The widespread extreme leftist ideology whose advocates at this moment are mostly called "woke", and previously called "social justice warriors" (ie. "SJWs"), were prior to that term having been coined mostly called "multiculturalists".
The "multiculturalist" ideology goes way back, probably a hundred years, gaining a lot of traction during the 60's and 70's "hippie culture" movement, and going into high gear and actually gaining power in society (at an ever-accelerating rage) from the late 90's forward.
Not a lot has changed, really. Perhaps the major change that has happened during the past couple of decades is that the ideology has become, like, 95% about "trans rights", to the point that it appears that nowadays that's almost the only thing they care about (with a good majority of the remaining 5% being about abortion and the hatred of white people.) This likely because at some point they found out that for one reason or another that particular subject was the most effective at gaining them power and control over society.
"Trans rights" was not really a thing in the late 90's and very early 2000's, but they already had fully modern views about abortion, white people being inherently and innately racist and, of course, supporting completely unrestricted immigration from countries where people look as non-white as possible. This last part was the main reason why they were called (and they even called themselves) "multiculturalists".
Indeed, back then the term "multicultural" was in wide use among they themselves, in their propaganda and speech. It had pretty much the same meaning as the modern "diverse". In other words, "non-white". (Yes, just like nowadays a group of people who look like clones of each other is called "diverse" if they are non-white, the exact same thing was already the case back then, just using the term "multicultural" instead.)
Here are some of the biggest lies that the "multiculturalists" told back in the day, and which are still widely being repeated to this day:
"Falling birth rates are a catastrophe"
... and the only possible solution to this impending doom is, of course, to import as many people as possible from countries that are culturally as incompatible as possible.
This is such a pervasive lie that even to this day the vast majority of people, even those not on the far left, and most importantly those in positions of power making decisions related to this, believe. There is indeed this really pervasive "fact" that everybody knows that if birth rates start to fall, and if they fall too low and this continues for long enough, that's pretty much an economic and social catastrophe. It spells doom for the country and the people in it.
Not that any of them could even name one thing that this catastrophe will supposedly cause. Perhaps the closest thing to an actual consequence that they can name is that there will be less young people taking care of older people. And that economy is going to collapse, somehow. And that's about it. Those are literally the only two things I have ever heard.
They make it sound that this is such a huge problem that it absolutely requires a solution, and we absolutely must use that solution right now! We are doomed if we don't! And, what do you know, the only solution provided is, naturally, to import as many people from Africa and the Middle-East as possible. Why specifically those two areas? Who knows. But it's the correct solution!
In actuality all of this is nothing but a huge lie and a huge exaggeration. In reality country populations go up and down all the time. Most countries that have existed for centuries and centuries have experienced population dips at some point. Wars, famine, natural catastrophes... almost every country has experienced those, and population has dipped. Most particularly, wars usually cause a significant dip in the healthy young adult segment of the population, in other words, the segment of the population most crucial for the economy of the country, as that's the working class for decades to come.
Yet, curiously, pretty much all of those countries miraculously survived. How is that even possible? I thought that a significant decrease in population is a death sentence?
Pretty much the exact opposite has happened: Many of these countries that experienced war, famine and other catastrophes, are nowadays some of the most prosperous and richest countries in the world. And most definitely not because of massive amounts of immigration.
It's almost like, you know, a significant dip in the population is not a guaranteed death sentence to a country.
"Labor shortages necessitate immigration"
This was one of the favorite arguments of the multiculturalists in many European countries during the late 90's and early 2000's. It's perhaps not as popular of an argument anymore, but it was one of their main arguments back then.
The irony back then was, and this didn't escape almost anybody, that these arguments about "labor shortages" were being made at the same time as joblessness was hitting record highs again and again. In Finland, for example, joblessness in the early 2000's hit a record-high of half a million (work-aged) people, not seen in something like 50 years. At the same time the multiculturalists were bombarding propaganda about "labor shortages" and how the only way to fix that is with more immigration.
And the funny thing was that the joblessness numbers were hard statistics, while the "labor shortage" claims had nothing to back them up. No statistics, nothing.
Such an obvious lie that actually it isn't even funny.
And do you know what actually is ironic? The fact that joblessness statistics were the highest precisely among immigrants. And by a huge, huge margin. While back in those days joblessness was about 10% of the working class population, among immigrants of many African countries it was as high as 60%. (And this is not just a made-up number or wild speculation. It's directly from the statistics of the Social Insurance Institution of Finland.)
"Immigration is a net positive for the economy"
And yet another lie that has been perpetuated for at least 30 years with no data to back it up. On the contrary, statistics have consistently shown the exact opposite, by a large margin, all the way since the late 90's to this day.
A few politicians in some countries have in later years dared to actually say this fact out loud, and some newspaper articles have been published about it. But man, did the multiculturalists love to repeat that claim over and over back then (and to a large extent even to this day).
"Immigration is inevitable"
Particularly in the 90's and early 2000's, but well to this day in one form or another, the multiculturalist propaganda machine often spoke and wrote in a tone that strongly implied, or even outright stated, that immigration is inevitable. As sure as the Sun raises every morning, and as sure as rain falls down, and as sure as tides come and go, immigration is like a force of nature: It just happens, it's inevitable, and the only question is how can be accommodate it as well as possible, and how much tax-payer money we allocate to fund it.
I'm not even kidding. While they may not have used those exact analogies so directly and so blatantly, the rhetoric was always exactly that: Immigration does and will happen, deal with it. There's nothing you or anybody can or even should do about it. It's only a question of how we deal with it, and how much tax money is allocated to it. It's not a question of if we should allow immigration, it's only and solely a question of what we should be doing with the immigrants to help them live here as well as possible. There is no stopping them coming; in fact, it would be outright preposterous to even think about stopping them from coming.
In actual reality, however, immigration is 100% optional and a question of governmental policy. It's not a force of nature, it's not inevitable. If the government decides that from this point forward there will be 0 people accepted into the country, they could perfectly well do exactly that. There's nothing stopping the government doing that, except principles and ideologies.
"International agreements and sanctions"
Oh, but there is something stopping our government doing that, will the multiculturalists argue: International agreements and sanctions!
Oh yes, the spooky scary "international agreements" and "sanctions". This propaganda was so pervasive and so ubiquitous during the 90's and early 2000's that for example in my country almost every single person has heard of (and the vast majority of them believe) it. It's often repeated blindly when the subject comes up: Even suggesting that immigration should be greatly reduced or even halted will be responded with the scary inevitable "international agreements" and "sanctions" (it's always those two things, almost without fail.) Oooh, scary!
Not that anybody could name or give any details about these supposed "international agreements", or give examples of these supposed "sanctions" if we don't open our borders. Particularly before we joined the European Union the "international agreements" were even more vague and nobody could even tell who we had these "agreements" with. After the EU, however, it became much clearer: With the European Union, of course! Now we have the perfect entity to mention, and fear-monger people with! Not that they can still cite by name what these supposed "agreements" are, but they certainly exist, and we absolutely must follow them! And why? Because of the scary "sanctions" that will ensue if we don't!
What sanctions, exactly? Who knows. Maybe the EU will withhold money from us, or something. People can guess, but nobody can give any actual citations or references.
The scary thing about this is how easily people believe that we should give up our autonomy, sovereignty and independency to a foreign entity just because of some scary but vague "international agreements" and "sanctions". We are powerless to do anything because of those things.
I have always had the perfect response to that, however: "So the EU is like the Mafia: If we don't do as they say, they will extort us until we comply. It's like a protection racket. We have to give up our autonomy to this foreign organized criminal organization or else."
"Diversity is our strength"
I'm not making it up when I say that during the 15-or-so years that I have been hearing the far-leftists repeat this mantra, not even once have I heard a single explanation or argument about why that is supposedly true. They just repeat it over and over, with the clear intent of making it true via sheer repetition, following the very Orwellian idea that "when a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth."
The closest thing I have ever heard of an explanation is an absolutely ridiculous and asinine one: And that's the argument of why we need "diversity" and "inclusion" in the workplace. Completely regardless of what the work actually is about. Doesn't matter if it's a tech company developing very specialized hardware, or a software company developing particular software, or Air Traffic Control, or whatever it is, they all need "diversity" and "inclusion" for the most asinine of reasons.
And that reason is, according to them, that non-white people will bring "new perspectives" and "new ideas" to the company. Because, apparently, a tech company that develops and manufactures, say, industrial control system modules, absolutely requires "new perspectives" and "new ideas" that only non-white people can bring because... of their race, I suppose? It's completely asinine, and I have never heard what exactly eg. electronics development and new innovations on that field have anything to do with race.
Comments
Post a Comment