Mark Steyn, Steve Sailer, and others have correctly identified that there is perhaps no more important issue facing us today than wholesale demographic upheaval. I am inclined to agree, though I also believe the “Big Three” of lethal threats to our way of life—the Left, immigration, and Islam—are all inextricably intertwined. You could certainly argue the Left is the greatest threat since their policies weaken the military and security apparatus of the state, import huge numbers of unassimilable immigrants, contribute to a volatile discourse, turn the inner cities into a wasteland, poison the culture, and force big government and burdensome taxes on hard-working, contributing members of society, and you’d have me convinced. Globalism and multi-culturalism are transforming the West beyond all recognition, and mass, undifferentiated immigration forms the tip of that spear. Islam simply capitalizes on the upheaval. Most of the problems the West faces radiate from the same rotten center of Leftist self-sabotaging policies and a culture that denigrates and seeks to undermine the very foundations on which it was built.
We’ve spilled a lot of ink, or, more accurately, punched a lot of keys, on this young website about immigration and its effects on the West, and for good reason. The majority of our issues can be traced to irresponsible immigration policies coinciding with a fractured and divisive public discourse and staunch adherence to multi-culturalism. A profound loss of cultural confidence, which gave birth to the multi-culti ethos, essentially holds that all cultures are created equal, and it is cultural imperialism for us in the West to assert our over-arching principles and values, and insist on immigrants assimilating given the fact that they are, indeed, coming to put down roots in our respective countries. This does not require the immigrant population renounce everything about their own unique cultural inheritance, but what it does require is agreement on the broad set of values (including jurisprudence) that define the country in question. Therein, however, lies the rub; we have increasingly lost sight of who exactly we are and what we stand for, as tribalism deepens and faith in our institutions crumbles.
Looking specifically at the American context, in the Federalist Papers Number Two, John Jay argues that it is the relative homogeneity of the American people that allows for the success of the kind of hybridized constitutional representative democracy and federal republic Jay and his compatriots espoused, and was ultimately implemented in the form of the newly-ratified Constitution in 1787 (the Bill of Rights followed four years later). Per Jay:
It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object.
Transformative immigration threatens the integrity of the republic because there can be no common consensus in a tribal landscape. The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 introduced significant caps and restrictions on numbers and countries of origin after a sustained period of mass immigration. The floodgates can only stay open for so long before the fabric of the country is irrevocably altered. I am very encouraged by the RAISE Act sponsored by Senators Cotton and Perdue and endorsed by President Trump, and though I believe it will be an uphill battle to get it passed due to all of the cucks in Congress, sustained advocacy for the bill will have us back on the road to a responsible immigration policy. This is an issue that’s been ignored by politicians for far too long, and kudos to President Trump and the true conservatives in Congress for dragging it into the public eye.
The RAISE Act would halve green card recipients, to half-a-million per year (which is still far too many), and introduce a hard cap on refugees at 50,000. It proposes to eliminate “chain migration”, with only a spouse and any minor children allowed to accompany the immigrant. The Act would also dispense with the ridiculous immigration visa diversity lottery, because we all know literally leaving the people you bring in to chance is a terrific way to secure the safety and prosperity of your country. We want to maximize the benefits of immigration while minimizing the risks. Unless you have a cultural consensus and strong cultural cohesion—which is very rare indeed—multi-ethnic states simply do not work. Diversity is not a strength, but it doesn’t have to be a weakness. What you can have is low-level immigration where people have time to adjust to their new surroundings and the odds of assimilation are far higher. This is not an anti-immigration screed, but a discussion of a sensible approach to immigration that benefits all parties involved.
What we need is to have people who are going to contribute and are actually invested in the future of our country. There are a number of different approaches you could take, and both myself and the rest of the Northern Dawn crew are generally in agreement about the categories and types of immigrants we’d like to see the country (and the West more broadly) accept, discussed in several previous articles, but there’s certainly some wiggle room. Besides, we should look at the RAISE Act as a positive step in the right direction, not necessarily the be-all end-all of immigration policy. Immigrant volume has ebbed and flowed over time, with the curtailing of immigration it becomes too voluminous and upsets the societal equilibrium.
Huge population movements cause unrest regardless of the context. In terms of the current horror show in Europe, the half of the continent that was content to let the other half live under the yoke of communism in perpetuity were it not for Thatcher and Reagan is trying to impose a new kind of authoritarianism on that population by forcing them to accept thousands of unwanted migrants by threat of economic sanctions and reprisals. These aren’t societies that have ever had to grapple with large-scale immigration, and the vast majority of the public is opposed to accepting the migrants, knowing full well that to do so would endanger the native population. When was the last time you heard about an Islamic terrorist attack in Bucharest or Bratislava? What was the last article you read about the rape epidemic in Estonia or Poland? By no rational metric can you argue that the current migrant policies being practiced by Western and Central Europe are beneficial to the populace in any way, though you could certainly argue the opposite.
It is certainly possible (and preferable) to have a sustainable, healthy homogenous population without the kind of in-breeding you see amongst the Pakistanis (who, by dint of numbers, should not have to resort to in-breeding if Estonia, which has half a percent of Pakistan’s population, doesn’t have to, understanding of course in this case it’s a “cultural thing”), provided your birth rates don’t fall too low. If they do, it’s obviously better than the alternative to have a fresh influx into the gene pool.
This is all pretty standard stuff, and yet somehow it’s become taboo to discuss. With millions of Danes, or Swiss, or Norwegians, if the population would simply reproduce at replacement level, there would be no need for any immigration. In many ways I admire what Japan is doing. Despite their demographic decline, they are remaining committed to a Japan for the Japanese and have not thought it necessary to import large numbers of immigrants who would compromise the integrity of Japanese culture. It wouldn’t be necessary for the West to bring in all of these immigrants, either, if it didn’t have the welfare Ponzi scheme to continue to fund.
A stable population that remains predominantly Danish, or Swiss, or Norwegian is all but statistically guaranteed to be low on all of the indicators that comprise the Fragile State Index, which ranks countries from least to most stable. Of the bottom twenty nations on the Fragile State Index (meaning the most stable), nineteen are European or were settled by and maintain a large majority of people of European ancestry. The other, Singapore, the former British colony that currently embraces the free market perhaps more than any other nation, is positively thriving. Japan and South Korea are also very low on the FSI, with scores comparable to Spain. In contrast, the top twenty nations on the Fragile State Index, in order, are as follows: South Sudan, Somalia, the Central African Republic, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Guinea, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Burundi, Pakistan, Eritrea, and Niger. Noticing anything?
One of the most frustrating aspects of transformative immigration policies, is that even if you oppose them, they will often still be imposed upon you from above. If things don’t change and soon, with the multi-cultural ideology sweeping the West, there will be nowhere you can go that won’t look like Brazil. In the interests of racial and ethnic harmony, stable populations tend to be racially and ethnically homogenous (certain ideologies notwithstanding). Immigration is not a right and by definition must be discriminatory.
Europeans deserve a homeland the same as everyone else. They don’t have to be totally homogeneous, though that would be ideal. The countries of Europe, and many others globally, are not pluralist societies. There is no “pure” nation as there has always been population movement, but we need to consider scale and scope. The rate of immigrant influx coupled with declining demographics is changing the face of the West, Europe in particular, at an astounding rate. With so many people pouring into the West, there simply hasn’t been time to assimilate, nor does the multi-culturalist set say that’s even necessary.
As previously stated, however, this is not necessarily meant to exclude non-whites by any means, as we can enhance the benefits of immigration and minimize the drawbacks by placing ability and assimilability at the top of the list, with race a general non-factor by keeping the influx limited. What tends to happen in multi-racial and multi-ethnic societies without cultural consensus and cohesion is that people resort to tribalism as they perceive themselves to all be fighting for a piece of the same pie, as opposed to working in tandem to create a stronger, more prosperous nation. Naturally my “loyalties” lie with my European ancestors, but what’s vital to note is that doesn’t have to come at the expense of others. In a tribal environment, however, we naturally gravitate to our own. In today’s climate, whites have been the one group that’s been denied the ability to advocate for their own interests, and in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, we saw whites vote as a racial bloc for the first time in American history. The rampant tribalism and identity politics in our society made this an inevitability, but if you’ve noticed, since Donald Trump took office and the economy has markedly improved, resulting in a general optimism about the direction of the country, this tribalism has diminished quite a bit, and the worm is starting to turn, with people no longer tolerating the Social Justice Warrior nonsense in many arenas. They’ve got their claws in quite deeply in certain segments of the population, but conservatives are once again having a voice in the dominant culture. There’s a long way to go, but American successes both at home and abroad are helping to diminish the in-fighting and ill-will between Americans on different sides of the ideological spectrum.
Whites should be “allowed” to have pride in their accomplishments the same as any other race. Asserting that you are proud of your identity is not racist, so when I advocate for whites or boast of our many achievements, it’s not even necessarily a counter-balance to the sheer amount of anti-white animus we’re assaulted with every day, it’s that, frankly, I see no reason to apologize for all of the great things my European ancestors did. Sure, there’s been plenty of the bad, but it’s been more than outweighed by the good. White societies have been the most tolerant and open societies in human history. The West and its allies comprise basically all of today’s free societies. Our history has been a long, winding road to equality, but we’re essentially there now. Bigotry is episodic, not systemic.
I loathe the idea of white supremacy, but I don’t find it unreasonable at all for white Europeans to have a majority or, even better, a totality of their own countries, nor do I believe that in order to atone for the sins of the past these nations must allow themselves to be annihilated. Even if you buy the colonialism-as-justification-for-extermination line, what has Sweden done to deserve destruction, other than give us ABBA and sell iron ore to the Nazis (the country provided shelter to the Norwegian Jews by the way)? If every country had to atone for the sins of the past, there’d be no one left on Earth, save the Amish.
The ramifications of a group ceding power, willingly or unwillingly can be dire indeed. The genocides in Zimbabwe and South Africa are proof positive of that. A politics of enmity simply will not work; as sure as the sun rises, it sows deep division and discord, and ultimately leads the entire country down the path to oblivion. Before large-scale Muslim immigration and creeping Islamization helped foster the conditions that resulted in the tragic murder of Theo Van Gogh in 2004, the Netherlands went four hundred years without a religiously-motivated killing. The Pilgrims who came to America famously left the Netherlands because it was too tolerant.
If a culture is strong and prosperous enough, it can absorb a more diverse base of immigrants. A society can afford to be “post-racial” or “post-ethnic” if and when the bitter dividing lines are buried by common goals and beliefs, and economic prosperity. Conceptually I’m fine with pluralism, but realistically, there’s yet to be a truly multi-ethnic enterprise that’s survived outside of the commonality-prosperity model without harsh totalitarian tendencies (see: Iraq, Syria, etc).
Returning to the American context, we may augment a European-descended majority with smaller groups that are nonetheless committed to the same values that the United States was founded on, and indeed we can enhance our population base by adding more brains and talent to the American milieu. At the very least, however, we must strive for cultural cohesion around a consensus on who we are as a nation by prioritizing people who share similar values and emphasize a strong work ethic, community, and general respect, hence why I am much more inclined to look favorably on East Asian and (select) Indian immigration—the ones who don’t shit in the street—despite the fact that they are obviously not European. In the case of India, there was extensive contact with the British state and educational apparatus that’s taken root and positively affected a segment of the population, and the trend in many East Asian groups toward hard work and maximizing their intellectual endowment, with very little in the way of criminal or anti-social behavior.
As Andrew Klavan has said, “At worst, we’re Deadpool, and at our best, we’re Captain America”. The United States is the most benign superpower the world has ever known. Look at the state of the world since 1945 and tell me I’m wrong. Klavan has also said that you must liberalize in keeping with your tradition, which I agree with, otherwise once again you’re altering the fabric of what defines the society and the nation as a whole.
The demographic issue becomes much less pronounced if we have more manageable numbers of immigrants. Prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, the United States had the same racial demographics as Switzerland. The point is, the United States, like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, among a scattered few others, were shaped and influenced by European thought, religion, and values, and have traditionally been comprised of largely European populations. In order to respect the integrity of our institutions, I don’t think we should lose sight of that. There’s never been a non-European society rooted in individual rights and liberties that hasn’t had extensive contact with European societies, and if you want a sneak peek at what a society that doesn’t cherish these things looks like, well, we’ve already had it after eight years of the Obama administration where they ran the country like a bunch of crooked African oligarchs. What we need is not a biblical flood of unskilled Third World immigration, but a small, Alpine babbling brook, possibly augmented by a mixture of whatever individuals, regardless of origin, self-select and add to the American talent pool without detracting from its primary focus on liberty and self-governance.