“The safety of the Republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment…The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to…corrupt the national spirit…”~~~Alexander Hamilton
Donald Trump’s claim that American elections are “rigged” has been greeted with a flurry of righteous indignation from all points on the political spectrum. Elected officials are warning ominously that faith in American “democratic institutions” is under siege from the real estate tycoon and friendly neighborhood demagogue. The lying lickspittles of the chattering class that establishes and enforcees the limits of permissible dissent have been out in force. One theme running through this orgy of public breast-beating is the necessity of trust for functioning political institutions.
Campaigning in New Hampshire, well-known serial groper and plagiarist Joe Biden called Trump a “threat” to democracy, too stupid to understand the monsters he is releasing from Pandora’s Box. “The things that Donald Trump is saying and doing are genuinely a threat to the democratic process, which is based on trust,” said the Vice President.
Aside from representatives of the Lord’s Temporal, America’s spiritual and religious leaders chimed in as well. During his daily podcast, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler commented on Trump’s “controversial” assertions. “In recent days and weeks, Donald Trump has been speaking of the election as rigged,” said Mohler, with great solemnity. “It was interestingly clear last night that Donald Trump isn’t limiting that expression about the rigged election to the electoral process in terms of voting only…. What makes this historically important and important from a worldview perspective is that it brings to our understanding, to the forefront of our political consciousness, the necessity of trust. We’ve talked about this just in terms of what makes civilization or society possible. A certain level of trust is absolutely necessary. The absence of that kind of trust leads to a situation as we have seen in other countries where there is a breakdown of societal order, where there’s a breakdown of law and order, of decency, of habit, of respect.”
Mohler and Biden are onto something; trust is a necessary precondition for civilization, order, and functioning political institutions. But why is trust breaking down? The secularization of culture and demolition of common moral norms is certainly one factor. But the “Invade the World, Invite the World” imperial policies of the post Cold War period are also to blame. As the United States has morphed into an empire, pursuing policies endorsed by both the likes of Biden and Mohler—and the entire corrupt oligarchy–the institutions of the old republic have ceased to function and politics has degenerated to open warfare among competing tribes who neither like nor trust their opponents.
Multiculturalism, the new American civil religion, breeds distrust. But it is the necessary consequence of an imperial foreign policy married to largely open immigration. From ancient Assyria’s displacement of Israel, to the Babylonian dispersion of the Jews, through ancient Rome to the modern Soviet Union, empires have forcefully moved and uprooted populations with the goal of mixing them to undermine unity and attachment to place, making them more pliable and easily ruled.
The Ruling Class of the modern West has devised a shrewder strategy. Eschewing the forcible coercion of their ideological ancestors Cultural Marxists have used tools of propaganda and persuasion, the institutions of cultural dissemination and control, to cow and con the populace into not merely accepting but virtually demanding their dispossession.
Beginning with the Immigration Act of 1965, the transformation of America has proceeded apace and continues to pick up steam. According to a report published by the Center for Immigration Studies, as of December, 2015, 61 million immigrants and their American-born children under the age of 18 live in the United States (see table). In 1990, there were just shy of 20 million immigrants in the United States. Almost one in five U. S. residents is now an immigrant or minor child of an immigrant parent. In 1970, that number was one in fifteen. In just twenty-five years, the number of immigrants has effectively tripled—with no end in sight.
The demographic tsunami unleashed by mass immigration has economic and fiscal impacts, lowers the wages of working-class employees, transfers wealth to the owners of capital, creates fiscal problems for state and local governments, and raises questions about assimilation. But it also has obvious political consequences. After all, as the old saying goes, in politics demography is destiny. Consider the graphs below showing electoral collecge results under varying scenarios. Politics is not primarily about ideas and ideology—it is about identity. Transform the make-up of a people and you transform their politics.
In his book “Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity”, legendary political scientist Samuel Huntington did yeoman work pointing out the worrying features of current immigration policy and the way it undermines national idenity. He wrote: “Mexican immigration differs from past immigration and most other contemporary immigration due to a combination of six factors: contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration [in the American Southwest], persistence, and historical presence… Demographically, socially, and culturally, the reconquista (re-conquest) of the Southwest United States by Mexican immigrants is well underway.”
In summary, Mexican immigration of the last fifty years is qualitatively different from 19th and early 20th century immigration from Europe. Bewildered Americans witlessly stand by as the American Southwest is reconquered with the approval of America’s Ruling Class—both the “left” and the “right”.
During his presidency, William Clinton headed to California to celebrate the looming death of white America: “We want to become a multiracial, multiethnic society. This will arguably be the third great revolution …. to prove that we literally can live without … having a dominant European culture.” But the “conservatives” have also cheered the Revolution. Running to secure the GOP nomination in 2000, El Presidente Bush similarly welcomed the coming demise of European influence in the United States. Mr. Bush said:
“America has one national creed, but many accents. We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We’re a major source of Latin music, journalism, and culture. Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago, or West New York, New Jersey… and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende. For years our nation has debated this change – some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.”
Failure to stem the demographic tide has and will continue to create substantial political turmoil in at least four ways. First, traditional political institutions, and especially parties and their campaign tactics, will compete for this new bloc of voters. In doing so, they will adapt to the demands, interests, and values of immigrants by abandoning issues and constituencies they have supported in the past.
Consider the transformation of the Democratic Party. Once the home of white, working class labor voters, it is now a coalition of fringe groups. But the fringes outnumber traditional Americans. A couple of recent examples: Tim Kaine was lauded by the press for contributing to the ongoing linguistic balkanization of the country by giving an entire speech in Spanish. Meanwhile, two Democratic congressmen, Luis Gutiérrez and Zoe Lofgren are already crafting legislation to provide a “pathway to legalization” and also increase legal immigration should Hillary Clinton claim the White House.
A corollary to the above is that the GOP is DOA. Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubestein have been arguing since at least 1997 that mass immigration would leave the GOP as a minority party, in spite of their best efforts to “reach out” to Hispanic voters.
Post-1965 immigration has already remade the electorate in favor of Democrats and increasing immigration will result in more Democrats winning more elections in coming years. Writing for the Center for Immigration Studies, James Gimpel undermines the hopes of “conservative” campaign consultants predicting the emergence of “family values, small government” immigrant constituencies casting votes for the GOP. “Immigrants, particularly Hispanics and Asians,” writes Gimpel, “have policy preferences when it comes to the size and scope of government that are more closely aligned with progressives than with conservatives. As a result, survey data show a two-to-one party identification with Democrats over Republicans.” Historically, immigrant waves have pushed American politics in a leftward direction. That trend will surely continue.
A second long-term possibility is that immigrants may import new demands and interests that cannot be met by existing political institutions and may thus create new vehicles to pursue their goals. According to a (very dated) Zogby poll, some 58% of Mexicans think that the American southwest belongs to Mexico. One might assume that Republican and Democrat politicians will resist such claims if pressed. In such an event, it would not be terribly surprising to see new parties form that are more amenable to be shaped by the forces of polarization and disunity. Though multi-party democracy is not in the American DNA, the overturning of the demographic majority could lead to the racialization of politics and the creation of political parties defined by race.
Third, mass immigration is likely to create a backlash, creating further racial and ethnic polarization in the country. In part, the rise of Donald Trump is a result of this backlash. But political elites may relish such an outcome as it provides justification for further meddling in the lives of citizens. The management of racial and ethnic strife is bread and butter for the state and unchecked borders become a means of creating chaos to be “solved” by statist means.
The late paleoconservative theorist Sam Francis coined the term “Anarcho-Tyranny” which he defined as “both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny—the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through ‘sensitivity training’ and multiculturalist curricula, ‘hate crime’ laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.”
Francis elaborates on immigration as part-and-parcel of this strategy, a weapon of the ruling elite to augment its power:
“The most obvious sign of what would normally be called anarchy is the immigration invasion. By some serious estimates, no fewer than 11-to-13-million illegal aliens now live in the United States, most of them from Mexico or Central America. The Mexican government actively encourages this invasion and, as the press recently reported, even provides to its own citizens a guidebook on how to carry it out. Our government does nothing serious to stop the invasion, to apprehend the invaders, or to deter the aggression that the Mexican state is perpetrating. The invaders—as residents of Arizona, where some 40 percent of illegal aliens enter the country, constantly complain—threaten the lives, safety, and property of law-abiding American citizens; depress wages; gobble welfare; and constitute a new underclass that is an object of demagogic political manipulation by both American and Mexican politicians. (The illegals in this country cannot legally vote, though that does not necessarily stop them, but they remain voters in Mexico, and Mexican politicians now routinely campaign for their votes inside the United States.) The federal government invaded Iraq, although Iraq never harmed or threatened us, but it does virtually nothing to resist the massive invasion (and eventually the conquest) of its own country and the deliberate violation of its own laws by Mexico.”
Finally, mass immigration will shift political power from the heartland to the coasts. With reapportionment, states with large inflows of immigrant populations are taking representation from industrial states in the Midwest. This process has been going on since the 1990s.
Between 1990 and 2000, California lost nearly a million white residents, yet the population of the state increased dramatically due to immigration. California picked up five House seats as a result of reapportionment. Texas, New York, and Florida also picked up seats while Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin each lost one seat and Colorado and Kentucky both failed to gain a seat that they otherwise would have had there been no immigration after 1990.
The period from 2000 to 2010 saw a similar shift with Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri and Pennsylvania all losing representation while Florida, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada picked up one or more seats.
Projections for 2020 (see below) show similar losses in the industrial Midwest while Southwestern states Colorado, California, and Arizona pick up seats. It is also of note that both Virginia and North Carolina will likely pick up congressional seats. Those traditionally conservative states have been trending Democrat for several cycles due to the influx of immigrants. One other consequence: states most impacted by free trade policies are increasingly losing representation and political clout as a result of immigration.
Jeff Sessions’ Senate Subcommittee on Immigration calculated that under current law, between now and 2065, for every one American added to the population by our existing citizens, immigration will add seven more. This demographic transformation is unprecedented and unwanted. We are on a course that will radically transform the United States of America, a course that we have never voted for. Can this radical transformation be averted? We are entering uncharted waters.