Let's be honest: most political commentary is noise. Then, every once in a while, someone walks on television and drops a cold, clinical description of a political strategy so brutal that the studio lights almost feel too bright.

That happened on 25 November 2025 when Stephen Miller went on Jesse Watters Primetime and explained, in under two minutes, exactly how a two-party democracy turns into a one-party state, without firing a single shot or rigging a single voting machine.

His case study? Minnesota.

Twenty-five years ago Minnesota was purple. Republicans won the governorship in 1998, 2002, 2006, and 2010. George W. Bush came within 2–3 points of carrying it twice. Today? The GOP has not won a single statewide election since 2006. Not one. The Twin Cities now deliver Democratic margins that would make Chicago blush.

What changed?

Miller's answer, word for word:

"Look how powerful the Democrat Party became in Minnesota once they flooded it with 100,000 Somalis… Once the elections were decided by clan rivalries and ethnic feuds… That's their model for America."

Notice what he is actually saying. He is not attacking any community. He is describing a repeatable political technology:

1.Import a very large number of new voters from anywhere on earth in a very concentrated period of time.

2.Make zero serious demand that they adopt the host country's civic norms, language, or political culture.

3.Watch them organise and vote as a cohesive, high-turnout bloc that owes its loyalty to whichever party controls the immigration tap and the welfare bureaucracy.

Do that in enough swing states and the national electoral map calcifies. The competition ends. You no longer have to persuade the median voter; you just have to keep the new bloc larger and more mobilised than the old native majority.

Minnesota is the proof of concept. The Somali-American population in the Twin Cities went from a few thousand in the early 1990s to well over 100,000 today (official estimates are conservative). Certain Minneapolis precincts now turn out at 85–92% and vote 90–95% Democratic. That is higher turnout and higher uniformity than almost any native-born demographic in the country.

And once the bloc is big enough, the state is no longer competitive. Game over.

This is not conjecture. It's arithmetic.

You don't need every immigrant to vote 95–5. You only need the marginal seat or the marginal state to flip once, and then the new electorate entrenches itself. The party that delivered the voters writes the rules, funds the community organisations, and oversees the resettlement contracts. The incentive to demand assimilation collapses, because assimilation would weaken the bloc.

Miller's chilling closer:

"It is much easier to rule over an empire of ashes than it is for the Democratic Party to rule over a functioning, Western, high-trust society with a strong middle class."

Translation: a fragmented, low-trust, high-dependency society is easier to govern with a permanent majority than a cohesive, self-reliant, middle-class society that still believes it can throw the bums out.

And before anyone screams "that's racist," ask yourself which part is factually disputable:

That Minnesota has flipped from swing state to one-party state? Undisputed.

That the Twin Cities now contain the largest Somali diaspora in the Western hemisphere? Undisputed.

That certain wards vote at near-unanimous levels for one party? You can look up the precinct data yourself.

That federal prosecutors uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud in Minnesota welfare programs serving new arrivals? Also undisputed (see the Feeding Our Future scandal and the ongoing autism-therapy cases).

The mechanism works the same if the new voters come from Guatemala, Bangladesh, Ukraine, or anywhere else. The country of origin is almost irrelevant. What matters is speed, scale, concentration, and the deliberate absence of assimilation requirements.

Europe has been running the same experiment for longer. Look at the electoral maps of Malmö, Molenbeek, or the Seine-Saint-Denis. Same pattern: formerly competitive or centre-right cities turned into permanent left strongholds in a single generation.

This isn't about compassion versus cruelty. It's about whether a democracy can survive when one of the two major parties discovers it can import a new electorate faster than the old one can reproduce or persuade.

Stephen Miller just described the political equivalent of discovering fire. The only question left is whether the rest of us are willing to admit the house is burning.

https://dailycaller.com/2025/11/25/stephen-miller-dems-turn-us-somalia/

https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/america-will-not-survive-many-more-minnesotas/