- Registrado
- 15 de Nov, 2021
In light of the UK protests and the hope that the elites will see the unrest and compromise a bit on immigration, I'm here to tell you they won't. The same impetus is behind why, after promising to reduce migration, Boris Johnson increased it, and why our own US Republicans were willing to destroy the party rather than allow Donald Trump to enact the popular will. I'm going to explain this with a minimum of hysterics and negativity, this is just how the people at the top see the world. I am too autistic not to post this at some point, so I'm going to dump everything here rather than piecemeal it out in different threads.
TL;DR - They believe the end of the nation-state is coming whether anyone likes it or not due to irresistible historical forces, and the only viable choice is to make this transition happen as smoothly as possible.
TL;DR - Socializing with elites from around the world simply confirms their belief that we're all the same and globalism is inevitable.
TL;DR - They believe open borders will prevent WW3.
TL;DR - They believe there is a nearly unlimited supply of untapped human talent in third world countries. Race to Africa 2.0.
TL;DR - They believe the only reason Pakis and Englishmen behave differently is England has a better socio-political system than Pakistan, and given enough time in the system, Pakis will be sipping tea, going to work on time and inventing the next steam engine.
TL; DR - They won't change things because they don't believe reducing immigration is, in the grand historical sense, possible. To restrict immigration is to kill your country's future.
Open borders is part of the totalizing ideology of globalist liberal capitalism. Like ideologies of the past, from Bolshevism to papism to Caeasarism, it will not change via ordinary political incentives because the people in charge cannot change their minds on such a deep level. The only way to change it is to put completely different people in charge, and change this at every level of the system, from who runs the government to who runs the universities that create the next generation of government officials.
Okay, I got it out of my system.
Most of the very important people in the world are some species of Hegelian when it comes to history. They believe history is a process with a direction, going from phase to phase, and if you can discern that direction and get in front of it, it will only be good for you. For example, in this view, the end of hereditary monarchy was inevitable, overdue by 1914, and those regimes that kicked the hardest against the tide of history, such as the Romanovs and Hohenzollerns, met the worst end.
With the end of the USSR and the opening of China, history exited the phase of capitalism-communism struggle, and entered a new phase of liberal, democratic capitalism sweeping the globe. Those at the front of this trend, like the UK and the USA, profited, while those lagging, like Russia and Iran, are only suffering. Fukuyama's End of History is sort of the Bible of this way of thinking.
This is relevant to the immigration struggle, because our elites all believe, nearly to a man, that the next phase of history is the end of the nation-state, and the evolution of the world into a single, global marketplace for a single, global humanity. The forerunner of this is the EU, which is seen by them as entirely a success. Note that several national governments simply ignored the results of popular votes and joined the EU anyway. Brexit shocked the Tories because reversing history isn't supposed to be possible, and it's why Cameron and May twisted and turned to try and find a way to not actually obey the result of the vote.
The believers look back at the general success of the USA in dissolving European ethnic identities into a single mass of "Americans", or how European nation-states dissolved many local identities (who introduces himself as a "Basque" or a "Hessian" today?), and believe not only can this be done on a planetary scale, but that it is a historical inevitability due to the rise of the global economy. Those who fight the coming of the new, universal humanity and insist on retaining national identities will simply be doomed to live in poor, backward shitholes, cut off from the wonders of the developing global economy.
With the end of the USSR and the opening of China, history exited the phase of capitalism-communism struggle, and entered a new phase of liberal, democratic capitalism sweeping the globe. Those at the front of this trend, like the UK and the USA, profited, while those lagging, like Russia and Iran, are only suffering. Fukuyama's End of History is sort of the Bible of this way of thinking.
This is relevant to the immigration struggle, because our elites all believe, nearly to a man, that the next phase of history is the end of the nation-state, and the evolution of the world into a single, global marketplace for a single, global humanity. The forerunner of this is the EU, which is seen by them as entirely a success. Note that several national governments simply ignored the results of popular votes and joined the EU anyway. Brexit shocked the Tories because reversing history isn't supposed to be possible, and it's why Cameron and May twisted and turned to try and find a way to not actually obey the result of the vote.
The believers look back at the general success of the USA in dissolving European ethnic identities into a single mass of "Americans", or how European nation-states dissolved many local identities (who introduces himself as a "Basque" or a "Hessian" today?), and believe not only can this be done on a planetary scale, but that it is a historical inevitability due to the rise of the global economy. Those who fight the coming of the new, universal humanity and insist on retaining national identities will simply be doomed to live in poor, backward shitholes, cut off from the wonders of the developing global economy.
TL;DR - They believe the end of the nation-state is coming whether anyone likes it or not due to irresistible historical forces, and the only viable choice is to make this transition happen as smoothly as possible.
The elites are not all-knowing masterminds. They are not secretly ultra-redpilled on race and sex and merely using this knowledge for evil. They are as ignorant about reality as they appear to be. See, for example, the incompetence of short, fat little women on the British police force, the humiliation of American women diplomats trying to girlboss Niger warlords, or the comical failure of the US Dept of State to build democracy in Afghanistan.
Their social experience of the world's peoples confirms to them their belief that we're really all the same. This is exemplified by PM Starmer's preference of Davos over Westminster:
Once you get to an elite status, whether it's a role in the national government, working at a research university, or getting reasonably high in a global corporation, you start socializing with elites like you from around the planet. @Otterly has mentioned her experience of this. I myself have worked with researchers from Egypt and Kenya. They were quite bright and good colleagues. This experience results in a lot of people saying, "Why, we really aren't so different after all! Why do we have all these stupid barriers to these people coming here?" They don't experience the common rabble of the Middle East or Africa and thus believe they can't possibly be all that different from the common rabble of Wales or Tennessee.
Moreover, going to international conferences and workshops is a lot of fun. It feels eye-opening, and it is to some degree. It is seductive to come home from your first International Workshop On Whatever Your Field Is, having had fascinating conversations with your peers from Italy, Brazil, and Malaysia, and conclude that all the rubes back home are gravely missing out by not having tons of foreigners to rub shoulders with.
Their social experience of the world's peoples confirms to them their belief that we're really all the same. This is exemplified by PM Starmer's preference of Davos over Westminster:
Once you get to an elite status, whether it's a role in the national government, working at a research university, or getting reasonably high in a global corporation, you start socializing with elites like you from around the planet. @Otterly has mentioned her experience of this. I myself have worked with researchers from Egypt and Kenya. They were quite bright and good colleagues. This experience results in a lot of people saying, "Why, we really aren't so different after all! Why do we have all these stupid barriers to these people coming here?" They don't experience the common rabble of the Middle East or Africa and thus believe they can't possibly be all that different from the common rabble of Wales or Tennessee.
Moreover, going to international conferences and workshops is a lot of fun. It feels eye-opening, and it is to some degree. It is seductive to come home from your first International Workshop On Whatever Your Field Is, having had fascinating conversations with your peers from Italy, Brazil, and Malaysia, and conclude that all the rubes back home are gravely missing out by not having tons of foreigners to rub shoulders with.
TL;DR - Socializing with elites from around the world simply confirms their belief that we're all the same and globalism is inevitable.
It's not much of an exaggeration to say the top issue of world leaders in the twentieth century was preventing WW3. Western and Communist officials may have despised each other, but they very much did not want to bomb the world to ash. Today, the consensus is largely that the cause of WW2 was nationalism. When a government is linked to the interests of an ethnic group, inevitably, this leads to war. In this telling of history, WW2 was simply African tribal warfare on industrial scale, and the creation of the UN and the EU has successfully prevented war. The peaceful dissolution of the USSR is seen as a triumph of globalism, and it is only a matter of time before globalism solves the problems of the Middle East and Africa. The way to world peace is to reduce and eventually abolish all national identities, not merely that of the Germans.
When they say opposition to more immigration is "fascism" and "Nazism," they aren't just blowing hot air. They really do believe that the sort of government that doesn't allow a million Pakis over the border is the sort of government that sends millions upon millions of people to their graves and leaves entire cities in smoldering ruins. Your choice is immigration or a global war that kills a billion people.
When they say opposition to more immigration is "fascism" and "Nazism," they aren't just blowing hot air. They really do believe that the sort of government that doesn't allow a million Pakis over the border is the sort of government that sends millions upon millions of people to their graves and leaves entire cities in smoldering ruins. Your choice is immigration or a global war that kills a billion people.
TL;DR - They believe open borders will prevent WW3.
This is the aspect they're most public about. There are two core ideas. One is fairly famous. Birth rates are crashing throughout the Western world, the line must keep going up, and to them, the most obvious solution is to import people from countries with high birth rates to make up the population deficit. Suggesting that we change the social structures of the West so that people have less reason to devote their twenties to career & carefree sex is hate speech.
The second idea is encapsulated in the dictum, "Talent is distributed equally; opportunity is not." They really do believe that, just as the feudal societies of premodern Europe were sitting on tremendous talent that the Industrial Revolution unleashed, so are Botswana, Qatar, Libya, and Uruguay. Refusing mass immigration is, in their minds, like refusing to trade with the USA or China. You are simply kneecapping your own economy.
The second idea is encapsulated in the dictum, "Talent is distributed equally; opportunity is not." They really do believe that, just as the feudal societies of premodern Europe were sitting on tremendous talent that the Industrial Revolution unleashed, so are Botswana, Qatar, Libya, and Uruguay. Refusing mass immigration is, in their minds, like refusing to trade with the USA or China. You are simply kneecapping your own economy.
TL;DR - They believe there is a nearly unlimited supply of untapped human talent in third world countries. Race to Africa 2.0.
There is a burning question that must be addressed by globalists and integrationists: why are third worlders so stupid and violent? The racist answer, which also happens fit the scientific data, is that intelligence and sociability are heritable traits that are not distributed equally around the world. One might also throw in there that Islam and African tribalism are incompatible with modernity.
The elites know instinctively that these answers are wrong, because only a Nazi would say that, and Nazis were very bad people. Moreover, even being thought to believe in natural inequality will get you cast out of elite circles pretty quickly. However, they still need an answer, and they've come up with an answer that is quite self-flattering.
They believe that the reason that Europeans are well-behaved and Arabs aren't is that European elites have put together a better governing system than Arab elites. This is a rather old belief, going back to at least the Victorian belief that the British Empire was going to civilize the savages. But it lives on today, and it drove the US conflict in Afghanistan. That country was supposed to be where our elites proved that our system could be imposed on any people and turn them into us. The fact that they dramatically failed has not dissuaded them. It's far too self-aggrandizing to believe that the reason you and I aren't violent savages is because they're such smart and effective rulers.
Because of this, they believe that the hordes of third-worlders they bring here must inevitably become well-behaved citizens of the new order. After all, they're living under the same wonderful system that produce you and I, how could they not? They do not believe Pakis and Hispanics are failing to integrate; they believe that it's just taking a little longer than they expected, and only a complete idiot would think their program is failing.
The elites know instinctively that these answers are wrong, because only a Nazi would say that, and Nazis were very bad people. Moreover, even being thought to believe in natural inequality will get you cast out of elite circles pretty quickly. However, they still need an answer, and they've come up with an answer that is quite self-flattering.
They believe that the reason that Europeans are well-behaved and Arabs aren't is that European elites have put together a better governing system than Arab elites. This is a rather old belief, going back to at least the Victorian belief that the British Empire was going to civilize the savages. But it lives on today, and it drove the US conflict in Afghanistan. That country was supposed to be where our elites proved that our system could be imposed on any people and turn them into us. The fact that they dramatically failed has not dissuaded them. It's far too self-aggrandizing to believe that the reason you and I aren't violent savages is because they're such smart and effective rulers.
Because of this, they believe that the hordes of third-worlders they bring here must inevitably become well-behaved citizens of the new order. After all, they're living under the same wonderful system that produce you and I, how could they not? They do not believe Pakis and Hispanics are failing to integrate; they believe that it's just taking a little longer than they expected, and only a complete idiot would think their program is failing.
TL;DR - They believe the only reason Pakis and Englishmen behave differently is England has a better socio-political system than Pakistan, and given enough time in the system, Pakis will be sipping tea, going to work on time and inventing the next steam engine.
It should be obvious from the above that, within their worldview, restricting immigration is suicide. Like abolishing female suffrage or banning the digital computer, it's simply not something that can be allowed to be put to a vote. It would mean getting left behind by the "advanced" nations who are in tune with history and in line to swim in the oceans of wealth the globalism will provide.
When you protest and riot, it doesn't show them that what they're doing is unpopular and politically risky. It shows them that their countries still have too many idiots who think the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese, too many backward bumpkins who are one angry blog post away from becoming Nazis.
When you protest and riot, it doesn't show them that what they're doing is unpopular and politically risky. It shows them that their countries still have too many idiots who think the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese, too many backward bumpkins who are one angry blog post away from becoming Nazis.
TL; DR - They won't change things because they don't believe reducing immigration is, in the grand historical sense, possible. To restrict immigration is to kill your country's future.
Open borders is part of the totalizing ideology of globalist liberal capitalism. Like ideologies of the past, from Bolshevism to papism to Caeasarism, it will not change via ordinary political incentives because the people in charge cannot change their minds on such a deep level. The only way to change it is to put completely different people in charge, and change this at every level of the system, from who runs the government to who runs the universities that create the next generation of government officials.
Okay, I got it out of my system.
Última edición:
