0 comment Saturday, May 24, 2014 | admin
I blog a great deal here about the issue of immigration and the transformation of our country. And over the last few years I have given a lot of thought to just why this process is taking place not only here, but all over the Western world. The fact that it is happening, not just because poor people are looking for a 'better life' as popular wisdom has it, but that they are being encouraged and given every incentive by the governments and the elites of the West is the real story behind the story.
A few decades ago, I don't think any of us would have imagined this happening, and on such a scale. And for us to imagine that our government, seemingly, would be orchestrating and encouraging the transformation of our country would really have been incredible.
So what is the story behind this mass immigration? Why is it being deliberately introduced in every Western country? Why are our elected officials, who supposedly represent us, apparently siding with the illegal immigrants, and why are they determined to aid and abet the invasion?
The most obvious motive, which is the one most readily acknowledged and cited, is the economic motive. Business, big and small, wants plentiful cheap labor. A surplus of cheap labor will push wages down and keep them down; supply and demand. Businesses also want new consumers, new markets. Bringing the Third World here to join in our consumer culture is an easy way to expand markets, and to guarantee increasing demands for more 'stuff' and more services by American businesses.
Another obvious explanation for importing millions of immigrants is to gain new voters. Both political parties are courting the Hispanic vote in particular, and we are seeing a push for non-citizens to be allowed to vote, as they already can, in certain localities and certain elections. The Republican Party in particular has been very openly courting the 'Hispanic vote', and there is an implication that if they have to throw their base overboard in pursuit of the Hispanic vote, they are willing to do so.
In the past, I posted a link to a piece by Fredo Arias-King, who was an aide to Mexican ex-President Vicente Fox. In that piece, called 'Immigration and Usurpation', he described the attitudes of many of our politicians, congressmen and Senators, and spoke of how they gleefully high-fived him at the prospect of a Hispanic majority. They spoke of their disdain for their 'redneck' constituents, and longed to have a more, shall we say, agreeable constituency.
While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a "high five" when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them "rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself.''
The impression given was that Americans are too fractious and too demanding a people, and our politicians would prefer a subservient, malleable population with whom they might play the role of the grandee. The arrogance displayed by our Senate in their recent amnesty push has corroborated what Arias-King wrote in his article.
So there are decidedly political motives for our elected officials to choose to change the demographics of America, and the same process is probably at work in Europe, as the native people of those countries are seeing their countries drastically changed against their will, too.
In addition to the obvious economic and political motives for mass immigration, Ted Kennedy the other day also alluded to immigration as a 'civil rights issue.' I found this very telling; it indicates that mass immigration is seen as a social project, as something that is being done to us by our moral betters in high places, and it is being done ostensibly for our good, at least as the powers that be see it.
So there is a social purpose for mass immigration. The idea seems to be to blend people together, and by enforced association to smooth out the conflicts and differences between groups. Familiarity is believed to be a way to decrease 'prejudice' and division; our politically correct 'betters' constantly say that 'xenophobia' comes from 'ignorance and fear.' So they think familiarity will dissolve any division. And to some extent this strategy has worked: it is amazing how quickly people tend to accept the presence of potentially hostile peoples among us. Despite the fact that terror cells are known to have operated in our country, and are still operating presumably, most Americans have come to believe that the 'majority of Moslems are moderate, and that they are just like us deep down'.
So a great percentage of Americans is willing to believe that there are no enemy nations or peoples; the problem can only be a few extremists and troublemakers. Anybody who is not trying to kill us outright is accepted as friendly. This is a shortsighted view, and it will come back and bite us again in the future. Remember that many people thought Mohammed Atta and his cohorts were 'nice, quiet people.' The same thing is repeated about every terror suspect when he is arrested: he was a nice, quiet, well-mannered neighbor. And people are willing to take the chance of trusting everybody who is not openly and obviously hostile. So the effort to disarm us psychologically by placing so much 'diversity' in our midst has been successful, from the elites' point of view. Never mind that it leaves us as vulnerable as sheep with wolves in the fold, the idea is that if a few of us sheep are lost to the wolves, then c'est la vie. It's the price we must pay for that wonderful diversity and trust.
Nevertheless, it is also true of familiarity that it can sometimes breed contempt, as the old proverb says. Many of us, myself included, only learned wary attitudes by having negative experiences. I started out as one of those seekers of the strange and exotic; I sought out 'multicultural' experiences and only thereby did I learn to appreciate my own culture and my own people much more keenly. For some people, 'diversity' acts as an inoculation against xenophilia. So it can backfire on the elites; misunderstanding, division, and open conflict can result. It does not always result in a multicultural love-in.
Some might say that the social motivations behind the multiculturalization experiment are really subsidiary to the economic motives. Blending us all together will supposedly reduce the differences between the haves and the have-nots, and theoretically reduce antagonism and envy based on economic status. It will bring about 'social justice' and the levelling which the leftist do-gooders want, and it satisfies business interests because the 'have-nots' will then be able to participate in the culture of consumerism and debt.
But the other social 'benefit', at least as seen by the social justice zealots is that the presence of so many competing and exotic cultures will neutralize the American majority culture, and ultimately submerge it if not destroy it. Why is this desirable? Because majority American culture is too 'exclusive'. American history has to be revised and rewritten to downplay that exclusiveness. The idea is to play up the role of minority peoples and cultures, and to exaggerate their contributions, even falsifying them, so as to exalt their importance. Dishonest? Sure, but it's all in a good cause, so it is justified to those who are doing this revising. Unfortunately, the American people, the majority Americans, get the short end of the stick. Our ancestors have to be symbolically hauled before the PC tribunals and tried for their social 'crimes.' We see this agenda at work with the constant moralizing about the Founding Fathers and their slave-owning ways. We see the names of schools and localities changed to expunge the disgraced names of the old Americans. Thomas Jefferson's name has been removed from any number of schools, and usually some politically correct hero or heroine has replaced Jefferson as honoree.
The idea of group guilt, or generational guilt, is not an idea that is compatible with American ideals. It seems intended to further demoralize and weaken the majority, and to discredit the historic nation called America, to prove America unworthy of respect -- and maybe unworthy of continuing as a nation. Likewise, America is always called guilty of 'stealing' this land from the Indians, and of committing 'genocide' against the Indians. This accusation is always resorted to by the open borders zealots: "Your ancestors stole this country and committed genocide. What right do you have to keep anybody out?" The illogic of condemning modern-day Americans for wanting to keep this country while defending the Indians who used violence against the colonists is noticeable, but liberals never see the contradiction. But no matter; they succeed in silencing a lot of immigration restrictionists by their accusations, so the tactic works for them most of the time.
All these historical issues like the 'theft' of land from the Indians, the evils of slavery, the need for reparations for slave descendants -- they all serve to demoralize and divide majority America. And the presence of the illegals divides America, with some of us opposing illegal immigration and some pleading for leniency and sympathy and 'fairness' toward the invaders. Americans are a too-easily divided people these days; we no longer have that feeling of solidarity and kinship that was common in past eras.
With my Southern roots, I am very aware that this country has been sorely divided in the past, and that the North/South divide is still not healed. But the fact is, America at most times in its history was less fractured than it is now. For a brief time after 9/11, it looked as though Americans might become more unified, but the opposite has happened.
It is meant to be this way; I believe that the old maxim of divide and rule is at work.
This brings me to another possible goal of the diversifiers: the need for a stronger, authoritarian government to manage the inevitable conflicts which might grow into open clashes. We've seen the violence happening in Europe, especially France, with the Moslem riots, and the response is never to crack down on the source of the trouble, but on everybody in general. The result has not been harsher policies toward Moslems, or a curtailing of Moslem immigration, but a series of draconian laws against 'hate', and more oppressive measures toward the public at large. In our country, instead of deportations and closed borders after 9/11 to minimize the risks of a repeat, we got the Patriot Act, and various intrusive 'security' and surveillance measures directed against all of us.
So it may be that the breaking-up of old Western nations and the creation of new 'diverse' nations in their stead is part of a drive to more authoritarian government. No doubt there are many intertwined motives at work, but we can be sure it is not just a simple matter of 'poor people seeking a better life.' That may be part of it, but our rulers are manipulating immigration for their own self-serving motives, and our interests are the least of their concerns.
A few decades ago, I don't think any of us would have imagined this happening, and on such a scale. And for us to imagine that our government, seemingly, would be orchestrating and encouraging the transformation of our country would really have been incredible.
So what is the story behind this mass immigration? Why is it being deliberately introduced in every Western country? Why are our elected officials, who supposedly represent us, apparently siding with the illegal immigrants, and why are they determined to aid and abet the invasion?
The most obvious motive, which is the one most readily acknowledged and cited, is the economic motive. Business, big and small, wants plentiful cheap labor. A surplus of cheap labor will push wages down and keep them down; supply and demand. Businesses also want new consumers, new markets. Bringing the Third World here to join in our consumer culture is an easy way to expand markets, and to guarantee increasing demands for more 'stuff' and more services by American businesses.
Another obvious explanation for importing millions of immigrants is to gain new voters. Both political parties are courting the Hispanic vote in particular, and we are seeing a push for non-citizens to be allowed to vote, as they already can, in certain localities and certain elections. The Republican Party in particular has been very openly courting the 'Hispanic vote', and there is an implication that if they have to throw their base overboard in pursuit of the Hispanic vote, they are willing to do so.
In the past, I posted a link to a piece by Fredo Arias-King, who was an aide to Mexican ex-President Vicente Fox. In that piece, called 'Immigration and Usurpation', he described the attitudes of many of our politicians, congressmen and Senators, and spoke of how they gleefully high-fived him at the prospect of a Hispanic majority. They spoke of their disdain for their 'redneck' constituents, and longed to have a more, shall we say, agreeable constituency.
While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a "high five" when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them "rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself.''
The impression given was that Americans are too fractious and too demanding a people, and our politicians would prefer a subservient, malleable population with whom they might play the role of the grandee. The arrogance displayed by our Senate in their recent amnesty push has corroborated what Arias-King wrote in his article.
So there are decidedly political motives for our elected officials to choose to change the demographics of America, and the same process is probably at work in Europe, as the native people of those countries are seeing their countries drastically changed against their will, too.
In addition to the obvious economic and political motives for mass immigration, Ted Kennedy the other day also alluded to immigration as a 'civil rights issue.' I found this very telling; it indicates that mass immigration is seen as a social project, as something that is being done to us by our moral betters in high places, and it is being done ostensibly for our good, at least as the powers that be see it.
So there is a social purpose for mass immigration. The idea seems to be to blend people together, and by enforced association to smooth out the conflicts and differences between groups. Familiarity is believed to be a way to decrease 'prejudice' and division; our politically correct 'betters' constantly say that 'xenophobia' comes from 'ignorance and fear.' So they think familiarity will dissolve any division. And to some extent this strategy has worked: it is amazing how quickly people tend to accept the presence of potentially hostile peoples among us. Despite the fact that terror cells are known to have operated in our country, and are still operating presumably, most Americans have come to believe that the 'majority of Moslems are moderate, and that they are just like us deep down'.
So a great percentage of Americans is willing to believe that there are no enemy nations or peoples; the problem can only be a few extremists and troublemakers. Anybody who is not trying to kill us outright is accepted as friendly. This is a shortsighted view, and it will come back and bite us again in the future. Remember that many people thought Mohammed Atta and his cohorts were 'nice, quiet people.' The same thing is repeated about every terror suspect when he is arrested: he was a nice, quiet, well-mannered neighbor. And people are willing to take the chance of trusting everybody who is not openly and obviously hostile. So the effort to disarm us psychologically by placing so much 'diversity' in our midst has been successful, from the elites' point of view. Never mind that it leaves us as vulnerable as sheep with wolves in the fold, the idea is that if a few of us sheep are lost to the wolves, then c'est la vie. It's the price we must pay for that wonderful diversity and trust.
Nevertheless, it is also true of familiarity that it can sometimes breed contempt, as the old proverb says. Many of us, myself included, only learned wary attitudes by having negative experiences. I started out as one of those seekers of the strange and exotic; I sought out 'multicultural' experiences and only thereby did I learn to appreciate my own culture and my own people much more keenly. For some people, 'diversity' acts as an inoculation against xenophilia. So it can backfire on the elites; misunderstanding, division, and open conflict can result. It does not always result in a multicultural love-in.
Some might say that the social motivations behind the multiculturalization experiment are really subsidiary to the economic motives. Blending us all together will supposedly reduce the differences between the haves and the have-nots, and theoretically reduce antagonism and envy based on economic status. It will bring about 'social justice' and the levelling which the leftist do-gooders want, and it satisfies business interests because the 'have-nots' will then be able to participate in the culture of consumerism and debt.
But the other social 'benefit', at least as seen by the social justice zealots is that the presence of so many competing and exotic cultures will neutralize the American majority culture, and ultimately submerge it if not destroy it. Why is this desirable? Because majority American culture is too 'exclusive'. American history has to be revised and rewritten to downplay that exclusiveness. The idea is to play up the role of minority peoples and cultures, and to exaggerate their contributions, even falsifying them, so as to exalt their importance. Dishonest? Sure, but it's all in a good cause, so it is justified to those who are doing this revising. Unfortunately, the American people, the majority Americans, get the short end of the stick. Our ancestors have to be symbolically hauled before the PC tribunals and tried for their social 'crimes.' We see this agenda at work with the constant moralizing about the Founding Fathers and their slave-owning ways. We see the names of schools and localities changed to expunge the disgraced names of the old Americans. Thomas Jefferson's name has been removed from any number of schools, and usually some politically correct hero or heroine has replaced Jefferson as honoree.
The idea of group guilt, or generational guilt, is not an idea that is compatible with American ideals. It seems intended to further demoralize and weaken the majority, and to discredit the historic nation called America, to prove America unworthy of respect -- and maybe unworthy of continuing as a nation. Likewise, America is always called guilty of 'stealing' this land from the Indians, and of committing 'genocide' against the Indians. This accusation is always resorted to by the open borders zealots: "Your ancestors stole this country and committed genocide. What right do you have to keep anybody out?" The illogic of condemning modern-day Americans for wanting to keep this country while defending the Indians who used violence against the colonists is noticeable, but liberals never see the contradiction. But no matter; they succeed in silencing a lot of immigration restrictionists by their accusations, so the tactic works for them most of the time.
All these historical issues like the 'theft' of land from the Indians, the evils of slavery, the need for reparations for slave descendants -- they all serve to demoralize and divide majority America. And the presence of the illegals divides America, with some of us opposing illegal immigration and some pleading for leniency and sympathy and 'fairness' toward the invaders. Americans are a too-easily divided people these days; we no longer have that feeling of solidarity and kinship that was common in past eras.
With my Southern roots, I am very aware that this country has been sorely divided in the past, and that the North/South divide is still not healed. But the fact is, America at most times in its history was less fractured than it is now. For a brief time after 9/11, it looked as though Americans might become more unified, but the opposite has happened.
It is meant to be this way; I believe that the old maxim of divide and rule is at work.
This brings me to another possible goal of the diversifiers: the need for a stronger, authoritarian government to manage the inevitable conflicts which might grow into open clashes. We've seen the violence happening in Europe, especially France, with the Moslem riots, and the response is never to crack down on the source of the trouble, but on everybody in general. The result has not been harsher policies toward Moslems, or a curtailing of Moslem immigration, but a series of draconian laws against 'hate', and more oppressive measures toward the public at large. In our country, instead of deportations and closed borders after 9/11 to minimize the risks of a repeat, we got the Patriot Act, and various intrusive 'security' and surveillance measures directed against all of us.
So it may be that the breaking-up of old Western nations and the creation of new 'diverse' nations in their stead is part of a drive to more authoritarian government. No doubt there are many intertwined motives at work, but we can be sure it is not just a simple matter of 'poor people seeking a better life.' That may be part of it, but our rulers are manipulating immigration for their own self-serving motives, and our interests are the least of their concerns.
Labels: Demographics, Immigration, Liberalism, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness