For years, academics, demographers, and pundits have been discussing the implications of the impending minority status of Whites in America. This trend projection is usually portrayed as an inevitability, regardless of whether or not there’s much of a change in immigration policy. The usual tack which pundits take is that the Republican party in particular needs to embrace diversity to improve its appeal to African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians.
On the left, especially among academics, there tends to be an avid celebration of the demographic displacement of European-Americans. The theology of ‘white privilege’ holds that Europeans as a whole are guilty of unique historical crimes which morally justifies their cultural and physical displacement from their lands. If anything, the sentence placed on Europeans collectively is harsher than anything dreamed up at the Nuremberg tribunals, with the charges being more vague, subjective, non-specific, and targeted to an entire population rather than specific political leaders.
If this political rhetoric has a purpose, it’s to help the multicultural political coalition to tighten itself. Intellectuals intended to discourage the political right from dissenting on the perceived fait accompli of mass immigration to the postwar coalition in the Western world. The chain of reasoning went:
- Whites will become a minority in all major Western nations in 50 years or less.
- The current political right, especially in the US, has a mostly mono-cultural appeal, which means that its agenda will never be able to succeed in universal suffrage democracy in which the ethnic group it most appeals to becomes a minority.
- Therefore, the right must pander to more diverse ethnic groups in order to salvage some of its political viability.
The problem with this chain of reasoning is that it forecloses an almost infinite number of alternative political strategies that could be adopted in response to changing conditions. Liberal, universal suffrage democracy is itself not a permanent fixture either in Europe or globally — if you tell a population that it’s going to have to give up power over its own affairs in order to maintain a political system that’s at least legitimized by popular vote, there’s a good chance that at least some portion of those people are going to be more willing to drop the popular vote than they are to give up power over their own affairs to a largely foreign population.
This is how that rhetoric wound up backfiring on the academics and intellectuals — by being so clumsy and open about telling the native populations that they were terrible-bad-people who needed to be abolished, they triggered a defensive response that might not have happened otherwise with nearly as much vehemence.
So far, most of the rhetoric on the populist right has been around restricting immigration — which will do little to alter the demographic trajectory of Western countries other than reducing the acceleration of the decline of the native populations. Because this would be necessary but not sufficient to alter the ultimate future of Western civilization, there are a couple further moderate proposals which actually could — one would be mass deportations, and the other would be some combination of restrictions upon the popular vote and experiments in various forms of private government.
The reason why universal suffrage encourages open-borders policies is that it encourages political adventurers to import enormous numbers of potential voters for their personal power or (more typically) their party — regardless of the future consequences to the quality of life in the country in question. If you give a vote to anyone with a heartbeat, it encourages politicians to fight with one another by importing people with heartbeats, regardless of the character of the people who have those blood-pumping organs.
It’s well and good to treat the symptoms of a larger political error, but in order to prevent a recurrence of the same problem, more significant changes are going to be necessary.
Great post, but I question the main assertion that the permanent minority rhetoric backfired. Yes, there is some backlash as seen with Trump’s popularity, but overall the backlash is far smaller than the “frontlash” of mass immigration and demographic replacement.
“there’s a good chance that at least some portion of those people are going to be more willing to drop the popular vote than they are to give up power over their own affairs to a largely foreign population.”
You’d hope so. It seems a given that at least in some Western European countries, the possibility of Zimbabwe-like retributions against whites by swarthy minorities adhering the religion of peace is extremely high when the demography scale finally tips. In America, large portions of the country will inevitably become unlivable for whites, forcing either an exodus of whites overseas or the clustering of whites into protectionist city states. All of this division is highly positive for the end goal of dismantling the current elite. Eventually it spills over from useful election tactic to widespread violence and mayhem. We might summarize this line of thought by saying that the current policies are wonderful for the Democrat Party’s prospects, but awful for democracy’s prospects.
I would definitely agree the jubilation over whites becoming a minority, coupled with the repeat humiliation of particularly white males by the advance of feminism and sodomite rights, has allowed for an inroad by groups like TRS and AmRen. Something like #cuckservative just wouldn’t have been possible even at the height of Tea Party anger in 2010. Now it is. This isn’t to say that Conservative whites are joining a clarion call blasting their trumpets, but behind the scenes they are whispering that the ‘far right’ have a point. They don’t want their kids to suffer what South African whites have suffered, babies wrapped in newspaper and burned alive, 12 year olds forced into boiling bathtubs after their mothers are raped repeatedly in the next room.
It is perhaps the case that Reactionaries in general are not hammering home this point forcefully enough. Whites don’t want to become neo-nazis or skinheads, but they are ultimately becoming more fearful and are running out of places to turn. I honestly can’t see huge difficulty, in the event of a general collapse, to install an authoritarian government somewhere. The intellectual and theoretical groundwork is amazingly strong at this point.
Mark Citadel: Can you please provide some links to those stories about South African babies and children?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/9430173/South-African-12-year-old-drowned-in-boiling-water-after-seeing-parents-killed.html
http://www.johndenugent.com/white-south-african-tragedy/
Our disgusting and depraved media have buried these stories, barely reporting them so as not to disrupt the narrative that all atrocities are white in origin. If they widely publicized what would have been met with tremendous outrage just 80 years ago, they know there would finally be reprisals in white countries. But no, it’s all about Trayvon Martin of course.
South Africa and Zimbabwe are places where blacks can live, albeit in smaller numbers and a more primitive standard of living, without the assistance of whites. Any non-white victory north of the 40th parallel would be short-lived, as none would survive a six-month winter without subsidized fuel or EBT cards.
All scenarios of white defeat depend on the US government and its vassal states suppressing any effective self-defense by whites, even as its white supporters are being raped and murdered by the diversity they profess to love. The government will splinter, its money will become worthless, and non-whites will either starve to death in their urban ghettos or wander into rural areas and quietly disappear into unmarked graves and dog stomachs.
It’s as silly as Nouri al-Maliki thinking, “Once those American troops are out of my way, I’ll purge my government of Sunnis and crush their people once and for all!” Oops.
I don’t buy the argument that the flood of immigrants is to bring in a permanent leftist voting majority. Since when has what the “voters” think had anything to do with what the ruling class does? I can’t think of any major social or legislative change that occurred because a large majority of voters insisted on it. The civil rights movement? A Cathedral owned and operated putsch. Abortion on demand? Imposed by the courts. The sexual revolution? Imposed by the media and academic elites. Gay marriage? Again, the people voted against it. Did that matter? Not at all. Even the massive illegal immigration invasion is occurring against the will of the people and without consent of the governed.
Voting does not matter to the elite. It barely registers. It doesn’t even slow them down. The “voters” are inconsequential, hapless, and unable to change anything even with massive popular majorities on certain issues.
Elections tend to work like this: voters get riled up about issue X. Candidates are elected that support X. When a majority of these candidates are seated then several months of obfuscation, gobbledegook, and misdirection occur, and then lo and behold, legislation Y is produced. Y is not X. It may be the exact opposite of X. Or it may not be related at all to X. So the voters are left scratching their heads going, what is this Y? What happened to X? And the media and politicians go blah blah blah we needed Y blah blah blah. And then, to top it off, pundits get mad at the voters and blame them for Y. You voted for those candidates, they cry. It’s you voters fault we have Y! And the voters all shrug and say “but we had no idea Y was even on the agenda!”
The ruling class has its own agenda. The voters don’t matter. The immigrants are here more to destroy our culture and the ability of hard working natives to reach the middle class. The immigrants are not needed for their votes. Elections don’t matter and they have never mattered, except to serve as obfuscation of the underlying agenda and a distraction to the mass of people.
I’d agree somewhat with your assessment, but I do think that the people supporting this demographic switch do calculate it as a party-thing. They’re interested in getting re-elected, and more minorities means that more left wing candidates are likely to get elected. Hispanics are the perfect race for this because contrary to what Conservatives want to believe, they are not ‘deep down right wingers naturally’. Mexico had one of the first atheist constitutions!. Hispanics also have a constant stream of relatives they’re intent on dragging with them, and genuinely believe the idea that voting Republican would prevent this.
With all this said however, your overall analysis is correct that democratic majorities voting in elections or referendums have decided very few key social changes, and this goes for the entire Western world, not just the United States. But we should remember the people who do make the decision, the elites, are often placed into their position via democracy. Obama is where he is today because of an electorate. The SCOTUS looks the way it does today because of Obama who is where he is because of the electorate. Democracy is a great engine for getting horribly incompetent and evil men into power, because rather being under the scrutiny of an aristocratic class, these candidates are under the scrutiny of idiots, the masses, made worse by the fact that women and ethnic minorities are included in those masses.
Elections do not decide policy direction, but they do decide the quality of the ruling class, and in almost all instances, they give rise to the worst possible candidates for such offices, both directly and indirectly. A democracy will never provide the kind of leaders that monarchy provides. Princes study to rule. Presidential candidates study to campaign.
Our ruling class is not our elected officials. Obama is a puppet. He is there not because the people wanted him, but because the elites did. Our nation is, and always has been run by the top 5%. The movers and shakers in the education and academic establishment, high finance, culture and media, and the empire builders of the deep state/ military industrial complex. They’re the ones who come up with and implement all the asinine ideas.
I mean, “gay marriage,” who comes up with that shit? Thousands of years of human history and suddenly we’ve got “gay marriage?” Do you think Joe Sixpack was sitting on his couch one day watching the game, and he scratches his beer belly, and says, “I know! Let’s let the fags get married!”
Nope. That idea came from the product of our finest institutions. Our cognitive elite. The movers and shakers of society. We already have an aristocracy, and this is what they come up with. In the words of John Derbyshire, “we’re doomed!”
Correction: this isn’t an aristocracy, which means ‘rule of the best’. This is a kakistocracy, a ‘rule of the worst’. I have a Social Matter article coming up which concerns this very point. The people in charge right now, who drive policy, and invent crap like gay marriage are the literal WORST elites you could have. The entire caste system has been turned on its head.
You got that right. We have had elites that for more than a century have been wrecking our culture. My theory is that the industrial revolution is what swept them into power. And the enlightenment had already undermined the moral and philosophical underpinnings of the old elite.