David Cole: Demographics are ... Complicated

By An Old Friend

Sun, Nov 7, 2021 3:34 p.m.

David Cole: Demographics are ... Complicated

AOF: This has a running theme about George Soros -- including that he's a "cacodemon."  Which turns out to mean "evil spirit."  But that's just a label; I'd like to have him explained.

N.S.: There's no explaining evil, because people commit evil deeds out of being able to, out of being free. The best you could do is explain, based on an evildoer's biography and circumstances, why he chose means A over means B.  

https://www.takimag.com/article/demographics-is-destiny-well/

"Demographics is Destiny"? Well…

David Cole 

November 02, 2021

Every time I write about my positive experiences attending black L.A. public schools in the early 1980s, I get pushback. Sometimes gentle pushback from friends, sometimes angry pushback from furious, red-faced men.

To stitch together two themes I've touched upon recently—the use of "demographics is destiny" as a crutch, and the deadly fatalism that's gripped the right of late—the pushback seems to revolve around the fact that if what I say I experienced is true, if I did attend perfectly decent black schools during the height of the crack epidemic in the city that was crack central, then demographic fatalism is a flawed worldview.

Demographic fatalists, of course, don't want to hear that. Like all ideologues, their beliefs are a source of comfort. Even pessimism can be comforting; the belief that certain things can't be changed is reassuring to those too lazy to effect change.

Leftists rarely have such issues. They, too, are demographic fatalists in a way. Whites (especially men) are the problem; whites must be eliminated. It's a simplistic worldview well-suited to the tiny leftist brain. It works for them because when your only goal is to destroy, unthinking simplicity serves you ably.

But if you seek to build, or at least preserve, you need something more thoughtful than "Hulk smash." So let's be thoughtful about my youthful experiences. Why, in the middle of the crack epidemic, in Cracktown USA, was my school not a hellhole?

Well, to start with, in the 1980s the largely white LAPD was ruthless. You might not recall this—you likely don't—but one of the things that came out during the Rodney King "reckoning" (yes, Fentanyl Floyd was hardly a pioneer) was that certain LAPD officers would begin their shift by declaring, "It's monkey-slapping time!"

Now, I'm one hard-assed unsentimental SOB when it comes to racial matters, but that's harsh even for me.

So you had vigorous policing and unapologetic incarceration, with no revolving-door book-and-release. And the policing extended to inside school grounds: narcs (almost always white girls, because that would guarantee they'd get invited to all the best drug parties; a Crip's suspicions about that new blond "transfer student" would always be overruled by the yearnings of his cock), and routine LAPD drug and gang sweeps that would cleanse the school of troublemakers.

The point? Proper enforcement trumped demographics. That's a blow to your fatalism right there. I'll give you another, more recent one (and my thanks to colleague Steve Sailer for bringing this to my attention): The murder rates in border towns on the Mexican side are astronomical. The murder rates in Hispanic-majority border towns on the U.S. side are massively below the U.S. national average.

Same DNA on both border sides, yet that DNA doesn't seem to be destiny. Calexico, Calif., 97% Hispanic, didn't report a single murder in 2020. Yet on the Mexi side opposite Calexico, mucho murderos.

Demographics doesn't explain that. What does is that Calexico has a (mostly Hispanic) police department that opposes the "progressive" policies that come down from Sacramento.

Again, enforcement trumps demographics. And people like George Soros understand this. That's why monsters like him are never content to just change demographics. They must also dismantle enforcement and incarceration. It's essential to their plan.

Now, in the early 1990s, and I was long out of school by then, L.A. had its Rodney King reckoning, and the LAPD was greatly neutered. So by the mid-'90s crime was so bad here, Californians passed Three Strikes and a host of other anti-crime initiatives (culminating with a statewide "Crime Victims Bill of Rights" constitutional amendment).

And crime went down.

Yet again, we see that good crime policy can overcome demographics. L.A. became much more livable after those measures passed.

And again, Soros and his ilk understood this. So their next step was to cleanse the dominant Democrat Party of anyone who dared take a tough-on-crime stance. That meant funding the right kind of candidates and packing the activist base with the right kind of bullies (longtime CA activists will remember Dianne Feinstein being booed off the stage at the state Democrat convention because she supported the death penalty. She'd later cave to the base on that issue).

Then came the manipulation of curriculum. In a previous column I pinpointed the exact moment, in the late 1990s, when my old high school adopted antiwhite, CRT-style scholastic propaganda, courtesy of a generous grant from a Bill Gates-associated "educational" foundation.

Now, L.A. got lucky. The left's three-pronged approach of dismantling policing and incarceration, extirpating tough-on-crime politicos from the city's dominant party, and introducing anti-white propaganda into schools would've made L.A.'s blacks a nightmare to live with. But demography favored us, and blacks were forced out by gentrification on the Westside and beanification on the South and Eastside.

So yes, it did get to the point where L.A. blacks, as a community, became such a menace that physical removal via demographic displacement was the best outcome. It's not that the community was at first a blessing only to become corrupted like a red rose beset by Botrytis blight. It's that the community's already-existing weaknesses were exploited and amplified to the extent that détente was no longer possible. The community's weaknesses were weaponized. And if you're not willing to understand the dynamics of how, you won't be able to guard against it elsewhere.

Maybe it's in your best interest to study these specifics instead of belching "demographics is destiny" on your fifth beer as you sit back and cackle, "This country's goin' straight to hell," like the two-dimensional right-wing neighbor dad in American Beauty (a character crafted to mock you, so if you really hate those satanic Hollywood pedos, maybe don't morph into the caricatures they create).

A key difference between left and right is that the left, unbound by science or morals, is always looking to remake things, from the "new Soviet man" to the new tranny monstrosity. The right, especially the far right, is often hampered by a belief in the immutable: the scientific ("genes is genes!"), the religious ("the eternal battle between Christ and Satan"), and the quasi-religious conspiratorial ("the Rothschilds control us still!").

This can lead to fatalism, which in turn leads to inaction. Ditto the current rightist fad of smug retreat, in which parts of the country are gleefully surrendered because "at least I don't live there!" The recall campaign of Soros DA George Gascon died on the vine because rightists outside L.A. took the position of "Hey, you elected him, now live with the consequences, hyuk-hyuk-hyuk" (ironically, these same half-wits cheer the parents in Virginia who are finally fighting back against the antiwhite, anti-science rot in their local school boards, even though those school board members were elected too. It's good when people come to their senses; it should be encouraged, not ridiculed).

Leftists want you to stay home chortling about "them people wot live where I don't gits what they deserve" as you lose yourself to fatalism. What they don't want you to do is rationally counter their extremism.

Last week I saw a rightist Twitter account with tons of followers tweet out footage of filthy, brawling-bum-ridden Venice Beach homeless encampments with a caption like "See, this is what ya git in blue states! Fuck 'em, let 'em rot!" In fact, that footage is outdated. Thanks to the Newsom recall and the current recall effort against a Venice councilman, the cops were finally allowed to go in and clear out those encampments, guns drawn, no mercy. The actual lesson here is that improvement is possible if you can be creative enough to find ways to counter the civilization-destroyers…political pathways (recalls) and (as mentioned earlier) policing and incarceration, which can make a positive difference, regardless of demographics.

But rather than explore those issues in ways that might be helpful, red Twitter would rather highlight outdated footage that promotes not just fatalism, but the fantasy that if you cede leftists enough territory, they'll let you keep your little piece of paradise undisturbed. It's easy to dunk on L.A. But it's more instructive to view us as a laboratory. We're not Baltimore; we're not Detroit or East St. Louis. We've never reached what I call "critical mass unsalvageables" where genetic or political unsalvageables become such a majority that the place becomes unlivable. L.A. has always remained livable enough that cacodemons like Soros don't consider us conquered…yet. That's why Soros concentrates more resources here than in, say, Baltimore. And that's why it's beneficial to try to learn from what's happening here.

Except some people don't want to learn. I hear from those folks every time I post something nonapocalyptic about our local Mexicans. "Yer soft on browns; them mudfolks is our doom."

Here's a thought experiment: Let's say Trump had actually followed through on his "deportations day one" pledge. And let's say that every bean in L.A. without papers was picked up on Jan. 21, 2017. Okay, so we'd have a bunch of vacant apartments. Who's gonna occupy them? The blacks who fled? Unlikely. There'd still be enough legal Mexicans here to prevent blacks from ever reestablishing a community. So let's say that whites moved into those buildings. But what kind of whites? We don't have steel mills in L.A. Or coal mines. Or cattle ranches.

Whites who move here are likely to be actors and other entertainment-industry types. After all, we're a Hollywood "company town." So those are the whites who'd take over the areas vacated by the deported beans. And what do you suppose the ideological bent of those whites with their liberal-arts degrees would be?

Here's something unanimously supported by polling data: The average white college-educated woman is far to the left of the average non-college-educated Hispanic male. Indeed, college-educated white females are second only to blacks for being predictably lunatic progressives.

So when you say "demographics is destiny," I, as someone who's spent a lifetime dating bimbo white actresses while employing conscientious Mexis to do scutwork on my property, might suggest that it ain't always about race (white leftists made Portland the Pacific Northwest murder capital). Perhaps college-educated whites have become as dangerously weaponized as black L.A. (where physical removal became the only viable option), and maybe the better choice is not always the whiter choice, in certain instances.

I'd throw in with a hardworking Mexican laborer over a white college-educated female any day of the week. The former is more likely to be open to conservative ideas (as well as being pro–law enforcement), plus he has actual skills. The notion that L.A. would be better off if the Mexicans were replaced with Portlandian whites is so batshit insane it's stunning that some rightists believe it.

But "DNA is destiny," so just sit on yer couch and bitch about it all goin' to hell.

Because you're safe!

Until the next election when Soros pumps $20 million into your city's DA's race.

"Wait…our new DA is who? Well, shee-yit, how'd that happen?"

I'll pick this up next week.