Prior to the more open immigration policy adopted by Canada in 1967 the majority of Canadians were against further immigration; especially from Asia. Similar attitudes prevailed in Australia, the United States and many other Western countries. Supposedly these are all democracies and the politicians are meant to bend to the will of the people, however, when it comes to immigration and multiculturalism in the post-60s era the ruling classes have shown they could care less what the people think. The cult of immigration ensures that what the natives actually think is of no consequence.
And there are many ways for the cultists to ensure that people will – even if grudgingly – come to accept mass migration and multiculturalism. The most effective way is guilt. Guilt people into acceptance by throwing around much over used terms like “racist” and “anti-Semite.” I briefly touched on this in my last article when discussing IQ. I noted how those who have studied it (like Richwine and Watson) are often attacked for doing so. The same occurs when mentioning basic cultural or religious differences as well.
Everywhere in the West we see the use of sentimentalism and emotional blackmail is used alongside the guilt-tripping and name calling in order to keep the cult alive. A major faux reason that is often used is that of enrichment. Self-hating Westerners like Will Kymlicka use this term as a way of tricking people into accepting mass migration and multiculturalism. Diversity is another watchword but again it is horribly misused. If the cultists truly wanted diversity then they would not call for the destruction of the West, they would not be so gung-ho about brownwashing. As Ricardo Duchesne notes, “There is no precedent for this dramatic change in the ethnic demographics of Vancouver and the Western world generally, other than past instances of conquest and genocide.”
In the case of countries like Canada where Whites are not the only indigenes the cultists try and shame the White majority by calling them all “settlers” and “colonialists.” Tales of endless genocide and exploitation are fed to the populace at large. Of course it makes no sense that countries like Canada that were founded by Whites for Whites and have throughout their history been overwhelmingly White should open their borders and adopt multiculturalism because the non-White indigenes were marginalised and died en masse from Old World diseases. But the argument goes that since Europeans came later they thus have no right to dictate who else can come. For the moment it is being used to great effect. However, the cult has grown to such an extent that we now have people openly advocating for the replacement of the European populations of these countries. For example, in Australia journalist Greg Sheridan gleefully calls for his country to become Asian. In fact, he calls the possible Asian supplanting of the Anglo-Celts a “benign cultural genocide.” Australian politicians Bill Hayden and John Gorton have similarly discussed the “inevitable” demographic changes and in the case of Gorton, again, he supports it. Of course supporting mass immigration to Australia and America does not in any way further the causes of non-White indigenes; who apparently the pro-immigration lobby care very deeply for.
In Europe, however, Whites are the only indigenous people. Whatever the merits of the “Whites are just settlers” argument may be for America and Australia it has absolutely none for Europe. And yet we are seeing that the cultists push just as hard for an open Europe as they do open America/Australia. Recently it transpired that British students are to be taught that their homeland is not in fact theirs and that Africans were there first. This is yet another example of what politicians, journalists and other media personalities and educators do to distort history. Saying Africans were in Britain before the English ignores some major facts like (i) The English are the descendants of the original inhabitants of Britain (ii) those Africans that did settle in Britain during the Roman occupation were few in number and clearly had no impact on cultural developments or population and (iii) they were not black sub-Saharans but Caucasoid Maghrebis, and I only bring that up because no doubt an underlying intention here is to get people to confuse African with Black. Sub-Saharans are the left’s favourite minority group to use in such situations. Thankfully there is some push back here from historians but the fact that such a thought could be entertained is evidence of how entrenched this cult of immigration is. The re-writing of history is completely justifiable to these people.
And of course we can see in the reactions from the universities, media and political establishment towards nationalist parties and those who dare to voice any sort of concern over migration, and particularly Islamic migration, just how much more the cult of immigration is than indigenous rights. Take for example Merkel saying in her New Year’s address that those who were against “refugees” were cold hearted and simply wanted to exclude people. Or how Walter Lübcke, district president of Lohfelden, Germany told indigenous Germans that if they do not like the influx of migrants than they can leave. The very act of calling all the invaders refugees when most are actually economic migrants and many of the refugees are still undesirable as they come from rape cultures, and are just so different racially, ethnically, religiously, culturally, etc. that it makes no sense to allow them in en masse.
It is especially troubling to see so much support being given towards illegal migration. Legal migration in the current form at least, has a great many problems, but at least there is a semblance of respect for borders and national sovereignty. All of this flies completely out the window when illegal migration is treated as being in any way legitimate. Any sense of nationality is eroded and with a loss of nationality or even deracination we get the loss of culture. And as Jason Richwine and Robert Rector point out, its hell on the economy,
In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar… Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits.
And as they point out most also have little education with many not even having high school degrees. These groups receive more benefits than they do pay taxes. Amnesty won’t change this. Indeed, the children won’t be any better, “the children of unlawful immigrants, on average, will become net tax consumers rather than net taxpayers: The government benefits they receive will exceed the taxes they pay.” Intergenerational burdens are created by giving illegals amnesty. It also gives greater incentive for people to immigrate illegally. Tough border policies do actually work at keeping the hordes at bay.
But then again why wouldn’t someone on the political left – as a great many cultists are – be in favour of mass migration, including that of the illegal variety? It helps their parties out, it is the Brecht’s Solution, that is it is the electing of an entirely new voter base who are guaranteed to support leftist programmes. It was in Democratic Governor of California Jerry Brown’s interests to sign into a law a bill that allows illegals to vote in his state just as it was in the interests of liberal and social democrat parties throughout the West to advocate for more open borders.
We in the West have had our culture subverted. It has been hacked and we are now forced to believe that open borders will help everyone, that immigration is some sacred right. If you are anti-immigration, even slightly, then you must be a hateful person or you are just plain stupid. As Ricardo Duchesne states,
Don’t believe these deceivers. There is nothing in our concept of individual rights that implies that immigrants have a “right” to come to our lands. There is nothing in our concept of democracy that implies that our nations must be populated by majorities of immigrants, There is nothing in the history of our nations that calls for them to be defined as “immigrant nations”. All our nations were created by European pioneers, settlers, and nation builders, which is why all their institutions and modern infrastructures are European in character.
The cult of immigration is part of a larger cult infecting the West: the cult of egalitarianism. All are claimed to be equal and if that is the case then there are no differences in culture, in religion, or in race. If one is able to fall for that then one can easily fall for the myth that immigration is an absolute necessity. It is imperative that these myths are discarded but that might be difficult given how many people make their money off of immigration or of promoting “diversity” and multiculturalism.