Posted on April 25, 2011

Importing Disaster: Demographic Changes Mean Democrat Future

Selwyn Duke, American Thinker, April 25, 2011


{snip} In the Financial Times recently, Richard McGregor reported on the latest population data, writing:

The electorate has become less white and more Hispanic more rapidly than predicted, according to the national census, two trends that will influence elections for decades.


{snip} Ironically, while McGregor cites whites’ lower fertility rate, he doesn’t even once mention the 800-lb statist in the middle of the room: immigration. I guess being flooded with unassimilable foreigners is now taken so for granted that it no longer even warrants mention.

What McGregor does do is discuss immigration’s effects, as he, quoting the National Journal, asks “whether Republicans can increase their advantage among whites enough to overcome what is likely to be a growing share of the overall vote cast by minorities [in 2012].”

The answer?

It doesn’t matter.

As long as we continue our suicidal immigration policies–where 85 percent of newcomers hail from the Third World and Asia (thanks, Ted Kennedy)–the only thing that will be in question about our descent into socialism, and perhaps beyond, is the rate.


Remember that people create the government; government doesn’t create the people. If you replace Westerners with Muslims, you no longer have Christendom (or even the shell of it we now inhabit) but Iran West. And if you replace apple-pie Americans with I-want-your-piece-of-the-pie socialists, you no longer have the US but the USSR redux. Oh, of course, our immigration scheme isn’t replacing us in one fell swoop; instead, it’s happening incrementally, {snip}. And a death by a thousand cuts is still a death.

So we may talk about how Tea Parties are “waking people up,” but conservatives are asleep; the reality they’re ignoring is that there are fewer who can be woken up all the time. {snip}

{snip} Virtually every time someone complains about illegal migration, it’s accompanied by the disclaimer, “Now, I have no problem with legal immigration . . .” In fact, this blind devotion to our colonization (I call this devotion “immigrationism”) is so great that warnings about it are usually met with crickets chirping. So I will spell it out.

According to my calculations, on average, groups descended from the new immigrants in question vote for leftists approximately 79 percent of the time. This means that 79 percent of 36.3 percent of the population now supports statists (on top of the whites who do), and the latter figure is up almost 6 points in just 10 years. Soon it will be 79 percent of 40.

Then 79 percent of 50.

Then 60.

And 70, and, well, does anyone get it?


So what does this mean for the future? Well, in the 1990s, we had Bill Clinton and many people thought it couldn’t get any worse than the Wizard of Is. Eight years after he left office, however, we got Barack Obama, and now, once again, some think it can’t get any worse.

But they are wrong.

Just wait until Malia Obama is running.

On the right.

And who might be running to her left? Well, since our imported socialists come not from Denmark but south of the border, that is where I’ll look for possibilities.


Of course, we could get lucky and just end up like Mexico, a kleptocratic, drug-cartel-plagued state with socialist tendencies.

And we’re well on the road to such Third Worldism. Many conservatives are waiting for the next Ronald Reagan, but they miss the point. The question is not “Where are all the leaders?” but something else:

Where are all the followers?

Answer: dying off and being replaced.

In 1984, Reagan enjoyed a 49-state landslide victory, losing only Walter Mondale’s home state, Minnesota, by a narrow margin. Today, however, he not only would likely lose states such as Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont and New York, to name a handful, he wouldn’t even carry his home state of California. And consider who Americans elected a mere 20 years after Reagan left office: a man who spent those 20 years sitting in a bigoted, anti-American church; a man with a 2007 voting record to the left of that of the Senate’s only avowed socialist (Bernie Sanders). “And imagine,” some will say, “that man, Barack Obama, was elected by the same nation!”

But he wasn’t.

Just by people residing within the same borders.

And these are the consequences of not controlling the cultural elements that come into your land and, through the process the Soviets called “demoralization,” are raised up out of it.

Of course, my predictions are based on certain assumptions, not the least of which is that there will be an intact American republic to elect a leader in the future. But with how balkanized we are–the left-right and secular-religious divides, groups such as La Raza (the Race) and MEChA and the desire to “reconquer” Ca. and the Southwest in Mexico’s name–this is not a given.