Part VII: Nationalism vs. Mass Immigration

I began to touch briefly on the immigration issue above in relation to the Podesta emails. The key phrase in “Building a Permanent Progressive Majority” was the strategic goal:

# 3 Ensure that demographics is destiny (from “Building a Permanent Progressive Majority Strategic Goals”) Part V: How’s American civilization looking now?

Here was a breakdown from the recent 2016 election, showing how this strategic goal is coming along:

Englishmen may be concerned about ‘the rights of Englishmen’ on which the USA was originally founded, which would make them ideal immigrants. But folks from the 3rd world typically want more totalitarian government control, just like back home. There are certainly patriotic exceptions, but averages will rule the day.

We can also see a prime illustration of demographics as destiny when looking at Britain. While they haven’t had as much immigration as the USA, their total population is smaller and so the proportional effects manifest sooner then they will in the US.

National Review in 2013 offers a brief article highlighting how those opposed to Thatcher deliberately engaged in a mass immigration program to alter the voter base and put themselves in permanent political power.

Throughout the developed world, the Left uses mass immigration and lies about racism to bend the sovereign, patriotic nation-state to its will. And it does so with plenty of help from its accomplices on the corporate and libertarian right.
So, again we have supposed opponents working together in secret to overthrow the will of the people. In this case, it is to use mass immigration to alter the culture of nations.

The National Review piece links to an article by Peter Hitchens (bother of Christopher Hitchens) who used to be an ally of those elements. Definitely go read the whole thing, it is worth your time. He reflects on the mindset while he was part of that movement, saying (emphasis added):

When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible.

It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.

Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’.

If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.

Immigrants have been used by those who wanted to transform the country.

Absurdly, even when Britain’s frontiers were demolished by the Blair Government and hundreds of thousands of white-skinned Europeans came here to work, it was still possible to smear any doubters as ‘racists’.

It couldn’t have been more obvious that ‘race’ wasn’t the problem.

The thing that made these new residents different was culture – language, customs, attitudes, sense of humour.

Rather than them adapting to our way of life, we were adapting to theirs.

This wasn’t integration.

It was a revolution.

The screaming, spitting intolerance comes from a pampered elite who are ashamed of their own country, despise patriotism in others and feel none themselves.

They long for a horrible borderless Utopia in which love of country has vanished, nannies are cheap and other people’s wages are low.

In 2009, a speech writer for British politicians first leaked the secret:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Rub the right’s nose in diversity? A deliberate but secret plan? Not stating their real reasons for fear it would alienate their main voters? The only discussion of immigration is on economic benefit and a need for more immigrants? Does this sound a lot like America over the past 8 years?

The article continues:

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: “Now at least the truth is out, and it’s dynamite.

“Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

Again, what was originally tarred as ‘conspiracy theory’ for deviating from the official story turned out to be the truth, while the official story was a pack of lies. But that was back in 2009. The leaks have only gotten more embarrassing since then.

In 2013, one of the top politicians decided to come clean:

Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.

In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.

He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.

The American equivalent would be like Senator Marco Rubio retiring, and then a few years later admitting that critics were right and his work on the Senate and that whole “Gang of 8” thing was truly a deliberate push to massively change the makeup of America even if it meant Americans could no longer get jobs.

But here’s the news from Britain by 2016:

Tony Blair presided over a silent conspiracy to change the face of Britain for ever with mass immigration, an explosive book reveals.

He ordered his Labour government never to discuss in public the supposed ‘advantages’ of the unprecedented influx.

But behind the scenes ministers were instructed to wave tens of thousands of asylum seekers into the UK under cover of their being ‘economic migrants’. Astonishingly, the minister Mr Blair put in charge of borders ruled against deporting failed claimants because it would be too ‘emotional’.

The main aim of allowing in millions of people was to make the country ‘see the benefit of a multicultural society’. The Blair government did not see its job as being to ‘control immigration’.

…Mr Blair did not want the public to know his true plans on immigration. He is said to have told ministers and officials: ‘Don’t mention the advantages of immigration in public because they won’t even want that.’

The rules on allowing in foreign spouses and students were dramatically relaxed.

By the time he stepped down, over two million more migrants than the government expected had settled in Britain — but he dismissed any concerns by claiming they were good for the economy.

Anyone against free-flowing immigration was assumed to be a racist Tory, a view underpinned by the BBC’s reluctance to debate the issue and endorsed by Labour’s promotion of multiculturalism.

It is a lengthy article, but I highly recommend reading the whole thing because it details how the government ignored repeated warnings from critics (which ultimately came true), ignored repeated warning signs from its own bureaucrats that the rapidly rising flood of immigrants consisted of unskilled people lying about their origins simply to sign up for welfare benefits, and politicians continued to work against the very people who elected them in order to teach those dumb voters a lesson about questioning their superiors.

It is essentially a map of what is going on here in the USA right now. InfoWars has highlighted this, when political talking head and supposed “conservative” Bill Kristol says:

“Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in?” asked Kristol.

“You can make a case that America has been great because every — I think John Adams said this — basically if you are in free society, a capitalist society, after two or three generations of hard work everyone becomes kind of decadent, lazy, spoiled — whatever,” he added.

 “Then, luckily, you have these waves of people coming in from Italy, Ireland, Russia, and now Mexico, who really want to work hard and really want to succeed and really want their kids to live better lives than them and aren’t sort of clipping coupons or hoping that they can hang on and meanwhile grew up as spoiled kids and so forth. In that respect, I don’t know how this moment is that different from the early 20th century.”

Kristol’s assertion that immigrants are all hard working, tax contributing, upstanding citizens isn’t backed up by the facts, which show that “lazy” white people are less reliant on welfare.

Just like the British case we see those who supposedly defend the traditional stance of the country coming out and attacking the majority, preaching the supposed economic benefits of mass immigration, and ignoring all facts which prove the claim blatantly wrong.

Trump is trying to stop the mass immigration, but is being opposed again and again.

Where are the actual refugees? These look like ISIS fighters. Germany can keep them. Good luck, make sure your women and children are safe.

Twice now he has attempted to temporarily reduce immigration from known terrorist havens and both times activist judges have jumped in and declared it somehow unconstitutional. Andrew McCarthy gives a good analysis of the laws as they stand and why the court challenges have feet firmly planted in mid-air:

Let’s start with the Constitution, which vests all executive power in the president. Under the Constitution, as Thomas Jefferson wrote shortly after its adoption, “the transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether. It belongs then to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specifically submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly.”
Mr. Bier asserts that Trump may not suspend the issuance of visas to nationals of specific countries because the 1965 immigration act “banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin.”
As he correctly points out, the purpose of the anti-discrimination provision (signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965) was to end the racially and ethnically discriminatory “national origins” immigration practice that was skewed in favor of Western Europe. Trump’s executive order, to the contrary, is in no way an effort to affect the racial or ethnic composition of the nation or its incoming immigrants. The directive is an effort to protect national security from a terrorist threat…
Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” (emphasis added).
Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done. In fact, in doing so, he expressly cites Section 1182(f), and his executive order tracks the language of the statute (finding the entry of aliens from these countries at this time “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”).
What we have is a bold power play in which the activist judiciary asserts something is a violation of the Constitution when it clearly is not. What this accomplishes is that Trump must either allow his action to be tied up in courts, preventing the action from taking place; or else go to war against judicial overreach in the first month of his presidency, a scenario he is highly unlikely to win this early on.
Nationalism also explains why Clinton was the anointed one for the Democrats, despite Sanders’s huge popularity.
Back in June of 2016, a socialist publication observed:

Echoing a speech delivered by Trump the previous day in the economically devastated former steel town of Monessen, Pennsylvania, Sanders blames the collapse of American workers’ living standards and growth of social inequality on globalization and trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and Obama’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership.

He writes, “Millions of American voters, like the Leave supporters, are understandably angry and frustrated by the economic forces that are destroying the middle class.” He declares, “We need to fundamentally reject our ‘free trade’ policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

Last July, two months after he announced his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sanders gave an interview with the Vox web site in which he denounced a policy of “open borders”—a basic tenet of genuine socialism, which upholds the right of workers to live and work wherever they choose with full citizenship rights—as a right-wing proposal that “would make everybody in America poorer.”

He continued: “You’re doing away with the concept of a nation state… Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour… You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those [American] kids?”

The article goes on to defend Sanders by explaining that this was actually a secret move against the evil capitalist establishment. The socialist publication doesn’t seem so supportive of Sanders by January of 2017, however:

…Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders solidarized himself with the new president and his virulent economic nationalism.

On Monday morning, Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the US from the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact. At the same time, Trump repeated his pledge to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada.

Declaring that these moves would be “great for the American worker,” Trump reiterated the claim that “unfair trade” benefiting workers in other countries—not capitalism and the corporations’ relentless pursuit of profit—was responsible for the closure of factories and slashing of American workers’ wages.

Sanders was quick to congratulate Trump, stating, “For the last 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals—including the North American Free Trade Agreement, permanent normal trade relations with China and others—which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a ‘race to the bottom,’ which has lowered wages for American workers…

“If President Trump is serious about a new policy to help American workers, then I would be delighted to work with him.”

The article goes on to lament how Sanders fails to see that the brotherhood of workers in Mexico and other places will suffer as a result.

Conclusion? Sanders didn’t make the cut as a real socialist or a real Democrat or a real Progressive because he, like Trump, cares about making America be for Americans first. The socialist publication criticizing him laments Sanders’s failure to embrace the working class around the globe [i.e. globalism] against the evil billionaire fat cats. Ergo, Hillary [globalist] was engineered to be the winner of the Democrat party nomination no matter what the Democrat American voters say.

Meanwhile, those who back the mass immigration recognize what it means for Americans.

The AP recently reported (emphasis added):

Iran’s former hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter Sunday to President Donald Trump, striking a somewhat conciliatory tone while applauding immigration to America and saying it shows “the contemporary U.S. belongs to all nations.”

If one of your most bitter enemies is saying about a contentious internal policy, ‘Good, good, keep it up. I applaud you,’ then perhaps you ought to cease at once. If our enemies are cheering our actions, then we are doing something very stupid.

Further, what do the immigrants think? Here’s one quote from a growing faction (emphasis added):

Univision senior anchor Jorge Ramos declared on Friday that the United States belongs to Latino migrants, emphatically stating to a Spanish-speaking audience that “it is our country, not theirs.”

Ramos took an unusual tack, pivoting from talk of diversity and togetherness into boasts of conquest. Mass immigration, particularly illegal immigration, was a fait accompli. There is nothing the U.S. can do about it, and they must accept that America is “not their” country and that illegal aliens, particularly Latinos, “are not going to leave,” he said.

By the way, if you followed the links I shared above about Pizzagate, you would have seen via the Pizzagate wiki that Univision has financial ties to the Clintons. How big is Univision? Big enough that it beat all English-speaking networks for viewership in America for two years in a row. You may not watch it, but it is definitely NOT small potatoes in the corporate media landscape.

From two different directions we see recent declarations that America does not belong to Americans. Trump would stand in the way of this and return America’s future and prosperity to American citizens, and thus, in the role of President, he is a big problem for the establishment.

Tomorrow: Part VIII: Neutralizing Trump