Furthest Right

Demographic Replacement

You know you live in a controlled society when noticing certain obvious flaws causes the herd to attack you. Those of us who grew up after WW2 have only known living in a Soviet-style ideological system where you had better conform, because dissidents lose out on opportunity.

In other words, you can believe whatever you want, at minimum wage; if you want to get ahead, you have to walk the walk and squawk the talk, which means bleat-repeating out “diversity is our strength,” “we are all one,” and “we must fight inequality” or replicas thereof.

No one who makes to the presidential debates will have avoided, at some point, affirming the dominant paradigm. No one in media, academia, government, or business will dare to criticize it. The narrative rules us all because we filter out those who fail to conform.

Even more, we use political correctness as a filter. Phrases which could be against narrative are removed, which leads to us using other language which does affirm the narrative, causing us to self-censor our viewpoint into being the opposite of how it was intended.

We have seen this language filter in fiction:

Totalitarian propaganda unifies control over all information, until reality is what the Party says it is — the goal of Newspeak is to impoverish language so that politically incorrect thoughts are no longer possible.

Those who fail to not only censor themselves, but find new reasons why the failing system is doing well, never make it to the public eye. This is how one keeps control without asserting control, and no one is to blame.

Pushback against this has widened the window of acceptable discourse — in other words, reduced the effectiveness of the filter — by mentioning previously unacceptable things, all of which relate to genetic inequality.

Genetic inequality is the ultimate target of the Left, since their goal was to replace an aristocratic hierarchy with a centralized mob of equals. Whether sexual equality in feminism, class equality in socialism, or ethnic/racial equality with diversity, the goal is the same.

Ann Coulter was the first major political figure — joining Pat Buchanan — to broach the issue of race, ethnicity, and the identity of a nation as it struggles to avoid the plan of its Leftist leaders to import foreign people to vote for them.

She observes the following un-PC facts about demography in the USA:

From 1620 to 1970, the U.S. was demographically stable — not to be confused with “a nation of immigrants.” The country was about 85% to 90% white, almost entirely British, German, French and Dutch, and 10% to 15% African American.

In a generation, the white majority has nearly disappeared, while the black percentage has remained about the same, with more than 90% of African Americans still native-born. White Americans are one border surge away from becoming a minority in their own country.

It seems as if progress is inevitable, that things always get better and never retrogress. But the Roman Empire had philosophers, literature, science, great buildings, statues and works of art. It had advanced communication, plumbing and transportation systems. It had a universal set of measures, laws and rules.

And then the Dark Ages came. In the blink of an eye, all that was lost.

In other words, this country was forged from Western Europeans, and if it imports foreigners to replace them, it will no longer be what it once was, and like Rome — whose empire over-expanded, resulting in massive diversity — it will slowly implode and emerge a third world ruin.

The use of diversity as a method of control was well known in the ancient world, and continues to be a problem today, since any tyrant wannabe can import foreigners and have permanent allies.

As it turns out, only white people vote Republican and all minority groups vote Democrat.

Non-whites will be the swing vote in 2020:

Nonwhites will account for a third of eligible voters – their largest share ever – driven by long-term increases among certain groups, especially Hispanics.

In 2016, nonwhite voters were more likely to back Democrat Hillary Clinton, while white voters were more likely to back Republican Donald Trump.

We project that the 2020 election will mark the first time that Hispanics will be the largest racial or ethnic minority group in the electorate, accounting for just over 13% of eligible voters – slightly more than blacks. This change reflects the gradual but continuous growth in the Hispanic share of eligible voters, up from 9% in the 2008 presidential election and 7% in the 2000 election.

The population of Asians eligible to vote will reach an estimated 11 million in 2020, which is more than double the 5 million who were eligible to vote in 2000, accounting for 5% of next year’s electorate.

In fact, for all of recorded history, minorities have voted for Democrats and not Republicans, unlike white people of whom 54% vote Republican:

In a Pew Research Center pre-election survey, 62% of Latinos said they identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party compared with 27% who affiliated with the Republican Party. Among other racial and ethnic groups, a lower share of whites (44%) voted for Democrats in congressional races compared with blacks (90%) and Asians (77%).

In other words, once minorities become a majority, every election will be won by the Left. That was the whole point behind the Hart-Celler Act and the general Leftist push for third world immigration, following up on their success using mixed-whites to swing the vote to the Left and alienated, polarize, and divide the remaining members of the “British, German, French and Dutch” heritage American group of ethnic Western Europeans.

Not only do minorities vote against the majority in the US/EU, they do the same in Israel:

Owing to the flight of those refugees and to the mass immigration of Jews in the late 1940s and the 1950s, Palestinians at first made up a small minority of the Jewish state’s total population. But, of course, since the June 1967 war Israel has occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip—land overwhelmingly inhabited by Palestinians. And even more important in the long run, Yasir Arafat’s adage that the Palestinians’ best weapon is the womb has proved true. The birth rate in the occupied territories is far higher than Israel’s. Jews will very soon become a minority in the lands they occupy or rule from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean (by some calculations this has already happened), and some demographers forecast that in fifteen years they will make up as little as 42 percent of the population in this area. For decades Israelis debated the wisdom of annexing the territories, but in just five years a consensus has emerged within the Israeli political, military, and intelligence communities that the country must withdraw from much of, most of, or essentially all of the territories (those distinctions are of course a crucial issue for the Palestinians), lest Israeli Jews be forced to choose between living in a democracy and living in a Jewish state: Palestinians will demand not their own state but a single binational state, based on the principle of one man, one vote. And at that point, Israel’s deputy prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has said despairingly, “we will lose everything.”

Wherever diversity goes, conflict goes, and with it comes adversarial voting which pits the minorities and against the majority and — amazingly, in a time of overpopulation — starts a birth rate race between these groups.

Leftists encourage diversity because the inevitable increase caused by faster-breeding third world populations guarantees that Leftists will own the vote within two or three generations, at which point they can implement the socialism and control that they actually want.

Europe is doing the same thing:

This is part of the third worlding of the West which involves not just demographics, but mutilation of our institutions and replacement of our culture with the political culture of Leftism (egalitarianism, individualism, pluralism, utilitarianism, pacifism).

Others are starting to notice how this will tip the political balance in favor of permanent one-party rule by the Left in both USA and EU:

And in another first, there will be more Hispanic voters eligible to vote than African Americans, according to the analysis from Pew Research Center.

The growth of non-white voters, which Pew said favored Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 election, comes at the expense of the white vote.

Pew said that the white vote will total 66.7 percent in 2020, down from 76.4 in 2000.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, as the diversity has increased, the Left has become more Communist:

Increased liberal identification has been particularly pronounced among non-Hispanic white Democrats, rising 20 percentage points from an average 34% in the early 2000s to 54% in the latest period. By contrast, Gallup trends show a nine-point rise in the percent liberal among Hispanic Democrats, from 29% to 38%, and an eight-point increase among black Democrats, from 25% to 33%.

The percentage liberal has gone up 16 points among Democrats with a college degree only, 13 points among postgraduates, 12 points among those who have attended some college and 10 points among those with no college education.

The percentage of Democrats with college degrees has increased from 27% in 2001-2006 to 35% in 2013-2018.

Conforming with broader societal trends, the percentage of nonwhite Democrats has swelled from 31% in 2001-2006 to 43% in 2013-2018.

In other words, the Left has plumped itself with college-attending people — who receive a heavy dose of Leftist ideology — and minorities, who have always voted for more radical change but now are driving the white Leftist electorate in the same direction.

This “diversity dividend” for the Left has also created massive political polarization, with the two parties separating at high speed:

The overall share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades from 10% to 21%. And ideological thinking is now much more closely aligned with partisanship than in the past. As a result, ideological overlap between the two parties has diminished: Today, 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican.

These are civil war conditions or at least, Rome falling through a variety of symptoms of disunity, of which civil war and tyranny are just two.

Coulter also noted the third world component in common among all of our recent immigrant surges:

“Kamala Harris is right,” she told host Lou Dobbs. “Americans are not only tolerant, they’re amazingly generous and charitable. But we’re starting to feel like this is a con man preying on our charity. We’ve been quite charitable for the last several decades taking in more refugees than the rest of the world combined.”

“They’re not always refugees,” she said. “The fact that so many of these caravans want us hooking up with another and they’re coming from all these different countries. At some point, the problem isn’t one specific isolated problem with one country. The problem is that all these countries are dysfunctional.”

“The problem is who are the people are that are coming. If we overwhelm our country with even more millions of Latin Americans, eventually we just become another failed Latin American state,” Coulter concluded.

Apparently, this is controversial to some people, which makes no sense because the first sources to mention demographic replacement as a strategy were on the Left. Witness The New Republic jubilantly proclaiming “post-white America”:

But whites’ tenure as America’s mainstream population is on the wane, in a demographic sense.

The most recent information from the census and elsewhere shows how quickly the shift is happening. From 2000 to 2010, a decade during which the white population as a whole grew by just 1.2 percent, the number of white children in the United States declined by 4.3 million. Meanwhile the child populations of Hispanics, Asians, and people of two or more races were increasing. In comparative terms, whites constituted just 53 percent of America’s young people (down from nearly 70 percent in 1990) while Hispanics constituted 23 percent (up from just 12 percent).

The Pew survey found marked differences between baby boomers and millennials—who are known for their racial inclusiveness—with regard to agreement that the following are changes for the better: that more people of different races are marrying each other (36 percent versus 60 percent), that the population of Hispanics is growing (21 percent versus 33 percent), and that the population of Asians is growing (24 percent versus 43 percent).

Apparently, if you call it “post-white America” it is anti-racist, but if you call it “demographic replacement” it is racist. At least according to Leftists.

Not to be outdone, the National Geographic picked up the mythos and ran with it, proclaiming the end of the white majority as a transition:

The U.S. Census Bureau has projected that non-Hispanic whites will make up less than 50 percent of the population by 2044, a change that almost certainly will recast American race relations and the role and status of white Americans, who have long been a comfortable majority.

Hazleton’s experience offers a glimpse into the future as white Americans confront the end of their majority status, which often has meant that their story, their traditions, their tastes, and their cultural aesthetic were seen as being quintessentially American. This is a conversation already exploding across the country as some white Americans, in online forums and protests over the removal of Confederate monuments, react anxiously and angrily to a sense that their way of life is under threat. Those are the stories that grab headlines and trigger social media showdowns. But the shift in status—or what some are calling “the altitude adjustment”—is also playing out in much more subtle ways in classrooms, break rooms, factory floors, and shopping malls, where the future has arrived ahead of schedule. Since 2000, the minority population has grown to outnumber the population of whites who aren’t Hispanic in such counties as Suffolk in Massachusetts, Montgomery in Maryland, Mecklenburg in North Carolina, as well as counties in California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and Texas.

In reality, it is not a transition, but the destruction of a nation, and its replacement with something a lot closer to the failing Leftist republics of Latin America than what made America historically great, in parallel to what happened to Rome when it expanded its empire.

Even the mainstream news has noticed the eradication of the heritage ethnic Western Europeans who created America:

By 2020, the report estimates, the percentage of eligible voters who fall into the category of “white without a college degree,” will drop by 2 points, from 46 percent in 2016 to 44 percent. Meanwhile, voter segments that tend to favor Democrats will all grow as a share of the total eligible vote. That includes “whites with a college degree,” African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians/other are all forecasted to climb by one percentage point.

But if the third-party vote in 2020 looks more likes its historical norm and those voters go back to their home parties, the report says the 2020 election could yield an extraordinary deadlock.

Despite it being off-narrative, white voters have started to notice, which may have made 2016 the first election decided on a single issue: immigration, illegal immigration, and diversity. As Ann Coulter notes, Donald Trump was elected to end the demographic replacement:

Ann Coulter said that Donald Trump will continue to do well in the polls as long as he keeps talking about immigration.

“The voters keep saying, ‘We don’t want any more immigration,’” Coulter said. “That’s why Trump is so popular. So pick it up, Republicans.”

This provides a pushback to the Leftist demographic replacement strategy designed to produce a permanent Leftist majority at the polls:

“The bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill,” President Johnson said during the signing ceremony. “It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power.” Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), the bill’s floor manager, stated: “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society.” Even advocacy groups who had favored the national-origins quotas became supporters, predicting little change to the profile of immigration streams.

Despite these predictions, the measure had a profound effect on the flow of immigrants to the United States, and in only a matter of years began to transform the U.S. demographic profile. The number of new lawful permanent residents (or green-card holders) rose from 297,000 in 1965 to an average of about 1 million each year since the mid-2000s (see Figure 1). Accordingly, the foreign-born population has risen from 9.6 million in 1965 to a record high of 45 million in 2015 as estimated by a new study from the Pew Research Center Hispanic Trends Project. Immigrants accounted for just 5 percent of the U.S. population in 1965 and now comprise 14 percent.

Much of this was driven by chain migration which allowed ethnic groups from the third world to radically increase their presence here:

In the decades following Hart-Celler, America experienced drastic changes in both the numbers and origins of immigrants. The number of immigrants entering the U.S. after 1965 rose significantly, from approximately 250,000 in the 1950s to 700,000 by the 1980s. Doors were opened to large-scale immigration from Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, where extremely motivated immigrants took advantage of the family reunification provisions of the law to engage in chain migration, bringing an average of 2 relatives to the U.S. for each new green card granted. Within a few decades of Hart-Celler, family unification had become the driving force in U.S. immigration, favoring those who were most determined to move -exactly those nationalities the critics of the Act had hoped to keep out.

The majority of these inflows come from Latin America and Asia:

Compared to almost entirely European immigration under the national-origins system, flows since 1965 have been more than half Latin American and one-quarter Asian. The largest share of today’s immigrant population, about 11.6 million, is from Mexico. Together with India, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, El Salvador, Cuba, South Korea, the Dominican Republic, and Guatemala, these ten countries account for nearly 60 percent of the current immigrant population.

Since Latin Americans are part Amerind, a group which came over from Mongolia over the past 15,000 years, this means that America will soon become an Asian majority nation.

It follows the transformation of America from an ethnic Western European majority to an ethnically-mixed white majority, which in turn fragmented the culture and values of those groups, allowing them to become more Leftist. As National Geographic notes:

“These days, I understand the WASPs.” Glover explains that he was born in the 1970s to a family of mixed European origin — Jewish, Irish, Greek, German, Slovene, people once not seen as fully white by the gatekeepers of social class. But over time they moved into the mainstream. “I definitely felt that I was a white American, which I understood to mean just plain American,” he says.

These new Americans, fueled by waves of European immigrants like Glover’s great-grandparents, were starting to displace the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants who had run the country for two centuries. In a short, candid essay he submitted to the Race Card Project, Glover wrote, “We had taken over their colleges, their clubs, and even the White House,” referring to the election of an Irish Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, in 1960.

“Well, now we’re in their shoes,” he wrote. “People of Color are moving into the mainstream now; ‘White’ is no longer the default setting for ‘American.’ And though it’s clear that this process is inevitable—it’s just a matter of numbers and demographics—a lot of the time, to be honest, I’m sad about it. The country is changing in ways that aren’t very good for me, and I’ve got no choice but to adapt. I’m not complaining; it’s only fair that other people get the same opportunity we got. But now I find myself looking back at the WASPs with new respect. Though there were many notable exceptions, for the most part during their fall from power they conducted themselves with quiet dignity. I’m sure it didn’t feel good for them at the time, but for the most part they just got on with their lives. We could learn from their example.”

In this way, the Left has been consistently widening the franchise for several centuries, bringing in groups other than the core of productive, land-owning ethnic Western Europeans so that these new groups could vote Leftist.

As Tucker Carlson notes, the Left did the same with felons:

Terry ​M​c​A​uliff​e​ knew it would benefit his party if felon​s​ could vote again, so he unilaterally restored those rights and attacked anyone who disagreed as​ a​ ​bigot. Remember that?​ Well currently, control of Virginia’s House of Delegates hinges on a single race where the candidates literally tied with more than 23,000 votes cast.

In other words, McAuliffe’s gambit worked, so why not try it on a national scale, with a group far larger than just convicted felons?

Democrats know if they keep up the flood of illegals into the country, they can eventually turn it into a flood of voters for them. They don’t have to foster economic growth, or be capable administrators, or provide good government. They just have to keep the pump flowing, and power will be theirs.

He is too polite to point out that first we did it with caste, expanding the electorate to poor ethnic Western Europeans, then with ethnicity when we brought in Southern/Irish and Eastern Europeans, and finally with women, who vote Leftist with the exception of those in stable marriages, a group that the Left has tried to reduce with the sexual revolution, feminism, and women in the workforce, leading to an explosion in single women and single mothers.

Not surprisingly, the Left is cheering the demographic shift as if they won the lottery of forever power:

But the white share of the U.S. population has been dropping, from a little under 90 percent in 1950 to 60 percent in 2018. It will likely drop below 50 percent in another 25 years.

Although the majority of the U.S. population today is still white, nonwhites account for more than half of the populations of Hawaii, the District of Columbia, California, New Mexico, Texas and Nevada. And, in the next 10 to 15 years, these half dozen “majority-minority” states will likely be joined by as many as eight other states where whites now make up less than 60 percent of the population.

Census Bureau projections show that the U.S. population will be “majority-minority” sometime between 2040 and 2050. Our research suggests that this will happen around 2044. Indeed, in 2020, there are projected to be more nonwhite children than white children in the U.S.

The U.S. will never be a white country again.

In particular, we have reached the point where next year, elections in Texas will be decided by Hispanics not whites:

Hispanics are expected to outnumber whites in Texas by 2020 and expected to make up the state’s majority population by 2042.

That’s according to a recent report from the Office of the State Demographer, which outlines numerous population projections through 2050.

According to The New York Times, we should blame white women for not reproducing instead of the constant flow of immigrants replacing a population that has stabilized itself and reduced its numbers to lessen its environmental impact:

Behind the idea is a racist conspiracy theory known as “the replacement theory,” which was popularized by a right-wing French philosopher. An extension of colonialist theory, it is predicated on the notion that white women are not having enough children and that falling birthrates will lead to white people around the world being replaced by nonwhite people.

And like so many fundamentalist ideologies, the foundation of this one requires the subjugation of women.

“In their minds, in this clash of civilization, white men are in a weaker position because their women are not doing the work of reproducing,” said Arun Kundnani, a professor at New York University and author of “The Muslims Are Coming! Islamophobia, Extremism and the Domestic War on Terror.” “They are saying, ‘Look, Muslims have got their women where they need to be, and we’re not doing a good job at that.’”

Why would white people not be reproducing? Much as diversity correlates with increased political polarization, it also rose shortly before other factors that might suggest the white population is checking out and dying off.

Suicides, drug and alcohol use, and overdoses have been rising since 1965:

Rates of deaths from suicides, drug overdoses and alcohol have reached an all-time high in the United States, but some states have been hit far harder than others, according to a report released Wednesday by the Commonwealth Fund.

With diversity, wage stagnation rose to the point that most are struggling to afford normal lives:

After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.

In addition, our trust in each other has hit terminal velocity:

Only a third of Americans now trust their government “to do what is right”—a decline of 14 percentage points from last year, according to a new report by the communications marketing firm Edelman. Forty-two percent trust the media, relative to 47 percent a year ago. Trust in business and non-governmental organizations, while somewhat higher than trust in government and the media, decreased by 10 and nine percentage points, respectively. Edelman, which for 18 years has been asking people around the world about their level of trust in various institutions, has never before recorded such steep drops in trust in the United States.

Eighty-four percent of Chinese respondents said they trusted government—levels the United States hasn’t seen since the early Johnson administration—and 71 percent said they trusted the media. The world’s two most powerful countries, one democratic and the other authoritarian, are moving in opposite directions.

This translates into a general paranoia where most distrust their fellow citizens:

The data showed, for example, that while 46 percent of adult Americans agreed that “most people can be trusted” in 1972-1974, only 33 percent agreed in 2010-2012.

And this finding was mirrored by data from 12th graders — while 32 percent agreed that “most people can be trusted” in 1976-1978, only 18 percent did so in 2010-2012.

Confidence in institutions rose and fell in waves, with respondents in both surveys reporting high confidence in institutions in the late 1980s and again in the early 2000s, with confidence then declining to reach its lowest point in the early 2010s.

This follows what we might expect after reading the research of Robert Putnam, who found that diversity reduces social trust:

New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to “hunker down”. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.

In fact it turns out that diversity destroys the sense of community as a population is replaced:

Using agent-based modeling to simulate neighborhoods and neighborhood social network formation, we explore whether the community-diversity dialectic emerges from two principles of relationship formation: homophily and proximity. The model suggests that when people form relationships with similar and nearby others, the contexts that offer opportunities to develop a respect for diversity are different from the contexts that foster a sense of community.

(We have reported on this in the past, adding to it confirmatory research from Israel, Sweden, England, and Denmark.)

These three factors — polarization, self-destruction, and wage stagnation — show us a nation falling apart like Rome, not one rising to a new order where “diversity is our strength.” Diversity is killing us. Demographic displacement is simply one of its facets.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn