Category: economics

Immigration: No Free Lunch

It’s NOT the economy, stupid.

I note, and have noted many times before, that the immigration question among the mainstream is continuously presented (almost solely) in economic terms.  The latest manifestation of this is the claim that immigration is the “closest thing to a free lunch” since population growth fuels economic growth via an increased number of workers and consumers. This Ponzi scheme view of economic growth fails for a number of reasons, including the obvious point that a larger economy divided over a larger population is not increasing the per capita payoff – it may be a larger pie, but not larger pieces for each individual. I note that as immigration has flooded into America over the past several decades, allegedly “fueling economic growth,” real wages for the typical American have stagnated, and the American middle class is in a well-documented and oft-discussed decline.  Is it that all this “growth” is lining the pockets of big business, and also benefiting the immigrants themselves and not natives?  Then we are constantly being told that automation will “make work obsolete,” and so a “basic guaranteed income” will be required in the wake of the mass unemployment thus created – a “citizen’s dividend” based on the productivity generated by automation and artificial intelligence.  If so, why do we import more people who will not only become superfluous as workers, but who will compete with natives for the proceeds of the productivity to be distributed as that guaranteed income?  

And even putting the issue of automation aside, the Ponzi scheme aspect of the immigration-population-economy equation becomes more clear when we ask: if immigrants do the work natives won’t do, then who will do that work in the next generation (assuming no automation) when the immigrants’ children are “Americans” or “Europeans” with American or European expectations and the consequent disdain for manual labor?  Do we import another generation of immigrants to do this unwanted work, repeated ad infinitum, until the entire nation is full of the posterity of those brought in to do cheap manual labor?  Conversely, if we need “high skilled immigrants” as we in America are constantly told, then why can’t we find Americans to do these desirable, highly-paid professional jobs?  Are native Americans stupid as well as lazy?  And, if so, how did they build a nation so attractive that all these immigrants want to come to in the first place?  And, further, if immigrants are required to fund “the retirement of an aging native population” (assuming that young non-Whites would politically support funding the retirement of old Whites who they hate), what happens when the immigrants themselves get old and retire?  Would more immigrants be required to fund those retirements – an endless pyramid scheme of immigration and inter-generational wealth transfer?  Or will the immigrants have enough children to support their retirement, underscoring the race replacement aspect of the immigrant influx?  Speaking of which, we can further ask – even if a declining native population “hinders economic growth” (a popular meme, along with the “who will pay for retirement” ploy, to justify genocidal alien immigration into Europe) – so what?   Eventually it will be a self-correcting process, as automation, increased productive efficiency, altered economic structures and expectations and, very likely, an eventual increase in the native birth rate, balances things out – sans replacement immigration.  I can also point out that bringing in hordes of cheap labor aliens to crowd out, compete with, and displace, natives is not exactly conductive to increasing native birth rates.  Or is that the intention?

Finally, we get to the most important, the most fundamental point.  Even if everything the pro-immigration crowd says about economic benefit is true, it still is not worth it.  A nation is not an abstract economic zone, and a people are not an atomized mass of workers and consumers.  Nations and peoples are historical entities, with particular ethnic, racial, social, and cultural profiles, and a people being demographically and culturally displaced and replaced are not benefiting, even if “the economy grows.” Mass immigration of alien peoples, particularly in the context of declining native populations, is genocide against the natives, and what price economic growth if historical nations and peoples cease to exist, and vanish from the Earth?  Read this post for a more technical analysis of the precedence of genetic continuity and genetic interests over any economic concerns, and if you still insist on putting a “dollars and cents” measure on these issues, then read this.  Existence, not economic growth, is the fundamental concern of any people, and no amount of “economic growth” – most of which the native masses will never themselves enjoy – can never justify criminal genocidal policies targeted against beleaguered European-derived peoples.

This post is also relevant to another pro-immigration argument I’ve seen making the rounds again recently: “if you are against (legal and illegal) low-skilled immigration, then you have no good reason to oppose high-skilled immigration, which is such a net positive for our nation.”  Nonsense.  Read this post again, particularly the last section that emphasizes race and culture, and the genocidal implications of displacing and replacing the native population.  Read the linked posts, especially the one outlining the EGI concept and its importance to immigration.  Of course high-skilled immigration is harmful; indeed, one can make the argument that high-skilled non-White immigration is worse for Whites than low-skilled non-White immigration.  High-skilled immigration brings in more clever and capable enemies, more capable and clever competitors, the importation of an alien ruling class, using ethnic nepotism to displace native White Americans from positions of power and prestige.  High-skilled immigrants, free-riding on the society and infrastructure painstakingly built up by White Americans, will climb to the top of the human energy pyramid, leveraging ethnic cartel networks to squeeze Whites out and reduce White Americans to a subaltern caste within their own nation. Is that a good enough reason for you?  Is that sufficient reason to oppose high-skilled immigration?  They are not us, they are not wanted, we need to develop and nurture our own high-skilled population.  We do not want or need leering aliens lording it over us.


Overcoming the Plutocratic Insurgency

Far-Right economic revolution.

What he says about academia, tenure, and academic freedom is right on target, despite what anti-intellectual low-brow (and failed academics who pretend to be high-brow) Type I “activists” believe.  For example, how long would KMacD have lasted at CSULB if he didn’t have genuine tenure (genuine tenure being an increasingly rare characteristic)?

To the broader point, extreme pushback against the globalist plutocratic elites is coming, and the Far-Right needs to be on the correct side in this struggle – the side of the economic “left.”  I put “left” in scare quotes because the “socialism” in “national socialism” does not equate to Marxism, but refers to the subordination of economics to political and racial objectives, instead of the other way around, which is what the Rule of Money have brought us today.

Laissez-faire capitalism has to go, plutocracy and oligarchy have to go, the idea that the “Right” broadly defined has to side with “big business” has to go as well.  And all the Alt Wrongers, with their ”sweet business deals” and their vision of a Jewish/Asian-dominated globalist society that differs from our current situation only in that it lacks Negroes and Hispanics has to go as well.

The Revolution has to be comprehensive: economic as well as racial, cultural, social, etc. We need to take the lead, and not let the anti-White Left take leadership of the anti-plutocratic resistance by default.

We need to acknowledge realities (including AI/automation, which is coming) and make sure the People benefit, not the Plutocracy, we need to support the “citizen’s dividend” idea, social credit, a distributive economy, but one based on racial principles, for our own people.

And as for all the libertarians, the HBD Alt Wrongers, the suit-and-tie conservatives who think that ghetto gang bangers are the only problem – they themselves are part of the Problem, not part of the Solution.

Economic Justice has to be part of the program to save Race and Civilization. Of Red, White, and Black, the Red component cannot be forgotten.

Why Don’t Wealthy Whites Support Racial Nationalism?

The tin cups are empty.

Let us assume for the moment that the “movement’ deserves to be funded.  Or, more generally, let’s consider the funding of racial nationalism as a conceptual entity, independent of Der Movement, Inc.  We can ask a question.  Why aren’t there extremely wealthy Whites willing to bankroll White racial nationalism?

The question is valid because we can assume that no such bankrolling exists, not at the level that the question implies.  Indeed, if such existed today, various “movement” precincts wouldn’t have to be spending so much time with their tin cup panhandling, they wouldn’t be so concerned with deplatforming, etc.  So, assuming that they aren’t running a cunning con job or are being very adept at hiding secret funding (and it’s unlikely the types who can’t prevent their meetings from being continuously infiltrated by pitifully transparent “anti” activists would have such cunning and discipline), we can assume that no such funding exists.  Very well.  Why?

What is it about wealthy Whites that make them unconcerned about their people’s interests, or unwilling to give even if they were so concerned?

The latter part of the question can be tackled first.  One could speculate that the pro-White wealthy are being misled into contributing to more mainstream conservatism or to civic nationalism.  But that’s not what I’m talking about here – to use an Alt Right phrase that I usually try to avoid, let’s assume the wealthy White in question is “red-pilled.”  They know the score – that White nationalism is the way to go. So, what is it?  Simple fear of being discovered?  One would think that the wealthy would have their ways of discretely funneling money; on the other hand, if racial nationalists were suddenly flush with cash, the System would leave no stone unturned to find out where the funds came from.  So, fear of being labeled a “wealthy Nazi” or a “rich racist” or a “millionaire/billionaire fascist” would inhibit giving.  But still that really can’t explain the total lack of such people.  One would expect at least a few wealthy individuals very committed to the cause, and perhaps old enough and/or ornery enough that they wouldn’t care what people think, that these people would shell out the shekels.

Is it because they don’t see anything worth contributing to?  If so, I really wouldn’t blame them, but I doubt that is it either.  Even if major American WN “leaders” are thought insufficient, there’s a lot of ideological (and other) diversity among racial nationalists, even with all of the smaller groupuscules like EGI Notes.  Then there are in Europe some genuine nationalist activity that could be seen as worth support by their well-off countrymen. There are things to support if one was willing to do so.

So, let’s shift the focus.  Instead of asking why the pro-White wealthy don’t give, we can ask – why there aren’t pro-White very wealthy individuals to begin with?

Is there a psychometric explanation?  That the type of people well suited to generate/accumulate great wealth are the type to be unconcerned with racial interests?  Are these hyper-individualists?  Individualists with universal altruistic tendencies (hello, Bill Gates).  The purely selfish?  Dark triad psychopaths?  Remember Bardeche saying all the fascists he knew were poor; is there a connection?  Are Moralpaths bad at making money?  Are racial nationalists – even those with a scientific bent – insufficiently materialistic to gravitate to money-making schemes?  Are the wealthy wrapped up in their own little bubbles?  Are they so insulated from the racial problems that most Whites face that they are unaware of those problems, or wouldn’t care if they were so involved?  A la the theories of Sailer, do they see themselves as elite “Good Whites” at war with the crude, low brow “Bad White” “bigots and racists?”  Do they see the world as White-White competition?  Is it that all the Whites they deal with in their bubble are wealthy and powerful, so they are so stupidly shallow that they don’t even recognize that a racial crisis even exists?  Do they just want to “enjoy life and “sit poolside” and so do not care if “after me, the deluge?”  Is their conception of self–interest only financial, so that racial and cultural interests mean nothing?  Do they only care about protecting their wealth and status, and eschew the chaos that racial nationalism would bring (racists are not good for stock prices, I suppose)?  Do they have non-Whites as business partners – the opposite problem of them only knowing wealthy Whites – they see, on a regular basis, intelligent and successful non-Whites and see nothing wrong with that.  It’s not that the wealthy are all drawn to libertarianism; there are leftist wealthy Whites – indeed, wealthy Whites come in all political flavors except the Far Right (I think it more likely, ironically enough, to find Far Left wealthy Whites than Far Right).  Is there such a dichotomy between Economic Man and Raciocultural Man that the former and latter never meet?  But what about people who become wealthy through invention or writing, etc?  These may be more scientific or artistic types, not necessarily hedge fund manager types, and yet even the inventors and artists are unconcerned with race.  Why is it that racial nationalism can’t “hit the lottery” in the form of having someone (even a lottery winner!) who is both wealthy and deeply concerned about White interests?

Should we try and proselytize to the White wealthy?  Should we try and get racial nationalists to generate wealth?  Both?  Some alternative approach?

Why It Won’t Work

Realism about the economic future.

One often reads smug economists and other “experts” who mock Trump’s idea (real or phony) of bringing back manufacturing jobs to America, and the overall wish of Trump supporters to “turn the clock back” against the “modern global knowledge economy.”

Putting aside all of our ideological biases against these elitist criticisms, let’s look closer at their practical argument: since the economic changes of America (globalism, a “knowledge-based” economy, creation and manipulation of ideas and information rather than of material goods) are inevitable and irreversible, those people not yet adjusted to this new economy must “adjust and be trained.”  In other words, all the unemployed factory workers and other blue collar workers must be re-educated and re-trained to become just like the elitists making such suggestions.

I trust that reasonable and reality-based rational people understand the absurdity of such recommendations.  But let’s spell it out for the sake of completeness; I’ll restrict myself to the two most obvious and major points.

First, given the normal distribution of intelligence and other cognitive and behavioral abilities and characteristics (including the mental flexibility to radically change professions) – and let’s not even get into the large racial differences in those metrics – it is unrealistic in the extreme to expect “re-education” and “re-training” to work for large sections of the American population. A significant portion of the American population simply do not have the intelligence and ability to adjust to the new global/knowledge economy.  And even if some of these people have – or had – the raw intelligence for such adjustments, many are simply too old and mentally inflexible.  And even if these people were capable of being educated to become high-powered information-based white collar professionals – who is going to pay for their education?  Who is going to pay for supporting these people and their families during the re-training period?  And who is going to hire retrained middle-aged red state blue collar workers as opposed to young college graduates and the constant influx of “high-skilled” immigrants?

So, no, that 55 year old unemployed coal miner from West Virginia is not going to become a software engineer, and even if he did, no one is going to hire him compared to a diseased 25 year old H-1B brownster from India.

Let’s be realistic.  Only an outrageous denial of human nature, and a denial of a realistic appraisal of human ability, can lead to ridiculous recommendations that economic upheaval can be avoided by transforming the entire left side of the Bell Curve into budding computer scientists, economists, and rocket engineers. It’s an impossible dream, and those who make such suggestions are maliciously mendacious.

Second, even if the impossible came true and all these people, the majority of the American population, were able to become white collar globalist professionals, there simply are not enough jobs available for all these people. How many computer scientists, economists, and rocket engineers do we need?  100 million of them? 200 million?

Putting aside the fact that “we” are importing “high-skilled” immigrants to compete with our existing native intellectual elites, the fact is that artificial intelligence automation will do to white collar jobs what robotic automation has been, and is, doing to blue collar jobs. There are not enough of these global/knowledge-based jobs now, and there will be fewer and fewer of such jobs in the decades to come.  So, we will try to shove a square peg in a round hole and train the masses for jobs that would not be available to them today and will not be available for anyone in the future?

In the short term, revolutionary upheaval can be avoided by instituting social credit/citizens dividend ideas – open payments to citizens – based on the nation’s productivity (productivity of the real educated elites and of automation) coupled to immigration restriction (one cannot combine social credit with open borders without bankrupting even a productive new economy).

In the long term, revolutionary upheaval is probably unavoidable.  While the far left of the Bell Curve will take the social credit, lounge around, and reproduce in Idiocracy fashion (Should such payments be tied to limiting reproduction of the less fit?  Yes, but is that realistic when the less fit a key political constituency? Or is democracy doomed in the new economy?), and the far right (no pun intended) of the Bell Curve may be actually involved in real work or at least occupy themselves with intellectual hobbies and pursuits, the grand middle of the population will be left adrift with no purpose and nothing to do.  They will form a revolutionary mass of disaffected people, waiting for direction, waiting for purpose, and waiting for action.

Troubles lie ahead.  Will we be able to take advantage of them?

The relevance of all of this to ethnic genetic interests should be obvious to those on Bell Curve’s right side.

Rotten Orange News and Sailer the Cuck

Two morons.

The Rotten Orange: The fat slob moron is now saying that we need to make trade concessions to China in order to get the Chinese to “help” deal with North Korea’s nuclear program.  Can we think of anything more Neocon cuck-like than that?  Look, Fat Don, if the Chinese, who share a border with North Korea, cannot be bothered to deal with this on their own initiative, for the own self-interest, then perhaps America, separated from these Asiatic aliens by an ocean, shouldn’t get so worked up about it?

Yes, we’ll be told that America is still technically at war with North Korea, while China is their ally; to which I say: it’s time to sign a real peace treaty with North Korea and let the South Koreans fend for themselves. The South can develop their own nuclear deterrent, and Japan as well, and America can worry more about Americans, defending our economic interests from voracious Asiatics, and defending our borders from Colored invaders.

And, yes, true, an ocean of separation doesn’t make a difference to ICBMs and SLBMs, but, you know, the missiles can fly in both directions. Ultimately, we cannot dictate to other nations what their military can be; we need to build our own nuclear arsenal, make clear that any attack against the USA will met with a devastating response, and let Asians take care of their own business.

We see Sailer continuing to promote the anti-White ultracucking of “citizenism” and then we have this:

My contribution perhaps is to explain the inevitability of identity politics and to recommend prudent policies for moderating their impact.

That is exactly the opposite of what we need.  Moderate the impact of identity politics? No, no, no!  Instead we must do everything to exacerbate identity politics, we need to promote group animus, and we must have more division, more hatred, more chaos, more balkanization, and more extremism.

Do we need any more evidence that Sailer is part of the System, and that the Alt Lite/Alt Wrong is an enemy and not an ally.

Introducing Silk Road News

More Asian perfidy.

More in depth analyses of the threat posed by Asians to the existence and well-being of Europeans are forthcoming. But I also would like to continue my shorter analyses of currents events and history to demonstrate the racial, culture, and economic incompatibility of Europeans and Asians. That will now have the “byline” of “Silk Road News.”

Note that trouble caused by devious Chinese frauds causes a new rift among Europeans, with Britain being economically damaged by their dealings with Chinese scammers.

Britain owes the European Union budget two billion euros after turning a blind eye to a major scam by Chinese importers, the EU’s fraud office said on Wednesday…

…OLAF said that “despite repeated efforts and in contrast to the actions taken by several other member states to fight against these fraudsters,” the scam in Britain continued to grow.

The office said that the scheme also cost other EU countries — such as France, Germany, Spain and Italy — 3.2 billion euros in lost national value-added-tax revenue.

The fraudsters involved “are in fact organised crime groups whose actions affect the entire EU; they operate in criminal networks active across the EU,” OLAF said.

The Asian contribution to Europe’s economy: fraud and organized crime. Not to mention copyright infringement and flooding the market with cheap and shoddy products.

Brexit should not affect trade between Britain and the EU, which should be increased at the expense of British-Asian trade.  And then there’s Russia. Increased trade and economic cooperation between Britain and Russia can benefit both parties.  Britain can have a market for their finished goods and access to Russian raw materials (particularly from the Russian Far East, resources previously ignored by the Asiatic aboriginals and now properly exploited by Slavic initiative).  Russia can use British help to more fully develop the Russian Far East, help which can make superfluous the devious Chinamen infiltrating in.  A win-win for the White race – which should be supported by all White racial nationalists.

It is also unfair for the British taxpayer to have to foot the bill for this Asiatic corruption.  My suggestion is that the UK government should seize the assets of “British Asians” – particularly East Asians – and use the funds so recovered to pay this two billion euro fine. That would be a fair and reasonable settling of accounts.  

There is historical precedent: the German government imposed a collective fine on the “German Jewish” community after the vom Rath killing; the principle is the same.  You would think that a “movement” so obsessed with praising the virtues of the Hitler regime would find this solution to Britain’s Asian-caused dilemma quite just and satisfying.

A French zoo rhino had to die because of bizarre Asiatic superstition:

A rhino has been shot dead by poachers who broke into a zoo and sliced its horn off with a chainsaw.

Four-year-old Vince was found dead by one of his keepers at Thoiry zoo, near Paris, on Tuesday morning.

Who is responsible for killing rhinos for their horns?

Southern African countries are battling increased poaching levels as organised gangs from mainly Asian countries try to meet the growing demand from countries such as Vietnam and China.

Whites try to preserve endangered species.  Asians slaughter them.  

The Silk Road in history: bringing death and suffering to the peoples of Europe.

Racialist Expected Value, Process, and Results

Economic-based analysis.

Listening to some financial podcasts about ‘wealth building” I noticed some analogies to racial activism (perhaps not surprising since child equivalents of EGI can be transformed into financial impacts based on estimated “values” of a human life, e.g., for insurance purposes).

One point made was that calculating probabilities is not sufficient; one must also estimate the potential value obtained from each outcome.  Thus, outcome A may be more probable than outcome B, but if the payoff of B is far greater than that of A, it would be most prudent to invest in B rather than in A, since the “expected value” of B-oriented scenarios is greater than that for scenarios oriented around pursuing A.

This is one of the points I’ve previously made about Breezy’s “citizenism.” Yes, it may be that civic nationalism is more probable as an achievable outcome than racial nationalism (see: Trump, Donald J. as an example). Nevertheless, the potential outcome of racial nationalism is so far superior to anything achievable from civic nationalism (perhaps infinitely greater if one supposes that civic nationalism in America following current demographic trends would result in the White race replacement that racial nationalism would prevent), then it is obviously more prudent, form a cost/benefit ratio to pursue approaches leading to racial nationalist outcomes.

Another point made by financial analysts and advisers is to be process-driven rather than merely results-driven.  An example given is to imagine a process in which there is 55% probability of success and 45% probability of failure, with equal relative outcomes of gain/loss respectively (and assume there are no other approaches that would give a higher expected value than pursuing this 55:45 advantage).  A person who is purely results-driven, if they had lost after the first try, would give up, saying: I tried it and lost.  A process-driven person would realize that, over time, this approach would yield value, given a sufficient sample size of attempts.

That’s very simplistic of course, and is not an argument against considering results – after all, if you attempted this approach 1,000 times and kept on losing, those results would inform you that the process was flawed.  After all, you need feedback to judge whether the process is as effective as you originally thought.  Further, you may not have the resources to keep on losing waiting for the process to work; there are many considerations where results are important.  So, perhaps it is best to say that you should be BOTH process-driven and results-driven, not one or the other.  At the beginning, it is best to emphasize process over results, to generate sufficient sample size so that the results become relevant.  Later, the importance of a results-driven approach increases, but should never rise to the level of completely excluding process.  Indeed, process can be refined based upon results (and of course results are driven by process, modified by probability).

I’m critical of Der Movement from the basis of BOTH process (which I find stupid and wrong-headed) as well as results (decades of failure represent a sufficient sample size to judge the lack of efficacy of process).