Nick put out another video, in which he argues that changing demographics will turn America socialist and more like Brazil:
I agree that demographic change will mean more states turning blue in regard to national elections, similar to what happened to California, as Nick points out. Also, I agree that white voters tend to be more malleable, switching from democratic to republican or vice-versa, such as in California or the South, whereas minority voters are less inclined to switch and tend to be reliable democratic voting blocs even if their own personal views lean more culturally conservative. But this does not necessarily imply socialism. Socialism is a word that has many definitions. Socialism, I think in the context of the video and in political parlance, means an expansion of the welfare state as well as increased ‘social justice.’ I agree, that if this is the dentition of socialism Nick is alluding to, then America is likely to become more socialist under changing demographics. But not necessarily more socialist, as in the government having more control over companies or increased wealth redistribution. Having democratic presidents is not necessarily bad for the private sector, as shown by how well the economy and stock market did under Clinton and Obama [how well the economy did under Obama is debatable, but there was no double-dip recession as many were predicting], and also evidenced by the economic successes of New York and Silicon Valley in spite of such states and regions being deep blue. Rather than the welfare state subsuming the private sector, they expand in parallel. [1] As I have said, the public sector runs parallel to the private one, as opposed to less economically successful countries such as Brazil, Spain, Italy, and Turkey, in which which governments exert much more control over the private sector, and are much closer to socialism than America is. This a subtle distinction that is often overlooked, because people assume that a large public sector must be to the detriment of the private sector.
The US government’s role provide infrastructure , defense, and a set of rules for individuals and firms to abide by, but otherwise tends to keep a hands-off approach. That is not the case with most countries, in which the private and public sectors are much more intertwined. That is why, economically, I don’t think America is much at risk of becoming like Brazil or socialist, although the rise of Sanders, Warren, and AOC, who combine positive and negative socialism, shows that the possibility cannot be totally dismissed. The US government is mostly a dog and pony show that puts on these displays to keep people connived that all . Congress is out of session most of the time and does little, except during crisis that necessitate urgent action such as 911 or the 2008 financial crisis. Look at Trump, for example. He cannot even do anything about social media censorship against his very supporters, assuming he even wants to do anything, which is debatable. These companies have pretty much free reign to do whatever why want, whether it’s gathering user data or censoring certain views. Vox Day may talk about how ‘evil is being exposed’ under Trump and to ‘trust the plan,’ but evil pays little mind and there is no plan [unless you include staving off the democrats as part of the plan] or much of anything happening behind the scenes, because such evil works in plain sight with impunity knowing that nothing or no one can do anything about it, and after Trump is gone what little was changed will be reverted by his successor. Sure, the Prince Andrew-Epstein connection was exposed, but nothing will come of it. Vox may also argue that the reason why democrats oppose Trump so strongly is because they are scared or losing. They are not scared and are not losing. Rather, they are running the clock down, which was their strategy from the beginning. Ironically, is was #metoo that has caused the most disruption to the Hollywood and the rest of left-wing media establishment, due to the left eating their own, not anything Trump has done.
This is why conservative inc. is not concerned about losing due to demographics, because conservatism is not necessarily about conserving culture but rather about a compromise between the interests of the public sector versus the private sector, that favors the private sector. Liberalism is the opposite, favoring the public sector. In either case, it’s not about race, culture, ethnicity, tradition, etc. For example, consider immigration. The private sector benefits because more people means more consumer spending, which is pure top-line growth for large corporations such as Amazon, Walmart, Disney, and Nike. Even if immigrants are a net-negative , i.e. having a negative effective tax rate, corporations and elites do not bear that cost, but rather it’s simply added to the debt, which is rolled over at a very low interest rate. So who pays for the national debt? Pretty much no one, at least not in the same way that someone pays a phone bill. But the fallacy of composition is assuming that a national debt is like a household debt.
[1] If socialism is broadly defined to mean ‘government intervention in the private sector,’ then increased government spending and contracts, which causes a rise in aggregate demand but otherwise preserves individual and firm autonomy, can be considered ‘positive socialism.’ ‘Negative socialism’ is excessive regulation, nationalization=, and wealth redistribution, particularly, wealth taxes or confiscation, in which such autonomy is not preserved.