I’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 has enabled the rise of 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, in fact, coming to put down roots in our respective countries. This does not require the immigrant population renounce everything about their own unique cultural inheritance so long as it doesn’t clash with their new environs, but what it does require is, at minimum, 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 (“Publius”) argues that it is the relative homogeneity of the American people that allows for the success of the kind of hybridized republic Jay and his compatriots espoused, and was ultimately implemented in the form of the newly-ratified Constitution which took effect in 1789. 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 few un-cucked conservatives in Congress for dragging it into the public eye. Whether it is too late or not remains a separate issue, but I’ll try to stay positive.
The RAISE Act would halve green card recipients, to half-a-million per year (still way too many), and introduce a hard cap on refugees at 50,000 (ditto). The Act would also dispense with the ridiculous immigration visa diversity lottery, because we all know 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 if we’re to have any immigration at all. Unless you have a cultural consensus and strong cultural cohesion—which is very rare indeed, and at that, is only effective up to a certain demographic tipping point—multi-ethnic states simply do not work. The United States has been exceptionally good at assimilation until recently, but even the Ellis Island lot, most of them fellow Europeans, took several generations to truly integrate into society. The RAISE Act undoubtedly does not go anywhere near far enough, but we should look at it 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 necessary when it becomes too voluminous and upsets the societal equilibrium.
Diversity is not a strength, but it doesn’t have to be a weakness if you have low-level immigration where people have time to adjust to their new surroundings and the odds of assimilation are far higher. In order to maintain cultural consensus and cohesion, however, all of the evidence is mounting that a racial plurality will most likely lead to dissolution. Taking an even finer-toothed comb, it seems to me all people have a right to a homeland, and that having a Kurdistan for Kurds and a Chechnya for Chechens and a Haiti for Haitians remains the best course of action for all parties involved. It is the only morally defensible position that doesn’t involve one group subjugating another along racial or ethnic lines. While we’re at it, we should also consider the possibility that it is unethical for us to be hoovering up the best minds of the Third World, thus dooming it to an unending-cycle of poverty and despair, not to mention the idea that we might just be importing a new cognitive elite and over-class right here in the U.S. Indians, at $101,390, have the highest median household income in the country. Though India itself has an average IQ of 82, Indian immigrants to the United States have an average IQ of approximately 112.
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 if not millions 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 staunchly 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 Hungary 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 absolutely argue the opposite. It is certainly possible (and preferable) to have a sustainable, healthy homogeneous 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”).
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 fact, you could dip below replacement level and still effectively manage with adaptations in policy and technology and a little flexibility. 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 “politically 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. We know mass immigration has actually caused a further strain on the welfare state, but open discussion of this issue is political and/or social suicide.
One of the most frustrating aspects of transformative immigration policies is that even if you oppose them, they will 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 social harmony and economic success, stable populations tend to be racially and ethnically homogeneous. Again, the United States, for a variety of reasons, is a historical outlier, but even it, as we are witnessing, has its limits. Immigration is not a right and by definition must be discriminatory.
Europeans deserve a homeland the same as everyone else. Why should Europe and its Western cousins be the only nations that must commit to the endless bounty of “benefits” that diversification brings? 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.
What tends to happen in multi-racial and multi-ethnic societies without cultural consensus and cohesion is that people resort to tribalism as each individual group perceives themselves 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 pretty much any environment, frankly, we tend to gravitate to our own. In today’s climate of hyper-charged identity politics, however, 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 in parts of the country vote as a racial bloc, the same way the blacks or Jews do, for the first time in our history. The rampant tribalism and identity politics in our society made this an inevitability. There are, of course, many of what John Derbyshire calls “Goodwhites” sucking their teeth at the notion that white people should be roused to defend their heritage. For shame, they cluck, over craft cocktails before heading to Friday night’s highly-anticipated swank dinner party at the Loiterstein’s, never having to interact with any of the “wretched refuse” they throw your money at.
Asserting that you are proud of your identity is not racist, so when I advocate for whites or find inspiration in our many achievements, it’s not a counter-balance to the sheer amount of anti-white animus we’re assaulted with every day, it’s that 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. Europeans built the modern world. White societies have been the most tolerant and open societies in human history. The West and its allies comprise almost all of today’s free societies. Our history has been a long, winding road with plenty of wrong turns, but we’ve arrived at a place where bigotry (white bigotry that is) is episodic, not systemic. And besides, no country, just like no person, is perfect. We need to be very careful not to foist contemporary values on to the past, and we also need to take a much more critical view of the modern portrayal of historical events, as they certainly serve a particular political agenda.
I don’t find it unreasonable at all for Europeans to have a super-majority or even a totality in their own countries, nor do I believe that in order to atone for the sins of the past these nations (or any nation) 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 some bubble-gum pop music and sell iron ore to the Nazis? The country provided shelter to the Norwegian Jews from the occupying Nazis, by the way. If every country had to atone for the sins of the past, there’d be no one left on Earth, save Israel, if you ask a Hollywood movie producer.
The ramifications of a group ceding power, willingly or unwillingly, can be extremely dire. The assault on whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa (and Angola, and the Congo, and the Ivory Coast…) 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. If a culture is strong and prosperous enough, it can absorb a more diverse base of immigrants. A society can better mask the bitter dividing lines when they 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 without harsh totalitarian tendencies (see: Iraq, Syria, etc.) or the commonality-prosperity model, and again, that has a definite demographic tipping point. No nation stays prosperous forever, and even the prosperous ones suffer downturns, which exacerbate religious and ethnic tensions. Further, the various American ethnicities that hacked the country out of the wilderness all originated from Europe (Amerindians and blacks are a separate conversation), and the intellectual framework of the country and its organizing principles were established exclusively by Europeans and their descendants, especially from the British Isles.
There are plenty of non-European-descended people in this country who 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 should we choose to. We should also consider, as discussed above, that it might be unethical to rob other countries of their most talented, but it’s equally dubious to take only the most ill-prepared and vulnerable, those who will be at an extreme disadvantage when they arrive. That said, if the highly-motivated and high-IQs from India and Nigeria want to come to the United States without any ideological baggage (cough, Islam, cough), fine. 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. Above all, we want those who cherish liberty and would die to defend it. We will not tolerate criminal or anti-social behavior, which should result in immediate expulsion from the country for non-citizens. Additionally, the law must apply to everyone equally—no extenuating circumstances, no considerations of religion, ethnicity, and sex, no political agendas, none of it, otherwise we’re, well, we’re where we currently are, with judicial activism supplanting the rule of law. I very much like the idea that in order to be a citizen, in the early days of this country, one of the preconditions was that you had to exhibit high moral character. I wouldn’t go so far as to strip citizenship or anything like that for transgressors and deviants, but a little more emphasis on discipline and duty and a little less on permissiveness would do us a lot of good.
The demographic and social issues facing us today would not be so pronounced—if they existed at all—if we had more manageable numbers of immigrants and a more sensible policy regarding who was let in and for what reasons. Prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, the United States was overwhelmingly European in origin, and, like its Western cousins, was shaped and influenced by European thought, religion, and values. In order to respect the integrity of our culture and institutions, I don’t think we should lose sight of that. If you want a sneak peek at what an America that doesn’t cherish its founding principles looks like, it doesn’t even take much imagination, simply reflect on the past decade and extrapolate.