There goes the neighbourhood

The Washington Post has published a survey by two Swedish economists bent on finding out which countries are more racist than others.

The survey asked respondents in more than 80 countries to identify kinds of people they wouldn’t want as neighbours. The Swedes then calculated the percentage of those choosing ‘people of a different race’ and drew earth-shattering conclusions.

Britain and her former white colonies, including the USA, along with Latin American countries, excepting Venezuela, are the most tolerant – they don’t seem to have any problems with piebald neighbourhoods.

By most lamentable contrast, 43.5 percent of Indians, 51.4 percent of Jordanians, 71.8 percent of Hong Kongers and 71.7 percent of Bangladeshis turned out to be inveterate NIMBYs – they didn’t want any diversity in their backyard.

European countries generally comply with EU guidelines on racial tolerance and multicultural diversity: most of them scored a commendably low 3-4 percent, with only the French covering themselves with eternal shame by polling an egregiously high 22.7 percent.

Clearly, Hollande’s government still has a lot of work to do. Its aim ought to be to increase the proportion of Muslims in the population from the current 10 percent to at least double that, and preferably triple. Then more Frenchmen will get to know and love Mohammedans – or else they’ll learn how dangerous it may be to give wrong answers to such questionnaires.

Now between us boys, completely off the record, with nary a diversity officer anywhere in sight and no results to be reported anonymously or otherwise – would you like to live in an area where so many ethnic groups are represented that your own is in a minority? If you answer yes to yourself, there’s a discreet and competent psychiatrist I can recommend.

For no sane person wants to live surrounded by cultural aliens, practising what to him would be odd and vaguely menacing rites, emanating smells of spices he considers unpleasant and babbling in tongues he doesn’t understand.

Different racial, ethnic, religious and class populations – even if they all speak the same language, which isn’t these days to be taken for granted – have their own behavioural codes they hold sacrosanct. They often treat any deviation from such codes as a grave insult, while avidly offending – wittingly or usually unwittingly – the codes of others.

Anyone is capable of learning one or two such codes. A keen ethnographer may be able to learn three or four. No one will ever learn dozens, and this is the task facing people in many European and American areas. This unavoidable ignorance makes life difficult, as if we didn’t have enough problems already.

It’s a natural human trait to seek the company of one’s own kind – and certainly to live among one’s own kind. That’s how families became clans, clans became villages, villages became cities and cities became nations. When the proportion of those who aren’t one’s own kind exceeds a certain critical mass, nations – and neighbourhoods – become Balkanised. In due course they’ll lose their identity and implode.

The whole thing about our maniacal drive for multi-culti diversity, indeed about modernity in general, is that governments seek to override natural human traits for the sake of political expediency. And their definition of political expediency is anything that advances their own power towards absolute.

To that end, the modern post-Enlightenment state pursues the objective of destroying every survival of what used to be called Christendom and what’s now more inaccurately called the West. ‘Racial tolerance’ for them isn’t the end; it’s the means. It’s their weapon against obdurate humanity.

There are other weapons as well: feminism, whose aim is to destroy family; same-sex marriage, designed to debauch our most fundamental institution; legal enforcement of political correctness, which amounts to policing language and thought; equality of education and medical care, which spells their demise. The arsenal is growing, and it’s deadly.

Anyone offering the most feeble resistance is being routinely accused of – and increasingly charged with – all sorts of phobias. Like a thief who runs away screaming ‘Stop thief!’ the haters of our very humanity accuse us of hating others.

We don’t. Opposition to feminism doesn’t mean hatred of women. Rejection of same-sex marriage doesn’t mean hatred of homosexuals. And the desire to live in a more or less homogeneous neighbourhood doesn’t mean ‘racial intolerance’. It just means sanity.

Bullied, browbeaten and marginalised by PC militancy, Americans and Europeans are no longer able to give honest answers to such questionnaires as the one undertaken by the two Swedes. In a world run by humanoids, they’re terrified of betraying themselves as normal human beings.

Such fear was prophetically described in Nabokov’s Invitation to a Beheading, whose protagonist was sentenced to death because his body was opaque in a society that insisted on everyone being transparent. Our life is now imitating Nabokov’s art.

The survey was fatally flawed. It proceeded from a wrong premise, asked a wrong question, sought the wrong answer – and got a meaningless result. But aren’t you glad only three percent of us are racists?









Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.