Have you ever gotten the feeling that “the Left,” however you personally define it, is trying to get rid of you? I’d advise you to trust your gut, because that’s exactly what they’re trying to do. Why? The answer lies in what is known as the Curley effect.
What is the Curley Effect?
In the early 1900’s, the Boston mayor James Michael Curley wanted to implement policies that would shore up his voting bloc and reduce the power of the opposition. He represented the poorest and most distinctly ethnic of Boston’s Irish population. Boston’s Brahmins despised him for his policies, his corruption, and his abrasive and confrontational rhetoric. They were his loyal opposition, they always worked against him. Curley’s share of Boston’s vote increased in the share of poor Irish among the Bostonians. Unsurprisingly, he (successfully) attempted to engineer Boston’s demographics into a voting bloc of citizens that would favor him, but did so through a series of moves that actually worked to impoverish Boston & hurt the people he was supposed to be representing. A politician or a political party can achieve long-term political dominance by tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the implementation of policies that strangle and stifle the economic health of the region. Counter-intuitively, making a city poorer can lead to political success for those who engineer the impoverishment.
This strategy of increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies is named after Curley, but the tactic is often used, with the Democrat party enjoying a particularly high success rate when utilizing this policy. In his 24 years as mayor, Detroit’s Coleman Young drove White residents and businesses away with his aggressive anti-White rhetoric & culture, high taxes, and proliferation of lawlessness amongst the Black population. In the landmark academic paper that formalized the Curley effect, they noted that:
‘‘Under Young, Detroit has become not merely an American city that happens to have a black majority, but a black metropolis, the first major Third World city in the United States. The trappings are all there—showcase projects, black-fisted symbols, an external enemy, and the cult of personality’’
Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe abused, allowed the murders of, and seized the farms & wealth of the Rhodesian White farmers en masse after the defeat of the Rhodesian government, openly encouraging their emigration even at huge cost to the economy. Today, his citizens starve while he begs the White farmers to return. As we can see, the tactic isn’t merely an American phenomenon.
Here’s an example of how the Curley effect works: Assume that a mayor implements policies that ultimately redistribute wealth from the upper & middle class to the lower class through various means. The lower class of this city now becomes economically dependent on the politicians who engineered this flow of capital, so they give them their undivided electoral support (often this works in conjunction with natural ethnic voting patterns found in American politics, which we previously covered here). This support comes in the form of votes, campaign contributions, get-out-the-vote drives, protests of opposition events, etc.
As the rhetoric of the party combines with high taxes to fund the redistribution, it generally triggers a flight of tax refugees from the cities to the suburbs outside of city limits. Ultimately, this shrinks the tax base of the city, while at the same time reducing the opposition to the ruling party on the city’s voter registration rolls, thereby ensuring an electoral majority for the party running the redistribution scheme. The financial troubles that follow are often stymied for decades through state and federal stimulus programs, but eventually you end up with cities like Detroit, referred to as:
“…the first major Third World city in the United States.”
by the Harvard professors Edward Glaeser and Andrei Shleifer who formalized and popularized the term.
The Curley Effect: Demographics Edition
But the Curley effect isn’t merely the product of state beneficiaries and class electoral conflict. Indeed, over the last half-century, the Democratic party and the broader Left have been engaging in the largest scale attempt at inducing the Curley effect ever seen. Through the support for mass non-White immigration into America and Europe, and more recently through their demands of “No Borders! No Walls!”, the international Left and the forces associated with it are attempting to forever alter the electoral balance of power and ensure a permanent electoral dominance. In fact, American voting patterns are easily predictable when examined via racial demographics, as we’ve already previously written about here. By all practical accounts, the Republican Party is the party of White Americans and the Democrat Party is the party of non-Whites.
The Democrats and the Left across the Western world know that they cannot gain electoral dominance via traditional methods; thus when the existing people will not do, they have simply elected to acquire a new people. Since 1965, America has acquired 59 million new immigrants, which does not include the children of these immigrants in that figure. These new immigrants are overwhelmingly non-White, which
- Is antithetical to the wishes of the Founding Fathers (note that the 1790, 1795, and 1924 Naturalization Acts limited those who may be naturalized to only Whites).
- An existential threat to the ethnocultural stability of the historic American Nation
- Results in the Democrat party gaining votes at an 8:2 ratio
As a result, while Republicans should be sweeping the country, they aren’t because of the effects of the Hart-Cellar Act. Without post-1965 immigrants, Obama never would have been elected president, and Romney would have won with a bigger landslide against Obama in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter in 1980. These aren’t guesses; they’re provable facts. Obama beat Romney by less than 5 million votes in a presidential election in which about 125 million votes were cast. More than 30 million of Obama’s votes came from people who arrived under the Hart-Cellar act; fewer than 10 million of Romney’s did.
Economic Effects of Migration
But the ethnic diversification & subsequent loss of social trust & capital isn’t the only loss for White Americans. They’re feeling it in the wallet as well. As Jason Richwine at the Center for Immigration Studies notes:
51% of immigrant households used at least one federal welfare program — cash, food, housing, or medical care — compared to 30 percent of native households.
That same study also went on to note that:
- The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41% higher than that received by the average native household.
- The average immigrant household consumes 33% more cash welfare, 57% more food assistance, and 44% more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups.
- At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region — 86% higher than the costs of native households.
- Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 (driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children), while legal immigrant households cost $6,378.
- Over 24% of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8% of native households. In addition, 13% of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6% of native households.
From a purely economic point of view, this redistribution of wealth to foreigners results in the native Americans feeling the same economic pressures as the upper and middle class citizens in the fictitious example above. As they leave the cities (which is where racial minorities & immigrants always migrate to) in order to escape the devastating socioeconomic effects of diversity, the Curley effect can be seen clearly. Unfortunately, this behavior isn’t limited to the United States, but is being pushed in nearly all White European nations. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban has even remarked on the issue, saying that:
“We live in a conspiracy where secret and behind closed doors decisions are being made to import leftist [non-White] voters,” he explained.
What this ultimately means is that the Left is actively engaged in the dispossession and minoritization of the White majority of the nations affected. If they succeed, this will result in the economic problems that are associated with Curley effect attempts, in addition to permanently shifting the electoral balance of power.
Dysgenic Effects of Migration
Beyond the economic problems of the Curley effect that will be felt are the dysgenic effects of mass migration and of open borders. The real problem is that cities are what’s called “genetic shredders.”  The specific phenomena I am going to discuss with respect to the mass migration of non-White Third World peoples is called “Double relaxed Darwinian Selection” (DRDS), and the long-term effects are absolutely disastrous. The study I will primarily be discussing was performed primarily on the Danish people, but has implications for the entire Western world where mass migration of non-White foreigners is occurring. So just what did this 2011 study find?
- Large birth differentials will drive future population expansion, and low-IQ immigrants (IQs < 90) consistently display higher birth rates than better endowed immigrants (IQ > 90). Average population IQ is sure to decline.
- Ethnic Danes can be expected to recede from representing 97% of the population in 1979 to 33 percent in 2072, whereas the non-Western representation rises from 12 percent in 1979 to 60+ percent in 2072. The actual transition is probably larger, because the UN Western–non-Western fertility rates surely under-predict.
- Still worse, long-term selection processes are largely irreversible, even in the politically highly unlikely case of total stop for non-Western immigration. Gifted immigrant women may lower their fertility when engaged in higher education, but their relatively low number will not affect the overall picture.
- Projection of foreign births by IQ bands suggests that the numerical share of the IQ 70–85 group rapidly increases its share to 50+% of the Danish population around 2050. This means that low IQ children from sub-Saharan, Middle Eastern, North African, Latin American and Caribbean countries come to dominate the classrooms in Danish primary schools around 2050.
- In terms of total population growth, mainly non-Western citizens with IQ 70–85 can be expected to numerically surpass the mainly Western group with IQs 90–104 at about 2065.
- Citizen foreigners will numerically outnumber ethnic Danes around 2085.
So what are the sociocultural effects of these devastating dysgenic facts? Ultimately, we are in for major cultural changes. The population will likely generally adopt the cultural characteristics of the foreigners, among which include the breakdown of the traditional family due to changes in the unconscious reproductive strategies of the foreigners (refer to r/k selection theory), changes in lifetime cohabitation without marriage, increased frequency of divorce, and of single parenthood.
It will also contribute to the breakdown of Western democracies.
“Quality of democracy rises systematically from the lowest to the highest level of national IQ. Almost all of the 48 countries studied with IQs above 90 were democracies in 2006, whereas for countries with IQs below 90, less than 20 percent had always been democratic.
While we are generally against demotic systems, democracy being chief among them, the necessity of the end of democracy due to the dysgenic effects on the population comes at a cost too high.
Additionally, national wealth is also sensitive to genotypic damage. Meisenberg (2010) found reciprocal effects between IQ and GDP. A drop of 5 IQ points predicts a 35% decline of Danish GDP (Meisenberg, personal communication December 2010). The damage implies that even if fertile low-IQ non-Western immigrants are the ultimate winners in the demographic transition, they will have immivaded and conquered a far lesser country. Danish average IQ will, for example, will be approaching the projected mean immigrant of IQ 86 at this time.
As Dr. Helmuth Nyborg, who conducted the study stated,
An intellectual corrosion this size will have undermined the economic and educational infra-structure of Denmark, and ultimately made its democracy unsustainable. Another factor is the increased frequency of partly heritable antidemocratic attitudes, authoritarian culture, and dogmatic religious preferences, traits often seen in low-IQ countries.
The genotypic IQ decline will ruin the economic and social infrastructure needed for quality education, welfare, democracy and civilization. DRDS is currently unopposed politically, so existing fertility differentials may eventually lead to Western submission or civil resistance.
Again, we run into the problem of the ends not justifying the means.
Immigration, Elections, & the International Left
As we can see, the long-term effects of the demographic shift being forced upon us by the Left are absolutely disastrous. While the economic effects will modulate our behavior in the short term, the long-term dysgenic effects on our social capital due to mass migration of non-White foreigners via legal, illegal, or open borders methods are absolutely devastating to our ability to maintain our economic, social, and geopolitical hegemony. Those in power, both on the Right and on the Left, are complicit in this; those on the Left actively engineered the immivasion, while those on the Right benefited from it via reduced wages while being too afraid of being called a racist to stand up for their own constituency.
Ultimately, those in control of the international Left believe that your dispossession, minoritization, and that the fraying of our social fabric is worth an easier re-election campaign & unopposed ability to wield political power for influence and gain. Do you?
Meisenberg, G. (2010). The reproduction of intelligence. Intelligence, 38, 220–230.
Meisenberg, G. (2010). Personal email communication (December).