By Lawrence Murray

Nobody really talks about paleoconservatism any more. And why would they, you might ask? Its political relevance died with the failed presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan over twenty years ago. Its most well-known intellectual, Sam Francis, died in 2005 and took a chunk of its metapolitical potential with it.

Buchanan still writes a column for Taki’s, and a very good one. But on the right today, the loudest dissident voices are coming from the much younger, post-Reagan and anti-Bush Alt-Right.

If I had to choose one takeaway from the paleoconservatives, however, it would be the argument that maintenance of the historical American nation, or the English-speaking White majority, is a prerequisite for conservative politics. In other words, ongoing mass immigration to the United States from outside of Europe will lead to a permanent liberal (non-white) majority and end the Republican party at the national level. Simple math shows this to be true—most Whites vote Republican while most people of color vote Democrat. Most immigrants are people of color. It’s how Virginia became a blue state and why other parts of the South are turning triracially purple. The rising tide of color means a wipe-out for conservatives.

Here’s an excerpt from something I read recently:

The demographic revolution of the past 50 years has transformed the United States from a predominantly white country into a truly multiracial nation. People of color have grown to 38 percent of the population today from 12 percent in 1966, and that metamorphosis paved the path to electing the first African-American president. In November, Democrats have the chance to secure a decades-long electoral majority for decades, but they are at risk of missing this moment because too many consultants still stick to an outdated and ineffective campaign script that was written for a different, whiter era. Democratic spending is significantly misaligned with the pillars of the party’s electoral advantage, and campaigns throw away millions of dollars on ineffective ads while neglecting efforts to mobilize the rapidly growing ranks of minorities. The evidence about the formula for Democratic victory at the national level is overwhelming. When large numbers of voters — particularly minorities — turn out, Democrats win. When turnout plummets — as it did in midterm elections in 2010 and 2014 — Democrats lose.

Yikes.

If a conservative wrote like this he’d be blacklisted from “respectable” journals of opinion and cocktail parties. And plenty of paleocons or paleocon-ish writers have been banished in the past. After all, it would be racist to suggest that politics has anything to do with race (it has everything to do with race). Even if one writes about demography dispassionately, it is sure to raise eyebrows. Why do you even care about something like that? We’re all Americans aren’t we? A nation of immigrants!

But this is actually from the (((New York Times))) in the current year. What was once scorned as racist right-wing paranoia is now a celebrated liberal talking point—that “diversity” means no more White conservatives. No one is getting in trouble at Carlos Slim’s blog for saying so.

This country has been warned about demographics for a long time. Those who’ve made making simple policy adjustments to correct this impossible will eventually have to answer for the radical changes this forced transformation will provoke, in our lifetimes.

Future historians will not be kind to the Reagans, Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas of the American governing elite and their political ilk. They pressed ahead with something that had never before been achieved peacefully on this scale—grand replacement and the electing of a new people. It remains to be seen if they shall succeed, or if their nation of Davos men will fold into the darkness of history. Who remembers Rome’s fifth-century emperors as anything more than short-sighted and ineffective caretakers?

Also published at Atlantic Centurion.