White = Rich, Black and Brown = Poor

Mercutio, who is apparently a White nationalist, writes asking me to rethink my socialism:

But socialism/collectivism is only somewhat desirable and workable in a society comprised of a racially homogenous high-IQ population – e.g. Sweden, Japan. Socialism in a racially diverse country like America is just asking for trouble. The low-IQ brown masses will leech the life out of the White majority through wealth redistribution. And the majority of Whites will never go along with it.
Not to mention that America serves a unique and vital role in Western (White) global dominance. Socialism in countries like Northern Europe are only sustainable if you have a larger ally to rely on for security. Who does America have to lean on? East Asia will be pulling ahead of us this century.
The last thing we need is to commit demographic suicide (Whites will be minorities in America in 20 years) and to then spoil all of our wealth in a massive government handouts orgy under a socialist regime. Have you really thought your worldview out?

Mercutio recites the typical line of White = rich, Black and Brown = poor. This is actually the way that 10’s of millions of US voters think. This is the logic behind the vast majority of US conservatives. This is what drives the world view of the US Republican Party. No White money going to beaners and niggers!
Whites will not be a minority in the US in 20 years. They will be a minority in perhaps 35-40 years.
Of course I have thought my world view out. I have always been a socialist. I know lots of White people who use government social programs to survive, so to me I do not believe that social programs are a way to transfer productive White wealth to lazy Browns and Blacks. To me, it’s a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor, and a lot of my White friends are poor and low income. I will never support the rich! The rich are my enemies forever and ever.
Government handouts orgies don’t spoil a nation’s wealth anyway. They just distribute it around more effectively to where everyone is more or less middle class and there are few very rich and few very poor.
Mercutio’s ideology seems to be White = rich, Black and Brown = poor. That’s sure not the way it is with the people I know!
I don’t give a flying fuck about East Asians pulling ahead of us soon. Who cares? Why should this concern me?
Why must Whites dominate the world? What’s in it for me? If Whites dominate the world, do I get a check every month for being White and part of the world-dominating group then? If we don’t dominate it anymore, will they cut off the check?

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

41 thoughts on “White = Rich, Black and Brown = Poor”

  1. Probably something like 98% of the wealth in America is owned by whites. But the irony is that very few actual whites have access to it. It’s horded by a tiny minority of whites that know the ins and outs of the system and have rigged it in their favor. They have no loyalty to America or poor or middle class whites. They see capital and corporations as global entities that should flow freely across borders in search of cheaper labor and bigger profits. The *average* white when you subject his home value is pretty much a few pay checks from bankruptcy. Those that don’t own homes aren’t doing much better than the so-called “NAMs”.

    1. That’s an excellent point, Tulio, especially about the lack of loyalty part.
      One paleoconservative/white nationalist, the late Sam Francis, actually understood this, and pointed out that corporations have no souls or loyalties.
      The corporations are the ones opening up America’s borders, the corporations are the ones bringing in h1b students, etc.
      The idea that the 1% is somehow “white supremacist” (as alleged by anti-racists) is baloney. The rich have no souls or loyalty, and only care about accruing more wealth for themselves.
      (on another note, this is why I cannot understand how any white nationalist could be a libertarian, since libertarians support open borders, but that’s for another thread)
      I think the irony Tulio pointed out is the reason why so many non-whites insist that white people own everything/are completely dominant/live such easy lives, and conversely is a reason why so many average white people, who don’t have access to the vast majority of that wealth, get resentful whenever people go on about “white privilege” or how easy whites have it.

      1. These traitorous white elites are also in bed with Jewry (literally) as evidenced by the intermarriages between powerful Jewish families like the Rothschilds with Euro Aristocratic families/American elites. If White nationalism gains momentum and decides to lynch these elites, give me a call.
        That being said, there is such a thing as white privilege, however it has little to do with economic power (as BAG and Tulio observe) and more to do with perception. Perception (and relevant associations which are a function of it) is power. I’m not resentful of White Privilege since it is a (relatively) benign form majoritarianism. I’ll take white privilege over Brahmin privilege any day.

      2. @Dota
        Agree. White privilege exists and it is because of the perception of wealth and power that the average non-white person has about whites.
         
        In India for example, if all other things are equal, a white person would get better service than a brown or black person, mostly because of the perception that whites are richer, more sauve and sophisticated than others. When things are not equal, such as a well dressed and sophisticated non-white person vis. a vis. a ‘dirty white’ like a Russian or Israeli pothead hippie, white privilege runs into thin water. In Central Asia and Eastern Europe, I have actually experienced something of a ‘foreigner privilege’, because of the locals assumption that foreigners are richer and better behaved than the Kazakhs, Uzbeks and other locals.

        1. Yes, ‘white privilege’ exists & it reaches its’ absolute peak in India. Typically an Indian will give you a good look up & down & possibly ask some embarrassingly nosy questions to determine your ‘aukaat’ (status?) which determines just how much contempt he/she should treat you with.
          The all important hierarchy in India (and Nepal) usually goes something like this-
          White man/foreign man of light complexion
          White woman
          Light brown man
          Brown man
          Dark brown man
          Brown male child – any shade
          Black man (who looks by dress & attitude to be foreign & has $$$)
          Cows
          Light brown woman
          Water buffaloes
          Dogs
          Brown woman
          Brown female child
          Dark brown woman
          Dark brown female child
          My husband used to fall under the ‘light brown man’ category but now that I dress him like an American he’s often given ‘white privilege’.

        2. AI
          You raise in interesting point, namely white privilege at home vs abroad. Abroad, white privilege certainly helps whites live better by giving them an economic edge which they wouldn’t have back home due to 2% owning 90% (as Tulio and BAG have repeatedly stated). In the GCC Arab countries whites typically make substantially more for doing the same jobs as Indians and other Asians. White skin comes with a much larger price tag in places like Dubai and India.

        3. Bibi
          Aukaat (औकात) is better understood as ones ‘station’ in life. It’s generally used in the context of not forgeting who you are and where you stand in the order of things (apni aukaat mat bhulo or अपनी औकात मत भूलों). It has several contexts ofcourse.

        4. @ Dota
          Economic and a number of other privileges as well. For example, western white men and women who date in India are able to bat a couple of notches above their leagues compared to what they would, if the world was skin-colour blind.
           
          Ironically, a lot of white expats in India and the Arab world start to play along with white privilege, at times with an overinflated assumption of what it means to be a white person in these countries. They start to *expect* white privilege and when they don’t get it, get quite unpleasant.
           
          Sometime back, I was flying Hyderabad and back. I had a layover of a few hours before the turnaround and since I was very tired, I booked a hotel near the airport so that I can get some R&R. Hotels near airports crew process pilots quickly, as they have tie-ups with airlines to express check-in pilots. When I arrived the desk, I simply had to sign in before a coicerge was called to take me up to my room.
           
          There was an American woman with a kid waiting for her turn to get checked in. She saw this exchange and created a sort of a scene. She alleged that the desk clerk was a ‘sexist Indian’, because he’d make her, a woman wait while letting a man who just arrived check in first. When it wouldn’t fly, she started playing the ‘American angle’.
           
          I have witnessed similar behaviours in many other situations as well – mostly American women and a rare handful of men.

      3. Tulio
        I’ve been through enough Job interviews to know that it exists. I don’t resent it as much as blacks do given our different circumstances. Blacks have deep roots in North America and resent being handicapped in their own countries. As an immigrant who voluntarily moved to Canada, I was quite aware and prepared for white privilege, hence I don’t resent it. If I moved over to China, I’d have to deal with Han privilege I guess. What annoys me about the left is how they make white privilege out to be this uniquely western social evil. This is bogus since majority privileges apply to every country out there. Compared to South Asia and the Middle East, white privilege is relatively benign.

        1. Agree totally with the last sentence. The amount of racism in the USA is not zero, but is about on par with discrimination against fat women, short men, and people with irritating nasal voices. Those latter groups are not considered a fundamental cleave in society, because they don’t suffer the aptitude and attitude deficits of the visible minorities.

        2. What annoys me about the left is how they make white privilege out to be this uniquely western social evil. This is bogus since majority privileges apply to every country out there. Compared to South Asia and the Middle East, white privilege is relatively benign.
          Bingo, Dota. If you had to be a minority in any country, no better place than a white Western country (excluding certain countries like Russia).
          Also, unlike Middle Easterners, South Asians, and even East Asians for that matter, white people are the only people who engage in a large degree of self-critique, and even go out of their way to accommodate minorities.
          I mean, do you have “Han privilege” conferences/college courses in China? Do you have rants against “Turkish privilege” in Turkey? Heck, even when analyzing Israel, you always hear about discrimination against Arabs, but rarely do you hear the term “Jewish privilege,” even though what you have in Israel is indeed privilege, in the literal sense of the term.
          That’s why I don’t like the term “white privilege.” It has much to do with my study of international countries. It seems that only in the West is the term “privilege” used so liberally, even though the West gives minorities so many rights, opportunities, platforms to voice their views, etc, and discriminates against their own people in a way that majorities in the rest of the world never would.
          As Wade once said a while back, sometimes as a white person in a liberal Western country, you feel that no good deed goes unpunished. Minorities in the West have it better than just about anywhere else, and yet they also seem to be the most sullen and bitter. They also have a tendency to take advantage of Western tolerance.

        3. @ Dota
          Good point about your expectations of an immigrant.
          Just my two cents, but I have little to no patience/tolerance for voluntary immigrants who voluntarily move to white Western countries, and then go on to complain about about white racism.
          The way I see it, if you’re a voluntary immigrant, you’re a guest in somebody else’s house, and the burden is on you to assimilate, fit in, not make waves, etc.
          Not to mention that it was white people who carved places like Canada out of the wilderness, and ultimately made them what they are.
          On another note, this is also why I don’t have much respect for certain white expats who move to East Asian countries, and then complain about the prejudice they face. Tough shit. If you don’t want to be a minority/face discrimination, don’t move to a racially different, potentially hostile place.

        4. Let’s not revert to the old argument of “because it’s worse somewhere else you should keep your mouth shut.” An injustice isn’t any less an injustice because worse injustices are practiced elsewhere. Someone could’ve said during Jim Crow, “why are blacks complaining about sitting on the back of the bus, at least we aren’t putting them in gas chambers like Hitler is doing Jews”.

        5. Plus people tend to compare their lives with those in their immediate surroundings, not to people on the other side of the planet who have no direct influence on their lives. So how I feel about the way blacks fare in America is compared against the way whites are doing in America, not the way Palestinians in Gaza are doing.

        6. BAG
          Just my two cents, but I have little to no patience/tolerance for voluntary immigrants who voluntarily move to white Western countries, and then go on to complain about about white racism.
          I can’t say I agree with this as the mark of a civilized society is one which emphasizes justice. Racism is dehumanizing and should be opposed whenever possible. I think you’re applying the broadest possible meaning to the word racism and what you’re really trying to say is that non white immigrants should not complain about Whites ‘othering’ them. If this is what you are trying to convey then I agree with you.
          Bear in mind that I make a distinction between minorities and immigrant minorities. Blacks and Aboriginals are minorities that rightfully resent being treated as the ‘other’ in their own homeland. Their roots run deep and they have played a crucial role in the formative stages of the newly emerging sovereign US (blacks especially). Immigrants on the other hand just need to get used to it as this is a fairly natural reaction to foreigners.
          Tulio
          Let’s not revert to the old argument of “because it’s worse somewhere else you should keep your mouth shut.” An injustice isn’t any less an injustice because worse injustices are practiced elsewhere.
          Tulio with an uppercut! The only reason I bring up comparisons with other places is because I’ve lived in those places. As I already stated in a previous post, you and I approach white privilege differently due to our radically different circumstances. Anyhow I think it’s quite impossible to eradicate white privilege completely but the best we can do it mitigate its effects. Historically every multi ethnic empire/sovereign unit in history has always had one dominant ethnicity that has served as ideological/cultural architects. In North America its obviously whites and I see that no good can come from dis-empowering them.

        7. @Dota
          Wholly agree with how Liberals like to ignore or downplay the racism and priviledge in Asia and paint WASP priviledge as the only priviledge in exsistence. I know they mean well (i.e they are trying to be introspective and criticise the negatives in their society) but it is bloody annoying because compared to South Asia, American elite’s priviledge is small fry.
          @Phatimabibi
          ” Yes, ‘white privilege’ exists & it reaches its’ absolute peak in India.”
          After India, I would add the oil rich Penninsula Arab countries . The pecking order in those oil rich countries is:
          1) White (Semitic) local Arabs followed by Black/Brown local Arabs
          2) Whites (people of European descent)
          3) Other Arabs (cultural Arabs )
          4) Asians & Africans
          Following is the gist of a chat between Whites in an expat forum;
          Young just out of college White engineer and senior Indian engineer approach Local Arabs to provide expert help/consultancy service for a project/technical issue. Arabs ignore the Indian and walk to the White guy. This type of incident is well known to Asians who live in the MidEast.

        8. @ Dota
          I think you’re applying the broadest possible meaning to the word racism and what you’re really trying to say is that non white immigrants should not complain about Whites ‘othering’ them. If this is what you are trying to convey then I agree with you.
          That’s about right.
          What annoys me in particular is the way so many non-whites of 1st/2nd generation immigrant heritage try to have it both ways.
          On the one hand, they frequently invoke their hyphenated American identity, even to the point of wearing it on their sleeves. They believe that their racial differences should not only be validated, but even celebrated.
          (ie. “diversity” and multiculturalism)
          And yet, they get annoyed when white people view them as the other/outsiders.
          (ie. the whole “perpetual foreigner” trope that Asian American studies types always complain about)
          So on the one hand, they want their differences to be celebrated, and yet they resent being seen as, well different!
          So yes, even though I am in many ways racist against blacks (I admit it), I will give them some room to bitch. American Indians too. Indigenous and involuntary minorities have at least that right.
          (not that I’m going to heed/agree with them most of the time, but oh well)
          However, I will not tolerate any grievance mongering from Hispanics or Asians. Especially in light of the fact that their countries of origin are much less progressive/enlightened when it comes to their attitudes towards immigrants/minorities.
          And no, I don’t want to hear any Aztlan style arguments from Hispanics regarding how they were hear first. Hardly any Hispanics in the U.S. today can claim descent from any of the Southwestern states while they were still a part of Mexico (which in turn illegally seized them from Spain, which before them illegally seized the land themselves!)

  2. And on another note, this is yet again another reason why I am puzzled by the way so-called liberals/progressives so aggressively promote open borders, and the overall agenda of globalization.
    Of course, they do it because they’re afraid of being called racists, love “diversity,” and are “citizen of the world” types.
    But still, they would be amazed if they learned just how much their pro-open borders, pro-globalization views aligned with the 1% they supposedly hate so much.

    1. A lot of hay is made over the fact that poor republicans vote against their own interests, but I’ve yet to meet a democrat who is against things like open borders, giving in-state tuition to illegals, etc. Someone has to pay for that stuff, both directly and indirectly, and your average democrat dunce pays dearly for it.
      The rich/powerful democrats who control the party made out like bandits in the current lopsided economic system, and deep down I think they’re reluctant to change things. I can see their strategy – make boilerplate hay about racism, gay rights, etc., throwing the average liberal a feel-good bone while doing little to nothing to significantly improve his/her economic situation. The fact that there needs to be a serious downward redistribution of wealth (on the order of trillions of dollars) is almost never addressed by them (again, beyond boilerplate hand-waving).

    2. I can see their strategy – make boilerplate hay about racism, gay rights, etc., throwing the average liberal a feel-good bone while doing little to nothing to significantly improve his/her economic situation. The fact that there needs to be a serious downward redistribution of wealth (on the order of trillions of dollars) is almost never addressed by them (again, beyond boilerplate hand-waving).
      Couldn’t have said it better myself. I’ve dealt with these type of white liberals my entire life, growing up in the Bay Area.
      I think Jeffrey Blankfort once defined a liberal as someone who believes in saying and doing the right thing, and in fact boasts of it…so long as there is no physical or financial risk involved, the threshold for both being very low.
      They’ll keep their affluence and comfort, thank you very much. But hey, I voted against Prop 8 and for Obama, so I’m making a difference!

  3. Dear Robert
    A 19th-century British Prime Minister once said: “In Britain there are 2 nations, one rich , one poor.” Hmm, wasn’t Britain an all-white country in those days?
    Russia in 1860 resembled the Confederacy, with the difference that in Russia there were serfs instead of slaves. Of course, all those serfs
    were white, just like their masters.
    There are many other examples to show that a country can be all-white and very unequal. Of course, it is possible that racial diversity worsens inequality, but the notion that somehow an all-white country would be so equal that it doesn’t need a welfare state is preposterous and flies in the face of all historical evidence.
    What is true, however, is that diversity of any kind weakens bonds of solidarity. In Belgium, the Flemish are now much richer than the Walloons. As a result, many Flemish nationalists deeply resent the transfer of wealth from Flanders to Wallonia. Their solution is not to abolish the welfare state but to regionalize it, so that the Walloons will have have to run their own welfare state at the regional level.
    The same proposals are being made by some Northern Italians, who want to federalize education, health care and social programs. That way,Sicilians have to pay for their own schools, hospitals and welfare. The more responsiblities the central government has, the more income redistribution there will be from poorer to richer regions.
    All rapists are men, therefore all men are rapist. A bad argument? Well, that is the type of argument White nationalists make: all rich people are white, therefore all white people are rich. Ultimately, all non-government wealth is in the hands of individuals. The millions owned by Mitt Romney are his private wealth. They are not the property of all white Americans.
    The Republican Party is not the party of white people but the party of rich people. It is a party led by knaves and supported by fools. Of course, not all Rpublican supporters are fools, but by and large, any American with an income below 80,000 who votes for the Republicans is in my judgement a political fool.
    Have a good day. James

  4. The economy is too complicated to reduce it to a simplistic question of whether we need more capitalism or socialism. Communism is better at getting everyone’s basic needs served; capitalism is how new things get invented and businesses started. Both are important economic priorities.
    Less important than the correlation of skin tone with wealth, is its correlation with resentment. Socialism works if the beneficiaries believe they’re part of a society that they respect, and make an effort to minimize the extent they sponge off others. When there are large numbers of people who believe society owes them a lot, they’re perfectly happy to turn welfare into a permanent lifestyle. In America, such resentment is largely related to ethnicity.
    If we knew that generous welfare for single parents with no skills would result in the birth of zero additional children, we’d provide for them everything reasonable to get the kids started in life. What’s should be the backup plan, now that we know there are many girls/young women who decide raising a kid at state expense is the best life for themselves?

    1. 1. The U.S. (and the rest of the world) will experience a devastating economic collapse.
      2) The multi-cultural experiment will fracture due to resentment and political agitation (it’s only the illusion of wealth and our relative comfort that keeps veneer of civil society afloat).
      3) People will be forced to regroup along ethnic/cultural lines. Tribalism will make a comeback.
      4) Violent conflict. Final outcome: unknown
      Think not? Turn off the grid for a month and see what happens. All this jabbering about privilege, and racisim, and fairness, and who has what is a luxury that the well-fed and comfortable can indulge in. Your priorities will change overnight in a survival situation and your openmindedness will evaporate.

      1. All this jabbering about privilege, and racisim, and fairness, and who has what is a luxury that the well-fed and comfortable can indulge in. Your priorities will change overnight in a survival situation and your openmindedness will evaporate.
        Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  5. Bay Area Guy, you’re quite correct about libertarians and open borders, except that there’s a substantial minority of those who accept the libertarian (classical liberal) analysis but recognized its _limitations_, and they (we, actually) refuse to yield the word “libertarian” to the open-borders usurpers. But of course we can’t just use the word unadorned, or we’ll not be clearly distinguishable by such as yourself, so many of us use “nationalist libertarian” or “libertarian nationalist.” The Ex-Army site is an example. And here’s a Libertarian Nationalist take on open borders:
    http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2011/09/libertarianism-and-imagination.html

  6. Also, having lived around many Asians, it’s also hard to accept that so-called “white privileges” are the sole domain of white people.
    For example, I don’t see Asians getting pulled over by cops for “driving while Asian,” I don’t see them getting dirty looks or followed for walking through nice neighborhoods, they can often arrange to be around people of their own race, etc.
    Most of this “white privilege” rhetoric tends to come from blacks, as well as those who want to hop on their bandwagon.

    1. Because they have Asian privilege but ”privilege” is the wrong word, its personal level and media influenced. Personal level influence is anybody of a any race, gender or religious demographic you meet. Media influence is how they portray themselves to others. Asian are extremely nice on a personal level and there media is wonderful, but black media is awful ( it was much better in the 50s 60s 70s some of the 80s ) and i don’t have tell anyone how we are on a personal level. So in short most races create there own hatred against them, That’s why i try to be nice to everyone i meet you are the spokesperson for your race.

  7. Why must Whites dominate the world? What’s in it for me? If Whites dominate the world, do I get a check every month for being White and part of the world-dominating group then? If we don’t dominate it anymore, will they cut off the check?
    Well said, Robert.
    I would prefer it if majority white countries like the U.S. abandoned their empire, and adopted a more isolationist policy. Empire brings conflict and “diversity.” After all, “invade the world, invite the world.”
    If I had to be any white person, I would prefer to be a white person in a place like Iceland or Sweden, where I wouldn’t have to deal with the burdens of empire or diversity.
    (although, thanks to wimpy leftists, Sweden is getting more and more of diversity)
    Empire, the end, is not worth it.

  8. There was this famous British Politician who stated something like this.
    “If a white man does anything it is based on Principles, If he goes to War, it is based on Principles, if he destroys, it is based on Principles, if he fucks-up, it is based on Principles”
    You have liberated Iraq by killing many thousands of people; why not liberate Pakistan, Africa if Principles are so important?

  9. Regarding the white people who get mad about this stuff….
    1) Like many members of every other race of people, these white people want to live (either totally or at least primarily) with other white people only
    2) Instead, “diversity” has been forced upon them against their will (none of us ever asked for or voted for this) and they’re forced to have black and latino people move into their towns (bringing their crime and crap music and property-value-lowering ways with them)
    3) On top of that, the knowledge that white wealth (whether it’s actually theirs or other white people’s wealth) is being transferred to these blacks and latinos to subsidize their living (and often over-reproduction and dysfunctional lifestyles) adds insult to injury. (Let’s be real here – the wealth transfer is overwhelmingly white/asian to black/latino, when you consider % of benefits received vs % of the population that blacks/latinos represent.) Whether one-off anecdotal stories or not, stories about black welfare recipients and their 30 kids have a way of fueling serious anger.
    4) To cap it off, these blacks and latinos then complain about wanting more rights and not being treated fairly and white privilege holding them down and more affirmative action etc etc… and the white people just want to snap.
    40 years ago whites had their neighborhoods all to themselves and there was none of this… is it really that hard to understand why they’re pissed? Robert Lindsay and liberal types don’t seem to care about that stuff… but to a different mindset these things are important. Different groups/races/cultures/etc want a country for themselves… and 40 years ago American whites had it and it was the greatest country in the world, which gave them an additional source of pride. Now that’s been taken from them, and they’re resentful. Add to that that the growing newcomer/non-white population that the whites have been ceding the country to show no sense of gratefulness and often outright hostility towards whites and blame them for everything… and the anger level of the dispossessed middle class/poor whites goes code red.
    I would think if the reverse happened to any other race in any other country, they would feel the exact same way.

    1. With what I read about Immigration from other countries to USA being opened. Is Jews found out that if they were the only people besides Whites and they succeed, like they always do; that may build resentment amongst whites, so a diverse population balances things.
      As far as Black people are concerned, you brought them as slaves. You own the problem now.
      White people should have to moved to Liberia instead of slaves.

      1. Blacks should have been given their own country, carved out of the existing boundaries of the USA. They’ve earned it, and more than deserve it after the shameful treatment they received in the past. No one should have had to go to Liberia (unless they really wanted to).
        Interesting point about the Jews, I’ve heard that theory before, I’ve always wondered how true it is. Understandable that they wouldn’t want the same dynamics at play (Jewish minority succeeding over white/Christian majority) that they just experienced in Europe, which obviously ended horribly.

  10. Dear BAG
    I don’t think that we can compare immigrants to guests. Guests will eventually leave but immigrants will stay. It is more accurate to compare immigrants to employees. To become an employee, you have to pass a test used by the employer, who will hire you only if he thinks that you will be useful to the company. Employees don’t owe gratitude to the company because the company hires them for the benefit of the company.
    Similarly, immigrants have to pass a test. If an applicant for immigration is accepted, then this occurs because someone in the immigrant-receiving country thinks that his arrival will be beneficial. Immigrants aren’t refugees, who supposedly are accepted on the basis of need. Immigrants don’t owe any gratitude to the new country because they are allowed to immigrate only because powerful and influential groups within the immigrant-receiving country want them.
    I think that every Western country has been a net loser from immigration since 1970, but that doesn’t imply that immigration policy was a favor to the immigrants. It was a favor to certain powerful groups, mainly employers, within the immigrant-receiving country. If immigrants hurt the majority of the population, the majority should not become hostile to the immigrants but to the minority of their own compatriots who use immigration to advance their narrow group interests at the expense of broader national interests.
    As to the duties of an immigrant, they are the same as those of the native-born, except one. An immigrant, like a native-born, has to obey the law and refrain from anti-social behavior, and in addtion make a decent effort to learn the language of the new country.
    The adage “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” doesn’t apply in a free country. First, the Romans don’t all do the same thing, so which Romans should the immigrant imitate? Second, in a free country, people are free to engage in non-conformist behavior as long as they stay within the law and don’t become anti-social. For instance, if a Serbian immigrant wants to listen to Serbian music at home, that is perfectly legitimate. After all, the native-born are also free to listen to the music of their choice, which in some cases is classical music, virtually all of which is foreign.
    Opposition to immigration should not turn into hostility toward immigrants, who are only banal people pursueing their own interests. If an immigrant behaves anti-socially or breaks the law, then he of course deserves hostility, but the same applies to a native-born who does that.
    Regards. James

  11. Everybody keeps complaining about wealth transfer from whites to non-whites. How did the wealth end up with whites in the first place? Lets trace our steps back. “Discovery” of New World? East India Company? Industrial revolution? Trading? Corporations?
    The wealth of the new world channeled straight into europe for centuries. Whom did that wealth belong to, europeans or first settlers?
    East India Company (est. around 1600) which ended up ruling India (starting around 1757) channelled the centuries old wealth/knowledge of India and SE Asia back to Britain. This basically fuelled the Industrial Revolution in 2 ways: wealth and markets. For these products, “new” markets which were often not willing markets were “forced opened” by gun-boat diplomacy. This unfortunately goes on even today. We don’t have to look further back than those “WMD”s that were found in Iraq and who is now drilling in the Rumaila Wells.
    Now, an average white man obviously doesn’t have much in this situation today, because the corporations are steered by rich white men. But it is still rich “white” men. What that means is the pre-requisite to “successfully” travel on the path to that status (assuming its not hereditary and is permiable in the institution you are involved in) without hitting glass or bamboo cielings is that you need to be white. So long as it is rich “white” men and not rich “asian” man, or rich “african” man or rich “aboriginal australian” man, there will still be a “white” man’s realm that pretty much controls the wealth and hence direction of the world. What you are seeing now and complaining about is the wealth migration from rich “white” men to what will be rich “non-white” men. When that transfer is complete, then hopefully we will be on much level footing, since what the social status will be is just rich vs poor. But unfortunately, that status won’t be attained without a few wars.
    Going back to the original topic at hand. Whose wealth was it really? And how was it attained? Collective memories of people do not change ignoring in-convinient truths.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.