There's no "O" in "secured future existence"...but what about "takeover"?

If Democrat candidate Barack Obama becomes the next President of the United States, it won't be because White Americans descent suddenly decide to uniformly vote Democrat; it will be because the White Americans who usually vote Democrat do so again, and the Non-Whites buy into Obama and show up to vote for him.

This would be an interesting development, because White Americans are the only group in the United States that, in patches of the country, identifies their ancestry as plain "American". Not surprisingly, these people also tend to see themselves as the heart and soul of the country. For the most part, they reside in "Red States" - meaning, states that for years have voted Republican. To such people, the various ethnic minorities, metropolitans, gay pride and Che-loving left-coast radicals form an "Other" that is only occasionally strong enough to ride the Democratic Party ticket into power. This breakdown is what they are used to - and why the growing minority demographic is so important. The growing minority demographic changes the profile of American politics and, ultimately, America.

Of course, most white conservative Americans are in denial that they are losing their hold on the U.S., which is why it would be interesting to see what would happen if a man like "Barack Hussein Obama" was suddenly roosting atop America's perch. Most white conservative Americans are not racist; they do not hate people they meet in public because of their skin color or purposely mistreat such individuals. But being against somebody who is a minority and seeing minorities begin to take over and make the biggest decisions for you are two entirely different things.

Nonetheless, signs point to Whites losing their overall demographic majority in the U.S. in 40 30 years. As the percentage of Whites continues to decline, so will their ability to determine the nature of the society they live in. This is only logical, because no numerical minority can dictate its interests to the numerical majority unless that majority obliges. White conservative Americans cannot expect to retain familiar levels of power, influence and cultural dominance if they are the minority in their own countries; it does not matter how strong their sense of entitlement is as descendants of the nation's founders, or whether they think they are better suited to call the shots. The majority is sovereign unless it opts to compromise that power.

Not surprisingly, most of the white conservative Americans I have discussed these matters with do not seem concerned by the prospect of becoming a minority, nor do they fear a loss of representation and representative power. For the most part, they deny that any of these things are happening, but in other cases, their faces go blank, simply because, like liberal Whites, they have learned that race means "nothing" and is a "social construct."

Liberal Whites are just as interesting, because they seem to think that Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities are all aboard for this ride that is taking us towards anti-racism and tolerance - a multiracial-multicultural wonderland. This stop, which may or may not exist, is where the White liberals want to get off. But who said that Non-White interest groups are not fighting long-standing notions of "White supremacy and "White power" just to see their own people take power? After all, nobody told the Blacks or Hispanics to forget about their ethnicities and stop focusing on their own cultural groups and communities. In fact, lib-left Whites, the very ones who encouraged Blacks and Latinos to rally behind their identities, have yet to stop encouraging such behavior.

During the Civil Rights Movement, Blacks learned to see their race as the cornerstone of identity and a platform for representation, voice and a vehicle for power. The same is true of the Latinos, and both groups became entrenched in their ethnicities. It was part of realizing who they were and standing up for their people. But how do Latinos, Blacks and the rest of the Non-White "Other" feel about race now? This is not an easy question to answer; it is also why the possibility of an "Obama presidency" is a very interesting development, because we would find out just how much racial solidarity there is among Non-Whites and how post-racial this era will be. Whites will soon be the little child in somebody else's sandbox - they'd better get to know whose domain they will be under what the new rules will be.


Anonymous said…
Four years and two elections of Obama later, your comment reads like a prophecy. The 2012 election has indeed shown racial block voting on the part of the minorities. The ball is now in the Whites's field: will they continue to play their role as the one ethnicity who is not allowed to have own interests or do they build up identity politics following the example of the non-Whites.
Hail said…
"Nonetheless, Whites will lose their overall demographic majority in the U.S. in 40 30 years. As the percentage of Whites continues to decline, so will their ability to determine the nature of the society they live in."

We can look at the example of California to see this in action. CA is a state that is at ~85% of its White population-level of 1990 (i.e., imagining 100 Whites in 1990-CA, 2012-CA has 85, despite some national growth in White-population in that time). Plus, in the 1990s and 2000s, many foreign peripheral-Whites have immigrated to CA. Some portion of these Armenians and so on will end up being counted as Whites. So the real figure of "California Refugees" is even higher -- maybe 25% of its 1990 White population is now elsewhere.

How could this happen to the "land of milk and honey"?

According to Stan Hess (anecdotally), who lives there, "most" of the people who now live in northern-Idaho today are "California Refugees". The essentially-all-White population of one city, Coeur d'Alene has increased from 24,500 in 1990 to 45,000 today. Hess says those "California Refugees" are of all types. Many remain NPR-loyalists for example (he says), despite their obvious racial motivation for leaving Nonwhite California and settling in all-White Idaho. If you get to talking to them, he says, even the NPR-loyalists' racial feeling can easily be brought out. California racialized them.

Back in California, where the exodus of Whites continues, the state's new Diverse occupants just elected a Democratic supermajority to their state government in all its branches: That Democrat majority can now do anything it wants, can override any veto, can stop any filibuster,...can vote for any new tax or wealth-grab it wants. It is a one-party state.

One-party rule by the "Welfare-is-a-Nonwhite-birthright" party is the worst thing that could happen now to CA's economy. CA's fiscal situation is as bad as Greece's, according to the Wall Street Journal, according to the Economist, and according to just about everyone else who is paying attention. California's schools now rank 47th in the nation, down from near the top when it was the quintessence of middle-class White-Protestant America in the early and mid-20th-century. (That old California was one that produced Nixon, for God's sake. Electing Reagan governor, then president twice, and narrowly Bush Sr. in '88, may be the "last hurrah" of 'that' California -- we are used to thinking of it now as a "Democrat Lock"). Whites are not more than one-quarter of the under-18 population in that state, now.

One can be nothing but pessimistic about California, but we can say this: A.W.K., when you wrote the original post here, five years ago, Whites in most of the USA could still ignore their ongoing dispossession. With 'Barack Hussein Obama' president through Jan 2017, and the (likely) coming implosion of California also in that timeframe (the one going hand-in-glove with the other, to some extent), a clear example of the perils of our racial policy will be obvious, kind of like an American Zimbabwe. 2020 will certainly find White-racialism in a better position than 2010 had. (Except in California itself, which is hopelessly lost, I think).