Run away! Run away! Since the late 1950s, this has been the go-to strategy for residents of certain neighborhoods. These locations experienced demographic transformations which happened to coincide with the beginning of adverse trends among a constellation of socioeconomic indices which — well, you know what I mean.
Showing uncommon unity, liberals and conservatives alike responded by high-tailing it in retreat, often selling their property at a loss. The major difference was that outspoken Rightists gave honest answers for why they were fleeing their neighborhoods as the hordes of urban orcs advanced. Leftists would never be so — in a word — gauche.
The overrated art of retreat
Then, all too often, the problems followed. Since those early days, it’s been run, run, run to the next neighborhood, the next school district, the next suburb, the next state, the next part of the country. For the masses, pulling up stakes was somehow easier than pushing back. This much seems like a tragic lack of foresight, or a failure to develop effective opposition. Or were they putting their hopes in do-nothing faux conservative politicians? “Yeah, so I didn’t help you last time, but if you suckers reelect me, I might get around to it this time. Besides, what’s your alternative — vote for the liberal bozo? Hee hee hee!”
Decades later, how is Generalplan Ostrich working out lately? The original problem of demographic displacement has grown remarkably worse. Moreover, we’ve acquired some new problems, too, since the globohomo steamroller has faced little real opposition. The culture is getting increasingly pozzed, gigantic corporations take it upon themselves to decide what we’re allowed to say, the government became visibly hostile to the founding population (that’s us), electronic surveillance encroaches into countless facets of our lives, and so forth. What is to be done — more running?
Sure, it’s a big country, but the ugly truth is that The System isn’t in the habit of just leaving people alone to go and do their own thing. It’s the Law of the Anthill: “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.” This includes those who’ve voluntarily exiled themselves to the boonies. What happens if you’ve retreated to a square state knee-deep in snow, yet the writing’s on the wall that “I just wanna grill, ferchrissakes” eventually will be too much to ask? Then I have some bad news: You’re running out of options.
So, what then? I recall that during the Obama administration, an increasing number of American men began to leave the United States for greener pastures abroad. These Wandervögel sought advantages like cultures less afflicted with degeneracy, lower costs of living, and friendlier women. To a lesser extent, Europeans also began their own exodus from the Brussels nanny state, exorbitant taxes, and vinegar-tits feminists. (I know two guys who were looking around in Ukraine; it was a pretty favorable Second World location at the time, but it’s just as well that they didn’t stay!) Then there are some stable and tolerably advanced Third World countries where life can be pretty nice. Of course, that depends on accumulating enough dough that you aren’t one of the have-nots like, well, the common citizens who belong there.
I’ll allow that there are compelling circumstances in which Americans might want to move, and I’m not hating on those who have good reasons for doing it. For a white guy resettling in Europe, this isn’t so bad. If he instead moves to Southeast Asia, marries a gookette, and has mixed-race kids who don’t even look like him and grow up culturally confused, that’s a lot harder to understand.
The problem is that leaving for abroad isn’t a practical solution for the masses, or helpful in protecting what’s left of our civilization. On a personal level, integrating yourself into another society isn’t easy. For one thing, it’s to be hoped that you studied the local language diligently, because you can’t always count on pressing 2 for English! Moreover, although our so-called leaders have let hordes of non-white migrants colonize white countries everywhere, diversity was never intended to be bidirectional. Finally, upon arrival, you might not be welcomed with open arms.
Lebensraum for Californicators
Some Americans have been searching abroad, but setting their sights closer to home. This location would be none other than Mexico, that broad and sunny vastness to the south known for its tempting cuisine, endless beaches, and of course 126 million beaners. It’s particularly favored by Californians due to its proximity. This is rather odd, since for decades Mexicans themselves have been leaving their own homeland in droves for California. Part of this includes millions of mojados who arduously crossed through desert and rough terrain, with their government providing handy tips on how to jump the border. The flood of Asylbewerber from Mexico is a large part of why California alone has 15 million Hispanics — or at least that’s what the records officially admit.
It’s nothing new for Californians to bug out of the Golden State, often because of intolerable economic conditions resulting from decades of liberal tax-and-spend programs. Utahns, when feeling a bit blunt (as happens sometimes), might call them “Californicators,” and I understand that Coloradoans aren’t too shy about the term, either. They’re beginning to pour into Texas as well, deforming the local real estate market rather like other places they’ve colonized, such as New Mexico. Seattle got plenty of them, and parts of Idaho are starting to be transformed as well.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with them if they adapt to local sensibilities. On the other hand, if they keep up their Left Coast peculiarities, expect things to be run their way, and bloc vote for goofy liberal politicians, then they need to get a clue. Specifically, they need to figure out that it was the goofy liberal policies that created the intolerable conditions making them want to leave in the first place.
How does it roll for gringos who venture south of the border? We’ve lately had a firsthand perspective on what Mexicans think of American expatriates. Interestingly, the author works for the Los Angeles Times. His recent sermon has the evocative title of “The new generation of smug American expats in Mexico needs to face the truth.” It sounds like a doozy already! The audience sure thought so. The readers in the comments section were especially scathing. The exception was some liberal weenie who acts as a self-appointed ideological goalie, rebuffing just about every critical remark, usually with sourcefag/hatchling tactics. Some people have a lot of free time on their hands.
According to the journalist’s bio, “He’s the child of two Mexican immigrants, one of whom came to this country in the trunk of a Chevy.” Can the irony get any more delicious? He’s an interesting character, an American citizen whose heart seems to be in Mexico as well as an Angelino lambasting Californians. He sounds like a nationalist when opposing Americans colonizing Mexico, and a globalist when defending Mexicans colonizing the United States. (Is this guy an “early lifer” by any chance, whose ancestors evaded the Spanish Inquisition? Maybe he should begin articles like these with “Dear fellow Californian people . . .”) More seriously, the Leftist double standards are as moldy as usual, though there are points where it’s hard to disagree much.
The story opens with the author remembering an incident from 22 years ago. He was with his father, visiting his ancestral village located in Zacatecas. (This is a fairly sparsely populated state mostly characterized by arid highlands. It’s distant from Mexico’s heartland to the southeast, and actually is somewhat closer to the Texas border than it is to the Urheimat once called Anahuac.) The tiny pueblo was now nearly empty, depopulated from migration. Then, most unexpectedly, an American rolled up in a pickup truck, drove past empty houses, and stopped at the only store:
There, I stood alongside my dad and a group of older men — what was left of Jomulquillo’s population since nearly everyone else had left for East Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley decades earlier.
We eyed the man who slowly emerged from the pickup — middle-aged, white, wearing sunglasses, a polo shirt, jeans and a smile. He asked in broken Spanish to no one in particular whether there were any houses for sale. Everyone was so bewildered at the sight of a gabacho in a tiny hamlet up in the mountains of central Mexico that we stayed silent for a bit.
Then came a chorus of polite, but firm “No.”
Gabacho? That’s a new one on me. I looked it up, and curiously, it ordinarily means something like “French frog.” Comment? Mais nous ne sommes pas les grenouilles.
The author switched the conversation to English and asked what brought him all the way out there:
“I want to move here,” said the man, who never gave his name. “It’s too expensive back home.”
Unprompted, he went on to complain about liberalism, about how the U.S. was a failed country, and how he wanted to spend his retirement in peace.
I’ll add that this would’ve been around 2000, at the end of the duumvirate of Cupcake and her sidekick Chubby Bubba. Granted, the Clintons were loose cannons on deck, to say the least. Still, their régime looks pretty rosy in retrospect compared with today’s globalist dumpster fire nominally led by an illegitimate figurehead with obvious advancing senility who literally takes orders from the Easter Bunny. Conditions back then hardly warranted even thinking about leaving, and I’m against chickening out even now, but maybe the wayfaring American had a pretty good idea of which way the winds were blowing!
The author remembers the event with indignation. Why, imagine, the very nerve even to consider becoming their neighbor. . . ¡Que descaro!
The man got back into his truck and rumbled off. Didn’t even say gracias.
Although the encounter happened 22 years ago, I can remember that Ugly American like it happened yesterday in my front yard.
Any time even my own friends talk about relocating to a foreign country because the U.S. is just too much, the image of that guy’s smug countenance and his expectation that a dying town would welcome him always pops into my mind.
In my opinion, the author is being pretty harsh. First of all, the American began by doing his best to speak Spanish rather than expecting the locals to know English, or attempting to get by on gestures and dumb looks. He got out of the truck smiling, plausibly just trying to be polite, though it was remembered as a “smug countenance.” It seems to me entirely plausible that he had every intention of trying to fit into the local culture. Lastly, he inquired directly to the remaining villagers about joining their little community. Meanwhile, for the members of white countries inundated with tens of millions of non-white migrants, we were never asked.
Also, if he actually had moved there, someone would’ve turned a nice profit in a real estate market that otherwise was deader than Elvis. Over the years he would’ve spent plenty of his retirement funds at the village’s only store. That could’ve become a lifeline for the barely remaining local economy. Again, the place was well on its way to becoming a ghost town, because everyone except a few old people had bugged out for the US.
Even so, they blew him off. So diversity is no bueno, huh? Selling one of the obviously empty houses to a foreigner who talks funny was unthinkable. Apparently an American would-be retiree was too much vibrancy and cultural enrichment for them. I’ll partially concur with our indignant journalist: the guy should’ve said thanks . . . for nothing.
Then the article discusses how the author routinely discourages his friends from bugging out. He terms it “this most American of religions,” indeed an interesting figure of speech. Much like I also noted in the beginning, he finds it endemic to both liberals and conservatives.
The Los Angeles Times declares that Californians are an international nuisance
The writer then has a lot more to say about ugly Americans, and Californians in particular. A tirade follows about expatriates in Mexico City and Portugal, “so-called snowbirds” in San Miguel de Allende and Zihuatanejo, making them resemble “south-of-the-border suburbs of Leisure World” (these are some very nice places, I’ll add; they’d be fine examples for the rest of Mexico to copy), and half of San Diego’s middle class settling in Rosarito or Ensenada. He groups these aforementioned pests infesting the planet as California quitters, which he defines as “privileged people who want all of the easy and none of the hard and decamp for what they think is the better life at the slightest hint of inconvenience.”
For those who want further clarification, he wrote an entire article about these “California quitters.” On that note, for all of the locations named above that were invaded by ugly Americans and especially Californicators, he hyperlinked articles that he or his co-workers wrote. (With all this trash talk about natives of the Golden State, it sure seems that the Los Angeles Times likes waving the middle finger at their readership!) Amidst the tirade, there’s this:
In both places, natives have loudly complained that these new Americans are pricing them out of their homes and not bothering to learn local mores and traditions.
Outsiders refuse to fit in, and eventually displace the people who belong there? Golly, why does that kind of thing seem so familiar? It turns out that the beaners don’t appreciate maladaptive assimilation or being elbowed out of their turf any more than we do. At least displacement by gentrification is better than displacement by plummeting property values, dysfunctional schools, truculence, street crime, and all the other wonderful stuff that goes along with urban blight. It’s better to be invaded by urban elves than urban orcs.
Other than that, the author got offended by someone saying Mexico City resembles a friendlier and cleaner version of Brooklyn. (Oh, the humanity!) He also complained about hipsters infesting Mexico City. At last we find some common ground. Maybe a good place to resettle the hipsters is the bottom of the ocean?
Yanqui go home!
Lastly, he makes comparisons between immigrants and expatriates. The basic distinction, as he puts it, is the following:
Expats have the financial capital to chase the good life. Immigrants never can. Expats know that if they fail, the cushion of their home country will break the fall; immigrants know there’s no turning back so must plunge ahead.
Expats can move whenever and wherever they want. Immigrants can’t. Expats connect to the countries they live in in the most superficial ways and add little to it; immigrants become part of their new homelands and fundamentally alter its course.
Expats extract; Immigrants improve.
Much special pleading along those lines follows. Au contraire, mon frère. Perhaps I should let this stand by itself as a sterling example of liberal doubletalk, but I just can’t leave well enough alone. I’m therefore going to spell out what’s the matter with that, even though it should be self-evident. Where to begin?
First of all, the bourgeois expatriates have their own money, either through savings or remote work. Thus, they aren’t hard luck cases who are going to suck on the welfare tit when they arrive — not that the social safety net is typically much to write home about in Third World countries. Instead, they spend their dirty gringo money, which starts circulating in the local economy. That’s not extracting; that’s contributing. One can observe a similar dynamic at work in Florida, which would be a backwater state known mostly for orchards and fishing if it weren’t for tourism and retirement communities. Rather than crushing Florida’s economy, these things boost it.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of immigrants in California (and elsewhere in the US) who actually do siphon off public resources if they fall on hard times. Then there are those, especially the illegals, who work under the table and dodge taxes while their nominally non-existent incomes qualify them for the full meal deal of welfare bennies. The strain on social services, disproportionately consumed by beaners, is one of the reasons California is billions in debt with no end in sight, despite having the country’s highest income and sales taxes. For these wealth transfer programs, the burden falls the hardest on the middle class, which is also being squeezed by exorbitant housing prices. The “both halves against the middle” dynamic is one of the things making them want to leave the state.
As for American expatriates who can’t hack it in their new abodes, can they rely on “the cushion of their home country,” as the article asserts? It’s not too clear what the author specifically meant by that. Did he mean to suggest that getting oneself financially reestablished is a breeze for Americans? (If so, has he noticed the massive homeless population over there in Los Angeles?) Maybe he intended to keep the phrase vague. If he was being specific, I’m unaware of any federal program for American expatriates who go broke abroad, bringing them home and providing for their upkeep until they’re self-sufficient. If there is such an agency, it sounds like a fine one for Mexico to copy.
Moreover, most immigrants to the US these days did not have to bug out of their home countries because of unjust political trouble, religious persecution, or some other problem which makes returning impossible. (Even most of the “refugees” who have flooded into Europe lately aren’t escaping war, but rather are grifters who came for the welfare bennies, lax policing, and so forth — though all that’s another story.) No turning back? If they were capable of coming here, then they are capable of leaving, too.
Thus, most immigrants come for economic reasons, or to live in an orderly society which they were incapable of creating themselves. This is certainly so for beaners, who aren’t suffering from war, despotism, or persecution. Simply put, the grass is greener here. Rather paradoxically, the grass may be greener abroad for those being squeezed out of the middle class.
Thus, if it’s okay for Mexicans to go to California for more favorable wages in their unskilled labor niches, then what’s the matter with bourgeois Californians going in the opposite direction because their salaries aren’t keeping up with skyrocketing costs of living? For those who work but still can’t afford a small apartment, are they supposed to embrace homelessness? That actually isn’t too unusual in San Francisco. It’s therefore a mischaracterization to say that expatriates bug out “at the slightest hint of inconvenience.” Having to live on streets bespeckled with poop and used syringes despite having gainful employment is a bit more than a mild annoyance. Finally, if Americans are guilty of forming ethnic enclaves abroad and failing to assimilate suitably, let’s just say that we’re hardly the only ones.
Either the author is being remarkably unobservant about conditions in his home state, which would be hardly the best qualification for a journalist, or he is remarkably two-faced, which for a journalist is a trait as common as breathing. Regardless, despite setting the record straight about all this liberal special pleading, I’ll concur that Americans shouldn’t move to Mexico. That’s not where we belong. I disagree with Generalplan Ostrich.
If all this is disagreeable to our friends south of the border tas well, then I have an idea. I propose a peaceful and orderly transfer of population: White Americans will go back to the US, and Mexicans (including Mexican-Americans) will return to Mexico. Then, henceforth we’ll stay out of their territory and they will stay out of ours. After that, nobody has to worry about encroachment. Do we have a deal?
Boia chi molla!
In earlier times, the idea of emigrating abroad gained some popularity in the Manosphere. My conscience is clean, however, as I never encouraged this. Instead, I went against the grain and subtly discouraged it. I expanded on this in Deplorable Diatribes. Among other points:
Further, the grass isn’t always greener on the other side. Every society has its good points and its bad points. Also, a country now a safe haven from leftist nonsense might change later on. [Return of Kings] had some articles with personal observations about how societies in Eastern Europe have become more pozzed out over the years. At this rate, there won’t be many appealing countries left where those who have the means and motivation can escape. Clown World is catching up, and it only takes a little imagination to see what the future might look like elsewhere. Again, God hasn’t been making any new continents in a while. It’s time to quit running.
Also, it’s time to rethink this. Villagers fleeing from a marauding horde were acting rationally. Leaving a neighborhood recently plagued by street crime is understandable, though organizing your neighbors and raising holy hell about the Section 8 housing project moving in might’ve avoided trouble. Quite fortunately, blue-haired feminists, trannies, and sociology professors aren’t so fearsome. My solution is different. Why not fix the countries we already have?
Running away isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Always retreating means never advancing. It’s time to change strategy. I’ll certainly agree that society is in a colossal mess and spiraling out of control. Still, sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Having It All: America Reaps the Benefits of Feminism
Bad Cop! No Baklava!
The Tinkling Cherub of Mississippi
Jon Stewart’s Irresistible: An Election in Flyover Country
It’s Time to Wind Down the Empire of Nothing
Get Ready for Gender Tootsie Roll Pops
The Relentless Persistence of Stalinism
A Brief Overview of Politically-Weaponized Buzzwords