demographic transformation

When Will Republicans Wake Up and Realize that Demographics Are Destiny?

Lee Kwan Yew, founder of Singapore:

In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.

He couldn’t be more right.

This explains why inner cities consistently vote over 90% Democrat even though the Democrats have done nothing to improve the inner cities over six decades.

When I was younger, I used to think it was all about ideology. I was obsessed with conservative ideology and comparing socialism vs capitalism and stuff like that. I thought that was what drives people’s voting decisions.

And so I could never wrap my head around this idea that someday Texas is going to start voting Democrat.

What? Are you crazy? Texans are the most conservative people around. They’re not just going to change their whole worldview and become liberals? Never!

No, Texans as we picture them are not going to become liberals. It’s not going to be an ideological shift within an existing, static population.

What’s going to happen is that Texans as we traditionally know them are going to become the demographic minority in the state. The combination of mass foreign immigration and liberal white transplants from other states (like California) is outnumbering Texas’ traditional white conservative majority. No longer is the state full of Hank Hills. The Hank Hills are in the process of being outnumbered. That is why Texas will probably turn blue in the next 4-8 years.

Hank Hill is not becoming a liberal over time. That’s ridiculous.

What will happen is that the state’s demographics will change.

And so this leads me to the Republican Party nationally, which still insists that it’s not against all immigration, only illegal immigration. In fact the GOP loves legal immigrants and tells you every chance it gets–even Trump:

“We want to allow millions of people to come in [legally] because we need them. We have companies pouring in from Japan, all over Europe, all over the world, they’re opening up companies here, they need people to work.”

Trump, just like the Chamber of Commerce and the big businesses that have traditionally controlled the GOP, wants “millions” of cheap foreign workers pouring into this country.

But does he realize that it’s legal immigration that will be the end of the Republican party one day soon if not massively reduced?

I’ve never seen a political movement actively campaign for its own demise, and pursue policies that will ensure its extinction in the near future. This is what Republicans are doing in celebrating legal immigration: ensuring their own doom.

It’s not illegal immigrants that have tipped so many states toward Democrats. Although many illegals do in fact vote, and Democrats today want to make it so all the illegals in this country (some 30 million of them, not the 11 million lie that has been repeated since the mid-2000s as if not a single illegal has entered this country since then) can vote, the real issue for Republicans is the legal immigrants who are already voting for Democrats in large numbers:

Screen Shot 2019-08-13 at 9.34.49 PM.png

There is a fair amount of ideological diversity among white voters. This is a remnant of pre-Diversity America when elections really were about issues rather than race. This is why you see the white vote split like 60-40 these days.

But there isn’t ideological diversity among nonwhite groups. They all vote heavily Democrat because they believe it’s in their racial interest to do so. They would feel like race traitors voting Republican because they see it as the White Man’s Party. In 2016 Trump carried the white vote 57-37 over Hillary. But Hillary carried the non-white vote by a margin of 74-21.

Screen Shot 2019-08-13 at 9.37.17 PM.png

Minorities vote Democrat almost monolithically. It’s not really about the issues, it’s about racial identity. This is the payoff for Democrats’ identity politics obsession, i.e. tying voting behavior to race.

Do you remember in 2016 seeing those signs “Latinos for Hillary”?

proxy.duckduckgo-1.jpg

We’ve grown used to seeing this type of thing but have you ever stopped and thought about what “Latinos for Hillary” truly means? It is a frank admission that race drives voting decisions. “Latinos for Hillary” completely ignores the fact that there are male Latinos, female Latinos, young Latinos, middle-aged Latinos, old Latinos, rich Latinos, poor Latinos, middle class Latinos, etc. This is a total refutation of the idea that people vote primarily based on their economic interests. Otherwise, we’d see middle-class Latinos (and middle-class blacks and Asians) voting the same way as middle-class whites. “Latinos for Hillary” is the acknowledgment that race transcends everything and that voting for Hillary will benefit all Latinos no matter their gender, age and income status.

The only people who don’t see this are white conservatives. Well, some see it, but for whatever reason they ignore it or pretend they can change it.

Someone focused on ideology alone will never be able to understand American politics in the coming years. They will wonder why Texas, Georgia, Arizona and other states are flipping blue despite being ideologically conservative for decades. “Why are people in those states suddenly becoming liberals??? It does not make any sense!!” They’ll wonder.

But just because you’re ideological doesn’t mean other people are. Just because you don’t vote based on race doesn’t mean other people don’t.

People need to start realizing what’s going on and why.

The Democratic Debate Revealed Just How Far Along the Plan to Fundamentally Transform America Is

I caught a bit of the second Democratic Presidential debate. I usually don’t watch Democratic debates because there’s literally nothing they can say that will make me vote for them, but in this case I kind of wanted to see how Biden handled himself as the frontrunner, as well as how Bernie has changed over the past few years. Plus I wanted to see if Andrew Yang could possibly seize the opportunity to get out his message of free money for everyone and gain some momentum (he didn’t).

A few takeaways:

1. The Whore (Kamala Harris) was really off-putting. There’s just something about her that is repellant. She’s way too theatrical, over-the-top. I just felt like she was acting. She was so animated to the point where it felt unnatural. When she spoke, I felt like I was watching a robot whose “passion” and “bombast” settings were turned up too high.

2. The idea of Biden vs. the reality of Biden appear to be colliding head-on. For some reason he had become, in people’s minds, a “dignified elder statesman”–a wise, stoic old graybeard–over the past five or so years because after the 2012 election, he really didn’t get much media attention. But he is and always has been a total buffoon who can’t go five minutes without sticking his foot in his mouth. Biden is a doddering old man who has run for President and lost (badly) twice in the past, and I hope people are starting to remember why.

The guy has zero—absolutely zero—appeal outside of being associated with the Great Liberal Messiah Barack Obama. If Obama had not chosen Biden to be his running mate in 2008, and Biden remained in the Senate for the past 10 years, he would not be running for President right now. The only reason Democratic voters like him is because they can’t vote for Obama a third time, so Biden must be the next-best thing, they believe. Biden remains the front-runner, but will he remain so after he’s been in the public eye for long enough that people start to remember why they didn’t like him prior to 2008?

3. Really odd strategy for “Mayor Pete” to make his main message “Republicans Are Bad Christians Because They Are Against Open Borders.” Why does this guy keep bringing up the Bible and using it to attack Republicans? Who does he think this appeals to? Angsty 20-year-olds who just dyed their hair blue and came out as “gender non-conforming” to lash out at their parents? The young urban professionals who think they’re smarter than everyone because they Went To College and watch Jon Oliver? Lame.

4. Why was Andrew Yang unable to seize the moment and vault into the upper echelon of contenders? Well it’s probably because he wasn’t allowed to:

That’s absurd! What a ridiculous conspiracy theorist Andrew Yang is! We all know the Democrats would never rig a primary!

Ultimately, though, what little of the debate I caught told me everything I have to know about not only the Democratic Party in 2019, but the country itself.

The portion I caught was them all tripping over one another to show they were more Against Borders than the next. “I’m gonna let them all in!” “Oh yeah? Well I’m gonna let them all in AND give them free healthcare!” “That’s nothing: I’m gonna let them all in, give them free healthcare, and then I’m gonna abolish ICE entirely so the rest of Latin America is allowed to pour into this country behind them!”

The Democrats are not the party of open borders; they are the party of No Borders. They do not see a distinction between America, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and the rest of Latin America. The debate proved that much.

At one point, the moderator asked Joe Biden point-blank if he thought people who had committed no crime other than crossing the border illegally should be sent back, and in a rambling answer he basically said no, they shouldn’t.

So the Democratic Presidential candidates are all on record saying it should not be illegal to move to this country without first applying for citizenship. Anyone on earth can be an American so long as they just walk across the border.

And the whole time I’m wondering: does this actually appeal to my fellow countrymen and women? There are people out there who actually agree with this?

I’m not the only one who thought this:

https://twitter.com/jeffgiesea/status/1144602155422273542

There is no pro-border Democratic candidate. They have no interest in winning “Middle America” as traditionally understood because they gave up on “Middle America” decades ago. They are the party of the wealthy and of the poor–everyone in between is of no interest to the Democrats.

But the larger point is that the definition of “Middle America” has changed.

What last night made me realize was that the Uniparty’s plan to demographically remake this country is pretty far along. It’s in advanced stages. When you have one party’s politicians fighting among one another over who will do the most to totally erase the border between our country and Latin America, you know things have gotten out of hand.

At this point all they’re really doing is arguing about how to best put the finishing touches on the demographic transformation of America. They’re all in agreement that America should be turned into an extension of Latin America, they simply disagree with one another on which one of them gets to oversee and accelerate the process.

But there is no disagreement on the fundamental question of “Should America simply fling open its door and allow potentially the entirety of Central America to migrate here en masse?” To that question they all answer yes.

We have already lost our country when one of the two parties’ presidential candidates are fighting among one another to be the most amenable and welcoming to illegal immigrants.

Even little Warmongering Ben noticed how obsessed the Democrats were with bending over backwards for illegals:

But little Warmongering Ben missed the point: those are mainstream positions. They might not have been mainstream positions in the America of, say, 20 years ago, but they are now. The Democrats have fundamentally remade our country.

Those candidates knew their target audience last night. Politicians only say something if it can help them appeal to voters and get elected. They wouldn’t be talking about opening the border if they didn’t think it would appeal to a large number of voters. And that’s the worst part of it: the realization that such a large number of voters—or, more accurately, “Americans”—are in favor of open borders.

The Democratic candidates were appealing to foreigners last night, straight-up. That’s their target audience. By “foreigners” I mean first or second-generation immigrants, legal or illegal. That’s the Democratic base. That’s who the Democratic Party now officially serves. Last night made me realize it.

At first I was going to say the Democratic debate shows that their party no longer represents America, but that’s not totally accurate: what it shows is that they have already succeeded in fundamentally transforming America. We are already living in post-America.

The definition of “American” has changed over the past several decades, and it is now becoming apparent. There are now enough foreigners living in America that the Democratic Party doesn’t even attempt to appeal to white Americans. Mass immigration has brought in so many foreigners over the past 40-50 years that the people who founded and populated this country for the better part of two-plus centuries are no longer even on the Democrats’ radar.

And that includes black people, too. Outside of their sporadic “Cops Are Racist!” outbursts, Democrats no longer really even pretend to care about black people because the black population is not booming the way Hispanic and immigrant populations are. In terms of economics, illegal immigration probably hits blacks the hardest. The media tries to downplay it, but it’s no secret that Hispanics and blacks don’t really like each other. In LA, Hispanic gangs are literally ethnically cleansing black neighborhoods. But the Democratic Party does not care. They take the black vote entirely for granted and focus on catering to the ethnic groups that are growing the fastest.

To us, the illegal immigrant-centric Democratic debate last night seemed bizarre and totally outside the mainstream. But that’s only until you realize that the definition of “mainstream” has changed along with the country’s demographics. Anyone who felt alienated by last night’s Democratic Debate needs to understand: you are not part of their vision for America’s future, or even its present. You are an obstacle, a hindrance to be done away with.

“I can’t believe these Democrats are talking so openly and brazenly about allowing illegals into my country!”

The Democrats’ reply: “Your country?”

***

One thing I did like was Bernie’s closing statement about taking on the money interests. On that point, I totally agree with him.

But, like Will said, he totally undercuts his whole “anti-establishment” message when he talks about how he wants to open up the border and shower illegal immigrants with free money, healthcare and government benefits.

Bernie is a fraud.

Yes, White Liberals Are Brainwashed to Be Anti-White, But. . .

. . .There comes a time in the life of every brainwashed person where reality collides with their fantasy world and they can no longer persist in their delusions.

I usually try to keep quotations from other articles as brief and to-the-point as possible, but I had to quote this one by Patrick McDermott at great length. It’s very good. The whole premise is that sooner or later, white liberals will wake up and realize the error of their ways simply because the reality of “diversity” will collide head-on with their fantasy world and scare them straight.

The author begins by discussing Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: towards the bottom are basic, essential and primitive needs like food, water and shelter. Then comes safety and security, followed by love, intimate friendships and belonging; then self-esteem and prestige derived from accomplishments and recognition; and finally self-actualization, which essentially means becoming the best possible version of yourself.

McDermott says that white liberals believe what they believe because it provides them with the higher parts of Maslow’s hierarchy, namely belonging and self-esteem. They feel good about themselves for holding the Morally Righteous Views (as determined by the media and cultural elites), and being liberal is also the easiest way to be accepted and included in American society–you will face no discrimination, no physical threats, no potential loss of employment, no ostracization. You are on the Right Side of History™.

It will only be when white liberals no longer feel safe in this country that they will cease caring about fitting in and feeling good about themselves. Importantly, it will not be (and must not be) right-wing revolutionaries who will make these liberals feel physically unsafe through acts of terror, but in fact the third-world immigrants white liberals rolled out the red carpet for and eagerly encouraged to take over this country:

“Most white liberals will not be convinced by rational arguments, no matter how strong or well-supported those arguments may be. They will only be convinced by threats to their basic safety. This, in turn, points to the real barrier: Most white liberals do not feel threatened.

Most of them do not see a civilization that is crumbling around them or a brewing threat on the horizon. They see a thriving economy and a skyrocketing stock market. Yes, race relations are not perfect, but they think those problems will sort themselves out as soon as we solve the challenge of poverty and get rid of Donald Trump. Immigration is beneficial. There are no meaningful differences between people. Trump voters are just suffering from irrational phobias and “white anxiety.” Times are good. What on earth is there to be afraid of?”

White liberals believe all is well and that mass immigration from the third world can continue apace; nothing has changed in their lives, and in fact their lives are better because of all the robust foreign cuisine options now available in their upscale, coastal urban neighborhoods.

White liberals have been brainwashed to believe “Diversity is our strength,” that it will be a good thing when whites are minority in America, that the white race’s history is one of only evil, and that they benefit from “white privilege” and must feel eternally guilty for it.

They haven’t yet experienced the downsides of immigration the way many less affluent whites have. They haven’t had to compete with illegals for jobs. They haven’t been in a hit-and-run car accident with an illegal. They’ve never had a loved one killed by an illegal immigrant.

They haven’t experienced the decrease in the quality of their lives due to “diversity” and mass immigration that so many others have. They don’t know what it’s like to gradually feel more and more unsafe–and out-of-place–in an area they’ve lived their entire lives.

But they inevitably will–in fact, some are already starting to.

Example: At the old site, I wrote last summer that Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s victory in the NY-14 Democratic Congressional Primary race over longtime Rep. Joe Crowley (a 50-something white guy) was a loud and clear warning to the white liberals that have run the Democratic Party for five decades-plus: your time is up. The immigrants’ time is now. You no longer run this party.

White Democrats favor endless immigration because immigrants vote overwhelmingly for white Democrats. But the white Democrats never thought the day would come when those immigrants would actually want to hold positions of power, and that this would come at the expense of the white Democrats holding those positions of power. Ocasio-Cortez’s victory over white male Democrat Joe Crowley in NY-14 was the moment it began to dawn on white Democrats: this whole mass immigration thing may not work out so well for us.

Joe Crowley himself realized what was happening: during the campaign against Cortez, he complained that he “couldn’t help that he was born white.” He knew exactly what was going on: his district, majority-white in the 1990s when he was elected, had become more and more “diverse” over the past two decades, and he, Crowley, had become a relic of the past, out of place in his own district. His new nonwhite constituents had no interest in being “represented” by a white guy who had nothing in common with them.

In other words, brown districts don’t want to be represented by white politicians. It has come as a great shock to many a white Democrat that their newly-imported nonwhite constituents don’t want to be ruled by rich white people. The voters of NY-14 looked at Joe Crowley and said, “Why do we need to keep this white guy around?” Ocasio-Cortez’s slogan during the campaign was “It’s time for one of us.”

This is what “bursting the white liberal bubble” means: it means making white liberals bear the full brunt of “diversity” and experience it the way millions of downscale white Americans already have.

It means making white liberals truly understand what diversity means.

“For the average white liberal, strident anti-immigration positions are not just racist, but pointlessly so. According to one poll, 73 percent of Hillary Clinton’s white voters reportedly thought it was racist for white Americans to even have an opinion on immigration.

The sad reality is that few people who are living in a bubble are able to see it until it pops. The rare iconoclasts who are right too soon are usually viewed as social outcasts and misfits.”

Translation: us.

“The liberal bubble is about to pop, however. The signs are all around us. The coming awakening of white liberals, which in the United States will probably occur over the next decade, will be primarily due to five factors. The first, instinctual ethnocentrism, affects humans and animals alike and is present in babies. Although such ethnocentrism is not new, it remains centrally important and provides a baseline for the other factors.

The second is growing direct contact with minorities, which will only increase as the nation continues to change over time. Some academics argue that such contact can improve race relations, but other research has shown that the negative effects are stronger. Ongoing white flight in neighborhoods and schools provides the most definitive answer on this question.

A third factor is growing cultural threat. Unlike direct contact, which is lessened by white flight, there is no escaping mass culture. As was noted in a recent Vox article, White Threat in a Browning America:

‘We live in an America where television programs, commercials, and movies are trying to represent a browner country; where Black Panther is a celebrated cultural event and #OscarsSoWhite is a nationally known hashtag; where NFL players kneel during the national anthem to protest police brutality and pressing 1 for English is commonplace.’

This unavoidable onslaught is a constant reminder to America’s white population that their nation is changing. Research has shown that such messages make them more conservative, view minorities less positively, and feel more attachment to other whites.”

The less white America becomes, the more racially conscious whites will grow. As they begin to feel more and more out-of-place, they will begin to vote accordingly.

“A fourth factor is the growth of explicitly anti-white rhetoric. The idea that “whiteness” is inherently evil and should be abolished originated in academia, but now it is seeping into our broader culture and political discourse. Treating people equally and with decency regardless of their race was once sufficient to avoid the racist label, but now it elicits charges of color-blind racism and implicit bias. Unsurprisingly, research has found that accusations of white privilege can make people feel defensive and resentful. Even white allies are not immune. Black Lives Matter demonstrators protested Bernie Sanders’ candidacy. White feminists were blamed for Trump’s election and criticized for their “white supremacy in heels.”

This one was the most interesting for me:

“The fifth factor, political threat, may be the most important because, unlike the others, it cannot be avoided or ignored. The principal source of this threat is the nation’s changing demographics, which are empowering minorities and shifting the Democratic Party sharply to the left. The effects of this change have been evident in elections throughout the nation this year. These have included the well-publicized primary victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York, Andrew Gillum in Florida’s Democratic gubernatorial primary, and Stacey Abrams in the Georgia Democratic gubernatorial primary, as well as victories for lesser known candidates in governors’ races in TexasArizonaNew Mexico, and Maryland.

While many of these candidates lost last November, they are paving the way for likely victories down the road as more states become majority-minority in the lead up to 2045, when the nation as a whole will reach that milestone. These changes, most of which are concentrated in the Democratic Party, can also be expected to shift future Democratic presidential nominees further left.

In other words, future Democratic nominees will be so far to the left they’ll make Hillary, Biden, Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore look like conservatives in comparison. This will scare many white liberals away.

“The reaction of white voters to such hard-left ideological swings is well-established. Two of the most left-leaning presidential nominees in modern history, George McGovern and Walter Mondale, were trounced at the polls. More recently, moderate Republican gubernatorial candidates have a solid track record of defeating far-left Democrats in deep blue states. What accounts for this? Many white liberals, particularly those with high household incomes, are not as far left as they think.”

Examples: Mitt Romney and Charlie Baker in Massachusetts, Larry Hogan in Maryland, Phil Scott in Vermont–these are the main recent examples of Republicans being seemingly inexplicably elected governor in deep-blue states.

“White liberals may not feel threatened by the left today, particularly with Republicans controlling Congress and Trump dominating the news on a daily basis, but that will change in the coming decade. As the nation changes, the mainstream media and social media companies may try to clamp down on opposing views, but they are unlikely to repress the emerging voices of the far left, who will do far more to open the eyes of white liberals than conservatives ever could. They are our unwitting allies.”

Useful idiot” was once a term applied by communists to their supporters in the West, but the concept is still applicable today. Every day that someone kneels during the national anthem, calls for abolishing whiteness, or attacks another cherished Western tradition for its roots in “white supremacy” or “institutional racism” is another day that more white people will wake up to the growing threat.

I’ll admit that I never looked at it this way; I never looked at the anthem kneeling and neverending Racism Witch Hunt as potential Red Pill Moments for normal/liberal white people. I just kind of assumed people who were already red-pilled would react negatively and people who were blue-pilled would react exactly the way the media had trained them to react.

But this author is saying that when a Somali Muslim like Ilhan Omar dismisses 9/11 and the 3,000 people killed by Islamic terrorists that day as “some people did something,” that this actually has the effect of Red Pilling previously brainwashed white people. They might see Omar’s remarks and think to themselves, “Wow, I’m all for inclusion and diversity, but I never thought it would result in this shit.”

In other words, the author Patrick McDermott is saying the radical, anti-white “New Left” will inevitably alienate its self-hating, virtue-signaling white allies simply by doing exactly what it is presently doing. White liberals will eventually realize that when nonwhite activists say, “Abolish white people,” they don’t just mean white people in Alabama; they mean white liberals in New York City, too.

So the positive takeaway is that it is inevitable that white liberals will soon experience real diversity as many other white Americans have, and that once this happens, white liberals will undergo major changes in their worldviews and voting patterns out of necessity–their survival instincts will kick in.

But the negative takeaway is that our country might already be too far gone by the time this happens.

Everyone Loves Refugees–Until They’re Asked to Take Them into Their Homes

“LET THEM IN!”

“NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL!”

“BORDERS ARE IMMORAL!”

“REFUGEES WELCOME!”

Just not in my home:

https://twitter.com/jackgph1/status/1108127582506156034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1108127582506156034&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fheartiste.wordpress.com%2F

This is priceless.

A guy goes around in Sweden asking people if they support letting in “refugees.” They all answer affirmatively.

Then he asks them if, hypothetically, they’d be willing to take a refugee into their own home. They all answer affirmatively again.

But then he brings out Ali, a young Middle Eastern guy, and asks the Swedes if they’d be willing to let Ali come home and live with them right there on the spot.

Would they be willing to back up their compassionate rhetoric with actual compassion?

I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that no, no they would not be willing to do that.

Not a single one says yes. They’ve all got some excuse for why they can’t.

I don’t get it. Diversity is supposed to be our strength, and yet none of these Swedes want to make their households stronger through diversity.

What gives?!

We must expose and humiliate these virtue signaling white liberals who demand we take in a limitless amount of refugees but then want nothing to do with the refugees once they are actually here.

Diversity is Italy’s Strength

Western culture is being enriched, one burning school bus full of children at a time:

Are you really surprised this isn’t all over the news, though? C’mon.

The Senegalese migrant said he was lashing out against Italy’s new, more restrictive immigration policies under Salvini.

So of course the only logical thing to do is to go back to open borders and flooding the country with thousands of African migrants per month.

After all, they seem like such nice people who fit in well!

If we don’t reopen the borders for them, they’ll burn our children alive.

What are you waiting for? Reopen those borders!

 

 

The Democratic Party is the Enemy of the American People: House Dems Approve Bill Allowing Illegals to Vote

The Democrats are now openly admitting the endgame of illegal immigration is millions of new Democratic voters:

“House Democrats voted Friday to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections, turning back a GOP attempt to discourage the practice.

The vote marks a stunning reversal from just six months ago, when the chamber — then under GOP control — voted to decry illegal immigrant voting.

“We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in,” Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement, told colleagues as he led opposition to the GOP measure.”

You can always count on Democrats to disguise their treachery behind the language of moral righteousness. “Open up the political process”–what a load of garbage. They’re acting like illegal aliens are a downtrodden class who have been excluded from the political process by sinister oppressors.

They can’t vote because they’re not Americans, John Lewis.

And of course they choose John Lewis, the “Civil Rights Hero,” to be their spokesman for illegal immigrants voting. They want to imply that illegal immigrants not being able to vote is Exactly Like Jim Crow, Because John Lewis Says So.

And if you disagree: “How dare you disagree with a Civil Rights Hero!!!!!!”

This is how Democrats operate. Scum.

“The 228-197 vote came as part of a broader debate on Democrats’ major legislative priority this year, HR 1, the “For the People Act,” which includes historic expansions of voter registration and access, as well as a major rewrite of campaign finance laws.”

“For the People Act”–which people?

Certainly not American citizens.

Of course, the “For the People Act” will never become law, but it’s significant in that House Democrats have gone on record here.

It is now impossible to deny: Democrats want illegal immigrants to vote.

Even though we’ve all known this for a while, the Democrats have publicly denied this and called us conspiracy theorists for saying they want illegals to vote.

It’s not a conspiracy theory if it’s true.

The Democratic Party is the Enemy of the American People. They have been for a while, but now they’re not even pretending to be anything else.

They want to flood this country with illegals to ensure their electoral dominance.

More accurately, they are currently flooding this country with illegals to ensure their electoral dominance.

You can’t compromise with these people. There is no compromise between one side that says, “Illegal aliens should vote” and another side that says, “No they shouldn’t.”

There is no middle ground here.

So again I ask: how can this country go on when Democrats are fighting tooth and nail 24/7/365 to destroy it? How can we go on sharing a country with them?

Our differences are irreconcilable. 

At some point, something’s gotta give. We cannot go on like this.

Swedish Leftists Admit Immigration is About Ethnic Cleansing in White Countries

The leftwing globalists always show their true colors eventually:

“Sweden’s ambassador to Hungary has received protests from the Hungarian government following Social Security Minister Annika Strandhäll’s incendiary tweet against Budapest’s policy to completely exempt mothers of four from taxes.

Strandhäll wrote that Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s demand for “more genuine Hungarian children” was offensive, “reeked of the 1930s” and effectively offset the benefits of feminism.

“What is happening in Hungary is alarming. Now Orban wants more ‘genuine’ Hungarian children to be born. The policy reeks of the 30s. A right-wing populist you need smokescreens for what this type of policy does to the independence women have been struggling for”, Strandhäll tweeted.”

But I thought declining birthrates in the West were a major problem?

According to the globalists, we need millions of migrants because we can’t increase our populations ourselves, organically.

In other words, because the native populations of Western nations are not reproducing adequately, we need migrants to ensure our populations increase at the same rates they did in the 20th century.

But when a nation like Hungary implements policies to increase birth rates in the native population, and expressly rejects the idea of importing migrants to increase the population, the globalists freak out.

Not importing migrants to replace your native population is Nazism, apparently.

The globalists are rarely so honest about their intentions: they want to ethnically cleanse white Western nations and replace their populations with third world migrants.

It was never about birthrates. It has always been about demographic replacement.

“Viktor Orban’s call for “Hungarian children” didn’t resonate well with the Swedish press, either. Sydsvenskan‘s columnist Sofia Nerbrand wrote that Orban “should be ashamed” of steps to stimulate childbirth in Hungary.

“Viktor Orban’s stated goal is that the Hungarian people will increase with the help of white Hungarian offsprings, not migrants,” Nerbrand wrote, calling this approach ‘unsavoury’. “Rhetoric and politics that put one’s own people first and shut out the others should have no place in today’s Europe.”

All but the most outlandish caricatures of modern leftwing globalists can parody their sheer lunacy. They are nearly impossible to parody because their actual, genuine statements equal and often surpass the parodies. You can’t tell the difference.

Globalists: “Your native population is growing too slowly. You need migrants.”

Orban: “What if we simply implement policies to increase the birthrate among our native population?”

Globalists: “No. That is not allowed. You MUST import millions of third worlders. Do not attempt to boost the birthrate among native Hungarians. Your population increase will come exclusively from migrants.”

They’re actually saying this now.

And how is this not ethnic cleansing?

They’re declaring that your population increase must come from African and Middle Eastern migrants alone, and that if Hungary attempts to boost birthrates among actual ethnic Hungarians, it is literal Nazism.

Fortunately Hungary doesn’t care what the globalists say:

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto called Strandhäll’s statement “unacceptable” and noted a big difference between Sweden and Hungary in terms of politics.

“Hungary spends money on families, while Sweden spends it on migrants”, Szijjarto said.

Europe now stands at a crossroads. Most of the major, Western European powers have already decided to take the path of open borders and political correctness, which will lead to multicultural oblivion.

Eventually one day, the Swedish people will be but a memory because their Feminist Government has decided that the future of their country is African and Middle Eastern migrants, not ethnic Swedes. Like the Phoenicians, the Celts and countless other ethnic groups no longer in existence due to conquest and displacement, the Swedes will exist only in the pages of history books.

But other nations, like Hungary, are rejecting this suicide pact foisted on them by powerful nations like Germany, as well as elite institutions and governing bodies like the EU and the UN.

The policy differences today between self-confident, nationalist countries like Hungary and suicidal globalist nations like Sweden will only become more apparent in the coming decades. But the time for choosing is now.

Rush: America is in a “Life and Death Struggle” Due to Mass Immigration

Based Rush. From his show yesterday beginning around the 14-minute mark:

“For the last 25 years, I see the United States in a sort of life and death struggle for its existence as we knew it.

I thought after the 1980s, after two terms of Ronaldus Maxiumus (Reagan), that we’d won. How could we have not? We had just had two terms of the most conservative administration ever. We had an economic boon. We had wages up, interest rates plummeting, virtually every economic mistake Jimmy Carter made was fixed, there were more people working than ever before, the Berlin Wall came down shortly after Reagan left office, the Soviet Union was no more, we rebuilt our military–I figured people lived through this, they’re going to finally see it, they’re going to finally believe it, they’re going to trust it [“it” meaning conservatism].

So why didn’t that last? I mean you had eight years where everybody alive knew that tax cuts led to massive prosperity for everyone–why didn’t that last?

I’ll tell you why: that is when the left began to import millions of foreign nationals via illegal immigration.

Not just illegal immigration but legal immigration, too. Rush hasn’t yet gotten to the point where he’s comfortable calling out the negative effects of legal immigration, but give it some time. He will.

Before we go further, I want to point out: simply acknowledging that legal immigration has had some very bad consequences for the GOP and the country does not mean you’re totally against legal immigration. You can still be fine with legal immigration while wanting less–even considerably less–of it.

We don’t have to end immigration altogether. We just need to dramatically cut it down to prevent massive, permanent demographic transformation. We need to get our demographics under control or else we won’t have a country anymore.

There is nothing immoral about wanting to reduce legal immigration. The idea that the only moral and virtuous position is to want as many immigrants as possible from all corners of the globe year in and year out indefinitely is a globalist lie. There is nothing immoral about restricting immigration. We Americans don’t owe foreigners anything. The idea that we do is a Globalist Uniparty lie to trick Americans into giving big corporations an endless supply of cheap labor.

Back to Rush:

“[The] Simpson-Mazzoli [Act], 1986, granted Amnesty for 3.6 million of them and that’s what opened the floodgates. The [memory of Reagan’s success in the 1980s] are overwhelmed and outnumbered by people who were not alive here, who were living somewhere else; they’ve been imported by the left by illegal immigration. Did you know one out of four people in California was not born in the United States?”

Actually, it’s closer to one in three. And if you count the real number of illegals in this country–30 million, as opposed to the laughably inaccurate 11 million number that has been used since 2005, as if not a single illegal has entered this country in 14 years–the foreign-born share of California’s population is probably even higher than 1/3.

“You wonder what happened to the Republican Party in California? There you go.

The electorate has been changed.

The makeup of our culture has been changed, by way of illegal immigration brought to us by the Democrats and a bunch of clueless Republicans who thought that because Latin Americans were Catholic they were gonna end up voting conservative! So they [Republicans] were on the bandwagon for keeping borders open for their own reasons. Gigantic miscalculation.”

BASED RUSH!

First Tucker, now Rush.

While our Republican politicians continue to sell us–and the country–out in favor of big business, at least we can take small solace in the fact that our leading luminaries on the airwaves get it.

This is important because Rush gets through to Trump. Rush and Trump are longtime friends and golf buddies. I’m not sure how much they talk these days but Rush has a decent amount of influence with the President. Trump values Rush’s opinion.

Now, with regards to Democrats resuscitating their national political fortunes by way of mass immigration despite the success of the Reagan administration in the 1980s, the unspoken point is that in a “diverse”, post-mass migration society, economics don’t matter to voters. Not really.

What I mean by that is, their votes are not swayed by a good economy under a president of the opposite party.

If not for mass immigration, Reagan would have been the Republican FDR: an enormously popular and successful president whose lasting impact was reshaping the political landscape to favor his party for a generation. Under FDR and his successor Truman, Democrats won every Presidential election from 1932-1948. Not only that, they shifted the center of American politics toward the left in a major way so that by the time 1952 rolled around, the only way the Republicans could win was to nominate the hero of World War II, Dwight Eisenhower, and promise to leave the New Deal in place.

Republicans had first tried running against FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s but were clobbered every time. By the 1950s the GOP realized it would never win unless it accepted the New Deal as permanent and basically shifted left. FDR had permanently tiled the playing field of American politics to the left. He made it so that the GOP had to become the Democrat Lite Party because FDR’s policies were so widely popular. FDR’s policies were initially seen as liberal, but because of their widespread popularity, they became the de facto center of American politics. This is how you push the entire political spectrum to one side. What were previously moderate, centrist views became right-wing after FDR’s New Deal.

That’s what Rush is talking about with Reagan: Reagan should have been the Republican FDR–the one who pushed the entire American political spectrum to the right and made conservatism the new moderate centrism. What were previously right-wing conservative policies should have become mainstream consensus positions.

But instead, Bush 41 was a one-term President, and since 1992, it is the Democrats have won four of the seven Presidential elections and six of seven popular votes.

Instead of tilting the playing field permanently to the right through Reagan’s success, Democrats tilted it permanently to the left by way of mass immigration.

Whereas in the past Americans would vote based on which party was better for their personal finances, in a post-mass immigration America, political affiliation is not determined by this. Political affiliation is determined by tribe: Blacks vote Democrat. Hispanics vote Democrat. Jews vote Democrat. Whites vote Republican.

That’s just the way it is.

It’s about way more than economics. It’s about tribal identity. Democrats have succeeded in making voting Democrat an inextricable part of being black or Hispanic in America.

Why do you think black Republicans are routinely scorned as “Uncle Toms” by other black people? Because there’s a widespread belief that voting Democrat is an integral part of being black in America.

Hollywood and the Uniparty Media have succeed in convincing much of the country that white people still massively oppress minorities, and voting Republican is seen as a way to propagate “systemic racism” against minorities. Many minorities believe minority Republicans are voting to continue their own oppression.

It makes a lot more sense if you think of the Republican Party as the “White Party” and the Democratic Party as the “nonwhite party.” Why on earth would a nonwhite person vote for the White Party?

And if you’re wondering why many white people vote for the Nonwhite Party, you’ve stumbled upon the real problem in 2019, given that ~60% of the country is still white: the cultural left has indoctrinated and guilted a good deal of white people to believe they are morally obligated to vote Democrat, i.e. against their own interests. Self-loathing whites still remain integral to the Democratic coalition because there simply aren’t enough minority voters to carry the Democrats to victory on their own. Yet.

Dismantling and Replacing “Old” America

As our country grows more “diverse” and less American, this is the inevitable result:

“Over the past several years, we have seen a rising tide of assaults on statues and other works of art representing our nation’s history by those who are eager to squeeze that complex story into a box defined by the evolving rules of political correctness. We might call this the “monument controversy,” and what happened at Notre Dame [where 134-year-old paintings of Christopher Columbus were covered-up] is a case in point: a vocal minority, claiming victim status, demands the destruction, removal, or concealment of some object of which they disapprove. Usually, the official response is instant capitulation.

As the French writer Charles Péguy once observed, “It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.” Consider the frequent demands to remove statues of Confederate war heroes from public spaces because their presence is said to be racist. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for example, has recently had statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson removed from a public gallery. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has set up a committee to review “all symbols of hate on city property.”

“Symbols of hate” of course means “symbols of whiteness.”

Roger Kimball goes on:

“But it is worth noting that the monument controversy signifies something much larger than the attacks on the Old South or Italian explorers.

In the first place, the monument controversy involves not just art works or commemorative objects. Rather, it encompasses the resources of the past writ large. It is an attack on the past for failing to live up to our contemporary notions of virtue.”

While this is the left’s usual stated reason for erasing American history, the true reason behind it is far more troubling than simply political correctness run amok.

It’s about erasing traces of American history to make the country more reflective of its new owners (nonwhite immigrants), rather than the old ones (white people).

Since 1965, the Uniparty Establishment has been working tirelessly to demographically transform America into a “diverse” international homeless shelter in order to make it more receptive to leftwing socialist policies.

Demographic transformation of a country necessarily entails wholesale cultural, linguistic, religious, political and yes, even historical, transformation.

Historical transformation–which comes after erasure–is necessary to ensure a place is completely transformed beyond all recognition, permanently.

A nation is defined by its history, in other words “who it was.” In order to know what someone or some place is, you must know what it was.

Erasing a nation’s history means it is simply a blank slate, a plot of land on a map, which can thus be remade into anything.

And that’s the point.

If you thought the historical erasure would stop with Confederates and Old Southerners, you were wrong. That’s just the first step. That’s the low-hanging fruit the Globalist Uniparty Usurpers can take with little pushback from the token opposition on the right at places like National Review, whose Editor was all to happy to capitulate on the matter of Confederate Statues:

Screen Shot 2019-02-20 at 1.01.14 PM.png

Yes, this is certainly standing athwart history and yelling ‘Stop!’

The so-called “Conservative Movement” has no interest in conserving American history because its member are more interested in being accepted by the Cool Kids.

But it’s not going to stop with the Confederate monuments. Already they’re coming for Christopher Columbus.

In 2017, “protesters” in NYC defaced a statue of Theodore Roosevelt and demanded the statue be taken down because it was a symbol of “patriarchy, white supremacy and settler-colonialism.”

And if you think they’re not coming for the Founding Fathers, you’re clueless.

The more immigrants that pour into this country, the less relevant American history becomes. Our history is not their history. Why should they have to drive down roads named after our Presidents, and send their children to schools named after our historical figures? Eventually, everything will be renamed.

Here in Chicago, there was talk a few years ago about renaming O’Hare International Airport after Obama. It didn’t happen, but is there any doubt this will happen in the future eventually? “Who was Butch O’Hare? *google search* Oh, some OLD ASS RACIST ASS DEAD ASS WHITE GUY?! FUCK HIM!”

Obama is the messiah of the New America, while a guy like Butch O’Hare represents the old America.

In Minnesota, Lake Calhoun, located in downtown Minneapolis, had its name changed to “Bde Maka Ska” last year. “Bde Maka Ska” is its “original Dakota” Indian name.

It’s not about honoring the Indians who were “here first,” but about dismantling all traces of white American history. John Calhoun, whom the lake had been named after for nearly 200 years, was an advocate of slavery, so of course that was the justification for stripping his name from the lake.

Because White Men = slavery, while Indians = morally flawless noble savages.

But removing the name of a Dead White Guy from a lake in Minneapolis was part of the wider, deliberate chipping-away at American history taking place across this country.

And it’s not just statues, lakes and buildings named after Dead White Guys. It’s Western literature that is being tossed in the dustbin of history, too:

“The English department at the University of Pennsylvania contributed to the monument controversy when it cheered on students who were upset that a portrait of a dead white male named William Shakespeare was hanging in the department’s hallway. The department removed the picture and replaced it with a photograph of Audre Lorde, a black feminist writer.

“Students removed the Shakespeare portrait,” crowed department chairman Jed Esty, “and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.” Right.

High schools across the country contribute to the monument controversy when they remove masterpieces like Huckleberry Finn from their libraries because they contain ideas or even just words of which they disapprove.”

The New Americans are dismantling our country before our very eyes. They are pulling the rug out from under us.

They are making the country more reflective of who they are, rather than who we are.

This applies to architecture as well. For ten years Muslim preachers in England have been demanding the Queen wear a full burka and that Buckingham Palace be affixed with minarets:

“The Queen forced to wear a burkha and Buckingham Palace turned into a mosque – that was the vision of Britain under Sharia law proposed by a Muslim firebrand yesterday.

Preacher of hate Anjem Choudary even showed mocked-up photographs of the palace sporting a golden dome and Nelson’s Column as a minaret.

He was speaking ahead of a central London demonstration that was planned for today.”

Here’s Choudray’s ideal version of Buckingham Palace:

article-1224153-0705FDFE000005DC-399_468x257.jpg

Could they be any clearer about their intent to conquer Britain?

And American architecture is next. The neoclassical style of the Capitol, the White House and most of our famous landmarks around D.C. will one day inevitably be renounced as “white people” architecture.

Will the New Americans one day blow up Mount Rushmore? It sounds unthinkable but logically, it follows when you’re already defacing statues of Teddy Roosevelt and itching to do the same to statues of Jefferson and Washington.

The most important thing is: the faces on Mount Rushmore will come to reflect the old America, and the New America will not like that.

This type of thing has happened consistently all throughout history: when places change hands, they change names.

All traces of the old occupants and rulers are discarded and replaced with monuments recognizing the idols and icons of the new occupants and rulers.

Under Roman rule, the land today known as “France” was called “Gaul.”

When the red communists took over Russia, the city of St. Petersburg was renamed “Leningrad” after the patriarch of the Soviet Communist Party.

In Vietnam, Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City, named after the leader of the Vietnamese Communists.

Constantinople became Istanbul in 1453 when it was conquered by the Ottomans.

New York City was originally called New Amsterdam, reflecting its Dutch rulers. But the British renamed it after the Duke of York upon conquering it in 1664.

In 2003, what was the first thing the Iraqis did after being “liberated” by America? They famously pulled down the giant statue of Saddam Hussein.

The Uniparty Propaganda Media celebrated the toppling of the Saddam statue as a symbolic moment marking the official end of Saddam’s regime–and, of course, the optimistic dawn of a New Era of American-Imposed Democracy in Iraq.

The toppling of old statues, no matter where, marks the fall of an old regime and the its replacement by a new one. America is no exception.

There are countless more, and smaller, examples of names being changed and statues being toppled all around the world, all throughout history.

It is symbolic of conquest.

We may not have foreign armies marching on us and conquering us in the traditional understanding of the term, but we are being conquered nonetheless.

What we’re experiencing is conquest by way of mass immigration. The modern West may be experiencing the first-ever peacetime conquest in that our homelands are being conquered despite not being besieged by foreign armies and enemies at the gate

The end-result will be the same, however.

Based Rush Limbaugh

This man has always kept it real. He’s been around for almost 30 years and has never shilled for the Establishment or virtue signaled for the approval of the left.

Rush Limbaugh simply gets it. Always has, always will. This is because he actually values the input of his listeners. He never allowed himself to get too big to the point where he stopped caring about what the Regular Americans who listen to him think.

Rush is the biggest name in Republican politics outside of Donald J. Trump and the reason Rush is still deeply in-tune with the Party Base. Because Rush actually respects them and cares about what they care about.

Look at what Rush said this weekend:

“On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” nationally syndicated conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said President Donald Trump was right to declare a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border to build a wall.

Limbaugh, “We have an emergency. This is an invasion. The very existence and definition of American culture, American society, the rule of law. Why does nobody talk about the fact that millions and millions and millions of people are breaking the law coming here illegally and that the Democrat Party wants that to happen?”

He added, “It is undeniable that we have a major immigration problem and a political party that needs a permanent underclass of voters that wants that parade of illegal people who are uneducated, don’t even speak the language, they want them here. It is a crisis.”

Importantly, Rush sees the “big picture” on immigration: it’s not just about crime and drugs. It’s about preserving American culture. It’s about keeping America American.

He knows that the real national emergency is the demographic transformation of America into a third-world, Elysium-style hellhole.