Modern societies are characterized by easy living and an increasingly feminized and infantilized culture. The result is that modern man is no longer motivated by spirituality or honor, but purely by lower drives, such as gibs, security, and the pursuit of comfiness.
The great majority of people, and by extension just about all societies, are trying to create security and comfort for themselves. This is achieved through stable and regular social organization, and the production and distribution of goods and services.
Our vast material wealth (food, housing, automobiles, appliances, consumer electronics, software . . .) is created by relatively small groups of the intelligent and their workers. The modern state then redistributes this wealth through a stunning variety of schemes – the “public education” system, negotiated salary levels, hyper-regulation of labor, the vast welfare system for health, the unemployed, the elderly, and the poor, etc – according to that society’s values (to what extent do they value social welfare and equality, as against liberty?). These values, in turn, are to a large extent driven by the society’s degree of empathy and social trust.
I believe this simple model accounts for much of the diversity in economies and social systems across the world. Most societies are, by First-World standards, failed societies, having insufficient intelligence, social trust, and/or empathy the produce the material comfort they would wish.
Panglossians such as Stephen Pinker and The Economist will claim the world is getting better and better, so we’ve nothing to worry about. It is true that there is a lot of economic growth and improvement of living standards across the world. The important point they overlook is that the drivers for this growth are not endogenous to Third-World societies. The fact is that there is almost never full convergence between nations or between racial groups within a same society.
Rather, economic growth is occurring because of technological innovations produced by a very, very small portion of humanity, namely in North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. This is evident in the materials we use everyday: your Apple computer was perhaps produced in Shenzhen, China, while your software and most-frequented websites were created in Silicon Valley. This is reflected in the production of scientific papers, which is dominated by the West and East Asia. The militant atheist Richard Dawkins has pointed out that the Islamic World contributes virtually nothing in terms of scientific discovery. As his goal is to demonize religion while voiding the far more important issue of race and genetics, he studiously omits the fact that the rapidly-expanding Black World contributes even less.
The technological innovations of the First World, produced in fact by a small elite within these countries, in turn drive economic growth at home and abroad through technological diffusion. There is always partial convergence as these technologies spread to the Second and Third Worlds. This convergence is partial because, just as these societies lacked the intelligence and social trust to create these technologies, so they lack the ability to organize themselves maximally to fully close the socio-economic gap with the First World.
The diffusion of First World technologies into more traditional or backward societies, which could never have produced these technologies, can certainly have novel effects. Think of Chadian tribal warfare upgraded with Toyota trucks, AK47s, and rocket launchers. Leon Trotsky, thinking of Russia’s relationship with the West, called this “combined and uneven development.”
The world’s wealthy and powerful nations are also in the habit of trying to impose their liberal-democratic political norms on other countries. However, this often leads to chaos more than anything else. Democratic competition and political pluralism is often a recipe for chaos for countries who don’t have a history of such practices. In particular in multiethnic countries, a moderate regime of stable and autocratic authority is often all that can save the society from chaos.
The economics of “high globalism” involve the abolition of national borders and the convergence of social standards so as to maximize economic efficiency. This ought to lead to further increase in overall wealth, although it is not without its problems: wealth inequality is increased (wages driven down, tax havens optimized), local businesses go bankrupt, and jobs are off-shored Worst of all, free trade reduces national sovereignty – hence why classical republicans such as Rousseau and Jefferson were autarkic protectionists, considering independence to be a prerequisite to self-government – and increases the power of the proverbial “small, rootless, international clique,” the Davos set and assorted multinational corporations in Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc.
The Great Replacement is however primarily driven by “low globalism,” that is to say, the aspirations of the five billion humans who live, by First-World standards, in failed societies and wish for a more comfortable life for themselves and their children. These people have a certain realism: knowing that their nation will not converge any time soon, perhaps ever, tens of millions rather sensibly (from their point of view) opt to move to the West’s more prosperous and generous societies.
These dynamics work everywhere and at every level of society. The smart fractions everywhere – your doctors, engineers, and so on – choose to go the West, where they can enjoy high wages, better government, and can participate in more influential institutions. This brain drain both sets the home country further back – and they often really don’t have much margin of error to work with – but also contributes to further innovation in the West. A smart Cuban or Bangladeshi does not have to languish in his home country, where his smarts might at best contribute a bit to local order, but can join Google, CERN, or some other organization, and thus contribute to global innovation and prosperity.
Actually, most countries are now affected by this, including ones which used to be immune. Smart French people go where economies are growing and taxes are not punitive, moving to London, America, or even the Gulf states and Singapore. China, despite having low average wages, is already stripping Taiwan of human capital by enticing businessmen to move to the mainland (a development which seems to be leading to the island’s economic stagnation). Peripheral Europe in general, both southern and eastern, is being brain-drained at a truly alarming rate, their smarts being hoovered up by northwest Europe, Germany and Britain in particular (although Brexit appears to be slowing this process).
The result of the global brain drain, contra the egalitarian theory of universal convergence, is to further increase and entrench the inherent inequalities between nations.
Of course, the great majority of people who are moving to the West are not skilled, educated, or gifted. They and their children displace the native people, replace their culture, and disproportionately use welfare and commit crimes. We can see, looking at the counter-example of Japan, how peaceful and socially harmonious Western societies would be if they had not accepted tens of millions of Hispanic, African, and Islamic immigrants.
However, the perhaps surprising reality is that, on the whole, the harm done by ungifted immigrants has, so far, not really undermined the dynamism the host countries. The economically dynamic and growing countries in Europe continue to be those in the northwest, which have received the most Third-World immigrants (as well as many fellow Europeans), while southern Europe in particular stagnates and declines, facing a double-whammy of catastrophically low birth rates and emigration. The Anglo-Saxon countries are faring even better, as anyway they are even better at brain-draining others.
The point is that there are no economic breaks on this train. Apparently, having a few gifted Indian engineers makes up – in terms of national economic dynamism and innovation – for a half-dozen mediocre Hispanic workers and welfare users.
Obviously, in the very long run these trends are unsustainable. However, it is very clear when and what will be the next point of equilibrium.
Eventually, there won’t be any people left to brain-drain and smart people across the world are failing to have children. This could lead to Anatoly Karlin’s “industrial Malthunianism” scenario of the return of permanent economic stagnation.
There will always be pressure for Third-Worlders to come to the West, because their societies are unlikely to ever become as comfortable as ours. If Westerners are to retain their homelands, there will have to be a conscious and concerted counter-pressure preventing people from coming, come what may. This is particularly necessary given that the United Nations estimates that Africa’s population will rise to a catastrophic 4 billion this century.
The libertarians have a de facto cognitive elitist approach to immigration. If welfare were eliminated and businesses encouraged hire to only according to economic efficiency, a lot of unskilled welfare abusers would not move to the West. However, libertarians overlook the fact that the immigrants that tend to come are overwhelmingly socialistic in outlook, voting for “gibs” from the government. Thus does open-borders libertarianism dig its own grave.
If white people became aware of cognitive, hereditarian, and racial realities, we could imagine intelligent and spirited white people in the West having more children. If their fertility were to outstrip that of others, our societies would continue to innovate, grow economically, and be led (as in Latin America) by an essentially white ruling class. The new generation of whites is also likely to be more aware of the important issue of Jewish ethnic nepotism and Jewish organizations’ role in promoting multiculturalism and attacking Western ethnic activism. In any white successor states to the U.S., there would be a restoration of white rule, for in a real practical sense the white people of America are no longer culturally or politically sovereign and have been deprived of their rights.
On the material level – barring some calamity such as catastrophic climate change or resource exhaustion – the current trends seem quite viable for a long time indeed. The fact is that most immigrants to the West are moderately functional (Hispanics, Middle-Easterners, and North Africans are of middling intelligence) and come from societies which have been able to sustain some degree of civilization. Their negative impact is furthermore cushioned by global technological innovations, brain-drained smart fractions, and, in the case of northwest Europe, European immigrants.
At the anecdotal level, this reality is visible in the fact that most “global cities” – such as London, Washington, New York, Paris, Berlin, etc – are actually quite livable, especially if one has a little money. In fact, they are if anything often getting more livable as the more problematic minorities get priced out through gentrification.
One might think the rise of non-white majorities would lead to decisive change. However, the examples of South Africa and Latin America show that this is not the case. White South Africa, admittedly extremely isolated and under severe pressure, surrendered to a black majority, whose rule could well lead to the collapse of the country. Mexico and Brazil, by contrast, show that a smaller, moderately-functional majority mixed-race countries can exist for centuries, albeit with constant violence and recurring instability.
The catastrophic race war scenarios – Haiti 1804, Algeria 1962, Zimbabwe – are relatively rare, occurring when whites are a small minority following an armed conflict. One could imagine the West’s future colored majorities voting for a Venezuelan-style socialist disaster, but we are a long ways from that.
The fact is that people of color who come to the West do so as economic migrants, not conquerors – despite the rhetoric of many nationalists and Islamists. Some of this immigration is productive, much of it is parasitic, but it is not in the majority (I emphasize: in the majority) predatory. So they won’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg (although they might not be able to help themselves).
In the Anglo-Saxon countries other than America, the minority groups are too diverse themselves to form a homogeneous bloc against the white majority. In Continental Europe, the coming Afro-Islamic majorities could prove more organized and aggressive, perhaps fatal. In America, Hispanic-majority states might assert a separate ethno-linguistic identity and the coming white minority might, out of principle, honor, and self-interest, opt to secede from a dysfunctional majority-minority nation.
I do not say this is an attractive future. If you want a picture of the post-European future, imagine an obese Mestizo in a SUV driving to see The Fast & the Furious XVII in the theaters (the list of highest-grossing films of all time is final and decisive proof that idiocracy scenario is well underway).
For those of us, like myself, who wish to halt all non-European immigration to Western countries and to heighten indigenous European birth rates, all this suggests that economic pressures will not be enough. The battle of ideas is what is most critical. Young Europeans are steadily turning away from the mainstream media and learning from the Internet and social media.
The abolition of borders means that different nations are losing their peculiarities. This is partly inevitable in the face of economic and cultural globalization, as we all consume the same goods, enjoy more-and-more similar standards of living, and (often) watch the same Judeo-American TV shows.
There is a sad side to this. European nations, for instance, are very much losing many of their unique specificities. All nations are imperfectly and unevenly converging to one type of society, the “nation” becoming no more than a linguistic-political clump, language and state representing speed bumps of sort or, if you want, a particular rhythm or kind of convergence. National elites, when they don’t leave for more prosperous countries, naturally envy and emulate the more prestigious and fashionable practices of elsewhere. I have noticed that the rhythm at which French leftists are aping their Anglo-American counterparts has accelerated, now they are only a year or two behind, notably in the field of anti-white racial grievance activism, brightly colored hair, and pomo babble-talk. French-speaking blacks used to have a fairly distinctive racial discourse in the form of Négritude but are now importing Anglo-Americanisms.
Cultural and economic homogenization paradoxically can only increase the salience of race. What is a nation? An ethno-linguistic group which is also a particular society. Every nation has a particular genetic heritage which, in Robert Plomin’s words, give us all individually and collectively certain proclivities. These proclivities, and contingent historical trajectories, produce a predominant national culture. Genes and culture together form national character. As cultural and institutional differences are ironed out, the genetic/racial differences between ethnic groups and nations are becoming more apparent, even within Europe.
While I am personally pessimistic on the return of manliness in the West any time soon, certainly the younger generation will be more likely than ever to be exposed to traditionalist, nationalist, and racialist ideas and will not face the same mind-paralyzing taboos as did the Boomers. The mainstream media’s death-grip on the political process has already been broken, as evidenced by Brexit, Trump, Bolsonaro, and Salvini. These are purely a warm up. In the longer run, globalization’s elimination of borders and national cultures will paradoxically give more prominence to the last, irreducible difference among men: race. European and even pan-European racial consciousness, of which we are seeing the first flickers, can only rise in these circumstances.