Numbers Are Racist

by Billy Roper

Some facts are simply not subjective. For example, the voluntary population migrations inside the U.S. which are a part of the ongoing balkanization process as the different races resegregate. Along with immigration, this is a major driving force towards the coming break-up of America.

Stick with me, now, this is where it gets dry for a minute, but these demographic statistics really matter, as you’ll soon understand.  (Bear in mind that people move voluntarily from place to place, not because I or anyone else tell them that they should, necessarily.)

Let’s look at Yankee land, first, with Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania:

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2000 and 2010, the black population in Connecticut increased from 295,571 to 335,119. During the same decade, the Hispanic population in Connecticut increased from 320,323 to 479,087. And, during the same ten years, the White population in Connecticut decreased from 2,638,845 to 2,546,262.

By percentage, from 2000 to 2010 the black population of Connecticut increased by 13.3%, while the Hispanic population of Connecticut increased by 49.5 percent. The White population of Connecticut decreased by 3.50%.

Asians went from 81,564 to 134,091, an increase of 64.3 % percent.

The black population in Maine increased from 6,440 to 15,154. During the same decade, the Hispanic population in Maine increased from 9,360 to 16,935. The White population in Maine increased from 1,230,297 to 1,254,297.

From 2000 to 2010 the black population of Maine increased by 135.3% percent, while the Hispanic population of Maine increased by 80.9% percent. The White population of Maine increased by 1.95% percent.

Asians  went from 9,014 to 13,442, and increased 49.1% percent.

The black population in Massachusetts increased from 318,329 to 391,693. The Hispanic population in Massachusetts increased from 428,729 to 627,654. The White population in Massachusetts decreased from 5,198,359 to 4,984,800.

In other words, the black population of Massachusetts increased by 23.0% percent, while the Hispanic population of Massachusetts increased by 46.3% percent. The White population of Massachusetts decreased by 4.10% percent.

Asians went from 236,786 to 347,495 and increased 46.7% percent.

We could continue on, state by state, but you get the idea of how the numbers work. We first find the data telling us the raw numbers of increase or decrease by different racial groups. Then we can determine through a simple formula what percentage of increase or decrease that represents. Let’s cut to the chase and highlight the most anomalous results from the 2010 Census data.

Pay attention to what is happening in the Southeast. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2000 and 2010, the black population in Georgia increased from 2,331,465 to 2,910,800. During the same decade, the White population in Georgia increased only from 5,128,661 to 5,413,920.

By the percentages, that means that from 2000 to 2010 the black population of Georgia increased by 24.8%, while the White population of Georgia increased by 5.5 percent. That’s a net gain by blacks of nearly 20%. Twenty percent! If you think that’s something, the black population in Florida increased from 2,264,268 to 2,851,100. During the same decade, the White population in Florida increased only from 10,458,509 to 10,884,722. So, from 2000 to 2010 the black population of Florida increased by 25.9%, while the White population of Florida increased by 4.0 percent. That’s a net gain by blacks of 22%, the highest gains by blacks in any state relative to Hispanics and Asians and Whites combined, nationwide. That wasn’t the result of higher birth rates, as much as it was blacks moving there, who in 2000 had resided in other states.

Alabama and Mississippi both experienced net black gains of 6%, by comparison, showing that the core of the black internal remigration has been to Georgia and Florida. They will form the heartland of New Africa. If I were a betting man, I’d wager that Atlanta will be the capitol.

Now, let’s look at the growth of the Latrino population in the border states and the Southwestern U.S.. It’s been even greater than the explosion of the black population in the Southeast. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic population in Texas increased from 6,669,666 to 9,460,921. During the same decade, the White population in Texas increased from 10,933,313 to 11,397,345.

In other words, the Hispanic population of Texas increased by 41.8% percent, while the White population of Texas increased by 4.2% percent. That’s a net Hispanic gain of 37%, NOT counting illegal immigrants. Imagine what the percentage of growth would be, if the Census counted illegal immigrants? The black and Asian populations held virtually steady.

Moving west, the Hispanic population in New Mexico increased from 765,386 to 953,403. The White population in New Mexico increased from 813,495 to 833,810. From 2000 to 2010 the Hispanic population of New Mexico increased by 24.5% percent, while the White population of New Mexico increased by 2.4% percent.  That’s a net Hispanic gain of 22%, not counting illegal immigrants.

On August 14th, 2014, The New York Times website published an online article featuring a map of the United States showing where immigrants to those states came from. Focusing on the period from 1900 to 2012, it doesn’t accurately show the massive changes that have occurred just since 1965 when the Hart-Cellar immigration act opened up the borders. It does, however, give a much broader, big picture overview of general trends. Twenty-eight percent of the population of California, for example, was foreign born over the last century. Over the last generation, though, the shift has been even more stark.

The Hispanic population in Arizona grew almost as much as that of Texas, from 1,295,617 to 1,895,149, from 2000 to 2010. During the same decade, the White population in Arizona increased from 3,274,258 to 3,695,647. That’s an increase by 46.2%, while the White population of Arizona increased by 12.8 percent, a net Hispanic gain of 34%, not counting illegal immigrants. The Tucson Unified School District has already begun running elementary and secondary education courses in “race studies”, at taxpayer expense, which teach youngsters to hate Whites, and love “La Raza”, their own race, which they believe have a right to the SouthWestern United States as their own independent nation.

And of course, even taking into consideration the growth in the Asian population in California, Latrinos increased there from 10,966,556 to 14,013,719. The White population in California decreased from 15,816,790 to 14,956,253. So the Hispanic population of California increased by 27.7% percent, while the White population of California decreased by 5.4% percent. A net Hispanic gain of 22%, not counting illegal immigrants. Most of the 5% loss in the White population from California turned up in other states, as we’ll see here in a couple of pages.

On some of the government demographic paperwork, for example  in Census forms, it only gives one the option of choosing the Mexican subcategory in the White category.  Think that could factor in on the comparative percentages, as well? Of course it does. Meaning, the relative growth of the Latrino population in the border states is probably even greater than these numbers indicate, due to the possibility of Rachel Dolezal style self-identification. Also, some Hispanics identify under the ‘American Indian or Alaskan Native’ category, or even under Asian / Pacific Islander …which they actually ARE, of course, but still, it begs credulity, and muddies the waters considerably. And remember, these Census figures cannot account for the millions and millions of illegals in all states. Most illegal immigrants don’t respond to Census inquiries accurately, for obvious reasons.

By now, dear reader, I’m sure that you’re ready for some good news, right? Well, rest assured, there is some good news. It consists of the turnaround of the generalized national trend towards a declining White percentage of the population in the Western and Midwestern states. Because, all of those White folks missing from the Southeast and Southwest are going somewhere. Where, exactly? Largely, North.  To the upper South, Midwest, and West. To the Heartland of America, the red states, to what the blue states on the diverse coasts and corners call ‘Flyover Country’.  To New America.

Largely because of the demographic outlier of Chicago, the Black population of Illinois decreased by 1.25% percent, while the Hispanic population of Illinois increased by 32.4% percent., and the White population of Illinois decreased by 3.04% percent. The winner there is the Hispanics.

In Indiana, it was almost a dead heat, as the black population increased by 15.1%, while the Hispanic population of Indiana increased by 15.1% percent as well, and the White population increased by 1.28 percent.

The other agricultural states experienced a flood not only of Hispanic farm workers and their families, but poultry and pork processing plant employees, too.  The Black population of Iowa increased by 43 percent, while the Hispanic population grew by an astounding 83.7% and the White population of Iowa decreased by 0.34 percent. Similar results exist in Kansas and Nebraska.

To illustrate the black migration out of Detroit back to the southeast, from 2000 to 2010 the black population of Michigan actually DECREASED by 1.30% percent, while the Hispanic population of Michigan increased by 34.7%, and the White population of Michigan decreased by 3.03 percent.  Asians had a large increase in Michigan, 175,311 to 236,490, which amounts to 34.8%.

So, even though the anticipated actual increase in the White percentage of the population between the Appalachians and the Rockies hasn’t resulted in a statistical demographic shift as yet, the relatively lesser White displacement in future New American states reflect a comparative difference in the rate of internal migration, as well as its nature. This is analogous to several cars lined up in a race. One which decides to turn around and head in the other direction first has to downshift, then brake, then make a U-turn, rather than simply stopping on a dime and making a 180.

Now, the first figure I went for was the most increase in White population, period, as a starter, close to or at 10% percent or higher. Check out the results:

Utah increased its White population by 16.6% percent from 2000 to 2010.

Arizona  increased by 12.8% percent.

Idaho increased by 15.5% percent.

Nevada increased by 12.2% percent.

South Carolina increased by 11.7% percent.

Wyoming increased by 10.2% percent.

North Carolina increased by 10.2% percent.

Colorado increased by 9.92% percent.

Obviously, while in most Western and Midwestern states the White percentage of the population either almost held steady with the increasing nonWhite population, or the increasing nonWhite population was in states with such a low population, as in the Dakotas, that the shift represented a relatively few actual number of persons, the states with actual INCREASES in the White percentage of the population from 2000 to 2010 are North Carolina, South Carolina, Colorado, Wyoming, Alaska, and Hawaii. That’s not exactly the numbers or geographic distribution I’d anticipated, but it is the data I was looking for.

     Here is why: Overall, the states with the greatest increase in their relative percentage of White population are Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. States where the White population has begun a similar turnaround include Utah, and North and South Dakota (especially North, due to the shale fracking boom). That IS exactly what my Balkanization theory anticipated.

Therefore, the internal migration of Whites from the border states which are being overran by Hispanics are headed for Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and the Dakotas. Whites who are fleeing the Southeast are going a state or two north, to the Carolinas, Tennessee, and Arkansas. But of course even within any particular state, the majority of internal remigration never crosses state lines. Most Whites simply move out of the city, and into more White areas. But the value and extent of the voluntarily racial segregation is still just as valid, even if no state lines are crossed.

In his article ‘Balkanization Beckons’, Pat Buchanan stated that “If a country is a land of defined and defended borders, within which resides a people of a common ancestry, history, language, faith, culture and traditions, in what sense are we Americans one nation and one people today?” He further quoted Founding Father John Jay, who stated in The Federalist Papers No. 2,

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs …”.

Does this still describe America? If not, are we, collectively, all still America? Buchanan agrees that the United States of America is headed towards a breakup along racial lines, for many of the same reasons we’ve already outlined.

In addition to simply counting the demographics, we also need to watch events unfolding in the overall culture, economy, society, and the armed forces. In “Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America”, the Balkan example is cited, again and again. The author, Thomas Chittum, fought as a mercenary in the civil war in Yugoslavia. Drawing from his experiences there, and his study of History, he observed:

      “Did anyone write a book predicting our first civil war? I did some research on that subject and I was unable to find a single book warning Americans that they were fast approaching an abyss. That’s not to say that people were unaware of the approaching war. In fact, many people were perfectly aware that a civil war was inevitable. My guess is that not a single person wrote a book on the coming war because they thought it would be a sort of picnic with a little gunfire mixed in, and in any case it would be over in a few months. As history records the war ground the entire southern half of America into a smoking wasteland and killed or crippled almost an entire generation of American men.”

Indeed, over 620,000 died and the nation and its government were changed forever. But, people were in denial. Noone wanted to admit that it was coming, even after the war became an inevitability. Chittum believes that, with an economic depression and grid collapse accompanying a racial civil war, as many as half of the current U.S. population might starve to death during the coming conflict. That may be optimistic. What would you do to feed your family if there were no more groceries on the store shelves, or gas at the service station? What about six months afterwards? With three hundred million others, all thinking the same thing? It’s something to consider. It’s no wonder that so many people are in denial about this next coming civil war, too.

The above article is an excerpt from Chapter Two of ‘The Balk: What does it mean, and what will it mean to America’s future?‘ by Billy Roper