White Nationalists have a one-two punch: One, diversity is going to lead to armaggeddon once it reaches South African or Rhodesian levels. Two, diversity is already lowering our quality of life and is the main cause of everything wrong in our country.
Unfortunately, both of these attacks are whiffs.
Diversity in America, Australia, Canada and Europe will not lead to South Africa or Zimbabwe. This is because the fundamental nature of our immigrants is different from the 70 IQ Africans that make up the 'diversity' in South Africa. The diversity South Africa has to deal with is genuinely the worst biological infestation on Earth. The rest of us are dealing with a completely different subset. For America, it's Hispanics, a mixed group of African, Asian, and European blood, who have been civilized for centuries and are already assimilated to European culture. Mexico is one of the most important economies in the world. It isn't a failed state inhabited by a failed people like sub-saharan Africa. It's a successful state inhabited by above-average successful people. In fact, Mexico's per capita GDP ranks well above many pure white nation-states.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html?countryName=Mexico&countryCode=mx®ionCode=na&rank=84#mx
Mexico: $13,800
Uruguay (Pure white): $13,600
Bulgaria (Pure white): $12,800
Costa Rica (Pure white): $11,400
Serbia (Pure white): $11,000
Montenegro (Pure white): $9,900
Macedonia (Pure white): $9,400
Ukraine (Pure white): $6,700
Moldova (Pure white): $2,500
It's hard to criticize Mexico as unworthy to live alongside whites when several white countries fare worse than Mexico. Obviously whites and hispanics are close enough genetically that culture has a larger impact on the well-being of the nation than race/ethnicity.
For the same reason, we can imagine that hispanics who live in America are empowered by the overall American culture and outperform their genetic compatriots in Mexico. Sure enough, median hispanic household income in the USA is $38,039, only a bit behind whites' $49,777. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income )
I wouldn't say a median household income of $38,039 is exactly the same as Zimbabwe or South Africa. Mexicans in America can take care of themselves. They are richer than many whites around the world, if not most whites around the world. It's somewhat ridiculous, therefore, to view them as a threat to our economic well-being.
Canada and Australia are receiving immigrants primarily from high IQ Asian groups. There is no indication that people who can create Taiwan will turn Canada into Zimbabwe.
In Europe, we have a worse picture, because the immigrants come from worse regions of the Earth. North African blacks and Arabs are more criminal, less assimilable, less civilized, and dumber than the immigrants coming to America, Canada, and Australia. However, the proportion of immigrants in Europe is far lower than it is in America, so the impact is still extremely muted. Europe has a larger immigrant problem than the rest of us, but it also has the political power to solve it. There are robust anti-immigration parties in Europe with major voter support. Sarkozy, Merkel, and Cameron, the leaders of France, Germany, and the U.K., have gone on record condemning multiculturalism and opposing immigrants who can't fit in to their European host nations. Could it be that Europe somehow sleepwalks into a majority black, majority muslim continent? I suppose. But it's more likely that mass immigration will be halted, crime cracked down on, and Islam discouraged. Switzerland banned minarets in a popular referendum for God's sake. That doesn't sound like sleepwalking.
Even in the worst case scenario that Turks, Moroccans, Nigerians, Pakistanis, Indians and lord knows what takes over Europe, they are still genetically and culturally superior groups compared to the denizens of Zimbabwe and South Africa. It is impossible to get that low on the totem pole because sub-saharan blacks are the most primitive people on Earth. Many denizens of the middle east and North Africa have decent, middle class lives not far removed from European standards of living. In the framework of greater freedom and economic dynamism, led by a remaining white elite managerial class, whatever demographic stock Europe has to work with will have a higher standard of living than any region the immigrants originally came from. After all, even South Africa has a per capita GDP of $10,700, due to its 10% white managerial elite taking care of the economy. If Europe had even a 10% white population to oversee the rest of its immigrant nation, with a demographic stock far superior to sub-saharan blacks, it could end up with $15,000, or $20,000 per capita. That standard of living isn't far removed from what they have now. It's higher than many pure white East European countries today.
The dramatic swings in criminality between time periods covering the same demographics proves that crime is cultural, not genetic. Some races have a higher proclivity towards crime than others, but with sufficient carrots and sticks, no race *has* to be criminal. All a society needs to do is work out the necessary carrots and sticks to keep crime down, and crime will stay down. Therefore a nightmare scenario of rampant criminality due to immigrant invaders is unrealistic. The law will adjust to the immigrant population until criminality is damped back down. Even the immigrant populations want lower crime. After all, they're generally the major victims of crime from their racial compatriots, so crime will never be allowed to run free.
A country will not be severely impacted either by crime or loss of economic livelihood given the demographics of the immigrants coming to our lands. Whites living in these regions can expect to have a much higher standard of living than the majority of non-whites that live alongside them. They will also live in more secure, crime-free areas. This is because Mexico, Brazil, and even South Africa have already shown this is true. White minorities living in majority non-white countries tend to be rich, safe, and segregated away from the rest of the country. The same is true of America, where whites and non-whites live in nearly absolute segregation from one another. The country as a whole may be less beautiful, free, prosperous, or innovative than the pure white version of the past, but the white people living within said country will not be materially affected.
For the same reason that diversity won't cause armaggeddon in the future, it isn't lowering our quality of life in the present. This is because: Crime isn't rampant, our economic livelihood has not been impaired by the mere presence of poorer people in the country (America, one of the most diverse countries on Earth, is also one of the richest), and segregation keeps us away from any unsettling behavior minorities might attempt (like bullying, sexual harassment, speaking Spanish instead of English, or lack of cleanliness/manners.) The main victims of diversity are the other diversities. Crime is limited to the neighborhood of the criminals. Littering and broken windows and unpainted houses are limited to minority neighborhoods. Bad schools are populated only by minorities. Poverty is mainly a minority concern.
It's true that in an objective sense, it's a shame to tie up valuable resources supporting non-white life, when it could have gone to more white life instead. But those whites who Are alive are not negatively impacted by the life of non-whites. The only 'victims' are the whites who were never born in the first place. The problem with that is given white birth rates, they never would have been born anyway. Low birthrates are not a response to high immigration. Even in countries without any diversity, like South Korea, or Poland, low birth rates prevail. So what we find isn't that non-whites are stealing our ecological niche and driving us to extinction. What we see is whites want to go extinct and non-whites are simply making use of abandoned wilderness that we refuse to populate anymore. In one case, minorities would be guilty of a great crime, but in the second case, it is whites who are guilty of a great crime, and non-whites laudable for carrying on the torch of human civilization as best they can.
Lastly, race is not the main cause of everything that's wrong with our country. This is because one of the worst places to live on Earth is North Korea, a nation that is racially no different from South Korea, one of the best places to live on Earth. Culture is the main determiner of well-being, not race. The same was true of East and West Berlin. If there is something wrong in our country, it can always be traced back to some cultural or ideological mistake. It often has to do with a failure to recalibrate our morals and laws in the face of changing technology. Everything wrong with the world today is that we are living with an agrarian evolved ideology/morality and a bronze-age religion alongside 21st century technology, like birth control pills, advanced medical care, the green revolution, fossil fuels, steam engines, the internet, global trade networks, intellectual property, etc.
We have not yet left behind the intellectual systems designed for a 90% farming world. Our greatest philosophers had no idea how to live in a world such as today's. Even more recent attempts to 'modernize' ideology, like fascism and communism, are now hopelessly obsolete and outdated. What's the use of a 'revolution of the proletariat' when manufacturing is no longer a serious industry and the entire economy runs on services?
What we are seeing is friction. People don't know what moral norms are useful for this day and age. We are struggling blindly because we haven't had a thousand years of tradition teaching us what's 'generally the right idea.' There is no common sense to lean on for support because every ten years the whole world changes again. The less intelligent people of the Earth are even more dazed and confused than the more intelligent. They often fall into bad, self-destructive habits, for the simple reason that no one taught them anything better. For a worker to stay relevant, he must jump from job to job like ice floe to ice floe as whole industries go obsolete due to off-shoring or mechanization. For a romance to succeed, people must somehow continue along the same tracks of educational and career success for over a decade, in the same geographic location. This sort of bewilderment is all the result of friction. We are a society begging for a new moral system, but quick to condemn any solutions to their needs that conflict with the old moral system, the old religions of the obsolete past. Since it is impossible to adjust to the new world we live in today without abandoning all of our obsolete moral thinking, the pain carries on.
There are several moral 'truisms' that must be abandoned before we can make any progress. All the problems of the world today can be traced back to our refusal to abandon old moral 'truisms.'
Truism 1: The ends don't justify the means.
Truism 2: People deserve what they earn, and earn what they deserve.
Truism 3: God has ordained society to be like the Bible/Koran/etc.
Truism 4: Production is noble, but consumption is contemptible.
Truism 5: Old art is somehow more elevated than today's.
Truism 6: This is the best of all possible worlds.
Truism 7: Changing anything is against Nature and God's plan.
Truism 8: Relationships should be about 'passion' combined with 'mutual respect.'
We should discard all of these moral truisms, that originated some time in the distant past, and set up new moral truisms, more relevant to the world of today:
Truth 1: The ends justify the means.
Truth 2: People deserve a decent life.
Truth 3: There is no God, but our souls worship Truth, Love, and Beauty just fine.
Truth 4: Production is an unfortunate necessity, consumption is life's ideal.
Truth 5: Today's art is better than the past's.
Truth 6: Scientific Progress should be encouraged with all possible speed.
Truth 7: A scientific organization of society is the only sensible plan.
Truth 8: Relationships should be about joy, trust, and loyalty.
If diversity matters at all, it is only in how persuadable different groups are to the new truths the modern world has made available. For instance, Muslims aren't persuadable so they're a genuine threat to society. But there's no evidence East Asians can't be persuaded of these truths, so they're not a threat at all.
A society that embraces truth and lives according to a modern scientific morality would be a happy one, whoever its denizens. A society that doesn't will be unhappy, whoever its denizens. North Korea is just a worked example of this stark reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment