One assumption held more or less in common by the denizens of the anti-Left/post-modernity corners of the Internet is the intentionality of the current liberal world order. Nothing is errant or casual; rather, everything about the postmodern world has been meticulously and expertly crafted, down to the minutiae. There is no such thing as happenstance: every output generated by the system is the result of carefully selected inputs & can be and has been anticipated by its nefarious engineers. The system itself is designed to produce a certain set of results, else it wouldn’t have been created in the first place. To us, it’s clear that there’s nothing incidental about dysfunction of the modern day, that the dysfunction serves a purpose: it’s a feature, not a bug.
However, let’s assume for a moment that there’s no vast, global, elite conspiracy to subjugate the world, evidence notwithstanding. Let’s assume for now that none of the Western elites are actively trying to destroy their countries and dilute their cultures through the introduction of alien populations. Assume that the economic and monetary policies that have been implemented and are currently being proposed aren’t meant to be totalitarian but simply have that effect, just an unfortunate unintended consequence? Assume also that there’s nothing conspiratorial about clandestine trade deals that undermine national sovereignty while facilitating the greater concentration of power in the hands of a cabal of corporations and supranational organizations.
What if everything that we’re observing now is the result of randomly selected, well intentioned policies, the negative results of which have been as much of a surprise and dismay to the elites as they are to everyone else? If we assume all these things, then the following questions present themselves: (1) how is it that all of these “random” policy choices are being simultaneously implemented in countries across the West? (2) if the purpose is not to ultimately impose an authoritarian global government ruled by a global plutocracy, then what purpose do any of these policies serve and why are they not dismantled now?
Back to immigration. A hypothetical, and some questions.
It’s 2050, and open borders are the law of every land in the (New) West. The leftists have gotten their wish, and interestingly enough, so have the libertarians. The New West has gone full Sweden, accepting the majority of third world immigrants reaching its shores. This inclusive and progressive policy has worked wonderfully until now, but now the New West is at critical mass: it has become horrifically overpopulated & impoverished. There has been a corresponding depopulation of the third world.
Stability hangs on by a thread. Low level strife and tension between native Westerners (now the minority) and immigrants and successive immigrant generations has become a persistent feature in the new world, as the two populations clash over scarce resources and cultural misunderstandings. This state of affairs prompts many native Westerners to abandon hope for reclamation of their nations and to begin immigrating to the depopulated countries left behind by the immigrants to the West. The natives that remain are the ones that truly appreciate the diversity and vibrancy of the New West, even though that requires sustaining regular assaults by hostile natives on their way to the corner store or the occasional gang rape.
Western immigrants to the third world begin to resettle the largely abandoned countries and soon develop thriving outposts and new civilizations. These outposts are explicitly anti immigration (they think that a ban will be fine for the first 20 years). They are also anti-Enlightenment, patriarchal, free market, decidedly traditional, anti democratic, monocultural and/or ethnic.
The West meanwhile slips further and further into decline as native populations either exit or fade away through failure to reproduce at replacement level. Western leadership becomes desperate as the last vestiges of the productive classes disappear, and on their hands are left nations full of people who have nothing in common with the cultures they replaced, are largely dependent on the state for their sustenance, and are incredibly volatile, so disappointed are they that the Western nirvana they’d hoped for when they arrived from their home countries on their rickety boats never really materialized.
The tax base is eroded, and the mean IQ of the New West hovers around 90, infrastructure is crumbling and innovation has stalled, as there’s no way to extract any more resources from the thin remnants of the productive class-lest they too begin to consider exit. Culturally, the New West has become a cesspool: FGM has become widespread, as has polygamy, child bride practices, illegitimate birth rates have skyrocketed, and family fragmentation is the rule rather than the exception.
Now for the questions:
- Why does the Left think the third world is in the condition that it is now?
- How would the Left respond to the state of affairs presented in this hypothetical?
- How would leftists explain why the West began to atrophy as third worlders streamed in while the 3rd world began to flourish as native Westerners streamed in?
- Would this state of affairs cause leftists to reconsider their stance on equality and there being “no genetic differences between populations” and any observation of differences is “racist”?
- Based on the hypothetical, would the left concede that there could be any link between the intelligence of a population and the types of civilizations they are able to produce?
- If this prediction is inaccurate, what do the alternative predictions look like given present trajectories?
- Would the left be willing to consider a colonial solution?