There has been a significant common feature of recent elections both here and in Europe. This is the trend of educated and affluent suburban whites toward leftist candidates. In Germany the Green Party has surged into second place from the outer fringes in that country’s most wealthy areas. Similarly, the substantial Republican erosion in America’s transient white bubble-burbs was a key contributor to the Democrats’ large outperformance in the mid-terms. Of course we may never know how truly large that performance was, as votes will presumably continue being counted until the Dems win whatever number of seats their sponsors consider sufficient.
Regardless of media-approved irregularities, on both sides of the Atlantic the same cohort seems to be smugly sliding a knife into their children’s necks. It’s worth contemplating the psychology of why.
Most readers are likely familiar with the wealth effect. This financial theory posits that bull market participants will spend more lavishly as a result of their paper securities gains, even if their tangible financial condition or income haven’t actually improved. It is, in other words, the psychological phenomenon of mirage optimism.
Consider an analogous wealth mirage. Imagine you inherited a vast, opulent, and meticulously maintained family estate that had been passed down generations. It is your inheritance and you are its steward. You perform required maintenance and add your own meager contributions as time and talent allow. The title of this estate is in your name; you can legally do with it as you choose. Though, perhaps only dimly, you recognize the moral responsibility of maintenance to both your parents and children. For you would have had nothing without the sacrifice and sweat from the former, and the latter will have nothing without yours.
That may be seen by some as a sacred duty, though by others a tedious chose. For instead of an economic life of conscientious upkeep, maintaining security, and small marginal contributions, imagine the lifestyle alternative if one were to feast off the estate’s equity.
What if rooms were sold off as condos to strangers? The pool area relinquished to the city in exchange for daily entrance fees? The adjacent fields and forests leased for mining rights? The estate name and remaining common areas converted for corporate retreats and recruiting? What would that feel like?
It would feel very wealthy, that’s what. Your bank account would be swollen; a Ferrari would gleam where your Camry used to slouch; and the day’s toughest decision would be picking out which Patek Philippe to put on. Suddenly you’ve never felt so optimistic. So here’s the question: are you actually richer or poorer now?
Well, you no longer own an estate passed down a thousand generations, but merely one unit on the property. You have plundered your children’s inheritance—I’m sure they’ll understand if you don’t tell them. And all of your wealth is now in depreciating trappings, rather than the most coveted and productive real estate in the history of the world. On the other hand, you do have a very nice watch.
So returning to whether you are richer or poorer after such a binge of divestitures, I am afraid the average man will answer that with energetic alacrity. He will smile smugly, show you his wrist, and tell you he just made the deal of the century. It is that psychic mirage from the wealth effect that seems, in my estimation, to be driving the leftward tilt of affluent suburban whites all across the Western condo they’re busily liquidating.
Those who operate businesses benefit from lower labor costs and more consumers. As I have asserted many times, it is this drive for perpetually increasing consumption that makes the appetite for migrants insatiable. Those who own houses benefit from appreciation. Those who buy goods benefit from lower prices. Those who work in corporations benefit from higher stock prices. And those who issue treasury bonds benefit from the world’s most secure employment, given the geometric public debt required to levitate a third world population into the clouds of a first world living standard.
The point I am making is that white suburbanites perceive tangible gains from monitizing their patrimony. They perceive these gains because they are real. What they less perceive is the equally real transfer of ownership that accompanies them. They now have cash but no title. One of these will be worth painfully less in the future; the other pleasantly much more.
But it’s difficult to convince a man he is actually impoverishing himself, family, and community when exquisite pieties are producing cold cash. Sometimes men are ultimately convinced by their old neighbors; sometimes by the new. Though eventually every man feels the stinging loss of home. You can set your watch to it.