The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a white minority. I have been a white minority for much of my life, and we were much more racially conscious.

We have always been in a minority, what is changing is WHERE we are in a minority. Fanatical white anti-whites were always in Minnesota and Sweden and Canada, away from the objects of their affection. A threatened white minority has a MUCH better chance of unity and survival than yesterday's Yankees and Europeans for whom the poor little colored brethren were just a theory.Actually, the only thing that unites Yankees today is a common hatred of the South. We serve the same function for them that blacks served for us in the slavery and segregation days. Pathetic "American patriots" like today's National Review have nothing to be loyal to. They play "John Brown's Body, they worship Abraham Lincoln, but they have nothing of their own at all.

A threatened self-conscious white minority will have a much healthier mind-set.

It is true that the slavish minorities will give liberals a majority soon in election. But there is a time limit on that, too. The NAACP had been in existence for over sixty years before it had its first black president. Then there was what was called a "black takeover." Liberals were astonished to see blacks taking over the NAACP!

When minorities become majorities, they stop being slaves to liberals. They take over with their own spokesmen. The Lt. Governor of California is a member of a Hispanic supremacist group. He refused to drop out when he ran for governor.

Whites will be the largest minority and they will have to bargain as whites.

I wouldn't worry too much about the "Future voters." There won't be any. All multicultural societies are tyrannies, and any multiracial society is tyranny squared.

Somebody like Saddam takes over. He took over Iraq for the 40% Sunni minority. Tito did the same thing for the Yugoslavian Serbs.

As a third world society gets richer, it experiences a population bust. People want to spend the money they would have spent on children on their own toys. The third world doesn't have children if they have to pay for them. In the classic third world, children are an asset or a source of pride, and if you don't want them you just let them starve. With a little income, the government begins to demand that you pay for your kids.

Anyway, the whole question of children will be 100% choice before long. Swedes hate white people, but a lot of Indians would love to have pure Aryan children. The Aryans were the top caste of India. Buddha was a Nordic. India loves blondness.

They can choose. And there are a billion Indians, while China's population is dropping already.

With all those variables and my own experience, I know damn well that the future is totally unpredictable. The only people I know who are so wrong they are silly are the ones who talk about an "inevitable future." They are drooling idiots, whether they sit around and whine in their beer about the hopeless state of the world or talk about being "progressive" who are with the future.