The War Against Whites Is Massively Incentivized

Given Andrew Joyce’s tweet, I thought I would repost this.

The war on Whites is getting increasingly obvious, to the point that a very mainstream source, Congressman Mo Brooks, stated it and then refused to back down. This war is being carried on with a number of very potent weapons.

At TOO we have stressed the moral onslaught which has inculcated guilt among legions of Whites for actions that have occurred among all peoples (e.g., slavery, segregation) while ignoring morally motivated phenomena that are unique to the West (e.g., the moral crusade that abolished slavery, the Civil Rights movement).

But another main weapon is that displacing Whites often has financial rewards. The triumphant multicultural left has created a context in which many Whites benefit financially from the process of White displacement. Obviously, financial incentives are quite powerful in a capitalist economy where most people measure their self-worth by their bank account.

Whites who cooperate in their own displacement are handsomely rewarded. White businessmen benefit from immigration because it lowers labor costs — a recurrent theme at Companies like First Data Corporation directly benefit from immigration by taking a cut of remittances sent by immigrants to relatives in other countries.

Another example is the refugee/resettlement program in which money is funneled from the U.S. government to private non-profits, mostly religious groups (Lutherans: “The children are a gift” and we need a second lobbyist in Washington to make sure the gift keeps giving):

 [A] GAO report quotes a state official who notes “that local affiliate funding is based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates (private contractors) have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease.” …

Refugee resettlement is a self-perpetuating global enterprise.  Staff and management of the hundreds of taxpayer supported U.S. contractors are largely refugees or immigrants whose purpose is to gain entry for more refugees, usually for their co-ethnics.

[As an evolutionist, I am shocked that much of the motivation for displacing those evil, racist Whites comes from people favoring their own group.]  …

According to David Robinson, a former acting director of the State Department’s refugee bureau, writing about the refugee contractors: “the federal government provides about ninety percent of its collective budget” and its lobbying umbrella “wields enormous influence over the Administration’s refugee admissions policy. It lobbies the Hill effectively to increase the number of refugees admitted for permanent resettlement each year ….If there is a conflict of interest, it is never mentioned….  The solution its members offer to every refugee crisis is simplistic and the same: increase the number of admissions to the United States without regard to budgets…” (see here)

In the university White professors who want to move into lucrative positions in administration must be warriors on behalf of non-Whites.  A noteworthy example is Mary Sue Coleman, who earns north of $900,000/year as the president of the University of Michigan and has been a leader in attempting to preserve racial preferences and in promoting the educational benefits of diversity.

But her views are entirely typical in the academic world, and her salary only puts her in 6th place for salaries at public universities as of 2012. It’s inconceivable that one could get a position like this without cooperating enthusiastically with the displacement of White America, favoring affirmative action and cooperating in funding and staffing the infrastructure of the academic left (e.g., ethnic studies departments, gender studies, etc.).  The massive social approval University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman receives within the culture of the university for her positions on diversity issues is doubtless a positive component of her job.

At a lower level on the academic food chain, one of the most important criteria for professors is whether they can obtain government grants which then pay them extra salary and pay the university for the costs of administering the grant — a major source of funding for the university and a major factor in tenure decisions. Right now there is a lot of money in grants aimed at improving the educational prospects of Blacks and Latinos and no shortage of White professors eager to get their hands on that money.

Another lucrative area is forming companies that essentially provide insurance policies for companies concerned about being charged with being “too White” or too insensitive to non-Whites. A lot of this is on display at the White Privilege Conference where firms compete to show that they are on the cutting edge of the guilt-inducing industry. There is clearly a vast anti-White infrastructure centered in the universities (college course credit is available for registrants of the White Privilege Conference) and spilling over into private enterprise. It is devoted to displays of White guilt that are quite profitable. For example, one firm advertises itself by claiming “We will provide the most cutting edge pedagogical tools, training materials, application models and conceptual frameworks drawn from the most current trends in the professional areas in which we work.” Having one leg up on the competition means devising ever more outlandish remedies for the evil of Whiteness. One member of the group, is “trained in Craniosacral Therapy and Global Somatics body work and co-facilitates with Dr. Hackman the ‘More Than Skin Deep: Challenging White Supremacy One Cell At A Time’ workshops examining whiteness, trauma and healing in the service of ending racism.” 

A recent article posted at AmRen, Robert Bloch has provided us with an insider’s look at the incentivization process  for White displacement at large U.S. companies (“Making Money on White Displacement“).

  • The diversity entrepreneur, Jim Malackowski, determined to make money on the increased value of minority-owned companies due to their getting preferences in government contracts.
  • The non-White for whom doors magically open, resulting in a quick rise to big salaries. Fatemeh Hall is “a fashionable, attractive, and articulate Muslim woman …  recently arrived from Iran, and she had a matchless zeal for uplifting African-Americans in particular.” Amazing how quickly non-Whites figure out the rules of the game. Immigrate to evil, racist America and immediately get on the anti-White gravy train.
  • High-level White executives who are entirely complicit. Bloch describes “minority business conferences graced with high-profile speakers and earnest, usually white, and surprisingly senior corporate executives. …    Relentless, ruthless intelligence has gone into minority supplier programs. They are supported at the board level, and thus have significant input from white men. … GM’s Chief Diversity Officer is a white man and a retired Navy Captain, Kenneth J. Barrett. Mr. Barrett was the Navy’s Chief Diversity Officer, and if there are medals for discriminating against whites he presumably wears them proudly. …  The executives who spoke at Fatemeh’s conferences–top-level white guys, rather than black diversity officers–emphasized that they thought diversity was a desirable end in itself and they were eager to do more than the government required. I came to believe them.”

Bloch notes that there are market limits on this process — he was unable to get private sector cooperation in a scheme that would have given non-White businesses money upfront on the assumption of an assured revenue stream. However, it’s mainly government that funds White displacementf, so market restraints are not critical to the success of White displacement.

As Frank Salter has pointed out, Whites who fail to attend to the interests of their wider kinship group benefit themselves and their families at the expense of their own ethnic interests. This is especially true for elite Whites—people whose intelligence, power, and wealth could make a very large difference in culture and politics. They are in effect sacrificing millions of ethnic kin for the benefit of themselves and their immediate family.

This is a disastrously wrongheaded choice by all the standard measures of evolutionary success. However, because our evolved psychology is much more attuned to individual and family interests than to the interests of the ethnic group or race, Whites who benefit economically or professionally from adopting conventional views on race and ethnicity are unlikely to feel unease at the psychological level. (This is especially true of Europeans because we are prone to individualism as a result of our evolutionary history.) Indeed, such people are often praised to the skies for having such enlightened views on race that they actively cooperate against their ethnic interests. They go to bed at night quite at peace with themselves.

It’s the same logic with the many non-Jews who are involved with neoconservatism. Being a foot soldier on behalf of Israel is a great career move for media figures, not to mention politicians, and government workers who can expect a soft landing in neocon think tanks and pro-Israel advocacy organizations if the political winds change. The most recent examples are the Republican groveling before Sheldon Adelson and the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas and Hillary Clinton’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg where she criticized the Obama administration’s Middle East policies and generally said everything that a neocon could hope for (see (Ed Maloney, “Hillary Clinton’s 11th-hour Diplomacy“).

We have to face the fact that idealistic motives don’t work with most people, or at least they can be easily trumped by more tangible rewards. Whites who are financially benefiting from the displacement of their people are not psychologically open to arguments about the dire consequences to America and to people like themselves if things continue like this for another generation or two. They are primed to believe the mantras about diversity as strength and easily persuaded that pessimism about the future is just another manifestation of White racism. It’s easier to believe anything if it aligns with one’s material interests.

They are not only financially rewarded, they also reap psychological rewards that come raining down from the elite media and from their many complicit friends and colleagues. For so many Whites, the pro-diversity, anti-White policies are seen as morally praiseworthy, thus tapping into a very potent source of motivation for Whites (see above link). They can do well by doing good.

This is a tough combination to go up against. We have to hope that racially conscious Whites will eventually create an infrastructure that begins to match the multicultural, anti-White infrastructure that is already in place. The money is certainly there and the situation on the ground can only convince more and more Whites that Rep. Mo Brooks is right — that there is indeed a war against them.


32 replies

Comments are closed.