Continued from Part 1:
3. Why Post-Fordist Capitalism Prefers Flexible Asian Labor and Immigrant Consumers
Capitalism will strive to optimize in whatever political setting it is allowed to operate. It is not morally committed to diversity. This may lead some to assume that it has no inherent ethnic preference. There is no question, however, that in the post-Fordist era, liberal capitalism has shown a preference both for a diverse workforce and for certain cognitive and personality traits that are statistically more common among East Asians (particularly ethnic Chinese) and Indians. Of course, post-Fordist capitalism has not always found liberal progressivism to be a congenial partner. Initiatives such as DEI have undoubtedly imposed some hiring quotas and bureaucratic regulations that conflict with its optimization tendencies. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the two forces have formed a powerful partnership. Liberalism supplies the moral and legal framework that legitimizes non-Western immigration, while capitalism selects for the labor inputs and consumer behaviors that best serve its drive for maximum efficiency in a post-Fordist age.
I am not thinking only of the obvious preference of post-Fordist businesses for cheaper immigrant labor. Indians, and immigrants generally, tend to accept longer hours, lower relative pay, and jobs that local workers (accustomed to a greater comforts) increasingly avoid (particularly in retail, food service, and agriculture). Research shows that in the case of “temporary foreign workers,” they put in more hours and have lower absenteeism than domestic workers. The “the average nominal wage gap between temporary and Canadian-born workers has more than doubled, widening from -9.5% to -22.6%”. Business organizations consistently support higher immigration for this reason, not because they are subservient to woke mandates. More workers also mean more consumers.
In so-called large settler nations—Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and America— post-Fordist businesses have also shown a preference for high-tech workers who are “more goal-oriented” in their motives — more focused on pure careerism, uncreative technical tasks, strong compliance, as well as having lower intellectual interests beyond one’s specialization and work requirements. It views East Asians and Indians as “low-friction inputs” for technical tasks such as coding, algorithm design, lab work, and jobs requiring repetitive movements. White populations, I would say, tend to be viewed as less efficient in this narrow respect because they exhibit greater personality differentiation, broader interests, higher openness to experience, and a stronger tendency toward political, philosophical, and societal engagement. While these White traits were historically crucial in driving revolutionary scientific breakthroughs, major innovations, and grand societal projects, they are less optimal for the narrow, hyperspecialized post-Fordist AI economy.
But some may rightfully ask: how could a nation as chaotic and dirty as India produce high-tech migrants? Aren’t Indians being imported as a “bio-weapon” to destroy the genetic makeup of Western nations? No. The importation of skilled Indians is driven not only by the multicultural logic of liberalism, but by capitalism’s drive for optimization of economic returns. Markets tend to gravitate toward the highest returns and the lowest cost inputs. There is significant research on the benefits of skilled Indian workers. India’s enormous population, to start with, generates a vast supply of technically trained workers suited to the needs of our contemporary economy. The country produces approximately 2.5–2.6 million STEM graduates annually. In contrast, Canada’s total STEM graduates at the bachelor’s level or higher number only around 60,000–120,000 per year. Because workers in Indian with similar skills are paid salaries ranging between 30% to 20% of Canadian or American levels, firms view them as an excellent reservoir of cheap yet skilled labor. Indians actually dominate high-skill visa pathways, accounting for about 70–72% of H-1B visas in the United States. They also hold a disproportionate share (30–50%) of engineering and technical occupations at major tech firms such as Amazon, Meta, and Google. In Canada, immigrants (with Indians particularly prominent) comprise 35% of computer programmers, 43% of engineers, and 55% of software engineers and designers.
Secondly, Indian migrants are particularly attractive because they are more compliant and geographically mobile than native Whites with a comparable level of education. They accept irregular and intense schedules more willingly. When they arrive, they are not tied to mortgages, local communities, or old Western ways. The savings are substantial when the work remains offshore; firms can easily hire a senior Indian developer working from India for roughly $30,000–$50,000 per year, in contrast to $150,000–$200,000 for a similarly qualified American worker. Of course, when the same senior worker is brought to the United States or Canada on a work visa, employers must abide by the domestic wage requirements. The primary cost advantage of the H-1B system consists in having a larger labor supply available globally. This is a pillar of “flexible accumulation”. Moreover, their narrow education, total focus on STEM degrees, compliance, and one-dimensional desire for money have made Indians quite useful as employees in limbic capitalist sectors such as social media, e-commerce, gaming, streaming, and AI-driven engagement.
The socioeconomic success of Chinese and Indians reflects this selection. In the United States, according to data collected by the Pew Research Center (2025), the median income of household headed by Indians is about $145,000–$156,000, which is significantly higher than the U.S. national median of $75,000–$83,000. The median income of Taiwanese Americans is $133,000–$145,000, while that of Chinese Americans is $98,400–$108,600. Chinese and Indian immigrants also show higher STEM educational levels. This should not surprise us. Indian and Chinese immigrants to the U.S. are filtered through H-1B visas, leading to employment. They don’t “waste their time” with Liberal Arts, but focus on high-paying fields like computer science, medicine, engineering, and finance. Similarly, in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, second-generation Chinese and South Asians have higher household median incomes due to their relatively large presence in high-tech occupations.
But we can’t forget that the optimizing logic also requires cheap labor for services, retail, delivery driving, and hospitality, to keep consumer prices low and profits high. Western countries have an aging population, low native birth rates, and increasing rates of retirements in many sectors. In small towns and rural areas in Canada, and other Western nations, the younger generation of locals tend to migrate out to the cities seeking better opportunities. A survey of more than 900 employers across Canada states that 71% of employers have difficulty finding locals willing to do some entry-level or physically demanding work. This is why the Canadian government, in response to such reports (and there are other reports), directs immigrants into these sectors through programs designed to fill these “labor gaps”.
Working in tandem with this optimization, the liberal universalistic logic frames restrictions on low-skilled brown immigration as racist, while celebrating diversity in the public sphere. In Canada (especially from 2021 to 2024), low-skilled workers formed a very large part of Justin Trudeau’s post-COVID massive immigration surge. These immigrants constitute a reliable labor force for irregular shifts and jobs that are demanding in terms of working schedules and location. These are the Indians we see everywhere, fueling the complaints about driving habits, public littering, noise levels, large families in small apartments, etc. Once a few settle and take jobs or buy convenience stores, restaurants, gas stations, or motels, they mostly hire relatives or Indian friends.
It is also the case, moreover, that many post-Fordist businesses structurally prefer large concentrations of rootless immigrants living in cities (and suburbs), because it meets their optimization criteria under conditions of increasingly aging White markets, declining fertility, and the growth of a libidinal economy. Immigrant concentrations create the customer density that makes multinational chains, fast-food franchises, delivery platforms (Deliveroo, Just Eat, Gophr, Pedivan), and 24-hour entertainment profitable. Stable White communities oriented toward nature and local life generate fewer transactions per square kilometer.
Under limbic capitalism, profit margins depend on continuously activating the appetitive instincts of the masses via novelty, status signaling, sexual exhibition, 24 hour day convenience, and cheap availability of dopamine boosts. Individuals with weaker impulse control are better customers for this model than thrifty households that save and defer gratification. Research shows that the marginal propensity to consume of the relatively older (White) population is lower, and, I would add, more inclined toward local stores, with a lower preference for limbic products.
Under post-Fordist limbic conditions, Whites are, therefore, less efficient than an immigrant population that is culturally deracinated and oriented toward global brands. Immigrants are more inclined to shop in big global retailers like Costco, Walmart, BestBuy, not in quaint local stores.
The impending plan is indeed to transform countless medium-sized Western cities into “smart” megacities that resemble cities such as Shanghai, Los Angeles, Jakarta, Tokyo, Mumbai, or Guangzhou. The difference is that Western cities will be thoroughly multiracial, since immigration is the only currently available means in the West for rapid population growth. Such cities would contain masses of consumers stacked together in small apartments, with their “leisure” time dedicated to limbic consumption, concentrated in high-rises and thoroughly commercialized spaces, with spots of greenery here and there, designed for the satisfaction of every conceivable human appetite. The social system has already decided that this is the most efficient way to ensure the highest velocity and highest density of commercial interactions. The old Fordist vision of White families living in well-manicured homes with green yards and multiple rooms, surrounded by public spaces free from commercialism, will be a privilege of the few.
The Western world will have no center and no meaning, only endless expenditure and permanent orgies of bodies, images, and spectacles.
The preference for Indian and other Asian workers in private firms, to be clear, should not be confused with government race quotas. Governments across the West have long practiced preferential hiring for designated groups such as Aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, persons with disabilities, and women. In Canada, for example, an Aristotle Foundation review of 301 federal job openings from February to July 2026 found that 42 percent explicitly or potentially prioritized applicants by group identity. In Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the National Research Council, every posting in the sample stated that candidates might be preferred if they belonged to an “equity-deserving” category. The post-Fordist economic code of labor optimization analyzed above should not be confounded with this government practice, which reflects the progressive meta-code operating inside the state. The two logics reinforce each other.
4. The Dual Drivers: Capitalist Optimization and Liberal Universalism in Action
The main drivers of Europe’s immigration policy are not sinister figures like Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi or some woman in a video named Barbara Lerner Spectre bragging about her accomplishments. It is the open, structural imperatives of the post-Fordist liberal-capitalist system itself. Although these two forces have their own rationale, they operate in tandem and reinforce one another.
(A) Pro-Immigration Business Groups
Let’s start with the capitalist side: we have Europe’s largest and most influential employer organization, BusinessEurope, representing 42 national business federations, explicitly stating that “worker mobility and skilled migration are essential for economic growth” and that businesses require “favourable conditions for talent from outside the EU” to address labour shortages and sustain competitiveness. They openly argue that migration should be shaped by what companies need. They have a full policy page on “Diversity and equal opportunities”, where they state: “Embracing diversity and equal opportunities strengthens workplaces and boosts economic performance”. Contrary to common claims by those who blame woke ideas, BusinessEurope frames migration almost entirely in economic terms: filling vacancies, boosting competitiveness, sustaining growth, and addressing the consequences of low native birth rates and an aging population.
Similar positions are taken by many other business groups in Europe: Italy’s Confindustria (led by Emanuele Orsini), Germany’s BDI (led by figures such as Siegfried Russwurm and Peter Leibinger), France’s MEDEF, and Ireland’s IBEC. These organizations, headed by Europeans, are all strongly in favour of expanded legal migration. They represent tens of thousands of European companies in manufacturing, construction, agriculture, hospitality, tourism, and elderly care, that is, the sectors that face chronic vacancies because there are either not enough native workers or they are unwilling to accept the low wages, conditions, and seasonal nature of the jobs. BDI (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie) is very pro-migration for skilled (and some semi-skilled) workers. BDI has repeatedly warned of “severe labour shortages” and strongly supports the “Skilled Immigration Act”, which advocates for faster visa procedures, easier recognition of foreign qualifications, and more pathways for non-EU workers.
Likewise, France’s MEDEF (Mouvement des Entreprises de France) is explicitly pro-immigration. In 2023, MEDEF president Patrick Martin stated that France will need 3.9 million foreign workers by 2050 to address labour shortages in construction, healthcare, hospitality, and industry overall. Ireland’s largest and most influential employer organisation, Irish Business and Employers Confederation, or IBEC, consistently makes the same argument. The American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, in a publication entitled, “Ireland’s Immigration Pathways - Driving Competitiveness and Economic Growth”, categorically argues that “it is vital for Ireland’s continued growth and competitiveness that companies based in Ireland have access to the best international talent”. In 2024–2025, Confindustria, in Meloni’s Italy, welcomed increases in legal work visas for 500,000 migrants for over three years.
This pattern is also evident in the United States, where major business associations strongly support high immigration. The powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce aggressively backs expanded legal immigration, H-1B visas, guest worker programs, and amnesty-style reforms. The Business Roundtable, representing CEOs of America’s largest corporations, has long lobbied for more immigration. Other key players include the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), tech groups like FWD.us (founded by Mark Zuckerberg and other tech billionaires, which pushes high-skilled immigration and DACA-style protections), the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (representing agriculture, hospitality, construction, and service industries), and lobbies such as the American Hotel & Lodging Association and National Restaurant Association. These groups are not “woke communists.” They are mainstream capitalist organizations seeking cheaper labor, weaker bargaining power for workers, and a growing consumer base.
(B) Pro-Immigration Leftist Groups
The progressive logic of liberalism, for its part, supplies the universalistic and moral principles calling for a diverse West in which the ethnic divisions and xenophobia of the past will be transcended. Through a well-organized “humanitarian-industrial complex” of NGOs, churches, human-rights groups, and progressive foundations, liberalism legitimises and accelerates immigration replacement. SOS Méditerranée, Sea-Watch, Proactiva Open Arms, and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) operate large rescue vessels (Ocean Viking, Sea-Watch 3/4, Open Arms). They have conducted thousands of operations since 2014–2015, bringing hundreds of thousands of migrants to Europe (mainly Italy, Spain, Greece). They regularly issue public statements and open letters accusing the EU of “inaction” and “criminalizing solidarity.”
Other large humanitarian and religious NGOs like Caritas (Catholic), Jesuit Refugee Service, and Oxfam provide legal aid, reception services, and advocacy inside Europe, and they consistently lobby for expanded legal pathways, family reunification, and against what they call “externalisation deals” with Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt to stop keep the immigrants in their homelands. In 2025, for instance, over 40 NGOs (including SOS Méditerranée and Sea-Watch) signed open letters demanding the EU reverse cooperation with Libya and expand legal migration routes. The Immigrant Council of Ireland, one of many similar groups in Ireland, actively pushes for broader legal rights for immigrants. The theme of this Council’s 7th annual National Integration Conference held on June 2026 was “Vision for the Future: Building a Shared Home in Ireland,” on the “challenges and opportunities for migrant integration in Ireland”. Open Society Foundations (George Soros) have been one of the largest private funders of pro-migration civil society in Europe for decades. They support NGOs, think tanks, and advocacy groups that promote open borders and frame migration as a human-rights imperative. Many other smaller progressive groups are coordinated through platforms such as the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), EuroMed Rights, and Amnesty International. Since these groups operate in a European world where liberalism prevails, they have close relationships with mainstream media, academia, churches, and a variety of educational and legal institutions.
This universalist logic was on full display when French President Emmanuel Macron declared (May 10, 20126) that the epicenter of the French language is no longer on the banks of the Seine but in the Congo River basin, while noting that approximately 21% of Paris residents are now immigrants. In the liberal mind, French identity and language are detachable from the historic French people, and can thus be carried forward by African migrants as long as liberal values are formally adopted. This state of mind is inscribed in Article 1 of the 1958 French Constitution, which clearly states that “France shall [...] ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion.” America is not the only “propositional nation.” All Western governments now claim that their nations are founded on civic values. They can’t claim that their nations are rooted in blood or ethnicity. At most, as in the case of Poland, they may still emphasize a Christian heritage.
5. Who Profits? The Short-to-Medium Term Gains of Post-Fordist Immigration
Many critics of mass immigration rightly point to welfare costs, the lower average IQ of many migrant groups, declining real per capita income for natives, disproportionate migrant crime, longer hospital wait times, school overcrowding, and rising house prices as evidence that large-scale immigration harms the economic well-being of Western nations overall. They are thus inclined to conclude that since immigration brings no real benefits, capitalists are misguided or politically controlled by progressives, or that only a narrow segment of businesses could possibly profit.
It is crucial, however, to distinguish between types of immigration. High-skilled immigration from certain groups (particularly East Asians and Indians in STEM fields) can generate real gains in specific sectors and contribute to aggregate GDP. In contrast, large-scale low-skilled immigration from African and Muslim countries, as Jonatan Pallesen and others have emphasized, has indeed produced high net fiscal costs for natives. Still, from a narrow capitalist optimization viewpoint, immigration has generally been a policy decision rationally calculated as beneficial by major businesses from a short-to-medium-term perspective, in partnership with politicians.
We should not dismiss economic studies showing aggregate gains. Given the reality of low fertility rates across the West, immigration has kept labor costs lower across key sectors such as tech, healthcare, construction, services, and delivery. It has expanded the consumer base for housing, retail, transportation, education, and financial services. Immigration also expands the labor force, incentivizes investments through more workers and consumers, and encourages creation of new businesses by higher-skilled immigrants. It has additionally driven up real estate values, benefiting banks, developers, and homeowners, and it has sustained for decades a huge diversity infrastructure of lawyers, university and school administrators, social workers, government employees, and multicultural organizations looking for new members.
Recent economic research by Giovanni Peri and his colleagues came up with the following calculations, based on statistical associations, of the effects of immigration between 1990 and 2024: In Canada, where immigrants rose by 17 percentage points of the adult population, the estimate says that this inflow could account for about 20% higher growth in GDP per worker. Canada’s actual growth over this period was 33%, so more than half of that growth might be linked to immigration. In the United Kingdom, where immigrants rose by 11 percentage points, the estimate links this to about 13% of the 51% total growth. In Italy, where Immigrants rose by 8.4 percentage points, the estimate links this to almost 10% of the 40% total growth. In France, where immigrants rose by 6.1 percentage points, the estimate links this to about 7% of the 41% total growth.
It is undeniable that major retailers and chains have been substantial beneficiaries of both low-wage labor and new immigrant consumers: Walmart, Target, Costco, Home Depot, Best Buy, Dollarama. So have been fast food restaurants, convenience stores, and countless businesses: Burger King, Subway, KFC, Pizza Hut, Tim Hortons, Starbucks, Popeyes, Taco Bell, Shoppers Drug Mart, Pharma Prix, Walgreens, CVS, Loblaws, Metro, Amazon, IKEA, Winners, Uber, DoorDash. These companies are happy to promote diversity in their ads because it fits with the economic logic of optimization in the post-Fordist age, not because they are “controlled by woke communists”. Nothing appeals more to them than converting towns into strip malls, vast parking lots surrounded by big-box stores packed tightly. Formerly small towns in Canada like Brampton, Mississauga and Scarborough now have these characteristics. Relatively small cities in Canada also illustrate a similar pattern. Take the metro area of Moncton, in the rural province of New Brunswick, it experienced the “second-highest population growth rate of all metro areas across Canada” in 2023-24 driven by mainly by immigration inflows (even as deaths exceeded births). Between 2011 and 2021, immigrant workers increased by 130%, filling primarily “labor shortages” in sectors such as health care, social assistance, retail, and public administration in the wake of high retirements.
Immigration, moreover, has been a major factor in overall GDP growth in Western nations over the last few decades. Canada’s nominal GDP grew more than eightfold from $275 billion in 1980 to over $2.2 trillion in recent years (in current US dollars). Similar patterns appear across the West. In the United States, just as immigration was intensified, nominal GDP expanded dramatically from about $2.8 trillion in 1980 to roughly $29–31 trillion by the mid-2020s. In a capitalist optimizing economy, GDP growth, returns to investors, and increasing wealth of the big owners of capital are the decisive metrics of success. In the U.S., the share of wealth of the top 1% rose substantially from around 23% in 1989 to nearly 31.6% by 2026. The top 10% now holds roughly 67–70% of total wealth, while the bottom 50% holds only about 2.5%. In Canada, the share of market income enjoyed by the top 1% rose considerably from around 8% in the early 1980s to 13–14% in the mid-2000s (and about 10–12% in recent years). The top 10% saw a five percent increase of market income share between the 1970s and 2021. In the United Kingdom, nominal GDP grew from approximately $565 billion in 1980 to over $3.3 trillion in recent years, accompanied by a notable rise in the top 1% income share since the early 1980s.
6. Who Loses? A Structural Flaw in the Post-Fordist Liberal Capitalist Order
This is not to deny that major costs, such as the ones listed in the previous section, including traffic congestion and loss of green farmlands, have been incurred primarily by large segments of the native White population. In Norway, for example, immigrants accounted for 56% of all social assistance recipients in 2024, despite comprising about 17–21% of the population. Similar numbers hold in other Western nations. Moreover, there is now substantial empirical research consistently showing a negative association between higher ethnic diversity and key indicators of social cohesion such as social trust, civic participation, and community cooperation.
Ultimately, I would say that the real cost of capitalism’s fusion with progressive liberalism is the creation of a system that is putting individualist Whites at a critical disadvantage vis-à-vis non-Western immigrants who assimilate liberal values only insofar as they can be beneficial to their ingroup ethnic interests, and that is thus biologically and culturally incompatible with the long-term survival of European peoples in their homelands.
There is indeed a deep structural contradiction embedded in the logics of liberalism and capitalism in their current post-Fordist phase. This regime rests on a historically unique psychological profile: the disposition of Western, primarily White, populations to prioritize universal ethical principles over kin loyalty or ethnic tribalism. All human societies throughout history, until the rise of the modern West, relied on intensive kinship structures (clans, lineages, and cousin marriage) that fostered norms such as loyalty to kin and ingroup, social control through social shame, and favoritism in dealings.
In contrast, for complex historical reasons we don’t need to bring up here, Western peoples abolished their kinship networks in favor of civic or voluntary associations, creating urban communes, guilds, diocese of bishops, monasteries, universities, and corporations relatively open to everyone regardless of kinship lineage. Whites came to prefer societies and institutions in which the same rules are applied to all regardless of status or personal ties. They came to favor impartial analytic thinking, guilt over shame, and recognition of intentionality in moral judgment.
This is the orientation that sustains Western individual rights, value pluralism, and the logic of progressive liberalism itself. But there is an inherent weakness in this orientation: these principles have been framed as applying to humans as such, as rights that belong to humans everywhere, even though this “Weird” psychology is a culturally evolved and historically peculiar attainment of Whites. Only White people are psychologically wired to view nepotism as morally corrupt, to trust strangers more readily, to rely on impartial rules in their judgements of the merits of others, and to treat the public sphere as a setting where everyone regardless of ethnic identity or country of origin should have equal rights. This is why the liberal-capitalist fusion worked extremely well among native Europeans during the Fordist phase, because everyone could behave under the assumption that everyone else would reciprocate their individualism and their impartiality.
The non-Western immigrants continuously arriving in the West in the millions overwhelmingly do not share this psychology. Most originate from cultures in which ethnic ingroup bias is the norm and the way to achieve success. Nepotism is seen as a natural obligation. The exploitation of birthright citizenship, chain migration, creation of ethnic enclaves and parallel economies for their ingroup members, including preferential hiring from within their ethnic groups, are accepted as appropriate behaviors.
Contrary to the expectations of liberal multicultural theory, immigrants (even from the second and third generations) are not inclined to assimilate to the universalism of native Whites or to “neutralize” their own ethnic particularism. Instead, they exploit the neutralized public space precisely because the host society has been socialized to treat any assertion of its own ethnic interests as racist and morally unacceptable. They treat the multicultural liberal order as a resource to be exploited for the advancement of their kin networks. Game theory describes this as “strategic free-riding.” In Pierre van den Berghe’s terms (The Ethnic Phenomenon, 1981), what we are witnessing is “adaptive kin selection,” that is, ethnic groups behaving as extended kin networks that favor co-ethnics in resource competition. This millennial human behavior is now operating inside societies where Whites have unilaterally disarmed themselves of any adaptive kin behaviors to fight back. We thus have a situation in which Whites prohibit themselves from pursuing their in-group interests while arming others to advance their particular in-group interests under the banner of “redistributive justice”.
This manipulation of White fairness and trust persists among so-called “assimilated” immigrants, non-Whites born in the West, and even elected officials operating inside the liberal democratic system. A clear illustration is New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Racial Equity Plan, released in April 2026. Mamdani, a self-described “democratic socialist,” works within the progressive liberal order. His plan interprets persistent disparities in housing, education, and income as the result of “decades of discrimination” and “systemic racism.” It requires dozens of city agencies to prioritize resources and outcomes for “Black and brown” communities. I disagree, however, with the categorization of Mamdani’s approach as “race communism.” He is not calling for the expropriation of White capitalists, the abolition of private property, the elimination of markets, or for state planning of the economy by non-Whites. He is, admittedly, going beyond equality of opportunity by addressing, as he sees it, the “underlying factors” that affect the ability of “underprivileged” people to succeed; and in calling for the provision of extra supports and opportunities for “minorities”. While this goes against the classical liberalism principle of race-blind meritocracy, it is nevertheless a position that is now consistent with the actual legal character of liberalism across the West.
The post-Fordist model, moreover, is making a profound mistake in judging native White workers as less efficient than imported Asian laborers. By rewarding “Asian” traits such as compliant focus on repetitive tasks, and lack of interests outside one’s hyper-specialized role, it is optimizing for short-to-medium-term returns. Whites, with their higher variance in personality, greater openness to new ideas, experimentation, and adventurism, are better suited for “frontier innovation” and disruptive thinking, which are the very qualities that built and sustained Western civilization. In devaluing these broader creative and civilizational strengths of Whites, the regime prioritizes immediate accumulation over long-term goals such as cultural continuity and grand technological vision.
To Be Continued in Part 3
READ MORE from Ricardo Duchesne:
