One issue currently being hotly debated across political blogs and forums is that of how to treat refugees seeking asylum. And, as we have come to expect, leftists simply are not arriving at the debate with the necessary toolkit to win. They know clearly in their hearts that the rightists are bad people, but they cannot effectively articulate why, because they are stuck with False Left foundations which, as we have said before, were designed (by Zionist agents) to be beaten down by far-right counterarguments (ie. Israeli policies, which Israel wants other countries to adopt so that Israel can no longer be singled out for moral condemnation for such policies). This is where we – and I hope especially Ossendowski with his upcoming new project – come in: to supply leftists with the True Left toolkit with which they could easily recover a winning position if they are willing to rapidly switch bases from False Left to True Left.
We all know the far-right popular fantasies regarding refugees (a.k.a. the Katie Hopkins Position, just so we are under no illusion as regards the intellectual calibre of the enemy): sink the boats with torpedoes, or variants thereof (put the refugees on planes and throw them out in midair, poison their food/water, shoot them with machine guns (using bullets coated with lard if the refugees are Muslims), impale them like Dracula used to do, etc.). They set this up so that when their own far-right politicians then recommend ’merely’ ignoring all asylum applications and flatly deporting refugees, or even deporting those whose asylum applications were already approved, but without endorsing the additional sadism of their voters, they appear “moderate” in comparison, which then fools ignorant fence-sitters to vote for them. This is the trick of offering a fake middle-ground that we have discussed in the past.
In response to this, all the False Left teaches leftists to do is endlessly bring up “human rights” as a reason for accepting refugees. The problem is, “human rights” is not an argument. “Human rights” is merely a formal abstraction that various organizations around the world have declared that they will observe in their decision-making process. Repeating the term “human rights” over and over again does not convince those who do not believe in “human rights” to suddenly start believing in them. It just produces the image that the repeaters lack actual pro-asylum arguments. If you are a pro-asylum leftist, the single best thing you can do is stop believing in the idiotic notion of “human rights” yourself and go back to ideological basics instead. This is what the True Left is trying to help you to do. The True Left is not, and will never be, about “rights”. The True Left is, and will always be, about empathy.
The first thing we recommend is to mentally place ourselves in the position of the refugees. If we were refugees fleeing from war/famine/disaster/etc. in our origin country, how would we hope our first-choice destination country treats us? This, then, is how we should similarly hope our country treats refugees from another country, for as we would hope others treat us, so should we strive to treat others. It is really that simple, and this used to be common sense among ordinary youth as recently as the 90s, before 9/11 changed the mentality of the world. Yet here already is an argument for the leftist arsenal much more effective than any amount of blathering about “human rights”: challenge rightists to explain WHAT IS WRONG WITH treating others as we would hope to be treated by others.
The empathic approach does not stop here. We can further challenge rightists to place themselves in the position of the refugees under the policies they themselves demand. Among those rightists who recommend torpedoing the refugee boats, for example, how many would still favour this response if they themselves were the ones in the boats? This reminds me of a private discussion I had with Miecz some time ago about a thought experiment in which we invite people to come up with policies for a society that they will have to live in for the rest of their lives, while these people are given no knowledge of the position that they themselves will occupy within that society, which hence forces even ordinarily selfish people to recommend policies not based on self-interest but from considering what is fair. Rightists advocate cruel policies towards tribal outgroups because they know in advance that they themselves won’t be the ones on the receiving end of such cruelty. When nobody is allowed to know who will be on the receiving end of whatever cruelty is advocated, support for rightism drops like a rock, which demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of rightism. In contrast, leftist policies stay largely unaffected by possession or non-possession of knowledge about who will be on the receiving end, which demonstrates the moral strength of leftism.
Many rightists try to take the offensive by claiming that it is the refugees themselves who are in the wrong by staying in the countries offering them asylum instead of returning to live in the countries they fled from. But once again we can apply the empathic approach: how many of these rightists would themselves be willing to go and live in those countries that the refugees are fleeing from? And if they would not, then why would they demand the refugees to be any more willing than themselves to do so? The funny thing is that the rightists spend most of their own propaganda telling their audiences about what “unsalvageable hellholes” these countries are, far too dangerous to even vacation in, let alone live in. How then can they with a straight face blame the refugees for basically agreeing with them, and hence fleeing? I can guarantee that if the rightists had been born in these countries, every single one of them would be doing exactly the same as the current refugees. I moreover challenge every rightist who arrogantly tells refugees to “Go back and improve your own countries!” to personally emigrate to one of these countries and give a demo of themselves achieving this. When they are successful, then we might start taking them seriously. Not until then. (In reality, it is leftists who travel to disaster-hit countries to do volunteer work. In other words, we are the ones who actually do what the rightists tell the refugees to do while never doing it themselves.)
But we can talk about rightist inferiority and leftist superiority all day and it won’t make any difference, because the whole refugee crisis is a Zionist conspiracy designed to make racism mainstream, and hence facilitate the pre-scripted shift from PC to ZC. And this is something that can also be deduced by the empathic approach: how would we feel as taxpayers to see successful asylum applicants – who have never paid into the welfare system - instantly becoming welfare recipients? We would feel robbed, and justly so. But this absolutely does not mean that refugees should not be given asylum, as Jews are herding us to think. What it means is that refugees should not be eligible for welfare. If refugees need asylum, give it to them, but then simply make sure they pull their own weight by assigning all of them who are unable to find private-sector employment a sufficient schedule of compulsory state-organized labour to more than offset their living expenses. This not only makes it fair for taxpayers, but gives the refugees themselves respectability as contributing members of society (and hence worthy of citizenship eventually), and makes negativity towards them indefensible. This is authentic National Socialism: empathy for refugees (which ZC/BS lacks) and at the same time empathy for taxpayers (which PC lacks) – positive asylum.
National Socialism is thus able to provide an exact answer to the question of how many refugees a country has a duty to take in. The answer is: at least as many as the state can put to work (plus however many can be supported via voluntary charity funding). In practice, this would be a larger number than what most refugee destination countries are currently taking in, because their calculations are based on welfare capacity instead of labour capacity, because they patronizingly view refugees by default as permanent dependents, rather than as we empathically view them – just as we would wish to be viewed by our destination country if we were refugees - as future citizens.
(Incidentally, any country which applies our principle and hence harnesses the potentially vast value of state-organized refugee labour would gain an economic and military edge both over countries which put refugees on welfare and (though to a lesser extent) over countries which refuse to accept refugees at all in the first place. So not only National Socialists but even authentic fascists should support positive asylum.)
Treating others as we would wish to be treated by others has been taught by all universalist religions around the world. Meanwhile, a rightist is, in essence, someone who considers Katie Hopkins to be a better person than Jesus (for example). And the rightist calls this “taking the Red Pill”…..