Nuclear follies of the gun grabbers

Man, do I love gun culture. Hard as it may be for some people to understand, gun culture is the single most important brake on the Pozzed Republic’s otherwise inevitable slide down the short, greased slope to hellish tyranny.

Sear this exchange into your memory:

One of the blessings of the current era is that the enemy’s auto-unmasking is nullifying the tedious, generations-long debate between the opposing sides in the culture war. Of course, the usual arguments continue, often in amplified form, on social media and elsewhere, but I think everyone knows they are mostly irrelevant now. You don’t debate with someone who threatens to nuke your house, any more than you debate with a rattlesnake. By the same token, the good congressman apparently sees his opponents in the gun debate as vile subhumans that deserve to be wiped out. In his mind, and in the minds of many (millions of) libtards, an American Hiroshima is a reasonable and justified mechanism to enforce a gun ban.

There is simply no way to bridge this divide. We now know that most, if not the vast majority, of the policy details we have quarreled about as a nation for decade after decade were just a distraction from the core conflict, a postponement of the inevitable showdown. We just want to be left alone; they want us dead. Everything else flows from this simple principle. We just wanted to buy our guns, raise our families, play our video games; they wanted to disarm us, atomize us, mock and subvert our culture, and force their inversion of morality down our throats.

But enough about the Cold Civil War. Is the good California congressman Eric Swalwell correct on this point? Could the government, if push comes to shove, simply take away all our guns, using the overwhelming might of the US military to impose its will on a defiant population?

The answer is no. And this is a point worth repeating and drilling into thick libtard skulls, because a growing number of them are dangerously emboldened, believing that the gummint and its shiny weaponry will force compliance with their hideous utopian schemes. When it comes to guns, this is the opposite of the truth, and while it is not important for libtards to understand why we love guns, it is very important for them to understand that their vision of a gun-free America is literally, physically impossible.

Fortunately, author Larry Correia has delivered himself of what may be the mother of all posts on why this is the case. Basically, the math doesn’t work. If the federal government is ever foolish enough to declare a nationwide gun ban, it would have to collect firearms from a population *at least* the size of Great Britain or France (this is an extremely lowball estimate). Assuming just 1% of those people decided to #resist such a gross usurpation of their constitutional rights – and you can bet the actual number would be way higher than 1% – the US government would suddenly find itself dealing with a continent-wide insurgency that would make Iraq look like a playground brawl. The greatest military in the history of the world was bogged down for almost nine years in Iraq, facing an insurgency force of perhaps 22,000 people at any given time. The government would have to fight 30 times that number of people on American soil. Minimum.

If they understand nothing else, libtards need to get it through their heads that they cannot win this particular fight. Never gonna happen. And the more brazenly and hysterically they push their violent fantasies, the more we hate them.

Beto orbiters

Beto O'Rourke women volunteers
Beto O'Rourke women volunteers
(Source)

This fawning Pozzfeed piece on the angry and energized women who flocked to BETA OʹRourkeʹs campaign is pretty interesting.

A few details struck me. First – making allowances for potential Fake News exaggeration – the remarkable enthusiasm of these female groupies and their willingness to volunteer their time for Beta’s campaign.

Second, their scolding, self-righteous attitude towards all men, and the astonishing self-abasement of the men around them, including Beta.

Third, the role of the 2017 Women’s March – itself a response to the 2016 election – as a seismic event that activated many of these women to get involved in politics, after a lifetime of passivity.

No doubt the Betamania was propped up by Democratic money and organizational support, but it also drew much of its energy from a hydrothermal vent of organic female hysteria. Trump’s victory unleashed something deep and dark in the female psyche, and the effects are still rippling through the body politic: #Resist, #MeToo, #TimesUp, and now this.

I think we may be seeing something like a revival of the women-led Temperance Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, translated into the modern vernacular of feminism (“Temperance” –> #TimesUp), and without the Christian overtones of the TM. It’s a pseudo-religious movement, but the god they are worshiping is not God.

“I remember this time, two years ago, when women were hiding their energy in secret Facebook groups,” one woman told me, referring to groups like Pantsuit Nation that flourished in the days leading up to the 2016 election. “Righteous, visible anger is much better.”

Rendezvous with demographic destiny

If only nonwhite voters FiveThirtyEight
If only nonwhite voters FiveThirtyEight
FiveThirtyEight: “If only nonwhite Americans could cast ballots, they would elect a gigantic Democratic majority” in the House

Bill Kristol is a dishonest globalist shill, but when he’s right, he’s right:

I’ve always disliked the phrase “demography is destiny,” as it seems to minimize the capacity for deliberation and self-government, for reflection and choice. But looking at tonight’s results in detail, one has to say that today, in America, demography sure seems to be destiny.

We’re running a census every two years as much as an election.

Fellow dishonest globalist shill David Brooks also seems aware of the situation, as his November 5 column indicates:

After 30 years of multiculturalism, the bonds of racial solidarity trump the bonds of national solidarity. Democrats have a very strong story to tell about what we owe the victims of racism and oppression. They do not have a strong story to tell about what we owe to other Americans, how we define our national borders and what binds us as Americans.

Here’s the central challenge of our age: Over the next few decades, America will become a majority-minority country. It is hard to think of other major nations, down through history, that have managed such a transition and still held together.

It seems that the Democratic Party is going to lead us through this transition. The Republicans have decided to pretend it’s not happening. Trump had a chance to build a pan-ethnic nationalist coalition but went with white identity politics instead. [Ed: A lie. Trump is an avowed civic nationalist. He has made this perfectly clear, over and over and over again.] Republicans have rendered themselves irrelevant to the great generational challenge before us.

Well, let’s take a look at how this great generational challenge played out in the midterm elections:

2018 midterms vote by race
(Source: Pew Research)

The implications of these figures are grim, though not, if you’ve been paying attention, particularly surprising. No, Latinos are not “natural Republicans,” and it’s time to retire that tired trope. Asians are almost as liberal as Jews, voting Democrat by a more than 3 to 1 ratio. And blacks… oh, man. What happened to Trump’s alleged 36% approval rating among blacks? This election was supposed to be, in large part, a referendum on Trump. What about Kanye West and Candace Owens and that whole #Blexit thing? Blacks were finally taking the red pill, remember? They were finally “escaping the Democrat plantation”? Except they weren’t, because 90% of blacks voted Democrat. Ninety percent.

Although the Republicans did reasonably well overall, strengthening their control of the Senate while losing the House, the outcomes of several key races have disturbing implications for the future of the party. Particularly ominous was the US Senate race in Texas, where the Republican incumbent Ted Cruz clinched a narrow victory over the ludicrous Democrat Beta O’Rourke, winning by a margin of less than three points.

The tightness of the race is alarming in view of the fact that Cruz captured the seat in 2012 with a 16-point margin. This mirrors a statewide trend, in which Republicans faced shrinking margins of victory as electoral preferences have lurched to the left in just the past four or six years. John Daniel Davidson of The Federalist observes:

Democrats’ hold on urban areas is tightening, with every major urban county in the state now firmly in the hands of the Democrats. In some cases, Democratic dominance is overwhelming. In Harris County, home to Houston, one of the largest metro areas in the country, every single elected office is now held by a Democrat.

It’s easy for Republicans to mock the Democratic mantra that “demographics are destiny,” especially since Democrats keeping losing statewide races in Texas. [Ed: That phrase again!] But to ignore the changes underway across the state would be naive. Despite the stereotype among coastal elites that Texas is a backwater of oil fields, cattle ranches, and gun-loving cowboys, Texas is a diverse, urban state. Seven of the country’s 15 fastest-growing cities are in Texas, and the state’s booming economy continues to draw in new residents from all over the country and the world, accelerating its urbanization and diversification.

For some reason, the article doesn’t spell out what those all-important demographic changes might be, so let me do it for you: Hispanics are on the verge of becoming (in 2022 or so) a plurality of the Texas population. Last year, they comprised 39.4% of the population, versus 42% for non-Hispanic whites. I couldn’t find the corresponding US Census figures for earlier years, but the state of Texas reported that the Hispanic population was only 32% in 2010, while the “Anglo” population stood at 53.1%.

Now let’s see how Hispanics vote:

In the Texas Senate race, 64% of Latinos voted for Democrat Beto O’Rourke while 35% voted for Republican incumbent Ted Cruz. In the state’s race for governor, about half of Hispanics (53%) voted for Democrat Lupe Valdez and 42% backed the Republican, Greg Abbott.

Ah, ok. Now I’m starting to understanding what Davidson meant by his cryptic references to demographics. Texas, formerly the reddest major state in the union, is inexorably turning blue as a massive influx of immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere transforms the electorate.

Similar forces are reshaping a host of other states, including Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. Ron Unz comments:

These negative indications were even stronger in the high-profile gubernatorial races in Florida and Georgia, each narrowly won by a right-wing white Republican who faced a left-wing black Democrat. In the past a matches along such racial and ideological lines in Southern states would have been expected to produce a blowout GOP victories, but this year the margin was less than two points in Georgia and less than one in Florida. […]

The apparent Democratic victory in a close Arizona Senate race represents another severe warning sign to the Republicans. With the sole exception of 1996, that state had backed the Republican presidential ticket without fail in every national election since 1960 and both senators had been Republican since 1995, with the Congressional delegation generally skewing in that same direction for the last half century. Yet a Democrat now seems to have won an open Senate seat, something that had last happened in 1976.

The obvious factor driving the political realignments in both Georgia and Arizona are the long-term demographic trends, especially the rapid growth of the local Hispanic population.

And according to Pew:

Meanwhile, Latinos voted for Democratic candidates by wide margins in Nevada. About 67% of Latinos voted for Democrat Jacky Rosen in the Senate race, compared with 30% who voted for Republican Dean Heller. In the race for governor, Latinos voted in a similar manner.

Here’s more about the changing electorates of Georgia and Virginia. And here’s Breitbart on how districts with large foreign-born populations in New York, Massachusetts and Minnesota sent radical leftists to Congress last week.

Most Republicans are adamantly unwilling to face the stark reality, even as the evidence piles up election after election and sneering globalists like Bill Kristol rub it in their faces. Instead, they focus on the relatively minor issue of immigrant crime and clamor for a border wall, which is useless at stopping legal arrivals. The real problem, which they ignore, is the societal, political, and economic transformation that mass immigration imposes on the US.

Basically, what happened to California is being replicated on a nationwide scale. The Unz article quoted above is very clarifying in this regard. I am not entirely clear on how Unz feels about it, but his description of what happened to California is chilling. The population of California has doubled since the late 1960s, driven almost entirely by mass immigration. The resulting ills are well-known: overcrowding, horrendous traffic, sharply rising housing costs, falling wages, and a plummeting quality of life as the post-war “California dream” has all but collapsed. California now has the highest poverty rate in the nation and is witnessing a large and accelerating exodus of people.

Needless to say, these are deeply negative trends and most Americans do *not* want this same process to play out across the entire United States. For conservatives in particular, the lessons of California are sobering. Unz describes how the once heavily Republican state was rocked by fierce political battles over immigration issues in the 1990s. Those bitter controversies ultimately faded away into complete irrelevance, however, as the overwhelming scale of the immigration permanently altered the political landscape of the state. The Republican Party collapsed, with Republicans now making up less than 25% of the electorate.

Fortunately, severe ethno-political warfare has been averted in California. Unfortunately, it has been averted by turning California into a one-party Democratic state, forever.

Most self-described conservatives are nice people who have no desire to stigmatize foreigners and immigrants. This is a perfectly understandable, Christian impulse. But calling for a time-out on America’s gigantic experiment in migration is hardly xenophobic or cruel. On the contrary, it’s the only sensible response to radical demographic change, which is on the verge of creating an eternal Democratic majority.