If you were given a job by a governor or a mayor to ethnically cleanse a city of a problematic group while maintaining plausible deniability, how would you do it?
In modern times, media technology is the most powerful coordination-generating tool available to any political leader. Mass media — and to some extent, the internet — has proven effectiveness in coordinating ethnic cleansing campaigns. ‘Hutu Radio,’ even in relatively primitive Rwanda, helped to stoke resentment against the Tutsis, and eventually to direct terror against them until they were partially exterminated and driven out of their territories.
That’s an extreme example, but you can accomplish similar feats over a longer period of time using more covert (if expensive and wasteful) policies.
In a recent post, I referenced the demographic progression of New York City during the 20th century — when Whites went from being close to 100% of the population to being a bare plurality throughout the city and in most boroughs. Only in Manhattan do they still maintain a bare majority.
This stunning population displacement in this city — which was more pronounced in others, like Detroit — has been a mostly conscious political policy of suppression of the White ethnic group (which is itself rather diverse and not all that descriptive).
In schools, Americans learn nothing but positive things about Civil Rights. They rarely learn much about the ethnic displacements of Whites from American cities except in positive terms.
Often this phenomenon tends to be called ‘white flight’ — and is attributed to ‘racism’ and a growth in crime rather than shifts in values.
Although the bussing policy that began after the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education case has been widely acknowledged to be a failure, the commencement of the program tends to be portrayed as a victory. The enactment of anti-discrimination laws and all sorts of other regulations tends to be portrayed as a positive good.
The reality is that this was an ethnic suppression campaign that has been wildly successful. In NYC, America’s capitol of capitalism, the proportion of Whites was cut in half from 1950-2000, from 90% to about 45%. That’s about 7 million to around 3.5 million — a displacement of 3.5 million, which must include some fertility suppression as well.
Indeed, a recent NY Post article pointed to a historically low birthrate for the entire city. Black and Whites, the two groups who have suffered the largest relative recent population losses in the city, also have the lowest birthrates. The Black population peaked at 28% in the 1990s, after enjoying explosive growth — roughly tripling in the same time that the White population dropped by half.
Getting rid of 3.5 million Whites from one city in less than a century is an impressive feat, especially because it required no cattle cars or forced marches. How did they get it done, and with such clean hands, also?
Well, one easy way to do it is to teach in the schools that the ethnic group you want to get rid of is really evil and a source of all the bad things in history. Anyone who has been through the post-1960s education system knows that this is a major theme.
Another great thing to do is to encourage women in the ethnic group you want to get rid of to go in for long educations and strenuous careers, rather than having kids. If they have lots of kids, they’re harder to physically remove from the cities you want to get rid of them in. As we all know, this has been a major theme taught to the American White middle classes, who have been told to basically eliminate themselves or otherwise relegate themselves to the geographic fringes.
Also, it’s a great idea to condition the people you want to exterminate that non-procreative sex is awesome — far preferable to the kind that makes new life — and should be indulged in early and often, to build up habits which are difficult to break before forming a family.
You would also want to encourage women of all kinds to divorce if they do have children, and to live off the state instead of forming families. This makes family life even less attractive to members of the ethnic group you want to deplete from certain areas. Furthermore, it breaks up family fortunes, sending them into the grabbing hands of lawyers, family counselors, the state, and other hard-working professionals who only have the best interests of children within their big hearts.
All of this works great — in a short period of time, you can remove millions of people from the target ethnic group, forcing them to move to economically marginal areas, solidifying political control for your ethnic group and whatever coalition that you’ve brought along for the ride.
Finally, you want to soft-pedal the enforcement of criminal laws– especially symbolic, humiliating ones like rape — targeted against the population that you want to suppress or remove. Instead of executing criminals, you want to make a pretense of ‘rehabilitating’ them, providing them with long trials, generous probation periods, good-behavior releases, expensive prisons, and other forms of coddling based on relatively recent philosophical developments.
This makes it so that the ethnic group you want to get rid of knows that the police aren’t really on their sides, or are otherwise incapable of doing much. Meanwhile, you call any attempts at organizing defense by the group you want to displace either ‘terrorism’ or ‘organized crime.’
This policy is nothing more than a way of seizing territory and property from the people you want to get rid of. Using this policy, you can extract resources from healthy, successful people using coalitions of barbarians guided by glib sophists. It’s so effective that you can distribute the spoils from the millions of people you chase away to your cronies. Who said the era of rape & pillage was over? It’s just as effective as it ever was.
That’s democracy in the modern West. Conservative parties generally exist to prevent significant resistance to these campaigns from forming — by misdirecting attention to meaningless non-issues while people are prevented from living out good lives in the cities that their ancestors built in the wilderness.
In this all the anti-white-male rhetoric coming from every mouthpiece in the country in the same tone is entirely understandable. They’re doing a great job, and have the track record to show success at displacing millions of people from the most valuable real estate in the country without generating much of any controversy at all and no international condemnation of much significance. Actually, rather the opposite — the increase of ‘diversity’ tends to be celebrated as a wonderful thing, even when it actually just means the displacement of one ethnic group by others through the use of force as a matter of official state policy.
The point of mass immigration is in part to demonstrate the power of the state over its entire territory. If an ethnic group under control of the state can’t even defend its own land or determine who can and can’t settle there, then it has no authority. This is one reason why Stalin moved the Chechens from one piece of land to another — to try to break their resistance entirely.
Essentially we should understand the modern democratic politics as a way for one leadership population to loot other groups without actually turning to direct conflict. Why go through the trouble of killing a man and taking his property when you can just get him to flee — and have no children — instead?
And probably have him thank you for it afterwards — to consider his displacement and disinheritance to be a good thing? We can perhaps attribute some of that behavior to lobbying for some of the spoils, but not all of it. Some of it comes authentically, as an expression of genuine belief.
That’s really an impressive trick, and we have to doff our hats to the democrats and their friends for pulling it off.