The current "open borders" immigration policies of the extreme left are not actually something new. They have just gained a ton of traction in the mainstream in recent years. However, in many western countries these sentiments go back quite a while, even 20 and 30 years. It's just that these ideas started being relatively fringe, and have only recently escalated exponentially due to some kind of global political perfect storm.
Back in those days, 10 to 20 years ago, the ideology was more commonly called "multiculturalism". While that term is still being used somewhat, it has kind of been put a bit on the sidelines as the somewhat related "progressive social justice" ideology has merged into and largely appropriated it. It's not merely "multiculturalism" anymore, but a plethora of other ideologies mixed into it as well, which is now collectively called "progressive social justice" ideology, or sometimes called "intersectional feminism" by wannabe academics.
"Multiculturalism" did have quite many things in common with modern "social justice". Such as the idea that the culture of white people in the west is deeply and inherently racist, that white people have always exploited other people, and that "brown people" are absolutely perfect and immaculate, with no faults. No wonder they mixed up so well with "intersectional feminism".
There's perhaps no better example of the ideology of multiculturalism (and its effects on a country) than Sweden, where it has been the de facto state religion since about the early 1980's, escalating more and more in the 2000's, with Sweden breaking every year the number of African and Middle-East immigrants (up until the recent EU immigration madness). If you think that the mainstream media being propaganda machines for multiculturalism and immigration is something new, the Swedish press has been at it since at least the 1990's, even earlier.
Having followed the multiculturalist rhetoric for several years over 10 years ago, I noticed many ideas and narratives held by its followers, some explicit, some more implicit.
One of these more implicit narratives was the idea, or perhaps more like a hint or tone, that it's unfair that the rich western countries are hoarding all the riches and keeping them to themselves, without giving others their fair share. As if the wealth of a country were some kind of natural resource that just happens to spring from the ground mostly in Europe and North America, and that the countries living there are hoarding for themselves. There was always this implicit idea that wealth in these rich countries is somehow unearned, and that these countries are just hoarding it. A bit like it were oil-rich soil or something, which just emanates riches for anybody that owns the land to collect. Therefore it's only fair to share these unearned riches with other people, and let them in so that they can benefit from that wealth as well.
At no point did any of these people acknowledge in any way, shape or form that the wealth of the vast majority of rich western countries does not come from unearned natural resources, but through hard work and cooperation. Most rich countries are rich because their people work hard to achieve that status. There may be natural resources yes (although in the case of many, perhaps most, countries natural resources are actually imported from elsewhere), but those resources don't make a country rich all by themselves. It's what you do with those resources, and how well you can make society work and function. The wealth of a society can be measured in more than just material goods. It's also measured on the well-being of its citizens, how educated they are, how healthy they are, how much labor they have to do in order to survive comfortably.
The wealth of most rich countries is very much earned via hard work (with the exception of certain countries that are rich mostly because they sell oil). Every member of these societies who contribute with their work to it, has earned his share of it. (There are, of course, bums who do not contribute and only live at the expense of society, but that's a difficult problem to solve without infringing on people's basic human rights.)
Why would hard-working people be obliged to share their hard-earned wealth with other people who have not contributed to it? It's not a question of "it's unfair that rich countries do not share their unearned wealth with others". What it actually should be is "it's unfair that rich countries do not share their hard earned wealth with others", which makes much less sense.
What rich countries should do (and have trying to do for the past hundred or so years) is to try to share the knowledge of how to become wealthy via hard work. Teach other civilizations about what works and what doesn't, and how it should be done, so that they can become wealthy through hard work as well.
But this is not what multiculaturalists want. Multiculturalists are enamored with people who look different, act different, talk different, and whose culture is as different as possible. They want as many of them to immigrate as possible. They find it problematic if they walk on the street and all they see is white people, with no brown person in sight.
And it is indeed so that they want the immigrants to look, behave and have a culture that's visibly as different as possible. They talk a lot about the bliss of immigration and immigrants, but they are not happy with immigrants that just look like the native population, integrate into society and just blend in, so that they are indistinguishable from the rest of the population, and just fit in and contribute to society like everybody else. They aren't happy, eg. in Finland, if some Swede, German, or American immigrates into the country and just integrates. They aren't happy with that because they want visible multiculturalism. They want people who look different and act different. They are happy when the immigrants don't integrate and just fit in, and adopt the culture, customs and traditions of the native population. They want them to be different and remain different. After all, people who integrate and fit in don't need tolerance. Only people who don't fit in require tolerance, and thus the multiculturalists can virtue-signal by "tolerating" them.
And that's the core issue with multiculturalism (and its modern expanded variant, "intersectional feminist social justice" ideology): They hate the native people, culture, traditions and customs of the west, and they want to not only import people and cultures that are as different and non-fitting as possible, but they want those people to remain different and unfitting. The more the immigrants clash with the native population and their culture, the better.
Immigration is completely fine in moderation, but with one condition: If you are coming to this country in order to take part of its wealth (which has been reached by the native population through decades and centuries of hard work), you better start contributing to the maintenance of that wealth. Become a contributing member of society, not a bum who just leeches on the wealth of the country while not giving anything back. We already have enough people who live at the expense of society (some with justified reasons, such as medical reasons, some because they are opportunistic bums). We don't need more of those.
But that's not what the multiculturalists want. They didn't want this 20 years ago, they especially don't want it today. Even 20 years ago they wanted to crumble the native society and culture, which they have always seen as corrupt and evil, but this is so much more true today, ten-fold. Many of them want as many non-integrating foreign immigrants as possible for the explicit purpose of destroying western society. They absolutely hate and loathe western society, and want to see it completely destroyed and overtaken by foreign cultures, even if that means a complete collapse of society and the economy.
Because that's exactly what unrestricted "no borders" immigration will result in. Everybody will get poorer, and the current wealth of these nations will just disappear into thin air. The less people are working hard to maintain the current situation, the more rapidly it will all collapse. This isn't helping those immigrants that come from poorer countries. This is only destroying those poor countries even more than they currently are, and it's destroying the western countries where they are flooding in en masse. Nobody wins in this situation, not even the multiculturalists themselves.
If this continues, the Great Depression of the 1930's will look like paradise in comparison.
Back in those days, 10 to 20 years ago, the ideology was more commonly called "multiculturalism". While that term is still being used somewhat, it has kind of been put a bit on the sidelines as the somewhat related "progressive social justice" ideology has merged into and largely appropriated it. It's not merely "multiculturalism" anymore, but a plethora of other ideologies mixed into it as well, which is now collectively called "progressive social justice" ideology, or sometimes called "intersectional feminism" by wannabe academics.
"Multiculturalism" did have quite many things in common with modern "social justice". Such as the idea that the culture of white people in the west is deeply and inherently racist, that white people have always exploited other people, and that "brown people" are absolutely perfect and immaculate, with no faults. No wonder they mixed up so well with "intersectional feminism".
There's perhaps no better example of the ideology of multiculturalism (and its effects on a country) than Sweden, where it has been the de facto state religion since about the early 1980's, escalating more and more in the 2000's, with Sweden breaking every year the number of African and Middle-East immigrants (up until the recent EU immigration madness). If you think that the mainstream media being propaganda machines for multiculturalism and immigration is something new, the Swedish press has been at it since at least the 1990's, even earlier.
Having followed the multiculturalist rhetoric for several years over 10 years ago, I noticed many ideas and narratives held by its followers, some explicit, some more implicit.
One of these more implicit narratives was the idea, or perhaps more like a hint or tone, that it's unfair that the rich western countries are hoarding all the riches and keeping them to themselves, without giving others their fair share. As if the wealth of a country were some kind of natural resource that just happens to spring from the ground mostly in Europe and North America, and that the countries living there are hoarding for themselves. There was always this implicit idea that wealth in these rich countries is somehow unearned, and that these countries are just hoarding it. A bit like it were oil-rich soil or something, which just emanates riches for anybody that owns the land to collect. Therefore it's only fair to share these unearned riches with other people, and let them in so that they can benefit from that wealth as well.
At no point did any of these people acknowledge in any way, shape or form that the wealth of the vast majority of rich western countries does not come from unearned natural resources, but through hard work and cooperation. Most rich countries are rich because their people work hard to achieve that status. There may be natural resources yes (although in the case of many, perhaps most, countries natural resources are actually imported from elsewhere), but those resources don't make a country rich all by themselves. It's what you do with those resources, and how well you can make society work and function. The wealth of a society can be measured in more than just material goods. It's also measured on the well-being of its citizens, how educated they are, how healthy they are, how much labor they have to do in order to survive comfortably.
The wealth of most rich countries is very much earned via hard work (with the exception of certain countries that are rich mostly because they sell oil). Every member of these societies who contribute with their work to it, has earned his share of it. (There are, of course, bums who do not contribute and only live at the expense of society, but that's a difficult problem to solve without infringing on people's basic human rights.)
Why would hard-working people be obliged to share their hard-earned wealth with other people who have not contributed to it? It's not a question of "it's unfair that rich countries do not share their unearned wealth with others". What it actually should be is "it's unfair that rich countries do not share their hard earned wealth with others", which makes much less sense.
What rich countries should do (and have trying to do for the past hundred or so years) is to try to share the knowledge of how to become wealthy via hard work. Teach other civilizations about what works and what doesn't, and how it should be done, so that they can become wealthy through hard work as well.
But this is not what multiculaturalists want. Multiculturalists are enamored with people who look different, act different, talk different, and whose culture is as different as possible. They want as many of them to immigrate as possible. They find it problematic if they walk on the street and all they see is white people, with no brown person in sight.
And it is indeed so that they want the immigrants to look, behave and have a culture that's visibly as different as possible. They talk a lot about the bliss of immigration and immigrants, but they are not happy with immigrants that just look like the native population, integrate into society and just blend in, so that they are indistinguishable from the rest of the population, and just fit in and contribute to society like everybody else. They aren't happy, eg. in Finland, if some Swede, German, or American immigrates into the country and just integrates. They aren't happy with that because they want visible multiculturalism. They want people who look different and act different. They are happy when the immigrants don't integrate and just fit in, and adopt the culture, customs and traditions of the native population. They want them to be different and remain different. After all, people who integrate and fit in don't need tolerance. Only people who don't fit in require tolerance, and thus the multiculturalists can virtue-signal by "tolerating" them.
And that's the core issue with multiculturalism (and its modern expanded variant, "intersectional feminist social justice" ideology): They hate the native people, culture, traditions and customs of the west, and they want to not only import people and cultures that are as different and non-fitting as possible, but they want those people to remain different and unfitting. The more the immigrants clash with the native population and their culture, the better.
Immigration is completely fine in moderation, but with one condition: If you are coming to this country in order to take part of its wealth (which has been reached by the native population through decades and centuries of hard work), you better start contributing to the maintenance of that wealth. Become a contributing member of society, not a bum who just leeches on the wealth of the country while not giving anything back. We already have enough people who live at the expense of society (some with justified reasons, such as medical reasons, some because they are opportunistic bums). We don't need more of those.
But that's not what the multiculturalists want. They didn't want this 20 years ago, they especially don't want it today. Even 20 years ago they wanted to crumble the native society and culture, which they have always seen as corrupt and evil, but this is so much more true today, ten-fold. Many of them want as many non-integrating foreign immigrants as possible for the explicit purpose of destroying western society. They absolutely hate and loathe western society, and want to see it completely destroyed and overtaken by foreign cultures, even if that means a complete collapse of society and the economy.
Because that's exactly what unrestricted "no borders" immigration will result in. Everybody will get poorer, and the current wealth of these nations will just disappear into thin air. The less people are working hard to maintain the current situation, the more rapidly it will all collapse. This isn't helping those immigrants that come from poorer countries. This is only destroying those poor countries even more than they currently are, and it's destroying the western countries where they are flooding in en masse. Nobody wins in this situation, not even the multiculturalists themselves.
If this continues, the Great Depression of the 1930's will look like paradise in comparison.
Comments
Post a Comment