printBenjamin Shapiro asks a question and answers it (incompletely I think):
“What do you call a candidate who wins 90 percent of the African-American vote, between 30 percent and 50 percent of the Hispanic vote and 40 percent of the white vote in a tight Democratic primary race?
A general election loser. … In a general election, candidates must appeal to the broadest base of support in order to win. Relying on small coteries of like-raced voters simply will not do it.”
This is valid… for now. The “broadest base of support” is indeed Anglo-American, for the near future. But in a few decades, given unchecked immigration, the majority—Anglo-Americans—will be dwarfed demographically by Hispanics. Afro-Americans, who together with Anglo-Americans (and Indians) made up the historical majority, will be usurped too. Birthrates in these populations are similar.
Since voting patterns diverge from one demographic group to the next, it is not unreasonable to deduce that each has different interests and concerns. It is probably fair to say that both Anglo- and Afro-Americans are unhelped by the unchecked influx of Hispanics.
On a related topic: I’ve brought up the flight of the native-born to the heartland before on the blog. Michael Barone has documented this “Realignment of America.”
It’s really a shame. I don’t think it is a coincidence that the birth rate among native born Americans has gone down at the same time as government has grown. Parents seem to have all the responsibility of raising children while at the same time having less and less power (time,money,authority) to do so.
One thing that isn’t really talked about during this kind of “whites will be the minority” debate is the fact, that, it’s not just men not wanting to have children, but women. I hate to sound like a sexist here, but today women put their career, and more or less a selfish desire to be “independent” before even thinking of having a family. Hell I know a woman personaly who thinks having to carry a baby is slavery. That’s friggin scary.
Listen, I come from a huge italian family, and I would say the italian woman is/was/still the proto-type feminist. But the Anglo-Nordic Woman has become more concered with her stature in life than what she should really be doing.
Am I wrong?
Yes, feminism spells the undoing of society. It’s not like the homosexual lobby where the outcome is only going to effect a small percentage of the population, anyway. We’re talking about a movement which has implemented policies that have infiltrated society’s contracts arbitrarily to such an extent that nearly every CEO in America panders to their devotion to “promoting gender equality” rather than upholding merit and the natural order, in a way that directly pertains to roughly HALF of the population, and effects absolutely everyone. From this, many women, historically and societally oblivious, develop a false sense of what they are entitled to. And men are expected to follow because to resist would appear dreadfully reactionary. Folks, this skews society away from the natural order, and everything has to take the hit, including future laws that politicians make.
It is irritating to boot. I’m on Facebook only to find out that lots of girls I knew from high school have never watched a film from before the 21st century that they care about, have religion listed as “just be nice”, have a bunch of photos of themselves posing in intentionally oddly contorted and sometimes even mock-masculine positions (maybe even the profile picture), and it goes on.
“Individualist feminism” is hardly any better. At least they don’t want to force it into law. They’ll just interpret my words as something indicative of the sadomasochistic nature of psycho-sexual power relations…or something like that (*cough* Paglia).