2041: The End of White America

So, this is probably the most controversial video I'll ever make. It's about a topic that, depending on who you ask, is either a total racist conspiracy theory or something that's actually happening?

Uh, isn't the end of white America, as we see the rise of Hispanics? Um, a good thing, proof that America is a melting pot, that anybody can succeed here, no matter the color of your skin or your religion or whatever.

What is going to hold us together when we don't have a common religion? We don't have common beliefs about right and wrong and morality as we used to. Uh we are at war over over you know whether or not equality means equality of rights or equality of reward.

Now there's a lot of names for it. Some people call it the end of white America or the replacement theory which is the idea that white populations in Western nations are being replaced on purpose through immigration, low birth rates and corporate policies. and white Americans will soon be a minority and that's great. You know, whites will will not be the majority. I mean, that's it's an exciting transformation of the country. It's an exciting evolution and, you know, progress of our country.

We are going to be a white minority very, very soon. I'm okay with that.

America is going to look very different in a 100 years. You're not going to be able to tell you're black, you're white, you're Hispanic, you're Puerto Rican, whatever. It's going to be very complex. For the first time in American history, the number of white people went down.

White population is declining for the first time in history in America.

White people will not be the majority in the country anymore.

This will be the first generation ever in American history uh in which whites will be a minority. And you might have seen videos from far-right media or maybe you've seen a few viral videos on Tik Tok about how a lot of countries used to be a certain way and how they've completely changed over time. And that has led people to in some cases wake up in their own country where the laws that are meant to protect them are now putting them in prison over just speaking up about them. Arguably the best example of this is of course the UK where saying something offensive on the internet can get you in jail.

You went on to say that you did not want your money going to immigrants who quote rap our kids and get priority end quote. Although you said that you had no intention of carrying out any act of violence, there can be no doubt that you were inciting others to do so. otherwise why post the comment

and that's made people worry that if we don't talk about this now if we don't do anything about it the US will find itself in the same situation

and it's coming so fast within 5 or 10 years it is going to be way out of control we have a prime example of this Europe Europe is gone and it they will have to fight in the streets to get it back and that's coming

So today, I really want to look at this as objectively as I can because when you take away the anger and the headlines, I think there's a very real explanation for it. And the reason I wanted to make this video is not just to prove to you that this is in fact happening, but it's also to ask a bigger question. Why is this happening? And what does it mean when the identity of a country changes? And why are some people upset while the leaders celebrate it? And the wave still continues. It's not going to stop, nor should we want it to stop.

So, let's take a look at the data and what it actually shows, the emotional reactions people are having, the incentives behind it, and at the end of this video, I'll share my own story as an immigrant and my family's experience. So, with that said, let's get into it. Hi, my name is Henri Jick. Hope you're doing well. Come for the finance and stay for immigration.

Now, let me first sort of explain how we got here because we have to go back to one law that changed everything. In 1965, the United States passed something called the Immigration and Nationality Act. Some people call it the Heart Seller Act. Now, the goal was to end an old immigration system that prioritized European immigrants over everyone else. Before 1965, the US used quotas that favored immigrants from countries like the UK and Germany, Italy, and it limited immigration from Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America. Now, at that time in the context of the civil rights movement, they were trying to change that. So, hard seller did actually three big things. First, it got rid of those quotas completely. Second, it replaced it with a system that was based mostly on something called family reunification and employmentbased visas. And three, it placed a cap on immigration from the Western world for the first time. From this day forth, those wishing to immigrate to America shall be admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationships to those already here.

Now, here's something really important. At that time, politicians told the public that this law would not really change the demographic makeup of the United States. President Lyndon Johnson said himself that the law would not reshape America. it would not be flooded with immigrants and it would not change its cultural identity and a lot of people voted for it probably believed it because on paper the law was not about mass immigration.

They thought well people who have family members who want to reunify with them that's mostly going to be Europeans. As it turns out uh that really wasn't the case.

What lawmakers either didn't understand or did not explain to the public is how something called chain migration works. You see, when you prioritize that concept of family reunification, one immigrant coming here does not just mean one person. It means their parents and their siblings, their spouses, their children. Multiple generations of people could come here all because of one person. And that created exponential growth. Now once the door was open to the rest of the world especially to places with much bigger populations and much higher demands to move to the US everything changed. Now it wasn't immediate didn't happen overnight but over decades and decades it completely changed the flow of immigration into the US because before 1965 the majority of immigrants came from Europe. After 1965, immigrants came mostly from Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. So when people argue about whether demographic change was planned or accidental, the truth is at the very least it was underestimated. Whether that was intentional or not is up for debate. But once it started, it became politically and economically impossible to reverse. And this is how the country has changed. In 1960, about 90% of the US population was white. Today, it's closer to 58%. By 2045, white Americans are projected to become a minority. Now, that's not some fringe alt-right prediction. That is according to the US Census Bureau. And it's not just in the US either. In the UK, the white British population has dropped from 87% in 2001 to 74% in just two decades. In cities like London, Birmingham, and Lchester, white Brits are already in the minority. By 2063, they say that the whole country will become a Brit minority. Now, France, Sweden, Canada, Germany, same trends. Now, some people will look at that and say, "Okay, but so what? Populations change. Who cares? Other people will look at this data and feel like something's been lost to them. They feel like the culture that they grew up with and the values they believed in and the sense of their identity is being erased. Right? Those people want to preserve their countries as they remember them from time they were children. They want to preserve their countries free, independent, safe, clean, and beautiful. They want their countries without hordes of illegal aliens and women and children in the streets. And they want their countries without daily terrorist attacks. And to make things worse, when people talk about it, they're told that they're either racist or xenophobic or dangerous. And at the same time, politicians and media figures and even corporations are celebrating this as a good thing. Not just acknowledging it, but celebrating it. And that creates this really weird tension because people say that if this was the natural way of things, if diversity is meant to happen organically over time and this is inevitable, well then that's fine. But why is it being pushed on purpose? Why are people being punished for talking about it? Because if this was just about diversity and helping refugees or immigrants, you'd expect to see a balanced conversation. But we don't see that. You have to force behaviors. And if you don't force behaviors, whether it's gender or race or just any way you want to say the composition of your team, you're going to be impacted.

To make things worse, people argue that for some reason, you don't see diversity initiatives going in the other direction into non-white majority countries. You don't see governments encouraging white immigration into say Japan or China, Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. And if they did, those populations just wouldn't accept it. But in the West, resisting it is considered hateful. And when people speak out in places like the UK, they might even be arrested literally for saying things online. And that's why people feel upset because if you take their ability to speak and you change their environment faster than they can adapt to it, it feels like an invasion. And that's what's led this conversation devolving into conspiracy. So the next question is, okay, then what is the real reason why this is happening? Well, it turns out there is a bigger reason and it has a lot to do with, you guessed it, money, economics. Why? Because one of the most powerful forces behind immigration is an idea called demographics. And when you understand how demographics work, you start to see the bigger picture of why all of this is happening and why some people believe it's necessary, at least economically speaking. So let's start with a very basic idea. Economic growth depends on people. More people means more workers, more consumers, people that buy stuff, more taxpayers, more innovation, more overall productivity. But there is a problem. Across the whole developed world right now, population growth is collapsing. The global fertility rate in the 1960s was over five children per woman. Today, it's below 2.1, which is what economists call the replacement level. And that is the case in almost every developed country. These are not just low numbers. They are demographically disastrous to an economy. People are just not having enough kids. And when less people are born, you eventually have what? Less workers. That means less people paying into the system. But the number of retirees, people taking from the system keeps on growing. Why? Because people are living longer thanks to advancements in medicine and technology and all those things. And that leads to things like underfunded pensions, slower economic growth, rising debt, right? So, how do we fix that problem? Well, it's actually very easy. A country has to make more money than it spends. That's it. Grow the economy faster than people can take from it. But if you can't do that, which it seems like for now we can't. And if you can't or won't incentivize people to have more children, then you have to import. And if the nativeborn population is not replacing itself, that means new people have to be brought in from somewhere else. Okay, then. But why, right? Like who does that benefit? And there's a very good explanation for that. But whether or not you will benefit from immigration depends on where you are in life. Here's why. Immigrants increase demand for housing, right? More for goods and services. They keep real estate market strong. And maybe even more importantly, they help wealthy people get more wealthy. People who already hold assets. If you own property, for example, rental prices go up. Makes you richer. You have a lot of people have housing that because we have such a strong time and such a strong market, their houses are very valuable. It's a big part of their uh net worth, their house. I don't want to knock those numbers down.

If you own stocks, consumer spending goes up, makes you richer. If you collect taxes, your base just got bigger. If you have any wealth at all, whether you know it or not, you are indirectly benefiting economically from immigration. Now, if you're in power and you're a political leader, you have even more incentive to import people because it can help you get the votes. It helps you stay in power.

An unrelenting stream of immigration nonstop, non-stop.

So, in that sense, immigration sort of has become the economic replacement theory. It's a strategy to replace lost growth with new people. But this strategy obviously leaves out a lot, right? It's very one-sided and it raises a really hard question to answer, which is what happens to the people who are used to living a certain way, who live in the real world whose neighborhoods and schools have changed and for people who might not own any assets at all. What happens to the cultural tension of a whole country when the strategy is to bring in people faster than the people can absorb them? What you get is very much what we're seeing right now in a lot of the world. And so then the question is, well, what good is a GDP if your country slowly becomes an LLC, a business that is in service not to its people, but to its profits. And that's where the conversation gets way harder because it becomes less about the price and more about the common values. And here's what I mean. Economists can say, well, immigration helps the economy because growth goes up. But what that system does not account for is the cost of immigration for the people of that country, which explains where we are today, which is very divided and very angry. Now, you might have seen this, but there was this very popular article that just came out called The Lost Generation. The link is down below. It got millions and millions of views. And what the article exposed is that starting in the mid210s, things started to get even worse because a lot of elite institutions adopted a practice called DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion so that they could change representation outcomes or the habits of people.

You have to force behaviors and at BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors.

Now, these policies didn't have exact quotas, which would be illegal, but DEI used certain hiring priorities, special programs, and metrics that were designed to create a very specific outcome. The outcome was to increase representation of people who were historically under represented. And that's what ended up happening systematically. Young white men of an entire generation started to become excluded from the workplace.

In 2014, white men were 31% of American medical students. By 2025, they were just 20%. White men dropped from 31% of law school graduates to 25%.

Now, this is from publicly available data cited from the universities which show white men, for example, accounted for roughly 48% of lower level television writers in 2011. but less than 12% by 2024. In academia, Harvard's humanities departments saw white men in what are called tenure track positions go down from roughly 39% in 2014 to less than 20% by the early 2020s. At some universities like Brown and University of California, newly hired tenure positions in certain departments were overwhelmingly non-white and non-male. And these numbers show a very fast change in who got access to elite and institutional positions. And when that change happens so fast, it creates a situation where people that are trying to get a job at that exact moment are excluded systematically. Now, the article goes on to interview dozens of millennials and journalists and academics and creatives, a lot of whom tell their own story about applying to dozens of jobs without ever getting hired. Now, what matters isn't whether every personal case was fair or unfair. It's that a very big group of very specific people experienced the same exclusionary outcome at the same time. Now, you could look at that and say a couple things. Well, that's how we fight systematic oppression, right? That's how we give other people a chance. But the question becomes, do two wrongs make a right? Is fighting historic oppression with modern-day oppression the answer? Now, some people might say, well, that's just their fear or their racism or nostalgia for the past. But the average person who process it does it like this. Wait, so you're telling me that I have to compete with immigrants for jobs, compete with boomers for housing, and try to get a job when everyone is prioritizing demographic outcomes that I can't control? And if I question that, I'm told the problem is me, right? So the question again comes back to, did two wrongs make a right? Because if yes, then that is a recipe for division and instability. And I think it explains a lot of what we're seeing today politically, socially, and definitely emotionally. I think it all flows from that. Okay. So maybe the problem is not immigration itself, but maybe the problem is how fast it's happening. Because immigration when it works can be a really good thing, but it only works under a very specific set of conditions. And that's where I want to tell you my story because as an immigrant, I have an interesting first person point of view about all this because I wasn't born here. I came to the US as an immigrant in 1998 from Russia with my parents. And I remember just how hard it was. I remember my parents getting made fun of, not cuz of how they looked, cuz they looked white, but because of how they sounded. I remember how we were looked at and all the names we were called, like dumb immigrants. And it was really bad. And as a 9-year-old, I was able to adapt really fast. And I lost my accent pretty fast. So, every time we go out, I'd be like, "Okay, guys, let me talk because uh they won't know, right?" So, here I am as a 9-year-old trying to be an adult. And what's funny about it is when I look back at all of it, the way we were treated was obviously really wrong. But I also remember there were things that we had a hard time understanding. Uh we had a hard time conforming and a hard time fitting in. I did too. But eventually, we did. How were we able to? Why was the past so different than maybe what it is today? And I think the reason that we were able to back then is because the conditions were such that my parents were in a way forced to assimilate, right? They were forced to become American because we were surrounded by them. So naturally, we wanted to belong. We wanted to learn and immerse oursel in the culture. We had no other choice. And circumstantially because we had no help from the government or welfare. We had to figure it out. We did not expect America to change for us when we came here. We changed for America and that's what made us become Americans. That's the difference. It's the attitude and arguably it's the attitudes that seem to have changed which has become such a problem. Because when immigration becomes less about joining a country and more about changing it to look like the place where you come from, that's when people feel like it's not immigration. It's it's an invasion, right? It feels forced on you. And that brings me to the next question, which is what actually holds a country together? Because if the answer is the economy, then sure, you can justify any of this for the sake of the economy. nothing matters if it's in service to the dollar, right? But if it's about more than that, if it's about shared values like freedom of speech or if it's a common language, a common history, having a culture, having a common way of life, a belief in certain ideas, then we have to ask, are we protecting those things while in service of the economy or are we replacing those ideals for the benefit of the economy, which ultimately benefits who? those with options and those with resources. That's the Cantalon effect which says those closest to power and money are the ones who benefit the most. And if that is the case, if the economy is what we are prioritizing, then I think politicians just need to be honest about that. But if it's not about the economy, which I think it clearly is, but we're told it's about something else, well then the conversation spirals into conspiracy. And I think that leaves us to make some really hard decisions because in the ideal world, we should be able to do everything, right? Like it's possible to welcome new people and to protect the country's values. It should be possible to grow the economy and preserve its culture. But to do that, it takes having a very honest conversation about the rate of immigration and the source of it. And when I say an honest conversation, I don't just mean performative where the president singles out and attacks a specific country.

And I say, why is it we only take people from countries, but we always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime.

I don't think this is going to fix anything. I think it's mean-spirited and it doesn't do anything other than maybe help in the midterms. But here's how I see it. If the rate of immigration continues at this pace, then it becomes a lot harder for immigrants to assimilate to US values because there's less need to. Like my parents when they moved here, one of the first things they did as immigrants is find a community of like-minded people because you want to belong. And that's what we did. But because the conditions were such that they were forced to learn, we were able to become Americans. But if an entire zip code or a whole city was full of Russians, we would probably never change because we wouldn't have to. That doesn't make anyone bad people. That's just the reality of human nature. No one wants to be surrounded by strangers and feel uncomfortable because change is uncomfortable. So maybe the question is not whether we should or should not have immigration. Maybe the real question should be how much, how fast, and where should it come from? Because when it happens too fast, when whole neighborhoods and cities or even school systems change at the expense of its people, we're not setting them up to become American. We're just asking them to bring their old world into a new place. And over time, some of those worlds just won't mix. They clash. And that much is very clear from the data at this point. young men who come from countries in which women aren't even classed as secondclass citizens and you put them up in four-star hotels, allow them to work illegally, their attitude towards women is completely different to ours. So the social effects of this are appalling as well.

I think given enough time, the attitudes of the guests become an expectation. The guest demands that you be tolerant and you conform and that doesn't feel good. From the time I remember moving here, I watched how people wanted to be around what was familiar to them. And the more familiar things became, the less need there was to assimilate. That's why maybe slowing the rate of immigration might be one of the most compassionate things we can do. Now having said that I think there should always be an opportunity for everyone who still wants to come to America to have a better life. But the key word is opportunity. It's not an obligation. It's not a debt. No one is owed this. It's a privilege. But if immigration is purely in service of the dollar and if it's done too fast, that's when it becomes destructive. Now, how we fix that in theory, I think, is a lot easier than it is in practice. Either way, I'd love to know your perspective. And as always, I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Smash the like button, subscribe if you haven't already. I'd love to see you back here next week. I'll see you soon. Bye-bye.