By Selwyn Duke
Importing Socialists
Mon Nov 20, 2006 03:57
Importing Socialists
By Selwyn Duke
By Selwyn Duke
It’s funny how the conclusion of an election can completely alter media
reportage. The day after the Democrat Public Relations Arm (DPRA) –
euphemistically known as the “mainstream media” – got its party elected,
they actually started broaching a couple of real issues. Such as amnesty for
illegal aliens.
In my election piece I warned that Democrat ascendancy would mean a full court press to grant amnesty-by-another-name to illegals. And I retired election night as one of the voices in the darkness, emitting admonitions that a 420-foot-diameter SETI dish would have had trouble detecting amidst the talking-head static. I awakened to a world in which it seemed that the DPRA couldn’t talk enough about the aliens who have landed and how they would be allowed to stay. Writing at Forbes.com, Laurie Kellman said,
Funny, though, why wasn’t the DPRA telling you about this before the election? Could it be that there was something they didn’t want you to know? Is it that they wanted you to focus more on Foley than immigration folly? More on the preacher Haggard than the haggard face of America? Ah, me and my flights of fancy.
A cursory examination of election statistics sheds light on why the DPRA kept the invasion of America off the radar screen. If you look at the groups that constitute 85 percent of legal immigrants and virtually all illegal ones – those of Third World ancestry – you’ll see that they supported the DPRA’s candidates by overwhelming margins.
Black voters led the pack, voting Democrat by an 89 percent to 11 percent margin. More ominously, Hispanics, the largest minority and by far the fastest growing immigrant group, went Democrat 70 percent to 30 percent. Asians were right behind, pulling the “D” lever 68 percent of the time. In contrast, whites once again gave the nod to Republicans, albeit by the slim margin of 52 percent to 48 percent.
This brings us to something that is usually left unsaid, despite being an ever more weighty millstone around the neck of a traditionalist movement frantically treading water. Liberals are importing their voters.
Do you understand the gravity of what I just told you? Let’s examine some more statistics.
When the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 (it created the situation wherein 85 percent of immigrants hail from the Third World. Gracias, Ted Kennedy) was passed, white people were 89 percent of the U.S. population. After four decades of culture-jarring migration, however, whites constitute only 69 percent of the nation. And unless our misbegotten immigration policies undergo radical change, this trend will continue unabated.
This is why I can only shake my head and register a Mona Lisa smile when I hear commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage assert that the Republicans lost because they abandoned conservative principles. This is only partly true. To illuminate the picture entirely, we have to ask why conservatives were ignored.
This isn’t rocket science. While the issue is multifaceted, the fact is that the constituency that has been keeping the traditionalist movement afloat is steadily losing population share. And lower population share equals less clout. Is it any wonder then that Bill Clinton said that he can’t wait for the day when whites are a minority in America?
The truth is that one has to be blind to miss the writing on the wall. On election night, Pat Robertson interviewed pollster John Zogby and registered surprise that Arizona, the “state of Barry Goldwater,” would lean left the way it did this election. Zogby quickly interjected, pointing out that due to “demographic changes” Arizona is no longer the conservative state it once was.
Of course, “demographic changes” is a euphemistic way of referring to an influx of socialist-minded third worlders, a population shift that has transformed erstwhile conservative bastions into liberal strongholds. Understanding this, John Zogby mentioned that Arizona and Virginia were the next “fifty/fifty states,” alluding to the fact that liberals’ numbers will soon equal those of conservatives. The funny thing about fifty/fifty, though, is that it’s not a destination but a point on a journey. And if you want to know what lies just a few stops down the road, look at California (does it bother anyone else that the governor of the most populous state has a foreign accent?).
Once a state whose politics was epitomized by Ronald Reagan, it has mutated into a polyglot cauldron of multiculturalism, with Nancy Pelosi as its political poster girl. Speaking of the Gipper, do you remember his landslide re-election victory in 1984? Running against Walter Mondale, he won every state except for Mondale’s home state of Minnesota. But that was when the “demographics” of the nation were quite different. If Reagan were alive today, he could never win a forty-nine-state victory. In fact, with the majority of Californians now being of Third World heritage, I venture to say that Reagan couldn’t even win his home state.
Why the groups in question exhibit these voting patterns is grist for a different day. Obviously, no one is born with socialist tendencies, but cultural differences are undeniable. And this is why I have to laugh when I hear conservatives rationalize that they will be able to woo Hispanic voters.
It’s as if they’re ignorant of the political climate in the Third World. Do they ever wonder why socialism and its dark cousin, communism, have long found homes in Mexico and Central and South America? Do they understand that the Mexican Revolution in 1910 was largely socialist in nature and led to the persecution of the Church? Do they realize that Zapatista guerrillas are working to establish socialism in Mexico right now? Does it faze them that socialists Evo Morales and Michelle Bachelet were elected in, respectively, Bolivia and Chile? How about the fact that Marxist Daniel Ortega was just elected in Nicaragua? And then, of course, there’s the piPce de résistance, Fidel Castro’s philosophical and stylistic soul mate, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
The fact is that people get the government they deserve because, one way or another, they make the government what it is. And it takes a very special head-in-the-sand kind of naivete to believe that these socialistic immigrants will magically be transformed into lovers of the American way upon touching U.S. terra firma.
What will happen – what is, in fact, happening – is that these newcomers will see a land of milk and honey, one far richer than whence they came, and their redistributive appetites will be whetted all the more. Jorge Bush couldn’t win a majority of Hispanic votes even after rendering a radio address in Spanish to commemorate Cinco De Mayo and compassionately conserving the budget into the stratosphere. What makes anyone think a real conservative ever could?
So, assimilation? It’s a pipe dream. If these new “hard working” immigrants will assimilate into anything, it will be our third millennium culture of entitlement.
As far as the sword of Damocles of amnesty goes, there is a sad irony here. Traditionalist voters were angry at Bush, in part, because he has done little about the invasion of our nation and supports de facto amnesty. The Republican House blocked Bush’s amnesty plan. So, to punish Bush, they voted to end Republican control of the House, thereby removing the only impediment to amnesty and giving Bush exactly what he wants. Good show that, gringos.
But the leftists are euphoric; now they can double the size of one of their voting blocks in one swift, culture-rending blow. It’s as if these seducers importuned you to vault them to power this past election, saying “Vote for us and we’ll respect you in the morning.” You did. They won’t
So, I have no good news for you, traditionalist brethren. Because if you think our fearless leaders aren’t listening to you now, just wait until they naturalize millions more mail-order socialists.
Contact
Selwyn Duke
In my election piece I warned that Democrat ascendancy would mean a full court press to grant amnesty-by-another-name to illegals. And I retired election night as one of the voices in the darkness, emitting admonitions that a 420-foot-diameter SETI dish would have had trouble detecting amidst the talking-head static. I awakened to a world in which it seemed that the DPRA couldn’t talk enough about the aliens who have landed and how they would be allowed to stay. Writing at Forbes.com, Laurie Kellman said,
Bush could see one victory come his way under the new Democratic-controlled House - on immigration reform. The Republican-led House balked at Bush's plans for a guest worker program and for the Senate's plan for creating a path toward citizenship for millions of undocumented workers. Democrats tended to favor it.
Funny, though, why wasn’t the DPRA telling you about this before the election? Could it be that there was something they didn’t want you to know? Is it that they wanted you to focus more on Foley than immigration folly? More on the preacher Haggard than the haggard face of America? Ah, me and my flights of fancy.
A cursory examination of election statistics sheds light on why the DPRA kept the invasion of America off the radar screen. If you look at the groups that constitute 85 percent of legal immigrants and virtually all illegal ones – those of Third World ancestry – you’ll see that they supported the DPRA’s candidates by overwhelming margins.
Black voters led the pack, voting Democrat by an 89 percent to 11 percent margin. More ominously, Hispanics, the largest minority and by far the fastest growing immigrant group, went Democrat 70 percent to 30 percent. Asians were right behind, pulling the “D” lever 68 percent of the time. In contrast, whites once again gave the nod to Republicans, albeit by the slim margin of 52 percent to 48 percent.
This brings us to something that is usually left unsaid, despite being an ever more weighty millstone around the neck of a traditionalist movement frantically treading water. Liberals are importing their voters.
Do you understand the gravity of what I just told you? Let’s examine some more statistics.
When the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 (it created the situation wherein 85 percent of immigrants hail from the Third World. Gracias, Ted Kennedy) was passed, white people were 89 percent of the U.S. population. After four decades of culture-jarring migration, however, whites constitute only 69 percent of the nation. And unless our misbegotten immigration policies undergo radical change, this trend will continue unabated.
This is why I can only shake my head and register a Mona Lisa smile when I hear commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage assert that the Republicans lost because they abandoned conservative principles. This is only partly true. To illuminate the picture entirely, we have to ask why conservatives were ignored.
This isn’t rocket science. While the issue is multifaceted, the fact is that the constituency that has been keeping the traditionalist movement afloat is steadily losing population share. And lower population share equals less clout. Is it any wonder then that Bill Clinton said that he can’t wait for the day when whites are a minority in America?
The truth is that one has to be blind to miss the writing on the wall. On election night, Pat Robertson interviewed pollster John Zogby and registered surprise that Arizona, the “state of Barry Goldwater,” would lean left the way it did this election. Zogby quickly interjected, pointing out that due to “demographic changes” Arizona is no longer the conservative state it once was.
Of course, “demographic changes” is a euphemistic way of referring to an influx of socialist-minded third worlders, a population shift that has transformed erstwhile conservative bastions into liberal strongholds. Understanding this, John Zogby mentioned that Arizona and Virginia were the next “fifty/fifty states,” alluding to the fact that liberals’ numbers will soon equal those of conservatives. The funny thing about fifty/fifty, though, is that it’s not a destination but a point on a journey. And if you want to know what lies just a few stops down the road, look at California (does it bother anyone else that the governor of the most populous state has a foreign accent?).
Once a state whose politics was epitomized by Ronald Reagan, it has mutated into a polyglot cauldron of multiculturalism, with Nancy Pelosi as its political poster girl. Speaking of the Gipper, do you remember his landslide re-election victory in 1984? Running against Walter Mondale, he won every state except for Mondale’s home state of Minnesota. But that was when the “demographics” of the nation were quite different. If Reagan were alive today, he could never win a forty-nine-state victory. In fact, with the majority of Californians now being of Third World heritage, I venture to say that Reagan couldn’t even win his home state.
Why the groups in question exhibit these voting patterns is grist for a different day. Obviously, no one is born with socialist tendencies, but cultural differences are undeniable. And this is why I have to laugh when I hear conservatives rationalize that they will be able to woo Hispanic voters.
It’s as if they’re ignorant of the political climate in the Third World. Do they ever wonder why socialism and its dark cousin, communism, have long found homes in Mexico and Central and South America? Do they understand that the Mexican Revolution in 1910 was largely socialist in nature and led to the persecution of the Church? Do they realize that Zapatista guerrillas are working to establish socialism in Mexico right now? Does it faze them that socialists Evo Morales and Michelle Bachelet were elected in, respectively, Bolivia and Chile? How about the fact that Marxist Daniel Ortega was just elected in Nicaragua? And then, of course, there’s the piPce de résistance, Fidel Castro’s philosophical and stylistic soul mate, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
The fact is that people get the government they deserve because, one way or another, they make the government what it is. And it takes a very special head-in-the-sand kind of naivete to believe that these socialistic immigrants will magically be transformed into lovers of the American way upon touching U.S. terra firma.
What will happen – what is, in fact, happening – is that these newcomers will see a land of milk and honey, one far richer than whence they came, and their redistributive appetites will be whetted all the more. Jorge Bush couldn’t win a majority of Hispanic votes even after rendering a radio address in Spanish to commemorate Cinco De Mayo and compassionately conserving the budget into the stratosphere. What makes anyone think a real conservative ever could?
So, assimilation? It’s a pipe dream. If these new “hard working” immigrants will assimilate into anything, it will be our third millennium culture of entitlement.
As far as the sword of Damocles of amnesty goes, there is a sad irony here. Traditionalist voters were angry at Bush, in part, because he has done little about the invasion of our nation and supports de facto amnesty. The Republican House blocked Bush’s amnesty plan. So, to punish Bush, they voted to end Republican control of the House, thereby removing the only impediment to amnesty and giving Bush exactly what he wants. Good show that, gringos.
But the leftists are euphoric; now they can double the size of one of their voting blocks in one swift, culture-rending blow. It’s as if these seducers importuned you to vault them to power this past election, saying “Vote for us and we’ll respect you in the morning.” You did. They won’t
So, I have no good news for you, traditionalist brethren. Because if you think our fearless leaders aren’t listening to you now, just wait until they naturalize millions more mail-order socialists.
- Koppel in Iran: Underground Iran — Radio Your Way, Mon Nov 20 03:24
- Embassy the size of 80 football fields and 14 bases — helicopter detonated, Mon Nov 20 10:00
- Importing Socialists — By Selwyn Duke, Mon Nov 20 03:57
- Re importing socialists — greg collins, Mon Nov 20 18:10
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
