I wanted to write another post in the wake of this , but I realized that showing photographs of another row of poor English, French, Italian or German would add little. So I decided to do something better, that is, to abstract the problem in generic terms.

What is the reason why poor whites are radicalized more and more regardless of the government (for example they radicalized during the Obama administration) while minorities radicalize "a jo-jo", that is, during governments adverse? Is there an even more general rule?

We can build it. Take for example that Confucian proverb that if you give a man a fish you helped him for a day, but if you tell him how to fish you have helped him forever.

The moral sense of this proverb is clear. But we know that politics is a branch of aesthetic thought, not moral. So what is the political sense of this proverb?

The sense is practically the opposite: if you give a poor man a fish, you are interacting with him as a person. Fish comes to a person through interaction with another person.

The political payback is that he will say:

• "This man is good because he gave me a fish"
• "He gave me this fish".

Good. If instead you teach him to fish, what happens? It happens that the interaction with the fish does not include the teacher. The teacher taught to fish. But you took the fish yourself. What is the political payback? Simple.

• “He preaches to learn to fish, but in the moment of hunger he was not there.
• “I studied hard to fish and I caught fish. He has nothing to do with it ”.

This is the reason why the Catholic Church spends more on charity than on education of the poor: charity pays much more in political terms, even if in moral terms it would make education more.

There is a clear dichotomy between "creating stable conditions to get out of hunger" and "giving food". Although the more deserving thing is the first of the two, the second has a higher political income.

Having said that, let's take the Western political class.

Let's take the new president Biden as well. And let's say they intend to deal BOTH with the poor whites I described in the last post on the subject – see the photos , and with the malaise of blacks. What will be the logic of your intervention?

• As for blacks and minorities like LGBTs and others, the government will change the way it interacts with them. Social workers will help the poorest ghettos, the police will engage in some less tense social interaction, in schools they will be more inclusive towards them. A visible person-to-person interaction between them and the people who make the state.
• as for whites, the promise will be the following: the economy will improve until the whites who are poor today can finally find a job and get out of the shacks.

Let's assume both of them work 100%. What is the political payback?

• Negroes and minorities will recognize that the government has asserted their rights and, even if the more 'radicals will object that it was due, in any case they will recognize that one government is better than another.
• whites who are poor today will say. “I got a job, I moved my ass, I worked hard, and now I have found a house with heating. What has the government done for me? I survived with MY pain and came out with MY actions. The government only helped the blacks and fags! ”.

In reality, a rational person should argue that the economic growth that has allowed whites out of misery is also due to the government, but there are TWO differences:

• the government has personally interacted with minorities, or has at least changed the way government men (police, social workers, courts, etc) interact with them.
• the government did NOT interact with whites, but limited itself to interacting with the markets, leaving the white-skinned poor to walk the last 10 meters alone.

This will give the whites the feeling of having saved themselves, while it will give the minorities the feeling that they can only live when the left is in government .

This is important for understanding radicalization. The poor white man from the Appalachian mountains, of whom I spoke in the previous post, was witnessing his own genocide: in a tin house, he was not sure he would survive next winter, nor that the child would survive. He didn't need Qanon to believe the white genocide, because he was witnessing his own.

At some point, looking for a job, he finds one. He works hard, and manages to have a heated house. What do you see? Who escaped his own genocide because he looked for a job. Who escaped the genocide because he worked hard and spared. That he did it because he moved his ass. He has never seen a government man, a social worker or the mayor: those are for blacks and minorities.

Even if the American economy exploded and those whites all got jobs, they wouldn't de-radicalize. Having never personally interacted with the government, they don't see its merits. They don't see the man who gave them the fish. They see that they caught a fish, but whoever created the conditions to catch one, they don't see it.

if those poor whites ever get out of their poor condition due to an economic boom, the first thing they'll buy is a semi-automatic shotgun. They will feel survivors, escaped the genocide of whites only thanks to their readiness to seize a job opportunity. And they will be afraid that the hunger babau will return. The bad guys who wanted genocide are still there.

This mistake is made by all Western governments. Across Europe, when the migrants arrived, the government took steps to "give them a fish". Social services and associations have been activated. For white citizens, however, politics always and in any case consist in saying "it takes more 'growth', so that they can find a job".

There is therefore a double track:

• the local citizen, the white native, is always and in any case recognized, if not in the act, at least potentially, the assumed ability to survive up to seize the opportunities of his own free will, without personalized help, without state intervention.
• to the minority (blacks, LGBTQ. *, etc), the need to be listened to, guided, supported materially and immediately is recognized.

The native white is always considered skilled and therefore privileged, even when he evidently lives in terrible conditions, and if he does not make it he is told that "he has no excuses" (as if no native white can fail), while the minorities (also when REALLY privileged) it says that you have to act personally and directly.

Even assuming that the operation is successful and both problems are resolved, what will happen?

• White natives will remain ROOTED to the right because they think they have escaped genocide thanks to their superior aptitude to do it unaided, if not upwind because the government used their taxes to help others.
• Minorities will be convinced that they can only live with a government that is on their side. They will take politics as a vital necessity , and they will RADICALIZE because their survival depends on the color of the next government.

With each cycle of this politics that paradoxically passes for "left", there is an ever greater polarization and an ever greater radicalization. But in the end, the white extremists win. For a very simple reason: you got this situation by working systematically the wrong way. You gave the fish to the minorities you saw in need of direct and immediate intervention, while you forced the majority to learn to fish, after filling the river with fish.

In the long term, obviously those who have learned to fish will always win.

And we start all over again.

You could get out of this cycle by acting differently:

• if you give a fish to a minority, you also give it to those who are in difficulty but do not belong to the minority. If there is a public counter that listens to blacks, there must be one that listens to whites. If there is a safe space for gays, there must be one for straight people. If you help divorced women, you also help divorced men. The interaction must be identical. Caresses for everyone, or nothing.
• both minorities and others must have the same duty to walk alone the last mile that separates them from emancipation. If you have to learn to fish and then go fishing alone, then it must apply to everyone, in the same initial conditions and with the same personal commitment as everyone. Either the birds all come out of the nest, or none of them come out.

However, this is not done. We are working on the contrary, giving fish to minorities and expecting the locals to learn to fish, with the only duty to fill the river with fish.

Welfare is then built that help minorities through personal interaction , but leave the "normal" natives the duty to seize the opportunities.

With the result of an ever greater radicalization of both sides.

Except that people who have learned to fish have more money to buy an assault rifle as soon as they have really taken one of these famous "opportunities".

And here is why we will soon be talking about a France problem, a huge (and amplified by #brexit) UK problem, and within 4 years of a fascist regime in the US.