Ethno-Religious Diversity and the Limits of Democracy, Part Four

The following essay by El Inglés is the fourth in a six-part series that examines the sociopolitical effects of mass immigration into the Western democracies.

Ethno-Religious Diversity and the Limits of Democracy

by El Ingles

Part Four: Applying the Model to Western Political Structures

The first post in this series introduced a statistical analysis of political systems that includes various terms referenced by abbreviations in later parts of the text. For the reader’s convenience, a list of those abbreviations and their meanings is below:

Abbr   Term   Explanation
PP   Policy Point   Policies actually being implemented by a government at any point in time
IPP   Individual Policy Point   Policies preferred by an individual
DI   Discontentedness Index   Distance between the PP and an IPP
MDI   Mean Discontentedness Index   Average of the DIs of individuals in the population
TD   Threshold Discontentedness   The level of DI above which an individual considers the government illegitimate
CZ   Contented Zone   The interior of a circle having a radius of the value of TD
DZ   Discontented Zone   The area outside the CZ circle
DZF   Discontented Zone Fraction   The fraction of the population occupying the DZ

See Parts One and Two, and Three for a more detailed explanation.

Using Our Model to Think About Western Democracies

Thus far, our discussion has referred largely to hypothetical societies that exist only on our system diagrams. However, readers will already understand that this essay has not been written purely as a dispassionate investigation of the effects of ethno-religious political diversity. The rate at which this diversity is increasing in Western countries must, if the reasoning herein is sound, give rise to serious political conflicts, conflicts which are by no means certain to be resolved peaceably.

This remaining parts of the essay will strive to move away from the hypothetical and towards the concrete. It has the following objectives:

a)   to explain the difference between structural and partisan analyses of the political diversity brought about by growing ethnic diversity,
b)   to show that most mainstream analysis and even most ostensibly rarified, academic analysis of this political diversity is partisan in nature, and
c)   to demonstrate the pointlessness of these partisan analyses by performing what we hope will constitute a reasonable first attempt at the structural analysis that seems so elusive.

We will work towards these objectives via reference to Britain, as, being British, Britain is the country we know most about and whose media and political discourse we have most convenient access to. Readers from other countries will undoubtedly be able to construct similar analyses of the political situations in their own countries.

Alert readers will recall that the distinction between structural and partisan analyses is one we first introduced when first introducing our system diagrams, and touched on later when talking about the prospects of a party like the National Front in France winning a presidential election. This preemptive introduction of the concept was hard to avoid given its importance in our analysis. Let us now water the seed we planted earlier.

The Difference between Structural Analysis and Partisan Analysis

Why exactly analysis of the subject matter of this document tends overwhelmingly to be partisan rather than structural is a mystery to us. Time after time, one reads articles and supposed analyses of these matters that give no hint whatsoever of appreciating the deeper issues involved.

A partisan analysis of ethnically and religiously induced political diversity is characterized in the following manner:

a)   it concerns itself purely with the relative electoral prospects of competing political parties (hence its name),
b)   it assumes that the game of electoral politics will continue to play out as it has in recent decades for the rest of time,
c)   it asks no questions about the underlying political stability of the polities it is concerned with,
d)   it asks no questions about whether the demographic changes it studies might not entirely delegitimize the electoral process and motivate politically concerned parties to act apolitically in pursuit of their political goals, and
e)   it is peculiarly bloodless and removed, in that it demonstrates no understanding of the importance human beings attach to political power and the anguish they must be expected to evince if such power is taken away from them in their own countries, especially by groups with which they have antagonistic relationships

A structural analysis of this same sort of political diversity is characterized as follows:

a)   it concerns itself primarily with whether or not the political diversity in a polity is of a type consistent with the maintenance of democratic government, and only secondarily with how party politics affects that,
b)   it assumes that electoral politics is a very fragile thing, and that a sufficient degree of estrangement from democratic outcomes will lead people to ignore those outcomes,
c)   it focuses on the probability of political stability being destroyed through inter-group hostility and violence,
d)   it understands that radical demographic change will tend to result in attempts to radically redistribute political power, and
e)   in keeping with the previous four points, it is psychologically engaged in that it sees the potential for political upheaval to result when political power threatens to shift from one part of society to another.

In March 1992, a referendum was held in Bosnia-Herzegovina (hereafter Bosnia), one of the original six republics of Yugoslavia, to determine whether or not the territory should declare independence from that rapidly crumbling state. The referendum delivered a resounding ‘Yes’ to independence, as a consequence of which Bosnia seceded from Yugoslavia and established a thriving, multiethnic, multifaith country in which disparate groups of people lived, worked, and socialized alongside each other in peace, and on the basis of a civic national identity that was open to all who subscribed to Bosnian values.

Anyone with the slightest understanding of the breakup of Yugoslavia will realize that the above account of the Bosnian path to independence is pure fantasy. As Slovenia and Croatia had already declared independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 and been embroiled in war as a consequence, it was clear to Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, who made up a small majority of the Bosnian population, that remaining in the Serb-dominated rump Yugoslavia was not a viable option. Unfortunately for them, Bosnia had and has a large Serb minority, which was adamant that it would remain in some sort of political union with Serbia itself. It was not prepared to be dragged into an independent Bosnia in which it would exist as a minority, confronted with a majority Muslim and Croat population that it was in conflict with, for reasons both historical and current.

The referendum was essentially a farcical exercise. Bosnian Serbs, not wishing to legitimize it, overwhelmingly refrained from voting. Serb paramilitaries intimidated those few Serbs who might otherwise have been interested in casting a vote. Amongst Bosnian Muslims and Croats, on the other hand, turnout was extremely high. These factors resulted in a turnout of 63.4%, with 99.7% of voters casting their ballots in favour of independence.

War broke out immediately upon the Bosnian government’s recognition of the referendum result and independence being declared. The JNA (Jugoslav National Army) and Bosnian Serb paramilitaries joined forces and commenced a brutal war that took as its objective the driving of non-Serb populations out of what they considered Serb territory in Bosnia. At their high-water mark, they were to control about 70% of the entire country. From 1993 until 1994, Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat forces would fight a vicious war of mutual ethnic cleansing between themselves, making for a complex three-way conflict. The conflict only came to an end in 1995, when Muslim and Croat forces, rearmed, reequipped, and putting their own mutual hostility aside, would be joined by NATO airpower to push back against Serb forces and retake large parts of the country. Formal peace, and the power-sharing agreement we briefly alluded to in the first part of this document, would only be established in December 1995.

If we now imagine two political analysts, one partisan, one structural, sitting together on the eve of the referendum, and discussing its likely result and consequences together, what do we imagine they would say to each other? The partisan analyst would surely say that Bosnia would soon be a new, independent country, as all the population figures and opinion polls pointed in that direction. He would then have stopped speaking, as a partisan analyst has no other analytical tools to bring to bear.

The structural analyst, on the other hand, would point out that war was almost certainly unavoidable, and that the referendum was a tribal head-count rather than a meaningful democratic exercise. He might also point out that, if the situation were different, and the Bosnian Muslims and Croats were a minority of the population, it would be the Serbs clamouring for a referendum, and the Muslims and Croats preparing to unilaterally secede from Bosnia in areas they dominated. Lastly, he would point out that war was in the cards either way, as the interests and objectives of the various sides were mutually contradictory and not amenable to negotiation.

It is immensely unlikely that any real-world analyst of any sort would actually have been as woolly-headed as our hypothetical partisan analyst in the preceding paragraph. But then, war had already broken out in Yugoslavia. The war with Slovenia was short and sharp, a mere ten days, and had ended in the rump Yugoslavia’s agreeing to Slovenian independence. The war with Croatia, however, though deadlocked, was ongoing, with large parts of Croatian territory under the control of the JNA and ethnic Serb paramilitaries, who were intent on incorporating it into a Greater Serbia. Against this backdrop, even the most utopian partisan analyst would undoubtedly already have been shaken out of any partisan reverie they might have been enjoying.

Insofar as one can tell from reading analysis of ethno-religious political diversity in Britain, however, virtually everyone in any mainstream publication who says anything at all on this matter is indeed still in a dreamlike state. We will establish this more definitively in the next section.

Mainstream Analysis of Ethno-Religious Political Diversity in Britain

In the last couple of years, a tipping point seems to have been reached in British political discourse in terms of an awareness of the growing electoral heft of the ethnically non-white part of the electorate. That the numbers of these people in Britain have reached such levels is, of course, a consequence of decades of mass Third World immigration, higher immigrant fertility, and a willingness on the part of British governments to enfranchise immigrants and their descendants. There is much uncertainty as to exactly what effects this new electorate will have on forthcoming general elections, but its growing significance is apparently not contested.

Viewed from one perspective, the observation that a part of the electorate that grows in size becomes more significant is trivially true. If it were to be discovered that left-handed people were becoming an ever-larger part of the electorate, then it would obviously be the case that, all other things being equal, politicians would have to pay more attention to the political positions of those left-handed people. The same would be true of people whose names began with the letter P, or people who played the banjo. The reason there is never any discussion of the size of the left-handed electorate, the electoral significance of those whose names begin with the letter P, or the number of banjo-players in crucial, contested constituencies, is that these characteristics are not of any political significance, and do not inform people’s political views. Whoever heard of a civil war between the left-handed and the right-handed, or a grenade attack on a political rally of the Banjo Party?

If the electoral heft of non-white voters is discussed at all, it must be because this non-whiteness and its attendant cultural and religious differences do inform their electoral choices and political identities. And indeed, this seems to be a characteristic of democratic societies in general: different ethnic groups do, statistically speaking, tend to vote for different parties. What this observation does to the notion of a post-ethnic, post-racial national identity based on a shared culture is something to be debated.

We have suggested that mainstream analysis of ethno-religious political diversity is overwhelmingly partisan in nature, as we have defined partisan analysis above. Here, we would like to demonstrate the truth of this claim this. First, we will briefly quote from mainly partisan analyses of ethno-religious political diversity taken from the mainstream British media, which for our purposes will mean the broadsheet newspapers. This will give a flavor of the type of analysis provided by regular journalists. That this analysis is, with a single exception, mindless even by the standards of partisan analysts will become quickly apparent. Nonetheless, it is important to set the scene and show what we later present our structural analysis as being in contrast with.

Second, we will look at a more weighty analysis of ethno-religious political diversity co-authored by an academic. We will observe that even a work of this nature, produced by people who should, we feel, be capable of more penetrating insights, is partisan in approach. This is a general truth of mainstream analysts of ethno-religious political diversity. Even when they show a hint of an awareness that there is a more insightful structural analysis to be performed, they show few signs of being willing to develop it.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

We commence our study of partisan analysis of ethno-religious political diversity with a piece in the Guardian by Ian Birrell, published on October 2, 2013. Birrell writes of the suburban constituency of Mole Valley in Surrey, which he describes as being ‘solidly Conservative.’ However, he also tells us that it is changing at ‘breathtaking speed’ due to immigration, and in a manner that ‘contains a message the [Conservative] party ignores at its peril.’ Indeed, these developments are ‘dynamite that threatens the Conservative Party. For these migrant voters may share suburban values, but they do not share their politics.

According to Birrell, the ‘Conservatives face a fundamental choice: do they want to chase the votes of the pessimists who preferred Britain as it was in the past, or those people living in the real world as it is today?’. He concludes by telling us that ‘if the Tories do not come to terms with the shifting shape of the suburbs, it could threaten their very existence.

Birrell is a former speechwriter for David Cameron, and therefore presumably considers himself to be some sort of conservative. What sort of conservative exactly, we cannot imagine, as his primary concern is to give the huge flood of immigrants swamping his country whatever they want, if it allows the Conservatives to cling to power. More importantly, there is no indication in his piece that he has any sense of any greater significance of what is occurring. There is a political party called the Conservative Party. How can this party win elections? Birrell evinces no interest in any other aspect of this matter.

Next, we have Tim Wigmore writing a blog entry for the Daily Telegraph on January 24th, 2014 . His piece is entitled ‘Unless the Tories engage with issues black voters care about, they face electoral oblivion’, this title being an entire universe of intellectually sub-par partisan analysis distilled down to a single drop. Wigmore tells us that ‘the Conservative Party’s hopes of winning elections rests [sic] on getting an increasing share of a declining part of the electorate. In 2010, they won only 16 per cent of the BME [Black and Minority Ethnic] vote. Unless that changes, defeat by democratic change awaits.

Wigmore spends a substantial part of his piece talking about how stop-and-search is a key area where the Conservatives could improve their appeal to, and soften their image with, black voters in particular. Apparently, black people are aggravated by the vigorous efforts of police forces to stop young black men carrying weapons with which to maim and kill other young black men. Be this as it may, the entire piece is again couched entirely in terms of what the Conservative Party must do to win elections. This is the only issue floating around inside this incurious young man’s skull.

Do those elements of British society who support the Conservatives want their future governments to be determined by the feelings black people have towards those tasked with restraining their overwhelming criminality? Does any other part of the white British electorate? These questions are not raised. We were foolish enough to allow large-scale black immigration. Now we must start to do what these civilizationally hopeless peoples want. This is democracy, Wigmore implicitly tells us. Indeed, he tells us the same thing again in a blog post dated February 26th, 2014, imaginatively titled ‘Without more ethnic minority votes, can the Conservatives ever win again?’, which recycles all the same points in similarly clueless fashion.

Our travails not yet over, we stumble away from the egregious Wigmore straight into the path of Hugh Muir, a black man who writes for The Guardian. He can be distinguished from Gary Younge of the same publication by the occasional touch of humour in his writing, though he possesses the same predictably singleminded focus on race and ethnicity. On September 4th, 2013, The Guardian published a long article by Muir on the possible influence of ethnic minority voters on the 2015 general election in Britain.

The focus of Muir’s article was some recent research conducted by Operation Black Vote (OBV), that most post-racial of organizations. The research examined the distribution of ethnic minority voters throughout constituencies across the country, and compared the predicted ethnic minority vote counts in each to the margin of victory in each at the last general election, in 2010. It revealed ‘that 168 marginal seats are susceptible to the voting whims of a minority electorate’, a development that Muir describes as ‘a depth charge into the waters of contemporary politics.’ Whether or not the indigenous British people actually want black and brown people detonating depth charges in contemporary politics, or anything else, is not discussed.

Muir continues, telling us that it is ‘High time, says Woolley [OBV’s director], for each [of the three major political parties] to explain what they would do about pressing subjects such as equalities legislation, immigration and stop and search.’ His article is less tightly focused on Conservative prospects than others we have looked at, but the gist is clear from his mention of Conservative Party strategists ‘who observe the wreckage of a US Republican party that is estranged from the growing Hispanic population of 53 million in the US and thus condemned to bit-part status.’ The once-proud party of Abraham Lincoln, now a rusty derelict long-since abandoned by the side of the road because Mexicans will not vote for it. Such are the fruits of diversity.

Muir’s article considers in reasonable detail the possible implications of growing ethnic diversity for the three major parties, which makes it a more interesting piece than the pathetic efforts penned by Birrell and Wigmore. Nonetheless, it is purely partisan. There is simply not a glimmer of awareness in it that a deeper, structural awareness is waiting to be unearthed.

Our next, and last, piece drawn from the mainstream media is more interesting in that it is one of the vanishingly small number of such pieces that show some awareness of the underlying structural issues, whilst also demonstrating a more nuanced take on the partisan issues themselves. It is an editorial published in The Guardian on June 20th, 2014. Responding to a recently published analysis we will be looking at in more detail later on, the editorial first makes some generic comments about how ethnic minority groups tend to vote Labour rather than Conservative. However, in a departure from type, it then informs us that ‘the most urgent message is for Labour, which may come to rely on minority support, a phenomenon the authors call the “browning of Labour”. Therein lies the most troubling indication of how politics may fracture; party endorsement predicated on ethnicity.’ Here we have the first hint of an awareness that the developments we have looked at thus far may actually be more significant than what the weather forecast is for Wimbledon this year, or what England’s prospects are for retaining the Ashes. Like some primeval fish laboriously pulling itself onto a muddy shore to discover to its astonishment that the ocean is not all there is, the editorial writers at the Guardian have made their way into an entirely new intellectual world.

Sucking away at the thin atmospheric oxygen via mechanisms we can only wonder at, our fish’s primitive brain notes that ‘Two out of three minority voters backed Labour in London [at the last elections to the European Parliament], according to researchers. Exactly the same proportion of white voters backed the Tories [Conservatives] or UKIP. Not so much a multicultural rejection of UKIP, rather that Nigel Farage [UKIP’s leader] was overwhelmed by the hard realities of London’s demography.

In other words, politics in London is becoming ever less political, and ever more tribal. Political diversity is becoming ever more essential, ever less non-essential. Political parties are becoming ever more the vehicles for different ethnic groups or coalitions thereof to protect their interests as they perceive them. We would suggest that the first- and second-order polarization we outlined earlier in this document both lie submerged within this development, along with many other antagonisms and resentments.

Our fish does not make this observation. It has not yet learnt these difficult terms, or learnt to perform a structural analysis of ethno-religious political diversity; it is merely groping in the right direction. We hope to make more progress in this direction ourselves later on. For the moment, we will leave broadsheet media analysis of our subject matter to one side and look briefly at two recent in-depth pieces of analysis to show that partisan naivety is not limited to journalists, but is also found amongst the heavy hitters of the academy.

Our first ‘serious’ piece of analysis is an article entitled The Tories’ Missing Half Million Voters, published in Demos Quarterly on April 24th, 2014. It was authored by one Richard Webber, a Visiting Professor at the Department of Geography, Kings College London, and Trevor Phillips, a professional black man and apparatchik of the multicultural state. What exactly Phillips could have contributed to such a dense piece of number-crunching besides his boyish charm and winning smile remains a mystery. Either way, the piece has the strengths of partisan analysis at its best, and the weaknesses common to all partisan analysis, good, bad, or indifferent.

Webber and Phillips offer up some interesting suggestions and insights. They consider, for example, the possibility that visible minorities (their term) who would once have voted for the Labour Party tend to drop their support for it as they diffuse out of their original areas of settlement. They note that there are large differences in the tendency of visible minorities to vote Labour as a function of the ethnic minority they belong to (Black African, Indian, Bangladeshi, etc.). There is also a discussion of what motivates ethnic minorities to vote the way they do: is it class, race, or both? This said, the article as a whole is a purely partisan exercise, concerned only with the relative electoral prospects of the main British political parties.

Our second piece of academic analysis, written by the same authors, is entitled Labour’s New Majority, and is found again in Demos Quarterly, published on July 18th, 2014. It was in response to this research, but prior to its publication, that the Guardian editorial we quoted above was published. There is no reason for us to consider this article at length; it suffices here to note that it demonstrates that the partisan nature of the previous work by this pair of authors was not an anomaly. Scholarly, learned, thorough, and largely worthless to those with a desire to understand the likely long-term consequences of Third World immigration into Britain, this, our last piece of partisan analysis, is of a piece with other work in this genre.

We close here by pointing out that both of these two final pieces have titles that make their partisan nature clear at a glance: the Tories this, Labour that. In the intellectual world of the partisan analysts, there are only political parties and their relative fortunes. Asking them about the structural implications of the demographic shifts they study would be akin to asking a particle physicist how bats can sleep upside-down, or how chameleons change colour. These questions simply do not have meaning in the analytical worlds they inhabit.

Coming up in Part Five: Structural Analysis Applied to Britain

For previous essays by El Inglés, see the El Inglés Archives.

35 thoughts on “Ethno-Religious Diversity and the Limits of Democracy, Part Four

    • That seems to be the case. Or at least the no-longer-living can only hit the letters on a keyboard with great difficulty so their comments tend to be short-ish.

      Odd thing about comments from the dead: when they hit upon those third-rail subjects that would make the living sizzle, they aren’t harmed but prospective commenters still drawing breath are quite fired up by incendiary remarks, however unintentional that effect might be.

  1. A corpse comment….

    This is all very well but endless description of what is afoot does not solve our problems. This is why I “died” and have no regrets. There are some good writers on this blog but few seem to know what to do about our plight. We need to act and soon and I fear it s already too late to save Europe.

    • No one is in a position to implement any programs.

      The most that the average person can do is to work/live at the margins – i.e., as much under the radar as possible. Given the growing technology one can neither run nor hide so the best approach is to blend in. Which, obviously, the commenters and the admin of this website have chosen not to do.

      It is “too late” to save Europe and the rest of the West in their current iterations. But a new version will evolve under pressure. None of us will live long enough to see the changes take effect…and no one can really know ahead of time what it will look like. One thing is sure: Islam may be part of the new mix, but it won’t be in charge.

    • If I remember correctly (IIRC), you are of the Christian faith? If that is so, then there is nothing for you to worry about since the Risen Christ is the Lord of this dance.

      • Yes I am Bishop of UK Diocese Traditional Old Catholic Church UK. No I don’t intend to write anymore. Pointless apart from the odd comment to guide.

        • I’ve decide to expand my Church TOCC and am in search of folk who wish to be ordained. The Church is very no- PC and against Islamification-indeed we reject it as total heresy. Anyway, anybody gets a call from The Boss upstairs and is of good character we will consider ordination.

          Warning: It is not easy being a Christian today let alone a priest. So if you do wish to be considered please contact us.

    • To the late Guy . . .
      I knew that you would say something grave and cogent. You are right. Dymphna is also right to “be under the radar”. It ‘s better to live 20 000 km away from democracy and read or hear about its perfect principles, a system that is better than any previously applied one.

      Except that democracy destroyed itself through its pompous empty principles.

      Why do we vote for our perdition? I used to vote. Over the last 20 years I don’t because it is a joke.
      we have to give politicians a real agenda to apply or must be recalled:
      1. No importing of muslims and semi literate immigrants.
      2. No pampering of muslims.
      3. Revoke all muslim oppressive committees ( e.g. CAIR, MNA, …..etc ) and other thouisands of them.
      4. No teaching of islam in public schools.
      5. Return to Judeo-Christian principles and teachings.
      6. Fire any lowlife academic who promotes islam.
      7. Stop Arab/muslim dollars from running our universities.
      8. Teach the traitors some dignity and tell them or show them what honor is. They have given their soul and honor for petrodollars,

      I don’t think anything will solve the problem. We have to wait for the “inevitable ” to happen to , probably, solve it.
      The root of the crisis is the Traitors.

  2. ” Ethno-Religious Diversity and the Limits of Democracy”
    Any system of government, if there is such a thing, its features, parameters, limits, . . . etc. depend on the “children” that are running it.

    The system is the production of human ( the managers) of the system: Do they have conscience, morals, washed of all morals, discipline, greed, selfish, . . . etc.

    When — infants like those of Norway, Sweden, France, Britain, Dutch, . . . who think like seven-year olds — are elected they behave in a most strange way — against their own people, and in favour of islam, that they don’t feel guilty or shame, because the mandate that comes from election makes them feel they are doing the right thing.

    They don’t know the right thing or decision. So they get their clues from whoever bends their arm….. muslims.

    Jane Austen: Man is servile.
    In Wuthering Heights: Hindley: I like something fierce.

  3. One observation would be that if the West will send the immigrants to their homeland then their influence on voting would decrease. On top of that allowing someone to enter a foreign country must not give him voting rights for at least a few decades -until it is proved that they are fully “integrated”.

    • Or change the voting system. On the dole? No more voting for you. Payed a million in taxes? More votes for you! A you’re a brain surgeon..please cast some more votes.

      • The advantage of your system is that it is at least overtly elitist, instead of the covert elitist system in place at the moment.

        The tax-paying part is the most intriguing (and brain surgeons pay taxes for sure). If more taxes permitted more influence (i.e., a proportionally larger vote), then paying taxes would be seen as a benefit. The state could get out of debt just for starters. And sheltering income against taxation would be less compelling.

        I like it. ‘Tis no more “unfair” than our present system where the dead vote repeatedly.

      • It’s nearly impossible to make such changes, even more obvious reasonable ones, due to the partisan results of such things.

        For example, in the US we have seen a significant number of states pass voter ID laws in an attempt to combat voter fraud. What’s the reaction to this perfectly reasonable security measure to ensure that nobody is being disenfranchised by fraud? Accusations that it’s “racist” to expect people to have a photo ID.

        The real reason is very obviously that the Democrat party depends on both outright voter fraud and questionable tactics such as bussing undocumented individuals to polling places (which may or may not involve outright fraud, but without IDs it’s impossible to tell). Anything that interferes with these tactics makes it more difficult for Democrats to get elected, therefore they always oppose basic election integrity measures like this.

        Ideally a democracy would have some provision in place to make sure that anyone who just wants to vote for the government to give them free stuff would be unable to vote. Even if you could come up with a way to do this that didn’t introduce some other sort of undesirable bias, it’s now too late to get any elected official to support it. Too many of them now owe their positions to promising to give people free stuff.

      • If more tax dollars buys you more votes, then look for a flood of Saudi petrodollars funneling through the muslim community to buy elections.

      • “Or change the voting system. On the dole? No more voting for you. ”

        Actually, it’s a mistake to think that simply being in the productive sector means that you don’t seek government advantage. An example is the large corporation seeking more “safety” and “environmental” regulations that will be prohibitively expensive to up-and-coming small competitors, but only a marginal irritant to large established, traditional companies.

        An example of this is Theodore Vail, head of Bell Telephone in the 1910’s, who lobbied long, hard, and successfully for regulations establishing Bell Telephone as a “natural monopoly”, putting all the pesky competitors out of business.

        Also, the business class has a tendency to take away legal recourse for individual consumers who have been run over by big business.

        The solution was actually given in the original US Constitution. This was a system of checks and balances: the House of Representatives represented the popular vote, and the Senate represented the special interests, including the states. Neither one could pass legislation without the other, but the prerogative to initiate budget bills was given to the House of Representatives, in a grand gesture symbolizing that ultimate power resided in the people.

        The Supreme Court by allowing obviously unconstitutional practices such as gerrymandering, and mandating unconstitutional and disastrous policies such as “proportional representation” has done more than its share to contribute to the deterioration of the American government.

    • Again, a good idea. But oddly, it’s the second and third generation Muslims who are going back ‘home’ to fight.

      “Home” of course is whichever jihad battle is getting the most media attention.

  4. Europe is at what I call the doorstopper moment. Once, Europe’s door was closed. In the last forty years, it has been prised ajar. Now, the immigrant hordes have pushed it far enough open to slip in a stopper. That doorstopper is electoral critical mass. And when the doorstopper is inserted, the door of course can never be closed again.
    Britain’s upcoming election will probably be settled by indigenous Britons, but the next one won’t. Immigrant voting power is now too great, and in a few years no major party will be able to afford to alienate the non-white constituency. This will be the last chance, and I think the same is true for most west European countries now. The doorstopper moment is about to arrive, from London to Berlin. The door cannot now be shut again. I think democracy will kill Europe.

    • I 100% agree with your post except for the last two sentences. I think we need to await the current awakening in Western Europe re. the Enemy within (see Denmark, U.K. citizens if not government, PEGIDA) to know enough about those last two sentences.

      I’d also like to point out that “the non-white constituency,” unless otherwise described, includes many Hindus in the U.K., who haven’t done anything (that I’m aware of) to engender such hostility.

  5. The Coudenhove-Kalergi plan – The genocide of the Peoples of Europe
    In his book «Praktischer Idealismus», Kalergi indicates that the residents of the future “United States of Europe” will not be the People of the Old Continent, but a kind of sub-humans, products of miscegenation. He clearly states that the peoples of Europe should interbreed with Asians and colored races, thus creating a multinational flock with no quality and easily controlled by the ruling elite.
    Kalergi proclaims the abolition of the right of self-determination and then the elimination of nations with the use of ethnic separatist movements and mass migration. In order for Europe to be controlled by an elite, he wants to turn people into one homogeneous mixed breed of Blacks, Whites and Asians.

    [Note from the Baron: Many people consider “miscegenation” a loaded word. Before arguing further about the ideas of Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi, read up on his ideas in his Wikipedia entry.]

    • Coudenhove-Kalergi appears to have been a perfect example of a very smart man with–as they say down under– ‘not enough sense to pour [micturant fluid] out of a boot’, further, if he ever read the quran it must have gone in one ear and out the other, or in his multicultural paradise how on earth could the indigenous Europeans inter-breed with muslims whose women are effectively off limits to kuffars.

      Over the centuries there have been many who have pushed the nonsense of a unified Europe, daft people all; from the sack of Rome until the end of the Balkan wars, Europeans have warred with and slaughtered each other, and exactly why it should be any different just because a collection of out of touch ‘elites’ have a theory and insist on applying it is just tragic. We are seeing the results–a Europe heading for even more wars, small in the beginning, but escalating. Anders Breivik must be laughing.

    • “He clearly states that the peoples of Europe should interbreed with Asians and colored races, thus creating a multinational flock with no quality and easily controlled by the ruling elite”

      “They” will not be easily controlled. The actual demographic changes prove without a doubt that the West will be less “multicultural” and less “diverse”.

      “Multicultural and diverse” is an intermediary phase for any transition. It is “diverse” at 50-50 or 30-30-30 or 25-25-25-25 mark, then diversity goes down. Think about it more like replacement. Once 50-70% of the population will be Arabs -they will vote for their Islamic parties and replace the liberal demons with their own Muslim demons -the Arabs do not like liberals either, no one trust traitors, so the lazy “elite” of today would be very busy tomorrow with staying in the middle and receiving hard blows from all directions -signs that this is already starting to happen already exists, the UK Muslim propaganda is telling their Mahommedans not to vote, not to interfere in “infidel” voting affair -a bit too hasty, their number is not big enough (yet). It would not be impossible that the “elite” would try to revert in a few years what they done once their own existence would be under threat, but of course it would be too late then, maybe will save them but not their kids, same result. I don’t see the actual “elite” surviving in any form whatever chameleon colors would they chose in the future.

  6. Where I live (Australasia) ‘Asian’ means incredibly high-achieving Chinese and Koreans who really do enrich our society (including producing amazing classical musicians and doctors). But in the UK it seems to mean ‘Pakistanis’? Do real Asians in the UK ever object to being lumped in like that? Presumably they are high achievers in Europe as well?

    • In Britain, ‘Asians’ are people from the old Indian empire and surrounding areas, distinct from the ‘Chinese.’ The Chinese don’t seem to mind that they have ceased to be Asian in Britain, but then again they don’t much care what the natives think as long as they can go on building up their mini-communities using our cities for the infrastructure. Which they are doing steadily, and moving into property now. Given how arrogantly the Europeans behaved in China, I suppose you cannot blame them for paying us in kind–they have long memories. There are too few Japanese and Koreans for this to be an issue for them.

  7. “Do real Asians in the UK ever object to being lumped in like that?’

    I hope they do and get very noisy about it!

    In Australasia, “Asian” connotes smart, hardworking people (from East Asia) who often ascend into the traditional professions and very often excel there. Their contribution to the classical arts is also nothing less than stupendous. GoV has the tongue-in-cheek “Cultural Enrichment Archives” and I am deeply glad it does. By way of happy contrast, Asian – properly defined – immigrants really do culturally enrich.

    Australia has an annual portraiture competition called the “Archibald Prize” and every year the proportion and quality of Chinese immigrant artists competing in it just grows and grows. In classical music it is the same story.

    If I were a British citizen of Chinese descent I would take action to stop or restrict the use of the term “Asian”.

    • As time goes on Australia in its maturity will have to pivot toward China and somewhat away from its parent Anglospheric beginnings. While that will be the latter’s loss, it is the inevitable movement of adults who must make their own way in the world.

      China is colonizing everywhere, including large swathes of western Canada and the northwest U.S. As California goes down the tubes it will largely be Americans of Chinese and Japanese descent who keep the state together. The Anglo, black and Hispanic elements have a much larger noise-to-signal ratio so we don’t pay attention to the quiet ones.

      One thing I’ve noticed is the lack of need for areas with a large Asian (true Asian, not British euphemism “Asian”) population to institute ESL classes. Children become fluent in English without the help of the state.

      RE: classical music. The Chinese culture doesn’t promote cutting edge creativity, but it does reward successful imitation. That’s one reason the idea of copyright laws will always be foreign to them.

      PRC leaders noticed the studies proving that young children who mastered Western music’s “language” of notation were likely to be more proficient in the STEM areas of knowledge/learning. So the “let a thousand pianos bloom” (and let them all play Mozart and Bach) programs started, even in the rural areas. Here in the U.S., the first thing to go when the budget is tight is music instruction. We continually fail to appreciate our own heritage yet others pick it up and run with it.

      When China takes over, it won’t be a revolution; more likely China will do nothing but help the process of erosion along. For a look at how that works, find essays by Heather McDonald about the margins in California where blacks and Chinese meet. The Chinese kids (accompanied by their mothers) are in the library studying while the black kids, sans any supervision, are on the streets and sidewalks outside the library, becoming skillful adepts at skateboarding.

      Asians in California are definitely discriminated against. There is an unspoken quota of Asians in higher education. If admission to college is based on merit, few whites and even fewer blacks would be able to compete against their Asian counterparts.

  8. I hope the next article in this series will examine factors that limit or promote assimilation. It seems like the theme so far is that immigrants never assimilate which, though it may appear to be true in the UK and Europe due to the pro-ghettoization policies in place, it does happen over time given sufficient pressure to do so.

    That is not to say that it can happen quickly enough to avoid problems when ridiculously rapid and ridiculously culturally incompatible immigration is allowed to take place the way it has, but it would be helpful to see this issue examined and quantified a bit rather than just assuming that it’s impossible.

    • I think it would sound more like extrapolating away from a real problem than talking about objective realities regarding Europe. The idea of this analysis is about how liberal politicians lack depth perception since they only concentrate on their close targets, with complete disregard or straight impunity toward their fellow people and the long term results of their disastrous approach. While this is objective, relative “assimilation” is out of the question (for now), for many reasons. This way we can speculate “but how about if a meteorite would hit the M.E. and most of the Muslims would visit their promised virgins sooner than expected?

  9. Thus far there seems to be remarkably little discussion of the role of intentional deception and dissimulation in promoting a narrative that presumes stable development when it is abundantly clear that the governing elites are intentionally destabilizing nations to pave the way for complete transformation away from existing electoral politics towards direct rule by unelected officials and completely fraudulent elections.

    I also note that there is no discussion of the well-documented end-game of the governing elites, the eventual resort to biological weapons to eliminate undesirable elements of the population after the requisite political power has been consolidated. That this plan is already doomed to failure by the proliferation of private sector technologies does not alter the fact that it was foundational to the development of the long-term strategy of the governing elite and remains their driving vision.

    As it happens, the Communist Chinese plan to collapse the global economy after effectively ensuring that no other major economy is self-sufficient for maintenance of modern technology will obviate all other plans by regional governing elites, many of whom will not survive the aftermath of devaluation of their fiat currencies. Unfortunately, while this engineered collapse does not include any overt depopulation methods, it is likely that about two thirds of the world’s population will die as a result. This is far less than the 95% the Western elites were planning to exterminate, and survival is likely to be concentrated among “oppositional” populations which the Western elites would have preferred to eliminate, but it is still not exactly cause for celebration.

    More directly relevant to the topic of the essay, I think it would be worth examining how reduction of the number of issues which are subject to the imposition of government policies could reduce the degree of tension in society by radically reducing the number of IPPs which fall outside of the CZ generated by a given PP. There are quite a few things in society which we have no need to decide by imposition of a uniform rule, such as the color and particular styles of our clothes (to cite a trivial example) or the doctrines and rituals of our religious lives (perhaps a more profound subject). It is worth acknowledging that Islam (like both doctrinaire and cultural Marxism) does not recognize the principle of religious freedom as traditionally understood in Western civilization. The number of dimensions of the policy space in which we define PPs and IPPs is thus itself an element of any PP or IPP.

    For myself, I regard the resort to deciding anything by a vote as requiring three conditions. First, the advantages of coordinated action over individual action must be definite and decisive. If there is no clear and unarguable advantage to coordinated action, or if individual action is clearly superior, then there is no point in voting (except in the colloquial sense of voting with your feet/purse). Second, the vote must be restricted to those whose cooperation significantly contributes to the success of the coordinated action. Those who do nothing to sustain the implementation of the policy to be decided by a vote can have nothing useful to contribute in deciding what policy to adopt. Third, every individual whose cooperation is required for a given outcome of the vote to succeed must regard participation in the voting to be a sufficient reward for then participating in implementing the policy decided.

    This reward consists of two elements, one of which is touched upon by the requirement that cooperative action be clearly superior in effect to individual action. That is, it could be that, even if some cooperative actions decided by the vote are less preferable to some individuals whose cooperation is necessary for success, the result of the cooperative action selected by the vote is superior in result for every individual than any possible individual action for that individual. Alternatively, while some individual action may be more rewarding to some individuals than the cooperative effort decided by a given vote, there is a sufficient probability of future votes deciding cooperative efforts more rewarding than individual efforts for honoring the vote in a given case that is sub-optimal.

    When any of these conditions is violated, when centrally organized activity is less efficient or effective than independent action, votes are being significantly decided by those who contribute nothing to assisting in the implementation of policies decided by vote, or when those whose cooperation IS required have insufficient motive to abide by the outcome of the voting process, then democracy becomes inherently untenable, both logically and pragmatically. While the violation of any one of these conditions is likely to negatively impact the preservation of either of the others, it is not the case that all three must be violated at the same time for a democratic process to become fundamentally illegitimate. It is sometimes the case that the democratic process will be consistently offending all three criteria before it is abolished, but upholding one or two of these conditions is not therefore adequate to maintain democracy.

    Of course, a representative government is, by nature, something of a package deal. Just because only net taxpayers have any natural right to vote for increased spending, that doesn’t mean servicemen should be excluded from voting for a candidate who promotes stronger national defense policy. Yes it involves more spending, and members of the military typically take more in pay from the government than they pay back in taxes, but it also involves deployments and increased operational tempo, which is borne and enacted by the direct efforts of the military personnel themselves. Conversely, the fact that it does involve an increased outlay of funds means it is of interest to all taxpayers, regardless of their direct personal involvement in military affairs. On the other hand, it wouldn’t do a lot of good to take a vote to sign a peace treaty with another country while excluding those of your countrymen who had the practical ability to carry out acts of war with or without your permission.

    For a more tangible example, lately there have been a number of cases where politicians in various states have passed gun-control laws which the previously law-abiding gun owners in those states have refused to abide. This has created some interesting situations, given that forcibly disarming hundreds of thousands of armed, angry citizens poses grave difficulties and not a few moral uncertainties for law-enforcement personnel. I am also minded of the development of the F-35, adopted as the next generation fighter for, not only the U.S., but much of the Western world (along with its Pacific allies). Whatever you think of the evidence that the F-35 program was a clever Chinese plot to destroy the capacity of the American military to effectively counter growing Chinese regional military power, it certainly has not been more cost effective than allowing multiple competing fighter designs. And then there’s Obamacare. I don’t believe that it is useful to even get started on a discussion of the problems with any democratic process which decides on something like that.

    I suppose there is some question as to what danger there is of removal of an issue from the public policy space of a citizenry to provoke those who individually prefer that the government address that issue in some particular way. Certainly the communists and fascists who sought the expansion of government into new spheres was accompanied by a good bit of violent protest against governments and other elements of society which did not support that agenda. But that has to be weighed against the historical evidence that expanding the scope of government in response to such violence rarely did as much to curb it as steadfastly refusing the expand the scope of government. In the end, while there are some issues which generally do need to be referred to the public policy sphere (such as establishing standards for defining and responding to acts of violence), there are many more which could be eliminated with significant benefits for social and political stability, even in populations with essentially diverse interests.

    • “I also note that there is no discussion of the well-documented end-game of the governing elites, the eventual resort to biological weapons to eliminate undesirable elements of the population after the requisite political power has been consolidated. ”

      Since this bold and unsubstantiated assertion of yours is so well-documented, how about giving some documentation?

      • You can simply Google (or use some alternative search engine in the event that Google ceases to produce relevant results) elite bioweapon population reduction agenda or whatever other combination of terms you think relevant.

        I’m certain that you will instantly dismiss as “crazy” any of the documentation you find. That doesn’t change the facts of the globalist elite’s plan to exterminate most of the population.

        As I said, this plan is in some disarray at the moment, it IS nearly a century old and both social and technological evolution have presented rather severe difficulties for achieving the desired population reduction numbers without endangering the elites themselves. And the Chinese will clearly succeed in destroying the global economy well before the globalists can repair the current defects in their own plan. So it isn’t really that big a concern. It is, however, naive to assume that the globalist elite didn’t have an endgame in mind when they began destroying the political viability of their own nations.

      • One of the problems in following, let alone evaluating, your trains of thought is that you tend to throw out extremely broad assertions, of sweeping scope, and treat them as an aside.

        Your reference to the F-35 is an example. It’s a “tangible example” of what? You bring in the possibility of the F-35 being a Chinese conspiracy to destroy our military because it has not lived up to its cost-efficiency promises. Show me a weapon or space program that has not vastly overspent its initial estimates.

        You also pull three criteria for voting out of your hat, and use them as a criteria for judging issues. You have every right to do that, but I myself think your criteria are neither desirable nor feasible. Do you want the government to make an individual assessment on the willingness of every individual to work to further the advancement of a proposition before allowing him to vote on it?

        Anyway, according to your thesis, it’s all a moot point, since anything we plan or discuss is going to go down the drain when the Chinese unveil their ruin-the-world plan.

        The clever Chinese are devising a way to improve their economy, which is based on manufacturing and exporting goods to other countries, by ruining the economies of all other countries. I can see why they would keep such a plan secret…especially from anyone with any inkling of economics.

        By the way, if you want to support any of your assertions, you need to give a few references that reflect your line of thought. By telling me to google an unsupported assertion of yours that the political elites are actively planning to use biological weapons to drastically reduce the world population, if you want me to be sympathetic to your argument, you will give me a reference that supports your logic and facts. Am I supposed to infer from the fact that Bill Gates and others attended a conference where one speaker talked about using ebola for population control (or may have talked about it), that that’s what the globalist elites want to do?

        In the meanwhile, we have to struggle with more mundane questions: why are the political leaders systematically bringing in low-achievement, low-IQ, high-criminality hoards of immigrants at the same time they are planning to cull the undesirables from the world population and breed a true master race? At least, according to the references you may or may not support, as you decline to actually give a reference for your assertion.

        • I should think that it would be obvious that a country cannot benefit in material terms by exporting wealth, but only by importing wealth. Typically, one exports wealth in order to import wealth that is desired more than what one exports. The valuation of wealth necessarily depends on how you intend to use it.

          For instance, the Japanese believe that America is exempted from the normal laws of history. There are a number of reasons they believe this, but most fundamentally it is because America is the only nation in over two thousand years to successfully invade and occupy Japan by irresistible military might. So they use large dollar reserves as an immovable support for their economy, since it is impossible that America’s economy could be subject to the same rules that govern all other economies.

          The Chinese do not believe that America is immune to the laws of history and economics. So it would be fundamentally impossible for them to value their even larger dollar reserves for the same reason as the Japanese do. They necessarily must have a different reason for valuing them. And the only reason that makes any sense, given the overall theory and practice of the Party leadership in Beijing, is as a means to destabilize and eventually destroy the value of the dollar.

          The sources that you would have to read to understand this are too extensive to post here. The same is true of the numerous documents concerning the plan of the Western elite to drastically reduce the global population, which has been pursued by a large number of methods, but is ultimately understood to be impossible without resort to biological weapons. But you have no need to rely on what I can post here, the information is readily available IF YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO SEE IT.

          Which you do not.

          As for your assumption that there must be some overtly racial component to the elite plan to wipe out most of the human population, I suppose that reveals the basis of your own thinking. The elites plan to wipe out everyone who is not useful to them, that includes the white Europeans attached to ideas of Christian values and individual human rights just as much as brown Arabs enthralled to Islamic totalitarianism…indeed, a bit more so. Wiping out the populations of Islamic nations is already trivially easy, it is the population of developed nations with a capacity for ethical resistance that are the main obstacle, after all.

          Your apparent assertion that voting can have any rational basis outside of the criteria I outlined is telling. As is your refusal to acknowledge that the simple fact of extending the right to vote is in simple fact “an individual assessment on the willingness of every individual to work to further the advancement of a proposition”. The only difference is that I would like governments to do a better job in making that assessment.

          • The elites plan to wipe out everyone who is not useful to them, that includes the white Europeans attached to ideas of Christian values and individual human rights just as much as brown Arabs enthralled to Islamic totalitarianism…indeed, a bit more so. Wiping out the populations of Islamic nations is already trivially easy, it is the population of developed nations with a capacity for ethical resistance that are the main obstacle, after all.

            Which is one reason China dropped its one-child-per-family atrocity. It was an experiment based on hyper-rational thinking and a blindness to their own inability to think outside the box. One of the reasons I’d hate to see China in charge is that seemingly characterological unwillingness to consider the possibility of unintended consequences. That may be a consequence of atheism, I’m not sure.

          • Well, the policy has been relaxed rather than ended. I have to wonder whether the consequences were really all that unintended. I’ve long thought that the Party leadership has uses for a massive surplus male population. And the shape of sex-trafficking in China suggests that the government finds it useful to have families that are terrified of public attention.

            Then again, I’ve noted a number of clearly unintended consequences of other policies which Beijing has turned to their advantage after the fact, and there are limits to the utility of deliberately increasing the aggressive tendencies of the male population. All the same, my sense is that China-worship makes a more compelling religion than Islam in most respects, and one that lends itself better to conventional military organization.

Comments are closed.