Why are young women (especially white women) and immigrants voting en masse for the Left?

Imagine living in a country that already boasts a significant level of "diversity," a high standard of living, and public policies ensuring extensive social welfare—perhaps a Germany or Sweden of the mid-21st century?

Do you need more?

More "diversity"?

Could any country sustain an indefinite influx of people over an equally indefinite period?

Basic logistics alone tell us the answer is no.

Imagine also noticing a steady rise in crime and other forms of incivility, an institutionalized animosity directed at you because of your race, and the progressive takeover of your city's social spaces by foreign cultural groups that are openly hostile toward you.

What would you do?

The most logical and rational reaction is to seek to understand what is actually happening. First, you would recognize the situation as negative, given the growing sense of insecurity and social unrest. Second, based on the facts you uncovered, you would begin to act logically. So, if you perceived a direct link between rising crime and excessive immigration—which is indeed the case—you would vote for the politicians or parties seeking to combat these issues when a major democratic election came around. It seems too obvious a course of action to ignore. And this is especially obvious if you are a woman—even more so if you are a white woman. The vast majority of right-wing and even far-right parties seek nothing more than to curb these excesses and return to a fully livable state of normalcy. Proposals such as: banning men with gender dysphoria—who identify socially as trans women—from participating in women's sports; vetoing further "thought crime" laws, like the misogyny law (as seen in Brazil); and closing borders to mass immigration—or simply not leaving them wide open for anyone to enter, as both the identity-politics Left and the radical Left desire...

If you are a young white woman living in a Western European country—especially a very wealthy one—your most basic rights are already guaranteed by law; you already have enough "diversity" to "celebrate"; you already have a welfare state that guarantees your labor rights—yet you still want more?

More of what?

It is a level of insanity that is hard to top...

2nd case of insanity or irrational stupidity: The logic of leaving a country where you no longer wanted to live for a country you chose to call home, only to vote to make that new country more like the one you left behind

I know that subheading is clunky, but it clearly illustrates the insanity of an immigrant's behavior: leaving their country of origin—not just due to poverty or war, but often out of genuine admiration for their chosen destination (its culture, its people)—only to vote for (left-wing) parties that aim to make that new country resemble the one they left. It is akin to a Mexican leaving Mexico to live in California, only to find Mexico itself transplanted there, slowly eroding the Anglo-Saxon culture—directly responsible for California's success—that existed before. And when I speak of culture, I’m not just talking about an abstract set of rules and behaviors, but about a population's capacity to absorb, accept, and/or practice them—because there is a clear correlation (an intersectional one, not mere coincidence) between ethnicity or race and the average statistical variation in behavioral tendencies (which are predominantly intrinsic)...

But that’s not the case! A Middle Eastern immigrant moves to Sweden and votes for the Left—the very faction that wants to import more people like him to live there. The result? The place where he lives and enjoys the benefits becomes increasingly like the place he left behind...

Is there any logic to be found here?

Tribal sentiment might explain it. Or the "strategic" mindset that "the more of us there are, the better." But wasn't it precisely the people who built and sustain that advanced society who were the "best" fit for it? If they become a minority or disappear, will "their people" be able to handle the job?... considering they can't even manage it in their own lands?

Regarding the age of majority for voting rights: why shouldn't "very young people" vote?

 The democratic right to vote is, without a doubt, the most fundamental right within a modern democratic regime. However, there ought to be restrictions on it—contrary to the wishes of many self-proclaimed "democrats" or passionate devotees of "democracy"—for reasons that seem to me more than sensible...

Groups such as: pre-trial detainees and individuals with serious criminal records who are currently at liberty; those with chronic, diagnosed mental disorders, such as psychopathy; politicians or former politicians with a history of corruption; and those with very low levels of education... To this list, I would also add "very young people"—that is, those below the official age of majority.

I would add one further detail: the establishment of an electoral age of majority distinct from the age of criminal responsibility—that is, the age one can begin voting and the age one can be imprisoned. While common sense leans toward lowering the age of criminal responsibility, it points in the opposite direction regarding the voting age; but why?

The groups mentioned above share characteristics that arguably render them unfit to exercise the right to participate in democratic elections: they possess highly unfavorable records that should entail the curtailment of certain—or even many—of their rights, including the right to vote; they are still "paying" (often for a duration or with a level of severity that is wholly insufficient) for their past actions; or they demonstrate a marked lack of rational agency regarding their own behavior, as is the case with individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. or they possess a negligible intellectual and cultural background, much like the majority of those with very low levels of formal education...

Then there is a group that—precisely due to a lack of history rather than the presence of one—shares similarities with individuals suffering from psychiatric disorders, as they lack the capacity to exercise the right to vote or participate in any democratically significant election. This is due to their youth, behavioral immaturity, and the scientific reality that they are neurologically "half-adult and half-child"—human beings still in a developmental stage.

The paradox of this proposal is: if they are not mature enough to vote, are they mature enough to be imprisoned?

Indeed, adolescence is a unique phase for our species, characterized by heightened developmental asymmetry within the human mind. Regardless, a rational perspective regarding the objective administration of justice—highly relevant to this discussion and transcending this biological fact—holds that an extremely cruel and senseless act with grave consequences must be punished in an exemplary manner, or in a way potentially proportional to its severity, regardless of the perpetrator's age. Therefore, even if a human adolescent’s maturity regarding moral and intellectual discernment varies, they must face punishment upon committing a heinous crime. After all, it is unlikely that an adolescent without serious character flaws would commit crimes—especially those of this nature—given that, even if our minds are not fully developed at this stage of life, certain fundamental capacities are already well-developed. Precisely because these capacities are so basic—such as the ability to assess the impact of intentions and actions that are clearly good or bad—the argument that immaturity justifies withholding exemplary punishment from a minor in this age group loses its validity. On the other hand, regarding the ability to choose a candidate in a democratic election, it seems to me that the very hormonal (and emotional) fervor of this stage of life tends to render the adolescent too raw to make reasoned analyses and choose the best—or least bad—candidate... Furthermore, this same fervor tends to manifest more uniformly among adolescents than do sadistic behavioral tendencies; this, in turn, justifies raising the voting age while lowering the age of criminal responsibility...

Therefore, one measure—lowering the age of criminal responsibility—would be necessary to strictly punish heinous crimes committed by a minority of "minors" who are more intrinsically inclined toward cruelty (where such actions lack a legitimately complex justifying context, such as self-defense, and are utterly indefensible). Meanwhile, the other measure—raising the voting age—would bar the participation of all "minors," as the vast majority are too immature to vote in democratic processes, making them easy prey for demagogues seeking to use them as political pawns... Consider the example of political activism, which reaches its peak levels of fanaticism during the final years of adolescence and the early years of..official adulthood. Since there is no precise boundary marking where one begins and the other ends, let all adolescents, at the very least, be barred from democratic elections...