Robert Lindsay Predicts A Latin American Future

Robert Lindsay predicts that the US will come to resemble Latin America, which is to say a highly polarized society with an oligarchical elite controlling an unstable and explosive disenfranchised majority, with a small middle class.

I can’t remember anybody else making this prediction, but it is something I have believed for some time. As the US brings in more and more Latin Americans, logically it has to become more and more Latin American. These people are mostly low IQ, low skill workers for whom the modern economy has little use. They are easily manipulated with appeals to race and class. The elites generally play them like a violin.

Of course we’re halfway there already. The typical reactionary answer to this situation is that socialism only works for homogenous groups which explains the success of regimes with high degrees of socialism in Europe. Lindsay denies this, and gives a few examples of what he regards as successful multiracial socialist societies- Mexico, Trinidad, and Libya. I’ll let that go without comment, other than to point out that Mexico is the poster child for the Latin American dysfunction he decries.

His thesis is that there is no barrier to multiracial socialism in general, except that white Europeans won’t share with other races, and go completely nuts when asked to do so. That’s true, to an extent, but he neglects to review the history behind it.

The US has of course been multiracial- white and black- from the beginning. Socialism was introduced to the US through the New Deal. The New Deal was a political bargain aimed at people who were already accustomed to patronage politics and primed for socialism- lower class whites, most famously “ethnic” whites in the North but also southern whites. Some have said the New Deal excluded blacks, but I don’t know that that bears close examination. The “prevailing wage” rule was supposed to keep blacks off government projects, but more likely this was just to ensure unions got the work. Still, blacks were excluded from a lot of political participation as they had been for decades; Roosevelt was not willing or able to take on Jim Crow.

This changed in the 60’s. It was explained to New Deal whites that it was time to bring blacks- and other minorities, although they were few and politically not very significant at this point- into the fold. Many Southern whites objected to this, but they were in the minority and not able to prevent this. Northern whites in general accepted it was time for civil rights for blacks. In the 1964 presidential election, voters had the choice between the libertarian conservative Barry Goldwater, advocating not Jim Crow but the libertarian principle of free association, and the activist Great Society of Lyndon Johnson. Johnson won in a 60/40 landslide. Northern Democrats and Republicans passed historic civil rights legislation in 1964 and 1965.

You would think that this would usher in a new era of harmony, peace, cooperation, and mutual respect, but you would be wrong. It’s a paradox of human nature that if you give a person who has felt wronged for a long time some kind of concession, it somehow makes them even angrier, because they didn’t get it sooner and aren’t getting more now. Blacks largely felt what they were getting was too little, too late and didn’t address the real needs of blacks living in northern ghettos.

What occurred was an explosion of race rioting and racial crime and violence. Whites appreciated, to some extent, how blacks felt, and made more concessions. At the same time poor whites felt they were expected to surrender their neighborhoods to aggressive blacks when they weren’t responsible for their problems. As the years went by, the situation deteriorated. “Civil rights” went from Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963 to the Black Panthers in 1969. By 1968- just four years after Johnson’s landslide in ’64- voters elected Nixon. Nixon was no racial conservative, and in fact kept the civil rights process moving along with things like set-asides, but he was far from the earnest, idealistic liberals that had been setting the tone.

The chaos continued, with hundreds of bombings and political murders. Whites who had been traditional liberals and eager to bring blacks into the fold were disgusted and horrified. The populace doesn’t have much control over the system; the racial spoils blacks won in the 60’s have mostly stayed in place. The criminal justice system was tightened up considerably, and the death penalty reinstated, although that has been mostly symbolic.

The situation in Europe was different in that they had no native oppressed minority population, only colonial immigrants. The colonial immigrants didn’t get anything specifically for them, just the same support programs instituted for the native working class. The result was the same though, a hostile, aggressive minority that attacked the host population and treated it with contempt and disrespect.

The browner races are more individually violent and aggressive. People like this regard kindness and generosity as signs of weakness to be exploited. They regard any desire to resolve a dispute with concessions as a sign of weakness to be exploited. In Europe as in the US, white people have tried sharing with minorities and gotten shit upon for their trouble.

So, no, white people don’t like sharing with minorities. People don’t generally like sharing with those who crap on them for sharing. White people tried in good faith, but it didn’t work.

The further matter is that the revolutionary racial violence that blacks and Hispanics jumped into in the 60’s can’t in any way be regarded as being socialist, if you define socialism as pooling resources for the common good. Socialism of course has never meant that, it has always meant violent, aggressive people without accumulated resources killing those who have accumulated resources (or “capital”) or otherwise violently taking them away from them. What this really amounted to was very noisy patronage politics, but the flak-catchers got tired of being mau-mau’ed right around 1970.

This can be done if the population holding the resources is very small, and they don’t see it coming. Both these conditions are necessary and so there has not been a real socialist revolution in the first world since the Bolsheviks. Later attempts foundered on the fact that the capitalists saw what was coming and took countermeasures. The Spanish Civil War failed partly because of the incompetence of the Communists sent by Moscow but more because the traditionalists organized themselves and took it upon themselves to defend themselves “by any means necessary”.

I will take a position somewhere between that of the reactionaries and Lindsay. We have seen that multiracial socialism is possible in a totalitarian society; it is probably also possible in a multiracial or multiethnic society where there is little intergroup hostility, and ideally if the groups are more or less equally matched. These conditions don’t exist in the US, Europe or any other place you have whites and significant numbers of non-Asian minorities.

Hunter Wallace has pointed out that hostility forces working-class whites into an alliance with business that may not be in their best interests. Obviously the political landscape would be a lot different, and more socialist, without NAMs. Lindsay hates the Tea Party and hates “right-wing” economics. But people have some reasonable right to pursue what they see as their own economic self-interest- even middle-class white people. Lindsay wants socialism, but a system that favors government employed whites and minorities over others is going to create friction, particularly when the pie is shrinking.

All this assumes that minority hostility is an anomaly. Needless to say, the system does not permit anomalies. Black rage has always been a tool of the system. As much as “elite” whites, such as Half Sigma, like to portray non-elite whites as drooling, dim-witted morons, the main threat to the elite is non-elite whites. Minority violence keeps non-elite whites off-balance.

What the system is called doesn’t really make any difference. The same people still control it and still benefit.


About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Robert Lindsay Predicts A Latin American Future

  1. Pingback: Walles socialism | 360inconline

  2. Pingback: Deconstructing Leftism Reviews One of My Posts | Robert Lindsay

  3. joe says:

    I think Lindsay is giddy over such a future.

  4. Brandon says:

    Pretty good summing up…

  5. Half Sigma says:

    I’m not “elite.” My parents didn’t graduate from college. My grandfather was a truck driver.

    • The elite is significantly but not entirely or even mostly hereditary, so the status of your parents and grandparents doesn’t matter. From what personal information you divulge, you sound pretty elite.

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