How The Left Benefits From National Decline

By Enoch Was Right


One of the most pernicious facts of politics is that the left has every incentive to encourage the spread of mediocrity, degeneracy and failure. The essence of the political left is egalitarianism; the view that all humans are “equal”. It is vital then to ask then, who favours egalitarianism? Aside from the leftist political and cultural elite who directly stand to increase their power from it, the people who most benefit from egalitarianism are those who are resentful or failing. People who are doing well don’t want to be dragged down to the level of equality, but those doing badly gain from being elevated to a position of equality. Therefore, the political left has an extremely strong incentive to increase the number of people who are failing in society or who perceive themselves as such. If we examine the political platform of the left, this pattern occurs time and time again.

Possibly the most damaging goal pursued by the political left is the forcible process of dispossession targeted against all non-Eastern Europeans using mass immigration. The left knows that Whites vote conservative in the majority but non-Whites do not; 59% of European-Americans voted for the Republican candidate Mitt Romney in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, compared to only 27% of Hispanics and 6% of African-Americans. It has long been a strategy pursued by centre-left political parties like the U.S. Democrats and UK Labour to promote mass third world immigration to skew the political demographics in their favour. Former top New Labour advisor Andrew Neather claimed that mass immigration was a deliberate policy intended to turn Britain into a “multicultural society” and “rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”. We cannot get a clearer statement of guilt than that.

Mass non-European immigration has had many negative effects on the environment, social capital, national IQ, working-class wages, house prices, civil liberties, crime, public services, education and the political system, but its most damaging effect has been the cultural and racial destruction it has wrought on nations like the United States, France, Germany and Sweden, which are on track to be less than 50% European in a generation. While mass immigration is clearly a disaster for native Europeans, the political left has an extremely strong incentive to promote it because low IQ and supposedly oppressed alien groups want to vote for parties that promote multiculturalism (the destruction of native European culture) and generous welfare payments, because a disproportionate number of them are incapable of earning decent incomes or even working at all. All of the economic studies have shown that over 50% of working-age Somalis in Europe are unemployed and they commit crime at many times the national average but this is all good, as the vast majority of them are guaranteed to vote for the left. Muslims in Britain have an average of 3.3 children, compared to the native British average of 1.4 but this benefits the left too. Anything which increases alien birth-rates like welfare or that reduces the White birth-rate like miscegenation and excessive taxation on the middle-class is to be promoted, as it increases the number of non-Whites in absolute terms to the number of Whites. Anti-White “positive discrimination” quotas have the effect of increasing non-White birthrates, reducing White birth-rates and encouraging miscegenation, making them a triple whammie. The faster the native demographic majority is eroded, the more quickly the left can gain an unassailable monopoly over national politics.

The political success of a democratic society depends most of all on it having as high a proportion as possible of well-informed voters, both to hold the elites to account effectively to avoid corruption and promote good governance and to make sure that the best policies are chosen, but the political left has every interest to create an electorate that is as debased, dumbed-down and degenerate as possible. This is why leftists often want to widen the franchise in various ways; extending it to prisoners or ever-younger people and seeking higher turnout among the laziest and least informed groups with schemes like “postal voting”, which are open to ethnic fraud, as seen in the allegedly English borough of Tower Hamlets. The U.S. Democrats frequently decry voter I.D. laws as “racist”, either a blatant incitement to voter fraud or an implicit admission of the lesser intelligence of certain non-White groups!

While social and cultural cohesion is an unquestioned “good” for a nation, egalitarians benefit from creating racial, cultural, economic, sex or sexual resentment among the population. The left is largely a coalition of various groups, including; Blacks, Muslims, Jews, the worst elements of the lower-class, feminists and various sexual minorities. What can hold this contradictory and often mutually hostile coalition of the fringes together except resentment and hatred of the traditional, White, middle and working-class majority? The more hostile these groups are toward normal Whites, the stronger this minoritarian bloc-vote will be. This is why the left in every Western nation is constantly hunting for even the slightest supposed instance of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism or elitism. If the left can manage to convince these disparate groups that the bigoted, privileged heterosexual White majority is holding them back by citing statistics that demonstrate various “inequalities”, the left’s chances of political success are greatly increased. As usual, the left’s political advantage is the nation’s loss, as the strategy of increasing internal conflict tears at the social fabric, weakening nation unity and inflaming animosity between groups.


Because the left takes as a dogma the totally unscientific view that all groups are biologically equal in every important sense, it attributes all group superiorities and inferiorities in wealth or status to all-pervasive and invidious social “discrimination” and frantically tries to stamp it out, although the political left conveniently ignores facts that don’t fit the narrative, such as that Jews are roughly 14 times overrepresented for their share of the population in the Forbes top 400 richest Americans or that East Asians have higher average group IQ’s than European-Americans in the United States. Because group differences are overwhelmingly biological and not social in origin, penalising success and encouraging failure will lead to degenerating social conditions with no equalisation of inherent abilities.

It’s a well-known fact that married couples vote for conservative or right-wing parties at higher rates than singles and this is partly because they often have children and have to consider the future more than single people who can live for the moment to a greater degree. Married women are also more dependant on private incomes than single women, who are more likely to be dependant on the state. It’s logical then, that the left will benefit from undermining the traditional family through the introduction of no-fault divorce laws. We are now at a point where about half of all marriages end in divorce. If a woman divorces her husband and becomes a single mother, it is more likely to be in her economic interest to vote for centre-left parties than before, especially as she may well become dependant on the taxpayer. The left always has the incentive to increase the size of the public sector and the number of people unemployed over the private sector and private employment. If the left can increase the number of people dependent on public money, whether through programs like social security or unemployment support, these voters will be unlikely to vote for parties in favour of cutting those benefits, which are generally the centre-right parties. The creation of dependable voters, whether for economic or ethno-cultural reasons, will lessen the efficiency of the democratic system, as party competition is one of the main theoretical strengths of democracy over autocratic systems of government.

One of the most hated and uncomfortable concepts for modern leftists is the scientific field of eugenics; the improvement of the genetic quality of a human population. It is hard to see why any rational person could oppose eugenics on the face of it. Wouldn’t we all rather marry someone innately intelligent and attractive (other things being equal) over someone stupid and ugly? Isn’t it a good thing for society if the biological quality of its inhabitants increases? While the answer to these questions is obvious for most people, the incentive of the left is to erode the genetic quality of the population. Biologically superior people are less likely to vote for equality than inferior people, as they have nothing to gain and a lot to lose and superior people will generally be better informed about politics, thus more able to hold their leaders to account and vote for good policies. Inferior people are far more likely to be dependant and unable to manage their lives effectively, thus requiring a large, left-wing, paternalistic government to manage their affairs for them. The erosion of a population’s genetic quality can be achieved through taxing productive people to subsidise the fertility rates of the unproductive or by importing inferior people with dysgenic immigration. The left strongly supports both of these policies and would bitterly oppose the compulsory sterilisation of retards or violent criminals, even though these groups are usually incapable of raising children, are likely to spawn dysgenic or criminal offspring and almost always leave their children on the public charge for more responsible citizens to pay for, at the expense of their own children or potential children.

Following on with the theme of promoting degeneracy, leftists have in interest in increasing the number of fat people. “Fat acceptance” has become fashionable on certain parts of the left in recent years. Fat people have lower self-esteem than healthy people and are to some extent a left-wing victim group. Fat people are more dependent on public healthcare and are generally less able to earn high incomes compared to people who are healthy. They face greater employment discrimination because they are less attractive and pleasant to be around. They face a perception that they are not dynamic and they are usually less mobile than healthy people. Low-esteem, more dependant and poorer groups are always a natural fit for the left but a fatter society is likely to be a less happy and successful society for many obvious reasons.

Ethno-nationalism unites the nation and is against the left’s policy of class or sex resentment, as well as opposing mass non-White immigration and miscegenation. The left hates nationalism more than virtually any other political ideology and has long been at the forefront of spreading anti-patriotic attitudes and pursuing anti-nationalist policies. Nationalism provides the people with a basis for ethnic identity, a sense of rootedness and belonging, it reduces conflict within the nation and boosts social capital. Through its control of the educational system and the main cultural organs including the mainstream media, the left has ridiculed native nationalism which they deride as “nativism” and relentlessly attacked attempts at ethnic self-preservation which they deride as “racism”, in an attempt to encourage suicidal White ethno-masochism and make it fashionable. In doing its best to undermine nationalism, the left has undermined the basis of the nation itself.

Aside from being an egalitarian movement, the left believes in non-stratification, “liberation” from social structures, universalism and indiscriminacy. The fundamental reason why the leftist worldview is so destructive is that it’s not aligned with the principles of nature. Any movement which benefits politically from eroding the basis of a successful society and leading it to ruin is the wrong side to be on, unless you favour a kind of sadistic nihilism. If we examine the most extreme leftist movements, they are inclined to exterminate the aristocracy, while the extreme right is far more inclined to eliminate the underclass. Exterminating the smartest, most able and most heroic is undoubtedly an egalitarian act which will cripple the nation while the opposite, heinous though it may be, can only improve the position of the rest. More moderate leftist movements exhibit most of the destructive features of the extreme left but to a lesser degree, so the decline is more gradual and less uncomfortable for the population but ultimately leads to the same destination.

I have outlined the rational strategy of the elite political left rather than speculating about the motives of normal leftists or what they are trying to achieve. The vast majority of non-elite leftists are not intentionally trying to destroy society and most of their positions are due to their emotional biases, self-interest, ignorance or idealism (mistakenly believing they will create a better world) although the result of their policies if left unchecked will be the destruction of all nations stupid enough to implement them. Elite leftists are far more likely to harbour malevolent intentions. They are deliberately promoting the policies I have mentioned such as mass immigration for their narrow political or economic interests and are perfectly aware of the demographic consequences, although they generally believe they will be able to manage them. Only a minority of them such as Harvard’s Noel Ignatiev and other extreme anti-Whites have the explicit intention of eliminating White people and their nations, although it’s safe to say that many of our rulers don’t care about our future national existence one way or the other and most of them harbour a vague sense of guilt for being born European.

A good rule of thumb in politics is that if something goes wrong, the political left benefits, if something goes right, the political right benefits. This isn’t always the case though, as Islamic terrorist attacks and crime generally increase support for the political right, although this is as a reaction to the acknowledged failure of leftist policies, rather any conscious action by the political right itself. The main risk for the political left is that their strategies will create an enormous backlash from the traditional White majority but they attempt to mitigate this by demonising the native people and swamping them with aliens as quickly as possible, so that an effective democratic response becomes impossible. Many political analysts (including Trump himself) have recognised that this may be the last chance for a national-conservative candidate to win the U.S. Presidency before demographics make it practically impossible. The treasonous strategy of subversion and assisted invasion will lead to massive civil conflict as the shrinking native majority finds itself unable to overcome the leftist anti-White coalition and is burdened with ever higher taxation to fund welfare for largely alien parasites, more alien immigration, “affirmative action”, “hate speech” laws and “multiculturalism”. This will ultimately result in secession (the loss of a vast amount of resources and land) civil war or the total destruction of the ethno-nation. Because of its incompatibility with the facts of nature and its incentives to encourage failure rather than success in every respect, egalitarian liberalism or leftism, is the ideology of Western suicide as James Burnham pronounced.



Enoch Was Right writes on nationalism, racialism, British politics and culture. He can be found on his personal blog and twitter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s