Immigrants versus invaders

(HT: Vox Day)

A Canadian writer questions the effect of easy immigration combined with a fetish for ‘multiculturalism:’

The assumption, unspoken but taken for granted until the 1960s, was that immigration was beneficial as long as it was designed to serve the interests of the host society first. The immigrant’s own interests would be served by the opportunity to eventually join the host society. For this to have any meaning, of course, the existence and desirability of a host nationality had to be taken for granted. If there had been no “Americans” or “Canadians,” there would have been nothing to join. Inherent in the American model of a “melting pot” as well as the fussier Canadian model of a “cultural mosaic” was the pre-existence of a nation to which the immigrant was applying to belong.  …

It was in the past 40 years that the immigrant of dubious loyalty emerged, followed by the disloyal native-born, sometimes of immigrant ancestry, sometimes of Islamic conversion. The new immigrant seemed ready to share the West’s wealth but not its values. In many ways he resembled an invader more than a settler or an asylum-seeker. Instead of making efforts to assimilate, the invader demanded changes in the host country’s culture. …

Requests for cultural exemption were soon followed by openly voiced sentiments of disloyalty. By the late 1990s a Muslim group in Britain saw fit to express the view that no British Muslim has any obligation to British law when it conflicts with the law of Allah.  …

It’s not a matter of where immigrants come from but where they’re going. Refugees from the East are no threat; colonizers are. That’s where non-traditional immigration and multiculturalism become a volatile mix. Extending our values to others is one thing, but modifying our values to suit the values of others is something else.

By now multiculturalism has made it difficult to safeguard our traditions and ideals against a new type of immigrant whose goal is not to fit in, but to carve out a niche for his own tribe, language, customs, or religion in what we’re no longer supposed to view as a country but something between Grand Central Station and an empty space.

By eroding the Western traditions — especially the influence of Christianity — while simultaneously throwing open the gates to any person who wants to “share the West’s wealth but not its values,” the ruling class has deliberately, and with malice aforethought, destroyed the basis for what made this society the freest, most broadly prosperous in the history of the planet.   Without a shared worldview or framework, competing groups need a strong central power to arbitrate between them.  That benefits our self-appointed would-be rulers.   As the fruits of this decades-long effort to “elect a new people” become apparent, it seems the question is which, of two possible paths, will those of the traditional West travel:  allow themselves to be completely subsumed by the tide of invaders, aided and abetted by our own governments, or reassert that we, too, have a right to self-determination, securing for ourselves a portion, however large or small, of our inheritance that we will then defend not only against invading armies wearing uniforms, but stealth invasions of those who want to take “share” what we have, but not who we are.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s