The Important Question
Why are Western nations, and only Western nations, committed to immigration and diversity? Why do they welcome ethnic rights for non-Whites within their borders while demonizing any expression of White identity? Why do they take for granted the fact that not a single nation outside the West advocates diversity?
This is really one question, the most important question of our times, and the most puzzling question to come up in history; for it is beyond comprehension why would an entire people commit itself to its own dissolution. Is not the supreme principle of Darwinian theory the struggle not only for individual survival but also survival of one’s group, which entails an ethics of in-group cooperation and out-group derogation? How did it come about that such powerful instincts for in-group preference and loyalty have come to be seen as odiously racist amongst Whites, whereas in-group preference is taken for granted in the rest of the world and, more insanely, special group rights are legally sanctioned for minorities inside Western nations?
Kevin MacDonald’s Argument
Kevin MacDonald is widely known in Alt Right circles for offering a fully documented scientific theory arguing that “the organized Jewish community” was the single most influential group in calling for an end to the Immigration Act of 1924, which generally limited immigration to countries with a culture similar to the majority WASP culture of the United States, and in promoting the 1965 Immigration Act, which committed the United States to accepting immigrants of all nationalities on a roughly equal basis.
But whether this theory can explain as effectively the favouring of unrestricted immigration in other Western countries, and whether there were other factors in the origins of this transformation, is still undetermined. MacDonald has explored other factors in numerous publications such as the role of Franz Boas in spreading the ideology of the equality of races, and of the Frankfurt School in stigmatizing Western traditional values as pathological expressions of White male “authoritarianism”.
Peter Brimelow has spoken about “Hitler’s revenge“. Others have pointed to the influence of the black civil rights movement in mandating across American society the integration of races. Clare Ellis has written about the “Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan-Europa,” as an early twentieth century European integration model “based on the ideologies of Cosmopolitanism, Perpetual Peace, and World Federation,” seeking “to unite Europe in perpetual peace by replacing ethno-national European identities with a common European cultural identity.” I have written about the ways in which liberalism was taken over and transformed in a cultural Marxist direction after WWII, as evidenced in the complete identification of Western nationalism with “civic” values against any form of ethnic nationalism, and as evidenced in the amalgamation of Western individual rights with multicultural ethnic rights for immigrants.
But while it is generally known that these factors are interconnected, there is still no cohesive explanation for the almost simultaneous adoption of immigrant multiculturalism across the Western world. We need a general theory that ties in these factors together, and others deemed to be important, and that explains this transformation as a Western-wide phenomenon. Now, it so happens that MacDonald is currently putting forward a long term explanation for the West as a whole which emphasizes the “unique” tendency of European culture for an individualist way of life (accompanied with a “relatively low ethnocentrism” and a high level of “moral universalism”) which promotes altruistic behaviour towards out-groups. This is a general theory predicated on the worldwide fact that Western nations at large “are committed to multiculturalism, and are being swamped by economic refugees from collectivist cultures, dispossessing their founding peoples“.
MacDonald believes that the same traits of individualism and objective universalism that allowed the West to develop modern science and institutions open to merit, and which are the basis of Western dominance in the world, are the traits that have made Westerners believe that the otherwise far more collectivist peoples of the world can be made to behave like Westerners once they are educated with “Western values.” MacDonald thinks this ignores the selection of collectivist dispositions among non-Europeans as a result of their habitation in ecological contexts that “supported large tribal groups based on extended kinship relations,” strong ethnocentrism and lack of individualism. By contrast, he thinks that it was only among Northern European peoples that a “tendency toward individualism,” toward monogamy and nuclear families, with less emphasis on kinship relations, and more on contractual relations, and therefore a relatively lower level of ethnocentrism, emerged. He traces these individualist traits back to hunter and gatherers thousands of years ago in Northern Europe.
Further elaboration by MacDonald of this theory is forthcoming. Suffice it to say now that he does not offer this theory as an ultimate explanation, and has indeed written that Americans, for all their individualism, were quite explicit in their ethnic attachments through their history until radically novel notions about the meaning of individualism and universalism began to spread in the 1960s. His intention has been to identify certain biological traits among Europeans predisposing them to be less collectivist and less ethnocentric, not to argue that Europeans were predetermined to become multiracial since prehistoric times. This is why he has focused on the ways in which highly organized and collectivist Jewish communities, despite having assimilated certain Western traits, were important players not only in the enactment of the 1965 Immigration Act, but also in the discrediting of “race” as a scientific concept and in the identification of any form of White group identity with “neo-Nazism.”
Some members of the European New Right, including some who identify with the Alt Right, put the ultimate blame upon Christianity for this transformation, that is, the Christian idea that all humans have equal souls in the eyes of God and that meekness and love of the Other are a manifestation of what is best about the human species. Some have combined this explanation with the observation that the Romans were also responsible with their granting of citizenship during the third century AD to inhabitants in the Empire of any race, which started a new trans-racial concept of citizenship.
But the more influential and complete explanation among ENR members ties together many individualizing and universalizing trends in the history of Europe, starting with Christianity, but really accelerating, in their estimation, with the rise of such modern “liberal” trends as the Protestant obsession with moral guilt and separation of the individual believer from any form of spiritual hierarchy based on tradition; the rise of “economic man” as an abstract individual “dis-embedded” from communitarian attachments; the Enlightenment pretense that societies could be remade anew through the application of rationally derived concepts with universal intent standing above one’s own culture; and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and its supposition that all humans are born with “natural” rights regardless of historical and national context.
Most Transformative Happening Ever
However much I believe the West is a civilization with a uniquely individualistic ethos and Faustian rational will for universal comprehension, it seems to me that what is going on today is so out of the norm, so radical and so pathological that it requires as well a shorter term perspective. Much in Western history illuminates our current dogmas of racial equality and human rights. But it is also incredibly anachronistic to attribute to Europeans, even generations before WWII and the 1960s, believers in White-only immigration policies, our current hysteria against White identity and delusions about the blessings of diversity.
The Canadian establishment, business, government, media, and literary elites, the majority of ordinary Canadians, were completely at ease with the immigration restriction policies preceding the 1960s. The same is true for Americans and Australians; and there is no way Europeans in the 1960s would have accepted millions of migrants consuming billions in welfare combined with regular and recurring rapes of thousands of white women and girls, with all the schools and universities putting down the heritage of Europeans and with the authorities criminalizing those disagreeing with diversification and Islamization — this is unprecedented, it has never been known in the past, and it is becoming the most epoch making transformation in history.
I don’t think Western liberal ideals in-themselves, as they were generally understood before WWII, were inevitably responsible for immigrant multiculturalism. These ideals were radically redefined after WWII, and one of the key redefining forces was the hostile growth within liberalism of the ideology of human rights, along with four other primary ideological factors, to be listed below. There were other secondary factors, capitalist globalization, cosmopolitan politicians eager to exploit the ethnic vote, and the effects of affluence in softening the survival instincts of European males, which have played important roles. These secondary factors, while being intimately tied and deeply affected by the logics of the primary factors, have had their own independent dynamics, though both primary and secondary factors have reinforced each other, all caught within a spiral pushing them along the same funnel.
Spiral Diffusion Model
Thinking about how these factors reinforced each other, pushed each other in the same direction, the image of a spiral started coming into view. A few days ago, while researching the origins of the ideology of human rights, I came up with the term “spiral diffusion model,” which has struck me as quite useful in understanding the incredible manner in which anti-White diversity spread throughout the West in a mere few decades. This model is used rather differently by leftist human rights scholars; firstly, as far as I know, it has been used only to understand when human rights are likely to become “habitual” in the behaviour of governments around the world, and the argument basically is that the first step in bringing about “sustained improvements in human rights practices” is to make sure that the respective nations already have the political system to establish the rule of law, and the judicial and educational capacities required to give human rights traction and enforceability. Of course, this is all rather obvious, and almost tautological; and one wonders why academics think they have made a major discovery in finding “quantitative evidence for the proposition that countries with more highly developed legal institutions…tend to have better civil rights protections.”
But here is the interesting idea; they found that a “spiral” can be launched by creating certain normative conditions both at the domestic and the international level, such as having governments signed human rights treaties, for example, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, or showcasing major global socializing events that promote rights in Third World nations, such as international conferences and meetings, that can then “end up entrapping” state actors to make “tactical concessions” that can lead to further concessions and possibly “to unexpected consequences under conditions of turmoil and change.” They might get the government to release political prisoners on grounds that their rights are being violated, or sign international agreements as a condition for getting foreign aid or for ending international sanctions, or get them to allow alternative political parties and voices.
They found that the more states are “embedded” in international institutions, “the more likely they are to ratify international human rights agreements,” and the more agreements they ratify to improve domestic conditions, the more a spiral of further changes can develop pushing the said nation to the “next” stage.
Without “entrapping” the nation to certain agreements and human rights discourses, they found that human rights agreements tend to “sputter and eventually fail”. While governments may adjust their behaviour to international pressures and treaties “without necessarily believing in the validity of the norms,” or purely for the sake of economic gain, it has been observed that minor concessions aimed at calming critics, can create certain normative conditions and precedents, as well as domestic pressures, that encourage further concessions later on, and thus create a dynamic for additional human rights treaties and institutional changes, until substantive changes are introduced aligning the state with the “moral standards of the international community” from which it is no longer possible for state actors to escape without experiencing the brunt of reprisals by domestic and international moral arbiters.
What follows is an outline of the spiral model I think may give us a good image of how Western liberal ideals have been entrapped to a way of thinking and acting that appears to be liberal but is ever more illiberal and morally pathological, caught up in some sort of vortex consisting of major and minor waves moving, stretching, twisting, and interact in complex ways, and yet all being pulled into the same funnel — “White Nations Must Become Multiracial” — from which only Alt Right people have been able to escape.
I will first list the major forces driving this spiral in a tentative way, as they came to gather momentum after WWII, aware that elements within these forces had prior origins. Then I will put the emphasis on the radicalization of these norms, rather than their diffusion. Finally, I will list secondary factors, and offer brief statements about how both primary and secondary factors have been caught up in a spiral of radicalization, each reinforcing the other, pushing beyond their initial intended meanings, engendering new factors and accentuating the importance of prior factors, all pulled into the what can be described as a funnel leading to the utter destruction of European identity across the West.
Post-WWII Normative Situation in the West
In outlining this model, one must first realize that this diffusion process did not start from a blank slate; it emerge out of the centuries-old prior history of the West, and the most salient fact of this history by the time we get to the immediate post-WWII years is that the Western nations that defeated Nazism were self-declared liberal-democratic nations in which individuals enjoyed rights of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and the right to a fair trial.
Now, while all citizens had the right to be treated equally by the legal system, and while there were important constitutional variations among Western states, the way liberal rights like freedom of speech and freedom of association were understood among Western states generally, before WWII, was in a very libertarian way. Freedom of association, for example, was understood to include the right to refuse to associate with certain members of certain ethnic groups, even the right to discriminate in employment practices.
Another major characteristic of Western democracies in the aftermath of WWII was the coexistence, paradoxically enough, of this libertarian spirit of discrimination with a strong ethnic and cultural identity among the majority ethnic members of the nation. The libertarian individualism of Westerners came together with a strong collective sense of ethnic and cultural identity involving discrimination against other collective groups. The majority Anglo populations in Canada and Australia, for example, felt no qualms laying a greater cultural claim over the nation state they created, as expressed in franchise laws that excluded certain minorities from voting coupled with immigration laws that kept out ethnic groups deemed to be ‘unassimilable’ such as Asians, blacks, and Jews.
This libertarian-ethnic national situation in the West would be radically transformed after WWII as a result of the emergence of a new normative context consisting of the following major ideological characteristics:
- Western governments concluded that Nazi and Fascist governments had committed “crimes against humanity,” and that the Holocaust was a demonstration of the inhumanity of those ideologies that divided humanity into “superior” and “inferior” races, “inside” and “outside” members. A nationalism in which a particular ethnic group lay a privileged claim over the nation state was, accordingly, thoroughly discredited as inherently inconsistent with the ideals of liberal democracy. Over and over again, Western leaders began to announce that a true liberal state must be civic in orientation, based only on liberal values, standing above all ethnic groups, “neutral” on matters of religion and ethnicity.
- Western elites systematically spread out the idea, which up until WWII was held by a minority of scholars, that there is no such thing as a “science” of race; the differences between different nationalities are primarily due to cultural and environmental factors; the differences of biology are superficially about colour of skin, texture of hair, or facial features, not about differences in behaviour and intelligence. Since there is no scientific basis for the claim that humans can be categorized in terms of different races, there can be no scientific justification for racial discrimination; rather, discriminatory policies are creations of pathological individuals with an “irrational” fear of groups that are different in appearance. These fears can be eliminated through “proper” socialization and education.
- The post WWII years also witnessed the complete discrediting of colonial Western rule over Africa, Latin America and Asia, as a practice inconsistent with the liberal ideal that all peoples have a right to national self-determination. Alongside these anti-colonialist sentiments, came a new emphasis on the rights of people of colour, both outside and inside Western nations, to enjoy self-determination and equality of rights without discrimination in employment and in voting rights, as manifested in the American Civil Rights Movement and in the demands of other minorities for an end to discrimination in hiring, in voting, and in the right to a neutral state that does not privilege one ethnic group over others. These demands also came along with the spread of the idea that all cultures are equal and that Whites rose to dominance by exploiting Third World peoples, blacks and indigenous peoples. White men are morally responsible for the unequal distribution of wealth in the world and the subjugation of non-European cultures generally. They should feel guilty and do something to make up for past crimes.
- The rise of human rights universalism, led by Western intellectual/cosmopolitan elites, in opposition to the nationalistic and discriminatory elements of European liberalism. As the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2, stated: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs…” The “right to live, liberty, and security of the person” (Article 3), are inherent to humans, and not derived from citizenship in a nation, and thus humans are entitled to them wherever they are, including those “who arrive at our doors without rights of their own” (Ignatieff, The Rights Revolution, p. 37).
Spiral Radicalization of These Normative Claims
It is my view, and this is why the spiral model may be useful, that the elites promoting these ideological forces were not calling, before the 1960/80s, for the transformation of White nations into Multiracial Nations. These ideologies in-themselves, when they were first articulated in earnest and with persuasion from the 1940s through the 1960s, were not interpreted to mean that European nations needed to become multiracial places in order to live up to the ideals of liberalism. This is not to say these ideologies were not a radical challenge to the traditional ethnic-oriented libertarian ethos of the Western world. From the 1940s through to the 1960s, Western nations, in varying ways, would witness movements to end discriminatory employment practices and franchises, as well as race-based immigration regulations. These years would also witness the UN’s 1951 convention on asylum mandating that people seeking asylum in one country due to fear of persecution for their religious beliefs or racial make-up can’t be sent back to face arrest or torture.
Still, despite these substantial changes in the nature of Western liberalism, no one was openly calling in the 1960s for Western nations to become race-mixed societies through mass immigration and for Western nations to develop a totally new form of multicultural citizenship. Only since about the 1980s, or even later since the 1990s, have Westerners been made to believe that they can become truly civic and truly liberal only if they become places where diversity is the most cherished value and where the culture is no longer identified as “White” in history, literature, traditions, laws, and language. Only recently have they been made to believe that they are racist if they don’t accept the diversification of their lands.
The 1965 Immigration Act, for example, was not intended to transform the United States into a multiracial nation by proponents consciously looking forward to the day when White Americans would become a minority. As this article in The Atlantic observes:
For supporters, the intent of the legislation was to bring immigration policy into line with other anti-discrimination measures, not to fundamentally change the face of the nation. “We have removed all elements of second-class citizenship from our laws by the  Civil Rights Act,” declared Vice President Hubert Humphrey. “We must in 1965 remove all elements in our immigration law which suggest there are second-class people.”
The fact that this law has radically changed America’s racial demographic character has to be accounted for in terms of the radicalization of these ideas through the growing influence of certain hostile elites who were able, step by step, as these major ideologies came to reinforce each other, in-and-through their actualization and widespread diffusion, to infiltrate and radicalized the language and concepts of liberalism in a full blown cultural Marxist direction. To understand the current celebration of this diversification, and the concurrent redefinition of the American nation as a propositional nation that is totally neutral with reference to ethnicity and religion, we must look nearer to our times and bring into consideration the role of other reinforcing primary and secondary factors and the transformation and radicalization of all of these factors.
To offer another example, the people who fought for anti-discrimination legislation in Ontario, Canada, in the 1940s, which led to the Fair Employment Practices Act in 1951, which prohibited discrimination based on race and religion in employment, and to the Fair Accommodation Practices Act in 1954, which prohibited discrimination in public places on racial and religious grounds, were not intentionally trying to bring about special group rights for minorities and affirmation action programs involving differential, rather than equal, treatment for different groups of Canadians, as happened later from about the 1980s onward with the implementation of multicultural rights.
But these anti-discrimination ideas could not remain aloof from the wider vortex of post-WWII Western culture and so they were soon caught up and radicalized within other intersecting movements and newly emerging realities, by ever more radicalized elites pressing for more changes. Thus, we find that soon after anti-discrimination legislation was passed in Canada, there were calls for the abolition of race-based immigration regulations in the late 1950s and 1960s, and then as these regulations were abolished between 1966-67, and a new reality of further diversification came to be experienced through the 1970s and 1980s, and a new generation of radicalized liberals emerged out of the universities, successfully marching through the institutions, the idea spread that racism was not merely a matter of the pathology of some employees, or individuals not properly socialized, but a widespread, “structural” reality in “white-dominated Canada”. What was initially a struggle for a“neutral” and context-blind conception of employment in the 1940s and 1950s, and a struggle to abolish race-based immigration regulations, became in the 1980s a struggle for group rights to protect minorities against “institutional racism” in Canadian society and a struggle to diversify Canada totally so that it would “never again be a White nation”.
The very institutionalization and diffusion of the ideas of human rights, equality of races, civic nationalism, and the special cultural rights of Third World peoples, eventually came to entrap even those who wanted to “conserve” Western civilization. Accordingly, as much as American conservatives sought to defend a classical view of liberalism, limited government, self-reliance, freedom of thought, private property, coupled with a traditional definition of the family and emphasis on the importance of Christianity, their acceptance of the equality of the races, and their unwillingness to contextualize classical liberalism as a way of thinking and living peculiar to Europeans, eventually led them to a redefinition of the United States as a civic or propositional nation. As much as some conservatives tried to argue that “forcible integration” was a violation of the rights of individuals to free association, and as much as they insisted in the late 1950s/early 1960s that “school integration” would “risk, twenty or thirty years hence, a widespread racial amalgamation and debasement of the society as a whole,” once the idea of racial differences was identified with Nazism, and the equality of the races was taken to be an integral principle of liberalism qua liberalism, and individuals were seen as possessors of “natural rights” irrespective of nationality and cultural background, it became impossible to escape the entrapment of the spiral’s radicalizing tendencies.
As more of these ideas were given institutional expression, and as new realities emerged from their actualization, ever more radicalized versions of the post WW II norms emerged. For example, if the initial idea was that Western powers must cease to have colonies and should accept the demands of Third World peoples for decolonization, this idea, once it was actualized, was made to face up to the new reality of persisting Third World failures and inequalities of wealth distribution in the world by a new school of “dependency theorists”. They argued that the reason Third World peoples were unable to escape poverty despite the modernizing efforts of Western governments, was that Western nations were still dominating the Third World through “neo-colonial” exploitation, which did not require political over-lordship but corporate control over resources. Claiming that Third World peoples were poor due to their own cultural problems was plainly racist. Once this idea spread, it was only a matter of time before every failure in the Third World came to be blamed on European nations, their past history of enslavement and current neocolonialism.
More than this, as Western peoples were held responsible for Third World poverty, and as masses of Third Worlders seeking to escape this poverty started arriving into Western lands, the initial idea that those seeking asylum can’t be sent back was exponentially expanded to mean that economic migrants can’t be sent back. If the main meaning of the idea of human rights obligations was that affluent nations should assist poorer nations in affording their citizens with the basic necessities of life, human rights were increasingly interpreted from the 1980s onward to mean that Western citizenship for non-nationals “must be viewed as a human right which can be justified along the principles of a universalistic morality” (42), as the celebrated “German” liberal, Seyla Benhabib, born in Turkey, argues in The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens (2004). Adhering to human rights came to mean that Western nations cannot deny incorporating refugees and asylum seekers, economic migrants and “temporary workers,” into the existing polities of Europe. We are all members of the same race with the same human rights and the same disposition to believe in liberal values.
Secondary Factors Accelerating the Spiral
Perhaps we can better apprehend this spiral model by bringing in the secondary factors which have also played an important role in the radicalization of the normative situation in the West since WWII. I will concentrate on two of these factors, leaving aside the role of affluence in reducing the natural in-group instincts of Europeans. The first of these factors (outlined below) began in a rather neutral, low key manner, as an economic argument concerning the benefits of “temporary workers” or “skills-based” immigrants, without anyone saying a word about how immigrants are indispensable for the economic and cultural enrichment of White nations. The second factor, the ethnic vote, was hardly envisioned as a powerful force to drive forward diversification, but it has now been envisioned by our elites as the most potent political force in the march to diversity.
I have called these two factors secondary, because they started as secondary in their importance when they were first put forward as reasons for bringing immigrants from Third World areas; but it is clear that these two factors have started to take on a primary role as they have been swallowed by an unstoppable spiral, all the factors feeding off each other, pushing the entire Western world with ever more intensity right into a funnel wherein immigrants are now seen as ones who can sustain a high standard of living for Whites, fertilize Western societies, and democratize the political process.
The Economic Argument for Immigration.
In the 1950s through to the 1970s, varying programs were implemented in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, to bring “guest workers” as a result of labour shortages in the context of fast growing economies. Take Germany, these guest workers were initially identified as “temporary” only and many of the early migrants, after working a few years, did return. The political parties all agreed that Germany was not an “immigrant nation,” as the government of Helmut Schmidt (1974 to 1982) said categorically. But in time, few migrant workers were returning, both because they realized the standard of living back home was not comparable (in Turkey from which most migrants had come), and because they had brought their wives and family members and basically had settled in ethnic enclaves. Consequently, by the 1980s, the government started to implement formal policies for the integration of what were still viewed as “foreign” workers. But through the 1990s and after, the concept of German citizenship underwent a dramatic change from an ethnic-oriented conception, which did not grant citizenship to persons who were not born in Germany, to a purely civic conception, which granted citizenship to persons who had lived in Germany for at least 15 years, with further changes introduced thereafter, principally, automatic citizenship to children of foreigners born on German soil as long as the parent has been in Germany for at least eight years as a legal immigrant.
The economic argument today has been thoroughly radicalized to mean that the entire world of Europeans, Australia and North America, must welcome hundreds of millions of immigrants due to persisting low fertility rates of Whites, a shrinking domestic labour force, a huge aging population in need of health care and pensions, and the unwillingness of Whites to work hard and take entrepreneurial risks. It does not matter if the racial make up of the nation is being fundamentally altered; elites now view this as a good thing and openly welcome the day when their nations will ceased to be German or Swedish or British in ethnicity, no longer “boringly homogeneous” states but “vibrant” and “dynamic” societies.
In fact, the economic rationale for immigration, once the purview of “neoliberal right-wing thinking,” has been adopted by the Left at the same time as the Right has assimilated the cultural rationale for immigration articulated by the Left. The Left and the Right have converged around this factor; advocates of both sides are now caught up in a whirlpool beyond their control. The economic argument is currently so suffused with cultural Marxist feelings that even in the face of massive economic costs to the domestic population, systematic raping of White women and regular terrorist killings, economists are still insisting on the beneficial effects of mass immigrant labour.
In Canada, likewise, the initial economic argument for bringing immigrants from non-European nations was the straightforward claim that Europeans were not as keenly interested in emigrating to Canada by the late 1950s and early 1960s, at a time when Canada’s economy was booming and in need of labourers. The goal was to bring a few thousand in response to the economic needs of Canadians while also making sure that the cultural character of Canada was not changed. But by the time Brian Mulroney’s conservative government was in power in the 1980s, or just a year after the Multiculturalism Act of 1988 was passed, it was announced that the long standing link between annual immigration intakes and existing economic conditions in Canada would be abandoned for a policy that would commit Canada to at least 250,000 immigrants per year regardless of fluctuations in the unemployment rate. The last conservative government under Stephen Harper (2006- 2015) would make a habit of boasting about how it sustained immigration levels that made “Canada the largest per capita receiver of new immigrants in the entire world,” and how the immigrants it brought deserved to be admired as truly Canadian for having “a much higher incidence of post-secondary degrees than the Canadian population at large.” The very same leaders claiming to be interesting in conserving Western civilization were announcing that immigrants from non-Western cultures were somehow better educated, more family oriented, and hard working than Whites.
The Ethnic Vote Argument for Immigration
It all began rather innocuously with the observation that minorities preferred voting for the Liberal Party in Canada, and that this was possibly due to the initial endorsement of multiculturalism by liberals. But the official narrative that the ethnic vote was just an expression of the ability of immigrants to become normal participants in the political process took a realistic hit when former Quebec premier Jacques Parizeau notoriously blamed the separatists’ defeat in the 1995 Quebec referendum on money and the “ethnic vote”. This simple truth occasioned widespread criticism of Parizeau even by his own Parti Québécois, as a “shameful” remark, leading to the resignation of Parizeau as leader.
Meanwhile the Conservative Party was already assessing in the 1980s the potential “electoral benefits that might accrue from an expansive immigration policy,” reminding ethnic voters how friendly the conservatives were being to the needs of immigrants, passing the Multiculturalism Act of 1988. Soon after their 2006 election victory, they offered a series of apologies to minorities “victimized” by Canada’s “racist immigration policies” such as the internment of the Japanese during WWII and the head tax on Chinese labourers. This was followed in subsequent years by incessant efforts to “get the ethnic vote” through the attendance of religious ceremonies, ridiculous donning of ethnic attire, granting interviews to the ethnic press, promising to maintain an expansive immigration policy, and reiterating that Canada’s identity was no longer European but Multicultural.
Today conservatives openly welcome a future Canada where a majority of “traditionally minded” non-Whites will vote conservative and defeat White leftist liberals. Democrats in the United States openly taunt Whites about their soon-to-come minority status, and claim that it will mark a new post-racial era in American politics. Republicans happily eulogize about how a majority of Hispanics and Asians will sustain the founding constitutional principles of the United States.
In using the words “vortex,” spiral,” and “funnel” I am suggesting that Westerners have been trapped since WWII to a discourse with an in-built tendency for radicalization. However, if at the beginning of this movement it was not the intention of the proponents of human rights, equality of races, civic nationalism and decolonization to transform European nations into multiracial places, it can be argued that since about the 1960s, these liberal ideas came to be infiltrated and “revised” by hostile elites pushing ideas that are best described as “cultural Marxist” rather than liberal. There were very radical critiques of Western “bourgeois” values in the past, by classical Marxists, but never a total assault on Western culture writ large, Western men, religion, education, history, in the name of other races and cultures.
The march through the institutions was a step by step movement that eventually acquired an in-built dynamism swallowing up everyone, even conservatives, within its vortex. A situation has in fact been reached today, in the last two decades or so, which I hope to explore in the future, in which hostile elite members, like (((George Soros))), appear to have become conscious of this vortex, openly envisioning ways in which to entrap naive Western liberals into thinking that their nations must be totally transformed racially and that the influx of millions of migrants will be seen as a “new normal” in the march to build a truly “open society”. It is not only that Western liberals are “trapped” to a set of principles with in-built radicalizing impulses — if race is a construct, what does it matter if White countries become multiracial? — but also that individuals at the top are now consciously orchestrating situations and formulating strategies by which to force Whites to “self-entrap” themselves into welcoming race-mixed cultures. In this sense, we can now speak of a massive conspiracy being orchestrated at the top to create a situation across the West that will make immigration and diversity unstoppable and normal. We can see now what is going on everywhere, involving multiple stratagems, such as the exploitation of “humanitarian” global crises, utilisation of images of children to appeal to White sensitivities, constant facilitation of migrant arrival into Europe through “humanitarian” transportation, refugee centers everywhere, creation of numerous programs to hire migrants, spread of deeply seated multicultural networks; radical alterations in the curriculum, diversity imperatives structured everywhere, in the media, in hiring, in the textbooks for children, in race mixing images, in charitable organisations, in the personnel of companies and political parties, in sports and teams, everywhere, so that all White particles will welcome and find it impossible to escape from the “normal” accelerating gravitational pull of a collapsing White world.
We members of the Alt Right are the only force willing and capable of countering the collapse of the West into a black hole.