The Impending Death of Multiculturalism

We are all familiar with the Democratic Party gambit of packing the electorate with poor, third-world immigrants, all but guaranteed to vote for the party who offers them a living on the taxpayers’ largesse. While progressives still roll their eyes at the suggestion that this is why third-world immigration has been encouraged -- the point is no longer even worth arguing. The fact that this immigration policy has, for many decades, had the effect of moving the country to the left is uncontestable. Latinos and other poor minorities vote for big government until they make it to middle class -- an achievement which has become conveniently difficult since government effectively punishes people for being in the middle class. Call me a conspiracy theorist, a xenophobe, a racist, or a leprechaun if you like, but this is what has actually happened. For quite a few election cycles now, there have been indications that this game is running out of steam. The election of Donald Trump was an unmistakable thundering proclamation that a growing majority of the people have had enough -- that we do not need more social programs or more federally enforced diversity, and we certainly do not need more unskilled workers to serve an economy with an ever-shrinking number of unskilled jobs.

Although the left appears to love third-world immigration, they are not so dogmatically blind as they might seem. While they appear to be digging in to fight for their multicultural grand vision, it should be remembered that they ultimately do not care any more about Latinos, Somalis, or Syrians than they have cared about poor blacks or working-class whites. They will cultivate poor or minority votes only so long as the gambit wins elections – something it has not been doing very well lately. It should never be forgotten that today’s Democratic Party is an oxymoron. They are anything but democratic. Were their impulses democratic, they’d have let elections influence their policies, rather than engaging in the political atrocity of rigging their own primary. Far from representing any group of ordinary mortals, they represent the interests of their own political class, guided by consciously unprincipled Alinskyite tactics. Democracy, the idea that the public itself is capable of a sort of collective wisdom, is laughable to people who, by nature, culture, and habit consider themselves superior. Power to the People? Sure – so long as the “People” accept the social engineer and the bureaucrat as their natural betters. A disturbing undercurrent has been emerging in leftist thought for several years that promises to significantly alter their course. If you can’t win elections -- override them or eliminate them.

In 2008, a liberal judge overrode Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage that the voters of California had passed. What were all those Catholic Mexicans thinking?

In 2013, a Georgetown law professor, Louis Michael Seidman, floated the idea that we abolish the U.S. Constitution. I wrote about this at the time.

During last year’s election, there was this interesting headline in Slate:

The Week Democracy Died: Dark days this summer showed how government by the people -- beset by illiberal populists on one side and undemocratic elites on the other -- is poised for extinction.

Don’t be distracted by the red herring of “undemocratic elites.” The operative phrase here is -- “illiberal populists.” Let me translate from the leftist Newspeak: “Democracy” means the left gets its way. If anyone else happens to be in the majority, they’re “illiberal populists” -- a threat to “democracy” as the left now defines it. As was the case with “racist,” another perfectly intelligible and useful word has been reduced to gibberish.

I will not bother to recount all the panicky and childish ways the left attempted to overturn the 2016 election itself -- happily nostalgic though the recounting might be. Having failed to undo the election, the left easily sank to the absurdity of having federal district judges block the duly elected president’s very modest and not-at-all unprecedented travel ban. Enough said. The idea that the will of the majority is somehow sacred is an idea from the enlightenment -- not from Karl Marx. The left has always been dismissive of the actual public will.

With electoral politics failing them, the planners on the left have little recourse but to find a way to either abolish elections altogether, or turn them into the mere formalities like the ones the Soviets conducted. So far, gerrymandering and a GOP establishment that is always happy to appease haven’t been enough to muffle us. If the left can get its act together, it is reasonable to expect some kind of manufactured crisis to occur, designed to distract us from the left’s moral bankruptcy on open parade. Be prepared for an approving nod from equally morally bankrupt establishment Republicans. It is not reasonable to expect the people in power to surrender that power quietly if they are still able to organize a defense. They will fund a street revolution or a bureaucratic coup d’etat as soon as they are able to organize one. The more we win, the more desperate our enemies inevitably become. In the last couple of months, many members of the political and media classes have no doubt been having visions of years in prison as a real possibility. They will not go meekly or quietly to such a fate. That is not a conspiracy theory -- it is a forecast about human behavior that should be obvious to everyone.

Whoever wins, our minority pandering society is probably in its final days. If conservatives win the battle to come, and have the dedication to stick to their principles, people are going to have to rise or fall on their own individual merits. The race for victim status will end. That doesn’t bode well for low-skill economic migrants or jihadists on diversity visas. If the left wins, minorities -- whose only real value to the Democrats have been to cast a vote now and then, or produce offspring who will cast a vote now and then -- will be a costly expense without a useful function. Before the revolution, the tally of votes matters. After the revolution -- elections are a joke.

We are all familiar with the Democratic Party gambit of packing the electorate with poor, third-world immigrants, all but guaranteed to vote for the party who offers them a living on the taxpayers’ largesse. While progressives still roll their eyes at the suggestion that this is why third-world immigration has been encouraged -- the point is no longer even worth arguing. The fact that this immigration policy has, for many decades, had the effect of moving the country to the left is uncontestable. Latinos and other poor minorities vote for big government until they make it to middle class -- an achievement which has become conveniently difficult since government effectively punishes people for being in the middle class. Call me a conspiracy theorist, a xenophobe, a racist, or a leprechaun if you like, but this is what has actually happened. For quite a few election cycles now, there have been indications that this game is running out of steam. The election of Donald Trump was an unmistakable thundering proclamation that a growing majority of the people have had enough -- that we do not need more social programs or more federally enforced diversity, and we certainly do not need more unskilled workers to serve an economy with an ever-shrinking number of unskilled jobs.

Although the left appears to love third-world immigration, they are not so dogmatically blind as they might seem. While they appear to be digging in to fight for their multicultural grand vision, it should be remembered that they ultimately do not care any more about Latinos, Somalis, or Syrians than they have cared about poor blacks or working-class whites. They will cultivate poor or minority votes only so long as the gambit wins elections – something it has not been doing very well lately. It should never be forgotten that today’s Democratic Party is an oxymoron. They are anything but democratic. Were their impulses democratic, they’d have let elections influence their policies, rather than engaging in the political atrocity of rigging their own primary. Far from representing any group of ordinary mortals, they represent the interests of their own political class, guided by consciously unprincipled Alinskyite tactics. Democracy, the idea that the public itself is capable of a sort of collective wisdom, is laughable to people who, by nature, culture, and habit consider themselves superior. Power to the People? Sure – so long as the “People” accept the social engineer and the bureaucrat as their natural betters. A disturbing undercurrent has been emerging in leftist thought for several years that promises to significantly alter their course. If you can’t win elections -- override them or eliminate them.

In 2008, a liberal judge overrode Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage that the voters of California had passed. What were all those Catholic Mexicans thinking?

In 2013, a Georgetown law professor, Louis Michael Seidman, floated the idea that we abolish the U.S. Constitution. I wrote about this at the time.

During last year’s election, there was this interesting headline in Slate:

The Week Democracy Died: Dark days this summer showed how government by the people -- beset by illiberal populists on one side and undemocratic elites on the other -- is poised for extinction.

Don’t be distracted by the red herring of “undemocratic elites.” The operative phrase here is -- “illiberal populists.” Let me translate from the leftist Newspeak: “Democracy” means the left gets its way. If anyone else happens to be in the majority, they’re “illiberal populists” -- a threat to “democracy” as the left now defines it. As was the case with “racist,” another perfectly intelligible and useful word has been reduced to gibberish.

I will not bother to recount all the panicky and childish ways the left attempted to overturn the 2016 election itself -- happily nostalgic though the recounting might be. Having failed to undo the election, the left easily sank to the absurdity of having federal district judges block the duly elected president’s very modest and not-at-all unprecedented travel ban. Enough said. The idea that the will of the majority is somehow sacred is an idea from the enlightenment -- not from Karl Marx. The left has always been dismissive of the actual public will.

With electoral politics failing them, the planners on the left have little recourse but to find a way to either abolish elections altogether, or turn them into the mere formalities like the ones the Soviets conducted. So far, gerrymandering and a GOP establishment that is always happy to appease haven’t been enough to muffle us. If the left can get its act together, it is reasonable to expect some kind of manufactured crisis to occur, designed to distract us from the left’s moral bankruptcy on open parade. Be prepared for an approving nod from equally morally bankrupt establishment Republicans. It is not reasonable to expect the people in power to surrender that power quietly if they are still able to organize a defense. They will fund a street revolution or a bureaucratic coup d’etat as soon as they are able to organize one. The more we win, the more desperate our enemies inevitably become. In the last couple of months, many members of the political and media classes have no doubt been having visions of years in prison as a real possibility. They will not go meekly or quietly to such a fate. That is not a conspiracy theory -- it is a forecast about human behavior that should be obvious to everyone.

Whoever wins, our minority pandering society is probably in its final days. If conservatives win the battle to come, and have the dedication to stick to their principles, people are going to have to rise or fall on their own individual merits. The race for victim status will end. That doesn’t bode well for low-skill economic migrants or jihadists on diversity visas. If the left wins, minorities -- whose only real value to the Democrats have been to cast a vote now and then, or produce offspring who will cast a vote now and then -- will be a costly expense without a useful function. Before the revolution, the tally of votes matters. After the revolution -- elections are a joke.

RECENT VIDEOS