Sorry to respond to an older post in such a fast-moving thread, but I think this observation can be explained without giving communism any undue credit.
You accidentally proceed to do so later as part of your main thesis. You're not the first to try, and not likely the last, but you do serve to reinforce that much of the far right have been unwittingly already captured.
Communism is expressly designed to 'level down' any populace subjected to its practices, although it is not sold as such to its potential adherents.
It is explicit. Gramsci's entire everything is built off subversion and destruction, as is a lesser extent Lenin's vanguard party. They have proudly trumpeted this quite often, and whitey bought it. Normally I wouldn't add that end there, but since you want to go genetics, I figure it's best if we start being consistent with digging.
This is why communism looks the same across continents and ethnicities. Rather than looking at the end result of communism, which is indeed the same everywhere (by design), look at what it destroys in the process of being implemented: hardly anything worthwile in places like Africa and South America; everything that separates man from animal in Europe and parts of Asia.
Destroyed the systems Britain left behind in Africa after decolonization, leaving Africa about 20 years to make something of itself. Given this IRL experiment offers terrible study conditions since 20 years might as well be the blink of an eye, quite a lot worthwhile was destroyed relatively speaking, especially when paired by idiotic "sons of the soil" movements all throughout Africa that killed any chances of the population picking up anything after being conquered. All backed by communistic philosophies, mind you. This is not a clean sample and people would do very well not to treat it as one either. Rhodesia quite famously got done in by communist militias constantly riling the populace up for their own interests.
That difference does, in my opinion, ultimately stem from genetics.
And the British Isles are pretty much a stark-raving disproof of it when you look to antiquity and cross reference with the 1800's. The ancient Britons were the niggers of Rome, and yet then comes the Scottish churning out inventors in the 1800's. In the US, it's even harder to argue given the history of Appalachia going from nigger-grade to not in the span of a few generations. Genetics just isn't a good excuse when we start picking through with a fine tooth comb. It is for sure an explanation for some, but to pretend it is all is just plain bad science.
We've tried and failed to democratize third world countries and bring them into the fold of modern civilization.
Never did a good job in the first place.
We've tried bringing third-worlders to the West, and know that they are largely unwilling and unable to adapt.
Largely under dumb multiculturalism that never attempted to make it work, and that no one here would even consider defending.
We know that rich black Americans are still more likely to commit criminal offences than even the poorest of whites.
Which is not a historical constant. Harlem used to be the cultural nexus of the US at one point in the 1920's, so either it's a mixed bag or whitey is genetically predisposed to be replaced, setting aside that it is not exactly a good distinction.
We know that whites don't devolve to the level of locals a few generations after (forcefully) settling in the third world (see: South Africa)...
Appalachia begs the question of whether this is false or whether "white" culture can be equally negroid given most current nigger behavior talking points do actually have cultural origins among the Scots-Irish here. South Africa is also a bad example given the ANC was all but a front for communist activity and were constantly agitating the situation. We are back yet again to a corrupted sample.
... but as soon as the keys to the castle are handed back to the natives, everything turns to shit again.
... after the communists get their hands on everything, stir up nativist sentiment that has barely any justification, and destroy whatever improvements anyone made as it's wont to do.
This is where communism gets undue credit. Genetics is pretty much papering over how in every single one of these instances, you pull the thread and find a communist attempting to manipulate people into being violent, aggressive, institutionally stupid, and subversive. In a word, niggerly. If we're engaging in honest statistics, we'd have to side with matters being inconclusive at best, and we need to stop giving the communists undue credit in just how badly and universally they fucked with everyone, everything, and more importantly regardless of genetic profile since whitey's just as vulnerable to this crap.
So, the only way to make the world an 'equal' and 'fair' place where outcomes are the same for everyone (=equity) is though the fall of Europe and the destruction of white culture and its achievements, which is therefore the primary goal of modern communism under any name.
Or... you know... just being communist no matter who does it. The USSR went full negroid too in many respects and ain't a genetics you can blame for something like the division in status between East and West Germany and the longstanding effects of communism destroying all societal trust showed there. The infamous lack of maintenance is actually demonstrated. The Trabant, which was known to smoke while operating meaning the engine was just plain not built properly just to name one critical flaw with the piece of crap, was still being made into the 1990's while Volkswagen, just to name one company's offerings, had already solved affordable personal transport twice over with the Beetle and then the Rabbit/Golf in the 1970's. Too many instances of commies sticking their fingers into the pies and too many exceptions to the rule exist to go genetic, and if you think they care at all about Europe in particular, you really do give them too much credit here.
It follows that bringing in millions of prospectless, violent migrants is by design - European countries ceasing to exist in any meaningful sense is not a side-effect of migration, it's the express goal of those that want to bring about communism.
At best it's one of a variety of win conditions of the Gramscian branch of communists. Only one branch though, since their method of deconstruction is designed to be iconoclastic
regardless of the method.
It is impossible for a liberal nation or even a social democracy to shoulder the burden of hordes of functionally retarded migrants, so these types of governance will disappear one way or the other.
Almost like a retarded immigration policy is retarded no matter who you're bringing in. I'll reiterate for the record, Keir's a moron and importing people by the small-boat-full is not something I or anyone I can think of posting here would seriously defend. Not even classical liberalism would, and this is a reason why I chalk up a lot of this to communist linguistic fuckery since even these critiques are simply steeped in the communist subversion of linguistics. Multiculturalism as a point to rage about is unironically their creation, foisted as liberalisms,
and the hard right bought it.
Unless multiculturalism is done away with through hard-right measures, we will end up with a modern implementation of totalitarian communism, the outlines of which we are already seeing in the UK: endless handouts to the invaders (who cannot support themselves through legal means), at the expense of an already destitute native population, with the full weight of the state leveraged at anyone who dares to point this out or question why this is happening.
Oh really? I'd advise you look to history Benito. The hard right is just as communist as the hard left when you push them to be hard. More people need to know about the existence of Georges Sorel and how everything you have listed is part and parcel of communism if co-opted correctly, something you have unfortunately proven is already the case as genetic explanations for the world are entirely compatible with that branch of communism, it can explicitly seek to encourage such nativism at the expense of all else, and then it proceeds to plunge the nation into self-hatred or communism regardless of what happens.
That is after all what happened in Germany, and they never recovered.
In truth, the hard right won't really deal with it because they'll get co-opted almost immediately by someone Sorellian. Sure, they might engage in mass deportations and the populace will be happy for a time. But then it will get exposed that there needs to be more than one issue to run a country with, and the government will either purity spiral over what being right enough means, eventually deleting itself and leaving a vacuum the Gramscian school of communism will exploit pretty much immediately if it doesn't just go full commie anyways and blow itself up that way, or it liberalizes once more, proving that government isn't hard right and never really was.
