Socialism, Multiculturalism and the Latin American Future of America

What do we on the Left want? We want an increasingly socialist America. Social democracy of any sort would be just fine and dandy. What’s the best way to work towards that? A declining White

One argument is that socialism is not possible in a multicultural society. Yet there are multicultural societies around the globe (depending on how you define it) that are quite socialist. Even Mexico has free health care and university education for all. Trinidad and Tobago, virtually the definition of an unstable multicultural society, has free universal health care. Libya had free health care, free education including higher education anywhere in the world, cheap subsidized food and very cheap rent.

The real argument is that socialism is not possible in a multicultural society with a significant number of European Whites. That’s because European Whites don’t like to share with non-Whites.

At any rate, we have no choice. With the current White percentage at 64

The argument is that we must secure some sort of Euro-American state in the US, or else fight to keep America a White country because a minority-White America will be an anarchic multicultural state.

But we really don’t have any choice about the matter.

Non-White immigration is not going to stop. Whites will continue to decline. There is nothing that can be done about it. So fighting for a White America is hopeless, bailing out a leaking rowboat. And a White state in the US will never happen. So the only solution is to make lemons of lemonade. As Whites decline, look for the silver lining. The silver lining is an increasingly socialist America. There’s no way to stop it short of dictatorship.

And I really doubt if multiculturalism will lead to long term anarchy in the US. It hasn’t necessarily elsewhere.

More likely what we seem to be moving towards in the US is a Latin American model. Insane inequality and maldistribution of wealth, a venal, corrupt, violent and extremely reactionary White elite and an increasingly radicalized non-White group (often led and including many radical Whites) moving hard to the Left, and a multiracial, mixed race middle class caught in the middle, but often siding with the elites.

Politics will become unstable as both the Right and the Left become increasingly radical. With extreme levels of inequality, you get an increasingly reactionary and vicious Right along with an increasingly radical and violent Left. It’s virtually a law of political science as stable as an equation on a blackboard. At some point, either the Right or the Left may become armed. There may be regular violent protests, riots, police riots, mass arrests, politicized military and police forces, etc. This is what Latin America has.

This is really the future. It will be about class, not about race. It’s really all about class in Latin America also to be honest. White Argentina and heavily White Chile have been extremely unstable and led by both the radical Left and radical Right in recent years. There won’t be any more race riots in the future US than there are in Latin America, which is next to none. Class riots? Yes. Race riots. Not really.

Please follow and like us:

27 thoughts on “Socialism, Multiculturalism and the Latin American Future of America”

  1. But you yourself said that less than half the population is fit for higher education. In your hypothetical view, why should they have to support a system that is denied to them?

    1. Simple. The working classes support the higher education and then the elites support the working classes by allowing some of their higher incomes to be redistributed downwards to workers. Win – win situation. You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.

      1. I’m with you on wealth redistribution. But low IQ blue collar workers would still have to support government institutions and programs (presumably run by educated elites) that they had no input in. Can you come up with a way to allow blue collar workers to give their input (besides voting because voting doesn’t cover many government institutions.)

        I think Shawn said that people with low IQ’s should have less input because they would make bad decisions and could easily be swayed to work against their interests but do you really expect them to get on board with that.

        1. If you are talking about unskilled manual workers, I bet they do have lower IQs on average than professionals. Am I wrong?

        2. Yeah I know about Christopher Langan. I’ve seen a few interviews with him and read an article he wrote. He was on some gameshow called 1 vs 100 too. I wonder if he really does have the highest IQ in America. It was one particular test that established it, which most people haven’t taken.

          The reason I said unskilled manual workers is because there are skilled blue collar workers who can earn quite good money. Of course there are lots of intelligent blue collar workers, I don’t doubt it. I’ve never heard anybody talking about it so I wouldn’t be concerned.

        3. the reason I mention the money is because I was originally wondering whether there is a positive correlation between earnings and IQ, ie the higher the pay, the higher the IQ. I don’t know exactly what determines pay but I’d say jobs that require more intelligence and skill and qualifications tend to be paid more. Skilled blue collar workers can earn more than some office jobs that could be done by a trained chimpanzee. .

        4. IQ is a paper test, so it would favor people who push paper all day. And those are the kind of jobs that seem to pay nowadays. It seems unfair that a skilled craftsman would have a lower IQ than a mediocre office worker. Are there any tests that measure more practical skills?

  2. I am curious. What is your opinion about the ideas about leftism from Ted Kaczynski, recently i read his manifesto and his ideas about the psychology of leftism leave me wondering if he is nuts or actually very lucid and insightful about them.

    Yes, i know the guy killed 3 people, but apart from that i would like to know the opinion of his ideas from a leftist.

      1. Sure, You can read the whole manifest here:

        And also there are some paragraphs on wikipedia about his political views.

        But basically he tries to explain the psychology of leftists, and he comes to the conclusion that there are two traits that make a person prone to being a leftist: feelings of inferiority and oversocialization.

        With feelings of inferiority he means having a tendency to feel in a disadvantaged position in life and because of this despising everything that seems “succesful”, as a kind of slave morality.

        The other characteristic is over socialization, which means, that such a person is raised to be very concerned about the problem of others and having problem with being even a little egoists.

        He says that these behaviors which may look as good, really are just a delusion, because leftists, especially leftists politicians, also want power, they just lack the means, and that’s why they are leftists, they try to identify with the mass/crowd because his suposedly disadvantage in life.

        He says that these are generalizations, and maybe particular people who are leftist may be genuinely good people, but he tries to focus on leftists who identify with the movement, but are really looking to have power.

  3. Meh, I don’t we’re headed for a Latin American future, mainly because the libertarian/neoliberal elites in Latin America only exist because they’re supported directly and indirectly by the U.S. Who’s going to prop up a hostile neoliberal elite in the U.S.?

    America is headed for Canadian-style socialism/Red Toryism, whether the libertards like it or not. We won’t have a choice, not with the free-market capitalist system collapsing around our ears. I think the Tea Party is in part the last gasp of libertardism, the “getting worse before it gets better” phenomenon.

    Part of the problem is the worsening unemployment situation. Not only is the real unemployment rate north of 20 percent (contra the government lies), UNDEREMPLOYMENT is a huge problem, particularly among the young. I’m in my 20’s and most of my friends are stuck working minimum wage or near-minimum wage jobs – going to college didn’t do a damn thing. We’re all saddled with huge amounts of student loan debt that we have no hope of paying off, a gigantic ticking time bomb waiting to blow.

    Also consider that increasing automation and scientific advancements are destroying more jobs than they’re creating, particularly among the poor. Poor, starving unemployed people are a recipe for mass unrest – see Egypt.

    1. I think there’ll be a cold day in hell before poor/working class, conservative whites are rioting in the street against the elite Egypt-style. They only seem to get riled up about things like Obama’s birth certificate. We have something that is almost unique to America: The Protestant Ethic. It basically says that hard work is more than a behavior, it is an *ethic*. Hard work means you get rich, thus if you aren’t rich it means you didn’t work hard enough, thus it’s your own fault. Conservative whites be they rich or poor believe this almost universally. Whites in Europe don’t have this belief. Not to say that hard work can’t pay off or that not working hard enough may condemn you poverty, but there’s a balance to made. Sociological factors also come into play. We don’t have unlimited opportunity.

      I don’t think America is headed for Canadian-style socialism. I think Obama will mostly likely be defeated. Will get some Tea Party asshole like Rick Perry who will win two terms. Social Security will be starved, more military spending, health care cost will continue to skyrocket unimpeded, wages for the common worker will remain flat or go backwards, but whites will bend over and take it up the ass because they got a tiny little tax cut.

  4. The fact that you need low IQ, criminally prone people who have contributed almost noting to the liberal arts to get your ideas implemented should be a pretty good sign that your ideas suck.

    1. No advocating rightwing economics. Most high IQ Asia is socialist to one degree or another. All of high IQ Europe is socialist too.

      If you keep advocating rightwing economics here, I will ban you.

      1. Asia is racially homogenous and not being flooded with hordes of 3rd world goons. Europe is on the verge of dying.

      2. Robert I am a socialist but one thing I struggle with is the phenomena of intergenerational welfare families. There are people in America who are on welfare and whose ancestors have been on welfare for generations.

        Hypothetically I support the idea of a welfare safety net for people. Because sometimes things just don’t work out and people need to be on welfare and some may need to be on welfare for the rest of their lives. ANd I don’t have a problem with that.

        But when families have been on welfare for multiple generations that seems problematic. So what I wonder is this. Is welfare a necessary part of socialism and if so what can be done to prevent multi-generational welfare families from ar\rising?

  5. I think you dismiss the racial angle a bit too easily. Latin American has a more flexible concept of race, but it’s still a factor there; and race is always a big factor here.

    The elites in the US- “right” and “left”, even the people you would regard as true socialists- seem to like the Latin American system, look forward to its implementation soon, and are working hard every day to make it happen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)