By Selwyn Duke
At a gathering some years ago, I had a political conversation with a man who had recently arrived here from Denmark. He was advocating his home country's socialist system, which, of course, led to profound disagreement. He was good natured and cordial, however, so the debate ended on a polite note. Yet it also ended on an ironic one: When asked if he wanted to return home, his answer was no.
This is a common phenomenon. We see it, for instance, in liberal northerners who move to the South for the lower taxes and cost of living and greater freedom but then continue to vote for the kind of politicians who made the Northeast a nice place to leave. And while this befuddles many, it's simply man's nature. Of course people want that which is good, such as a better lifestyle, but wanting and attaining are two different things. Everyone wants good health, for example, but many nevertheless are too attached to unhealthful foods and practices to relinquish them. Oh, they might move into your healthy body if they could, but they would likely do to it what a government–subsidized project does to a good neighborhood.
Now, there is a reason why I'm talking about how a change in location doesn't equate to a change in ideology. 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.
…Mr Obama and the Democrats have long had a significant lead among minority voters, [and these demographic changes are] lifting their chances of taking states such as Nevada, Georgia and Arizona [which were] lost in 2008.
As to the rate of this change, McGregor writes:
The non-Hispanic white population dropped from 69.1 per cent in 2000 to 63.7 per cent in 2010. By contrast, the minority population, which includes African Americans and African Asians [sic], jumped from 30.9 per cent to 36.3 during the same period.
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]."
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.
Despite this, like McGregor, all most conservatives talk about is 2012 this and 2012 that. Yet, what good is fighting for momentary political success if you don't secure the cultural foundation of which it's born? And how can you enjoy the latter when the rate of cultural invasion greatly exceeds the rate of assimilation?
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, which all the frogs in the frying pan of water don't really seem to notice much. But as the aforementioned census data demonstrates, those increments are becoming bigger—and more rapid. 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. While you're attempting the daunting task of re-education, the statists are importing ready-made voters. You're fertilizing the tree in the hope it will bear more fruit.
The statists are chopping it down and are planting a new tree.
And it never seems to occur to conservatives that we should try to take the axe away. 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.
And 70, and, well, does anyone get it?
Or do I still hear crickets?
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.
Perhaps he will be like the new president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, who was a Marxist guerrilla.
Maybe like Bolivia's Evo Morales, whose Movement towards Socialism Party has given the nation the "Law of Mother Earth" legislation, which grants human rights to nature (animals, trees, insects, etc.). This resurrection of Bolivia's pagan past will be enforced by a bureaucracy called the "Ministry of Mother Earth."
Or that future candidate could reflect Ecuador's Rafael Correa, who has called for a socialist Latin America and has nationalized the assets of "uncooperative" oil companies.
He could also look like the man against whose socialist government we fought a proxy war in the 1980s, Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega.
And then there is Mr. Ego and Mouth himself, Hugo Chavez. 'Nough said.
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. And, you know what, it might not be a bad thing. Because what is a given is that the nation's dissolution may represent the only chance, albeit a small one, to establish a traditionalist bastion. Why? Well, just remember 79 percent of 36.3, 40, 50, 60 and 70. If traditionalists have to compete against a national tide like that, the crickets will soon be chirping over Western civilization in North America.