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