Social Matter

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:

1. Whites will become a minority in all major Western nations in 50 years or less.
2. 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.
3. 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.