Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Why Western Elites Are Destroying Their Own People By Mass Immigration and Multiculturalism

The Saker has an article over at the Unz Review in which he argues that the ongoing racial and cultural genocide of the European peoples by mass immigration and multiculturalism is unstoppable, first, because of the decadence of the European people, and second, because of the malign manipulation of the Anglo-Zionist money power. 

This is a plausible but entirely mistaken analysis of what is happening to the European people both in Europe and in North America.

The elite are destroying their own people because the have no respect for them, or sense of kinship with them, and because it pays. This goes back to the beginning of the industrial revolution, when an urban proletariat, with no family connection to the landowning and capitalist class that dominated Parliament,* rapidly expanded and became a perpetual threat to the security of the state. Hence Disraeli’s recognition of the existence of “Two Nations” between whom, as a character in his novel "Sybil" (1945) remarked:
there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor.
The Great Chartist Meeting on Kennington Common, London in 1848
by William Edward Kilburn. Chartism was a movement for workers rights
and political representation.
In Disraeli’s time, free trade with input factor mobility, i.e., the import of cheap labor, or the export of capital and technology to cheap-labor areas whence products could be imported to the home market, was rarely if ever an option for the owners of capital, which meant that the industrial proletariat, though considered by the elite to be both dangerous and disgusting, had to be tolerated.

But input factor mobility is not only possible today, but the underlying reason for globalization. Thus there is an massive flow of cheap Third-World labor to the high-wage West, a flow of products of sweat-shop labor in the same direction, and a flow of capital and technology in the opposite direction, all of which negatively impacts wages in the West. Multiculturalism is the inevitable, and from the elite point of view, desirable consequence of the Third-World migrant flow. Desirable, that is, because a culturally divided proletariat is much less of a threat to the elite than a united nation.

But the Saker is right about two things. First that mass migration means the complete cultural and racial extinction of the European peoples. Second, that mass immigration will continue inexorable for the foreseeable future, the reason being that, for every worker in, say, England (pop. 53 million), there will certainly be many better qualified people (higher IQ, more energy, more ambition, little if any commitment to workers’ rights, etc.) in the Third World (pop. 5 billion plus), who are paid a fraction of what an English worker is paid. And among these potential migrants,  rickshaw drivers earning a dollar or two a day, for example, there will always be some ready, if they are permitted, to migrate to London to earn twenty or thirty dollars an hour driving a bus? And naturally, the elite welcomes such people. If the newcomers hassle the local girls, squeeze the natives out of decent housing, build mosques, etc., so what? What can the natives do about it? Nothing, as it now is clear. And if it means ever rising taxes to pay for new maternity hospitals, roads, schools, etc., that's very satisfactory: it keeps the construction industry prosperous and it allows a growing bureaucracy to soak up the educated middle class who might otherwise begin to think seriously about what is going on. And if the net result is that the native working class becomes an underclass — i.e., white trash despised by all and sundry, again, so what? There’s not a damn thing they can do about it: the supposedly left-wing workers parties being funded by the same plutocratic donors as the so-called conservative parties.

As for the Saker's assertion that the genocide of the Western nations is an Anglo-Zionist Money Power plot, that is just thoughtless conspiracy theory. One might as absurdly impute the Rothschild's or the Illuminati. Many members of the elite are Jews, for sure, but many are Anglos, and many more are Asians, Middle-Easterners or Africans. The issue is that genocide by immigration and multiculturalism pays. The ethnicity of the genocidal elite is irrelevant.

———
* An understanding of the change in relationship between the landowning classes in Britain, i.e., the elite, and the common folk that occurred with the industrial revolution was provided by Adam Smith in his treatise on economics. There he explained that, before the industrial revolution, there was close kinship between the upper and lower classes due to differential mortality between the rich and the poor. Overall, the population remained relatively constant, but because of high child mortality, the poor failed to fully reproduce themselves and the resulting population deficit was made up by the excess fertility of the rich. Thus, the rich were permanently downward mobile with two results. First, most of the rich had poor relatives for whom they had a personal sympathy, second the poor, many not so long descended from the rich, tended to adhere to the conservative values of their better off relatives. These factors made for a united nation. This unity fractured with the rise of the urban working class, which though living in seeming squalor and bestial ignorance, achieved well above replacement reproductive rates and which, as it swelled in number, adopted socialistic ideas. Thus, in purely hereditary terms, the industrial proletariat became much more distant from the elites than had been the rural poor of the pre-industrial era. In addition the political ambitions of the proletariat came to threaten the security of the elite, as they do to this day.

Related: 

CanSpeccy: The Ongoing Destruction of the European Nations Is No Mistake

6 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. The trouble with Darkmoon is that she and her contributors seem to blame all bad things on the Jews. I hold no brief for the Jews, adherents of a supremacist tribal ethic who have a marked tendency to exploit the people among whom they are dispersed. But while taking advantage of the host population among whom you live will earn you not affection among the exploited, exploiting your own people seems worse, yet that is what the European elites are doing now and have always done. Indeed it is what all elites have always done. And currently, the European elites see no particular value in their own proletariat and seem to think it best to merge them into a global, i.e., mixed-race proletariat to be exploited by a mixed race elite.

      The big question in the history of the future is whether the globalizers conquer the world, or whether some race-based groups manage to preserve their identity both genetic and cultural. It is not clear to me that the Russians or the Chinese are ready to be Africanized, or that the Africans are ready for renewed large scale white (or whitish) or Asian settlement and miscegenation in their native homelands.

      Delete
  2. Hi

    Thanks for the Adam Smith reminder. In China there is a sizable upward social mobility for centuries, and the relations within the social hierarchy are very much a different 'game:' (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1597405914?keywords=The%20Ladder%20of%20Success%20in%20Imperial%20China%3B%20Aspects%20of%20Social%20Mobility%2C%201368-1911)

    >>[M]ass migration means the complete cultural and racial extinction of the European peoples. <<

    From my understanding of biology, there's NO basis for using the term race in this context. The 'racial realists' are right on many points about the extent of human biodiversity. I just find absurd their insistence on the term race, as well as placing emphasis on skin colour, placing pictures of medieval knights on their websites http://racerealist.com/ and such ....

    As for "the Jews," I think very much the same. Once upon a time, it was "the Romans" who were similar bastards ... https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/why-am-i-doing-this/#comment-78981 . One day, the current mafias will be gone, and it's good to think more in terms of higher patterns.

    Best,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From my understanding of biology, there's NO basis for using the term race in this context.

      I think my understanding of biology is better: at least I graduated with first class honors and the faculty of biology prize, and held academic appointments as a biological scientist at three universities – briefly all three at the same time!

      Race, n.: a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

      The indigenous British are a well-defined race having been largely isolated by geography for thousands of years during which there have been only small additions from other populations until the post 1950 era. The Romans left only a very slight genetic trace in Britain — mainly due to the slaves from the Middle-East that they brought with them. The Anglo-Saxons left a larger imprint but they did not exterminate the native population as was once thought (e.g., David Hume in his History of England). the largest impact was that of the Vikings, which is quite marked in certain regions of the country and amounting to perhaps 10% of the gene pool. The Normans, who were a species of Viking, formed like the Anglo Saxons, a ruling elite and had a lesser impact on the genetic composition of the British nation than their Viking predecessors.

      Skin color, is not in itself a determinant of race. There are white Africans (albinos) who are certainly not Europeans, and there are white people in North Eastern Asia who are not Europeans. Likewise, black, which comes in many shades, is a pigmentation shared by many disparate groups, Australian Aborigenes, inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent, some Amerindian tribes, and Africans, the latter being, among themselves, one of the most racially diverse groups on earth.

      See further my In Praise of Diversity

      Delete
    2. In China there is a sizable upward social mobility for centuries

      In just about every society there are avenues for upward social mobility. In Imperial China, as is well known, the examination system provided a route for members of the landowning class, but not the peasantry, to enter the bureaucratic machine, with the possibility of attaining the highest rank among the ruling elite.

      However, in China, as elsewhere until very recent times, the rich had a reproductive advantage over the poor, simply because they did not suffer from starvation and other forms of severe privation. Thus, in China, as in the pre-industrial Britain of which Adam Smith wrote, there must have been a general downward mobility, as the progeny of the reproductively more successful upper social classes compensated for the higher mortality among the progeny of the lower social classes.

      Delete