By Selwyn Duke
Bill Clinton once said that he looked
forward to the day when whites were a minority in America
After years of
speculation, estimates and projections, the Census Bureau has made it official:
White births are no longer a majority in the United States
Non-Hispanic
whites accounted for 49.6 percent of all births in the 12-month period that
ended last July, according to Census Bureau data made public on Thursday, while
minorities — including Hispanics, blacks, Asians and those of mixed race —
reached 50.4 percent, representing a majority for the first time in the
country’s history.
Obviously, a big reason for this demographic
shift is migration – and mainly the legal
variety. As a result of Ted Kennedy’s
Immigration Reform Act of 1965, the level of yearly immigration increased from
approximately 250,000 prior to ‘65 to about 1,000,000 afterwards. And its nature changed also: 85 percent of our
new arrivals now hail from the Third World and Asia . This radical departure from America
If one blindly accepts the unproven
assertion, “Our strength lies in our diversity” – which is much like saying my
health lies in my cancerous tumor – he may join Clinton, Chris Matthews and
other languid-minded leftists in a leg-tingling love-fest. But the reality is that diversity isn’t a
strength to be applauded – it’s an obstacle to be overcome. To understand this,
you only have to study history and consider the fate of the former Yugoslavia United States
Another problem is that “diversity” is a
vague term; there are many kinds of diversity.
Not too many people care if you dine on Thai cuisine as opposed to
Italian; or hamburgers, hot dogs and French fries. People won’t take to the streets because you
play cricket or curling instead of baseball.
But when deeply held beliefs concerning all-important issues divide citizens,
it’s a different matter.
As for what’s helping diversify us into
division, immigration, it is a vaguely understood institution. And when people accept something because it’s
fashionable, not really knowing what they’re getting, disaster can result.
We’re always wary of dangerous imports,
such as contaminated goods from China Guam , can disrupt an ecosystem and decimate
native species.
This is why the answer to the question “Do
you support immigration?” should be “not enough data.” Since people do get the government they
deserve, it matters very much what species of immigration it is.
How high are the immigrants’ numbers? What is their cultural nature? How compatible are they with our cultural
ecosystem? Will they blend into it or
supplant native cultural elements? Of
course, some will say that the latter is fine, that change is good. And, actually, they could possibly be right –
except that “change” is another vague term.
If those cultural elements are superior, then, by all means, embrace
them; if they’re not, avoid them like the plague – which, incidentally, came to
Europe from Asia . Those that trumpet immigration, diversity and
change are the last ones to judge such matters, however, because they tend to
be cultural relativists whose moral foundation is even vaguer than the slogans they
disgorge.
What they do know, though, is how to import
leftist voters. When I crunched the
numbers a few years back, I found that the groups represented by that 85-percent
Third World/Asian immigration block vote Democrat approximately 79 percent of
the time. Is this a surprise? People don’t come here as blank slates; they
bring their religion and ideology with them, and these things don’t magically
change upon contact with American terra firma.
And remember that most new immigrants hail from Mexico , Central and South America (50 percent
from Mexico Europe , for that matter – is much like our liberals. Their whole political spectrum is to the
“left” of ours, and the more voting-booth levers they pull here, the more our
spectrum will be pulled left, too.
The lesson is simple: people make the culture
– not the other way around – and then the culture makes the government. If you imported enough Mexicans or Muslims to
America
Many will say in response to this that
assimilation is the answer. Ah, it’s a
nice dream. How can we expect people to
assimilate when there is neither sufficient pressure from natives, nor
sufficient will from newcomers, to do so?
How can we expect it when, according to a Zogby poll, 58 percent of
Mexicans believe that California and the
Southwest rightfully belong to Mexico
Moreover, asking for assimilation becomes
less logical all the time. After all,
how is it a meaningful statement to say “All people have to do is become
American” when there’s no agreement on what it means to be American anymore? Depending on whom you listen to, you can be an
American and be a socialist, free-market adherent, devout Christian, witch,
pro-abortion or pro-life activist, existentialist, realist, hippie, yuppie,
black or white supremacist, La Raza
separatist, prude, libertine, traditionalist, multiculturalist, patriarchy
proponent, feminist, deist, atheist, humanist or Satanist. You can have any ideology, philosophy, faith,
culture or “lifestyle” you want. It’s
“whatever works for you,” and that itself is now to be considered a
quintessentially American sentiment (unless it works for you to consider it
something else). Well, guess what? What works for many is to not assimilate into
they know not what.
And that is the
issue: there’s no clearly identifiable, dominant, appealing culture to
assimilate into, anyway.
The problem here is the same as it is with
the “undefining”
of marriage: If something can mean anything, it essentially means nothing. “Cat” refers to a specific creature, but if
“cat” could mean fish, aardvark, meadowlark, chair, cookie, ice cube or
whatever works for you, it would lose meaning; it could mean anything and would
just be “something.” And so it is with a
nation. People have no reason to
assimilate into just “something”; they already have something – something they
already know.
The Western man has forgotten that a nation
is essentially an extension of the tribe.
The only other option is to have many tribes living within the same
borders, which historically hasn’t begotten tranquility. Just think of the Hutus and Tutsis in Ruanda – and then consider that there was probably less
dividing them culturally than there is dividing the motley “us.”
This is why, unlike most, I don’t expect America
Our republic won’t last that long.
In the meantime, the band will play on, as
we repeat all the vague feel-doubleplusgood mantras. Hey, folks, remember, immigration is the lifeblood
of America
