A few days ago I listened to a Swedish nationalist — I was as surprised as you are that such people exist — interviewing American Krogan, whom I value for his detailed criticism of narrative video games. While the average game reviewer gushes over graphics, an unlocked frame rate, and variable resolutions, American Krogan tells you, in vivid detail, that the AAA games you buy promote a genocidal narrative, painting the White Man as the source of all evil in the world. If you have not done so yet, I encourage you watch his analysis of the BioShock series, even if you do not care about these games at all, as he goes through countless historical falsifications that have been committed by the tyrannical regime and perpetuated by the zogbots in its employ.
In said interview, American Krogan reveals that he lives in Latin America, and that he experienced his racial awakening due to the discrimination he experienced in the country he resides in as well as the practical implications of living in a country where the average IQ is not quite 100. He also shared that he is aware of several examples where locals went to the United States, presumably illegally, worked for a few years in menial jobs, and returned as rich men due to geo-arbitrage. The money they earned in the United States was enough for them to build nice houses or start businesses in South America, and quickly move up the economic ladder.
As American Krogan points out in this context, Whites are not able to do that. There is no country where the white man can go to, work as a cleaner or cabbie for a couple of years, and return as a wealthy man. Thinking on a bigger scale here, I would argue that this constitutes economic exploitation of (not by!) the first world as we, collectively, work to create the possibility for early retirement for basically any third-worlder who enters our countries. You could therefore consider this as some kind of “white-privilege tax” as the net effect is that money gets siphoned out of our countries. Collectively, we are all worse off as a consequence.
I also want to address the mid-wit response that qualified whites could work in Switzerland or the United States in their 20s, make a lot of money, and then return to their home countries. Obviously, this is a nonsensical answer as it is quite difficult to enter the United States as a European, and this has been the case for about sixty years. Furthermore, this only works for a very small section of highly qualified people, for instance engineers. Indeed, in theory a smart white university graduate from France could get a job as a software engineer at Google in California, get a promotion or two, make a ton of money, and then return. However, how many such jobs exist compared to, say, stacking shelves or working at an ethnic restaurant? The numbers are absolutely minuscule. Of course, the same reasoning applies to Switzerland, albeit it is easier for people living in the European Union to get a work visa. In short, the mid-wit reasoning is faulty. If you encounter it in the wild, you can safely assume that your interlocutor is dishonest. He will probably try to shame you on top.
No matter how you turn it, you, dear white reader, are in a much worse position than any third-worlder who comes to your country. You will work your entire life and probably not be able to retire comfortably. This is in stark contrast to those people who come to your country to economically exploit you.
As a white guy you can work in the west for a few years and move to thailand or Brazil and live like a king , you will also be treated as a semi god for the local women. Moreover there is no need to risk your life crossing the mexican border so you can work cleaning toilets .
How is this in any way comparable? Let me spell it out for you more explicitly:
1) You leave your home country to work somewhere else to make money. After a while you return to your home country where you will have advanced economically. Quite likely, you have been able to build intergenerational wealth.
2) You work in your home country, save up some money, and move, apparently permanently, to a country in which you will always be a stranger.
Feel free to explain how option 2), which you mention, is comparable to 1). Somehow, it strikes me as a much worse situation.
@Aaron, I’d be interested in your thoughts on economic nationalism, examples of economic nationalist policies, etc and contrasting them to free market policies. Do you think the above situation can be rectified by letting markets do their thing or would you opt for fascistic economic policies as China has done (recently they decreed that online ESL instructors HAVE to live in China for example, so they’re obviously very conscious of china’s money staying in china as much as possible).
Great piece. I’d never thought about this particular angle of third worlders disproportionately benefiting from this situation.
I should also add to my comment above, as it is related to your response, that in case 1) the person takes money from the first-world country whereas in 2) the first-worlder brings money to the third-world country.
I think we should aim for autarky, starting with growing your own food. This should be the condition sine qua non for any country. If you cannot grow enough food to sustain your population, your country is a joke and should probably not exist as it shows that it is an artificial construct, only kept alive due to interventions. As a next step, there is clothing and shelter. Again, if there is a country that is not able to provide its population with the basic necessities for life, then maybe this is a pretty good indication that humans should not populate that part of the planet. This entails that some small countries probably should not exist, and make way. After all, there is a big difference between country X sending food supplies to pioneers and a nominally independent country depending on handouts from others.
Arguably, there are too many countries, and people, on this planet anyway. If we did not artificially prop up most of them, they would collapse. This would also take care of the enormous population surge in poverty-stricken countries. Probably the best outcome for a sustainable future would be some kind of limited mercantilism where countries are able to take care of their own needs, yet have some areas they specialize in, and those they sell abroad or maybe even trade in-kind. For instance, let the Germans make Porsches and BMWs, the Chinese smart phones, and so on, and do away with globohomo. You wrote about economic nationalism but there is also the ethnic component. For instance, the most productive team I ever worked on consisted of six white guys, and the worst team was a mix of five people from five countries, and two of them were female. Not only did they achieve very little, the quality was also laughably bad. (They did not even understand the system they had built. It was the software equivalent of a Rube Goldberg machine.) We can only dream what peoples living in harmony could achieve, as opposed to the current situation of incessant internal racial strive and mutual distrust. It is not as if there are no examples in history of homogeneous, economically independent countries doing phenomenally well for themselves.
There is a lot of truth in the first part of David’s comment; whether that’s a preferable outcome for your life as a white “first worlder” is a whole other story. A lot of them love their retirement plans in the tropical zone.
The second part, though it’s not entirely clear, seems to be referring to Latin Americans. I’ve made myself the same question, though there are clearly unfair advantages to entering illegally vs legally to the US. Quite frankly, trying to enter legally is for suckers in Biden’s administration, and it was not so much better during Trump’s.
I don’t listen to American Krogan, but I wonder what kind of racism he encountered. Not denying that it can exist, but I doubt it’s worse than racism against blacks. Not trying to go woke here, they actually have a reputation as slackers as I mentioned before, and some mothers still tell their daughters to “improve the race” by marrying a man with a lighter skin tone.