Posts Tagged ‘thirdworlding’

Politics Under Diversity

Friday, May 19th, 2017

America had several early diversity experiences, but most of them such as Amerinds and Africans were kept under wrap by both de facto and legally mandated segregation. The 1960s took care of the latter, and affirmative action shattered the former.

A more fundamental American diversity experience occurred when Southern/Eastern Europeans joined the previously wholly Western European population. This manifested in a number of changes, including the rise of diversity politics where these groups settled in large numbers.

In particular, cities like Chicago, which had high Irish and Polish populations, showed how groups from outside the West tended toward different systems of self-governance, specifically the strongman model that is common in the third world.

Generally, Southern and Eastern European countries do better with strong leaders and less rule of law or insistence on the lack of corruption that Western Europeans prefer. Consider Italy, Russia and Ireland as contrasted to England during the same time period.

In Chicago and New York, these new immigrant populations created the rise of machine politics:

City government experts point to a political culture that’s been in place for more than 100 years. This culture dates back to the late 19th century, when a gambling-house owner named Michael Cassius McDonald created the city’s first political machine. Under machine-style rule, those in power would hand out contracts, jobs, and social services in exchange for political support.

Chicago’s large immigrant population made it easier for political machines to grow in power. Poor ethnic communities could be played off against one another and manipulated with petty gifts. In exchange for political support, ethnicities would be given virtual fiefdoms within city government; the Irish, for example, were given police work, and the Italians jobs at the transit authority.

Of course, none of this was unique to Chicago. New York City had large immigrant populations and the notorious political machine at Tammany Hall. But machine politics faded away in New York, due in part to external pressure from former New Yorker Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was elected president in 1932.

Did machine politics fade away, or were they simply transformed into the Leftist agenda upon which FDR embarked?

It definitely appears that the Left has assimilated the lessons from machine politics:

Chicago moved towards a one-party system that made it even more vulnerable to corruption: The city’s last Republican mayor left office in 1931. Today, not even the Democratic primaries are competitive—for the most part, once you’re in office, you stay there. The weak campaign finance laws in Illinois probably helped to stave off competition in recent years.

Diversity means that no social standards in common exist, and each ethnic group becomes a special interest group, which means they can be bought off like other special interest groups (minorities, religions, unions, LGBT+, industries, mothers against drunk driving, environmentalists) by giving them monopolies on certain roles.

At that point, the only sin is to violate the rules of the machine itself, which exists solely to further control, a system of power based on uniformity and power as a means-to-an-end of itself. Control necessarily arises from democracy as Plato detailed 2400 years ago.

Notice how similar that is to both the contemporary Leftists in the West and the Soviet Communists.

Apparently, the practice of machine politics is alive and well in Chicago today:

The Chicago Machine relies on unwritten rules to recruit new members and control existing ones. The machine’s unwritten rules are very similar to those of organized crime families and street gangs. Machine recruiters don’t hand new members a manual containing the rules. New machine members learn the organization’s customs and norms through their elders or by trial and error.

The machine relies on peer and social pressure to enforce its rules. The machine does not physically beat or murder those who violate the rules. Nonetheless, the machine metes out punishment including excommunication, loss of jobs, loss of contracts, public humiliation, or inspections that lead to hefty fines and loss of income. People who live in Chicago know why you “don’t fight City Hall.” If you dare challenge City Hall, the machine will apply its unlimited city resources to make you pay.

Machine members will tell you the machine doesn’t exist. It’s in the best interest of the machine to make you believe there is no such thing as a political machine. The machine doesn’t want voters like you to know there is a political organization manipulating your vote. The machine relies on votes from the unsuspecting public to manufacture patronage jobs, political power, campaign contributions, and income for members who make the machine’s candidates invincible at the polls.

When people join the Chicago political machine, they aren’t photographed and issued an identification card. The machine doesn’t require its members to periodically receive an updated identification card that says, “Chicago Machine Member since 2003.” The machine has no official dues, no official articles of incorporation, and no official meetings. The closest the machine gets to anything official is the Cook County and State of Illinois Democratic Party. The machine camouflages itself under the false pretense of a political party that exists to serve the public good.

The machine is strictly business. The machine doesn’t sell drugs or weapons. Its stock and trade is political influence and power. The machine has control of city, county, and state taxes and often uses the money it collects as its own. At the very least, the machine’s elected officials trade government services for campaign contributions, which is why Jay Stone has sought a ban on political contributions from companies and people who do business with the city.

Everything the machine does is designed to get its members reelected so the machine can hold on to its political power and control government jobs and the taxes it collects. The machine is easy to get along with provided you play the machine’s game. If you ask members of the machine for help with problems concerning city, county, or state government, you can have it provided you help enough influential political machine members get what they want.

In other words, independent of the groups involved, the practice of diversity itself leads to thirdworlding, or the transfer of first world states to third world levels of order.

Diversity causes a wide range of negative impacts, but most fundamentally it destroys the identity and shared culture of a society leading to loss of social order and vanishing social trust, leading to civilization collapse.

Our future under diversity is more of the same, except that thanks to FDR, the Chicago/Tammany Hall model has gone nationwide through the proto-Communist Left wing of the United States.

How Trump Can #BuildTheWall Without Laying A Brick

Saturday, May 13th, 2017

People in the ruins of the West are starting to realize that diversity does not work.

On the surface, they see it through increased behavior of the type one finds in the rest of the world outside of the West. Most of the world languishes in third world status because of its refusal to adopt the founding principle of Western societies, which is the need for social order, including behavioral standards like honesty, integrity and a need to be productive.

Beneath that, they realize on some level that it means their nations have become shopping malls where citizenship is for sale in exchange for votes or paying taxes. No healthy society runs on this principle, so at a gut level they know their society is falling around them. This provokes some fear and trembling, but as long as the jobs are OK and they can afford reasonably comfortable lifestyles, they sleep.

At the most profound level, that of inner thought, some are starting to realize that diversity means a lack of direction. Diversity is the committee principle extended to ethnicity. And so there is no longer a standard like “the way we do things around here” or any principles in common except those of liberal democracy, tolerance, basic law and order, and that the money must flow.

Diversity creates apathy. The most diverse American city is also one that is famed for its apathy. When there are no social standards because every group has its own, people hunker down and ignore the world outside of their homes, jobs and grocery stores.

As usual, responses to this vary with how the individual thinks. Conservatives, who are realists who aspire to transcendentals like goodness and beauty, realize that the basic questions of life are qualitative. The methods are long known but the degree of their application determines how well results turn out, and how long they will endure.

Leftists, on the other hand, are motivated by egalitarianism alone. It is their one theory from which all of their rhetoric springs. In their view, the loss of social standards is a good thing because it empowers the individual. They favor apathetic, third world style civilizations because the individual has the least restrictions on its whims.

For this reason, the issue remains at an impasse. Conservatives are focused on improvement of what exists, and Leftists actively desire diversity. But this has changed with the observations above. Add to that the ongoing collapse of the American economy brought on by Leftist tax-regulate-and-spend coupled with a constant flow of new workers, driving down wages.

As a result, President Trump was elected in a large part based on his promise to Build That Wall. For most Americans, this was not a statement of racism, only a recognition that diversity is not just failing at its own goals, but damaging the country. The biggest social change of the last two decades has been the re-segregation of America in response to diversity, a prelude to Balkanization and eventually ethnic separation. Diversity has failed.

So far, however, we see no wall. There are political reasons for this, and practical ones, but even more, it may be that the wall is best interpreted at metaphor. What if we could, without laying a single brick, end diversity and immigration, or at least third world immigration (and bring the battered South Africans over instead)?

The answer lies in a simple question: why do they come here? Why give up their culture, way of life and homeland just to join the great shopping mall that is the post-collapse West?

The answer is equally simple, because the human organism never changes: for the free stuff and better money.

If you really want to build a wall, you will do so by making the free stuff go away and ending the guaranteed better money because of forced hiring. This means targeting our social welfare programs, including free medical care at emergency rooms, and ending the host of civil rights policies that follow the “disparate impact” theory behind Affirmative Action.

As American law is currently interpreted, if a white person and a minority person walk into a job interview, a rental office, a real estate office or a store, and the minority person does not get hired, rented to, sold a house or served first, legal liability is created. The business owner can be sued and the high legal costs could easily deprive him of his business.

These laws guarantee that if third world people come here, they can have whatever jobs, housing and service they want. This slipstreams into the psychology of immigrants, which is to want to convert whatever place they occupy into something like their homeland. They must either admit their homelands were not as nice as the new place, or invent a cognitive dissonance response that claims the new place is not nice at all, but will be so once the newcomers take it over and make it in their image. This, too, is eternal human behavior.

If Mr. Trump wants to build a wall, the fastest way to do this would be to change the interpretation of American law from “disparate impact” to no presumption of racial guilt if results turn out unequally for white people and non-whites. This would remove minorities from the legally-enforced front of the line, and allow the re-segregation to continue even faster.

In doing so, he would not be changing history but acknowledging it. The postwar experiment in diversity has failed, and since it is taboo to say so in public, people are simply segregating themselves. All races are doing this, as we see in places like Houston, which is in a pre-Balkanization state of each race isolating itself in its own neighborhoods.

A physical wall would be impressive, certainly. But the only sure way to stop the flood is to stop the handouts. Without guaranteed jobs and housing, and with no social benefits like welfare and healthcare to tempt them, the third world would stay home and do the right thing, which is to work toward the improvement of its own nations instead of deferring the solution by coming here.

Western Civilization

Thursday, February 16th, 2017

Human minds can quickly come to accept things as normal and push them to the background of consciousness. For example, we do not usually wake up and think about the fact that we are riding a ball of rock through space by the grace of a large ball of fire which warms us. Nor do we think about our hearts beating, or an asteroid plummeting to smite us.

Civilization fits into the same frame of mind. To paraphrase the neurotics at Apple computer, as long as “it just works” we sort of forget about it, and because it is bigger and more complex than us, we assume it is just working until we see clear signs of its failure. Those usually come long after the problem can be fixed.

And yet, like all things crafted from a design whether intentional or accidental, civilizations start from an idea and work outward. This idea is what ideology intends to replace; the idea is functional, where ideology is compensatory, or designed to work around the idea so that the individual can be powerful despite potentially not living up to the standards set by the idea.

The idea of the West is that of the reflective being: alone, he needs no stimulus, but can reach deep into his intuition to see where it pairs up with the natural world around him, and by deriving similar patterns, understand the cosmos beyond the physical. This is a hybrid of intravert and extravert that creates the feral beast which can also conduct logical analysis.

Most civilizations are reactive, or stimulus-driven, in other words purely extraverted. The third world is this way. People go about routines and react to events. When there are no events, they go somewhat crazy, so pointless drama is more valuable than silence. Even their analytical thoughts are like reactions, and their music, syncopated and color note heavy, reacting to the imposition of structure.

This explains the frenetic nature of the third world. There must always be entertainment. If there is not, the dark acid of existential questioning eats away the framework of the illusion and a void is revealed into which gravity pushes people without mercy. When that happens, those who have power are in danger, so it never happens.

Reactive civilizations are simpler and easier to set up than reflective ones. One needs only a group and a schedule of events, such as that there is always something happening — “what’s going on?” — to suspend the existential terror that is the actual default state of humanity. When the people are occupied, they are oblivious to direction.

This shows us the power and pitfall of reactivity as a psychology. It is easy to maintain and avoids the difficult questions in life like meaning and death, but it also makes the people who are caught in it oblivious to anything outside of themselves, to the point where when things do not turn out as they expected, they tend to be angry at life itself.

Most people even within reflective civilizations choose a reactive outlook. It is existentially more convenient because it does not confront disturbing questions, or require the individual to make hard choices. However, it leads to the type of solipsistic outlook that if predominant enough converts the society as a whole into a reactive one, at which point it slides into third world disorder.

If one thing could be identified as being responsible for the rise of the West, it is our salient attribute as reflective people: we look both within and without, searching our intuition and developing our knowledge of reality in parallel, to know what is true. This is a rare trait and it alone explains the results our civilization has achieved.

Race-Mixing Is Not The Future, Unless You Want To Be A Third-World Society

Saturday, February 4th, 2017

As with many Leftist attacks, this one begins with a social appeal, progresses to one fact, then draws overbroad conclusions from that and goes to a crazy place. The headline screams “The future is mixed-race” and it features a picture of a cute, mostly-white kid to make you think everything will be ducky.

But when we look further, we see the usual logical sleight-of-hand and circular reasoning that seems to define Leftist propaganda:

Recent insights from the sequencing of hundreds of thousands of human genomes in the past decade have revealed that our species’ history has been punctuated by many episodes of migration and genetic exchange. The mixing of human groups is nothing new.

What is new is the rate of mixing currently underway. Globalisation means that our species is more mobile than ever before. International migration has reached record highs, as has the number of interracial marriages, leading to a surge of multiracial people such as Shewmake.

It is so subtle you might miss it: in the past, groups which no longer exist today merged to form highly distinctive groups. This happened because they were close to each other and were in the process of improving themselves to the point where ethnic groups are today. In other words, this was evolution.

But now, instead of merging groups in a beneficial way, we are merely mixing randomly, and erasing groups in the process, replacing them with… what?

Let us assume that race-mixing happens all the time and has throughout history, and then look at it as a method of evolution, and compare different results from different areas.

For example, we can look at the Romans, who were a hybrid of Etruscans and ancient Greeks (in theory). Did it work for them? They had a great empire, for a time, and then it fell apart. Were these two groups closely related, or not? History suggests that since there were blonde and red-haired Romans, the Romans were much like modern Western Europeans, which suggests that these groups were more similar than disparate.

But then, we have plenty of other examples of race-mixing. For example, Pakistan is what happens when Muslim invaders mix with local Hindu populations. Vietnam is a merging of Asian groups, Brazil is an ethnic free-for-all, Iraq is a mixture of Persian and Arab, and Eastern Europe shows a mixing of Europeans with Asiatics. How has mixing worked out for those places?

Then we might look at Israel, a group with ancient origins that has steadily increased the amount of European in the mix over the years. Obviously this group was doing well in the past, and is doing even better now. Can we attribute that improvement to miscegenation? Probably not entirely. But the point is that sometimes, blending in other advanced tribes can help a small tribe.

But as far as bigger groups, when they blend, the result is going to be more like Iraq or Pakistan: the attributes of the larger group, formed through aeons of evolution, are adulterated by something different — it does not have to be “bad” or “good,” “superior” or “inferior,” merely different — which removes all of that refinement. A specific thing becomes a generic one.

This is why Vietnamese, Filipinos, Mexican indios, Pakistanis, Brazilians, Southern Italians and Thai people look very similar: they are roughly the same racial recipe, with similar amounts of Semite, Caucasian, and Asian leading to similar appearances. They might have something else in common: none of these societies are particularly functional.

So when you hear the argument that race mixing is inevitable and it is good, reflect on this. No method is universally good, and “good” depends on who is doing it and how, because that is what regulates results. Results are more important than categories like good and bad based on social feelings. And if you look at results, it becomes clear that race-mixing is neither all bad, nor particularly good.

In most situations, race-mixing leads to the death of civilization. The once-distinctive group loses its unique traits, becomes generic, and then creates yet another generic human civilization, which is basically subsistence existence with disorganized social order in the Thirdworld™ style. That is the future of random race-mixing.

Contrary to what the article says, race-mixing is not inevitable because the choice remains up to the individuals involved. Some people will race-mix; some always have. But those who want a non-thirdworld future for their descendants are probably against it. And so instead of our inevitable future, race-mixing looks more like a way of purging some people from among us, as a prelude to sending them away…