Why was the ruling class of 19th century England so eager to import hundreds of thousands of Irish workers? Friedrich Engels, writing in 1845, quoted Thomas Carlye to explain: “He is there to undertake all work that can be done by mere strength of hand and back — for wages that will purchase him potatoes. He needs only salt for condiment, he lodges to his mind in any pig-hutch or dog-hutch (…). The Saxon-man, if he cannot work on these terms, finds no work. ” Engels continues himself, “These Irishmen who migrate for fourpence to England, on the deck of a steamship on which they are often packed like cattle, insinuate themselves everywhere. The worst dwellings are good enough for them; their clothing causes them little trouble, so long as it holds together by a single thread; shoes they know not; their food consists of potatoes and potatoes only; whatever they earn beyond these needs they spend upon drink. What does such a race want with high wages? (…) The majority of the families who live in cellars are almost everywhere of Irish origin. In short, the Irish have, as Dr. Kay says, discovered the minimum of the necessities of life, and are now making the English workers acquainted with it.” http://archive.is/0lgQy Today, it is Mexican or Syrian workers who (will) make white workers “acquainted with the minimum of the necessities of life.” This is why they are supposed to come.
One of the saddest “red pills” to swallow is that the ruling class is not a race or an occult group, trying to achieve a metaphysical goal of some sorts, but simply opposed to the nation state and borders because they want cheap labor. They want mass immigration in order to drive down the wages, drive up the rents and make strikes impossible. Conservative Ann Coulter realized it, “Nouvelle Droite” philosopher Alain de Benoist realized it (“Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.”), self-described National-Socialist Kerry Bolton realized it, and even “democratic Socialist” Bernie Sanders realized it before he cucked out: “Open borders? That’s a Koch brothers proposal. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs. You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?” http://archive.is/1XQlI
Of course, even back then, you had a religious opposition to Irish (=Catholic) immigration, especially when the ruling class brought them to the US. Even back then you had a racial opposition to the Irish, the Irish were not considered to be “white” back then. Now, I do believe that both Islam and Catholicism are both false and wicked religions, but it is important to recognize the actual motivation of the ruling class to import these people. Mark A. Noll, a Reformed Christian himself, writing about the “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” (i.e. Evangelical anti-intellectualism) in 1994, noted that, “the evangelical predilection, when faced with a world crisis, to use the Bible as a crystal ball instead of as a guide for sorting out the complex tangles of international morality was nowhere more evident than in response to the Gulf War in early 1991. Neither through the publishing of books nor through focused consideration in periodicals did evangelicals engage in significant discussion on the morality of the war (…) wealth formation throughout the world, the history of Western efforts at intervention in the Middle East, or other topics fairly crying out for serious Christian analysis. Instead, evangelicals gobbled up more than half a million copies each of several self-assured, populist explanations of how the Gulf crisis was fulfilling the details of obscure biblical prophecies.”
The same can be observed today, when Evangelicals, who religiously (literally religiously!) defend Capitalism and instead of focusing on the economical motivations behind the destruction of the nation state and its borders, dabble in prophecies about the “Black Pope” or the Jews. Interestingly enough I found that fascism and racism have actually become more acceptable in Christian circles than thorough anti-Capitalism; you can rather talk about how the evil Jews want to kill the Aryan man as a revenge for the Reformation than using terms such as “ruling class”, “capital” and “low-wage workers.” It’s the same with anti-Americanism; describing the USA as a new Babylon and Satanic is more acceptable than simply describing the process of the monopolization of capital and US “monoimperialism.” Which finally brings me to the Luddites.
The Luddites were a group of English textile workers in the 19th century who destroyed weaving machinery as a form of protest. Of course, the ruling class of 19th century England (the same ruling class who imported these Irish to make things even worse for workers) defended machinery and crushed the Luddites most brutally – just like the ruling class of today destroys you most brutally if you speak out against open borders. Old-fashioned liberals like to talk about “divide et impera”, not realizing that the ruling class of today has so much power, that it is no longer necessary and wanted to “divide”, because it sufficient to “impera.” Today, racism against low-wage immigrants has come out of fashion, but an imperialist attitude towards their native countries that might need to be “liberated” (like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Russia, Iran and in 20, 30 years or so China) has not. Every remainder of non-American mini-capital is about to be destroyed, so American billionaires can rule the whole world. If alt-right et al. had realized that racism and anti-technological sentiment weren’t the proper responses for 19th century Luddites, and aren’t the proper responses today, they might not have been so disappointed by their “God Emperor” Trump. Also, while people are less equal than they say, they are still more equal than they think – Asians, Indians and Mexicans are obviously at least smart enough to produce, say, the cars that were once produced in the US and created a strong and prosper working and middle class.
Admittedly, there is one thing that sometimes makes me consider a more “metaphysical” outlook; the fact that if the current trend continues, this would be the very first time in human history, that there would be only ONE world power, and only ONE mega-capital in the hands of a small clique of American billionaires who rule the whole world through nuclear blackmail. So far, there have always been different empires, different kingdoms and so on – capital was always in the hands of different people, so competition and opposition could grow around this foreign capital. If the current trend however continues, and even pathetic China and pathetic Russia destroyed, there would be NO significant non-American capital left and I don’t see how forceful resistance against US monoimperialism could be developed, if there isn’t any non-American capital it could grow around. The worst case scenario people should prepare for isn’t war but “peace”: the kind of “peace” you get when you have completely destroyed all competition and the only thing left are some alienated terrorists here and there – but not capital, no state, no actual forces anywhere left who would actually have the potential to put up a fight. This would indeed be the end of the world as we know it.