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:
Strangers in Paradise – The Racial Dimension
# # # #
Steve
- Edit
But I think quite a few liberals believe in the diverse & multicultural society, therefore they will still think you racist even when you explain OMA.
Max Musson
- Edit
Liberals and their like may still think we are being 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 ambitious individuals will also have the benefit of OMA assisting them to acquire wealth.
.
4. Because of the lucrative benefits of OMA, 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 and practice 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 them.
.
Perhaps I didn’t make this line of logic as clear as I might in the article.
Steve
- Edit
It is now!
Max Musson
- Edit
Thanks Steve, Your feedback is of great value and I have now updated the article to include this further clarification.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Why give a damn what liberals think? They are not convertible and our appeal has to be to the non-liberal mass of our racial fellows.
Max Musson
- Edit
The idea isn’t necessarily to win over lots of liberals, although I don’t share you view that they are not convertible, the value in this is that it deprives liberals of the moral highground. It presents an argument that does not rely upon the active ethnocentrism of the listener, nor upon a ‘racist’ mindset in the presenter, in order to establish irrefutably that multiracial and multicultural societies are by their very nature pernicious and therefore to be opposed.
For perhaps the first time, sociology students and politics students can argue convincingly against pluralism without risking accusations of racism. This has got to be a good thing if we are to win the culture war on our university campuses.
Furthermore, there are many people who instinctively know we are right, and who simply need a ‘sanitised’, ‘fig-leaf’ argument in order to give then the initial courage to ‘come out of the closet’ as nationalists.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Thank you Max, point taken.
Steve
- Edit
Organised zionist Jewry are particularly good at this all over the world.
In an anti Hitler series recently on TV, one of his speeches played in part said, that the Jews are at home anywhere.
But loyal to none except themselves?
Which was before they had Israel of course.
Maybe this OMA had a similar effect on some of the British abroad in the British Empire leading them to be very rich & resented?
Max Musson
- Edit
You are right Steve, in-group preference only creates OMA when the group practicing it is a racial/ethnic minority living among a weakly cohesive host community. Immigrant 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 nation among whom they live.
OMA causes a ‘redistribution’ of wealth, taking from the host community and conferring it upon the organised minority.
As far as the British communities living abroad within what was the British Empire are concerned, you are right again that they too would have benefitted to some degree or another from OMA. The difference however is that in return for such benefits the colonial administrators and developers etc, were building roads, railways, hospitals and schools etc, i.e. creating the infrastructure of civilisation, which also benefitted the natives.
Steve
- Edit
I’ve seen some documentaries about African independence & how they thought they’d be rich once they kicked the colonialists out & got independence.
But often present day views show that they still have the infrastructure they were left with albeit decayed & nothing much else has happened, they’re not rich & are pretty much frozen in time, scratching a subsistence living.
Kenny Bryant
- Edit
frederickdixon:
There are fewer liberals than you think. Their numbers appear legion on account of being bolstered by those who go with the flow.
Guy
- Edit
This is a brilliant article. I’ve been trying to formulate in my own mind an understanding that is more focused in terms of economic imperitives as for how organized minorities succeed amongst disorganized majorities but this nails it.
The examples that avoid the racial dimension in examining in-group cooperation and networking – for example in freemasony circles (very powerful historically, less so now), and the mafia really drive home the universality of the argument.
Apart from it’s agency as a tool to facilitate redistribute economic goods, it might be added the way that ethnocentric behaviour shapes academic learning, knowledge and cultural memes. For example the schools of psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt school were self-organizing around jewish academic authority figures, who were able to successfully protect their fields from external criticism and review largely due to an in-group motivation.
Max Musson
- Edit
Your last point is absolutely correct, Guy. OMA comes into play in the cultural and political spheres as well as the economic.
Kenny Bryant
- Edit
This would explain why the Jews, who are supposedly in control and are manipulating us, are seeing the rise of Islam instead?
Steve
- Edit
Well certain zionist Jewish elements are in control of a lot of things in the western world & have enabled a lot of moslems to come here.
So you see more moslems & islamic related stuff.
But whether islam is rising I’m not sure, the countries who have had the Arab spring may settle down with islamic extremists in charge or maybe another revolt might take place?
The moslems here are doing what is described above & are encouraged to do so by the traitors in control.
Kenny Bryant
- Edit
Muslims are anathema to the Jew, so why have they “enabled” them to come here? It doesn’t tally up.
Steve
- Edit
This is what puzzled me for a long time but maybe the destruction of the white culture & race is paramount.
Obviously when we say “Jew” we’re not talking about the man in the street or those slightly weird ones that live up Stamford Hill etc as they generally don’t hold any position of power or influence & there are others like me who have Jews somewhere in their family tree.
We are expendable, I read a quote from around the time of WW2 that certain zionist Jews said that Jewish blood needed to be spilt in order for them to be able to demand Palestine as their own, as we had spilt blood.
You have no doubt seen the Barbara Lerner Spectre video from Sweden, she is married to a rabbi & went to Israel but then left to facilitate immigration into Sweden with the cooperation of the government.
She actually says “The Jews will be resented”!
She states as fact that Europe has to be multicultural, that Jews will do this but why?
Where’s the democracy in that?
This is obviously going on elsewhere in Europe.
Blair, an ultra zionist, was the driving force behind recent mass immigration here.
You find zionists behind anti racism in football forcing footballers to do the Auschwitz tour while there are race riots in Tel Aviv by Jews against blacks.
I could go on but you know this stuff already.
Steve
- Edit
Then we have the Breivik conundrum where he is an extreme zionist but the zionist MSM here overlooks that & just calls him far right & that he gives Hitler salutes in court.
But he didn’t, he gave a clenched fist salute similar to those given by black power types at the Olympics.
His atrocity took place on the anniversary of the King David Hotel bombing.
Norway is seen as anti semitic & pro Palestinian, Utoya hosted so called Palestinian extremists shortly before the killings.
Zionist bloggers praised his actions & were quite blood thirsty about it.
Was it partly to use against Nationalists inferring they’re like Breivik to shut them up?
Norway like Sweden or here is seeing a lot of moslem immigration even though we or Sweden etc are pro Israel or the ruling elites are, whereas Norway is “anti semitic”.
But the effect is the same either way.
So is there another layer behind what the zionists do?
You then get into extreme conspiracy theories & I don’t know what makes sense there.
All I know is that zionists are behind what goes on & feature in almost everything, despite Jews being a small minority of the population.
Answers on a postcard please!
Kenny Bryant
- Edit
Clearly, the Jews have opened Pandora’s box with regards to Muslims and unlike us whites, they are having none of it. Looking on the bright side though; the Jew are outnumbered – hardly the sharpest tools in the box, eh!
Steve
- Edit
I think the biggest failing of the zionist Jew in power is they constantly overplay things, they get too greedy & that’s their weakness.
There are too many coincidences to be explained away.
Max Musson
- Edit
A host community that fails to defend its ethnic integrity is by definitition ‘weakly cohesive’. That is not to say that some elements within such a community will not be actively conspiring against social cohesion and the integrity of the community, just that ‘weakness’ in terms of cohesion is the resultant defining characteristic.
An ethnic minority group would not be able to effectiveley practice in-group preference within a strongly cohesive host community, i.e. a strongly ethnocentric host community, because the ethnic majority would act robustly in such a way as to counter such practices by minority groups and to exclude organised minority groups from within its midst.
Steve
- Edit
Which is exactly what we should be practising.