It’s been fun, post election, to watch mainstream commentators discover demographics. It’s been especially fun to watch mainstream conservatives discover that the demographic shifts that they’ve encouraged (cheap chalupas!) have pushed the US electorate leftwards on virtually every issue.
In this post, I’d like to highlight the best analysis of demographics and the election. I’d also like to add my own thoughts.
First, it’s necessary to establish the demographic trends that we’re actually seeing. In a development that will surprise nobody that’s been paying attention, nobody does this better than Steve Sailer.
Happily for this blogger – who considers himself an HBDer and a denizen of the manosphere – the Democratic Party’s coalition is one of NAMs (and Asians) and loose women (I feel a Waylon Jennings song coming on, but maybe that’s just the booze talking). Someone can probably come up with a good name for this coalition, but in the meantime, I’ll lamely propose: The Coalition of Third-Worldism and Civilizational Decay. Or perhaps “Idiocracy in Action” is more catchy. If I were polite (and non-anonymous), I would have put this point this way.
Next, it’s worth ruminating on the fact that the perpetual expansion of the electorate is one of the reasons why Western societies constantly move leftwards. Nobody made this point better than Audacious Epigone, who shows electoral college outcomes under various suffrage scenarios. He notes:
Romney wins the electoral college among white men 490-41 (7 undecided). . . .
If the US looked like Nebraska, it wouldn’t necessarily follow that we’d have a two-party system consisting of a perpetual majority and an ever-defeated opposition. Instead, general election campaigns would be as competitive as they are today. Gauging public sentiment has come a long, long way from Dewey beats Truman, and campaigns on both sides are able to calibrate the message precisely enough to reliably get, at a minimum, say 45% of the vote. The difference would be that general elections would look like Republican primaries do now, and the typical Republican primary would resemble a debate between Sailer, Auster, Buchanan, Barone, Raimondo, and Reynolds.
I confess, dear reader, that I would probably lower myself to commit the prole act of actually voting in such a primary.
Anyway, Jim adds some more thoughts. The point is that we continue to march ever leftwards.
Finally, we must note that the Republican Party (though not actual men of the right) will react accordingly. Few other commenters have suggested how the Republican Party will react, so I will (ever humbly) take it upon myself to speculate.
Before speculating, I must note that the following thoughts are my suggestions for what will happen, not what should happen.
The greatest statesman of the 20th Century wrote a memoir that is essentially a warning against universal suffrage in diverse societies. To put the point bluntly and concisely, good government is incompatible with universal suffrage and diversity.
The Democratic Party has been successful because it has been able to portray the Republican Party as the party of the white guy. If history is any guide, the Republican Party will respond by isolating the group within the Democratic Party that is the least popular and portraying the Democratic Party as the party of that group. (I warned you that universal suffrage and diversity are not a pretty combination – we’ll get what we’ve been asking for, good and hard).
It seems to me that the likeliest candidate for this group is blacks. First, they vote Democratic in absurd levels. When Soviet leaders used to fake elections, they would fake the results at something like 92-8. Blacks vote Democratic in similar, but often more extreme, proportions (which always strikes me as embarrassing, but which everyone else seems to consider totally reasonable).
Second, while many people hope that blacks will succeed, very few people actually want to do things like live near them, for example. Have you ever seen Hispanics, homos, Asians, etc. actually interacting with blacks? The Democratic coalition is a lot of things, but stable is not one of them.
To bolster my point, whites that live near blacks (outside of DC) tended to vote Republican. If the Republican Party can paint the Democratic Party as the black party, it seems likely that many tribes will abandon the Democrats.
Indeed, it’s worth going further and considering whether or not the Democrats could win without nominating someone that isn’t black and whether they’ll ever be able to nominate another black person that is like Obama.
Yglesias notes (though he doesn’t explicitly say so) that in order to win Ohio, the Democrats had to nominate a black guy. It’ll be hard for the Democrats to nominate another black guy that doesn’t basically paint them as the black party. Dudes that appeal to all races – white, black, Muslim dad, raised partly in Asian countries, etc. – aren’t easy to come by.
Another possibility is that the Republicans will focus on another unpopular group within the Democratic coalition – sluts. Sandra Fluke spoke at the Democratic convention. Her accomplishments include (and are limited to) being rich and demanding free birth control after choosing to attend a Catholic institution of higher education.
Approximately 2% of the population believes that rich chicks with boyfriends who are likely shooting blanks anyway (have you seen pictures of the guy? . . . or her?) should receive free birth control after choosing to attend a Catholic educational institution. It remains a fact that sluts don’t aspire to be sluts – even the Republican Party should be able to figure this out.
Many commentators have expressed their beliefs that in the results of this election, we have seen our future. This is a future in which the Republicans are doomed to irrelevance thanks to demographic trends.
I agree that we’ve seen a glimpse of our future. However, I believe this future is one in which voting becomes increasingly tribal. The results will not be pretty – they never have been in such cases. In the meantime though, the chalupas are cheap and we get feel really good about our own senses of open-mindedness, so enjoy.
Foseti 
I call it the AAB, the affirmative action block – gays, feminists, negros, beaners, and gooks.
We’ve got a ways to go before white men wake up. What happens to the rest of the world is their problem.
But this is all old news to you. What I’m really looking for is the extremism of all the conservative types, including yourself. You already know the republicans are going to try to out-democrat the democrats to appease the spics.
One of the more interesting things I’ve seen pointed out over the last few days is that the lilly white northern states (Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc) are going Dem. This doesn’t have to be. There are enough whites to win these elections if Republicans weren’t the party of offshoring plutocrats (there are not enough blacks around in Iowa to piss off whites there).
Of course that only buys you a little while longer. Eventually you lose Texas to Hispanics and then its game over.
I like the name Civilization Decay name. I call it the “Coalition of Victim Groups”. They all claim to be victims of the big bad straight white male system.
I see the Dems as having to rotate using a member of each piece of the coalition for constant ‘1st X president’ to generate big turnout of X crowd within the coalition. It would be like nominating Hil-dawg in 2016 for 1st Lady POTUS, then hoping you could find a good Hispanic candidate for 2024 to be the 1st Hispanic POTUS.
Of course, if the Dems never do anything with regards to the TBTF banks and debt overhang, there won’t a pie big enough for each group. I don’t see this entire charade lasting beyond 2030 anyway.
I don’t see this entire charade lasting beyond 2030 anyway.
Vox Day’s prediction for a breakup is about that date too.
I think the Dem’s gameplan is nothing more than to hold out using any means necessary and hope something big happens while they are in charge that they can use to take us into a new and even worse charade.
I have been predicting 2026, but 2030 sounds reasonable, 2026 is a little too exact sounding, safer to give the nearest round number.
This is actually in response to James Donald – I say 2030, as I used to say 2032, but with Obama’s re-election, I’m moving it up a few years. I’m starting to doubt if we can replace the retiring Boomers, for all their faults, in the workplace with the incoming younger Gen Xers and all of the Millenials (under 35 crowd that I’m a part of). The productivity hit is going to hurt white collar work, and the blue collar kids can’t pass a drug test to save their souls. I dont think I need to tell the folks here that the drop out rate is atrocious.
All it’s going to take is one brave governor of a net energy/food surplus state and near zero or positive balance of fed tax payments/receipts to make a move.
Even learned and intuitive people who can calculate calamity accurately cannot calculate time, and time has been ever compressing since the unfortunate 20th century began. No one has been able to see twenty years since the 19th century, and little enough then. Calamity can make as good a case for five years as twenty right now.
> No one has been able to see twenty years since the 19th century,
Froude (1890) saw Zimbabwe (2006) clearly enough
Bastiat (1860) walked the killing fields of Cambodia (1976) in his mind.
“Bastiat (1860) walked the killing fields of Cambodia (1976) in his mind.”
I’m assuming you mean Froude’s “English in the West Indies”, but what Bastiat book did you have in mind?
Carlyle told us all exactly what was going to happen if the trend toward democracy and Progressivism continued. Let’s hope the nearly-as-brilliant Swift really was just being satirical. He didn’t know about prions, so if nothing else that may negate his prediction.
There’s a lot of “ifs” in there.
There IS one I can prove: If you continue listening to Sailer, Auster, Buchanan, Barone, Raimondo, and Reynolds…
You WILL get more of the same.
All that “listening” to the bards got ya was
Obama II
And Governor Romneycare would have been better?
Democrat’s job is to move the left hand edge of the Overton window leftwards, as Obama is doing. Republicans job is to move the right hand edge of the Overton window leftwards, as Bush did.
If you continue listening to Sailer, Auster, Buchanan, Barone, Raimondo, and Reynolds…
You WILL get more of the same “window opening and closing”
While your house burns…
This is the ratchet effect which is the doom of any attempt to reverse Progressive movements. When you have “conservatives” lauding FDR and Lincoln, you see the teeth fully engaged. It moves one way, to the Left.
Click.
Click.
Click.
Another metaphor: as anyone who’s ever used one knows, you cannot reverse a ratcheting device while it is under load. If you can’t relieve the load, the choices are not to move or to continue to advance. Probably the last gasp of an attempt to reverse the ratchet was Clinton-era welfare “reform” and we see now that when things get dicey, the Feds are willing to waive the clear requirements of the law. The device will not be allowed to back off sufficiently to reverse, no matter how hard it gets to advance. The load will be relieved when the ratchet breaks. When that happens, the tension will cause it to spin backwards uncontrollably. The extent of the damage is unpredictable.
nah
@asdf: Such a glib remark is insubstantial and perfect for The Bloggery Age of yap-no-do.
I agree, but ONLY to the point that the damage IS entirely predictable: Total collapse into the garbage can of anarchy. If you have grandkids – they’re lost.
That ratcheting effect used to be called “irretrievable decline” in a much simpler, better time so that’s the one I use when writing. I wrote a LOT about that issue and don’t want to derail it here.
Sorry Foseti, I don’t see it. I can’t see the Republicans being smart enough or more importantly ballsy enough to “attack” blacks and women (especially omgsinglemoms).
I dont think they’d be allowed to say it by the media. For christ sake Richard Mourdock got shivved for using the wrong turn of phraseat the end of a long statement. 5 wrong words.
What the heck is a “chalupa”? Canadians don’t understand these things.
Corn tortilla, laid flat, and crisped in an oven. Cover with food items or substitutes.
In other words, it’s a Euclidian taco.
You will.
Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
The Democrats will be attacked from the Left. Will the Democrats become the Muslim party, and the Republicans the Mormon party?
But yes, Black people should be shrewd to retain their place in American politics.
Yes. The bipartite nature of American politics is extreme and quite unique. I would expect what you said. SWPLs, deep greens and old hard left have little in common with blue neocons, teamster types and third world embarrassors. Everywhere else such parties have fragmented.
The big problem is if American whites will form one tribe, or several.
A big united white tribe who had its shit together could play divide and conquer against the other races. The result would be a nicer version of Brazil.
If whites are divided they will spend more time fighting each other than fighting others. The result would be… I don’t know. India?
The same applies to Europe, but the die is cast there. White solidarity is not happening.
Doesn’t take a genius to see which way we are leaning right now
The same applies to Europe, but the die is cast there. White solidarity is not happening.
And all the hard-eyed realists just knew that the Soviet Union was here to stay, right up until pieces of the Berlin Wall were being auctioned off as novelty paperweights.
When the reign of Political Correctness disappears, it will do so with a suddenness that will astonish the world.
Whites never unite, because the biggest threat to whites in power is always other whites. Further, uniting is only useful for electoral politics, and whites are bound to lose at electoral politics. When it comes down to actual violence, a small group of competent organized trained whites is apt to defeat not only all other races, but large groups of incompetent disorganized untrained whites.
Now if we disenfranchised women, you could get unity on the bases of tax producers versus tax consumers, which, with women disenfranchised, would approximate a racial coalition pretty accurately. But the nature of democracy is that you always wind up with a majority of tax consumers.
If we disenfranchised women today, tax producers would win the next election in a landslide in an election that was approximate a racial and tribal census – but would they win the election three elections down the road? Suddenly, the stream of welfare would be adjusted to put more voters on welfare, and women, being non voters, off welfare.
Then what you describe is a total paralysis by failure.
So, get ready for the inevitable results – better yet, prepare your own children who’ll be 50 when it hits, and really hurts.
THE biggest threat is the one invading, destroying your own neighborhood at this very moment – not some symbolic assault in marbled hearing room a thousand miles away in Washington DC.
Violent colored mobs are a threat – AS ARE bureaucrats. It’s not just one or the other.
They are only a threat to the extent that defense against them is forbidden and successfully repressed.
Then, that still makes for a pretty significant shit sandwich
That you gotta take a bite from.
Nor, lessens the DANGERS inherent in any colored mob scene.
My model is Three Kingdoms – Jin Dynasty China. In the 3-4th century AD. Chinese elites busy raising armies to fight each other, devastating the country in the process, and paving the way for northern barbarians to invade and dominate them for 400 years.
I think it’s a combination of the narcissism of the small differences with a profound sense of superiority. Each white nation thinks it’s a special snowflake (look at the Catalonian thing these days), and they don’t think non-whites are even capable of moral agency. So they spend their energy on infighting while the NAMs going on breeding their way up.
Consider the seventeenth century holy wars which ravaged much of Europe: Promptly followed by the greatest period of european civilization and dominion ever.
Unity has always been bad for Europeans, as for example when Europe was in the declining days of the the Holy Roman Empire, it was losing to Islam. We are now in a similar situation to that which nearly led to us losing Vienna to Islam last time around – when a single decadent religion militarily and ideologically dominated all Europeans.
Disunity means that some groups have freedom, and these always wind up dominating.
The problem is not that whites are disunited, but that they are united under the Cathedral.
indeed
China also arose from its 400 century disunion as the mighty Tang Empire who went to dominate the region.
Until it collapsed. Like European empires did. The Tang lasted a tad longer.
I don’t care for white unity per se, but infighting is bad when you have enemies around. Disunity means that French fights French while 60% of births in Paris are black babies. Disunity means the average Englishmen thinks Pakistanis are their comrades while Germans are evil krauts trying to screw with their banking freedom.
The HRE(the three falsehoods) is an example of disunity in my book. The Ottomans wouldn’t have gotten that far without French friendship.
I know your model is Blackwater feudalism. I think it’s likely, but I don’t think they will care about whites per se. Then again Nick Land cured me of white preservationism.
Are you ready for the first openly gay president? You better be.
Hillary Clinton?
Cory Booker.
Off topic: I’m compiling the Sith Library. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SFU0ExYl4cAD4fP0_h6ZqkhTLyq8Y45KWFAW4THgw5U/
If anyone has more suggestions, please email them to M8R-1k1end@mailinator.com
If you’ve got a copy of your suggestion, whether in or out of copyright, email the mailinator address and I’ll give you my private email address. Eventually I’ll set up a torrent.
You are organizing the Sith library at GOOGLE!
If you construct a Sith library at google, pretty soon everyone who reads them will not only get the usual request from Google for a phone number proving their true name, but google will lock their accounts, holding all their data to ransom, until they cough up their true name, whereupon the get registered by Google for ever and ever under their true name, to be executed when hate facts are deemed so hateful that they not only have to be erased, but anyone who knows them also erased.
*sigh*
Just a bunch of talk about
“That Wacky Demography!”
While the country Browns Down further.
Big surprise. You gotta live in a Safe Suburban Sanctuary to even think this way.
Anybody living near St. Louis, LA or Detroit could’ve told you two decades ago What Brown Will Do To YOU.
If history is any guide, the Republican Party will respond by isolating the group within the Democratic Party that is the least popular and portraying the Democratic Party as the party of that group.
Just won’t happen. The Republicans would rather die as a party, rather see the nation die, hell some would rather physically die themselves than to do this. We don’t have to guess, it’s what they’ve been doing for 40 years, and they get worse every year. You’ll get no relief via the Republican Party.
If history is any guide, the Republican Party will respond by isolating the group within the Democratic Party that is the least popular and portraying the Democratic Party as the party of that group.
I agree that turning on blacks in a big way would be a natural way to rejuvenate the R party. Not only would it solidify white support by making inroads into the working class, but it would also actually appeal to Hispanics and Asians. The biggest problem with it is that it would lose them support in the short run. Lots of their current supporters would pretend to get the vapors and vote for Ds. It’s only after they take this hit and open up the space to honestly discuss blacks that they would pick up support.
You don’t mention it, but Steve Sailer suggested this strategy (complete with Rs calling Ds “the party of blacks”) back in 2009 and has returned to the theme since. In dog-whistle form, it has been the go-to R strategy since Goldwater, lately abandoned by McCain and Romney for reasons mysterious.
The R party does not have agency: it is not a being which thinks and seeks its own interest. Rather, it is, for the most part at present, the tool of the vampire squids. It will do what they think is in their interest. The above strategy does not look to me to be in their interest.
What is in their interest is to continue on as now, using the R party to suffocate any possible reaction by drawing away time, talent, and treasure. “OMG!! Obamacare is the socialist takeover of one seventh of the economy and a dire threat to Our Way of Life!!! (TM)” Things are going very well for the squids. Why rock the boat?
The vampire squids may mildly prefer the Rs to the Ds, but they really, really don’t prefer reaction—real rightists have not normally been friendly to finance. Negro-baiting runs a risk of letting reaction get up on its feet. “Racist!” is the preferred weapon for putting reaction down, after all.
Bruce Bartlett had brought up in an article at “American Conservative” the other day the idea of picking up the black vote for Republicans by being the anti-immigration party since most blacks don’t like immigration. This struck me as implausible as a strategy because the interests of the average inner city black single mom diverge just too much from a suburban middle class white guy. They can never be in the same party. Portraying the Democrats as the party of the dysfunctional inner city black mom as Foseti and Sailer suggests seems to me to be a better strategy. It would pick up working class whites and hispanics. It might even pick up a few working class black males who don’t like it that they’ve been supplanted by the welfare state as providers for their women.
*sigh x2*
Such Pretty Talk
Might aussage
The Negroes on The Faculty
But won’t stop Mumia X
From taking daugter and
Burning down your mansion..