Why Globalists Love Refugees

The biggest opposition to globalism is for people to have solidarity with the people around them, with those who grew up alongside them, with their neighbours, blood relatives and childhood friends. Having solidarity with those closest to you makes it more difficult for someone further away, like a foreign bank, to exercise influence over you.

Solidarity is what trades union depend on if they are to get fair compensation for their labour from capital interests. Without solidarity, any group of people who do not hold a monopoly on legal violence can be divided and conquered by those who do.

Solidarity is also what all political justice movements depend on if they are to change the law. Without solidarity, political justice movements also get divided and conquered because all members of any movement will, to some degree, have divided loyalties, and any divided loyalty is a flashpoint for conflict.

Having solidarity with those closest to you makes it difficult for an outside influence to come in and offer you money to work against them, or to offer them money to work against you. This means that solidarity induces those around you to work in concert instead of disharmony or opposition, making your life much easier.

Globalists, therefore, have to destroy solidarity in a territory or nation before it can be conquered. The greater the destruction of this solidarity, the greater the vulnerability of the people to predatory outside interests, and the greater the degree that those interests can exploit them before they are able to organise any resistance.

If humanity is to be dominated by an international elite loyal only to themselves, all localist sentiments have to be destroyed. Men have to be set against their wives; couples have to be set against their parents and their children; families have to be set against their neighbours.

People have to be induced to hate their neighbours in order to look to politicians for answers. Therefore, they need to fear their neighbours so that this fear might stagnate into hatred.

In any time and in any place, having large numbers of foreigners turn up in your area usually meant that you were being conquered. If those foreigners were Muslim, traditionally that meant you were about to be slaughtered and your women raped.

So Muslims naturally bring an entirely understandable fear to the neighbourhoods they arrive in, especially when they arrive in large numbers, and doubly especially if the flood shows no sign of stopping.

The face of a Muslim is for the political class much the same thing that a pit bull straining on a leash is for a working-class tough: a weapon that can be used to intimidate one’s enemies, so that this intimidation can render them submissive.

This fear has very predictable effects – know that the rulers of this Earth are master psychologists and have been refining their tricks since Babylon.

One of the predictable effects of mass Muslim immigration is for non-Muslims to form greater bonds of solidarity with each other. For example, in the face of a reinvigorated Muslim attempt to conquer the European continent, the differences between Catholic and Protestant, or Nordic and Mediterranean, suddenly don’t seem so large.

If the leaders of Europe wanted to replace the various national consciousnesses with a European one, the way to do it would be by calling all of the European peoples into an existential conflict against an outside enemy.

As it stands today, almost every native person in Europe, from Spain to Russia, from Britain to Sweden to Greece, has a shared interest in dealing with the continent-wide “Muslim problem.”

So by allowing Muslim “refugees” to flood over the whole continent, the leaders of Europe create a pan-continental consciousness that they control through their dominance of pan-continental media.

It’s much harder to control localist consciousness because this is a function of people getting together and talking and figuring out the truth for themselves. It’s far easier to control a pan-European consciousness because people at this level have to rely on the corporate media, instead of their neighbours, for information – and the globalists own the corporate media.

Because Muslim “refugees” do not get placed in the same neighbourhoods that wealthy globalists live in, the globalists escape the chaos that is wrought on the working-class neighbourhoods that are forced to accept the Muslims.

Every new person in a working-class or middle-class community that does not speak a language that allows them to communicate with their neighbours represents the destruction of the solidarity of that community. Each new entrant forces the level of consciousness away from the level of the street and the neighbourhood to the level of the globe.

For globalist politicians, therefore, opening the doors to refugees helps those globalists to bring chaos into the lives of their enemies in working-class neighbourhoods, crippling their capacity to resist other globalist measures like forcing the working and middle classes to compete with offshore labour.

This column has previously raised the possibility that many of the young liberals supporting mass resettlement of Muslims into Western working-class communities are actually crypto-conservatives deliberately acting to further right-wing class interests.

Perhaps in modern democracies there is only ever a candidate of the bankers and a candidate of the people. In any case, the battle lines are clearly being drawn for anyone with the wit to see them.

Understanding New Zealand: Conservative Party Voters

The Conservatives are a strange sort of movement. In many ways they appear to be some kind of rump movement of people who didn’t like it when National decided to move into the 21st century.

The strongest correlation between voting Conservative in 2014 and voting for another party in 2014 was with National – this was 0.77. This is strong enough to suggest that many Conservative voters would have been former National voters, or would have been severely tempted to vote National in 2014.

National was the only party to have a significant positive correlation with voting Conservative in 2014.

There were two parties that were close to uncorrelated. The correlation between voting Conservative in 2014 and voting New Zealand First in 2014 was 0.01, and with voting ACT it was 0.13.

The former of these is probably because both movements compete for the angry, scared old person vote, and the latter is probably because both movements share an indifference towards the poor.

Voting for any of the left-wing parties had significant negative correlations with voting for the Conservative Party in 2014, further emphasising the degree to which the Conservative movement appeals (and is intended to appeal) to disaffected National voters.

The correlation between voting Conservative in 2014 and voting Greens in 2014 was -0.42, and with voting Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party it was -0.54. This pair involved slightly weaker correlations than for the other three parties, primarily because Green and ALCP voters are closer to middle aged.

The correlation between voting Conservative in 2014 and voting for the Labour, Maori or Internet MANA parties were -0.63, -0.64 and -0.64 respectively.

Age is the main reason for the strong negative correlations between voting Conservative and any of these parties. The correlation between voting Conservative in 2014 and median age was 0.75, which means Conservative voters are almost as old as National voters.

Conservative voters are even more likely to be on the pension though. The correlation between voting Conservative in 2014 and being on the pension was 0.64, compared to a correlation of 0.50 between voting National in 2014 and being on the pension.

Conservatives are also less educated than average. Whereas the correlations for voting National in 2014 and having any of the university degrees were all positive and either significant or bordering on it, the correlations for voting Conservative in 2014 and having any of the university degrees were all negative and bordering on significant.

Females are less unlikely to vote Conservative than they are to vote National. The correlation between being female and voting Conservative in 2014 was -0.19, compared to a correlation of -0.35 between being female and voting National in 2014.

One major way the two differ is with respect to wealth. The average National voter is much wealthier than the average Conservative one. The correlation between net median income and voting Conservative in 2014 was only 0.06, compared to National’s 0.53.

In fact, looking at the correlations with income bands tells us that wealth is the major differentiator between Conservative and National voters.

The income band that had the strongest positive correlation with voting Conservative in 2014 was the $20-25K band, which was 0.17. All of the correlations between voting Conservative in 2014 and any income band above $25K were negative (although they were all very weakly correlated; not close to significant).

By contrast, all of the correlations between voting National in 2014 and any income band above $60K were positive and significant.

One of the largest differences was that with median family income. The correlation between median family income and voting National in 2014 was 0.42; for voting Conservative it was -0.08.

Oddly, although the average Conservative was more likely than the average National voter to be a Christian, these tended to belong to denominations that were less part of the establishment than the National voters.

The correlation between being a Christian and voting Conservative in 2014 was 0.37, compared to 0.29 for voting National in 2014.

Conservatives, though, were much more likely to belong to the Brethrens. The correlation between being a Brethren and voting Conservative in 2014 was 0.54, compared to 0.25 with voting National in 2014.

Conservatives were also much more likely to be Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Ratana, Pentecostalists or “Christian not otherwise defined” than National voters, who were more likely to be Anglicans, Presbytarians or Catholics.

Also, the average National voter is slightly less likely to be religious, whereas the average Conservative is slightly more likely to be religious.

The average Conservative is also less likely than the average National voter to be a Kiwi of European descent. The correlation between being of European descent and voting Conservative in 2014 was 0.46, compared to 0.60 between being of European descent and voting National in 2014.

All of this suggests that the main Conservative constituency is those who are like National Party voters in many demographic ways, but who do not have the same level of wealth or social status. It could even be that there is a degree of resentment among them because they are often both old and poor.

*

This article is an excerpt from Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan, published by VJM Publishing in the winter of 2017.

The West’s Weirdest Political Alliances

It is said that “politics makes for strange bedfellows”. Well, so does the sister industry to politics, prostitution. The major difference between politicians and prostitutes, as this essay will illuminate, is that there are things that prostitutes are too ashamed to do for money.

The Sanders-Clinton alliance was weird, but not especially weird by the standards that we have now degenerated to. It’s not especially surprising that a defeated social democratic candidate would endorse the more left-wing of the remaining two.

One truly weird one that has been going strong for over a century is the Marxist feminist – Christian fundamentalist anti-porn and prostitution alliance.

These two forces both have an immense hatred of natural sexual liberty. The Marxists want to destroy all natural sexual impulses and pervert them into worship of the state, whereas the Christians want to lay guilt trips on people for these same impulses and call them sinful.

For these reasons the two have combined against women.

This was never going to be a particularly strong alliance, though, for the reason that the Marxists want to promote all manner of sexual degeneracy in place of natural sexual relations, whereas the Christians want to suppress and repress everything, natural or otherwise.

Another unusual alliance is that of the various control freaks who oppose cannabis law reform.

This has seen the Police (who do not want to lose the power they have to control people or the funding given to them to do so) and the alcohol companies (whose product causes over half of the damage that the Police have to clean up) to get into bed with each other.

Here it is really the Police that have been cucked by business interests. Because alcohol and pharmaceutical companies see cannabis as a competing product, they have bribed the people that the Police answer to to make it illegal – and the men and women of the Police force pay the price.

The fact that this has resulted in making life immensely more difficult for the Police themselves, who have to face the carnage wrought by booze on a daily basis, appears to be completely lost on them – they continue to vocally oppose cannabis law reform.

Even weirder are the shifting anti-nationalist forces that have opposed Brexit, Trump and which now oppose Marine Le Pen.

This alliance has seen trendy liberals who consider themselves leftists coming out on the side of the political establishment (including the conservative parties), the international bankers, the corporate media and the unelected European Commission against the working class that the left supposedly exists to help.

This column has previously raised the possibility that these people may, in fact, be crypto-conservatives, and it’s certain that some are.

Most of them, though, are genuinely stupid enough to believe that they are acting in favour of the underdog and the unfortunate when they come out in support of the same globalist forces who have spent the past 30 years attacking the standard of living of the working classes.

The pro-Islam league of homosexuals, however, tops them all.

It appears that, because Muslims are generally considered outsiders in Western society, other groups who are also generally considered outsiders have decided to see Islam as a kindred spirit under the motto of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Unfortunately for the homosexuals, the Muslims they love and the Christians they hate are both Abrahamists, and as they are both male supremacist religions they share a common hatred of homosexuality.

Indeed, homosexual conduct is punishable by death in all of Afghanistan, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Iran, Iraq, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

But thanks to a mutual hatred of The Man, homosexuals are frequently willing to passionately defend a religious tradition that would like to see them thrown from rooftops.

That has to be the West’s weirdest political alliance.