This is a segment of a great article by Brett Stevens where he shows that the American public was sucked in to supporting the 1960s changes to immigration which have led to the present coming of whites being a minority in less than 24 years. The same thing happened in Australia in the post WQWII era, and the elites time and time again, stampede the sheep, as they are going to try to do again with the indigenous referendum. Remember, the majority supported the same sex plebiscite.
http://www.amerika.org/politics/when-seeking-the-weak-link-look-toward-the-voters/
“Our biggest problem arises from the inherent tendency of people to form crowds around lowest common denominator solutions which causes people to fixate on “problems” that are in fact effects of which either structural defects or tendencies of nature are the cause, and this motivates people to engage in symbolic choices instead of realistic ones. Consider how Americans voted themselves into oblivion: A June 1965 Gallup poll found that 39% preferred maintaining present levels, almost as many said they should be decreased (33%), and only a few (7%) favored increased immigration. But in the end, a majority of the public approved of changing the laws so that people would be admitted on the basis of their occupational skills rather than their country of origin. And after the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed, fully 70% said they favored the new law. The law was symbolic in the sense that it operated on feelings, principles, and moral standards instead of looking at end results. Silly people value means-over-ends (principles, methods, and symbols more important than end result) because it makes them feel good and share that social feeling of peace, love, comradeship, and unity with others. When you pass a symbolic law, like one designed to stop migrant children from drowning at your border, it proves immensely popular at first. This is a backdoor weakness in democracy, or more broadly, in humanity.
No one was looking at how that would change the country, the impacts it would have beyond the next pay period, and what implications this had for the future. To them, it meant that nice foreign people came and lived down the road and worked and paid taxes, so government had more money and we would get more things from government. Everyone wins, if you look at it in the short-term and under laboratory conditions, meaning that you do not consider the implications of the act outside of its target. As it turns out there was political manipulation involved, but it succeeded only because the voters already wanted mass immigration. The politicians found a way to restyle the Act as something people liked and the voters ran into the polls, pulled those levers, and made it law: The Post is absolutely correct that the champions of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act were primarily concerned with repealing the national origin quotas, and that the new preference system that prioritized extended-family preference over skills and education was a result of a compromise between Democrats. Rep. Michael Feighan (who was simultaneously afraid about the spread of communism and eager to give a win to his Eastern-European constituents whom he would need for re-election) forged a compromise with President Johnson, Sen. Ted Kennedy and their allies to shift the immigration system away from skills toward preference for the extended-family (“Chain”) categories. The Post highlights the irony that Feighan’s compromise wound up shifting the balance of immigration away from Eastern Europe.
The Post only reports part of the history though. The Champions of the 1965 Act were determined to get rid of the national origin quotas – and they had the public behind them. The repeal of the national origin quotas was very popular, but the idea of increasing overall immigration was not. As you can see, Johnson, Feighan, Kennedy and Cellar were wrong. They didn’t keep their promise to the public. Their bill doubled immigration numbers. Then Congress expanded Chain Migration in 1990 and doubled the numbers again, only this time, they also called for a bi-partisan commission to study the issue. President Clinton appointed Civil Rights Icon Barbara Jordan to chair that commission. The Jordan Commission recommended eliminating Chain Migration categories and prioritizing nuclear family and skills. Anyone curious as to why anyone would want to end Chain Migration would do well to start there. You can already see the destructive influence of white ethnic diversity here. Whites had become divided into special interest groups by religion and ethnicity (Southern, Eastern, or Western European) and this made it easy to fragment their resistance to an insane law.
Democracy has never settled the question of delegation versus stewardship. In the delegation model, voters elect politicians to carry out the will of the voters; this hampers politicians, since the voters do not care about many crucial issues, and so they become manipulators and salesmen, doing what works for them. In the stewardship model, politicians exist to exercise their own judgment and experience according to the spirit of the people who elected them; the populist movement follows this general approach. Voters under the delegation model become bad managers. They demand to see what they cannot understand, require simplistic solutions, and tend to act out of panic and disorganization (“putting out fires”) instead of moving toward a state of affairs, i.e. “civilization will look like this and we will all live this way.” If you can imagine a committee of incompetent managers suddenly rushing through a dozen important decisions in order to get to the pub, you have visualized democracy correctly. Our first step in fixing this requires that we quit the scapegoating. If politicians do something bad, it is either because we the people elected them or because we ignored crucial issues and caused them to detonate later. The problem lies with us. The buck stops here.”
I believe that the problem lies primarily with the elites, who are seeking to destroy Western civilisation, and make a buck while doing so, but the deplorables still have made major mistakes, and especially are weak, stupid, ignorant, apathetic, pathetic and/or lacking courage, and that is on a good day. There definitely has been over the centuries a decline in the genetic quality of Western man, and maybe the entire human race:
https://www.amazon.com/Dysgenics-Deterioration-Populations-Evolution-Intelligence/dp/0275949176
https://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/richard-lynns-dysgenics/