Strangers in Paradise – The Racial Dimension

“This is why the issues of racial awareness and racial consciousness are so critically important to the future survival and wellbeing of our people, as without them politics just does not make sense, whereas with them, all becomes clear.”

By Max Musson:

So far in articles that I have written on the Paradise Island theme we have assumed that the Auslanders immigrating onto the island are merely of a different ethnicity to the Islanders community and we have so far ignored the issue of racial difference and the biological impact of the immigrant presence.

We have examined in the original article ‘Paradise Island – A Parable’, the mechanics of the phenomenon of Organised Minority Advantage (OMA) and we have seen how the practice of in-group preference by a minority group enabled that minority group to benefit from OMA and to unfairly enrich itself at the expense of the host Paradise Islander community.

Furthermore, through an understanding of the mechanics of OMA, we have come to understand the fallacy in assuming greater entrepreneurial flare on the part of economically successful minority groups and we have made the realisation that their success has been gained merely by the practice of in-group preference.

In ‘Paradise Island Revisited‘, we have established that in order to benefit from OMA, a minority group does not need to be a racial or ethnic minority, it can simply be a merchantile or social grouping such as the Freemasons. OMA is therefore identified as a phenomenon that derives its efficacy from the practice of in-group preference by any organised minority operating within an otherwise weakly cohesive host community and an appreciation of the effects of OMA can be gained without any reference to race, religion or ethnicity at all.

This latter point enables students of sociology and political science to discuss this phenomenon by which minority groups become inexplicably wealthy without fear of being accused of racism, anti-whatever-it-ism or racist conspiracy theorism.

Of course, any factor which heightens feelings of in-group consciousness and therefore loyalty within a minority group will serve to enhance the effects of OMA and therefore if there are social; religious; ethnic; and or racial differences between a minority group and the host community, the practice of in-group preference will be more pronounced, and so will be the effects of OMA.

In Paradise Island Revisited, I explained the need if an ethnic group is to benefit from OMA for that group, or at least elements of it, to live as an organised minority in a foreign country among an ethnically different host community. I explained that when living in their home countries among their own people, avaricious individuals cannot benefit from the in-group preference that is derived from enhanced in-group consciousness and that in order to facilitate their enrichment, they are driven to live as a minority group in a foreign country.

This is why so many immigrants come to Britain and other European countries and live as ethnic/racial minorities even though they may have no liking or appreciation of our culture or way of life and even though they constantly complain about racism.

This is also the answer to the question so frequently asked, “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you go back to your own country?”

The answer of course, irrespective of such issues as ‘benefits scrounging’, is that ethnic groups lose the benefit of being an organised minority if they go back and live among their own people.

While distinct ethnic, racial and/or religious differences between the organised minority and the host community serve to strengthen the in-group consciousness of the minority concerned, thereby enhancing the potential benefits from OMA, such differences will also tend to make the minority group more visible and the host community more aware of the existence of the minority group among them.

The host community will be able to more readily identify individual members of the minority group and this will make it more likely that members of the host community will detect and take steps to counter any in-group preference being practised by the minority group.

Therefore, while racial, religious and/or ethnic differences enhance in-group consciousness among organised minorities, highly visible differences will tend to heighten group consciousness within the host community and therefore if a minority group is to gain the full benefit from OMA and not have their advantage eroded or negated somewhat by the group consciousness of the majority, it is essential that the organised minority are able to obscure their identity and mask their practice of in-group preference.

In pursuit of these objectives, ethnic minority groups have over many years, and in some cases over centuries, developed a number of strategies designed to reduce their visibility and prevent their exposure:

1. To practice their religious and ethnic folk customs in private. Often this is done by just one section of the minority community, thereby blurring the social divide. Similarly, some individual members of the minority group may cease to practice the folk customs altogether and may profess atheism or adherence to the religion of the host community, and in this way it is possible for members of the host community to be fooled into thinking that not all of the members of the minority group in question are the same

2. By changing their names and assuming names that are typical of their host community. This enables them to interact remotely with the host community, i.e. by post, by telephone or via the Internet, without their correspondent realising they are dealing with an alien.

3. For a limited number of individual members of the minority group to marry into the families of the host community, should this be possible. This produces a number of families with mixed loyalties and blurs the racial divide by creating individuals of mixed race, some of whom will identify more strongly with the minority group while others will identify with the host community. Either way, this all helps to mask the existence of a distinct alien minority.

4. To ‘muddy the water’ by helping to introduce other minority groups under the pretext of creating a multiracial/multicultural society. The more minority racial and ethnic groups there are in any one society, the less distinct any one of them appears and it is often possible for an older established and less visibly distinct racial/ethnic minority to position themselves in the public consciousness alongside the host community, almost as if they were not an organised minority group in their own right at all.

5. To promote the belief within the public consciousness that racial, religious and ethnic differences are irrelevant and that the study of racial differences, the state of being conscious of racial differences and a willingness to act upon them, are signs of rudeness, ignorance, immorality, criminality and finally, mental illness.

If one reads what is written by the pro-multiracialists and so called ‘anti-fascists’ on the subject of race relations, one will often see the distinction drawn between minority groups generally and what are termed ‘visible minorities’, and the visible minorities are obviously those people who belong to groups that are non-White and/or who dress in an obviously alien fashion.

Although they are still able to practice in-group preference and benefit from OMA, visible minorities are as we have already identified, potentially at something of a disadvantage compared to ‘non-visible minorities’, a term which encompasses a number of disparate groups.

As far as Britain is concerned and other European countries, ‘non-visible minorities’ are generally people of the same race as the host community, perhaps simply of a different nationality with a foreign mother tongue or with some other ‘unusual’ characteristic which ostensibly sets them apart to some degree or another from the host community. Such people might be disabled; or homosexual; they might be members of an obscure religious sect like the Exclusive Brethren; or they might simply have a penchant for living in caravans, tarmacing peoples drives and selling ‘lucky’ white heather.

It is a truism that ‘people tend to conform to the environment in which they live’, and in cultural terms this means that when there are only a very small number of people of minority extraction living among a vastly larger host population, those individuals tend to conform to the culture and socially accepted norms of the majority. Furthermore, even if they wanted to, they would have little or no scope to practice in-group preference because their numbers would be insufficient.

This is why individual black people are often regarded as ‘ok’ and ‘harmless’ by their friends and associates among the majority White population, and why it is only when they acquire sufficient numbers to begin organising as a minority community that interracial friction manifests.

The greatest danger arises for an ethnic or racial majority when they are confronted with a ‘non-visible’ ethnic minority who have both a highly developed sense of their own separate identity, combined with a heightened adaptation to living as an organised minority, employing all five of the strategies listed above, i.e. when the strategies listed have become incorporated into the very culture of that minority group and are therefore employed instinctively.

Under such circumstances, just as happened in ‘Paradise Island – A Parable’, the host population finds itself progressively dispossessed of its wealth and over time, the organised minority avoiding detection by the majority, rises to dominate all areas of industry and commerce and through their wealth the social and political life of the host community.

Under such circumstances, individual members of the host community gradually become aware that they are becoming impoverished and they struggle to understand why the social and political elite appears indifferent to their fate and does nothing to safeguard their wellbeing.

Just as in Britain today, the general public come to regard the political and social elite as incompetent and wrought by petty corruption and they struggle to understand why their leaders have ‘feet of clay’. Furthermore the leaders seek to excuse their inaction by pointing to spurious constraints that they claim are ‘outside of their control’ and in doing so hope to mask what is in reality a deeper and more pernicious corruption.

The reality is that these leaders do nothing because they no longer serve ‘their people’, the indigenous majority, and serve instead another master, the organised minority groups to whom they are in some way beholding or of which they are in fact, covert members themselves.

This is why the issues of racial awareness and racial consciousness are so critically important to the future survival and wellbeing of our people, as without them politics just does not make sense, whereas with them, all becomes clear.

We have now sufficiently explored the pernicious nature of the multiracial society from a theoretical perspective. Our next step will be to examine the specifics of our situation here in Britain and throughout the Western world.

Shortly, I will begin a new series of articles in which I will name names and expose the individuals and the organisations that have betrayed our trust; that serve the interests of the entrenched organised minorities; and which lie at the heart of corruption in government, threatening the future survival of our White nations.

By Max Musson © 2013

# # # #

See also:

Paradise Island – A Parable

Paradise Island Revisited

# # # #