Last week's little Radio Derb riff on the misuse of the term "white supremacy" brought in several emails along the following lines.This isn't one of them; it's a generic summary of several. So it's not really a quote, but I'll say "quote" anyway. Quote:Yo Derb: You have many times stated your belief that for a nation to be stable and prosperous, it needs to have a supermajority of one race. Since the U.S.A.'s supermajority would presumably be white, wouldn't that opinion be called "white supremacy" by the PC enforcers? What should it be called?End quote.
It's a fair question; and yes, in the context of the U.S.A. that point of view, which I do indeed hold, would certainly get called "white supremacist," no matter how strongly I insisted — as I would, and do — that racial minorities, while being kept at minorities by sensible immigration laws, enjoy full legal equality and all constitutional rights; and notwithstanding that I'd urge the same principle on Japan, where the result would be yellow supremacy (which is what they've in fact got and seem determined to preserve), and India — brown supremacy — and Zimbabwe — black supremacy — and so on.
As for giving that opinion a name, "majoritarian" is the first candidate that comes to mind. That's already got a meaning, though, and it's a negative one, according to Encyclopædia Britannica.
A majoritarian wants to, in the usage of for example de Tocqueville, quote from Britannica, "tyrannize over any and all minorities." Someone like a modern Japanese, who wants his country to stay Japanese but doesn't want to tyrannize minorities, can't fairly be called a majoritarian.
It's hard to find a term that really fits. Since this point of view is the opposite of multiculturalism, "mono-culturalism" might work, except that it fudges the racial factor. Switzerland is monoracial, but is it monocultural? Discuss among yourselves.
All that is by way of directing your attention to a column by the lovely and sapient Ilana Mercer, published in The Daily Caller, December 8th. Ilana's fulcrum is the recent report that in seventeen states of the Union, deaths in 2014 outpaced births among non-Hispanic whites.
Ilana notes that one news story on this ran under the headline: Aging white population speeding diversity. That, she says correctly, confuses cause with effect. With over 1 million mostly nonwhite immigrants being settled every year, and native whites marginalized and discriminated against via a multitude of policies from H-1B visas to affirmative action, the white decline is not surprising.
Longish quote from Ilana, quote:Declining birthrates have long been the excuse advanced by central planners for sticking with mass immigration policies. The aging white population is not replacing itself, say proponents of doomsday demographics. Young, Third World immigrants are essential to shore-up the welfare state.End quote. That actually is a bit white supremacist, in that it suggests that the West's better human capital and superior ideas made us great.
However, the now-waning West became great not because it was more populated than the rest of the world and outbred it. The West was great because of its human capital — innovation, exploration, science, philosophy; because of superior ideas, and the willingness to defend such a civilization.
America doesn't need more people; it needs to allow its own people to recover.
I don't think Ilana wants to tyrannize anyone, though, any more than I do; and I'd personally argue that even if we Europeans were uncreative losers, we'd still be wise to maintain supermajorities in our countries, for the sake of social harmony.
So I'm open-minded on what we should call people like me and Ilana, and our Japanese, Indian, and Zimbabwean equivalents. If "majoritarian" and "monoculturist" don't work, what might work? Suggestions gratefully received. [Email me]