said funding sources)
          If you’re a scientist and your personal identity is wrapped up in your field of study, say hello to confirmation bias supporting your preconceived notions.
          Here’s a pic of Darwin, a 33rd degree Mason:

          A real gentleman, wouldn’t you say?

        16. Scientist’s are not. Look what happened to Watson (Watson and Crick) after he suggested that blacks are inferior.

        17. Something tells me that your hostility is built in as a feature. I’m certainly not expecting to convince a Stone. You can’t get blood out of a Stone. A Stone doesn’t bleed.

        18. He is ostracized because his positions are highly supportive of eugenics. Much further beyond racial proclivities. I don’t disagree with him or his opinions but I understand why people in the scientific community disagree with his intended applications of genetics.

        19. Nice tu quoque effort. So none of the people you follow have been published anything that can pass a peer review because it is baseless and wouldn’t pass as science. I understand.

        20. Im not arguing he isn’t objective. He’s also said as much that East Asians and Jews have statistically significant deviation above the average.

        21. In the diaspora of either group. Israel and bumfuck areas of China are not all that special. But yeah, Watson is very direct.

        22. Over the past 5 years they have Increased. Due to some extreme interventions they have leveled out for a couple of years but as soon as Obama is out of office they will climb again.
          Regardless, even with the plateaued numbers the rates will increase as children (at the current levels) are fatter than their parents.

        23. How is a plateau getting thinner? My point was at the CURRENT levels (because kids are fatter than their parents) the obesity rates will rise.

  25. If there are any real white men left in USA the most likely development is that we’ll see more all-white enclaves similar to the new one – Orania in South Africa.
    1. Orania is based on White labor. No Blacks are used as servants or in any other manner.
    2. Orania has established it own local banking system and currency, the Ora (Ø).
    In a paper published in 2009 on the economy of Orania, Ronald Mears, Professor of Economics at the University of Johannesburg, described the community as an example of a flourishing economy that utilizes a local currency, the Ora (Ø), and a co-operative bank, owned entirely locally. Mears wrote: “The driving force in Orania is self-help within a Christian National culture, where skilled people initiate projects with their own labor and money.” Orania does not take anything from the state, and finances all local development itself.
    Another primary concept of Orania is ecologically based development, including a focus on self-generating alternative power sources such as wind and solar energy. Mears points out that all buildings have to be equipped with a solar heating system, and each home has a water catchment tank.

    1. Wow, interesting stuff. This is a great thread and even if you don’t agree with the guy it’s thought provoking as hell.

    2. Sounds like the Nation of Islam. All they need is some bean pies and guys in suits.

        1. So, you think that “Balkanization” (diversity) is bad, and i agreed that diversity is bad… so we, both share the same view.

        2. Lolol I consider Balkanization as bad, but not blacks and whites being friends or living in the same area.
          I like rap, as well as rock. I like rap and rock mixed. I like white rappers like Eminem and black rockers like Jimi Hendrix.
          Therefore I like diversity, but not Balkanization. It would be an awful world if Hendrix had not existed.

        3. Your username is abstract, too complex to come out from the mush of a nigger (this mush imitates real human brain), and yet you spew hateful shit about blacks and whites being “friends”…
          Why? It will lead to conflict.
          I hate racism, the answer to racism is separatism or ethnic cleansing. The latter was practiced many times in the Balkans, it has a positive social effect.

  26. Good article – all predictions plausible. The only caveat if China decides for an all out military attack on the States – if they were ballsy enough. The losses would be great on both sides, but the chinese forces are larger.
    That and Islam. Yes islam will grow but having read the koran if find islam not a peaceful religion (no offense meant I’m just being honest) and according to them that no other religions are allowed. How soon then as various communities in America become Sharia compliant will we see local mandated tearing down of churches and synagogues?

    1. That (islam observation) actually coincides with a large interest by blacks in islam. Maybe a few decades (or centuries?) from now we’ll see the beginning of a large african-american islamic/christian split society.

      1. Blacks joining Islam humours me. No society has enslaved more blacks than Arab society.

        1. Ha! that’s pretty good. However, I’d like to point out what is even truer: No society has enslaved blacks more than blacks. Where did the first slaves come from? Oh yeah, the African warlords who sold millions of slaves to the Arabs and eventually the Dutch.

        2. At a certain point I’d even say “Arabs” in regards to slaving. The Arabs liked to buy them, but they were not slave brokers. That was an ethnic speciality even within the Ummah.

  27. As much as certain people hate to admit it, white flight is real. If you want a perfect example, take a little google trip, and look up Cairo, Illinois. I’ve got a feeling that a lot of European countries, particularly the predominantly white ones in Eastern Europe, will see a large influx of white American immigrants in my lifetime.

  28. 2. If religiosity were to increase, it would probably come from Catholic latinos
    4. I’m not saying this just because I’m Chinese, but even a stagnant China would far eclipse the US in economic size. If China outputs even half what Japan outputs, it would be nearly double the US economy. The gender balance has never really been an issue either. A few million excess men sounds like a lot, but it’s really only a tiny percentage, something like 0.2% of the population

  29. You are right on 1/5 – on the first points. All other “predictions” are wishful thinking. I recommend Jacques Attali “A brief History of the Future” and other well-connected “consultants” who have positions above the political figurehead-level. The last 4 points you mentioned will be happening in reverse to what you predict. I guess the remaining question will be on which side of the economic battle-front most people will find themselves:

  30. What’s the deal with the latent white supremacism and some people on this site? Yes, most people on planet earth are not white Anglo-Saxons. Yes we are blending. Deal with it. It’ not 1950 anymore and never will be again. Horrifying thought on the conservatives outbreeding the liberals though. Idiotacracy could be very real.

      1. What ignorance, Dawson? Please elaborate.
        Does black or latino pride equal black supremacism or latino supremacism?

        1. I was referring to the ignorance being displayed in people’s comments on here.
          There are people that believe whites are superior, that the world is 6,000 years old, that natural selection is made up, that obese people will decide by the tens of millions to get skinny, that China won’t be a superpower…does anyone on here read a fucking book not written by a religious fundamentalist?
          To your question, any for of pride based on race, religion, or culture IMO is fundamentally destructive besides being completely irrational.
          Why would an Italian have pride over Christopher Columbus discovering America. Or a Jew about Einstein. Or an Indian about Ghandi. Or a Macedonian about Mother Theresa. The fact that you were randomly born to a particular set of parents doesn’t mean shit. Have pride (or shame) about how you life your life, not the accomplishments of others that through sheer randomness happen to share some for of background with you.

        2. Good post. The problem with “white supremacism” is that it’s used as a slag to induce White Guilt, which is a tool of the Frankfort School guys to introduce multiculturalism and subvert european, christian society.

        3. Most white nationalists are perfectly comfortable with the implications of Darwin’s theory. Once Christians stop believing in common humanity derived from God they would probably begin slaughtering blacks on sight.

        4. Most white nationalists are perfectly comfortable with the implications of Darwin’s theory. Once Christians stop believing in common humanity derived from God they would probably begin slaughtering blacks on sight.

      2. Perhaps you’re right Dawson. It makes red pill ideas and articles look dumb. Lamenting the fact that this isn’t just a white man’s world anymore reeks of insecurity and weakness. Also complete irrelevance. To me red pill ideas are about how we in the 21st century reach our full potential as men, not romanticizing clearly silly and erroneous ideas of the dark and recent past.

      3. It’s not ignorance that propels the white supremacism you see. It’s bitter and hard won experience on a local national and international level.

        1. WTF does that mean? It means this is not a fucking mainstream website. If you want an article where the comments are policed for political correctness, then you came to the wrong website. I don’t think the Jews are running the world, but I laugh when people post that shit. But they’re free to believe what they want. The manosphere is a culture of free, uncensored ideas because nowhere else permits it. If you’re a leftist, then go to a website that filters their comments, respects your sensitivity, and gives you the confirmation bias you seek.

        2. I am not expecting for anything to be filtered. But when someone shows their complete lack of knowledge and show a breathtaking level of ignorance they deserve to be mocked…and they will be!

  31. A majority non-White country won’t be able to sustain itself. Third world countries are hell holes for a reason–their populations have low IQs. Mass immigration was imposed on this country by elites from above; Whites never voted to be displaced in their own country. The US will either degenerate into being a bigger Brazil or it will break up into several smaller nations, either way, there will be blood, blood, and more blood.

    1. Have you ever heard of India? China?
      In case you missed it they are majority non-white countries and have been around for a fuckload longer than the US. China for about 5000 years or so. That’s 20X longer than the US for those that are mathematically challenged.
      And the Chinese and Indians are smarter than the caucasians…pure IQ wise.
      Read a fucking book or something.

      1. I do have respect for Chinese achievements. The West, however, is not being inundated my high IQ Chinese people. I also respect the Indians, whose civilization was founded by Aryans–White people who established the caste, that is, the racial system. I read that in a fucking book or something. It is not a coincidence that America has gone into steep decline since the 60s, when feminism and racial egalitarianism became the dominating dogmas of the pseudo-religion of liberalism. The day is coming when Whitey is going to answer the tiresome complaint: “You rayciss!” with: “Yup, what the fuck are you going to do about it?” Racial differences are so obvious, only brain-washed lemmings can pretend otherwise. Calling someone a “racist” for noticing racial differences is like calling someone an “Eastist” for noticing where the sun rises. Liberal egalitarianism is unsustainable because it’s false, it’s that simple.

        1. Oh really…and what fucking book was it exactly? lol
          YOU were the one that said only white societies weren’t shit holes not me. Backpedal much?
          The downfall isn’t feminism or racial egalitarianism but political. We become more and more socialist every year.
          And I totally agree there are differences in races (and gender). I don’t pretend otherwise and NOTHING I have written says otherwise. It isn’t racist to say that the blacks are more athletic than whites. It IS RACIST to say to a black person, “You must be good at basketball.” It isn’t racist to say that jewish people are more well educated and wealthier. It is racist to say to a jewish person you just met, “Jewish…you must be rich.”
          The issue is that people are too intellectually lazy to evaluate every person as an individual instead of applying our biases about what might be generally true about a jew, black, latino, italian, etc.

        2. Okay Rabbi. I think your origin and destination is fairly obvious by now.
          You sound like you in your late 20s. When you rediscover the religion of your forefather or your mom remember this little discussion and consult your own ethnic traditions as a guide.

        3. The day has come for me. I’m I’m called a racist/sexist/whateverist, I just reply Yeah? Sup?

        4. Comrade,
          I have no fear, bro.. Should you and I meet in an open arena, I would respect you, bro… For I, as a quite handsome White boy, have ploughed my way through many a lovely African-American-girl, and, no offense, bro, but your girls have an itch for White cock that is truly amazing.
          Now, if you want to be a true bro and fight for revolution, than I will stand beside you against the eternal enemy of mankind, the infernal Jew; there are things about your people, (if you are a negro) that are truly amazing. I respect you for who you are, Comrade. You guys are amazingly creative, and I respect you for the talents that come naturally to your race.
          Your people and mine will happily co-exist if we come together against the infernal enemy; those who enslaved your ancestors are the same as those who enslave us all in debt-slavery.
          Think about it, bro, lot’s of things about your race are truly great and admirable, and I myself am an admirer of the achievements of your people, but if you have balls in your black scrotum, let’s fight against the true evil, you and I wil strive forth together, and, in the spirit of universal amity, let’s name the true evil for what it is: the infernal Jew.

  32. Multiculturalism does not work. Have a look at this video about Orania and see what works:

    1. The problem isn’t multiculturalism. The problem is CULTURALISM. Having pride in your race, religion or culture makes no sense. How can you have pride in something you didn’t pick? It makes absolutely no sense.
      Religion and culturalism divide people and that is fundamentally bad and it is without rationale.

      1. Your assumption is that in multiculturalism the different cultures are friendly towards one another. Let’s take the KKK and force them to sit next to the Black Panthers. Multiculturalism! What “multiculturism” actually does is it destroys real culture. Take for example, Harlem in New York. A great enclave of black culture. Now let’s move in a bunch of white hipsters. Multiculturalism! No dumb ass, you just ruined something that was unique and great, and now it’s just like every other hipster enclave in the nation. You can only have actual multiculturalism if the cultures aren’t forced together, otherwise they’ll mix and become one giant monolithic culture without diversity. Diversity comes from respecting our differences, NOT by forcing them together.

        1. What about mixed race or mixed-culture people? What about people who don’t really act like their ‘culture’, like Eminem? Most importantly, what about Western guys in Russia lol?

        2. What are you talking about? Who is forcing cultures to fuse?
          And I am not assuming cultures are friendly…exactly the opposite. If you actually READ what I wrote I am saying that culturalism is the problem. People have pride over something that makes no sense. Why have pride over something you didn’t pick?
          If there was only one race, one culture and one religion (doesn’t even matter which one) we would all be better off. Humans use race, religion and culture as a way to create an “identity.” This is irrational on every level if one even examines it for 30 seconds.

        3. There will NEVER be one race, one religion, or one culture. It’s that kind of insane reasoning that leads to genocide, religious crusades, and loss of identity. I don’t want to be like everyone else in the world, do you?

        4. Mixed race people generally have a poor sense of identity and are at greater risk of suffering from mental health problems. They experience racism from both of the races they are apart of. I think the reason for this is because they are a symbol of a “multiculturalism” pill that’s being forced down people’s throats, which many in society don’t want and didn’t ask for.

        5. Sigh…I never said there would ever be once race/religion/culture. I was simply saying we would all be better off if there was one. Not through genocide and/or ethnic cleansing but through assimilation.
          And of course I don’t want to be like everyone else. That’s impossible anyway. But race, religion and culture don’t make us different. It is an artificial divide. I want to be valued for how I live my life and treat others and NOT for anything random that I had nothing to do with.

        6. You do realize that we were all the same animal at one time, right? The races are versions of the same human that evolved for different environments. (Note, for example, the prevalence of dark skinned people near the equator and the prevalence of light skinned people near the poles.) You do realize that, sooner or later, the races will diverge again, right? Outsourcing genes from one part of the world doesn’t necessarily benefit the natives of another part of the world who are evolved for their environment. Bring lighter skin to a part of the world with lots of sun and you’ll reintroduce skin cancer. Nature will select against them.
          Same with culture. It’s destined to diverge. You said the world would be better if everyone was the same, which is absolutely ridiculous and completely unrealistic. It’s just not even possible, so why bring it up? The only real option is to learn to respect the differences of others, and let them live in peace and preserve their senses of identity. When you start forcing your worldview down others throat you will, sooner or later, anger people into violence.

        7. Sigh…I was trying to make a fucking point. Of course there won’t be one race, religion or culture.
          The problem is that people insist on feeling they are somehow special. Race, religion or culture. It is artificial and divisive. When you have muslims thinking everyone else will go to hell and christians thinking the muslims are going to hell and everyone thinking the hindus are going to hell…not exactly the basis for a peaceful existence.
          Race, religion and culturism is what divides people and causes deaths by the millions.
          The real fool is the one that thinks that the randomness of the race, religion or culture they are born to gives them an identity.

        8. The nature of Evolution by Natural Selection is strife, competition, and conflict. The nature of man is domination. People don’t want to be equal with others, they just say they do. It’s a fad. People honestly want to be the top dog. They want to be seen as better, more desirable, more important than everyone else. I get what you’re trying to say, but your ideals are from lala land, and belong on somewhere like HuffPost, because they are not in touch with the realities of planet Earth.
          I certainly identify myself by those things because it is what’s shaped me and my outlook on the world, although in my case it would be a lack of religion. You’re a fool if you think those things don’t shape your identity.

        9. You mean the made-up, imaginary place religions tell their followers they will end up and burn for all eternity if they don’t blindly follow dogma from centuries ago?
          I know nothing of it. Do you? Please enlighten all of us.

        10. No, you tell me. You appear to think its a critically important part of human conflict.

        11. What do you think of Dante’s Inferno?
          Or Milton’s Paradise Lost?
          You ape literacy, but I doubt you can engage in an intelligent discussion on books like these.

        12. You’re still blue pill man. Come back when you get out of the bargaining phase.

        13. What is the point of preserving either book if they are accounts of fictions like Heaven and Hell?

      2. So…since you don’t have pride in something you didn’t pick, you’re not proud of your manhood. Got it.

        1. lol. I love when someone asks and answers their own question in a debate. It is the first sign of a weak and poorly reasoned argument.
          If you mean my dick (manhood can mean a few things) then I feel lucky. Not proud. They are different. Feeling proud of having a big dick would be retarded.

        2. No I am not. Men have a way better lot in life than women so I feel lucky to be a man not proud. It would make no sense to feel proud about something I had nothing to do with.
          Definition of pride: “a feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one’s own achievements.”
          Being born a man is hardly an achievement and therefor not worthy of pride IMO.

        3. Being a man is different than being born with a dick. It takes time to achieve. It takes work. A man would be proud of that.

        4. Being a man is different than being born with a dick. It takes time to achieve. It takes work. A man would be proud of that.

        5. You asked a poorly formed question. Life takes work. So what? You make “being a man” sound like some “thing” that can be achieved.
          If what you REALLY want to ask me is am I proud of the life I have lived (it happens to be as a man but that was chosen for me)?
          Since I don’t believe in free will, the answer is still “no.” I am happy that I was lucky enough to be born intelligent, athletic, reasonably attractive and into a household that would allow me to pursue my desires. But all of that is luck, not skill. I didn’t chose my DNA and I didn’t chose the circumstances into which I was born. Luck not skill.

        6. You don’t believe in free will? So you’re just a lucky puppet with a chip on his shoulder…You are being defensive as hell as evidenced by your constant assertions of having all these wonderful traits (big wiener, prettyness, wicked shmarts) and I wonder why you feel the need to prove all this if you are so blessed by fate.
          The comment about free will is the only nugget of interest there. Your views do make more sense, I suppose, if you believe that. What do you propose we are governed by then if not our own will?

        7. I feel no need to prove anything. I am simply making my arguments.
          Things change based on natural selection and there is randomness that cannot be controlled for. There have been 5 mass extinctions that have occurred on this planet. Shit happens. We are here by chance. Nothing more. Eventually we won’t be here any longer. So what? Let’s enjoy it while it lasts.
          We should be governed by allowing people to be free to live their lives as they wish without the government getting in the way and in a way that keeps people from hurting each other. It appears as free will but it isn’t. Natural selection happens in political systems too. Ours is dying now and will be replaced (hopefully) with a better one.

        8. …Ok, I’m all for a less intrusive government. I think natural selection is a logical concept that applies well to nature and politics. Well, no shit. But how does that prevent you from having free will while you’re alive?

        9. Too much to type in a comment. If you really are interested read Free Will by Sam Harris. He makes a stunningly logical argument for the total lack of free will.

        10. I’m interested. I’m spinning up on some reviews right now and I might have to add it to my reading list.
          How exactly did you get into this school of thought?

        11. I watched a few of his videos on YouTube. Started with Christopher Hitchens and graduated to Sam Harris. His debates with religious leaders are fucking hilarious. He makes them look retarded.

        12. Did you have a point in one of my arguments to refute or was that too challenging for your limited intellect?
          But REALLY impressed with your knowledge of urban dictionary. Your parents must be proud.

        13. I think the concept of god and organized religion is a force of destruction in the world. They say if you want to get a really good person to do something truly awful you need religion.

        14. Well, you echo a real concern there I think. I remember being forced to go to Sunday school and I could always tell that something these people blindly believed didn’t add up. They told me I was evil for wanting to be popular with girls, trying to make money, etc.
          Why should I believe something because it’s in an old book right?
          I hear ya brother, there’s some pretty heavy pressure to conform there. We’re you raised by religious parents?

        15. Well look man, I get where your coming from. I’m not a fan of religion, I’ve had bad experiences with it and it can have a lot of negative output.

        16. Remove Christianity from the European man and he becomes a killing machine. Count on it.

        17. I had an idea it was something like that.
          You know that Hitchen’s “discovered” he was Jewish at 40. His mother kept it a “secret”. Yah right. Typical stuff. It took you a while to reveal something that your ideology betrayed.

        18. Quite the opposite. Religion (believing in divined command theory) is what is necessary to get otherwise good people to do bad things. Especially mass murder. Look to the Muslims now.
          Hitler was a catholic as was over a 1/3 of the German population at the time. “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”) was on the belt buckle of every German soldier.

        19. National Socialists quite clearly had deep disagreements with Christianity. Your boilerplate about the belt buckle is standard liberal horseshit. Hitler’s Catholic upbringing in the Multicult of the Austro-Hungarian Empire is a lot less important to his policy positions than Evolutionary theory.
          It’s very hard to imagine the Nazis without reference to Francis Galton or Charles Darwin. They took eugenics to a level that Christianity is simply incomparable with.

        20. Your genetics are not random. They are the accumulation of generations of decisions by your ancestors. The family life you enjoy a product of eugenics. I mean that in the Greek form of the word too.

        21. I wonder which religion Hitchens would have exterminated first.
          Christianity? Most likely. Next Islam? Perhaps. Hindu next?
          Do you think he’d have left Judaism for last? I do.
          In what order would you obliterate the religions? Serious question.

        22. You miss the point entirely. While Hitchen’s was Jewish by birth he was an atheist. A devout atheist in fact.
          The goal wouldn’t be to obliterate the people that are religious but the beliefs themselves. One would hope that intelligent people could see how ludicrous it is to believe in something based on bad evidence.
          So in an ideal world (won’t happen of course) they would all be obliterated simultaneously through logic and rationality.

        23. Darwin was totally unnecessary for the Nazis to do what they did.
          And you clearly have a horrible understanding of the history of Christianity. You have heard of the crusades right? 2 million were killed which would be the equivalent of 35 million based on today’s population.

        24. The Crusades were a belated counter attack. It took Christianity around 400 years to get around to a concerted counter attack against Islam. Have I heard of the Crusades? I understand them as a partisan of the European and occidental point of view. Christianity required.400 years of bullying to begin to defend itself.

        25. Sure, a principles atheist. Sure he was. As soon as he found out he said he consulted a Rabbi.

        26. You must be joking? Did you even take 8th grade debate?
          My actual point was that Hitler and the Nazis would have been focused on bloodlines and eugenics regardless of Darwin. Find a single fucking example of Hitler referencing Darwin you fucking retard. Read a fucking book!

        27. Are you fucking kidding me? Killing today’s equivalent of 35 million people? You make my fucking point. Religion is a force of evil and destruction in the world.
          Again, get a fucking free library card and read a fucking book you uneducated retard.

        28. You are joking right? seriously fella…
          Here’s a quote from Darwin about racial extermination:
          “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man)

        29. Do you know anything about the spread of Islam in the Eastern Med, North Africa and Iberia, not to mention the Balkans?
          From 600-1100 Christians were reeling from defeat to defeat. The institution was more or less helpless until it learned the concept of Jihad and transliterated it into Crusade.

        30. There’s no easy way to separate out the continued existence of Jews as an ethnicity and the continued existence of their religion.
          The same can be said for Anglicanism and Greek, Russian and Serbian orthodoxy. Once the religion is exterminated the people are always next. See what the communists did to the Russians. Their Church was suppressed by the commissars and revived as the Russian people revived as a nation from the ruins of atheistic experiments like communism, comrade Stone.

        31. While Hitler never quotes Darwin as an inspiration it is very difficult to separate the POV on race that they share. In many ways Darwin was more hardcore than Hitler:
          “Some naturalists have lately employed the term “sub-species” to designate forms which possess many of the characteristics of true species, but which hardly deserve so high a rank. Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining them, it seems that the term “sub-species” might here be used with propriety. But from long habit the term “race” will perhaps always be employed. The choice of terms is only so far important in that it is desirable to use, as far as possible, the same terms for the same degrees of difference.”(Descent, Chapter 7, p.347, Benton Edition)
          Darwin often referred to the different races of mankind as sub-species:
          “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term “man” ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate.” (Descent, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man: Sub-species)

        32. lol. To say Darwin is more hard core than Hitler is to simply show your complete ignorance of both of them.
          You do know what a sub species is right?
          You realize it doesn’t mean “less than” don’t you?

        33. Darwin expected and agreed with the idea of the white man exterminating the black.

Comments are closed.