Racial Brazilification

America isn’t a racially harmonious place, unfortunately.

Is demographic Brazilification happening to America? If so, is it really all bad?

At a time when there’s so much to talk about to the point I’m running into writer’s paralysis, it’s up to others who do full-time commentary to lend a helping hand by giving me something I can focus my mental energies on.

The latest video released by YouTuber “KaiserBauch,” one of the best channels you can subscribe to (do so if you haven’t already!), handed me a very important topic to discuss:

Race and ethnicity isn’t a pleasant topic to discuss. It elicits strong emotions, making it difficult to talk about in a dispassionate manner. However, not discussing it isn’t an option. Race matters, whether we like it or not, and Americans, for better or worse, have always judged one another on the basis of race. All peoples of the world have throughout time. More important, demographics is literally destiny. How America and the West re-shapes itself demographically won’t just determine what our countries will become like for the remainder of our lifetimes, but also the fate of our societies.

Let’s keep things simple here, though. Demographics is a data-heavy topic; if I were to attempt to pick apart KaiserBauch’s argument, I’d be drowning us in numbers and this blog isn’t really the place for that. Instead, I’ll summarize his key points.

The West’s Demographics Will Come To Resemble Brazil’s

This is as simple as one can distill KaiserBauch’s thesis. Now, let’s contextualize it: he’s not saying the West will literally become like Brazil. One of the reasons the video must be watched in its entirety is because he discusses Brazil’s racial history, which is a rabbit hole all its own. It differs markedly from American and the broader West’s racial history, both in good and bad ways, but mostly bad - for example, Brazilian slaves had much shorter lifespans and were basically used as genuinely disposible labor, in part explaining why Brazil had the most slaves by far of any European colony. They also had low fertility rates, meaning entire lineages were effectively wiped out.

American slaves, by contrast, weren’t treated as disposible, meaning a much lower influx of Africans, and had higher fertility rates. It explains both why there remain so many Black Americans today and also why the racial demographics of the country not only remained overwhelmingly White for so long, but also why it never evolved demographically as Latin America did. Until now, that is.

A major change driving demographic Brazilification is the decline in fertility rates of native Westerners of European ancestry (i.e., Whites). Many Western countries are become demographically older, so unless we see a dramatic shift in fertility rates within the next generation, each country’s respective population share of Whites will decline. Another major change is the increasing prevalence of intermarriage. Despite our racial history, more and more Americans, especially non-Whites, are marrying those of other races. The decline in the White population combined with increasing intermarriage will lead to the prevalence of a new race as it were, what’s called “Pardo” in Brazil, which refers to people of multi-ethnic background.

Liberals, of course, have been predicting the emergence of a new race for some time now. However, KaiserBauch explains that we’re still at the beginning of a process that’s going to take at least a century to unfold. We may need to wait until we are in old age before a more definitive trendline is established. Still, the foundation exists for the West as a whole to see the emergence of its own Pardo race. It’s most likely to happpen in the countries of the Anglosphere - the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand - which are all tremendously diverse societies to begin with. Britain aside, Europe is a different story. Personally, I think Europe is more likely to be conquered by peoples of the Third World, but that’s an entirely different story, so we’ll leave that aside, focusing more on U.S. and, to a lesser extent, other countries of the Anglosphere.

Something interesting driving intermarriage rates is that it’s primarily male-driven. It’s men who are seeking partners of other races. There are many reasons for this, but one KaiserBauch cites specifically is the growing political divergence between men and women throughout the West. Whether culture is downstream of politics or vice-versa, native Western men and women are increasingly at odds with one another, meaning men are seeking non-native partners or just those of different backgrounds from them, while native women simply aren’t marrying at all. This, too, is phenomenon worth its own study, but it’s interesting to see that if racial mixing is driven by anyone, it’s driven primarily by men and women of non-White, non-European stock.

The easiest way to look at the West’s demographic future is that both ethnicity and race will become a spectrum instead of the well-defined category they are today. These are all, to an extent, social constructs, but they’re also biological realities. Genetically, Westerners will become both a mix of identities and races, though again, just how much of the population becomes “Pardo” is a question we likely won’t know the answer to in our lifetimes. Even with the emergence of a significant mixed population, Whites will still exist as a plurality, if not a majority of the population. Likewise, there are some populations that simply won’t mix, at least not at the rates of other groups. For example, Blacks, being as race-conscious as they are, will likely shun intermarriage, and populations from certain parts of Asia, especially the Muslim world, will also insist on preserving their genetic lineages. However, this may only serve to not only magnify their status as minorities, it could end up “balkanizing” them also.

But Will We Actually Become Like Brazil?

I already answered this, but let’s delve into it some more. The term “Brazilification” is one you often hear in the prepper community and the right-wing-aligned commentariat. Generally, it refers to a First World country transitioning into something less than, without outright becoming a Third World country. It’s something of a less dramatic alternative to the term “Third Worldization;” Thomas Friedman cited the decline of the middle class and increasing income gap as features of Brazilification.

Certainly, the U.S. has undergone economic decline for years. However, it still boasts the highest standard of living in the world. Many Brazilians migrate to the U.S. for a better life, saying as much about their country as it does ours. I’ve never been hooked by the line that says America’s standard of living will collapse overnight and I’m not about to start now. Brazil has been a poor country for most of its history, with the higher standard of living it enjoys today being a fairly recent development by historical standards. Likewise, just as Brazil’s racial history differs greatly from America’s and other Anglo-settled lands, so does our culture and social structure. Demographic change is just one ingredient; alone, it’s not enough to bring wholesale economic and lifestyle changes.

Could the U.S. come to resemble Brazil is many ways? Yes, it already does in many of our major cities. However, as a whole, it’ll remain distinct and I doubt it’ll ever get as bad as Brazil. This isn’t to say Brazil is a bad country, but clearly, life isn’t quite the same down there as it is up here. So, what’s the significance of demographic Brazilification?

I suppose it remains to be seen. I’m personally not as pessimistic about it as many are. Even if a Pardo-like demographic emerges, it hardly means a permanent left-wing majority or anything like that. Though currently under the control of Lula DaSilva’s far-left regime, Brazil remains divided politically as ever. Keep in mind that the U.S. Democratic Party relies as much on around 40% of Whites as much as it does on non-Whites. The left-wing coalition depends on non-Whites more than the Right, but they’re still fronted by Whites, even as their rank-and-file are non-Whites. This isn’t to say that increasing diversity isn’t a big reason why the U.S., the West more broadly, has so dramatically shifted leftward, but it’s to say that it wouldn’t have happened if not for preexisting political divides.

Put another way, demographic change often doesn’t help, but it’s not the reason we’re in the mess we are currently, either.

Racial Animus Is Our Future, Unfortunately

I’m still making my way through it, but Professor Eric Kaufmann’s book Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities argues that Whites aren’t going anywhere, but not only do they need to be more inclusive, they’re the only race truly capable of assimilating others, at least in the West. It’s an interesting argument, certainly controversial on both sides of the ideological divide, but I think it has merit. It’s a one of a kind thesis, because most of the time, you hear about how Whites are going to become a minority or how they’re the ones who are going to be blended into some bigger melting pot.

Kaufmann is arguing that not only will both happen, but it’s Whites who are that racial melting pot. I suggest you read his book to better understand his argument, but it comes off to me as a best-case scenario, one where you need to overlook a lot of racial tension that exists throughout the West in order to be viable.

For example, take a look at the results of a recent survey:

Source

In other words, White Americans feel a kinship towards Asian Americans that is unrequited. It doesn’t say anything about whether Asians think well or ill of Whites, not directly, but it does say that Asians see themselves as part of the non-White coalition more than the White coalition. There are all sorts of implications to this, all troubling.

For example, Asians Americans feel left out in this country, which is quite bizarre for reasons I’ll explain below:

Source

Think about it: America today is as diverse, multicultural, open, and tolerant as it’s ever been and is likely to be. Asian Americans are arguably the single highest-performing racial group in the country. It makes absolutely no sense that Asians would feel like they don’t belong or aren’t accepted in American society, but here we are. Doesn’t this suggest diversity and multiculturalism has failed? Sure sounds like it to me. If despite such favorable circumstances and outcomes have only managed to make them feel like they belong even less, then clearly, a society built around emphasizing our differences only makes people feel like they’re less a part of a greater whole.

It gets worse. Asians are most likely to believe, by a significant percentage gap, than any other racial group to believe life in the U.S. is worse than other places on the planet:

Source

It’s not to say they’re entirely wrong. There are some countries which are genuinely nicer to live in on many levels compared to the U.S. I spend a lot of time on my own blog pointing out the degradation of life in this country. The problem is that Asians are here because either they or their parents thought they could have better lives in America than elsewhere in the world. For so many to live here while thinking so poorly of it doesn’t bode well for social harmony and will likely translate into open hostility towards their home country, if it hasn’t already. Blacks are already on their way to social balkanization; it seems Asians are as well, with the most confounding element of this being that it was our very government and society that promoted balkanization.

What does the future hold in store? America isn’t a racially harmonious place, unfortunately. It’s just that there’s nothing to really fight over at the moment since we still have the world’s largest economy, with plenty to go around. Inject shortages, however, and you’ll see just how much racial animus already exists. What’s the definition of an SHTF again? When there are more people than resources. Anyone who thinks we’re all going to learn to share and live in harmony during a crisis never mentally progressed past elementary school. First, if there was enough to share, there probably wouldn’t be any conflict. Second, people are innately selfish and tribalistic. We have to be taught to share with others because it’s not something that comes naturally.

Third, we already live in a country where even our political leadership engages in blatant racialism. Here’s the vice president saying what was once the quiet part aloud:

Source

It would’ve once been unthinkable to prioritize government aid on the basis of race. Now it hardly elicits a reaction. If this has become normalized at the political, you think far worse couldn’t be? Do people really know where to draw the line? Or do they do what they think they can get away with, until someone stands up to them and tells them, “no”?

The flooding in the Southern U.S. as a result of Hurricane Helene is a real-time exercise in what happens in an SHTF. You see the best and worst of humanity in these moments.

On one hand, you see this:

Source

On the other, you see this:

Source

I’m not in favor of price controls or anything like that, but consider: the average price of gasoline in Richmond County, where Augusta is located, is $2.95. If supply is so critical they need to charge $10 for it, not selling fuel might be the better option. There’s no reason to sell fuel at a price most people are unable or unwilling to pay, except because you think this is a prime opportunity to score a windfall.

Either way, when there are more people than resources, people will fight over it. They’ll also behave in ways that seem uncivilized, but in truth, are probably closer to how humans really are. Nobody thinks of themselves as bad, but we are all, first and foremost, concerned with our personal well-being, along with that of our tribe. Immigrants are no different. They’re just people and they’re no better than you nor I. The narrative of their moral superiority to natives is being tested in real time and, as you can see in the gas station example, they’re failing the test. Cultures are different and if you feel no sense of kinship with your fellow citizens, you’re not going to treat them charitably even when times are tough.

Let’s go back to focusing on race relations. To show how un-harmonious they really are, consider the following:

Source

What does the data show? Most non-Whites feel tremendously greater warmth towards their own race than any other, while White Liberals, specifically, show tremendously less warmth towards their own race than any other. Even Non-Liberal Whites are less likely to show warmth towards other Whites, even as they have greater warmth towards themselves.

This does show White Liberals are the least racist people in America, but the fact that it’s unrequited ought to be concerning. The willingness of Whites in general to being more progressive on racial matters is why America has become such a diverse and open country, not because the country was flooded with non-Whites. These aren’t progressives entering the country, at least not when it comes to race. If anything, they’re more reactionary and, therefore, more “natural” in the sense they harbor a strong in-group bias and are defensive towards their own, whereas Whites, leftists specifically, are outright hostile towards their own.

Showing greater in-group bias isn’t a bad thing. That’s how it should be. But when one group so clearly shows an out-group bias while other groups don’t, expect that to be taken advantage of. It doesn’t matter that Non-Liberal Whites have greater in-group bias; no distinction will be made by any of the other groups. White people are White people, as far as they’re concerned. In any social experiment, the group which lets their guard down will be the group that becomes dominated by the others. Isn’t that an accurate description of what’s happening in America today?

We’re living in a time when politics have become a zero-sum game. Once the economy fades, you’re going to see racial groups begin to insist larger slices of the pie for themselves, even if it comes at the expense of other groups. I’ve been using the term “racial” specifically because America is no longer a place where people identify themselves most prominently along ethnic lines, as Samuel Huntington pointed out 20 years ago. They instead identify along much broader, more diffuse identities like race, gender, and ideology. Being such a big country, your survival now depends on belonging to one of these large groups; a small group like one based around an ethnicity won’t stand a chance against a bigger one.

The American internal conflict, which will likely include some form of civil war, won’t take on an exclusively racial character. We just don’t break down that way, not entirely. However, race is a significant dividing line and has been since this country’s earliest days. Our political coalitions do have a tremendous racial disparity. You can bet race will be used by both sides, for good and for ill, both as a weapon and a target during the conflict. It’s not going to be Whites vs. non-Whites; the latter coalition may be united in large part by opposition to the White majority, but there’s plenty of tension between the non-White races as well.

For example, look at the level of victimization of Asians at the hands of Blacks in urban areas. I mentioned on more than one occasion over the past few years that the “Stop Asian Hate” social movement which began in 2020 came to a screeching halt when it became difficult to deny that Blacks were a plurality, if not a majority, of perpetrators in many crimes against victims of Asian descent. Whatever conversations might take place behind closed doors, it appears, publicly, both Asians and Blacks, along with other non-Whites, have decided to maintain solidarity in hopes of a better future. Despite the tensions that exist between Asians and Blacks, their political alignment is startlingly similar. Making things more bizarre is that Asians and Blacks mostly live separate from each other, with Asians sharing spaces with Whites far more often, despite greater political affinity with Blacks.

It doesn’t make sense, but for the umpteenth time, it’s politics and it doesn’t need to. Apparently, maintaining the non-White, left-wing coalition is a higher priority than personal safety. It’s a rational choice - as I explained above, a group’s long-term survival depends on joining one of two sides. All throughout history, you see smaller, weaker groups making deals with bigger, stronger groups, often to their detriment, because they sense which direction the wind is blowing. Despite being the majority, Whites lack social clout, while Blacks, despite being only 13% of the population, are in a position of social supremacy. When given the choice, a weaker side will often join forces with the more powerful faction in a given social order. Right now, it’s the leftist, non-White coalition.

It all sounds insane. We were supposed to be all united and everything, after all. But racialized politics is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, it’s inevitable in a society that’s not only diverse, but also tries to forge unity by letting us know daily how little we have in common with one another.

It Starts With Something Small

One of the benefits of having a homogenous, or at least a culturally unified society, is that you don’t have culture clashes. If individuals vary, then so do cultures. One cannot be true while the other false, since culture is a reflection of who people are as a group. Diversity has its benefits, but it comes with tremendous downsides as well. If a society cannot manage nor mitigate those downsides, bad things will eventually happen. We can love diversity all we want - I enjoy it as much as the next person - but it won’t always love us back.

Look at what the large influx of Venezuelan migrants have done to life in Denver, a place which has become ground zero of sorts in the immigration argument:

Source

I’m not sure where this happened, but incessant noise created by Venezuelan migrants led one woman to nearly make a fatal mistake while confronting her loud neighbors:

Source

It all starts with something small, something fundamental like this. Then it balloons into catastrophe. Think about it: at any given moment, thousands of Americans deal with noisy, disruptive neighbors who have no respect for others. Often, these disputes turn into arguments. Often, they turn into violence. Sometimes, they end in bloodshed.

Look at what happened here:

Source

If this is what happens between natives, why would things get any better when throwing into the mix foreigners who come from different cultures and often live by an entirely different set of norms? The rest of the world isn’t like the Anglosphere. Not everyone follows the rules reflexively like we do. Some cultures ruthlessly exploit weakness. Some cultures are more willing than others to use violence to get their way.

I stay away from the dramatic and nightmarish here, but we’re a long ways away from the dream of Martin Luther King. If anything, we’re backing away from it. Not because we have too many racist people in this country, but because it required compromises only one side - the racial majority - was willing to make. Many on the minority side were willing to make those compromises, but around them were too many who refused or instead saw an opportunity to take advantage of. They were supported by those within the racial majority who, for reasons known only to the Almighty, made common cause with them.

In his 2004 book Who Are We?, Samuel Huntington quoted Dr. Carol Swain from her 2002 book The New White Nationalism in America:

The makings of serious white nativist movements and of intensified racial conflict exist in America. Carol Swain probably overdramatizes the possibility, but her eloquent warning deserves serious thought. We are witnessing, she says, “the simultaneous convergence of a host of powerful social forces.” These include “changing demographics, the continued existence of racial preference policies, the rising expectations of ethnic minorities, the continued existence of liberal immigration policies, growing concerns about job losses associated with globalization, the demands for multiculturalism, and the Internet’s ability to enable like-minded individuals to identify with each other and to share mutual concerns and strategies for impacting the political system.” These factors can only serve “to nourish white racial consciousness and white nationalism, the next logical stage for identity politics in America.” As a result, American is “increasingly at risk of large-scale racial conflict unprecedented in our nation’s history.”

That was 20 years ago. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 and everything that’s happened since has vindicated both Huntington and Swain, don’t you think? Again, it hasn’t been anywhere near as dramatic as Swain predicted, to Huntington’s prescience. But the point is, it’s happening, mildly as it might be. We’ve yet to see a serious White nativist/nationalist movement in America, the Left’s panics aside, but we definitely see the more nationalist wing of the country pulling together, digging its heels in, and letting itself be heard. We’re also now beginning to see the start of intensifying racial conflict in America, between all races. I’m repeating myself here, but multiculturalism requires constant fine-tuning in order to keep the peace. Humans never evolved to live in such large, diverse societies, nor is this fine-tuning a job for a faceless managerial state.

The same way Huntington thought Swain overdramatized the possibility, I think X account Don Shift (worth the follow) does so also, yet like Swain, his warnings deserve to be heeded:

The West is, unfortunately, ripe for mass racial violence, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. Unlike the fall of Rhodesia, where the conflict was driven more by tribal divisions than purely racial ones, I believe that any large-scale civil conflict in the United States or across Western nations will be explicitly racial, characterized by genocide and ethnic cleansing.

In the modern world, especially in the West, race is seen not just as a social or cultural identifier but as an existential marker. Skin color becomes the clearest distinction of “tribe,” far surpassing language, nationality, or culture as the primary way people categorize themselves and others. It’s deeply ingrained in the “us versus them” mentality.

For a long time, modern Europeans and Western societies have moved toward a more pragmatic, inclusive approach to race. They’ve adopted multicultural values, downplayed racial differences, and made an effort to be accepting of other races.

This contrasts sharply with much of the rest of the world, where racial divisions are still openly acknowledged and reinforced. Whether it’s viewed as superiority, preference, or simply cultural habit, non-Western societies maintain a clearer sense of “otherness” in racial terms, something the modern West increasingly dismisses as outdated or even racist.

Throughout history, wars have often been driven by competition over resources-land, food, water, and economic opportunity. And in the context of the modern West, the most coveted resource is prosperity. Western nations have the highest standards of living, the most advanced technology, and the greatest access to wealth, which has made them magnets for immigration.

Mass immigration, fueled by white guilt, the desire for cheap labor, and possibly other political motives, has dramatically shifted the demographics of Western countries. This shift has created an environment ripe for civil conflict. When different racial and ethnic groups are forced to coexist within the same borders, tensions can be managed as long as prosperity and social cohesion hold.

But when resources become scarce or prosperity breaks down, those divisions re-emerge with ferocity, and violence is never far behind.

The problem with race, unlike other social divisions, is that it’s immediately visible. Skin color becomes a uniform people cannot take off. In a society fractured along racial lines, it's easy to identify “the enemy” at a glance.

Race is increasingly used as a means to separate, divide, and dehumanize the “other.” People begin to see those of a different race as not just competitors but existential threats. This leads to the kind of thinking that justifies eliminating or subjugating entire groups in the name of survival or dominance.

In the potential civil conflict I fear for the West, one side will be fighting for its very existence, and the other for dominance or control. The prosperity of the West, the very resource that made it so attractive in the first place, will likely be destroyed in the process.

You don’t need to like any of this. None of this excites me. Just enver say it couldn’t happen here. Britain was a multicultural paradise until very recently. Like Bosnian War survivor Selco Begovic once said:

Again, the thing that is important for readers is that we were a modern society one day, and then in few weeks it turned into carnage.

Do not make the mistake of saying “it cannot happen here” because I made that mistake too.

Do not underestimate power of propaganda, fear, hate, and the lowest human instincts, no matter how modern and good your society is right now and how deeply you believe that “it can not happen here”.

If Not Brazil, Then South Africa, Maybe?

This entry has run on longer than I anticipated, but let’s hit one more stop before the big wrap-up.

Rod Dreher

brought his readers’ attention to an essay by Will Tanner about South Africa.

He warns the path South Africa has taken is one the U.S. is now going on:

It seems clear that post-Mandela South Africa is in a state of disaster that seems likely to get worse. In public life, tyranny reigns as the government enforces race-based mandates on companies that are suffering mightily under the burden. In private life, the government levies taxes to pay for welfare programs, but otherwise, it is largely absent as criminals cause an immense amount of suffering and are rarely stopped by the police. Meanwhile, politicians like those in the EFF encourage criminals to engage in more crime as a form of punishment or reparations for apartheid. All of these localized disasters stem from the decision to continue putting race at the center of postapartheid South African life and thereby producing a photo-negative version of the past, rather than trying to build a new and better society.

Sadly, America has flirted with following the same dark path as South Africa. America suffered months of riots in 2020, much as riots racked South Africa in 2021. In America, as in South Africa, armed civilians had to defend their property when the police couldn’t or wouldn’t do so, while leftist politicians encouraged the rioters. Just as farm attacks go unsolved because of police incompetence and unwillingness in South Africa, murders are now only solved at about a 50% rate in America, the worst in the Occident. Some cities, such as Kansas City, have plummeted to under 40% clearance rates for homicides. Additionally, as robbers and farm attackers in South Africa, gangs in America are now using signal jammers to assist in burglaries.

And:

Though America is not at South Africa’s disastrous level, it may be trending that way. Blackouts are growing more common as political agendas, such as “clean” energy, are prioritized supplying cheap and reliable electricity. Additionally, as Johannesburg is now uninhabitable for law-abiding people, Americans are fleeing their once-great coastal cities for safer and greener pastures in the Southwest and Southeast. As South African business and political leaders use their B-BBEE policies to skim off the top, America’s DEI-demanded struggle sessions are an opportunity for grift that is as massive as it is frequently abused. As a result of the various forms of indirect bribery and insider profiting, most Americans see their politicians as highly corrupt, an opinion with which many taxpayers in South Africa certainly agree. Meanwhile, much as South Africa’s nuclear and space programs are long gone, ours are mere shadows of their former selves.

I’m not going to unpack this essay, not here, anyway, in the interest of time, but I do want to share some quick thoughts. “South Africanization” is another term you frequently hear from the prepper and right-wing commentariat. Like “Brazilification,” it characterizes a country in decline, except it implies a long-term collapse from First World to Third World status. Like Brazilification, it also has a racial connotation, given South Africa’s apartheid history.

It also serves as a compelling narrative explaining where we’re headed, but like its Brazilian equivalent, it has limits. First, the demographic disparity between South Africa and the U.S. means it’s unlikely, though not impossible, for us to end up where they are. South Africa, when you get down to it, isn’t as different from other countries on the continent. As long as they have Africans at the top of the hierarchy, the country will trend the direction of other African countries.

Second, more important, the U.S. economy remains so strong, it’s going to take much more to create the sort of decline here seen in South Africa. We like to say, “The bigger they are, the harder they fall,” but that’s if it falls. It’s difficult to topple something big and strong. America is due for a major economic crisis at some point, but it takes a tremendous systemic failure to get a South Africa-like outcome. Having lots of stuff covers up for a lot of problems. Until this fundamentally changes, I don’t expect the same kind of unraveling here.

At the end of the day, Brazil, South Africa, and the U.S. are very different countries. Care needs to be taken when making comparisons. When the history of America’s own downfall is written, there will be similarities, but there will be exceptionalism as well. Just like this country.

A Dream? Or A Nightmare?

To come full circle: I don’t think the U.S. nor the West is becoming like Brazil, not entirely. However, we are definitely seeing trends which suggest we could come to resemble Brazil demographically at least in one respect with the emergence of a large mixed-race demographic. But we won’t know for certain for at least another century and by then, not even someone born today will be around to care.

Barring some insane cataclysm that for now remains the fever dream of some far-right survivalist, Whites should remain a plurality, if not a majority, for the foreseeable future. If Dr. Eric Kaufmann’s prediction comes to pass, not only will Whites remain a prominent demographic for the remainder of our lifetimes, they may gain a new lease on life thanks to the assimilation of other races into the White melting pot. However, I contend that this is mostly a best-case scenario.

The incredibly hostile and negative culture against Whites needs to end first, which isn’t going to happen absent some kind of event that serves as a “reset” of sorts for race relations. In other words, the trajectory we’ve been on since the Civil Rights era needs to be abruptly interrupted. I don’t see how that happens other than through a civil war/revolution. There’s just no other way. Even the Civil Rights Movement involved violence on both sides. I don’t know if a complete reversal is possible, but at least the constant assault on “Whiteness” and the literal worship of “people of color” needs to end. I don’t know how either comes to pass without the literal survival of the country being at stake, to quote Neil Howe.

In the near-term, race relations will become more contentious, if not overtly hostile. Most of the hostility that exists manifests behind closed doors, with Blacks being the exception. Occasional incidents will flare up racial tensions and we’ll see more and more “mask-off” moments where people express animus towards other races. Americans are still careful how they speak about other races, but hard times force hard feelings to bubble up to the surface. In the near term, a certain level of balkanization will take place. “White flight” will continue to be prevalent, and other races will close ranks as well. Those who live in more diverse areas will experience greater interracial conflict. Expect more quarrels between neighbors in general, but especially between those of different races.

It’s hard to say for sure what ultimately comes of race relations in the wake of the Fourth Turning and the civil war/revolution that comes with it. I’m going to hazard a guess and say that a balkanization of sorts will occur, though it won’t be strictly along racial lines. The right-wing faction, despite being predominantly White, will have less of a contentious relationship with racial minorities within their ranks. The left-wing faction, despite being more diverse, will actually be more racially-divided, because it’s the only way to manage tensions between the groups, which will have intensified by then. Hopefully, the leftist coalition will be on the decline by then, for the benefit of the country. In the aftermath of the Fourth Turning, if Neil Howe’s assessment is correct, Americans will become more community-oriented, and a new racial order will emerge, one more cooperative and harmonious, and less grievance-oriented. It’s a lot to ask, I know.

Ultimately, this is a political divide with racial overtones. Political alignment will dictate innocence or guilt. I’m not sure that’s any better than a straight race war, but nobody can say America hasn’t made progress then, can they?

But what do you think? Are we headed for racial Brazilification? What do you see going on in your world? Is America’s racial future as bleak as I make it? Or is there reason for optimism?

Talk about it in the comments.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!