American history holds facts that are proving to be ignored elephants of reality in the small living rooms of real life. The legitimacy of the nation’s founding in the face of new realities have been under assault for fifty years and more. Progressive critics of America’s past have been successful in dulling the glean of national pride among her citizens.
The demographic changes happening are well known, but politely ignored by most except those are who not so polite. Mass Hispanic immigration along with the anemic replacement birth rate among whites is altering the country. Both classical thinking and progressive thinking Americans know this; the former bemoan it while the later celebrate it.
Charles M. Blow, a black columnist for the New York times, writes candidly about these changes.
There has been the rapid rise of minority populations and stagnation in the growth of the non-Hispanic white population in this country. Now, Hispanics represent a majority of all births in America, and last week The New York Times reported on census data that revealed that “deaths exceeded births among non-Hispanic white Americans for the first time in at least a century.”
Blow, being a progressive, essentially touts this and other facts as good for his own party’s cause in a simplistic Democrat / Republican dynamic, which is now useless.
They have also signaled that conservative arguments on many of these issues are losing their resonance nationally, and that the Republican pool of potential voters is shrinking while the Democratic pool expands.
As a minority, he stands to benefit from the changes, even if they mean the disenfranchisement of non-minorities. What he misses is that the progressive culture will not withstand the realities that will logically emerge.
Vox Day, a classical thinker, offers a much more somber and pessimistic view of America’s demographic changes.
The fruits of diversity are bloodshed and war. They always have been. Populations of sufficiently differing time preferences simply cannot live together for long. And the only successful way to keep those fruits from ripening has is a powerful militaristic state willing and able to commit atrocities in order to keep the otherwise warring parties in line.
Blow also sees this change.
And, we are becoming less blindly religious and more blindly militaristic. (The former is a good thing; the latter, not so much.)
Now, these dire speculations may or may not come true (who can ultimately know the future other than the Almighty?). They do, however, provoke an important question of how the Constitution will be viewed in the future.
Part of the foundation for progressive argument is the dismantling of an Axis of supremacy: Anlgo, Male, and Christian. Through multi-cultural promotion (including mass immigration), feminism, and philosophical skepticism, progressives have successfully assaulted this particular ethnic group and now have little concern for its continuing demise.
It is argued that the Constitution is capable of covering all Americans from all facets of human existence. That may be true, but the culture from which democratic ideas were forged was uniquely European, mostly English-speaking, and influenced by French philosophy, Christian metaphysics, and classical Greek foundations. From this “renaissance” culture, the idea of a Constitution Republic was born. Historically, Anglo culture was the impetus for what Americans enjoy today.
It was also under America’s founding that the African slave trade operated and Mexican citizens lost large portions of their territories to American expansion. These past events, viewed as atrocities and crimes by progressive thought, are still revisited today in history classes and held as sacrosanct in academic circles for the cause of social justice.
Minorities have no foundational reason to view the U.S. Constitution as anything but a white man’s document and American history as something not to be celebrated, but brooded upon. As the white population declines in America, there will be less and less support for Jefferson’s Constitution and its ideas.
As the European Union drafted a new constitution for new realities, so the United States will soon face a similar question. In the past, liberty governed by religious morality was the goal. In the future an ordered and controlled society, for the sake of peace, will be the priority, not freedom. Such a state will require a militaristic and oppressive government. Vox writes:
Consider, for example, the difference between segregation as it was practiced in the pre-1960s USA and the way it was practiced in the USSR and China. Or the way it is presently practiced in Africa with the various tribes vying for power in the national government.
In Africa, Afrikaners (whites), have literally walled themselves off from the rest of the nation. Though the news doesn’t explain this, it is to escape the African-on-Afrikaner violence as well as the African-on-African violence.
Let’s pray the same does not happen in the United States.