All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 29, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
59:43
3473 The Truth About America's Survival | Demographics and the 2016 Election
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom in Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
So, I don't normally explain myself before a presentation, but this one will be upsetting enough for enough people that I think it's worth having a few facts to keep in mind as you steadily find your outrage growing as I talk.
So, collective statements about groups.
They are not bigoted if they're based in fact.
And this is really, really important.
If I say, well, I just don't like red-haired people.
Well, why?
I just don't like them.
them.
They're all thieves and they look at me funny and they unplug my Xbox when I'm not looking.
Right?
I mean, whatever.
If I just say that and there's no evidence for any of that, clearly that's bigotry.
If I say, for instance, that men go to prison more often than women do, that is not sexism.
If I say women live longer than men, not sexism.
If I say women are shorter than men in general, not sexism.
And saying, well, I know a woman who went to jail and I know a woman who died in her thirties and I know a woman who was really, really tall just means you don't understand statistical averages.
Um, Most people don't win the lottery.
The fact that you know someone who did win the lottery doesn't mean that everyone wins the lottery.
You understand this, right?
So when you start making collective statements about groups that are founded on facts, founded on general trends, this is not bigotry, it's not racism, it's not sexism, it's not whatever you want to call it.
It's not any kind of prejudice.
It is simply a statement of facts.
So I'm going to be doing that, but I will be supporting it by facts, and the sources for all of what I'm going to say are in the description below the video and in the notes to the podcast, because this election is too important for us to shy away from facts.
And I'll tell you something else, because we're going to talk about Mexicans or Hispanics in general, and other groups as well.
I mean, it's an equal opportunity offense show.
But here's the reality.
In 1965...
The Democrats, under Ted Kennedy, pushed through legislation that switched immigration from Europe to the Third World into America.
Prior to that, other than some Chinese, which was obviously a pretty rough passage, immigration into the United States was overwhelmingly European.
And the Democrats didn't like that, and they switched that so that instead of European immigrants coming to America, Third World immigrants come to America.
Well, why did they want to do that?
Well, because third world immigrants generally vote left.
They vote for the Democrats.
They vote for bigger government.
They vote for more services.
They vote for more government spending.
They vote for all of those things.
And the Democrats knew that.
And they knew they couldn't win the war of ideas anymore.
Why?
Because the horrors of communism had been finally unmasked in the 1960s by Nikita Khrushchev, who talked about the cult of personality under Stalin and the gulags and the concentration camps and the mass starvation in Ukraine in the 1930s, where 10 million people starved to death.
All the horrors of communism.
And also, of course, there was lots of horrible stuff going on.
In China, under the Communist Party and so on.
So they couldn't win the war of ideas.
So they knew that they needed to stay in power.
If they wanted to stay in power or grow or achieve their ends of bigger government and more social control, then they had to switch immigration patterns from Europe, which was generally at the time at least a small government kind of culture, to the third world, which is in general a big government culture.
So the funny thing is, is that the left screams at everyone who makes collective judgments about groups as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, whatever it is, right?
However, the left switched immigration from Europe to the third world because they knew that third worlders would reliably vote Democrat.
So in other words, they yell at people for pointing out the very facts that they relied upon and was the entire reason for them switching immigration from Europe to the third world.
So again, it's just one of these precious leftist hypocrisies that really needs to be unmasked.
So this election is fundamentally about demographics.
Does America continue to have a democracy that relies upon debate, that relies upon facts, that relies upon arguments, or is it going to be giant voting blocs of third-worlders who are voting for the left reliably and Going to drive America into a socialist decaying orbit,
such as we can currently see in Venezuela, burning up, destroying lives, destroying the healthcare system, destroying the food production to the point where people are literally hunting pigeons.
In the streets and rats in the sewers.
So that is the choice ahead of you.
And this is why this election is so important and why I have spent, despite my skepticism, if not downright hostility to political action, I've spent the last year and a half of my life focusing heavily on bringing facts about this now imminent election to you, the general population.
And if you find this work helpful, please, please help me out.
Help out what we're doing here.
We've had a quarter of a billion downloads and views of this show.
We are moving the needle.
We are moving people's minds toward the light.
Freedomainradio.com slash donate to help us out.
So let us dive in to the facts.
This is the United States foreign born population in millions from 1850 to 2065.
Yes, that's right.
We've opened a tunnel of time mathematically up into the future.
And as you can see, relatively low.
This is the big 19th century immigration thing when there was no welfare state and there was very little public spending and people came for the freedoms rather than for the free stuff.
You come for the freedom.
You add value, you come for the free stuff, you subtract value.
It's a basic equation.
Now from the late 1920s to the 1960s, America put a hold on immigration to give people time to assimilate, to give people time to absorb.
You can't have that Roman feast where you just keep eating until your belly explodes.
You need time to sort of digest.
and there was a diminishment in immigration as you can see and this was in the post-war period an extraordinarily prosperous time for America and in particular a prosperous time a growingly increasingly prosperous time for blacks in America because endless waves of third-world migrants weren't pulling down their wages so in 1960 you see there's a fundamental change and anybody who's not aware of this change doesn't understand what this election is all about here we see The large increase,
massive increase, in third world immigration into America.
And this is fundamentally changing the voting patterns.
It is fundamentally changing the culture.
It is fundamentally changing the size and power and scope of the government.
It's fundamentally changing the number of people dependent on the state.
And people who are dependent on the state are almost never going to vote to diminish the state and to reduce taxes, right?
If you're on the receiving end of taxes, you want more people to pay taxes.
If you're on the paying end of taxes, you want lower taxes.
And this is the battle.
It's not ideological.
It is based on needs and dependence and fear and control.
Again, when you get these disparate groups in society, democracy is no longer about ideas, but about theft and defense.
So here we can see, as of 2015, 44.9 million foreign-born Americans.
Now, we all understand that if a European-descended person has kids in America, then they're raised in the culture.
They speak English.
They absorb through the culture, through the educational system, the small government ideology that America has always represented.
Whereas if they come in from, say, Somalia, they don't have that history.
I mean, they simply don't.
Any more than if you go to Somalia, You'll really understand how all of their tribal systems work.
I mean, you just won't.
It will be foreign and strange to you, and you will gravitate back towards that, which you know.
It's inevitable.
It's natural.
Looking forward, 2065, according to current projections, 78.2 million foreign-born Americans.
That is extraordinary.
The funny thing is, too, non-Hispanic whites, the people who built the modern American country brick by brick, non-Hispanic whites projected to become less than half of the U.S. population by 2055.
That's a mere 90 years after the immigration was swung.
You go from a vast majority to a minority.
That is an enormous and fundamental and foundational change in America, and for people to resist it is perfectly understandable and perfectly natural.
And we would not criticize any other group in the world for resisting that kind of overrunning our foreign cultures and foreign ideas.
Of course, right?
I mean, if there was some country out there where it was like 90% one ethnicity, non-white, and then white people just started moving there, And overwhelming the system and voting to change the fundamental system towards their own preferences.
We would view that as a kind of invasion or a kind of imperialism or a kind of colonization.
And we would not object to people saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, we had this country for hundreds of years.
Now all you people are coming in and changing it for your own preferences against our own preferences and our own desires.
And people would say, well, yeah, you have the right to do that.
Ah!
You see, it's white people.
And in the modern world, white people have no rights.
You can say anything.
You want to do anything you want to white people.
Because, I don't know, privilege?
I'm still waiting for that card in the mail.
Maybe it got lost.
Maybe it went to some other country.
Anyway.
So by 2065, America will be thoroughly balkanized.
No racial or ethnic group is a majority of the population.
Hispanics see their population rise from 18% today to 24% by 2065.
Asians go from 6% today to 14% in the future.
Now, here's the thing.
If all of these groups had generally the same ideas about limited government, the rule of law, Bill of Rights, separation of church and state, free market, you know, all the things that generally constituted American exceptionalism for most of its history, if all these groups had the same ideas, then there would not be any particular statistical or ideological reason to oppose them.
You may oppose them for other reasons, which may be closer to prejudice.
So the question is, do the groups coming into America share the ideas of existing Americans?
And given now that this process has been going on for decades after decade, right, of third world immigration coming into America, that has already changed the American landscape.
The question is really not...
What is it?
Do they have different ideas than contemporary Americans?
Now, the more important idea would be, or the more important argument would be, do they have different ideas from Americans in 1964, before the 1965 Immigration Bill or Act?
So we're going to dive into that so people can understand what is going on and the stakes that are going on and why Donald Trump is so popular and why The true Republicans who want smaller government are so invested in trying to figure out what's going on with immigration.
Because if you don't have these facts, this makes no sense to you.
And if it doesn't make any sense to you, you can't make sense of the ballot and what you might want to do.
So, let's move in.
Immigration to the United States.
These are the demographics, right?
So, I'm sorry if you're just listening to this, you might want to go to youtube.com slash freedomainradio and watch this because it's a little bit on the visual side, even before I take my shirt off.
So, here we can see the orange is Europe, right?
European immigration, overwhelmingly European immigration.
Almost nothing from Africa, almost nothing from Asia, and little from Latin America.
And the other is, of course, a grab bag of the remaining...
So here you can see that obviously it cratered in the war period and so on, immigration as a whole.
But as you can see, this is just up to 2000.
European immigration has been steady or declining.
And Latin America has exploded.
Asia has exploded.
Africa is growing enormously and other is there as well.
So this is a fundamental change in the country.
And again, if people from Latin America, Asia, and Africa, and others had the same ideas about government, and society, and family, and law, and leadership, and taxation, and benefits, and so on, it would be a change in culture, but not a change in politics.
But they don't.
And this is the fundamental thing to understand, which we'll get to.
Refugees and asylum seekers to the United States.
Demographics.
So, of course, here you can see that it has gone up 500% from the post-war period to the 1991 to 2000 period.
And it was almost all European, right?
European refugees, of course, people fleeing the post-war hell that engulfed a lot of Europe.
And very little from Asia, none from Asia and none from Latin America.
A little bit from Asia in 1951 to 1960, and then here you can see, from 1961 onward, massive increases in Asian refugees and asylum seekers, and from Latin America as well.
And again, if these groups all had the same belief systems, it would be one thing, but they don't, relative to the domestic United States population.
so let's look at the economic freedom by region so this is from 2015 from the economic freedom index and remember all of the sources will be will be below Now, I'm going to tell you straight up, so that I don't get the endless comments about this, not all of these graphs are zero-based, right?
Because when we're looking for differences, and when there's no country that has an economic freedom index of zero, I'm not going to bother.
So, for some of these are not zero-based.
I'm aware of it.
I'm looking at discrepancies, and I want to point them out.
So, North America has an economic freedom index of 74.
Europe has an economic freedom index of 67.
Now, the Middle East and North Africa have an economic freedom index of 62.
South and Central America, 60.
Asia-Pacific, 59.
Sub-Saharan Africa, 55.
Now, remember, when you grow up in a particular environment, you absorb the values of that environment, and it's very, very hard to change those values later on.
Plus, generationally, Values are transmitted from parent to child, just as languages.
And so it is not easy to break the cycle of the values that the original immigrants grew up with.
And if you grew up in a place where you have significantly less economic freedom, which means more government dependence, larger government, more manipulation, more control, you don't have the same respect for and skills within the free market and within Voluntary trade and transaction.
You don't have as many entrepreneurial skills because the government is so big and people generally depend on handouts and so on.
So this is very, very important.
And it's one of the reasons why when you get waves of people coming in from less economically free countries, they generally tend to want resources.
The same big government, big spending, and all of that.
And they don't have the same skills and ability to participate in the free market and compete with all of the people who have, of course, native English skills and local cultural references and contacts and all of that.
So this is important.
When you have different origins, you get different outcomes.
So this is lawful permanent resident flow in the United States by country in 2014.
Now let's look at these countries and we'll be having a look at some of their characteristics in a moment.
So Mexico, of course, the largest.
134,000 and change.
India, just under 78,000.
China, just over 76,000.
The Philippines, just under 50,000.
Cuba, just under 47,000.
Dominican Republic, 44,500.
Vietnam, 30,000 and change.
South Korea, 20,000 and change.
El Salvador, 19,000 and change.
Iraq, 19,000 and a bit.
So...
Not a lot of Europe in this and trying to figure out how all of these cultures and countries and Religions and mindsets and languages can all work together is a very complicated thing.
I mean, imagine, just imagine you're planning a school and this is the breakdown of your class.
What are you going to do?
What are you going to do?
These countries in general are all speaking different languages, have different cultural references, different religions.
How are you going to get everyone to work together?
There's a massive inefficiency in bringing disparate languages and cultures together in a particular area.
I mean, people say, well, diversity is our strength, but that's just the left saying, well, we welcome everyone who votes for the left, right?
I mean, they don't care in particular about what it does to education for the native-born population.
They don't care what it does for taxes.
What they care about is these people are going to vote left.
And that's the diversity that they're interested in, which means that they have a hostility to white Europeans who generally vote to the right.
They have a hostility to white males who vote for the right, who vote for smaller government, which we'll get into in a moment.
And they have a supposed love for all of these disparate cultures.
That fragment the society as a whole and the diversity has been shown.
Multiculturalism has been shown.
You can look up the Putman studies, P-U-T-M-A-N, has been shown to decay social trust.
They cause people to cocoon inside their homes.
It decays social trust even for people of the same ethnicity in a particular neighborhood.
And this is why the streets are empty of people playing and children playing.
And they're empty of neighbors lending each other sugar and sitting on the back porch and whittling and chatting about the world and watching the cars go by.
Because that's what happens in these diverse countries and cultures.
It's too hard.
It's too complicated to figure out what everyone wants and speaks and the rules.
And it's just not worth it.
So people don't bother.
And so it really does fragment communities in particular, which makes child raising much more complicated and difficult.
And so that's where people are coming into the United States as of 2014.
So let's look at these countries as a whole for their economic freedom.
United States, this is 2016, 75.
Mexico, 65.
That's a big difference.
India, 56.
China, 52.
Philippines, 63.
Cuba, 30.
Dominican Republic, 61.
Vietnam, 54.
South Korea, 72.
El Salvador, 65.
So here's the thing, my friends.
This is very, very important.
The people coming into America...
Are in general coming from countries much less economically free.
Now, it's one thing if there's no welfare state, no government handouts, no social subsidized housing, no Obamacare, no Medicaid, no Section 8, no food stamps, no government paid education.
I mean, then you're coming for the freedom.
And that will be a self-selecting group of people who can't stand living in economic tyranny and are desperate and thirsty for economic freedom, which was the 19th century immigrants to America.
Ah, but.
There's no way to know who's coming for the freedom and who's coming for the free stuff.
We do know that there's a lot of people coming for the free stuff in America, which we'll get to in a second.
But this is really important.
You know, if you pay a woman to go on a date with you, how many people think that she's there because she loves you?
Or just finds you that attractive?
Well, of course not.
If you pay a woman $1,000 to go on a date with you and she won't go on a date with you, if you don't pay $1,000, then clearly she likes you minus $1,000 because she has to get $1,000 to get to the position of liking you.
And you can say, well, she loves you, but she just takes the money for funsies, but who would really believe that?
So the immigrants who come from less free countries...
Who end up on welfare or consuming a lot of resources that they've never paid into.
The welfare state I have moral problems with as a whole.
But if you've paid into the welfare state, at least there's a case for saying, well, I paid into it, therefore withdrawing for it is not quite as bad.
But if you've come in and start consuming resources that other people are forced to pay for, the native-born population is forced to pay for, of course they're going to have a problem with you.
Of course they're going to have a problem with you.
I mean, if you think that's a problem...
Do me a favor.
Find someone in your neighborhood or someone in your family or someone, whoever, and they're going to throw a potluck dinner.
Say, oh, you should throw a potluck dinner.
That's so much fun.
Everyone shows up with food, right?
Salads and cakes and main courses or whatever.
And they show up.
And then you show up with containers, right?
You know, the restaurant containers.
You get your doggy bags in.
You show up with containers.
And instead of bringing food to the table, instead of bringing your dish to the potluck dinner, start scooping everyone else's food into your doggy bags and leave.
Will everyone be just fine with that?
Will everyone think that was great?
You didn't even stick around and you just took the food?
When you were supposed to contribute food, you just took it and left?
And if people said, well, that was a pretty kind of a dick move, is that racist?
Of course not.
So this is where people are coming from.
And because there's so much free stuff in America, the idea that they're all coming to participate in the free market, that's not the case.
Not the case.
We know statistically that that's not the case.
Corruption perceptions index.
Hmm.
All right.
Remember, people bring their values from their domestic countries and come to your country with those values.
So the United States.
So you want to have 100, which is a very clean country, to 0, which is highly corrupt.
So Denmark, for instance, is the highest in the world with a 91 index on the corruption perception.
Syria is 4.
That's lower.
And it's not just race, right?
It's culture as well.
So Russia has a corruption perception index of 30, which is one of the reasons why some conservative commentators and culture comes to mind have pointed out that Russians get heavily involved as a whole in scams and frauds in America because that's the culture that a lot of them have grown up in and that's what their skill set is and that's what they're used to.
So the Transparency International, this is the group, has published this corruption perception index since 1995.
And this is by perceived levels of corruption.
This is expert analysis and assessments and opinion surveys and so on.
And what do they mean by corruption?
It's the misuse of public power for private benefit, also known as Clinton-ing.
The CPI ranks 178 countries at the moment.
So this, of course, is linked to the previous...
Let's go back to the previous slide for a moment so everyone can see it, right?
So this is, we'll go back here, right?
So this is permanent resident flow in the United States by country, all the way down the list.
Economic freedom by those countries and corruption perception index.
United States, 76.
Not Denmark, but a long way from Syria.
Mexico, ooh,ouch, ah, 36. India, 38. China, 37. Philippines, 36. Cuba, 47.
Well, I guess people are scared to say it's corrupt.
Dominican Republic, 33. Vietnam, 31. South Korea, 56. El Salvador, 39. And Iraq, 16. you So people are coming from very, very corrupt countries relative to the United States.
And if you'd think they're not bringing those values with them...
I mean, some people, of course, are fleeing the corruption because they want honesty and so on.
But not in general.
In general, these are people whose cultures and skills have all developed...
From these corrupt countries.
And some of these people are coming from...
Let's just pick a place.
They're coming from India.
And they were bureaucrats in India who were used to being on the take.
And then they become bureaucrats in America.
And they deal with the Indian community who are used to paying bribes.
And it begins to decay and corrupt the system.
Again, these are statistical trends.
They're not generalities.
They're not absolutes.
I just want to remind you of that.
Because I know this stuff can be challenging.
But, you know...
Facts are facts.
I'm sorry if they're challenging, but have we become so sensitive as a culture that dealing with basic statistical facts has just made us hysterical?
If so, we're done as a culture.
We've retreated into a sort of cult of reality rejection that is going to wipe us out completely.
We just have to deal with facts.
People in the past have had to deal with facts they didn't like.
You know, ooh, we thought that the Earth was the center of the solar system, if not the universe.
Turns out that wasn't the case.
I mean, things happen all the time.
We thought that the king was divinely appointed by God and could order us around, and the king was to disobey God.
And it's like, well, no, now there's, in general, in the West, separation of church and state, and the royalty that remains are figureheads, and so on.
People look at facts and change their worldview, and that's why we have a civilization.
So...
Let's just keep doing that, shall we?
So we continue to have and grow that lovely little thing called civilization.
National IQ by country.
Now this is important as well.
Because...
IQ is foundational to success in a free market.
In general, the smarter you are, the better you will do.
And we can see this, of course, from the people from Japan and China and South Korea and so on.
High IQ. Here we can see this, and we'll get to that in a second.
And they generally do very well.
It's pretty dose-dependent.
It's linear.
The higher your IQ, the more money you're likely to make, the better you're going to do in the free market.
The higher your IQ, the less attractive welfare is.
Because you can make more money in the free market than you can in welfare.
The lower your IQ, the more attractive welfare is because you'll make more money in the welfare state than you will in the free market.
And the fact that, in general, the leftists want to import people from low-IQ cultures and countries is...
Important, right?
Because low information voters, low IQ voters.
Now, as to whether this is genetic, whether this is environmental and so on, it doesn't matter in particular.
Let's say that it's environmental.
Well, the people who come here who have low IQ, who are in their 30s and 40s, it's not going to change.
Like, if you didn't get enough food to eat when you were a kid...
And you're 40 and you're six inches shorter than you would have been otherwise, eating a bunch more food isn't going to make you taller, right?
The brain doesn't continue to grow much for women in the early to mid-20s or for men in the late 20s, then you're done.
Nobody knows how to raise IQ. I mean, there's breastfeeding a little bit, spanking a little bit.
But other than that, nobody knows how to raise IQ. And people have been trying this for a long time.
The Head Start program had a lot to do with that.
So even if we say it's 100% environmental, okay, well then you get a bunch of people with low IQs coming in and they're raising their children.
Will low IQ parents give their children the kind of intellectual stimulation that is going to make a big difference in IQ if that can even be figured out, which it hasn't been as yet?
No, of course.
If you have the choice between high IQ immigrants and low IQ immigrants, clearly you want higher IQ immigrants.
That is just the basic prerequisite of how things go.
And America is in the, I guess you could say, envied position of being able to pick and choose its immigrants since about 80% of the world's population wants to move to America.
So why wouldn't it?
Anyway, let's have a look at this.
United States is 98.
Now, it used to be higher.
But it's been going down.
I wonder if you can figure out why.
Mexico?
Ooh.
88.
India?
82.
China, 105.
105.
Philippines, 86.
Cuba, 85.
Dominican Republic, 82.
Vietnam, 94.
South Korea, 106.
El Salvador, 80.
And Iraq, 87.
Now, these, of course, are not perfect.
It's a bell curve.
And this doesn't mean that everyone coming from these countries has this IQ. Right?
The first generation immigrants, particularly to a more free country, tend to have higher IQs because they can't stand the adults around them.
So they go to a place where their intelligence can have more scope.
Right?
But if it is genetic, well, next generation, generation after that, I think we can see where that might go.
So, yeah, the Democrats in general want to import people from low IQ countries who will vote for a bigger government.
Ah, facts.
Aren't they fun?
So, here we go.
The red bars here are one larger government and the yellow bars are one smaller government.
Now again, we said at the beginning it's going to be a challenging presentation and if all of these bars were the same we wouldn't really be having much of a presentation but if all of these bars are the same Then the Democrats wouldn't want the Hispanics in this case or the Asians to come into the country.
If all of these bars were the same, immigration would not have changed so radically.
So the left, the Democrats, they know these bars are different and that's why they want the Asians and the Hispanics to come in.
Because they want bigger government.
And what do the Democrats offer?
Bigger government.
It's so obvious.
So in the general public...
Only 41% of people want larger government and 48% want smaller government.
Now, among whites, that is 37% want larger government and 52% want smaller government, right?
Which is why whites, and in particular white males, tend to vote for Republicans who, at least until recently, made offers of smaller government, which they almost never fulfilled on, but Donald Trump seems to be more reliable in that manner.
Now, among Asians...
55% want larger government and 36% want a smaller government.
And this of course would include people from India.
Native-born Hispanics.
Ooh, so Hispanics born in America, 66% want larger government and only 28% want smaller government.
Hmm, I wonder why the Democrats want to bring in lots of Hispanics.
Huh, I wonder.
It's really, it's so simple when you see these numbers, right?
But the real one, this is the real mule kick to the head one.
Foreign-born Hispanics.
81% want larger government and 12% want smaller government.
That is very, very important.
Now, data for the number of blacks in America who want smaller government is unavailable, but 70% of blacks in America report that they want bigger government and more services.
Now, what this means is that foreign-born Hispanics want bigger government in even higher rates than American blacks who have traditionally voted for the left, for Democrats.
So...
Oh look, the numbers, be racist.
These are facts, right?
And so understanding why whites have opposition to Hispanic immigration is not that complicated.
If you want smaller government, as whites do, of course you don't want people coming in who are going to vote for bigger government.
It's not because you have some weird bias against Hispanics.
It's because you want smaller government!
And they don't!
They want the opposite of what you want.
I mean, how is this that complicated?
I mean, if you're in a marriage and you want monogamy, but your wife wants sex, orgies, and polygamy, and you end up getting divorced, are you just a misogynist who hates women?
No!
She just wanted the opposite of what you wanted, and you didn't want to get STDs.
I don't know, right?
I mean, once you take away all this politically correct stuff, it all makes perfect sense.
Now, the left, of course, will scream racist at anyone who points this up because their whole plan is to import people who are going to vote for bigger government because they want to infest the halls of government and destroy the republic.
It's not that complicated, right?
So they scream racism at anyone who points out these facts because it interferes with their plan to destroy the remnants of the republic and replace it with a third world style quasi-dictatorship where a small number of people live in gated communities and the rest of everyone can hunt rats through the garbage for food.
I'm sorry that is their plan, but that's their plan.
And so...
Yeah, whites want smaller government and other groups don't.
And so whites have problems with those other groups.
And this, you know, in my opinion, this is something to do with why immigration was a hot topic and why Donald Trump, who's initially given by some people a 1% chance of even achieving the nomination, and the Republican Party is doing so well because I know we really...
It's like that old Seinfeld thing.
I don't think we're supposed to talk about this.
No, this needs to be talked about.
These facts are important.
And if you don't want America to turn into, say, Mexico, I think these things are important to understand.
So, larger versus smaller government.
Let's look at Hispanics and see what happens.
So again, general public, 41%.
And again, the general public right now includes a lot of people imported over the past 50, 60 years who want larger government.
It would be much lower in the past.
41% want larger government.
48% want smaller government.
So, I guess you're going to get smaller government because it's a democracy.
No, wait, wait, wait, wait for it.
All Hispanics as a whole, 75% want larger government.
19% want smaller government.
Now, the first generation Hispanics, 81% want larger government, 12% want smaller government.
And second generation, 72% want larger government, 22% want smaller government.
By the third generation, it's beginning to close a little.
58% want larger government and 36% want smaller government.
So, I don't know.
Let's just do some basic math here.
It's not that complicated.
Let's just say 30 years for a generation.
Let's be generous.
Age of consent in Mexico is 12.
Do you know in the Philippines, 14?
Anyway, let's just say 30 years.
Oh, no, no.
Let's say 25 years.
25 years for this, right?
Okay.
So, first-generation Hispanics are immigrants, so we'll shave those off, give those just a couple of years.
So, half a century or more later, after the immigrants come in, the Hispanics still vastly want larger government than smaller government.
But in 50 years, there'll be a voting bloc big enough to overwhelm with other groups the smaller government vote, and it will all be over.
So this is what the left is banking on.
By the time people who want smaller government wake up to what's happening demographically and through immigration, it'll be too late and they'll be outvoted forever.
So only 49% of Americans identify as Democrat or say they lean Democrat.
For Hispanics, 66% identify or lean Democrat.
And what's interesting is Democratic Party affiliation is actually stronger with second-generation immigrants than with first-generation immigrants.
And there is a lot of social pressure.
We've had Hispanic callers into the Freedom Aid Radio call-in show, which runs twice a week, in which you can go to fdrpodcasts.com to get.
We don't often put as many videos from the call-in show up, but it's always available on the podcast feed.
And the Hispanics have called in some great callers, and they've said that the amount of social pressure they have to vote left, to be Democrats, to be pro-Hillary, is extraordinary.
And that kind of in-group preference and that kind of in-group pressure is very, very high.
And coming out as pro-Trump, say, as a Hispanic, is incredibly challenging, to put it as nicely as possible, culturally and environmentally.
So this is important.
So if you want smaller government...
In general, Hispanic immigrants are going to thwart your wish and give you the big government that you so fear.
And you will end up paying for the bigger government that so many of them will end up on the receiving end of your taxes.
So it's really, again, not that complicated to understand.
And political correctness was invented as a way of punishing people for facing reality, for facing facts.
Political party preferences.
The general public.
39% are Republican or lean Republican.
And 49% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
And again, the general public includes all of these pro-Democrat immigrants for the past 50-60 years.
All Hispanics, 18% Republican or lean Republican, 66% Democrat or lean Democrat.
First-generation Hispanics, 16% are Republican or lean Republican, 63% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
Second-generation Hispanics, Democrat has gone from 63% to 71%.
And...
The Republican-leaning or Republican have gone from 16% to 19%.
So, again, this is all well-known, well-understood by the Democrats, which is why they...
And they can't argue against these facts.
And they can't say, well, Republicans should welcome Hispanic immigration because Hispanic immigration is literally the death of the Republican Party.
It's literally the death of any small government free market aspirations for Americans.
These are facts.
And these are well-known facts.
By the Democrats.
And they can't argue against these facts, and that's why they invented this thought crime, this original sin of racism, for pointing out these basic numbers and the self-interest that is clearly represented by these numbers for anyone who wants smaller government and lower taxes.
So this is important, right?
If the Hispanic population of the US electorate had not at all grown since 1980, then Mitt Romney would have won the 2012 election.
This is how important it is.
This is how much has changed.
So even if not one single non-white person voted for him, Mitt Romney would still have won the 2012 election.
So Obama is in power for the second term because the Democrats have changed the demographics of America to the point where it's almost impossible for a traditional Republican to now get the vote.
See, Romney won 59% of the white vote.
And if Hispanics were still only 2% of the electorate as they were in 1980, whites would have been 85% of the electorate.
The white vote alone would have given Romney 50.15% of the vote.
And if we add on Romney's share of the Hispanic and black votes, that number rises to 51.08% of the vote.
And this is the frustration that the Republicans are experiencing and the small government people and the lower tax people and the more economic freedom people and the less corruption people are experiencing.
You may not agree with it, but at least understand where they're coming from and they're saying, well, the rules are changing.
They're not winning arguments.
They're stuffing the ballot with people.
They're importing people who are going to vote for them rather than winning an intellectual argument in a democracy where debate is supposed to determine who wins.
Now, if you take the current racial and ethnic demographics in America and you project them back into the past, the Republicans would have won how many presidential elections over the past 27 years, do you think?
Well, the answer to that is only one.
Take the current demographics in America and project them back over 27 years, and the Republicans would only have won one presidential election in those 27 years.
So in other words, the elections in the United States have already been profoundly altered by demographics.
Not by reason, not by evidence, not by arguments, not by facts, not by rhetoric, not by debate skills, or anything to do with that.
They have changed because the Democrats have consistently voted to import massive amounts of people who are going to vote for Democrats.
That, I believe, from a democracy standpoint, Not to say even a republic standpoint, that's cheating.
That's cheating.
That is not winning a debate.
That's swamping your opponents.
That's like saying, hey, my basketball team has twice the number of people on the court, so we're just better players.
It's like, nope.
You're just changing things.
Hispanic voting patterns from 1972 up till 2012.
So exit poll data, this goes back to 1972, shows clearly Hispanics have voted for the Democrats in every single presidential election of the last 43 years.
Hey, do you think that the Democrats don't know this?
A study done by the Center for Immigration Studies, which combined data on the 100 largest counties in the U.S. from nine elections, even after Controlling for median income and the percent of the county that was black, a 1% increase in the proportion of a county that was immigrant was associated with a 0.59 point drop in the proportion of the country that voted Republican.
So every one point you get of immigrants coming into a county is nearly a 0.6 drop in the proportion of that county that voted Republican.
So it's a form of gerrymandering.
Except the lines can be changed back and the demographics just a little harder and I guess potentially more brutal as people are sort of finding out now.
So here we can see these lines.
Democrats way up 60 to 80 percent.
Republican 30 to 20 percent.
A little up to 40 in 2004.
And the gap is huge.
When elections are won by 10th of a percentage point, 20th of a percentage point, half a percentage point, and so on, this shifts the entire needle.
I mean, this changes the entire election.
And it's not Fair.
It's not fair to just import people who are going to vote for you.
And the people who...
The places where they come from are not the freest places in the world, and they're bringing that non-freedom with them.
They're bringing that big government and lower taxes, which is what a lot of Hispanics want, and other groups.
They're bringing that self-destructive corruption with them.
So...
Immigrants voting for Obama in 2012.
So this is an analysis of the election's state voting patterns.
So there's a trend.
There's a correlation.
Between the immigration population within a state and its support for Obama.
The more immigrants, the more Obama votes.
And again, these are just patterns.
If you want smaller government, immigration is a problem at the moment.
It wasn't a problem in the 20s or the 30s or the 50s or whatever.
But since 1965, it has become a huge problem.
If you want smaller government, you must focus on immigration.
There's simply no other way to do it.
There's no other thing that matters.
There's no argument you can make.
There's no facts you can present.
Immigration is changing America to a big government, increasingly socialist, increasingly corrupt environment.
And here's the thing.
The problem isn't that Hillary Clinton seems to be irredeemably corrupt.
That's not the problem.
The problem is her voters, her supporters, the Democrats, don't really seem to care.
Why?
Well, if you look at the corruption index of the places they came from, it's kind of what they're used to.
So, I just put out a video yesterday on why I was wrong about libertarians and Hey libertarians, you might want to look at this, these graphs.
So libertarian orientation scale, right?
How sort of big are you into the free market, right?
So there are people who say, oh no, there's a big libertarian bent within the Hispanic population.
No, no, there isn't.
There really isn't.
Again, there are some Hispanics who are very into Mises and even Rothbard and Hayek and small government and so on.
Of course.
Absolutely, and there are some very tall women, but that's not how you would look at the group as a whole.
So these categorizations, what we've got here, libertarian, mixed, sorry, libertarian, lean libertarian, right, smaller government, more voluntarism, more individualism, mixed, lean communalist, communalist, and we'll get into those in a second.
So these categorizations are based on how the respondent answered policy questions rather than self-identifications, a bunch of questions like the world's smallest political quiz and so on, a bunch of questions, and this is how people answered those questions.
So non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics are almost equally as likely to identify as libertarian.
But far more whites than Hispanics actually take libertarian positions when asked about policy.
So people in the Hispanic community who say, I'm a libertarian, answer these questions like big government people.
In other words, maybe they don't know what libertarian means.
Maybe they think it means librarian.
I don't know.
Who knows, right?
So only 1% of Hispanics surveyed were libertarian according to this scale.
And that's really, really important.
So 1% of Hispanics were libertarian.
11% were libertarian-leaning.
That's a total of 12%.
So 29% of whites were in the same either libertarian or libertarian-leaning group.
So the report states, and I quote, nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites, 94%.
94% of libertarians are non-Hispanic whites.
And more than 8 in 10 libertarian leaners are also non-Hispanic whites.
So if you're interested in libertarianism, immigration is a big freaking problem for you.
If you want small government, if you want the night watchman state, if you want lower taxes, if you want the non-aggression principle, if you want an end to the war on drugs, all of these things.
If you want privatization of government agencies, if you want privatization of education, if you want less government involvement in healthcare, all the libertarian positions, the Hispanics, 1%, 1% are libertarian, and only 12% are libertarian or libertarian-leaning.
94% of the libertarians are non-Hispanic whites.
81% of the libertarian-leaners are also non-Hispanic whites.
I don't know what to say.
I mean, the blacks down here are not, right?
So, I'm sorry, these are facts.
If you want a smaller government, Hispanic immigration, Hispanic cultural influences in general, They'll not only block you, they'll completely prevent and overwhelm your preferences in that direction.
And the fact that libertarian groups aren't willing to acknowledge this just shows you the infiltration of leftists into a lot of libertarian groups.
Not all.
Some libertarians are very based on this stuff, very understand what it is.
But the fact that this isn't even a significant debate, as far as I can see it, in the libertarian community just speaks to the political correctness that has infected libertarians as a whole.
Not all, but as all.
Welfare usage.
So native households use welfare.
This is a survey of income and program participation, or SIP. Native households use welfare at 30%.
Immigrant households at 51%.
Medicaid, 23% native, 42% immigrant.
Food, 22% native, and 40% immigrant.
Almost twice.
Cash welfare, 10% native, 12% immigrant.
And housing at 6% and 6%.
So welfare, this is Medicaid cash-assistant food and housing, as you can see, total federal expenditures for these programs, nearly half a trillion dollars in 2012, and states spent an additional $180 billion on Medicaid alone.
So those who are on welfare, who are receiving welfare, tend to pay little or no income tax.
I mean, if they even bother to file or report their income, as opposed to what illegal immigrants do quite a bit, which is work under the table.
So who's paying for this?
Well, it is the native taxpayers who are paying for people who in general have not paid into the system and are not paying into the system.
So this is a net enforced coercive cash transfer from natives to immigrants.
Again, these are facts.
Do you want immigrants going to come in who are going to get their clawy hands on your paycheck?
And again, this is why I say it's a displacement, because the more immigrants come in, the more they get subsidies for having children, the more they don't have to pay for those extra children.
So you're paying them to have more and more children, whereas the people who are taxpayers, particularly the whites, as their income goes down, their fertility tends to decline in terms of actually the number of children that they have.
And so this is a displacement.
You're taking money away from the native population, from whites as a whole, who will then have fewer children.
And you're giving it to an immigrant population whose goals oppose the general preferences of the white population, and you're paying the immigrant population to have more and more children.
I mean, you can count, right?
You can see where this goes.
This is not complicated.
Immigrant welfare usage by origin country.
So, natives, as we said, use immigration at the rate of 30%.
30% of natives.
Now, Central America and Mexico, 73% of them are using welfare.
73%.
More than twice.
Almost two and a half times the rate.
The Democrats, who are in the business of taking money from productive people and giving them to unproductive people, are fully aware of this.
And this is why they want to bring people in from Central America and Mexico.
This is why there is this sanctuary cities.
This is why these open gates.
They're going to vote for bigger government.
If you're dependent on the state, you're going to vote for bigger government.
Why is it that the Democrats and Hillary in particular are all like, well, we're going to increase taxes on the rich?
Well, that sounds great if you're on welfare because that means rich people are going to pay for more stuff for you.
I mean, from an amoral resource consumption standpoint, that's exactly what you want.
From the Caribbean, 51% of immigrants are on welfare.
From Africa, 48%.
From South America, 41%.
From East Asia, 32%.
From Europe, 26%.
From South Asia, 17%.
This is sort of related to the IQ stuff which we saw before, but...
This is the reality.
If immigrants were still coming from Europe, they'd be consuming welfare.
Well, they'd be more productive because when you're not consuming welfare, we assume that you're working and producing and creating value in society.
So if the immigrants were still European, they'd be consuming welfare at a lower rate than natives and paying more taxes, I would assume, on average as a whole.
So why would you want groups coming in that are using welfare at two and a half times almost the rate of natives?
Well, because they...
They vote for Democrats.
You get the pattern.
I don't need to keep repeating this, right?
Immigrant households using welfare.
By duration, head of household has lived in the United States.
So, of course, welfare use is high for new arrivals, but it's also very high for well-established immigrants.
Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48% of them still access welfare.
Households headed by immigrants in the country for fewer than five years, well, about half of them access the welfare system.
Despite, oh, there's all these restrictions and so on, right?
Heads of the households are eligible because there are immigrants in the household who are eligible, or there are US citizens in the household who are eligible, likely American-born children or anchor babies, right?
America is one of the few countries...
In the world, that if you just drop a baby on American soil, that kid is automatically a citizen, no matter what, and it's a mad policy, but anyway.
So here we go.
Immigrant households using welfare by duration.
The head of household is living in the United States.
Under 5 years, 51%.
5 to 10 years, 51%.
54% for 11 to 15 years and 56% 16 to 21 years.
So the longer you're in the country, the higher your welfare consumption tends to be.
It dips to 48%.
Remember, it's not a zero-based scale.
It dips to 48% if you've been longer than 21 years.
But of course, longer than 21 years includes the remnants of European and South Asian populations who use welfare lower and who had, certainly Europeans, more chance to get in relative to Hispanics in the past.
So...
So it doesn't tail off.
It's not like, oh, here you go.
You just arrived.
You know, here's a goodie bag and now get to work.
It increases and escalates and then dips after 20 years.
So, again, if you want to hold on to your money, if you want to have money for your children, say, or your family or your friends or your health care, if you want to have money for whatever you want to do, to save, to spend, to give to charity, whatever it's going to be, well, immigration is not working for you.
Now, it's working for the Democrat Party.
It's just not working for taxpayers in America.
Now, this we're throwing in because it can't be repeated often enough.
Diversity is our strength.
Well, Democrats can say that because diversity is their voting base.
Diversity is their strength as long as the voters and the immigrants don't come from Europe or other places where there are still remnants of Western-style freedoms.
Of course, yeah.
Third world immigration is the strength of Democrats, and economically and politically, in terms of aspirations, it is the weakness of the rest of the population, and in particular the whites, and in particular the white males.
So, if diversity is a strength, then we would imagine societies get better as cultures become more diverse.
So, here we go.
Violent crime rate per 100,000 people and ethnic diversity index per state.
Bottom left to top right the line is very, very clear.
The more ethnic diversity you have per state, the higher your levels of violent crime.
These are real people.
Really getting hurt.
They're getting murdered.
They're getting raped.
They're getting assaulted.
They're getting kidnapped.
They're getting beaten up.
They're being sexually assaulted, sexually molested.
There's child rape involved in this.
And this is the betrayal of the left, I argue.
That they're willing to have people murdered and raped.
And robbed and assaulted?
They're willing to have children raped and murdered and assaulted?
Because they want votes.
This is the coldness.
This is the ugliness of leftist selfishness.
They're willing to have these numbers.
Now they'll say, oh, it's all a strength and it's all wonderful and so on.
Well, they're in their gated communities and they don't live in these neighborhoods, so they just get the votes.
They get the power.
And they're power junkies.
They want power over you.
They want power over the economy.
They want power over everything and everyone and money.
And like addicts, they don't care who hurts, who suffers, right?
The coke addict doesn't sit there and say, well, you know, every time I buy cocaine, I am really helping to fund international terrorism and, you know, increase the crime rates in my...
They don't care.
Give me the coke!
That's all they want.
They don't care.
They don't care who suffers for them to get the object of their addiction.
And if it's political power, yeah.
They don't care.
They don't care that violent crime goes from 100 per 100,000 to 650 per 100,000.
They don't care about a 650% increase or a 600% increase in violent crime because they still get their votes, don't they?
Property crime and diversity follows similar patterns.
As you can see here, property crime rates for 100,000, not quite as steep and a little bit more scattered, but the trend is still the same.
Ethnic diversity index per state and property crime rate for 100,000.
This doesn't count welfare, which could in many circles be considered a property crime, but there's an increase from 2,200 or 1,900 to close to 4,000.
The more ethnically diverse the state, the higher the property crime rate.
And all of the associated costs that go with that.
Insurance costs, costs of people missing work because they're, I don't know, dead!
Or things like that.
And police costs and incarceration costs.
I mean, the massive amounts of costs.
Why would you want this as a whole?
So.
Let's close it off here.
I think the case is pretty clear.
The left is not into diversity at all.
If the left was into diversity, then there would be a statement in, I don't know, newspaper offices or television offices saying, you know, well, half the population leans Republican or is Republican.
We don't have any Republicans around here.
We need to have diversity, so let's proactively try and get Republicans into the newsroom.
They don't want that at all.
They don't want that at all.
If the reporters who gave...
To politicians, 96% of them gave to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
No diversity.
The left does not want diversity.
The left only says they want diversity and diversity is a value and anyone who questions it is racist because they want the votes of third world people who are going to reliably vote for a bigger government and more Democrats in power.
That's all it comes down to.
You need to strip away all of this sophistry around this.
It is simply the naked embrace of power and the way that they do it, since they can't win the argument on morals, they can't win the argument on facts, they can't win the argument on history, they can't win the argument on demographics.
So what they want to do is continue to import people who are going to reliably vote for the left because they're power junkies and they can't win in debate.
And they want to import people who vote for the left And because they can't win the debate, all they do is scream racism at anyone who points out the facts that if you want smaller government and if you want lower taxes, immigrants are going to destroy your hopes.
And it's going to go the other way.
You're going to get more taxes.
You're going to get bigger government.
And where does that process end?
Where does that process end?
Right?
The immigrants in general voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats.
Bigger government and, in general, lower taxes they want, the Hispanics in particular.
Where does that end?
When do they say, oh no, no, the government's big enough, we can stop now.
Let's hold it, let's maybe bring it down.
It doesn't end.
It doesn't end.
At all.
Until you go complete third world.
Until you go Venezuela.
And I've done a presentation on the decline and fall in Venezuela.
You need to watch this.
You need to know what is going on in Venezuela.
Because in Venezuela, the small government people were overwhelmed by the big government people, people dependent on the state, and the entire system is collapsing, and people are literally dying in the streets, they're starving to death, they're fleeing the country to get food, they're lining up for hours in hopes of getting a scrap of moldy bread.
I'm telling you, that's where it goes.
And that's what this election is all about.
Now please, please, like, subscribe, share, get this information out to people.
If you have the facts, you can make better decisions, which is why the left is supremely opposed to you getting any facts.
Now, make it worthwhile for me to get these facts for you and take the inevitable bullets I'm going to take by sharing this information.
The future of everything you treasure, everything you hold dear, everything your ancestors built, is right now hanging by a thread.
Choose wisely.
▲
Export Selection