Why are some people more racist than others? Amazingly it turns out that it may be a side effect of open-mindedness.
People are to a large extent born with different psychological personality traits or develop them at a very early age. Psychologists have identified five major traits, one of which is open-mindedness. It is normally associated with many positive qualities such as creativity and adaptability, but also some negative such as a risk of mental instability and psychosis.
Borders and Individuality
But what is it? It is useful to think of a mind as having borders and walls. We use those boundaries to distinguish one thing from another. This thing over here is a dog and that thing over there is a cat. Borders.
We can place humans on a spectrum of the degree of borders in the mind. Close-minded people have thicker and more impenetrable borders in their mind, whereas the open-minded tend to be thin-walled. Information flows more freely in their minds.
As you may have guessed, conservatives tend to be on the close-minded side of the spectrum. They like walls. Liberals are on the opposite end. At the extreme close-minded end of the spectrum, one can find some forms of autism. Similarly, at the opposite extreme, we find the psychotic – people whose borders are so frail that they cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Highly thick-bordered minds tend not to have a flood of associations. It makes their minds very precise, almost like a computer, but also less capable of making abstractions. If they see a black person who robs a store, and then later see another black person, they are less likely to associate the two.
Borders in the mind make them see people more as separate individuals than as members of a group.
Open-minded people do the opposite. Associations spread like a tsunami through their minds. One thing more easily reminds them of another. Therefore, when they see a black man robbing a store they will be more likely to associate the next black man they see with crime than the close-minded.
The open-minded will, therefore, tend to see people more as members of a group than as individuals. Consider the example of music. Many pop songs are made based on the same chord progressions, and the open-minded therefore often quickly grow bored with this genre because they fail to hear them as individual songs with unique characteristics. Let’s call them song racists, if you like.
This also explains why open-minded people tend towards collectivism. Racism is to a large extent a phenomenon of the left because liberals tend to be more open-minded.
This may strike you as odd and the opposite of what you have been taught. Aren’t the conservatives the racists? Don’t they want to build that wall and keep those Mexicans out? If you listen carefully to President Donald Trump’s infamous Mexican rapist speech, he listed what kind of Mexicans he wants to keep out. He started by saying “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.” He then pointed to specific Hispanic individuals in the audience and said: “They’re not sending you.”
However, since leftists tend to think in terms of groups, all they could hear him say was that all Mexicans are rapists – every single one of them. Because to them, all Mexicans are the same. There are no Mexican individuals, only their ethnicity.
Conservatives, who have lots of borders in their minds, didn’t hear that. They were able to distinguish between good and bad Mexicans, and far more rotten apples cross the borders illegally than through legal immigration, so they want to build a wall.
Like a Dog
Consider a more recent example. When Trump called Omarosa Manigault a dog, the entire left-wing media immediately thought that he was being racist. Why? To the left, Omarosa is not an individual with unique characteristics, but merely a member of her racial group. Associations spread like wildfire in their open minds, which led them to the conclusion that Trump must have been mean to her because she was black. Fortunately, we have people like Ben Shapiro to clear up the confusion.
An open mind is great, but it comes at a price. Those who are on the left should learn to know the dangers that their personality poses. They are quick to reduce individuals to their groups, and they falsely project their proclivity onto the right.
Recently, Liberty Nation reported that Rasmussen’s polled approval rating of President Donald Trump among black voters had surged to 29%, up from 15% a year earlier. Now, only two weeks later, the polling organization tweeted that the black approval rating for the president has skyrocketed to 36%.
These stellar poll numbers may be only a fluke, but if confirmed by future surveys and election results as a real trend, it is nothing short of a political earthquake. The last time a similarly dramatic shift occurred was in the 1930s when black voters abandoned the party of Abraham Lincoln during the Great Depression and voted for the party of slavery and the Ku Klux Klan instead, who offered them welfare breadcrumbs in their time of desperation. They have stayed loyal to the Democratic Party ever since – until now. Are African-American voters finally coming home?
A New Political Landscape?
Black people make up about 13% of the U.S. population and if the approval trend continues, landing the black vote near 50% for Trump, it could spell catastrophe for the current political model of the Democratic Party, which heavily relies on minority voters to win elections. It would bring many blue states into play for the Republicans, and the Democrats would be forced to return to the political center like Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. We could be witnessing the first signs of peak progressivism and identity politics.
What are the underlying causes of this sudden change? Multiple factors have slowly eroded decades of sedimented negative opinion about the Republican party and conservatives.
First, the economy is finally booming again, bringing the black unemployment rate to record low levels. Being against that is ideologically hard. Moreover, after years of stagnation under President Barack Obama, it seems that Trump can take credit for much of it.
Second, conservatives have been on the offensive in the culture war and this effort seems to be bearing fruit. People are growing more aware of the racist history of the Democratic Party. The #WalkAway movement seems to be real.
Two people seem to have played an exceptionally important role in converting black Americans to Trump’s cause. One of them is Candace Owens, who was “red-pilled” only a year ago and became a prominent YouTube commentator. She, in turn, was discovered by rapper Kanye West who famously tweeted, “I like the way Candace Owens thinks.”
Shortly after West said something nice about Trump and questioned the black allegiance to the Democratic Party, the Trump’s surge of popularity among black voters started.
A Popular Wall?
Finally, the message about cracking down on illegal immigration may be more popular among black voters than people think. There is a widespread perception among many people that desperate illegals from South America are pushing wages down and reducing job opportunities for low-skilled workers. African-Americans are statistically overrepresented in this labor group and as such feel the negative effects of illegal immigration more than most.
If these truly are the most important contributing factors, let’s make a prediction: the surge is not over yet.
Once again Sweden looks like a war zone. The end of summer means car burning season. This time, a group of masked men set nearly 100 cars ablaze in a coordinated simultaneous attack in multiple Swedish cities. The gangs then threw rocks at the police and firetrucks.
The police say that they know who several of the perpetrators are, mostly teenagers. So far, two young men have been arrested in Sweden and a third was captured escaping to Turkey.
The Scandinavian nation, which has not seen war in two centuries, has voluntarily invited civil unrest, terror, and violence into their country. Welcome to Absurdistan.
BREAKING: Serious situation in Sweden. Youths torched around 14 cars near a shopping centre in Gothenburg pic.twitter.com/Ia9vbMnNV0
— Voice of Europe 🌐 (@V_of_Europe) August 13, 2018
Look to Sweden
Sweden has become a Mecca for politicians and interested observers all over the world. In a morbid pilgrimage, people are coming from across the globe to watch how the Swedes are actively destroying their own country.
There is, for instance, an ongoing debate in Japan about opening for more work immigration due to low birth rates, but Sweden is used as a horror example of immigration gone wrong. The national economist Takaaki Mitsuhashi has warned:
“Look to Sweden to get a good picture of what the consequences of immigration are. […] The foreigners – particularly from Africa and the Middle East – have taken over and fundamentally transformed neighborhoods.”
After visiting Stockholm, he said, “Whatever that thing was, it wasn’t Sweden. We do not want that development in Japan.”
Douglas Murray, a conservative British journalist and author of The Strange Death of Europe, says that Europe is committing suicide, and Sweden is at the epicenter of the self-destructive contagion.
Resistance is Rising
However, there are signs that many Swedes are losing patience with the multicultural experiment. The Sweden Democrats is an anti-immigration party that has risen from nearly nothing to almost 30% support in the polls and are positioned to become the largest party in the upcoming election.
Interestingly, the party is equally popular among immigrants as among native Swedes. Sweden has failed so thoroughly that even immigrants want to stop immigration, especially from Muslim countries.
Leftist professors will have you believe that racism is a historically recent invention of the West. Before the advent of Western colonialism, racism did not exist, they claim. It’s a variation of the noble savage myth. Racial and tribal discrimination has been endemic throughout all human history. To claim otherwise is fake history.
However, in one limited sense they are right. The actual word “racism” did not exist until the 1930s, and its precursor term “racialism” only dates to the 1880s. They are also right that the term was coined due to an ongoing debate spurred by Western exploration. Before global travel, people simply did not encounter many different races.
What they don’t tell you is that racism was a collectivist ideology. Collectivism holds group identity over individual sovereignty and therefore belongs naturally to the left. That is why The Democratic Party was the party of the KKK, Slavery, and Jim Crow. That is why the Swedish Social Democrats were pioneers in racial eugenics. That is why The German National Socialist Workers Party (the Nazis) saw socialism and race-based nationalism as two sides of the same coin. Racism is a leftist idea.
Far Left vs Center Left
Within the left there was a civil war, between the national and the international socialists. It was a war about boundaries. Those on the center-left accepted common cultural concepts such as nation, race, and private property, but when they mixed in their collectivism, the boundaries became a source of discrimination and in many cases persecution.
Rather than recognizing the horrors of collectivism, some attributed the injustice to the borders. Their diagnosis was that the left wasn’t far left enough, so the far left co-opted the concept of racism as part of their war against borders.
Racism vs In-group Preference
Today the term “racism” is used in that far-left communist sense. It lumps together the legitimate opposition to racial supremacy ideologies with everyday in-group preference that is both natural and common across the globe.
Think of a race as an extended family. Now substitute all arguments against race with family. Family does not exist – it’s a social construct. You love your children for no other reason than that they are your family. That’s discrimination against other children.
Doesn’t that sound like an unreasonable attack on the family? It sounds like a strawman, but the communists argued against all biological boundaries, including family. Although they have partially succeeded in separating children from their parents through public education and women in the workforce, they largely failed at demonizing the family the way they managed with race. The love of children ran too deep and people recognized that it was unreasonable.
However, if you show any form of affection for your extended family, your race, the far left has succeeded in branding you as a racial supremacist.
The war against the racism of the center-left was so successful that it became a competition between leftists of who could become the most inclusive and knock down the most borders. In fact, the modern-day left-right spectrum as defined by leftist professors is a measure of how discriminatory a collectivist ideology is.
The green socialists were the first to knock down the walls of the communists. The greens claimed that the communists weren’t far left enough because they were discriminating animals and plants.
Much later came fourth wave feminism, which claims that all forms of biology and reality is discriminating the imaginary. Imaginary genders should be treated as more important than biological sex. Since transgender students are promoting the Gender Unicorn, we may, for lack of another word, call this unicornism. Unicorn lives matter.
The logical end station of knocking down all borders is nihilism. At the extreme end of leftism, you erase the distinction between life and death, and between existence and non-existence. It is a great injustice to the non-existent that anything should exist at all. In this final stage of leftism, equality means eradication of anything that exists or is alive.
Collectivism is The Problem
The right acknowledges borders of all kinds, whether it be between the sexes, the races, nations, or the animal kingdom. However, conservatarians also recognize that it is collectivism that is the main problem, not borders.
J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, is one of the cultural icons of our times. Loved equally much by readers and viewers on both the left and the right, it has captured the imagination of generations.
However, despite its universal appeal, it is filled with political undercurrents. Progressives often see it as an epic story of the success of multiculturalism.
It is not hard to see why. The story is about a group of individuals from different races – hobbits, humans, elves and dwarfs – who work together in a fellowship to destroy the powerful ring of the evil Sauron.
While there are racial tensions, distrust, and betrayal, in the end, they fight side by side, united by a common enemy. As such, it fits into the theme of many fantasy and sci-fi series.
However, despite the progressive theme of unity and cross-racial harmony set in Middle Earth, something does not quite fit the multicultural bill. First, all the races live separately in different nations that are ethnically and culturally homogenous. Hobbits live in the Shire, Elves live in forest cities like Rivendell, and so on.
Although not an explicit topic, there are no open borders in Middle Earth. There are no immigration offices, but in general you are not welcome in Iron Hills if you are not a dwarf. The wizard Gandalf arrives on a tourist visa in the Shire, to visit his Hobbit friends, but all understand that this is not his homeland. He is expected to eventually leave.
Two False Alternatives
Once noticed, this pattern cannot be unseen. However, it escapes most people because it does not fit the two false alternatives from which they tell us we must choose. The first is racism, ghettos, hatred, xenophobia, Jim Crow laws, and holocausts. The other is blissful multiculturalism, where everyone unites in ethnic harmony, a glorious melting pot where no-one cares about such anachronisms as race, religion, or ethnic background.
In the real world, attempts at making a multicultural society tend to end up closer to the first alternative. We are an incredibly individualistic species, but we are still social. The truth is that all humans are, in part, tribal. Trying to force people out of that against their will makes them feel alienated, scared, and vulnerable.
The Lord of the Rings outlines a third alternative to racial and ethnic harmony – one which recognizes the tribal nature of humans. People tend to want to live with others like themselves. They seek racial, ethnic, political, and religious homogeneity.
That is why nearly every major city in the western world has a Chinatown with ethnic Chinese who speak and live as if they were in their homeland. That is why in Europe you find Muslim enclaves that enforce Sharia law in a parallel society. That is why you find hordes of Scandinavian Americans in the states near the border of Canada, in rural areas with cold winters.
This ethnic clustering happens naturally, and when done properly, a strange kind of racial harmony can emerge. Ethnic tensions tend to disappear if people feel that they have a homeland for their tribe, a place where their way of life is safe from intruders. Such a model of ethnic diversity is known as ethnopluralism and is not part of the mainstream political discussion because the multiculturalists want bigotry, racism, etc. to be the only alternative to their view.
Consider an example: Do the white conservatives in “flyover land” really care that there are lots of Mexicans living out in California? Not at all. Their only concern is that many of these Mexicans vote Democrat, who tax conservatives to death and want to take away their guns.
Thus, if you sever the ability of people in one state from interfering with people in another state, all the tensions should disappear. But wait! We already have a system for that. It’s called federalism, the system upon which the United States was founded.
If the ethnopluralistic model of The Lord of the Rings is correct, all we need to do to reduce polarization in society is to return to our federal roots.
If the ethnopluralistic model of The Lord of the Rings is correct, all we need to do to reduce polarization in society is to return to our federal roots.
Dinesh D’Souza’s new movie, Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time? is out, accompanied by his new book by the same title. Although it opened decently in its first weekend at 13th place, grossing $2.3 million, it is the weakest box office opening of his documentaries to date.
Everything is normal in Hollywood, however. They still hate him, and Hollywood Reporter labeled his conservative film an “alt-right doc.”
Jim Crow and Ku Klux Klan
His new film expands on a theme he has covered earlier, which is that almost everything people think is bad about American history – slavery, Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, and eugenics – come from the Democrats. He adds to that awful legacy by showing that the Jim Crow laws of the deep south directly inspired the Nazis as they formulated their racial laws in the 1930s.
To the extent that Democrats are willing to acknowledge their dark past, they make the facetious claim that the parties somehow “switched sides” in the 1960s. This falsification of history is now being taught in universities by left-leaning professors.
However, D’Souza shows that out of the 200 so-called Dixiecrats, who opposed the civil rights movement, only two of them switched sides. The rest remained lifelong Democrats and were even lionized as party heroes, such as Hillary Clinton’s mentor Robert Byrd.
Most blacks switched in the 1930s under the New Deal, while the Democrats were still the party of Ku Klux Klan, according to Death of a Nation.
Left-wing reviewers have not been impressed by D’Souza’s movie. The Outline, for instance, dismisses all his movies as a selection of a few quotes or expressions taken out of context to build a strawman case with no substance. The classical example is the argument that the Nazis were socialists because they named their ideology “national socialism.”
Leftists dismiss this as mere tactics. Nazis weren’t real socialists, they claim, but merely used the label as a method to gain voters. Interestingly, this is the same argument they use to dismiss the communist atrocities. “That wasn’t real socialism” is the most commonly used excuse for failed socialist experiments on the left.
Do the critics have a point? Judging from D’Souza alone, it is hard to tell, as he makes broad claims from limited data. It is easy to see why a leftist will dismiss it as cherry picking to create a narrative.
A far stronger case can be made if we include other left-wing parties with a similar story as the Democratic Party. The most important case is the current hero of Bernie Sanders: the Social Democrats in Sweden. In a recent Swedish documentary, the party’s hidden history reveals a damning record of anti-Semitism, racism, and direct collaboration with the Nazi regime during World War II.
And eugenics? The Social Democrats were the leading party in Europe to promote racial purity, directly inspiring the Nazi regime. Here is what is interesting: Like the Democratic Party, the Social Democrats also “switched” in the 1960s, cunningly rebranding themselves as the champion of anti-racism and civil rights, recasting the right as racist.
When viewing these histories in parallel, D’Souza’s case becomes far stronger. It wasn’t just the Democrats who tried to cover up their racist past. Similar parties in other countries did the same and for the same reason.
Tommy Robinson thought his nightmare was over when he was released from prison in early August. He was wrong. After winning his court appeal, British authorities still want him back in jail. He is scheduled to appear back in court at the end of August, less than a month after he was released.
Robinson made headlines around the world when he was sentenced to 13 months in jail for filming on the street outside a court where so-called Muslim grooming gangs were being trialed. Many people were outraged by what they perceived as the totalitarian path upon which the UK had embarked and protests were organized across the globe.
After spending nearly three months in jail, an appeal court overturned the sentence, due to procedural errors. He was released on bail on the sole condition that he would show up at his next hearing.
Normally this would mean that Robinson would remain a free man for quite a long time. The British court system is notorious for being slow with a long backlog. It takes months, often years, for people to appear before a court.
However, someone went to great lengths to prioritize Robinson’s case. In an almost unheard-of efficiency and swiftness in the British legal system, he was summoned to appear in court less than a month after he was released.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
During the short time he spent in jail, Robinson was placed in solitary confinement with restricted access to food. In only two months, he lost 40 pounds of weight. In addition to physical health problems, he also developed signs of post-traumatic stress due to constant threats by Islamic inmates, who passed by his cell.
Robinson came out in far worse physical and mental shape after only a brief time in a British prison than terrorists who have spent years in Guantanamo Bay, a place that has been criticized for torture and cruel and unusual punishment. Terrorists and prisoners of war are treated better than Robinson.
The evidence suggests that this mistreatment was intentional, and the fact that his re-trial appears to be hastened suggests that his tormentors do not wish him to recover physically or mentally before he once more is subjected to solitary confinement.
Rebel Media was instrumental in raising money for Robinson’s court appeal. Now it seems that he needs monetary support again for his re-trial. Ezra Levant has set up a page for donations to combat the politically motivated charges against Robinson.
Lessons to be Learned
Tommy Robinson is a working-class man. He is not dumb, but he does not command the sophisticated language of the educated classes and elites. However, the crux of the issue is that he is being punished for their failures. Cognitive elites tend to rise to the top of hierarchies because they are often better at finding good and efficient solutions. When they fail due to incompetence or arrogance, the working class tries their own solutions instead.
Those solutions often have rougher edges and are less eloquent. The elites can at any time choose to avoid such actions by simply acting responsibly. They have failed to do so and have instead embarked on a social experiment of multiculturalism that is creating strife and conflict at every corner. They are at fault, but instead of taking responsibility, they blame the likes of Tommy Robinson.
Italy’s controversial Interior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini recently said that Italy would invest “at least €1 billion” in North Africa to prevent African economic migrants from crossing the Mediterranean and entering the EU illegally.
The Italian government aims to control the southern border, which has been under chronic assault since then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took out Libya’s Coronal Muammar Gadhafi, causing civil war and opening the floodgates to Europe.
Salvini explained that the investments would focus on agriculture, fishing, and trade.
Out in the Cold
As an EU border country, Italy feels the pain of the migrant crisis more than most member states. However, after publicly inviting all willing migrants in 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has done little to help Italy to stave off the flow of largely young African men seeking the generous welfare benefits of European countries.
What many Italians perceived as a betrayal by the EU, was a major reason for the overwhelming election success of Salvini’s anti-establishment League party and its coalition partner The Five Star Movement. They were elected in part to solve the economic ails of the slumbering country, but also to provide a solution to the crisis caused by Clinton and Merkel.
A Clear Strategy
Salvini has outlined a clear strategy for solving the problem without the aid of the EU. First, implement the immigration policy of Australia and imitate the action by vigilante group Defend Europe in 2017, namely to stop all illegal immigration into Italy through intense patrolling in the Mediterranean and bringing the migrants back to North Africa.
When Australia enacted this policy, the number of deaths at sea plummeted to near-zero as the stream of migrants dried up. Italy hopes to repeat the success.
Second, by investing in and setting up activities for migrants in North-African countries, Italy hopes to bring legitimacy to its tough border policy. Salvini said that he would soon visit Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria as part of this effort.
#Salvini: Sarò presto in Tunisia, Marocco e Algeria, voglio che l’Italia torni PROTAGONISTA!
Stiamo preparando un progetto che prevede almeno 1 miliardo di sostegno all’economia e al lavoro in quei Paesi, quello che non ha fatto il Pd in anni di governo lo farà la Lega. #skytg24
— Matteo Salvini (@matteosalvinimi) August 3, 2018
He also added that he has requested from the EU that “repatriation” should be part of any future EU trade deal with the North African countries.
Salvini’s plan has not been without controversy. Soft-hearted Europeans who would like to help, but not with their own money, have harshly criticized the League for being racist. The Spanish Island of Mallorca has declared Salvini to be a persona non grata, and he has been accused of creating “a climate of hate” in Italy.
Indeed, there have been reports of violence against people who look like migrants in Italy. Black athlete Daisy Osakue was assaulted recently, and the attack is suspected to be motivated by racism.
Sensible elites recognize that whenever they fail to find a sophisticated solution to a grave societal problem, the working class will try to solve it instead, but with far cruder and rougher methods.
If the EU leaders had been responsible, they would have taken the outbreaks of violence, hate, and anger in the populace as a sign of failure of their leadership and seek recourse. Instead they have chosen to blame the very people they are governing.