Systemic racism, mass immigration, social unrest and surveillance in the West

Robert B Reich, a professor at Berkeley and former United States Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997 under President Bill Clinton, writes in his book The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It (2020):

“Dimon [the CEO of JPMorgan] decries discrimination and points to the money JPMorgan is investing in poor cities. But he ignores the bank’s role in preventing poor African Americans from getting loans. In January 2017 JPMorgan agreed to pay $55 million to settle a Justice Department lawsuit accusing it of discriminating against minority borrowers by allowing its mortgage brokers to charge them higher interest on home loans than it charged white borrowers with the same credit profile, causing the black borrowers to pay tens of millions of dollars in additional mortgage costs.”

JPMorgan’s treatment of African Americans is a clear example of systemic racism, presupposing that one broadens the definition of “racism” to include the idea or prejudice that people who have dark skin are generally inferior to white people when it comes to earning money and repay loans.

Some may wonder how a white-skinned nationalist like me can be an antiracist. The answer is simple. I’m against mass immigration, regardless of skin color, because it contributes to destroying ethnic cultures, but I’m not against naturally occurring immigration. Have three friends who are married to non-Westerners. Being against mass immigration on a cultural level does not imply that I view or treat individual immigrants in a negative way. They are human beings like everyone else.

If we create an international economic system that is fair and just it will automatically reduce mass immigration. Stop the exploitation of Africa for example. Make it a good place to live. Immigrants from this continent will then freely and naturally return home where they have family, friends and know the language and culture.

In theory it follows logically from the principles of moderate ethno-nationalism that if globalist elites have abused the top-down power of the state to invite hundreds of thousands or millions of immigrants into a nation state, then indigenous patriots in this country have the right to peacefully repatriate almost all of these immigrants, regardless of skin color, by giving them ten years to move home to their own state, be it Sweden or Kenya for example.

However, I’m a 70% realist and 30% cultural conservative, so have no problem admitting that repatriation today is not realistic in our new multicultural societies.

When immigrants have citizenship in a country it’s only fair that both the state and large corporations treat them without discrimination.

It’s unavoidable however that many native people will be hostile toward mass immigration. The most hot-tempered of these average citizens may therefore lash out and be verbally mean toward immigrants. I condemn these verbal expressions, but as long as nobody gets physically hurt it’s a disproportional reaction, a violation of free speech and a violation of basic universal ethics to put someone in jail after he or she engaged in so-called “hate speech”. It’s deeply worrisome that the Supreme Court in Norway has violated human rights when sentencing a person to jail just because of her verbal hostility toward immigrants. Norway Today:

Norway’s Supreme Court sentences 50-year-old woman to 36 days of prison for hate speech

This proves that also Norway is gradually becoming a hybrid-authoritarian state. You can now get 3 years in jail just for speaking in public in Norway. This is a scary development, a threat to our constitutional democracy.

Laws against “hate speech” can be used to justify mass surveillance, to justify an Orwellian thought police.

It functions as a secular version of indulgence when Big Business and Big Government defend woke values while accumulating unprecedented wealth and building large centralized state hierarchies. This anti-democratic development must be stopped. All supporters of constitutional democracies must stand up and fight the corporate woke surveillance state.

Especially the Old Left must begin resisting the fake corporate “Left” that hides power and wealth behind lip service to social justice. Or as Robert B Reich writes in The System:

“Yet for all his liberal outspokenness, Dimon never mentions America’s growing concentration of wealth and power, and the tight connection between the two.” (…)

“During my years in Clinton’s cabinet I worked closely with [Treasury secretary Robert] Rubin and found him to be … socially liberal, genuinely concerned about the poor, and committed to equal opportunity. But he didn’t want to talk about wealth and power. When I used the term “corporate welfare” in a speech, he almost blew a gasket.”

Judge the powerful and wealthy by what they do, not by their cheap and politically correct “tolerant” attitudes when they speak in public.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s