The Long Term Plan to Turn the US Into a Non White Country

Executive Summary

• There has been a multi-decade plan to turn the US country into a non-white society.

Introduction

Just living in the US makes it increasingly obvious that the country is amid a titanic changeover in the country’s demographics is converting the society into being diverse. Diverse is a code word for non-white, and this is a coordinated strategy by US elites to make this occur.

Essential Quotes on the Move of the US to Non-White Status

Minorities accounted for 92% of the U.S. population growth between 2010 and 2018, with Latinos comprising just under half of the nation’s overall growth.

White women have an average of 1.7 children over their lifetimes, while Latina women average 2.2. The total fertility rates of blacks, Asians and American Indians are in between. So whites have fewer births than all nonwhite groups.

In her research on working-class whites in rural Louisiana, sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild observes that many whites feel frustrated and betrayed, like they are now strangers in their own land. – The Conversation

The Massive Increase in Income Inequality and the Decline of Unions

While difficult to believe, the US now has the income inequality that matches Haiti’s, as I covered in the article How Does the US Have an Income Inequality of a Preindustrialized Country?

The transition of the US to a non-white country, the decline of unions, and the rise in income inequality are all related phenomena.

In 1965 the US changed its immigration policy, allowing the program to become non-white. This is the same time unions began to decline. Both of these policies were installed by the elites. There was a massive push to eliminate unions, and turning the US to be less white meant less union solidarity. The elites know that the more non-white the workers, the less support for unions there will be as unions are primarily a white creation. 

Making the Supreme Court More Conservative

A significant part of this depression of unions has also been to change the court’s makeup to be more conservative. Whether or not Democrats or Republicans appoint the judges is true as they are now both anti-labor parties. This is explained in the following quotation.

The second is the Supreme Court. If Trump fills the vacant seat with someone in the mold of the late Antonin Scalia, the new court will likely uphold what in my view is the rickety constitutional theory of union dues put forth by Samuel Alito in Knox v. SEIU. Alito’s rule holds that public sector union members have a constitutional right to decline dues payments unless they consent to do so. Or, in Alito’s words, dues payers will be deemed to “opt out” of dues unless they “opt in.” – The New Republic

The New Republic is an establishment Democrat outlet, so they cover up the anti-worker orientation of the Democrats. A good explanation of how each party views unions is found in the following quotation.

Despite this record—or more likely because of it—unions are under sustained attack. Most Republican politicians are openly hostile to unions; many Democrats are indifferent. – NIH

The Democrats run on issues related to race and fake their interest in increasing the minimum wage.

This video explains how Democrats constantly signal they plan to do things for the population they have no intention of doing. 

In reality, both the Democrats and Republicans have the same donors. And labor unions have very little money to donate to the Democrats.

Most non-white immigrants to the US vote Democrat, which is why the Democrats have a significant incentive to increase non-white immigration. However, non-white immigration undermines US labor standards. Therefore, by being pro-non-white immigration and their lack of interest in promoting unions or workers, the Democrats are now firmly anti-labor. This means that US labor standards are likely to only decline in the future.

Right To Work Laws = Anti Union Laws

However, the New Republic is correct that most pushes for “right to work” laws, which are anti-union laws dressed up in sheep’s clothing of “freedom,” are usually introduced by Republicans, as explained in the following quotation.

Twenty-six states have now enacted right-to-work laws, which forbid compulsory payment of union dues by workers who are covered under a collective bargaining agreement. Among other adverse consequences, the laws create a free-rider problem because under the exclusive representation doctrine, employees who do not pay dues must still receive the same wages, benefits and protections as those who do.

With enough political momentum, the battle for right to work could soon migrate to the federal level, where a national right-to-work bill is pending in Congress. Republicans have the votes to pass it in the House. In theory, it could face a filibuster in the Senate, but as a practical matter, the legislative dumpster fire during Trump’s first year will burn so hot and bright that right to work may become an early casualty in the battle for Democrats’ political survival.

As I show in my book on the subject, right-to-work laws are statistically correlated with lower rates of union membership, lower levels of human development, lower per capita incomes, lower levels of trust and less progressive tax schemes. In short, the empire of right to work leans toward further entrenching the power of corporations, not the economic emancipation of American wage earners. – The New Republic

The Economic Policy Institute on Unions

One of the best sources on unions is the Economic Policy Institute. Here is their view on unions.

Strong unions and employee organizing rights foster a vibrant middle class because the protections, rights, and wages that unions secure affect union and nonunion workers alike. Unfortunately, eroded labor standards, weakening unions, changing norms, guestworker policies that undercut wages, and monetary policies that prioritize controlling inflation over lowering unemployment have helped depress wages and erode living standards for all workers. EPI monitors factors that affect American work lives, including unpaid overtime, wage theft, the minimum wage, immigration laws, and collective bargaining rights. – Economic Policy Institute

Non-White Immigrants Undermine Unions

A significant reason why non-whites are attracted to white countries is the better working conditions and higher pay. However, both of these things are in part a consequence of unionization. However, non-white immigrants are part of the strategy for undermining these standards. How unions have led to these improvements is explained in the following quotation.

Hagedorn et al. examined 16 binding union contracts with employers in the Pacific Northwest,1 showing how the contracts improved the lives and promoted the health of union members. They found that the contracts raised earnings, provided retirement benefits, included employer-paid health insurance, promoted occupational safety and health, and protected workers from discrimination and unfair treatment. All are important determinants of health.

Many union contracts give workers the right to refuse unsafe work without fear of retaliation or loss of income. That right also is guaranteed by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, but enforcing it is cumbersome and uncertain, depending as it does on the federal courts. The union grievance procedure provides a swifter and surer remedy.

The benefits of a union contract extend far beyond union members. Most union-negotiated health insurance covers families as well. Paid vacations and holidays, as well as limits on involuntary overtime, make meaningful family life and community participation possible. – NIH

Some groups, like Indians, actively work against labor standards set up in the US before they ever arrived. While many non-white immigrants benefit from these protections when they first come over to the US, when they are in the position of employers, they seek to have the labor standards of their home countries. Some of the contracts I have reviewed by Indian employers show this lower standard covered in the article Contract Clauses in the Indian Master Professional Services Agreement.

Using Amnesty to Make the US Non-White

Refugees, even if they are not white, always — for some reason desire to move to white-originated countries. The US has brought large numbers of Afghanis into the US because they were at risk of being left in Afghanistan. However, why did they need to be brought to a white-originated country? Why weren’t they relocated to a Muslim country?

Just because a person is a refugee, do they have to constantly move to a white-originated country and receive a massive upgrade in their society?

Conclusion

The elites planned the conversion of the US into a non-white society to increase the percentage of national income that flowed to the top. Having a white population with a sizeable middle class interfered with this goal. This has been highly successful. The US now has the income inequality of Haiti and will soon have a white minority. One of the ways this was begun was by allowing non-white immigration in large numbers. A second tactic was to very weakly enforce illegal immigration. A third way is to enable amnesty, which is almost always done by non-whites. The Democrat party is particularly addicted to making the US-non-white as non-whites. New immigrants that are non-white usually vote Democrat. Bringing in many non-white immigrants reduces wages and labor standards. Still, Democrats are only focused on getting reelected and have little focus on improving or even maintaining workers’ working conditions and pay.

The intent is to follow the third world model, which has been repeated in so many countries worldwide. Those whites who do not go along are called racists. This is how criticism of this elite strategy is mitigated. A person who is not a racist is happy to have their civilization taken from them to increase the net worth of the elites.

Racism is now implanted in the US as the worst possible negative feature a person can have. Greed is not even discussed as a negative, and racism is all that matters. The point of instilling this idea is that if the whites were to have resisted the conversion of the US into a non-white country, this would have reduced the money going to the elites, which came about through the elimination of labor unions.

The decline of labor unions in the US has gone hand in hand with the increase in the non-white percentage of the population. They are both factors that happened simultaneously and were self-reinforcing to one another.