Global White Population to Plummet to Single Digit—Black Population to Double

[DrMario2222]

Global White Population to Plummet to Single Digit—Black Population to Double

The big population story of the 21st Century is shaping up to be the status reversal of whites and blacks and the Indian baby boom
As a percentage of world inhabitants, the white population will plummet to a single digit (9.76%) by 2060 from a high-water mark of 27.98% in 1950.

Using 2010 as the base reference, the big gainer in the population derby will be blacks or sub-Sahara Africans. This group will expand almost 133% to 2.7 billion by 2060. By the middle of this century blacks will represent 25.38% of world population, which is up dramatically from the 8.97% they recorded in 1950.

The other groups measured in the study were the Central Asians (Indians), East Asians (Chinese and Japanese), the Southeast Asians, Arabic (North Africa and the Middle East), and Amerindian-Mestizo (Mexican and Central America). All these groups will experience a population growth. The Chinese/Japanese and Indians will trade rankings and the relative global presence of the other groups will remain more or less constant.

The big population story of the 21st Century is shaping up to be the status reversal of whites and blacks and the Indian baby boom. A side bar will be the single digit minority role that whites will assume. Of the 7 population groups studied, only whites are projected to sustain an absolute decline in numbers.

In 1950 whites and blacks were respectively 27.98% and 8.97% of world population. By 2060 these figures will almost reverse as blacks surge to 25.38% and whites shrink to 9.76%. From 2010 the white population will decline while blacks will add 1.2 billion to their numbers. In this time frame the the Indian subcontinent will gain 1.2 billion people. These groups and their governments will be looking for elbow room, and the diminished presence of whites in Europe, and especially in the relatively wide open spaces North America, will provide such an opportunity. Specifically, countries like Canada, the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and Russia can expect to be pressured to accept collectively hundreds of millions of refugees from India, and sub-Sahara Africa.

(Click on link below to get your free copy of the report)

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/publications.php?b=population

 

[notftomearth7]

Hm...so the redneck population will be destroyed?

Got no problem with that (even though I'm white myself)

 

[lycrof]

Why worry about skin colour?

 

[Eor]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooo

 

[D13]

So I might not have white grandchildren? ****.

lol jk, I have no problem with this change.

 

[Mini Mic]

If it were up to me we would all be dead anyway, well at least that's the conclusion we reached in one of my tutes at uni today (it worked out to be the most beneficial to wipe out all life on the planet).

 

[Crimson King]

YES!!! Then I can say people are just saying things about me because I'm white.

This is awesome!

 

[WuTangDude]

This is worldwide, caucasians may still end up the dominant race in most first-world countries.

(except for America, latinos are expected to become the largest population)

 

[lycrof]

If it were up to me we would all be dead anyway, well at least that's the conclusion we reached in one of my tutes at uni today (it worked out to be the most beneficial to wipe out all life on the planet).

You don't need to kill everyone. The world can hold about 1-3 billion people with out us doing any damage to teh planet. A good old plague should take care of the 3.6 billion

 

[Mic_128]

If it were up to me we would all be dead anyway, well at least that's the conclusion we reached in one of my tutes at uni today (it worked out to be the most beneficial to wipe out all life on the planet).

Don't tell HAL.

On topic: So what?

 

[Mini Mic]

You don't need to kill everyone. The world can hold about 1-3 billion people with out us doing any damage to teh planet. A good old plague should take care of the 3.6 billion

That wasn't actually the reasoning behind it, there was this whole argument but I can't remember, funnily enough the tutor in favor of wiping out all life as we know it (not just humans) is an animal rights activist

 

[antimatter]

If it were up to me we would all be dead anyway, well at least that's the conclusion we reached in one of my tutes at uni today (it worked out to be the most beneficial to wipe out all life on the planet).

You and me against the world. I'll start work on the armed exoskeletons.

 

[Kitten]

Man, I came to this topic thinking the title meant that to global population of whites would actually drop to a single digit. Turns out it's a single digit percentage of the population.

If you could save 5 white people, which ones would you save to best remember white people?

 

[leafgreen386]

Man, I came to this topic thinking the title meant that to global population of whites would actually drop to a single digit. Turns out it's a single digit percentage of the population.

If you could save 5 white people, which ones would you save to best remember white people?

Well, I know three, anyway: me, myself, and I. The rest of ya can fend for yourselves, right?

 

[GoldShadow]

If you could save 5 white people, which ones would you save to best remember white people?

None, because white people aren't worth remembering!!!

You see, it's okay because it's not racist if it's offensive to white people, it's only racist if it's offensive to Asians, Native Americans, blacks, arabs, hispanics, Indians, Latin Americans, Inuits or any combination of the above.

 

[Osco316]

It's kind of odd that DrMario2222 decided to make this his first post. Seems strange to me.


Anyway, looking around this site, I found some discouraging writing. The website seems far too bent on "White vs. Nonwhite" "even America’s white leaders—conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats—routinely push for policies that disadvantage their own people."

This doesn't seem right to me. "Their own people." It's absurd to think that a white person can identify with all whites better than with a minority.

Also, from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Policy_Institute):
On April 8, 2008, the SPLC’s Mark Potok[3] condemned the National Policy Institute as a “white supremacist” organization, and wrote that its report, The State of White America-2007, “paints ‘a statistical and narrative portrait of the war on white America,’ in the website’s words. Nicholas Stix’s introduction [4] to the article describes the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling outlawing school segregation as ‘arguably the worse [sic] decision in the Court’s 216 year history.’ He claims later civil rights legislation was unconstitutional. ‘ntegration and the civil rights movement led directly to the destruction of great cities,’ he concludes.”

 

[JFox]

None, because white people aren't worth remembering!!!

You see, it's okay because it's not racist if it's offensive to white people, it's only racist if it's offensive to Asians, Native Americans, blacks, arabs, hispanics, Indians, Latin Americans, Inuits or any combination of the above.

In some ways this isn't too far from the truth. White people aren't a protected group by law in America, while many other ethnicities are. Racism gets very little respect on television if its towards a black person, mexican person, etc. but if its racist towards a white person, its comedy. Look at Chappelle show, Mind of Mencia, many black comedians doing stand up on comedy central, the boondocks, etc.

I don't really let it bother me, I just think its hypocritical. I feel comfortable making a black joke around people I know that are cool with it, but sometimes when I do, people get the worst reactions. (white people, mainly) I just think if they can do it, I can too. Why the **** not. Its all in good fun, we all know that.

 

[derek.haines]

In some ways this isn't too far from the truth. White people aren't a protected group by law in America, while many other ethnicities are. Racism gets very little respect on television if its towards a black person, mexican person, etc. but if its racist towards a white person, its comedy. Look at Chappelle show, Mind of Mencia, many black comedians doing stand up on comedy central, the boondocks, etc.

I don't really let it bother me, I just think its hypocritical. I feel comfortable making a black joke around people I know that are cool with it, but sometimes when I do, people get the worst reactions. (white people, mainly) I just think if they can do it, I can too. Why the **** not. Its all in good fun, we all know that.

There's actually a good number of stand-up comedians doing semi-"racist" jokes nowadays. We're thankfully beginning to realize as a culture that we need to be able to laugh at everyone, including ourselves. This isn't to say that individual segments will certainly not take offense, but as a whole we're showing more tolerance.

Thank the sweet baby Jesus.

 

[Mic_128]

None, because white people aren't worth remembering!!!

You see, it's okay because it's not racist if it's offensive to white people, it's only racist if it's offensive to Asians, Native Americans, blacks, arabs, hispanics, Indians, Latin Americans, Inuits or any combination of the above.

you left out Aboriginals.

Racist.

 

[Mini Mic]

There are barely any aboriginal people as it is Mic.

Oh and Kitten you have to be one of the five to survive, the futures going to need your cheekbones.

 

[Crimson King]

Yeah, I figured it to be some sort of white supremacist, bull**** hate crap.

I look forward to a society without that stupidity in the gene pool.

 

[#HBC | marshy]

Who let the statistics out of H.Q.?!

If you could save 5 white people, which ones would you save to best remember white people?

None, because white people aren't worth remembering!!!

You see, it's okay because it's not racist if it's offensive to white people, it's only racist if it's offensive to Asians, Native Americans, blacks, arabs, hispanics, Indians, Latin Americans, Inuits or any combination of the above.

I originally thought this was a solid answer but after thinking it through a little more, it's clear that Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler and H. H. Holmes would be a completely fair representation of what whites have done.

Looks like the takeover will be sooner than I expected, thankfully.





Seriously though, if anybody wants a good laugh, check out the 'About Us' section on the site.

Then again, it tries so hard to play the victim and unnecessarily bring race into various issues that it may make some readers cry.

Public institutions named for such Founding Fathers as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are being renamed for radicals like Malcolm X and Cesar Chavez—even the holiday that honors America’s discoverer, Christopher Columbus, is now under attack.

EW! People like Malcolm X and Cesar Chavez?! Hell no, can't be having that! Also, Columbus Day is being questioned because he pretty much annihilated the Arawaks. But hey, we live here now, so he should be honored anyway!

DrMario2222, I really hope you don't visit this site often.

 

[thesage]

Yeah, what Columbus did to the Arawaks was worse then the holocaust. I nearly threw up when I read the **** that happened to them.

 

[orintemple]

I am totally for interracial breeding. Everyone should breed outside their race. That way in like hundreds of years from now people will all be mixed race and none can complain that one certain group is doing some ****. Sure they will probably make up new retartded things to complain about, but hey, at least these current ones will be gone.

 

[thesage]

I am totally for interracial breeding. Everyone should breed outside their race. That way in like hundreds of years from now people will all be mixed race and none can complain that one certain group is doing some ****. Sure they will probably make up new retartded things to complain about, but hey, at least these current ones will be gone.

I'm more blasian than u!

 

[Crimson King]

While on the topic of race, anyone want to guess who said this one?

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] -- that I am not nor eve been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negros, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

 

[GoldShadow]

While on the topic of race, anyone want to guess who said this one?

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] -- that I am not nor eve been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negros, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Not positive, but I'm going to guess it's good ol' Abraham Lincoln.

People always view him as this anti-segregationist hero, when the freeing of the blacks was more circumstance than a primary goal of his. Don't get me wrong, he was a very valuable president for having done it, but he was not necessarily a champion of civil rights.

 

[Reyairia]

Yeah, what Columbus did to the Arawaks was worse then the holocaust. I nearly threw up when I read the **** that happened to them.

In Mexico, we don't celebrate Columbus Day because of that; your average Mexican has plenty of native american blood, and we still have tribes that don't even speak Spanish. The conquistadores if anything are viewed negatively as the woman (in some sources she was considered a slave, in others a princess) who helped them amass support is called "The Malinche," a derrogative term.
Ironically, we still have rascism here. Skin color still indicates social class.

 

[Goldberg]

In Mexico, we don't celebrate Columbus Day because of that; your average Mexican has plenty of native american blood, and we still have tribes that don't even speak Spanish. The conquistadores if anything are viewed negatively as the woman (in some sources she was considered a slave, in others a princess) who helped them amass support is called "The Malinche," a derrogative term.
Ironically, we still have rascism here. Skin color still indicates social class.

Oh Snap!, you live in Mexico too?.

Even though most mexicans have a big mix of a gene pool, they discrimintate every person they see as slightly "different", my mom was constantly picked on by bullies(boys and girls) just because of her skin and hair color (white-blonde),

Spoiler

so she punched them in the face.

The black community is so small here that people actually get shocked to see a black person and immediatly insult them in every way.

 

[Crimson King]

Not positive, but I'm going to guess it's good ol' Abraham Lincoln.

People always view him as this anti-segregationist hero, when the freeing of the blacks was more circumstance than a primary goal of his. Don't get me wrong, he was a very valuable president for having done it, but he was not necessarily a champion of civil rights.

Correct you are. Lincoln is easily what I would consider the worst president in our history. Other than going into all out war with farmers over uniting the country, which was well within their rights as states to leave, he harbored a secret desire to rid the world of blacks. In fact, there are records that he wanted to ship blacks back to Africa on numerous occasions.

 

[thesage]

In fact, there are records that he wanted to ship blacks back to Africa on numerous occasions.

While I actually don't like "honest" Abe, I must say that many people (including blacks) supported that idea. Liberia was created for that in fact.

Also: I met someone who was from Chile claiming he was like nobility because of his light skin. He said his parents were like super rich and ****, but he said he was adopted by some german ppl here. He always made fun of the "ugly" natives. >_>;

 

[Mini Mic]

Ironically, we still have rascism here. Skin color still indicates social class.

You don't live in Mexico (yes I was joking to no need to 'correct' my post as you love to do so very much).

Wait skin colour indicates social class?! Oh snap I would be a God in Mexico, doesn't get much whiter than Mic.

 

[orintemple]

Correct you are. Lincoln is easily what I would consider the worst president in our history. Other than going into all out war with farmers over uniting the country, which was well within their rights as states to leave, he harbored a secret desire to rid the world of blacks. In fact, there are records that he wanted to ship blacks back to Africa on numerous occasions.

Sounds like my dad...


Aren't people just grand creatures

 

[derek.haines]

Correct you are. Lincoln is easily what I would consider the worst president in our history. Other than going into all out war with farmers over uniting the country, which was well within their rights as states to leave, he harbored a secret desire to rid the world of blacks. In fact, there are records that he wanted to ship blacks back to Africa on numerous occasions.

Where in the Constitution are the states given the right to secede from the union? That's why Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy in the first place, because they had no legal standing under the Constitution to form it.

And, as for the shipping out of blacks? If he did want that, he did a very poor job of it. Maybe it was the manic depression, but he sorta did the opposite... You know, what with securing their freedom from slavery and all.

 

[Crimson King]

Where in the Constitution are the states given the right to secede from the union? That's why Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy in the first place, because they had no legal standing under the Constitution to form it.

And, as for the shipping out of blacks? If he did want that, he did a very poor job of it. Maybe it was the manic depression, but he sorta did the opposite... You know, what with securing their freedom from slavery and all.

The constitution is an agreement. Agreements CAN be broken if the states feel they are not being given their fair share. The south's secession wasn't disputed for several years.

Lincoln did not free any slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing new. It was the acts of TRUE abolitionist like Fredrick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and others like them that got the 13th and 14th Amendment passed, while bigots like Lincoln, made the Proclamation to keep black people out of his country. Read the book Forced into Glory by Lerone Bennett Jr., a prominent black author, who after researching Lincoln in depth, found him nothing but a hate filled racist. He wrote his book to show people that those who actually were emancipators, wanted nothing to do with Lincoln.

As for sending all blacks to Africa? We might as well. White people still treat them as second and third class citizens, so we sure as hell don't deserve any of the benefits a mixed society brings, but in turn, we should give up all inventions by black people. Orintemple, try giving that argument to your father.

 

[HiIH]

In fact, there are records that he wanted to ship blacks back to Africa on numerous occasions.

Yeah this was actually a popular idea, especially from people who believed they were subhuman and such. The idea actually came from a college campus that was formed because of abolition, if I remember my history class from last year correctly.

 

[Lone Shadow]

Hm...so the redneck population will be destroyed?

Got no problem with that (even though I'm white myself)

w00t! lol jk but I'm not a redneck

 

[derek.haines]

The constitution is an agreement. Agreements CAN be broken if the states feel they are not being given their fair share. The south's secession wasn't disputed for several years.

Lincoln did not free any slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing new. It was the acts of TRUE abolitionist like Fredrick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and others like them that got the 13th and 14th Amendment passed, while bigots like Lincoln, made the Proclamation to keep black people out of his country. Read the book Forced into Glory by Lerone Bennett Jr., a prominent black author, who after researching Lincoln in depth, found him nothing but a hate filled racist. He wrote his book to show people that those who actually were emancipators, wanted nothing to do with Lincoln.

As for sending all blacks to Africa? We might as well. White people still treat them as second and third class citizens, so we sure as hell don't deserve any of the benefits a mixed society brings, but in turn, we should give up all inventions by black people. Orintemple, try giving that argument to your father.

The states exist only at the leisure of the Constitution after signing into it. They are not independent governing bodies inside a loose system of binding, they are segments of a much larger single body. Federalism, man, federalism. The states only have the powers specifically designated to them in the Constitution and those powers not designated to the Federal Government (10th Amendment). It's true that there still is a "states-rights" debate and a certain amount of state loyalty, particularly in the south, but any powers the states take for themselves can be fairly easily taken away. Secession was treason, and thus was not legal, and didn't have to be recognized. And, it wasn't disputed for several years? South Carolina was the first state to secede, and did so December 20, 1860. The Civil War began just over 4 months later, at the battle of Fort Sumter, on April 12, 1861. I'd call that pretty quickly disputed.

The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing new? It was an executive order in a time of war, which the Constitution gives him the right to make, and outlawed slavery in the Confederate states. I'd call that something. It's true that it wasn't a complete outlawing of slavery, but that left only a handful of states with the ability to practice it, and slavery was completely banned on the groundwork it laid with the 13th Amendment.

I'm not going to argue with you that racism still exists, because it does, but it's something we as a society have made strides over. The making of a completely equitable nation in which all people are regarded on the same level will be a long, hard battle, but the goal will be well worth it. I know all about racism, I see it all around me. While I'm a white male, my two best friends are Iranian and Mexican, and my girlfriend is Chinese. I live in a virtual 50% split city between Mexicans and whites, so I know what racism can look like. There is hatred, I've seen that. I had to watch my best friend and his entire family deported, and I see the graffiti in the bathrooms, full of hate as it is. But I've also seen what can happen when you're truly accepting of all people, when you forget that they're different from you at all, and when you stop looking at people as "white", "black", "mexican", and just start looking at them as "people"--and it is a beautiful thing.

 

[Crimson King]

The states exist only at the leisure of the Constitution after signing into it. They are not independent governing bodies inside a loose system of binding, they are segments of a much larger single body. Federalism, man, federalism. The states only have the powers specifically designated to them in the Constitution and those powers not designated to the Federal Government (10th Amendment). It's true that there still is a "states-rights" debate and a certain amount of state loyalty, particularly in the south, but any powers the states take for themselves can be fairly easily taken away. Secession was treason, and thus was not legal, and didn't have to be recognized. And, it wasn't disputed for several years? South Carolina was the first state to secede, and did so December 20, 1860. The Civil War began just over 4 months later, at the battle of Fort Sumter, on April 12, 1861. I'd call that pretty quickly disputed.

If they feel unfairly treated, they have every right to leave. That's like saying citizens cannot leave the states once they are citizens. If it's treason, it's treason because they felt unfairly represented. A lot like what happened with the American Revolution. I'm not saying the Confederacy was right in any way, but I am saying they had every right as voting people in a democracy to vote themselves out of the states.

The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing new? It was an executive order in a time of war, which the Constitution gives him the right to make, and outlawed slavery in the Confederate states. I'd call that something. It's true that it wasn't a complete outlawing of slavery, but that left only a handful of states with the ability to practice it, and slavery was completely banned on the groundwork it laid with the 13th Amendment.

Lincoln had nothing to do with freeing the slaves. Period. He was a flagrant racist and his emancipation proclamation was given to ban slavery in the current united states adding so blacks wouldn't be allowed there. Read stuff by Thomas DiLorenzo (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html) he has spent the last few decades researching Lincoln as have many others, and they have uncovered his true legacy. Of course, being white and speaking against Lincoln gets him labeled as a racist, but Lerone Bennett Jr. is black, and he has a lot more documented proof that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one. Also, how can you say Lincoln freed the slaves when he gave that quote above while in front of Congress? He obviously saw them as unequals.

 

[derek.haines]

Lincoln had nothing to do with freeing the slaves. Period. He was a flagrant racist and his emancipation proclamation was given to ban slavery in the current united states adding so blacks wouldn't be allowed there. Read stuff by Thomas DiLorenzo (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html) he has spent the last few decades researching Lincoln as have many others, and they have uncovered his true legacy. Of course, being white and speaking against Lincoln gets him labeled as a racist, but Lerone Bennett Jr. is black, and he has a lot more documented proof that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one. Also, how can you say Lincoln freed the slaves when he gave that quote above while in front of Congress? He obviously saw them as unequals.

The Emancipation Proclamation led to the joining of some 200,000 ex-slaves into the Union Army--So, yeah, it freed somebody.

The quote you refer to above is congruent with the pervasive viewpoint of the time. Lincoln was, first and foremost, a statesman and he knew when and where he had to behave himself. And, quite frankly, while addressing Congress is one of those times. He could not have publicly taken a truly pro-black stance and gotten anything political done. A politician cannot be too far leaning one way or another and hope to work cohesively with the opposition in the government. This is basic political theory and is not reflective of Lincoln on a personal basis, but rather is reflective of his skill as a statesman. He was able to (for the most part) distinguish himself apart from the anti-black sentiment without alienating his support in pro-slavery demographics. Lincoln had mad skillz.

So, yes, Lincoln said those things to Congress, but let's face it, politicians were just as capable of speaking out of both sides of their mouth then as they are now. Lincoln just did it in a good way.