The REAL Ethnic Conflict is Not the One You Think

Helping us to understand the situation as it really is

The big news over this past weekend has been the riots taking place all across Great Britain. The flash point was when a 17-year-old second generation Rwandan occupant in Southport, Merseyside, England went on a stabbing spree last week, killing three young girls and injuring ten others. The British government and media, following standard practice, attempted to cover for and downplay the event. But this time, a large section of the British population decided they weren’t having it anymore and started demanding justice. When that failed, the violence started, a desperate cry for justice from a native people increasingly being shuffled aside as strangers in their own land by a Regime that constantly favours the foreigner and the invader over its own ostensible people.

The stabbings may have been the proximate flash point that caused these riots, but the underlying social turbulence has been there for quite a while, driven by a “democratic” Regime that nevertheless completely disregards the oft-expressed will of its own people with respect to immigration issues. The British government - regardless of party - has ignored the increasingly flagrant bad behaviour by its imported foreign population, up to and including basically doing nothing about the Muslims who ran a grooming ring in Rotherham which sexually exploited young White girls for over 15 years. Indeed, the British government actively sides with dyscivilisational foreign invaders and punishes its own people when they speak up in opposition. So the anger has been building for quite a while, only for electoral attempts to be stymied that would have addressed the underlying issue. In a sense, the current riots represent yet another failure of democracy, both in its “traditional” sense and in its actual sense.

We should understand that the conflict taking place here (as well as all across the Western world, including right here in the USA) is an ethnic one. But it’s not really the one that it superficially appears to be. On the surface, one could be forgiven for assuming that the struggle is merely between native Briton (or other westerner) and the various invasive species of foreign populations that have been introduced into the Western habitat. But that contest is really a symptom of the real struggle, not the cause.

So what is the real ethnic struggle taking place? A couple of years ago, I wrote about how the process of ethnogenesis was creating two differing groups of people among America’s White population. This, in a nutshell, is it. What is ethnogenesis? Briefly, it is the mechanism by which new ethnic groups are formed by the evolution, fusion, or division of existing ethnies over time. In many cases, it can be a gradual process that takes place over centuries. In others, it may occur relatively quickly (as it has in the American and other western cases). Indeed, America’s ethnogenetic process has been going on since the late 19th century but has accelerated greatly since the end of World War II and the advent of the American Empire.

The ethnic divide I am talking about is between the two successor White ethnies that descend from the original stock of American settlers, combined with the descendants of pre-1920s immigration waves. One the one hand, you have “Red” Americans, people who tend to be conservatives of various stripes, tend towards being rural, exurban, or suburban, who are more tied to the land and to our original institutions. On the other, you have “Blue” Americans, who tend to be suburban or urban, tend to be more progressive (or at least internationalist) in their leanings, and value transnational institutions over Americana. Lineally speaking, Red Americans are directly descended from the original America of our history. Blue America represents a sort of “broken branch” that differs much more markedly from the original.

Now you might be asking how this is an “ethnic” divide if these people are all White and their ancestors have been here, in many cases for centuries? It goes back to what the term “ethnic” actually means. Many go in one direction and confound ethnicity with “race,” while others do the opposite and confuse it with “citizenship,” often of the propositional type. Neither of these are correct, however. “Ethnos” as understood in its original and meaningful sense, describes a group of people who share common culture, mores, language, and so forth. Now, often this has a strong overlap with the concept of “race.” After all, ethnic Germans all tend to look a lot alike, as do ethnic Norwegians, ethnic Koreans, and ethnic Hausa.

Keep in mind that this really does describe the two White ethnies that have evolved in this country. Red and Blue America obviously have very different overall cultural assumptions and setups, many of which approach mutual antagonism. They have different fundamental views about everything from morals to institutions to simple behavioural assumptions that go far deeper than just the exoteric political divide. Even in language, though Red and Blue appear to speak the same tongue, both sides load a lot of their language with connotational differences that seem to be nearly incomprehensible to the other side.

This explains, for example, why each side has a very different understanding of patriotism. Red America understands it in the traditional sense of loving your people and their country, of being organically tied to your traditions, history, culture, and therefore the symbology that represent these. Blue America, on the other hand, mainly seems to understand “patriotism” in the sense of giving loyalty to the aggregation of internationalist bodies and institutions that I often collectively refer to as “the Regime.” As such, for Blue Americans, you are “patriotic” if you support (for example) the Regime’s foreign policy priorities and the actions of NGOs and other internationalist organisations, even if this is to the detriment of the actual people of their own nations. In a sense, we can think of “Blue America” as not even being a specifically American phenomenon, but as encompassing all those on the Left across the entire Western world who have a “cosmopolitan” approach that leads them to reject loyalty to their own country and transfer it to global institutions and priorities. These people are all following the same basic Regime-driven consensus that has been applied across the American post-WWII hegemony.

As such, what appear to be the pertinent ethnic conflicts caused by mass immigration into the Western world are really the outflowing of this deeper ethnic conflict between “Red” and “Blue.” As with every ethnic group, both Red and Blue have their own internal elites. Actual Red elites are generally not well-known, mostly local and tied to their people (as opposed to the many faux-Red elites at the national level who habitually sell their own side out). Blue elites, on the other hand, have built deep ties with immigrant communities and other minority groups that they use to obtain and keep political power for their own ends, using these people for votes (and, as we’re seeing in the current British riots, for more violent purposes).

So all of this being said, what are we likely to see moving forward? Well, as with any other place where you have multiple ethnies placed into close proximity, you will have a tribalistic struggle for supremacy (even when one side consciously but wrongly believes itself to be rejecting “tribalism”). Diversity + proximity = war, and all that. In fact, this is already happening, just a lot of the normie part of Red tribe hasn’t awoken to it yet. Blue tribe certainly has, and they’ve been using “diversity” as a biological weapon against their own countries for years, if not decades. They do this because they want to obtain supremacy over the rival White ethnie, and politics plays only a part in this. We find ourselves in a position where Red tribe is the numerically superior group (for the time being, at least) but because of a combination of apathy and a befuddled sense of “fair play,” has placed itself into a position of losing political power. Blue tribe, on the other hand, is mathematically smaller but continues to accrue to itself a larger and larger share of political power.

It’s been said so many times before, but I’ll say it again - we’re not going to vote our way out of this. The whole point to Blue tribe’s immigration program is to continue to import and coopt as many foreigners into our nations as they possibly can while expending Red tribe lives and wealth on fruitless foreign wars. As such, while it may differ from country to country, there will come a time when the invasive foreign elements will eventually outnumber the natives and at that point, all semblance of “democracy” will cease (as will all semblance of high civilisation, of course).

Sadly, all of this is just a recipe for future conflict. It will happen because internationalist-minded Blue governments will continue to stuff their countries full of Turd Worlders while the natives (rightly) resist being displaced and subjugated. What is going on in Britain right now will almost certainly spread if an anti-immigration inflection point is not introduced which begins to repatriate these people back to their countries of origin. Think of it as “remigration,” if you will. While Kier Starmer and people like him go on television and pretend to “deplore the violence,” they themselves will continue to be the cause of it as they use violent foreigners to harm the Red tribe elements within their own countries. Yes, the foreign elements are definitely an ongoing problem and will need to be dealt with appropriately, but don’t lose sight of who the real enemy is in all this. Our side needs to recognise the nature of our conflict with the Left for what it is - ethnic - and be prepared to deal with them along those lines.