Peter Myers Digest: Dems' Population Replacement strategy

(0) Fewer electorates in rural Australia as immigrants flock to cities(1) Mass Immigration dilutes the political power of those already here - Tucker Carlson(2) Population Replacement in Europe(3) We Can Replace Them - Michelle Goldberg in NYT (Oct. 29, 2018)(4) The Coming Backlash - by Kurt Schlichter(5) Woke Corporations reconsider after Republican boycott over Voting Laws(0) Fewer electorates in rural Australia as immigrants flock to cities- by Peter Myers, April 17, 2021Australia's electoral laws stipulate approximately equal numbers of voters in each electorate.In recent decades, mass immigrations has boosted the number of electorates in big cities, and reduced those in rural areas.As the number of rural electorates shrinks, those electorates become larger and larger, many being bigger than entire countries of Europe.The other side of this is that, for rural voters, their political representation is being diluted.Map of Federal electorates in Australia: effect, rural voters are being disenfranchised.(1) Mass Immigration dilutes the political power of those already here - Tucker Carlson Carlson: The truth about demographic change and why Democrats want itNative-born Americans of every race and class are being systematically disenfranchised. We need to start talking about itBy Tucker Carlson | Fox NewsTucker fires back at criticism over immigration, voting comments'Tucker Carlson Tonight' host says the left is obsessed with 'demographic replacement'April 12, 2021 edition of "Tucker Carlson Tonight"Last week, we said something on television that the usual chorus of hyperaggressive liars is now pretending was somehow highly controversial. Ordinarily, we'd ignore all of this. Once you've been denounced as a White supremacist for quoting Martin Luther King Jr., you realize such criticism is all just all another form of social control. Honestly, who cares what they think?But in this one case, we thought it might be worth pausing to restate the original point, both because it was true and worth saying, and also because America badly needs a national conversation about it.On Thursday, our friend Mark Steyn guest-hosted the 7 p.m. hour on Fox. He did a segment on how federal authorities are allowing illegal aliens to fly without ID -- something that, in case you haven't noticed, you are not permitted to do. The following exchange took place in response to that story:TUCKER CARLSON, 'FOX NEWS PRIMETIME', APRIL 8: I'm laughing because this is one of about 10 stories that I know you've covered where the government shows preference to people who have shown absolute contempt for our customs, our laws, our system itself, and they're being treated better than American citizens.Tucker: Every time they import a new voter they dilute citizens powerNow, I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term "replacement," if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World. But they become hysterical because that's what's happening, actually.Let's just say if that's true, if look, if this was happening in your house, if you were in sixth grade, for example, and without telling you, your parents adopted a bunch of new siblings and gave them brand new bikes and let them stay up later and helped them with their homework and give them twice the allowance that they gave you. You would say to your siblings, "You know, I think we're being replaced by kids that our parents love more." And it would be kind of hard to argue against you because look at the evidence.So this matters on a bunch of different levels. But on the most basic level, it's a voting rights question. In a democracy, one person equals one vote. If you change the population, you dilute the political power of the people who live there. So every time they import a new voter, I'd become disenfranchized as a current voter. So I don't understand. I mean, every wants to make a racial issue out of it. "Oh, the White replacement." No, no, no. This is a voting rights question. I have less political power because they're importing a brand new electorate. Why should I sit back and take that? The power that I have as an American, guaranteed at birth, is one man, one vote, and they're diluting it. No, they're not allowed to do that. Why are we putting up with this?At least one prediction came true right away, all those little gatekeepers on Twitter did become hysterical. They've spent the last four days jumping up and down furiously, trying once again to pull the show off the air. Once again, they will fail, though it is amusing to see them keep at it. (They get so enraged. It's a riot.)But why all the anger? If someone says something you think is wrong, is your first instinct to hurt them? Probably not. Normal people don't respond that way. If you hear something you think is incorrect, you try to correct it. But getting the facts right is hardly the point of this exercise. The point is to prevent unauthorized conversations from starting in the first place. "Shut up, racist! No more questions!" You've heard that before.You wonder how much longer they imagine Americans are going to go along with this; an entire country forced to lie about everything all the time. It can't go on forever, but you can see why they're trying it.Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party's political ambitions. Let's say that again for emphasis, because it is the secret to the entire immigration debate: Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party's political ambitions. In order to win and maintain power. Democrats plan to change the population of the country. They're no longer trying to win you over with their program. They're obviously not trying to improve your life. They don't even really care about your vote anymore. Their goal is to make you irrelevant.That is provably true. And because it's true, it drives them absolutely crazy when you say it out loud. A hurt dog barks. They scream about how noting the obvious is immoral, that you're a racist if you dare to repeat things that they themselves proudly say. Most people go along with this absurd standard and dutifully shut up; they don't think they have a choice. But no matter what they're allowed to say in public, everyone understands the truth: When you change who votes, you change who wins. That fact has nothing inherently to do with race or nationality. It's the nature of democracy. It is always true. You can watch it happen for yourself and you probably have.All across the country, we have seen huge changes in election outcomes caused by demographic change. New people move in and they vote differently. As a practical matter, it doesn't matter what they look like or where they're from, even. All that matters is that they have different political views. This is every bit as true when the migrants come from Brooklyn as when they come from Oaxaca.In Vermont, White liberals fleeing the mess they made in New York turned the state blue. As recently as 1992, Vermont was reliably Republican, as hard to believe as that is. Vermont is now a parody of lifestyle liberalism. That's demographic change at work. You see the same thing happening in the state of New Hampshire as refugees from Massachusetts flood north and bring their bad habits with them.Montana, Idaho, and Nevada all face similar problems. The affluent liberals who wrecked California aren't sticking around to see how that ends. They're running to the pallid hideaways of Boise and Bozeman, distorting local culture and real estate markets as they do it. Pretty soon, people who are born in the Mountain West won't be able to live there. They'll be, yes, replaced by private equity barons, yoga instructors and senior vice presidents from Google. Beautiful places are always in danger of being overrun by the worst people. Ask anyone who grew up in Aspen.But in most of this country, it is immigration from other nations more than anything else that has driven political transformation. This is different from what we've seen in places like Vermont. Americans have every right to move to new states if they want, even if they have silly political opinions. But our leaders have no right to encourage foreigners to move to this country in order to change election results. Doing that is an attack on our democracy. Yet for decades, our leaders have done just that, and they keep doing it because it works.Consider Virginia. The counties across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. now contain one of the largest immigrant communities in the United States. Most of these immigrants are hardworking and decent people. Many have been very successful in business. Good for them. But they also have very different politics from the people who used to live there. Their votes have allowed Democrats to seize control of the entire state and change it into something unrecognizable. Governor, Blackface Klanrobes in Richmond owes his job to immigrants in Arlington and Falls Church.Similar trends are now underway in Georgia, North Carolina and many other states. Mass immigration increases the power of the Democratic Party, period. That's the reason Democrats support it. It's the only reason. If two hundred thousand immigrants from Poland showed up at our southern border tomorrow, Kamala Harris wouldn't promise them health care. Why? Simple: Poles tend to vote Republican. That's the difference. Democrats would deport those migrants immediately. N hand-wringing about how we're a nation of immigrants. Hundreds of thousands of likely Republican voters massing in Tijuana would qualify as a national crisis. We'd have a border wall by Wednesday.For Democrats, the point of immigration is not to show compassion to refugees, much less improve our country. It's definitely not about racial justice. Mass immigration hurts African-Americans, perhaps more than anyone else. Immigration is a means to electoral advantage. It is about power. More Democratic voters mean more power for Democratic politicians. That's the signature lesson of the state of California.Between 1948 and 1992, the state of California voted for exactly one Democratic presidential candidate. Among America's big population centers, in vivid contrast to Chicago and New York, California was reliably, proudly Republican. For eight years, no less a figure than Ronald Reagan ran the state. California had the country's best schools, the best infrastructure, the best economy, not to mention the prettiest national environment on the planet. California was a model for the world.In 1980, Ronald Reagan, California's former governor, became president of the United States. In retrospect, it never got any better for California. Midway through his second term, Reagan signed something called the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Though he likely didn't realize it at the time, that law made future Ronald Reagans impossible. The Immigration Reform and Control Act brought about an amnesty, and a path to citizenship, for nearly three million foreign nationals living in the U.S. illegally. The next year, by executive order, Reagan added to that number. He halted the deportation of another 100,000 illegal minors, the Dreamers of his day.The rest of the world watched carefully as this happened. Would-be migrants everywhere concluded that there was no real penalty for breaking America's laws. In fact, there was a reward. Reagan also signed a law that required hospitals to provide free medical care regardless of immigration status. The Supreme Court had already guaranteed free education to anyone who showed up without a visa. So: Free hospitals, free schools, and amnesty if you get caught. Why wouldn't the rest of the world come? They soon did.If you're ever bored, go back and read the coverage of the 1986 amnesty bill the day it passed. Everyone at the time, in both parties and the media, assured Americans that the new law would control our border. It was called the Immigration Reform and Control Act, after all. Well, the opposite happened: Huge new waves of migrants arrived immediately, many of them illegal. California was transformed virtually overnight into a Democratic state. In 1988, George H.W. Bush narrowly won California in the presidential election, but no Republican has won that state since. No Republican ever will win in California, not in our lifetimes. There are now about twice as many registered Democrats in California as there are Republicans.There's not much debate about how this happened. The counties in California with the highest percentage of Republicans are, not coincidentally, those with the lowest percentage of immigrants and vice versa. California changed because the population changed. Analysis of the 2012 presidential election, for example, showed that if you lived in the state of California in 1980, you probably still voted Republican. Your views hadn't really changed. But as your state swelled with foreign voters, your views became irrelevant. Your political power, the power to control your own life, disappeared with the arrival of new people who diluted your vote. That was the whole point.That's not democracy, it's cheating. Imagine watching a football game where one team decides to start the third quarter with an extra 40 players on the field. Would you consider that fair play? The Democratic Party did something very much like that in the state of California. They rigged the game with more people. They packed the electorate. As a result, Americans who grew up in California lost their most basic right in a democracy, the right to have their votes count.This was true for all native-born Americans, by the way, not just Republicans. Los Angeles now has the largest Latin American population outside of Mexico City. Whites make up fewer than 30% of the population, down from more than 90% in 1960. But a less noticed decline has occurred among African Americans. According to demographer Joel Kotkin, over the last 30 years, the proportion of Black residents in Los Angeles has dropped by half. San Francisco is now just 5% Black; in 1980, it was 13%. You've heard a lot lately about the necessity of Black political power. In California, that power is evaporating due to mass immigration.Democratic leaders never mention this trend, but it's obvious to the people who live there. One poll found that almost 60% of black people in California would very much like to leave. Many already have. The exodus of American-born Californians of every color began shortly after the 1986 amnesty. It has grown to a panicked rush. It can now cost you five times as much to drive a U-Haul out of California than to drive a U-Haul in. That's supply and demand at work. Not many Americans are moving to Los Angeles.Yet for every Californian who abandons the state, several other people arrive from foreign countries. That's why since 1990, the total population of California has grown by 10 million people. That's the equivalent of an entirely new Michigan and North Carolina in just 30 years. It's an awful lot of people in a very short period of time. Most of these new arrivals come from poor places. Their standard of living rises once they get to California. The state, however, has become much poorer. In 1986, California was the richest landmass of its size in the world. California now has more poor people than any state in the country as of this year, according to the best measurements available from the federal government. California has a higher poverty rate than Mississippi, indeed the highest in the nation.How did this happen? In a healthy country, one that prized honesty and free inquiry and legitimate social science, we wouldn't be asking that question urgently. How did a place as idyllic as California become so miserable that huge numbers of people who were born there decided to abandon their homes and flee? If you cared about the United States, you would want to know the answer and you'd want to make absolutely certain it didn't happen anywhere else. Yet the Democratic Party is working to make certain it happens everywhere else. That's not a slur. It's not a guess. We know it because they brag about it constantly.The left becomes unhinged if you point out that American voters are being replaced by Democratic Party loyalists from other countries. You're absolutely not allowed to say that, but they're allowed to say that. And they do. They say it all the time. They've done studies on it, written long books about it, talked about it endlessly on television, often in the ugliest racial terms. They're not ashamed at all, they don't think they have to be ashamed. In the fall of 2018, a columnist for The New York Times wrote a piece that was literally entitled "We Can Replace Them".In case you wondered who the "them" was, the column told you explicitly. Thanks to demographic change, the author noted with hearty approval, the state of Georgia will soon be controlled by Democrats: "The potential is there. Georgia is less than 53 [%} non-Hispanic [W]hite". Again, that's a New York Times columnist, not some QAnon blogger.They tell you that demographic replacement is an obsession on the right. No, it's not. They say it's some horrifying right-wing conspiracy theory, that the right is obsessed with it. No, the left is obsessed with it. In fact, it's the central idea of the modern Democratic Party. Demographic replacement is their obsession because it's their path to power. In 2013, future Obama Cabinet secretary Julian Castro went on CBS to explain why Texas will soon be a Democratic state.CASTRO: In a couple of presidential cycles, you'll be -- on Election Night, you'll be announcing that we're calling the 38 electoral votes of Texas for the Democratic nominee for president. It's changing. It's going to become a purple state and then a blue state because of the demographics, because of the population growth of folks from outside of Texas.No one attacked Julian Castro for saying that. No one asked who these "folks from outside of Texas" might be or why they had a right to control the future of people who already lived in Texas. Nobody said a word about it. It seemed normal, it was normal, it still is normal. In Washington, what qualifies as shocking is any real attempt to protect democracy.In the summer of 2019, then-President Donald Trump promised -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he was going to deport huge numbers of foreign nationals living here illegally. Kamala Harris's response to this was revealing. She could have argued, as Democrats often do, that deportation is cruel and it's un-American. But she didn't say that. Instead, she told the truth about it,"Let's call this what it is," Harris wrote on Twitter. "It's an attempt to remake the demographics of our country by cracking down on immigrants. That this threat is coming from the president of the United States is deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values. We will fight this."But wait a second, Trump had announced had announced he was deporting illegal aliens, who aren't allowed to vote in our elections. They're not even allowed to live here. How was sending them home to their own country "an attempt to remake the demographics of our country"? Illegal aliens shouldn't even count in the demographics of our country. They're not Americans.Kamala Harris's response only makes sense if you believe that the millions of foreigners breaking our laws to live here are future Democratic voters, and that's exactly what she does believe. It's shocking if you think about it, and that's why you're not allowed to think about it. Thinking about what Kamala Harris is planning, Kamala Harris herself would like you to know, is deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values. In other words, submit to our scheme or you're immoral.If you heard prominent people talk like this in any other country, you'd be confused. A nation's leadership class admitting they hope to replace their own citizens seems grotesque. If you believed in democracy, you would work to protect the potency of every citizen's vote, obviously. You wonder if people even debate questions like this in countries that don't hate themselves, like Japan or South Korea or Israel.Go to the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) website sometime if you'd like a glimpse of what an unvarnished conversation about a country's national interest might look like. In a short essay posted to the site, the ADL explains why the state of Israel should not allow more Arabs to become citizens with voting rights:"With historically high birth rates among the Palestinians and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world," the ADL explains, "Jews would quickly be a minority within a bi-national state, thus likely ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically -- and potentially physically -- vulnerable."It is unrealistic and unacceptable," the ADL continues, "to expect the State of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory."Now, from Israel's perspective, this makes perfect sense. Why would any democratic nation make its own citizens less powerful? Isn't that the deepest betrayal of all? In the words of the ADL, why would a government subvert its own sovereign existence? Good question. Maybe ADL President Jonathan Greenblatt will join "Tucker Carlson Tonight" some time to explain and tell us whether that same principle applies to the United States. Most Americans believe it does. Unfortunately, most Americans don't have a say in the matter.Most Americans aren't even allowed to have the conversation. So they watch from the sidelines as their democracy is murdered by people who claim to be its defenders. "Democracy! Democracy! Democracy!" screams the Twitter mob, even as the votes of the people who were born here declined steadily in value -- diluted and increasingly worthless, like the U.S. dollar. This is what it looks like when an entire native population -- Black and White, but every one of them an American -- is systematically disenfranchized. Middle class Americans become less powerful every year. They have less economic power, and thanks to mass immigration, they now have less political power. The leaders making these changes have no sympathy for their victims. They blame the country for its own suffering. You always hate the people you hurt.That's all true. Every honest person knows that it's true. As long as we're here, we're going to keep saying it out loud.This article is adapted from Tucker Carlson's opening commentary on the April 12, 2021 edition of "Tucker Carlson Tonight."(2) Population Replacement in Europe Replacement of Population is Taking Place in Europeby Giulio MeottiJune 14, 2017 at 5:00 amPeople-smugglers bring the migrants to the NGOs' ships, which then reach Italian seaports. Another legal enquiry has been opened about the mafia's economic interests in managing the migrants after their arrival.One cannot compare the migrants to the Jews fleeing Nazism. Pope Francis, for example, recently compared the migrants' centers to Nazi "concentration camps". Where are the gas chambers, medical "experiments," crematoria, slave labor, forced marches and firing squads? These comparisons are spread by the media for a precise reason: shutting down the debate.By 2065, it is expected that 14.4 million migrants will arrive. Added to the more than five million immigrants currently in Italy, 37% of the population is expected to be foreigners: more than one out of every three inhabitants.First, it was the Hungarian route. Then it was the Balkan route. Now Italy is the epicenter of this demographic earthquake, and it has become Europe's soft underbelly as hundreds of thousands of migrants arrive.With nearly 10,000 arrivals in one recent three-day period, the number of migrants in 2017 exceeded 60,000 -- 48% more than the same period last year, when they were 40,000. Over Easter weekend a record 8,000 migrants were rescued in the Mediterranean and brought to Italy. And that is just the tip of the iceberg: during the summer, the number of arrivals from Libya will only increase.A wooden boat carrying migrants waits to be escorted to the Topaz Responder vessel, as members of the Migrant Offshore Aid Station make a rescue at sea on November 21, 2016 in Pozzollo, Italy. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)A replacement of population is under way in Italy. But if you open the mainstream newspapers, you barely find these figures. No television station has dedicated any time to what is happening. No criticism is allowed. The invasion is considered a done deal.In 2016, 176,554 migrants landed in Italy -- an eight-fold increase since 2014. In 2015, there were 103,792. In 2014, there were 66,066. In 2013, there were just 22,118. In the last four years, 427,000 migrants reached Italy. In only the first five months of this year, 2017, Italy received 10% of the total number of migrants of the last four years.There are days when the Italian navy and coast guard rescue 1,700 migrants in 24 hours. The country is exhausted. There are Italian villages where one-tenth of the population is already made up of new migrants. We are talking about small towns of 220 residents and 40 migrants.One of the major aspects of this demographic revolution is that it is taking place in a country which is dramatically aging. According with a new report from the Italian Office of Statistics, Italy's population will fall to 53.7 million in half a century -- a loss of seven million people. Italy, which has one of the world's lowest fertility rates, will lose between 600,000 to 800,000 citizens every year. Immigrants will number more than 14 million, about one-fourth of the total population. But in the most pessimistic scenario, the Italian population could drop to 46 million, a loss of 14 million people.In 2050, a third of Italy's population will be made up of foreigners, according to a UN report, "Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Decline and Aging Populations", which designs a cultural melting-pot that could explode in cultural and social tensions. The level of arrivals will fall from 300,000 to 270,000 individuals per year by 2065; during the same period, it is expected that 14.4 million people will arrive. Added to the more than five million immigrants currently in Italy, 37% of the population is expected to be foreigners: more than one out of every three inhabitants.In addition, the humanitarian-aid system has been hit by new scandals. "The investigative hypothesis to be verified is that subjects linked to ISIS act as logistical support to migration flows", was a warning just delivered in front of the Schengen Committee, to the Italian anti-mafia and counterterrorism prosecutor, Franco Roberti. There are now judges investigating the connection between the migrants' smugglers in North Africa and the Italian NGOs rescuing them in the Mediterranean. People-smugglers bring the migrants to the NGOs' ships, which then reach Italian seaports. Another legal enquiry has been opened about the mafia's economic interests in managing the migrants after their arrival.Only 2.65 percent of those migrants who arrived in Italy were granted asylum as genuine refugees, according to the United Nations. The other people are apparently not fleeing wars and genocide. Yet, despite all this evidence, one cannot compare the migrants to the Jews fleeing Nazism. Pope Francis, for example, recently compared the migrants' centers to Nazi "concentration camps". One wonders where are the gas chambers, medical "experiments," crematoria, slave labor, forced marches and firing squads. Italian newspapers are now running articles about the "Mediterranean Holocaust", comparing the migrants dead by trying to reach the southern of Italy to the Jews gassed in Auschwitz. Another journalist, Gad Lerner, to support the migrants, described their condition with the same word coined by the Nazis against the Jews: untermensch, inferior human beings. These comparisons are spread by the media for a precise reason: shutting down the debate.To understand how shameful these comparisons are, we have to take a look at the cost of every migrant to Italy's treasury. Immigrants, once registered, receive a monthly income of 900 euros per month (30 euros per day for personal expenses). Another 900 euros go to the Italians who house them. And 600 euros are needed to cover insurance costs. Overall, every immigrant costs to Italy 2,400 euros a month. A policeman earns half of that sum. And a naval volunteer who saves the migrants receives a stipend of 900 euros a month. Were the Nazis so kind with their Jewish untermenschen?The cost of migrants on Italy's public finances is already immense and it will destroy the possibility of any economic growth. "The overall impact on the Italian budget for migrant spending is currently quantified at 2.6 billion [euros] for 2015, expected to be 3.3 billion for 2016 and 4.2 for 2017, in a constant scenario", explains the Ministry of the Economy. If one wants to put this in proportion, these numbers give a clearer idea of how much Italy is spending in this crisis: in 2017, the government is spending 1.9 billion euros for pensions, but 4.2 billion euros for migrants, and 4.5 billion euros for the national housing plan against 4.2 billion euros for migrants.The Italian cultural establishment is now totally focused on supporting this mass migration. The Italian film nominated at the Academy Awards last year is Fire at Sea, in which the main character is a doctor treating the migrants upon their arrival. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi carried with him 27 DVDs of the film to a session of the European Council. Italy's commercial television channels produced many television programs about the migrants, such as "Lampedusa", from the name of the Italian island. 100,000 Italians even took the streets of Milan for a "rally of solidarity" with the migrants. What "solidarity" can there be if half a million people have been rescued by the Italian government and the whole country seems determined to open its doors to all of North Africa?Winston Churchill was convinced that the Mediterranean was the "soft underbelly" of Hitler's Europe. It has now become the soft underbelly of Europe's transformation into Eurabia.Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.(3) We Can Replace Them - Michelle Goldberg in NYT (Oct. 29, 2018) from Can Replace ThemIn Georgia, a chance to rebuke white nationalism.By Michelle GoldbergOct. 29, 2018For a few hours on Saturday morning, I felt good about America. I was at a smallish rally in the Atlanta suburb of Riverdale, listening to Democratic politicians including Senator Kamala Harris and Georgia's Stacey Abrams, who could become the first African-American female governor in American history. Abrams told a story she often repeats on the campaign trail, about being 17 and arriving at the governor's mansion for a reception for Georgia's high school valedictorians.Her family didn't have a car, and she described getting off the bus and walking with her parents along a driveway to a set of black gates. A guard approached, and she remembered him saying, "This is a private event — you don't belong here."Though they were eventually let in, Abrams recalled little of the event itself. "The only clear memory I have of that day is a man standing in front of the most powerful place in Georgia, looking at me and telling me I don't belong," she said. "But with your help in 10 days we will open those gates wide!" The crowd stood, applauding and cheering, as Abrams said, "Because this is our Georgia!"When the rally was over I checked the news. Reports of the killings at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh were coming in. The social media posts of the man arrested in the shootings echoed a lie being peddled by Donald Trump, Fox News and some Republican politicians, which paints a group of bedraggled migrants about a thousand miles away as a dangerous invading horde subsidized by a shadowy puppet master. The gunman's rampage, believed to be the deadliest anti-Semitic massacre in American history, came on the heels of a bomb campaign against leading Democrats that the police say was carried out by a fanatical Trump supporter, and by what the authorities describe as the racist murder of two African-Americans in their 60s at a Kentucky supermarket.Right now America is tearing itself apart as an embittered white conservative minority clings to power, terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority. The divide feels especially stark in Georgia, where the midterm election is a battle between Trumpist reaction and the multicultural America whose emergence the right is trying, at all costs, to forestall."Any time there is progress made there will always be moments of retrenchment," Abrams said to me later on Saturday. But, she added, "what I am more excited about is the counterforce that we're seeing in the number of people running for office who represent a much more forward-looking, progressive vision."Abrams's goal is to put together a coalition of African-American and other minority voters and white liberals. The potential is there; Georgia is less than 53 percent non-Hispanic white. "Georgia is a blue state if everybody votes," DuBose Porter, chairman of the Democratic Party of Georgia, told me.Abrams's opponent, the Georgia secretary of state Brian Kemp, ahead by a couple of percentage points in the polls, doesn't want to see that happen. Last week, Rolling Stone obtained audio of Kemp telling donors of his "concern" about what might happen in Georgia "if everybody uses and exercises their right to vote." As the secretary of state overseeing his own election, he's taken steps to make that harder. His office has frozen new voter registrations for minor discrepancies with official records, and, starting in 2012, purged around 1.5 million people from the voter rolls — some simply because they didn't vote in previous elections. He's fighting a court order to stop rejecting absentee ballots over questions about the authenticity of their signatures.Kemp is the candidate of aggrieved whiteness. During the primary, he ran an ad boasting that he drives a big truck "just in case I need to round up criminal illegals and take 'em home myself." (That would be kidnapping.) A person who claimed to be a Kemp canvasser recently wrote on the racist website VDare, "I know everything I need to know about what happens when blacks are in charge from Detroit, Haiti, South Africa, etc." Kemp cannot be blamed for the words of his volunteers, but he's made little discernible effort to distance himself from bigots. This month he posed for a photograph with a white nationalist fan in a T-shirt saying, "Allah is not God, and Mohammad is not his prophet."Racists in Georgia, like racists all over America, are emboldened. A schoolteacher in Atlanta told me that over the weekend K.K.K. fliers were strewn around his suburb.But the forces of democracy are rising, too. In Georgia's highly diverse Seventh District, Carolyn Bourdeaux, part of the wave of women inspired to run for office by revulsion at Trump, is challenging Representative Rob Woodall, a Republican. Bourdeaux said that the Seventh, a majority-minority district with immigrants from all over the world, has been on the front lines of voter suppression. Nevertheless, her campaign said that early-voting turnout has reached presidential levels.On Saturday morning, Abrams closed by reminding the crowd of Kemp's views on democracy. "He said he is concerned that if everyone eligible to vote in Georgia does so, he will lose this election," she said. "Let's prove him right." In a week, American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most. Show them they're being replaced.(4) The Coming Backlash - by Kurt Schlichter Coming Backlash. By Kurt Schlichter.They want to blind us. They want to gag us. They want us tip-toeing through the PC minefield, afraid to take a step less we trigger a detonation of cancellation.But have you noticed the rumblings of resistance?Have you noticed the stirrings of pushback?For a while we had Trump to do the pushing, but with him in Florida we can now see others stepping up. Ron DeSantis is banning critical racism. Brian Kemp found some vertebrae and he's defying Delta, Coke, and "Major League Chinaball" to demand election integrity.The other night, Tucker Carlson charged into the "replacement theory" ambush where we are not supposed to say what the Democrats explicitly say, which is that they intend to import pliable foreign peasants to replace American citizens at the ballot box (of course, sensible Latinos had other ideas, coming around to Trump significantly in 2020). The garbage media and establishment announced that this fact must not be spoken and Tucker spoke the hell out of it.The backlash begins.Right now, it is mere stirrings. Americans are slow to anger, but they are mighty in their wrath. When woke bull-Schiff was confined to college campuses, we could live with it. We didn't see it. It was not in our faces. But now it is. It's everywhere in the institutions, and it's filtering down to people in their jobs, on their televisions and even in their homes when young Kaden returns from Cornell as "Kasey" and informs xir parents they are committing literal violence on xim by not paying xir tuition anymore.Do they imagine that people will just give up and give in?Some will. The Fredocons did, of course, but they are weak.But with Normal Americans, the risk is mistaking patience and restraint for weakness. …The backlash is building. The anger is real and rising. Yeah, everyone's getting their .45s and AR15s, which is proper — an armed people is a free people — but the reality is we are unlikely to get to the kind of crisis where they come into active play. As much as some leftists salivate at the idea of declaring war on normal people (read their social media and tell me I'm wrong), there's almost certainly not going to be civil conflict, though with cops as competent as Taser Girl and our broken military focused on pretending boys can turn into girls, I kind of like patriots' odds against those few traitors who would not quit rather than suppress the American people for the benefit of their leftist masters. No, the violence will be limited to Democrat areas as Democrat voters burn Democrat cities ruled by Democrat politicians. Which would seem make it a Democrat problem.But the backlash is coming, peaceful but unstoppable. First, you'll see the social pushback. We will see brave pols like DeSantis and the newly-concervawoke Kemp. We'll see conservative media figures refusing to honor the narrative guardrails of the lib-fascists, just like Tucker does.Hope so. Seems a bit late, but then I am always early.(5) Woke Corporations reconsider after Republican boycott over Voting Laws to Republicans: Why can't we all just get along?By Paul Mirengoff.When woke corporations started attacking Georgia over its new voting law, Coca-Cola led the charge. Its chief executive James Quincey went on television to declare the law "unacceptable."But now, following outrage by Republicans over corporate America's attempt to do the Democrats' bidding on state election law issues, Coke isn't so sure that alienating a large portion of the electorate is a good idea.Thus, as Karen Townsend observes, Coke's name didn't appear on a two-page ad in yesterday's print editions of the New York Times and Washington Post that expressed opposition to voting law reforms under consideration in various states. Delta Airlines, another leader in the charge against Georgia's law, also declined to join in the latest effort to virtue signal and help Democrats.General Motors, Netflix, Starbucks, BlackRock, Target, Facebook, Bank of America, MasterCard, and, inevitably, United Airlines were among the virtue signalers. …Unacceptably racist and woke:But, whatever it's now saying about voting, Coke hasn't given up on woke. As we reported here, the company is requiring that law firms representing it set aside 30 percent of billable hours on Coke matters for "diverse" attorneys, with at least half of that time going to Black attorneys. This, despite the fact that Blacks make up only about 5 percent of Americans licensed to practice law. …Coca-Cola has brazenly announced that it is basing contracting decisions on race. It is thumbing its nose at the nation's civil rights laws. There can be no common ground with Coke on this.