Donald Trump, being a businessman, saw an economic market in ideas. Some were common and mostly wrong but partly right, and others were more correct. Generally, the more correct has less value because fewer recognize it, but as a crisis deepened — mass immigration threatening to wipe out the character and peoples of the US and EU — Trump saw the idea had ripened for public consumption.
As a result, he broke the taboo barrier on mentioning immigration, which was previously tied to race, which since WWII has been a sacred concept for leftists, mostly because it kicks open any door with a compliant post-Civil War US court system behind it. The left in its own theory refers to the racial issues as a subset of class issues, and treats them as it treated class warfare: a means of arguing that the powers above are unjust, and therefore must relinquish more control. The scope of what is relinquished always widens, and mainstream conservatives stay busy defending the economy against the truly outrageous socialist ideas. As a compromise to achieve that effect, they have ceded the field on all racial debates to leftist rhetoric.
Naturally this situation cannot endure. A slow retreat is still a retreat, and enemies only allow their opposites to retreat when it is advantageous. Even more, leftists have out-maneuvered the conservatives by attacking the core concepts of conservatism such as hierarchy, culture, purpose and noticing of reality. Racial class warfare is being used in order to attack these and not on its own merits, as one can tell when observing liberals rush home to gated whitopias at the end of each workday. And yet, so far conservatives have refused to attack the core of this doctrine, which is class warfare through wealth transfer and replacement of the stubbornly conservative Western European population.
Trump changed this. He announced a strong stand against illegal immigration and has been surging in the polls ever since. If the Republican establishment cannot find a technical reason to block him, he will be their candidate by virtue of having outpaced all of the others on this single issue alone. Trump has let the cat out of the bag however. Seventy years of being unable to talk about race in Western European nations has gone out the window. As some political scientists have it, Trump has widened the Overton Window:
At any one time, some group of adjacent policies along the freedom spectrum fall into a “window of political possibility.” Policies inside the window are politically acceptable, meaning officeholders believe they can support the policies and survive the next election. Policies outside the window, either higher or lower, are politically unacceptable at the moment. If you shift the position or size of the window, you change what is politically possible.
This means that a ripple effect is in motion: one taboo falls, and then taboos linked to it fall as well, because they have been proven to be less than impregnable. People have wanted to talk about these topics for over a half-century, but the leftist grip on media, academia and government has been so strong that such dissident voices were systematically marginalized. Their lives were destroyed by SJW-style gang tactics, and their works were hounded out of bookstores, colleges and from mention in the news. The left knew their strategy depended on keeping these ideas taboo and so they were militant about excluding them. Once one voice spoke up, however, the rip in the fabric of their information boycott has begun to tear.
Already people are speaking more loudly about not just illegal immigration, but immigration more broadly. The question that we have asked for almost a decade on this blog, namely whether diversity can work at all, has collapsed under the assault of the Putnam study, Ferguson, Boston, and common sense. The wisdom of our ancestors recites itself from the grave: no two groups can occupy the same space without destroying each other, even if by passive means, which the left is struggling to put into a separate category other than “genocide,” with minimal success. We are being replaced. This is being done to advance the leftist agenda of total ideological control. This is not an issue about “freedom,” but survival.
Some writers, Ann Coulter in particular, have further widened the Window by speaking more broadly about the problem of replacing Western Europeans with third world populations. She has come close to the sensible viewpoint adopted by nationalists worldwide which is that replacement is genocide, and the traits of the original population will not exist. If you mix America and Mexico, you get Mexico. In fact, if you mix anything together, you get a third world nation, almost all of which are mixed-ethnic, with Brazil being the most archetypal example. Americans are not lining up to move there; in fact the reverse is true: most Brazilians would come here if they could.
This leads to the question of what comes next. Thanks to brave people like Trump and Coulter, the question of whether we should just like back and let the illegal immigration wave sweep us into oblivion has been put on the table. But that troubling word “illegal” seeks to mask the real issue, which is that any third world immigration — in fact, any immigration from places other than the sources of our nativist Western European populations — will replace us and by doing so destroy us. We are facing genocide in the US and EU alike. This is the issue that conservatives are warming up to, but they move very slowly.
For seventy years we have approved immigration, anti-discrimination and affirmative action programs in the theory that the result would be the same America we knew and loved, but with tolerance for other peoples to live among us. Now we realize that they cannot live among us without self-destructing, and that genetics is destiny. If you fill a place with Mexicans, it becomes Mexico; if you fill it with Western Europeans, it becomes like Western Europe. We are destroying America by making it into Brazil, Mexico or any of a dozen other mixed-race countries who are struggling to survive despite typical third-world levels of corruption, filth, criminality and social disorder.
The new target for conservatives is self-preservation. We attempted diversity; it failed; we now see that this failure came about through structural means, i.e. a paradox in the concept of diversity itself that causes it to destroy societies, and cannot be cured by the usual formula of more subsidies, “education” and laws. We should no longer be using the word illegal to describe immigration, but immoral. Immigration, diversity and tolerance are part of the same leftist class warfare platform that aims to replace us. We are the target.
Most of the world would come to the US and EU if they could. On paper, in the short-term, it seems a smart move: go where the money, law and order, social order and hygiene are. But like the children’s tale The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg, having everyone come here — and they outnumber us twenty to one — will simply destroy those things and create more third world. Then the one example of how not to end up in third-world status will be dead and gone, and the entire earth will be covered in a uniform blanket of impoverished, low IQ, criminal and filthy humanity. If there are any among them who have not succumbed to that level, those will be the next targets of the angry mob. Crowdism manifests as liberalism in the first world, but in the third world, it approximates more closely its native state of the torch-carrying mob.
Donald Trump kicked open the door. Overnight, almost a century of liberal propaganda and control fluttered away and now we can breathe independently and talk about these topics again. Other doors must also fall, and if as liberals say we cannot have a democratic society that is not diverse, we have to paint the word DEMOCRACY on yet another door. Our task is simple. Either we overcome this wrong turn in history, or we die, and then everything else that offers hope to humanity dies as well. No task is more important than this, which is why the taboos were so strong — until now.
“If Europe fails on the question of refugees, this close connection with universal civil rights … will be destroyed and it won’t be the Europe we want,” she said.
Her statement is correct but not in the way she intends. This mass influx of foreign humans — called “refugees” by those who wish to obscure the situation by invoking an emotional pity response — poses to Europe a fundamental question of values. Europe can either destroy itself and have universal civil rights, or can continue to exist by discarding that notion as the illusion it is. She said more than she meant to reveal.
Merkel thinks the question for Europe boils down to “should we be nice?” This follows the cold shadow of morality currently in vogue: that if our choice is socially popular through a conspicuous display of altruism, we have no need for analyzing its actual effects. In terms of winning votes for the next election, or selling cellular phone plans, she is probably correct. However, the true question that Europe and European-descended people everywhere must face is “should we exist?”
All other questions are secondary: Europe must decide whether or not it wishes to continue exist. To do so, it must escape the fetishism for universal civil rights that is a political outpouring of the perceived need for social popularity through altruism. It must realize that whether these ideas are foreign or not, they are bad and will result in the destruction of Europe by the destruction of Europeans. As with all other peoples, Europeans are a unique group with capabilities all their own, and when a mass wave of migrants pours in and effectively replaces that group, Europe ceases to be. If our addiction to universal civil rights is, as Merkel says, the seed of our destruction, we should get off that needle now and move on to something healthy instead.
All of us on the Right operate within a similar paradigm: realism, or measuring ideas by their consequences in reality and not intention, desires, feelings and judgments. Ann Coulter has been speaking up for the anti-immigration sentiment in this country appearing of late, and she makes a salient point about the recent popularity of Donald Trump:
Ann Coulter said that Donald Trump will continue to do well in the polls as long as he keeps talking about immigration.
“The voters keep saying, ‘We don’t want any more immigration,'” Coulter said. “That’s why Trump is so popular. So pick it up, Republicans.”
She is correct: the issue that divides Trump from the rest of the Republicans is that he, not being vested in the Republican party, is willing to oppose immigration. Coulter has called for a moratorium, which is a good start but falls short of the logical decision which is to restore America as a WASP-only nation of Germans, English, Scots, Dutch, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Finns, and some French. These groups cluster around the Western European heritage that defines the archetypal “white” person and have more in common than they do not. Outliers, like the Irish, Eastern and Southern Europeans, do not share this heritage and have different needs from society.
Mexicans, who are mostly if not completely Amerind (in the case of indios and mestizos, are of Siberian descent like “First Nations” people and do not fit in well in this society. Their repatriation to Siberia would be the most sensible solution. Similarly, African-Americans would be happiest in Africa, which if they can reclaim it from wannabe colonialists from India, China and the Middle East, would be an excellent continent full of natural resource wealth and abundant rich land.
Why is immigration such an issue now?
To understand immigration in 2015 AD, we must look to 1965 AD when the Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the Hart-Celler Act was passed. This act changed American immigration patterns to their opposite; where formerly the United States allowed in mostly Western Europeans, it now put its focus on people from the third world. The reasoning behind this act was that Democrats knew from experience with African-Americans, Amerinds and Hawaiians that non-whites would never vote in any substantial numbers for Republicans. The Democrat solution was to replace the WASP nation of America with a third world population so that Democrats would remain in power forever.
Other than the recklessness and stupidity of this typical liberal social engineering, it possessed one other salient factor: it put Republicans on the defensive with accusations of “racism.” Any Democrat program was designed to benefit the new Hart-Cellar majority, and so any opposition to it, by the reflexive property, was “racist.” This insult has silenced Republicans for the decades since WWII — since it allowed easy analogies to Hitler — and has forced acceptance of every liberal program designed to cultivate and indoctrinate this new majority.
Mainstream Republicans are experts at getting along with the system, not doing what is right. They have gone along with the immigration platform under the assumption that some day, Republicans can become a less-Democrat Democrat party for the new sea of brown faces. Trump, who owes no allegiance to the political system, has made his political career so far entirely on the basis of being willing to challenge the demographic shift engendered by the Hart-Cellar Act, but it is unclear if he will go far enough.
Diversity does not work. This is not surprising, since diversity is paradoxical: combining multiple groups destroys culture, and creates a society dependent on near-totalitarian nanny state rule. This applies to diversity of race, religion, ethnicity and culture.
Within that framework, it is clear that the West is under assault by immigration from the other 90% of the world that, not having adopted the methods and genetics of the West, remains in third world levels of poverty, bad hygiene, dysfunction and radical individualism. One group of immigrants that seem to cause additional problems are the Muslims, who much like Jews and Gypsies draw criticism for perceived self-serving insularity.
Without commenting on the truth value of that, since other sources surely offer many opinions on the topic, the recent explosion of interest since the killing of Charlie Hebdo journalists over their satyrical drawings of the Islamic prophet Mohammed has gripped public attention. The left, willing to excuse any group that does harm to the West, ignore the violence; the right points it out. Some point out that this is not anew issue, dating back to the original Kurt Westergaard cartoon and provoking many subsequent cartoons.
Support the “Draw Mohammed” Cartoon Exhibition in London!
In September 2015 Sharia Watch UK, Vive Charlie and Liberty GB will host the UK “Draw Mohammed” cartoon exhibition in central London. The event has been organised in honour of the cartoonists, bloggers and artists around the world who risk their lives in defence of free expression, and of those who have been murdered in this cause.
The organisers are delighted to announce that Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, will speak at the event.
Anne-Marie Waters, Director of Sharia Watch UK said: “It is vital, in this era of censorship and fear, that we stand together in defiance and demand our right to free expression. We will not, and cannot, succumb to violent threats. The outlook for our democracy depends on the actions we take today. We owe it to future generations to pass on the freedom we have enjoyed.”
To help make this event take place, we welcome your donations, large or small. Help us defend freedom of expression in Britain!
Further details of the event will be published in due course. Media enquiries to firstname.lastname@example.org
Ms. Waters also gave an interview to Breitbart in which she opined on the reasons for such an event:
Why would you arrange a Mohammed cartoon exhibition?
Because I am Spartacus and it’s an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment. Those of who believe in free speech, democracy, and Western civilisation have simply got to stand up now; both to Islamists who seek to impose their religion on to our world, and to the government and media who refuse to effectively oppose them. The greatest threat to our democracy is this casual refusal to clearly state the importance of our speech, and the greatest threat to our speech is sadly coming from Islam. We have to stop expecting someone else to take the risk of standing up to the world’s bullies, we all have a duty now.
Don’t we have a duty to be sensitive to Islam?
No, we do not. We are under no obligation to be sensitive to anyone about anything, but when the folk demanding sensitivity generally have little to say about brutal violence carried out in the name of their religion, then I think they’ve got a bit of a cheek demanding anything. I’m not talking about Islamic State either, I’m talking about Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other oppressive prison-states. We hear a lot from Islamic groups about freedom of religion, rarely in the context of Christians being executed in Pakistan however.
While these events seem transparently designed to provoke confrontation, as all but a few voices in media seek to conceal the problems created by diversity, integration, multiculturalism, internationalism and multi-racialism including Islamic integration into Europe and the USA, this event raises a necessary awareness about what is essentially a suppressed issue.
Currently in Europe, we are witnessing a flood of refugees. It’s hard not to sympathize with the refugees, as they flee the damages created by naïve Western liberal policies. Many of those same liberals demand of us Europeans to allow millions upon millions of these refugees into our countries.
What happens if we allow 10% of the population of Africa to immigrate to Europe? Africa now has 1.1 billion people. This means its population would be reduced to 990 billion people. In Europe, the population would rise by 110 million people, further overpopulating our continent and especially our cities.
What would happen to Africa? The 10% of people who flee Africa would in all likelihood be the smartest ten percent of the nation. They would be the most secular oriented people, the least superstitious, the wealthiest, the best educated, the most innovative share of the population. Europe on the other hand, would be faced with the struggle of assimilating an ever growing minority of the population, who live in segregated neighborhoods where they hardly ever meet any Europeans.
If Europe makes the most generous gesture of ignorant empathy imaginable, by accepting 10% of the African population into our continent, Africa would be worse off. It would still be a continent where albinos are used for witchcraft and pygmies are eaten to acquire magical powers. It would still be a continent where girls have their clitoris sliced of with a broken bottle and their breasts ironed flat by their mothers to make them less attractive to rapists. It would still be a continent where babies are raped in an effort to cure HIV. It would be the same Africa we know today, but without its smartest, wealthiest, best educated, most secular share of its population, as those people would have been the first to flee to Europe.
Leftism is an outgrowth of Christianity, maintaining its values, without its faith in God. Ultimately, leftists don’t want to end suffering, they want to be seen addressing it, so that they are seen as good people. Mother Theresa used to say that suffering brings the poor closer to Jesus. Similarly, importing immigrants delivers you an opportunity to spend your whole life addressing an endless deluge of pointless suffering. If we recognize the Christian cultural values that govern our policies as a continent, we recognize how we arrived at our suicidal and unproductive policies.
Conservatives respond to this stupidity, by feigning autism. Intelligent right-wing men try to blend into the crowd of libertarian/conservative Joe Sixpacks and proclaim that they couldn’t care less if some young girl is gang-raped by the local village brutes or some particular African country just entered the genocide season again this week, because they fear that humanizing the third world inevitably leads to our governments pouring its population out over our own nations.
Thus the right wing response to the endless list of atrocities splattered on our newspapers on a daily basis is to claim that this is “not our responsibility”. I don’t think this is a very legitimate point to make. Besides the fact that humans are very bad at feigning autism for very long, it’s hard to defend the suggestion that we have no responsibility in regards to Africa whatsoever.
Besides the fact that these were our colonies for centuries, nations we used to fuel our industrialization and win world wars, our intervention never really stopped, decolonization just made our interventions more damaging. Now we were earning money selling technology to nations that were not ready to cope with its consequences.
We find nations with fertility rates of eight children per woman and forests turned into deserts thanks to agricultural practices we introduced to them. Rates of soil erosion in Africa have increased twenty fold between 1974 and 2004, according to the Worldwatch institute. Free market capitalism allows our companies to continue operating in Africa, but without any sort of ethical oversight, thus turning their presence there into a limbo dance of tax dodging, estimated to cost some nations up to 13% of their GDP.
So what would be a rational yet compassionate response to the seemingly endless catastrophe? First we have to ask ourselves what makes Europe so attractive in the first place Africans don’t come to Europe because of the weather. Like it or not, they come to Europe, because Europe is full of white people.
If the average African knew what Argentine, Australia, Canada or any other nation full of white people looks like, they would be more than happy to move there too if given the opportunity. Most however, are only familiar with England, seen as the paradise worth traversing the Sahara desert and the Mediterranean sea for.
The yearning for white people doesn’t stop as soon as they are in Europe. Children in Dutch multicultural schools demonstrate in the streets, asking for more white kids to attend their school. As these children grow up, they may flee to Tumblr, where they will proclaim that they “do not need a white savior” along the lines of Rachel Dolezal, but every action taken and every policy endorsed demonstrates the opposite, a desire to have white people around.
Now, the idea that has to be considered here is that rather than inviting Africans to enter a Darwinian triathlon, where most people drown, suffocate or starve, while the toughest make it to Europe and win the privilege of getting to live as a perpetual underclass in a majority-white society, why not try the opposite? Why not encourage white people to migrate to Africa instead?
Now, note that I am not calling for forceful annexation or anything along those lines. I am also not calling for some sort of genocidal replacement. Rather, I would suggest that African nations and European nations should seek to enter voluntary agreements, where African nations receive foreign aid in the form of European immigrants. It would probably be best for these immigrants to maintain European citizenship.
Sending young people to Africa would be a blessing for Europe too. All the type of people stirring up trouble now by sheltering illegal immigrants, calling people racists and Islamophobes and attempting to restrict free speech would have something better to do with their days. Europe would have a decisive majority again, of people who want to preserve Europe’s original cultural identity.
White people in Southern Europe are dealing with youth unemployment rates of anywhere around fifty percent. These young people spend their days stacking degrees on top of each other and moving from internship to internship, learning irrelevant information in the hope of one day finding a real job. In Africa, simply knowing how to use birth control can be a valuable skill. If the average IQ in an African country is 85, an estimate higher than most studies even by left wing academics suggest, with a standard deviation of 15, any white immigrant with an IQ above 115 would be smarter than 97.5% of the local population.
In the long run, such policies would also save us money. Instead of paying for our citizens’ endless educational expenses and unemployment benefits, they engage in productive activities abroad. We could stop patrolling the Mediterranean sea and avoid growing influxes of immigrants in our home countries. The demographic that votes for left-wing open border parties voluntarily leaves our continent.
There is a valid argument coming from the fringes of the political spectrum, that Africa does not per definition benefit from “development”. This depends of course on what kind of African we speak of. Is an Aka pygmy living in the rainforest of Congo, where he climbs in trees to gather honey and uses bow and arrow to hunt for animals, better off working in a call center? Obviously not. It shouldn’t be incredibly hard to make a drug addicted orphan on the streets of Monrovia better off however.
We have no obligation to assimilate every single African into a Western lifestyle. We merely have to guide the process of development into a trajectory that is least destructive, based on the lessons we learned during our own industrialization. Currently, the process of industrialization in Africa is leading to rampant deforestation and the genocide and displacement of primitive societies. Nigeria lost half of its remaining forest between 2000 and 2005, African elephants are expected to go extinct within a decade. Clearly, doing nothing isn’t working. It should certainly be possible for us to reign in the worst outgrowths, that both opponents and proponents of development can agree should be avoided.
For Africa to have a future, Europe needs to have a future. This requires Europe to develop a sense of self-respect again. Our history books and our movies will happily discuss slavery, but nobody is interested in hearing how the British empire fought wars in Africa to bring an end to slavery, as it doesn’t fit into our mood du jour of self-flagellation. Then, when our people return to a state of sanity, us fortunate few can finally share the fruit we harvested from the tree of knowledge, without injuring its roots.
Liberals lie because liberalism is based on a pathology of lying called scapegoating. When your society is failing, find someone to blame and rise to power by claiming that you will take care of that entity you blamed.
The very essence of liberalism — promising altruism to others as a means of securing power and lack of rules that apply to oneself — is criminal and based in lying. Corruption is built into the system, as we can see when liberal voters shrug off high treason, bribes and destruction of evidence by Hillary Clinton.
People have not yet clicked to the idea that when you see anything with a liberal slant, it is based upon lies. Some things intended as lies are accidentally true, yes, but those are very rare cases, less than one percent. The rest is just straight-up lying.
Consider this article from the The New Yorker entitled “The Courage of Migrants”:
But in addition to being desperate, these new boat people are courageous, and not just physically. They have the heart to leave everything they know behind, to make themselves anew somewhere else. In this sense, they’re better than most of us. They deserve that recognition, if not a home as well.
The agenda here is to change the meaning of courage from its traditional meaning to running away. That is what migrants are doing: instead of having the courage to stay and fix the problems in their homelands, they are running away to Europe for free welfare. That is not how liberals spin it however. They reverse truth and then punish anyone who does not agree with this obvious falsehood.
Watch this meme spin out over the next few years. They will coordinate on this, un-officially as always, but remember how effective they were — and how accidentally they were discovered — in the infamous JournoList scandal:
Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Did you read that? Let me recap:
Thousands of journalists join a special elite mailing list and agree how they will spin the news. They agree on a strategy of calling conservatives “racists” in order to destroy their credibility.
If anyone on the right did this, it would be called a revolution. And yet it is standard operating procedure for the left, because their ideology primes them to place lie over truth and to fight anyone who does not agree with every means at their disposal.
That means: lie, cheat, steal, fake, forge, camouflage, insinuate, or anything else you want to do, because your cause is ideologically correct.
That stands in contrast to the best of conservatives, who want to be actually correct, that is, predicting cause->effect relationships such to avoid bad and promote good.
Watch for more life stories of heroic migrants in the future, with details of how they love their children, pet their dogs and enjoy watching Woody Allen movies. “They’re just like us, but better!”
As that happens, remember that courage means standing your ground and fixing your problems instead of running away from them. That is the opposite of the liberal definition because liberalism is based on running away from problems, blaming someone else and then conning them into paying for you anyway.
VDARE editor Peter Brimelow speaks about the problem of immigration: it replaces the original population. Where America succeeded when it was English, German, and other Western European descended people, it will not be the same under a new group. In fact, it will resemble every other mixed-race third-world country, like Brazil or Mexico.
This is how all societies go out. Notice the vast amount of mixing in Southern Italy and much of Greece. Without the original population, two things happen. First, as Brimelow notes, the new population lacks the abilities of the original. It is chosen not for its self-sufficiency but for its willingness to do repetitive tasks. Second, and more importantly to my mind, the civilization loses a sense of identity and becomes more like a shopping mall than a culture.
The left operates like a bad codependent relationship, constantly generating new crusades to keep its membership base together. Like a fish without active gills, it must keep moving forward in order to stay afloat.
Of the most recent crusades, the most interesting is the War on Inequality. It has not yet begun, but is waiting in the wings especially in the USA were an out-of-the-closet socialist, Bernie Sanders, is running for President. Right now, we have the early stages of the war, which is the victimhood narrative requirement of mourning and self-questioning over “rising inequality.”
Assuming that we take these figures at face value — and we should not, since the liberal method is to choose anecdotal examples, cherry-pick data to avoid contrary viewpoints, and then declare broad conclusions from a tiny sample size — America is becoming a place where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
More interestingly, the middle class appears to be eroding.
Many will point out that, since liberals are the party of egalitarianism and conservatives the party of results, the two will differ. Indeed, both care about inequality, but conservatives see it as a Darwinistic method while liberals see it as The Enemy, as this article discusses:
Inequality is the major theme of the American political debate because inequality is the major theme of the policy debate between the two major parties. The conservative economic agenda at the federal level is built around reducing the portions of the tax code that fall most heavily on the rich and spending that flows most heavily to the poor, and at the state level, to shift the financing structure of government onto the most regressive tax base. The liberal agenda has pushed in the opposite direction.
It is true that liberals talk explicitly about inequality much more than conservatives do. But to conclude that inequality is simply an issue that liberals care about far more than conservatives do (like greenhouse gas emissions, say) is mistaken. The agenda of both American parties is centered on firm beliefs about inequality. The main difference is that Democrats are more prone to frame their inequality-reducing policies as such, while Republicans (understandably) prefer not to frame their inequality-increasing policies in those terms.
Ignoring the obvious fallacy — that allowing a natural process to occur by not instituting “progressive” taxation is not increasing inequality but revealing its actuality — the summation is roughly correct. Liberals want wealth transfer to create equality, conservatives do not.
As said earlier in the article:
In 1972, the neoconservative intellectual Irving Kristol defended existing income inequality on the ground that it simply reflected the natural distribution of human ability. “Human talents and abilities, as measured, do tend to distribute themselves along a bell-shaped curve, with most people clustered around the middle, and with much smaller percentages at the lower and higher ends …” he argued. “This explains one of the most extraordinary (and little-noticed) features of 20th-century societies: how relatively invulnerable the distribution of income is to the efforts of politicians and ideologues to manipulate it. In all the Western nations — the United States, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Germany — despite the varieties of social and economic policies of their governments, the distribution of income is strikingly similar.” This was a comforting story for the right. The level of inequality in the United States happened to be a perfectly optimal reflection of the talent of the populace.
In other words, because our media no longer uses complex terms, Social Darwinism: the idea that income should reflect ability and the best should rise, and that others will do better — a broad tide will raise all boats — if power, wealth and culture are in the hands of the more competent. This idea offends liberals to their core because it points out the contradiction in egalitarianism, which is that there will always be disparate results because there are differing abilities, and thus that attempts to create “equality” amount to parasitism on the more competent in order to subsidize the less, in reversal of evolution itself.
Now that we see where the different sides stand, let us look at the two questions before us, namely whether inequality is rising and whether the middle class is disappearing. As with all writings on this site, I will use a combination of pure logic and unfiltered history. Pure logic means that we analyze a situation by its causes and effects alone, using what we know of logic to point out where some preclude others. Unfiltered history means that we remove the politicized conclusions from the events of the past and look at what actions caused what results. The two, pure logic and unfiltered history, work in parallel because they use essentially the same method, which is the scientific method outside of the linearizing analysis of a laboratory which looks at a single factor of thousands and invents reasons why it should ignore the rest of that context, thus rendering itself fallacious for social, political and cultural discussions.
To an observer a thousand years from now, it will be clear that “rising inequality” is a case of focusing on a detail and missing the background. What has happened in the United States is not that inequality has risen, but that the population has changed in two ways. First, it has shifted from majority Western European (“WASP” in the vernacular) toward majority third world and fringe European under liberal immigration policy, and second, it has been altered by liberal social policy, which has changed focus from a K-strategy focused on strong families to an r-strategy focused on third-world style mass subsidy and absence of stable family, religion and culture.
Since the end of the second World War, which completed the arc of European wars beginning with the French Revolution and ensuing Napoleonic wars, the West has turned down an increasingly liberal path. Unlike previous liberal incarnations however, its liberalism has been of an economic rather than ideological nature, meaning that it follows a financial guideline instead of a purely moral one. Thus unlike the Soviets it does not dive into pure socialism, but funds socialism through capitalism, and unlike the French it does not regulate social mores directly, but relies on the free market media industry to make conservative notions taboo. This is probably what Francis Fukuyama called “the end of history” simply because it is the most effective form of authoritarianism ever created.
During the French Revolution, one of the cries of the Revolutionaries was for “internationalism,” or the idea that all workers worldwide were in solidarity by social class and not national origin, so national boundaries should be abolished. This idea lives on as multiculturalism, diversity and other synonyms for what is essentially racial pluralism. It appeals because it tears down social standards, and for no other reason. Revolutionaries always destroy social standards because their goal is to replace multi-tiered hierarchy with a giant mob following ideology and a strong leader to keep that mob pointed in the right path. There is no other term for what they do than “breakdown,” and liberals spend most of their time denying that (for the purposes of this article, “liberal” and “leftist” mean the same thing, just as Communist and Socialist are differences of degree not different philosophies — a Communist is merely a Socialist who recognizes that in order for People’s Utopia to come about, it must have strong authoritarian power).
In the United States, starting with the Hart-Cellar act in 1965, immigration has shifted toward third world populations. These are different from first-world populations not in “skin color,” as the popular media alleges, but culture and biological abilities. If the third world could have produced what the first world did, it would have done so, and colonized the first world instead. This is pure logic: every species struggles for supremacy, and every population aims to be as powerful as possible, with those who cannot do so being ground down under their wheels, part of the process we call “evolution” or “Darwinism.” There was no lack of trying in the third world to reach military supremacy, as the Mongol invasions and Muslim raids that provoked the Crusades show us. The West achieved stability of society and higher average IQs and beat them out, despite being severely threatened by them, especially by the Mongol raids which may have several centuries later provoked colonialism as a means of avoiding a repeat of those brutal years.
The people coming into the United States now are almost all already of mixed-race as most third-world populations are, and generally of lower IQ. Not surprisingly, IQs in the West have dropped 14 points in the last century. Those figures do not tell us when IQs fell, but a logical inference is that recent immigration has something to do with it. That alone explains inequality, which is that if you take a thriving first-world population and import a third-world population which lacks the ability to achieve what that first world population did, the third-world population will remain poor and thus statistically inequality will rise. Factor into that cultures based on endurance of dysfunction rather than fixing it, and you see a society where only a few will have any wealth but they will have many customers for whom what they do is witchcraft or magic.
Leaving that aside, as it is politically taboo to mention, it is worth mentioning what has happened since 1965 under liberal social programs. Casual sex has become the norm; stable families the rarity. This means that people are more neurotic, less able to commit and less likely to be stable themselves. In other words: they are more dysfunctional (or “less functional”). This also explains inequality. Add to this the rising tax burden to support Great Society and New Deal programs which like zombies rise from the dead because it is seen as gauche, ignorant and uncultured to vote against them, and we can see where the situation has broadened. Even worse is what we have done to education, which is taking it from “competitive” to “participative,” such that any degree except a graduate or professional school degree is officially worthless. To have a $70k job now the average person must be extraordinarily lucky, or put down $200k for schooling through age 27.
Let us also mention rising costs. As social disorder increases, the comfortable middle class subdivisions of the past vanish. Instead, one must buy into a gated community. In the past, people could simply buy homes; now they must buy luxury homes to escape the roiling violence of the permanent social underclasses. In the past, grocery store food was safe and local; now you must go to Whole Foods to get eggs that taste like eggs or bread with fewer than 1500 ingredients. Water was once safe, but now it is Mexico City water, so you must buy filters. Living as a normal human being has become more expensive than middle class salaries can afford, which explains the second question being asked here, which is whether “rising inequality” is a cover story for elimination of the middle class by dysfunctional liberal programs.
I rest my case. The distinction remains obvious: we are engaged in a war of narratives. The left argues we are victims of some external force, whether the shadowy the RichTM or favorite scapegoats like The Jews or The Racists, but on the right, we see the problem as degeneration or the breakdown of our culture, people and individual abilities. This is the real inequality occurring: we are converting the West into another third-world remnant of a once-great civilization, and therefore, the few competent and realistic people are becoming radically wealthy, along with the corrupt of course. The rest are just trying to hang on and are being eliminated by replacement DNA and lifestyles which reward idiotic obedience in order to afford escape from the rising third-world society within our society, which will eliminate them, leaving a vast horde of low-IQ people ruled by a handful of smart plutocrats, as is the case in almost every third-world society. Eventually, the herd will rise up and eliminate even those, leaving only a vast equal mass of mid-80s average IQ and no prospects beyond living in filth, corruption and dysfunction.
You see, the thing is, the rapists weren’t white. So don’t get too upset about this. If people were to get upset about it, there could be some unfortunate backlash against the non-white community in the UK. Of course, you are a good person and would never think ill of a non-white minority group, but the reality is that there are many ignorant white people who might get too upset, and would start to be racist. And that would be bad, because racism is the worst. Much worse than mass rape and replacement.
Things might get so bad that people might start to question the value of mass immigration. They might notice how this would never have happened if not for ideologically motivated politicians trying to punish their enemies. And without mass immigration, we will never have our multicultural utopia. We’d be back to boring whitebread low-crime low-excitement communities. Just let them continue raping children, and things will be better for them. The immigrants, I mean.
While you’re doing the right thing and forgetting about this whole unpleasant episode, make sure you don’t remember that time when police in Norway noticed that all the rapists in Oslo were non-Western. Because there is a pattern here: every time someone notices these things, people start to wonder just what the benefits of mass immigration are, and they have less sympathy for the immigrant victims who are just trying to make a living. We need to let them continue doing a little rape once in a while, because we’re nice people. Keep in mind that it could be worse, it could be racism. So relax, it’s only rape.
Manipulating large groups of people requires deception that is plausible enough to take the place of what they should actually be thinking. This leads toward a need to create symbolic issues that conceal complex problems behind simple yes/no style plans. These plans universally revolve around quantity, meaning replacement of one institution with another, instead of qualitative improvement, or taking what exists and improving it (similar to evolution) until it works.
As stated here before, the “climate change” propaganda creates a vast boondoggle bonanza that empowers just about any idiot to do anything and justify it as reducing carbon, raising awareness or any of a dozen other hare-brained justifications that give good cover to larceny and parasitism. Media tells us that climate change is universally accepted and we’d have to be poor, ignorant, and bigoted morons to consider any other truth. Most people want to rise in life, so they’ll never admit to such unfashionable views.
The more likely issue remains the changes humans have wrought to the environment by changing what’s on the surface of Earth. The more people we produce, the more farms we need and the more land we cover in concrete. The result is a radical adjustment in how much land becomes available for vegetation and wildlife. As it turns out, this is crucial, because the amount of vegetation expands with the rise of carbon in the atmosphere, mainly because CO2 is a vital nutrient that plants use in the photosynthetic process.
Each year, land plants and the ocean absorb about half of the 10 billion tonnes of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by human activity.
On average, says Canadell, carbon sinks on land absorb around 2.6 billion tonnes of carbon, but in 2011 this figure spiked to about 4.1 billion, accompanied by a big drop in atmospheric CO2.
“The land had removed more anthropogenic CO2 than ever before recorded,” he says.
The first thing to note here is that this is in fact reason for optimism. The Earth is capable of absorbing CO2 at places where people did not expect it to occur:
“We saw this incredible carbon sink in the southern hemisphere,” says Canadell. “The semi-arid regions were playing the biggest role and particularly the grassy component.”
“We never thought savannahs of the world could potentially have this effect.”
Even more surprising, he says, was that 60 per cent of the extra plant growth was in Australia’s semi-arid areas, north of Alice Springs.
The authors argue that much of the carbon sequestered may soon be emitted again, because of droughts, but that’s not a certainty. Part of the reason to be optimistic is because plants are not just passive recipients of climatic conditions, rather, plants help engineer their own local climate, creating the conditions in which more plants can grow.
If forced to choose between the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of native vegetation, it’s very clear to me personally that the destruction of native vegetation is the worse evil of the two by far. Admittedly, part of that is due to the fact that I am convinced that we will be incapable of maintaining the industrial machine for much longer. Gail Tverberg believes that we simply won’t have enough oil to emit enough CO2 to reach above a two degree temperature increase.
There are large positive feedbacks involved in climate change that nearly everyone is familiar with, but what is very rarely if ever discussed are the significant negative feedbacks produced by plants. Trees respond to an increase in temperatures by producing more biogenic organic volatile compounds, which create a type of fog that reflects light and reduces temperatures. A similar mechanism occurs in the oceans, where plankton produces dimethyl sulfide, which changes albedo by encouraging the formation of clouds. An increase in temperatures produces an increase in plankton, which thus increases the amount of dimethyl sulfide. Life attempts to create the type of conditions suitable for life.
Of course, the important point to take home is that this negative feedback is highly dependent on a functioning biosphere. If there are no forests, there are no biogenic organic volatile compounds. Trying to prevent climate change is a very noble goal, but it increasingly appears doomed. If you tell governments to stop using fossil fuels, you tell them: Be sure to use your fossil fuels now, before a global carbon tax agreement makes them worthless or a successful alternative makes them worthless. Governments are actually now in a race to exploit whatever fossil fuels they still have, before the world agrees not to use any fossil fuels anymore. In addition, with solutions like biofuel, the cure is worse than the disease.
Even more, you supplant a realistic plan — clear spaces for plants — with an unrealistic one, which is to “raise awareness” such that every person is guilted into buying green products, buying cars with expensive and toxic batteries, giving carbon cap subsidies to the third world, and similar symbolic surrogate activities which don’t address the actual problem. Further, this mistaken plan allows destructive practices like subsidizing population growth, importing immigrants and continued building of cities to expand rather than contract.
Population distinguishes this issue. Although a guy in the Democratic Republic of Congo may use a fraction of the fossil fuels you use, the difference between the amount of land required to feed the two of you is much smaller. Nobody wants to touch this problem, as sadly people would rather pretend that a problem of this magnitude will simply be solved by STEM-nerds developing a new techno-fix and a variety of irrelevant politically correct feel-good measures.
By not creating room for other countries to send their excess people abroad, those countries become forced to address their own internal population problem. This type of insanity, where countries that aim to be at the forefront when it comes to preventing climate change continue to let their populations grow despite their low fertility rate is made possible by a technocratic mathematical vision that treats trees not as life-creating participants in their own local climate, but rather as carbon stocks that can be chopped down, as long as you make sure to build hideous wind mills or place solar panels on your roofs to meet your CO2 quota.
No politician will find these issues to be winners at the ballot-box, which people choose easy options and simplistic lies in favor of complex truths and long-term commitments. Thus they invent the surrogates we suffer under to this day, oblivious to the consequences because those in turn create new problems which create new opportunities for popularity at the voting booth. Democracy makes itself into a product and the result is a loss of ability to clear aside the ersatz issues and focus on the actual problem.