Some Thoughts on Immigration, Segregation, and Gentrification

Recently, I wrote a couple of articles about the social alloying model for immigration and the dangers of the decline of the average American IQ whose concepts are more than tangentially related.  Skepticism about immigration, especially mass immigration, has finally been mainstreamed in the United States, and is headed in that direction in most of the rest of the Western world.  The so-called “refugee” crisis is coming to head as Europe and the Anglosphere are being flooded by millions of hostile, inassimilable, socially corrosive aliens from across the uncivilised world.  This is quickly driving those in the middle into one of two directions as the West swiftly divides into two starkly opposite camps – those who wish to preserve the Western world and its unique, valuable set of cultures by ending this immigration, and those who wish to continue the flood of savages unabated until the West succumbs under the tidal wave of barbarism and brutishness.

It is rightly remarked that such a flood of “immigrants” isn’t really correctly described by the word “immigration.”  Rather, the term “invasion” would be more a propos.  This, of course, fits right in with the social alloying model referenced above.  In the production of alloys, when one metal is of dissimilar atomic size and electronegativity to the base metal, only small amounts of that metal can be successfully incorporated into the base metal to form an alloy.  Likewise, when “immigrants” are of grossly different culture, race, language, etc., only small numbers of them can be incorporated into a host society.  When you flood a million Muslim barbarians into a civilised Western nation like Germany or Sweden, the results – as we can plainly see – are going to be catastrophic.  Already, the societies of every European country that has taken in a large proportion of Muslim and African “refugees” have found themselves weakened and even seemingly ready to collapse.

The wisdom of nationalism is quite obvious from these examples before us.  Different countries exist so that people of different cultures can live with their own kinds, within their own cultures, where everyone generally shares the same assumptions, mores, and ways of living.  As much as multiculturalists may wish it to be so, trying to force large groups of people from different cultures and races to live together will not result in some glowing multicultural utopia, but rather war and bloodshed.  “Diversity + proximity = war” should be a truism that every right-thinking person understands and internalises.

So we really don’t want our nations to be flooded with millions of low-IQ, low self-control, high crime invaders, whether from Africa and the Middle East or from Latin America’s back country.

My intention when I wrote the article about social alloying was to point out that it is possible for people from vastly different cultures from our own to be integrated into Western societies – but this can only be done when they are present in very small numbers.  Essentially, Western societies – whose prosperity and relative personal freedom serve as powerful attractions for many – can absorb small numbers of people from third world non-Western cultures, but these people will generally tend to be drawn from the “talented tenth” within those societies.  I observed (in the IQ article) that even societies which have low average national IQs will still have a small fraction of individuals who have high IQs, the “talented tenthers,” so to speak.  The problem in these societies is that because the high IQ fraction is so small, the energies and creativity of that fraction is generally consumed merely in helping to keep their societies afloat.  Ghana’s talented tenth, for instance, is basically involved in administration and providing basic medical and social services; there’s not much “social energy” left over for starting businesses or winning Nobel prizes.

While our societies can absorb small numbers of third world immigrants, the question arises as to whether we should – not for our sake, but for the sake of those third world societies themselves.  Each talented tenther that Africa or Southeast Asia loses is one fewer person available to stabilise and build up their own country.  In a very real way, talented tenth immigration is a destructive force as well, only the roles are reversed.  Low-IQ third world immigration impoverishes the host societies.  High-IQ third world immigration impoverishes the sending societies, making the cycle of poverty and barbarism worse and worse.

As I pondered this, it occurred to me that there is a close parallel between open immigration versus immigration restriction on one hand and racial integration versus segregation on the other.

Typically, Americans think of desegregation as an event which occurred in the 1960s.  However, the chain of events that were involved in social desegregation began in the late 1910s with the start of the “Great Migration” in which millions of blacks left the rural South for the industrial cities of the North.  The migration lasted for decades.  It created large ethnically black enclaves in cities all across the non-Dixie portion of the USA.  Later, when the legal desegregation of the 1960s took place, blacks were “pre-positioned” to enter mainstream American society.

The analogs seem to be pretty obvious.  Despite being in contact with white Anglo culture for centuries, blacks in America are still, at best, only partially assimilated.  In everything from religious preferences to matriarchal family organisation to their attitudes toward private property, American blacks still display many patterns common in West African cultures.  In many ways, like present day Africans, they are a Stone Age population which had been uplifted technologically and through contact with Euro-derived high civilisation.  The migration of large numbers of blacks into Northern urban environments from their rural “homeland” in the South’s cotton-growing “black belt” is in many ways similar to the movement of millions of third worlders into European and Anglospheric nations.  The Great Migration was accompanied by increased crime and reduced social cohesion in the North, though the existence of legal segregation amelliorated these trends.

The advent of legal segregation in the 1960s, ironically, was the worst thing to happen to blacks in the USA.  Prior to desegregation, blacks enjoyed enclaves which often saw a good deal of prosperity and creative genius.  There were culturally rich black communities in places as diverse as Harlem, Tulsa, Detroit, and Compton.  These enclaves existed, however, because segregation acted like an internal restriction on immigration.  Though on average a low-IQ population, blacks have their talented tenth who were kept by circumstances to within their own communities, where they arose as civic leaders and entrepreneurs who set good examples for their people and strengthened their communities.  After desegregation, a social “open border” was created, and black America’s talented tenth left their communities and entered the larger world of mainstream white society.  As a result, the “leadership” in black communities fell to low-IQ charlatans like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and their imitators in cities all across the land.  At the same time, many black neighbourhoods collapsed into crime- and drug-riddled hellholes.

At this point, I’d like to comment a little about the third subject of this post: gentrification.  If it is true that the Great Migration involved a sort of “colonisation” by third world-like blacks into traditionally white urban areas in the North, it is likewise true that gentrification involves a colonisation of these now third world areas by whites.  As has been pointed out elsewhere, “gentrification” is really a euphemism for “making a neighbourhood more white” and involves the europeanification of now traditionally black areas.  This has its benefits of course.  Much as European-colonised areas of the developing world saw technological and sociological improvements during the time of European occupation, so now gentrifying neighbourhoods generally see decreases in crime and poverty and improved qualities of life.  In essence, it involves white people doing white people things to make gentrified places more culturally white.

This also has its drawbacks for the “natives,” however.  Just as many talk about neighbourhoods being ruined when blacks begin to move in (“there go the property values”), one could think of gentrification as a process which “ruins” black neighbourhoods, not only by pricing many blacks out of their own neighbourhoods, but also through the friction introduced as black neighbourhoods become increasingly diverse.  Remember – ethnic diversification and the attendant social distrust work both ways.  The last thing black neighbourhoods and communities need is something which is going to even further erode community trust and social cohesion – things already in far too short supply in black America today.  Most white gentrifiers tend to be the types of whites (i.e. the SWPL types, who are noted cultural imperialists) who are enamoured with multiculturalism, and as with everywhere else these policies are followed, the end result is actually to damage cultures and intercultural relations.

It’s quite obvious that, socially, America is returning to segregation, which is only natural given the large cultural differences between whites and blacks in this country.  Resegregation, both legal and social, is really the key to resolving much of the racial discord we see right now.  Gentrification works against this, and thus should be discouraged.  If there is to be a solution to the racial strife in the USA, it will come through efforts to genuinely restabilise social cohesion in black communities.  Left to themselves, with benevolent oversight from whites, blacks could regain a prosperous and dignified, if not necessarily dynamic, existence.  America faces the “diversity + proximity = war” conundrum, and it has only become more acute through the rabblerousing and troublemaking of Obama and his administration.  The solution to this equation will not be in removing the “diversity.” Obviously, nobody is going to be “sending the blacks back to Africa” – which is as unfeasible as it is uncharitable.  Rather, the answer to the  conundrum is to remove the “proximity.”

Resegregation, coupled with efforts to rebuild the inner cities through genuine efforts at community building (and bringing back jobs – it’s a bit unfair to accuse blacks of being lazy when you’ve let illegal immigrants underbid them or sent the jobs to China) are what can best restore social cohesion, improve race relations, and lessen the social entropy that we see in American society today.  As with any other effort to lower entropy, it will require the input of work and energy to increase order.  However, doing so will – in the long run – make both races happier and healthier.