Dead man’s brake

Overriding nature is energy intensive.

A powerful minority promote narratives to manage society, ensuring their worldview dominates, including the pursuit of unpopular policies.

One famous example of this has been the encouragement of mass immigration into predominantly European countries in Europe and North America over the last generation, often against the will of the majority.

Along with this initiative has emerged a cluster of novel rules associated with diversity and inclusion, promoted by authorities as a necessity in nations now hosting a babel of ethnicities and cultures that have little in common.

What has emerged is a series of beliefs to manage this unstable situation. The most striking is the promotion of xenophilia, a form of madness unique to Western nations.

Abnormal impulses

Many Western countries now favour foreigners over natives. Job and education quotas, two-tier justice systems, and a general air of preferential treatment permeate everything.

In most Western nations the ancestors of the people who built it are discriminated against in multiple ways, something non-Western countries would not tolerate.

We visibly celebrate overseas cultures with no accomplishments of note while criticizing our own as plunderers and exploiters. We ignore our unmatched contributions to the world.

This unusual state of affairs is unique to countries of the West and is prevalent in the Anglosphere. Its origins are the racial tensions in the United States which were given full expression after the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Left to our own devices most of us gravitate to living alongside people like ourselves, intermarrying and socializing with others with whom we share a similar culture and values. Overriding these instincts takes considerable energy and usually doesn’t work.

Even now, in this multicultural era with billions spent to encourage it, nothing has changed underneath. Most do not mix. Those shouting loudest about accepting more refugees don’t live in ghettoes alongside them and have no intention of ever doing so.

By necessity much of the energy to manage a society with competing ethnic groups is negative, principally fear of punishment if you speak out or object when tensions arise.

As the multicultural models of social harmony fracture the efforts to shore them up become more extreme. These now include public condemnation, social ostracism and, increasingly, custodial sentences handed out by an exasperated judiciary.

Many are depressed at recent developments. How did it come to this? How did something instinctively rejected by most countries take hold in the West?

The short answer is propaganda, the means by which Western Liberalism operates. Hard marketing is used to persuade the public to accept things our societal masters wish to pursue, with just enough visible punishment and social consequences for transgressors to get the message.

But there is a problem with powerful narratives created through propaganda and fear. They require considerable energy to function. What happens when that energy is withdrawn?

Dead man’s brake

A dead man’s brake is a safety feature found in dangerous machines such as lifts or trains. With this mechanism a brake is always on, preventing action or movement. A conscious choice or effort needs to intervene to override this.

On a train a human driver must be present to depress a foot pedal that disengages the brake so the train can move at all.

If he is absent the train cannot move. If he withdraws his foot while the train is in motion – if he dies, for instance – the train stops, hence the name.

The key feature of a dead man’s brake is it requires energy to operate. Its default zero-energy position is OFF; only with energy can it go to ON.

Wariness of strangers, xenophobia, is the default position for most human beings. This is a hardwired evolutionary response to protect us. It has served us well. It requires no energy to operate. Children quickly point out people who seem different.

Intentionally elevating strangers above ourselves, xenophilia, is artificial. We must be educated to make it happen, and explicitly taught to overlook differences. It must be reinforced to remain in operation as our instincts typically push against it.

This requires energy. The parts of the world not subject to Western educational norms do not teach this to children. Consequently, they disallow policies like mass importation of foreigners and view novelties like multiculturalism as dangerous.

It is worth noting that xenophobia denotes a wariness of strangers, not outright hatred or disdain. In practice it means our base assumption is those different from us may cause problems and our actions should be based on this assumption until proven otherwise.

Xenophobia is not the active racial animosity the propaganda wishes us to believe, causing harm to others based on visible differences like skin colour. Such extreme views are in fact rare. The underlying drive of xenophobia is caution, not aggression. Xenophilia attempts to ignore this sensible restraint which is why it often fails without external reinforcement.

When it comes to survival these instincts are embedded deep because a reserved approach based on cautious assessment is a strong foundation upon which to preserve our lives and our cultures. It is the reason we have a nation and a culture in the first place.

Xenophilia, then, is a dead man’s brake. It requires energy applied to something that would not typically occur in nature. We make ourselves ignore differences to get along. We raise ourselves above primitive superficial observations such as variations in skin colour. Or so the theory goes.

Living in fantasyland

Progressive initiatives to override these instincts, usually labelled under the umbrella term “anti-racism,” are not based on real world observation. Rather, they are aspirational concepts designed to demonstrate moral superiority.

They are theoretical constructs used to achieve things people can boast about but have no basis in reality.

Progressives believe they are showing the way. They have evolved beyond noticing trivial differences, an argument that sounds impressive and presents them in a superior light.

Progressive novelties like open borders or quota systems do not emerge thanks to some new insight into the brotherhood of man or the discovery of new data. Rather they are affectations designed to bolster a narcissistic projection they use to navigate their social circle and impress others.

These schemes attract the broken as they promise to provide an instant, socially approved identity as a campaigner against injustice. A good person taking on bigots and making the world a better place.

It makes the adopter feel superior. Even better, it makes critics seem inferior, as if they possess a less sophisticated understanding of important cultural subjects like race or group behaviour. They can then be safely dismissed as behind the times, conveniently avoiding the need to argue a position. Who after all wants to be considered pro-racist? Who wants to be known as an ignoramus or a bigot? Such people are beyond the pale, unworthy of engagement. Let’s ignore them.

That is all it is. Xenophilia is an act designed to demonstrate their greatness. It is not based on an examination of the facts and nor is it based on real life experience. Almost all experiments in serious ethnic and culture mixing end in violence. Some end in genocide. National borders emerged for this reason, where even similar people found each other intolerable. Our instinct is to avoid this strife, and the mechanism by which this is accomplished is mild xenophobia, an innate wariness of those different from us, people who may be unsuited to the society we have carefully created to protect ourselves.

In contrast, the more mundane casual xenophobia most of the world embraces is of a different character. It reflects millennia of collective experience. Other people aren’t quite like us, and if we let them in there will be trouble. Best to play it safe and protect what we have and encourage them to do the same.

The natural tendency to favour one’s own people we witness almost everywhere provides a degree of protection while still allowing plenty of room to trade and rub shoulders with those different to you.

Acknowledging differences between groups often maintains peace in this way. It is an infantile worldview that thinks we must pretend everyone is the same to demonstrate how sophisticated we are.

But it is reckless to invite the world to your homeland to advertise an unsupported belief that differences between peoples cannot exist, that they are a social construct despite all evidence to the contrary. To risk it all because you are trying to show off to your social circle, like children in a playground.

The end is nigh

The success of xenophiliac campaigns is based on propaganda not the everyday experience of ordinary people. It exploits marketing techniques to override normal instincts and punishes anyone who notices reality.

But as more culture mixing happens and its failures become visible the propaganda levels must increase to match pace.

So far open borders enthusiasts have convinced enough people this is our problem, unique to nations founded and developed by Europeans. We are historically racist and need to apply ever more resources to make multiculturalism work.

The failures we see are failures of effort on our part to absorb newcomers. We must do better.

But it is becoming evident this is not the case. Many migrants are more honest than the propagandists and tell us to our face they do not wish to assimilate. They want to maintain and celebrate their own culture, not ours, a perfectly normal instinct most of us share.

Strikingly, many imported groups maintain their own innate xenophobia too and are quite unembarrassed to openly favour their own people and express disbelief we do not do the same. In European nations we are seeing a rise in political parties based on ethnic and cultural identities, a novelty in the non-tribal West. An inconvenient development for the xenophiliacs to contend with. Immigrant groups enthusiastically voting for their own people, demonstrating the very xenophobia they condemn in us, a farce many are unavoidably becoming aware of.

The propagandists have no answer to that. How can they? Their message is always that we are the problem.

Many aspects of billion-dollar campaigns are now crumbling in the face of this reality. Such marketing efforts have a natural limit, and we are now reaching these limits. The brake is failing.

Consequently, champions of novel ideas like mass immigration must continually increase the energy to make their schemes work. Jailing people for posting memes “promoting hate” is one recent escalation. We can expect more as real life asserts itself and increasing numbers notice then have the temerity to comment publicly.

As the propaganda fails to keep up, as more and more ignore it and attend to reality, we will inevitably become like the rest of the world as our hardwired defaults assert themselves. Defensive xenophobia is the norm everywhere else, and it will become the norm in European nations in Europe and North America once again through necessity.

History teaches us different peoples do not mix well when sharing territory. What emerges is a form of tribalism, where foreigners now compete for limited resources inside your borders instead of safely outside them. It doesn’t matter what academics, journalists and council leaders think about it. The record is clear, and it is usually winner takes all, not people holding hands and singing kumbaya.

It requires resources to make people override instincts evolved to help them survive, and that is now ending as our nations decline. There simply won’t be the funds to keep the show on the road as the realities pile up.

None of this is to advocate for what critics label “racism,” the intentional denigration or abuse of a different ethnic group. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly and with dignity.

It is simply an acknowledgement of reality; mixing different cultures is an expensive indulgence. It infers limited benefits on the host nation given what it potentially costs them. History teaches us it often creates tension and as a result is worthy of hesitation and examination. It should certainly be openly discussed as it once was.

To forbid any discussion on the topic as we now do is madness. And to artificially favour foreigners over natives with quotas and preferential treatment is abnormal.

Too much immigration feels like an invasion, something virtually all human beings are hardwired to fear. It triggers something that cannot be educated out of us, the survival instinct most possess, the shunning of those too different to assimilate, people who do not belong in our midst.

The prediction for open border policies, then, is conflict, not social harmony, no matter how thoughtful and anti-racist people think they are. All it takes is one hostile foreign tribe in your region to destroy centuries of balance, heritage and convention.

Xenophiliacs are those people we see holding up cardboard signs with naïve slogans like no human is illegal. Their desperation to attain social approval means they overlook the consequences of their beliefs, a shortsightedness that ensures they will be affected first as real life asserts itself and social cohesion declines, as reality intrudes to challenge their fantasies. When the energy to maintain those fictions evaporates their cardboard philosophy will look like insanity even to them.

Xenophilia is a dead man’s brake, and the man is dying. His foot will soon be off the pedal and reality is waiting, club in hand.

What then?

---