I’m one of those spooky evil alt-right supporters the media keeps harping on about – historically speaking, countries with a preponderance of whites or Asians are successful, while countries that don’t possess those demographic groups are unsuccessful. Demography is destiny. When I realized that the Left is trying to en masse import poorly educated minorities to act as voter ‘shock troops’ against conservative whites, I really flipped. Not to mention the intergenerational albatross they’re going to place on the American taxpayer, and the social cost they’re going to inflict in terms of a divided culture and lower national IQ (Jason Richwine from Harvard had a good paper on this – it even got him fired by an SJW lynch mob).
I grew up in a very white area of the country and remember there being high levels of social trust, low crime, and a general esprit de corps and happiness in the community. You could leave your door unlocked and be reasonably certain that nobody could come and steal your belongings. I’ve since lived in a lot of different places, and can say with reasonable certainty that the more diverse an area is, the less people trust each other/are engaged in civic life. Robert Putnam (also Harvard) has some great research on this, which he always presents with about 10 minutes of handwringing about the importance of egalitarian values to satisfy the anxieties of his presumably liberal audience.
The left has biology on its side:
America is becoming a low IQ, low future orientation country by genetic displacement.
The premise of the article is false. The Democrats are still in power and they are still winning. All the demographic trends are against the Republicans and in favour of the Democrats. Being the Anti-White Party still becomes more powerful each cycle. Trump is a blip caused by more American whites realising that they are facing an Anti-White Party, leading to consolidation of the white vote, but the trend is still toward the total white vote, and total historical Republican demographic vote, becoming a strict minority in the United States in the very near future.
The Democrats will need to rethink their strategy if Trump actually reverses dysgenic immigration and dysgenic fertility in the United States in a way that seems like it cannot be overturned in 2-3 terms. That is very unlikely to happen. What is more likely is that Trump will delay the US becoming a one party state by 10-20 years (this will look like Jeb Bush becoming the extreme right of the Republicans, rather than a literal one party state; there is always space for two figureheads saying the same thing).
The story here is the geographical shift that has gone on. I agree that the Democrats and Clinton totally screwed up by not addressing the needs or concerns of the counties outside of University town and Urban area. Let poise this What If.
Suppose the agendas of the Urban Areas and Universities continue to diverge from Rural America. What happens when their population continues to increase and now we are facing popular votes difference of more than 3 million.
I am well aware that the founding fathers stacked the deck so to speak to make sure that Urban areas don’t dominate the political discourse. But at there is a point where the system has to give way to the will of the majority.
You’re underestimating just how flat out evil the now dominant Progressive wing of the Democratic Party has become. Reports of increased suicides and lowered life expectancy in “fly over” country brings about the clinking of glasses and cheers at any DNC social.
The hollowing out of the middle class as you call it isn’t bad or ignorant policy on their part- it’s the *intended* result, and they thought demographic trends would protect them from the consequences. This is a government that is *actively* hostile to a major demographic, not careless. They want me and mine dead, and as far as many of us are concerned, we’re already in a civil cold war- have been for some years now. If they somehow succeed in subverting the electoral vote, the war will turn hot.
This is not paranoia. It’s all out there if you doubt me. They’ve been quite open about it for a good while now if you know where to look.
On a war breaking up the USA:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7268#comment-1787561And the whole civil war thing. I hope the blue states understand that the anger they saw election night was just the tip of the iceberg. There are millions of people who would love for a hot war to erupt. Nothing would ensure the constitution more than a hot war that would allow these people to cull the socialists out of the gene pool. And no way do we allow you to take all the ports on the west coast without a fight. So we could split peacefully, but only if we got say San Diego and the republican counties that grow a lot of your food to boot.
Trump is our weapon against the party. The democrats are the inner party, the cuckservatives are part of the outer party. Push comes to shove, we are going to kill them all.
Elections are a way of not having civil wars. Ideally the election result should be indicative of who would win a civil war, so you can get to the outcome a civil war would produce without all the killing and destruction. If you allow women and blacks and people without property etc to vote, then the election result is likely to fail to reflect the likely outcome of a civil war. If women and people without property get too grabby, a civil war then is incentivized, in that white men of property would be substantially better off with the civil war outcome than the election outcome
If one faction or the other then burns the Reichstaag, providing a schelling point on which a civil war can be started, the incentivized civil war becomes likely.
