Amerika

With the rise of Brexit, the Left is blaming white people for acting in self-interest:

Now, a large part of the support for Britain’s exit has come from far-right organizations like Britain First or UKIP; they want to solve all social problems by closing borders, kicking out immigrants, and maintaining the racial purity of the UK. The only choice the left has had on the Brexit matter is between siding with this sorry lot or the pro-austerity (make-people-pay-for-the-mistakes-of-bankers) Bundesbank. What would you do? But this difficult situation exposes in very clear terms an important problem that faces the globalized left: The racism that has been at the center of social democracy from its rise in the 1920s to its decline in the 1990s.

Sanders has often said that he wants the US to be more like Scandinavia, but the reason why social democracy (strong trade unions, high standards of living, robust housing rights, meaningful social services) has been successful in this part of the world is because it is racially homogeneous. Indeed, as the political scientist Sheri Berman explains in her 2006 book The Primacy of Politics Social Democracy and the Making of Europe’s Twentieth Century, the roots of Scandinavian social democracy are not that distinct from those which gave rise to Nazism, National Socialism. What happened is this: The left in Sweden came into power in the 1920s by adopting the language and fantasies of the far right.

The current Leftist narrative, which must be banged out on a tin drum endlessly by anyone who hopes to join the Leftist tribe, is that Brexit and other secessions from the “we are all one” government that hopes to create unity by subsidizing the less-capable with income from the more-capable, are motivated by “racism” because white self-interest is taboo.

If Donald Trump and Nigel Farage have done anything, it is to legitimize white self-interest. Our old M.O. was that we would do anything to avoid being called racist; our new one is “we do not need you.” White people have relatively few needs and we can supply all of them ourselves, so we do not need anyone else, and we want to cut ourselves free from a third-world-style, big-government disaster as the EU and US represent.

Of course, that offends the precious groups of the Left. The students are appalled at the lack of bennies; the housewives worry that somewhere, someone, sometime might experience — oh the horror — conflict because we are not simply buying everyone off. Then the commercial sector worries that by doing anything but putting the world under the rule of a single stock exchange, we are making commerce more difficult — even if it makes productive business easier.

White people did not want this, but race war is upon us. Our neurotics (Leftists) have imported people whose only allegiance to our society is the benefits it chucks out their way. When that is interrupted, social order will fail. Then again, it is better to have a quick failure than a drawn-out descent to Brazil levels of disorganization, so failure is preferable to “success” in this instance.

The majority of people in this world come from societies which are not thriving. They act in two modes: first, self-interest, and second, resentment of those who have risen above. This leads them to be anti-white, even though this solves none of their problems or makes them happy, at least in the way that self-determination and self-rule could. Because they cannot have those, they settle for freebies and resentment, which gradually erodes them.

As we have seen over the past seventy years, minorities in the West have improved quality of life, but they are not thriving. In fact, they seem angrier every year despite more being given to them, and it is unreasonably bigoted to assume that this is the result of mere extortion. No: they are being deprived of what a population needs most, which is pride, because they are permanent dependents of a society which will never be fully theirs. This is the cruelest stroke of diversity; it dispossesses all, equally.

Unfortunately, people have conditioned themselves to see any failure to enthusiastically endorse “equality” as an attack on them personally. This means that any criticism of multiculturalism or diversity is judged to be “racism,” and presumed to originate in a dislike of the ethnic groups involved. For most people, it is simply too big of a cognitive leap to realize that someone can oppose a policy like diversity because of its inevitable results, which have nothing to do with the other groups being bad. No two groups can occupy the same space because each group will want its own culture and standards dominant, and assimilation means that both the majority and minority are adulterated and replaced by a new mixed-race cultureless group.

This brings our society to conflict. On one side are Leftists and the minority groups they imported to vote for them; on the other are our indigenous Western European populations. The latter group has never wanted war, but by acting in self-interest as the one group to whom that privilege is prohibited, it will “trigger” the other group into full-on warfare. Even as it dies, diversity has one last misery to give us.

Tags: diversity, equality, miscegenation, multiculturalism