Paradise Island

Back in October of last year I published an article entitled ‘Paradise Island – A Parable’, in which I described in some detail the dynamics at play when an organised minority is active within a weakly cohesive host community. If you have not read the original article then I recommend that you do so now before proceeding further.

The purpose of my parable was not to simply address the negative impact of multiculturalism in a novel way or to approach this issue from an oblique direction – my purpose was to demonstrate that there are fundamental sociological principles which have nothing to do with race or ethnicity per se, but which expose the undesirable and adverse nature of ‘pluralism’, i.e. multiculturalism and multiracialism in society.

In my parable, we have the stability of a community composed of Paradise Islanders, which is disrupted by the arrival of a small Auslander community, and just as I intended, most readers have assumed that these terms are euphemisms such that the Islanders are recognised as the indigenous European peoples living in our homeland ‘paradises’, and such that the Auslanders are recognised as any one or more of the immigrant ethnic minorities that have come to the West.

In my parable, I identified a phenomenon that I refer to as Organised Minority Advantage (OMA), which is not simply a phenomenon that occurs within a multicultural setting, it is a phenomenon that occurs whenever and wherever a minority group co-operates for the mutual benefit of its members within a weakly cohesive host community. Furthermore, it is not a phenomenon that occurs only sometimes in a multicultural / multiracial setting, it always occurs, because disparate groups existing within a single social setting have a strong financial incentive to act in such a way that they benefit from the phenomenon.

The Benefit of Understanding the Phenomenon of Organised Minority Advantage

So what is the advantage to us of having identified OMA as a specific phenomenon? Surely most nationalists already object to multiculturalism instinctively, so why do we need a further intellectual premise to reinforce what we already know and feel instinctively?

There are two reasons:

Firstly, a number of nationalists that I have encountered are Freemasons, i.e. members of Masonic organisations, which generally they regard as quite harmless – regarding them as something akin to a social club or as a slightly more elaborate and esoteric version of a Roundtable Group

Since knowledge of Masonic organisations has been disseminated more widely within society however, Freemasons have modified the way in which they speak about the purpose of their organisation and the activities they are involved in.

Covertly, individual Freemasons attempting to attract new members have traditionally inferred that membership is ‘good for business’, the implication being that members of the same Masonic lodge will give preference to each other in much the same way as the Auslanders gave preference to each other on Paradise Island. In effect, Freemasons have been covert organised minorities operating within otherwise weakly cohesive communities and they have traditionally benefited from OMA.

Masonic organisations nowadays, claim that they are merely social clubs engaged in charitable work and they claim that their initiation oath precludes individuals from joining if they cite personal advantage as their reason for wanting to join. However, while I can imagine that some individuals who are not engaged in business on their own account are actually drawn into Masonry for completely innocent and altruistic reasons, one would have to be naïve indeed to believe that this is so in the majority of cases.

An understanding of the dynamics of OMA exposes clearly the fundamental duplicity inherent within freemasonry, in that for a minority group to agree to secretly practice systematic preference in business for their mutual financial advantage is essentially a conspiracy against the majority.

Secondly, while most nationalists are quite rightly motivated by ethnocentrism and are instinctively opposed to multiculturalism, there are many people in whom ethnocentricity is only weakly developed and who need something more if they are to happily and readily oppose multiculturalism.

Such people often cling to the notion that society doesn’t have to be divided along ethnic lines and they believe that if only we can further weaken the ethnocentrism that naturally provides cohesion within homogenous societies and within the ethnic groups that make up a multicultural societies, that all will be well. However an understanding of the dynamics of OMA demonstrates clearly that due to the clear financial advantage that devolves to any group practicing in-group preference in business and social affairs, a multi-racial society will inevitably cleave along ethnic/racial lines with one or more groups practicing in-group preference and thereby benefiting disproportionately from OMA at the expense of the rest of society.

Returning to Paradise Island

If we go back to my parable and the point at which the Auslanders first arrived on Paradise Island, a situation could have existed in which half of the Auslanders decided to fully assimilate into the Islander community and had they done so, it would have temporarily set back the plans of the remaining ethnocentric Auslanders, but ultimately the outcome would still have been the emergence of an unfairly enriched Auslander minority.

The ethnocentric Auslanders would have taken longer to amass the money needed to buy their first shop, and once they had acquired a shop, the process of gaining a commercial advantage would have taken longer, because the advantage conferred on their shop by a smaller number of people practicing in-group preference will have been smaller, but the eventual outcome would still have been the same.

The eventual outcome would have been that the ethnocentric Auslanders would have become rich, while the non-ethnocentric Auslanders and the Islanders would have become poorer. The only difference is that the process would have taken longer.

By attempting to assimilate, the non-ethnocentric Auslanders will have resigned themselves to membership of the disadvantaged majority, and devoid of natural ethnocentrism guiding their motivation, they will have inevitably become motivated by the desire to acquire material wealth, which is all that atomised people living within a multiracial / multicultural society ever do want.

However, the quickest route to greater material wealth for the non-ethnocentric Auslanders would have been to rejoin the ethnocentric Auslander community and so benefit from their own hard work plus a boost from in-group preference, instead of just their hard work with Auslander in-group preference working against them. Inevitably therefore, the money motivated non-ethnocentric Auslanders would have all rejoined their ethnocentric compatriots.

The Myth of Immigrant Entrepreneural Flare

When advocates of multiculturalism and multiracialism attempt to justify their views, they frequently point to Asian or Jewish entrepreneurs who have made vast fortunes since coming to this country as penniless immigrants, and they say that these talented entrepreneurs have ‘created’ wealth and that we should be pleased to have them in our country creating wealth within the British economy. However the fact is that these entrepreneurs were not able to create wealth in their own countries, where they were part of the ethnic majority, they were only able to ‘create’ wealth when they came to Britain or some other Western country, where they could be part of an organised minority. In the West they are able to benefit from OMA and make themselves rich, whereas in their own countries they can’t.

In-group preference only creates OMA when the group practicing it is a minority living among a weakly cohesive host community. Groups practicing in-group preference and thereby enriching themselves through the benefits of OMA do not ‘create’ wealth for the nation among which they live, they ‘acquire’ wealth from the people among whom they live. OMA causes a ‘redistribution’ of wealth, taking from the host community and conferring it upon the organised minority.

Since the creation of the state of Israel, lots of Jews have gone to live there, but they are not able to make themselves wealthy living in Israel where they are part of the ethnic majority and while many wealthy Western Jews may have opted to retire to Israel, a very large majority of the most ambitious and avaricious Jews choose to live in Diaspora, or maintain dual citizenship so that they can live part of the time in Israel but spend time earning their ‘big bucks’ as part of an organised minority in their chosen Western country.

Conspiracy Theories?

Seeing the disproportionate wealth that clearly exists with the Jewish communities of Western countries, some nationalists point to this as evidence of a sinister ‘Jewish conspiracy’, but I believe this is a mistake.

At some level, among certain Jews, there probably does exist a malevolent hatred of gentiles such that they exercise their wealth in order to deliberately disadvantage the gentiles among whom they live, but I believe that in the majority of instances, what we sometimes perceive as evidence of a conspiracy taking place is simply the effect of OMA resulting from the natural hyper-ethnocentricity of the individuals in question. For them exercising in-group loyalty as part of an organised minority living among a weakly cohesive host community is what one instinctively does if one wants to get ahead in life, and should they ever be confronted by a gentile who objects to what is going on, like the Mafia, they would simply say of their actions, “there’s nothing personal in it, it’s just business!”

In this respect organised Jewry are no different to any other ethnic minority group. The great wealth and influence that they are able to wield is merely a reflection of the fact that they are our oldest and most firmly established organised minority and they have been benefiting from OMA and refining their practice of in-group preference for far longer than any other ethnic group.

The Importance of Understanding

Understanding the dynamics of OMA is the key to understanding; why Freemasonry is immoral; why certain ethnic minorities seem to have an inexplicable gift for making money; why they want to live among us as a minority; why some ethnic minorities appear to be involved in a ‘conspiracy’; and why multicultural / multiracial societies will never experience social cohesion and harmony and are a threat to our future wealth and wellbeing.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, understanding the dynamics of OMA is the key to being able to explain all of this convincingly to a liberal without appearing racist.

Liberals and their like may still regard us as racist, but through an understanding of the dynamics of OMA we have a means of demonstrating;

1. That in an idyllic multiracial/multicultural society, one in which most citizens attempt to live in harmony and devoid of ethnocentrism, the primary motivating factor remaining would be the desire for material wealth. We can deduce this through our observation of existing multicultural societies;

2. That a multiracial/multicultural society has ready made racial/ethnic ‘fracture lines’ along which it will cleave should any one ethnic group begin to organise, exercising in-group preference for their own benefit;

3. Without practicing in-group preference any individual will only have their own individual capacity for hard work and their own individual entrepreneural skills upon which to rely in order to gain material wealth; By practicing in-group preference however, ambitious individuals will also have the benefit of OMA assisting them in this respect;

4. Because of the lucrative benefits of OMA for those practicing in-group preference, it is inevitable that ambitious individuals from one or more of the minority groups present within any multicultural/multiracial society will begin to behave ethnocentrically, practicing in-group preference. Those that do will make shed loads more money than those who don’t, so of course they will; and therefore

5. This is why all multiracial/multicultural societies become divided along racial lines, why all such societies are fundamentally pernicious and why all people, even those not primarily motivated by ethnocentrism, have a vested interest in opposing the formation of such societies.

By Max Musson © 2013

# # # #

See also:

Paradise Island – A Parable

Strangers in Paradise – The Racial Dimension

# # # #