FOREIGN POLICY: “This Land Is Their Land”–Today’s Immigrant Supremacist Ideology at Its Most Blatant


Here’s a large scale exposition of contemporary Immigrant Supremacist thinking in Foreign Policy. Although it sounds as if it could be written by iSteve commenter Tiny Duck, it appears to be completely serious:

THIS LAND IS THEIR LAND

Immigration is inevitable. When will the West learn that it promises salvation — not destruction?

BY SUKETU MEHTA

Suketu Mehta is the author of Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found

ILLUSTRATION BY OWEN FREEMAN

SEPTEMBER 12, 2017

Shouldn’t Foreign Policy have hustled and gotten this article about all the wonderfulness immigration does for America out a day sooner?

On Oct. 1, 1977, my parents, my two sisters, and I boarded a Lufthansa plane in the dead of night in Bombay. … We were going to America. …

For most of our history as a species, since we evolved from being hunter-gatherers to pastoralists, humans have not been attuned to the radical, continuous movement made possible by modernity. …

The signal challenge for the world’s richest countries in the 21st century is accommodation of a tremendously variegated influx of migrants. … You think 5 million Syrian refugees are a problem now? What happens when Bangladesh gets flooded and 18 million Bangladeshis have to seek dry land?

At the same time, there has been a dramatic rise in income inequality. Today, the eight richest individuals, all men, own more than does half of the planet, or 3.6 billion people, combined. The concentration of wealth also leads to a concentration of political power and the redirection of outrage against inequality away from the elites and toward the migrants. When the peasants come for the rich with pitchforks, the safest thing for the rich to do is to say, “Don’t blame us, blame them” — pointing to the newest, the weakest.

That’s why Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, Michael Bloomberg, Tim Cook, the Koch Brothers, etc. are so anti-immigration.

… The West is being destroyed, not by migrants but by the fear of migrants. And yet the world’s richest countries can’t figure out what they want to do about migration; they want some migrants and not others.

Haven’t they heard of the Zeroth Amendment: No discrimination in who gets in!

In 2006, the Dutch government tried to make itself unattractive to potential Muslim and African migrants by creating a film, To the Netherlands, that included scenes of gay couples kissing and topless women sunbathing. The film was a study aid for a $433 compulsory entrance exam for people immigrating for family reunification. …

In 2011, the city of Gatineau, Quebec, published a “statement of values” for new immigrants that cautioned against “strong odors emanating from cooking,” which might offend Canadians. It also informed migrants that, in Canada, it was not OK to bribe city officials. …

How dare those vicious Canucks diss the time-honored customs of immigrants, customs that make their home countries so well-functioning they leave them?

… In Germany, the country’s “welcome culture” changed in one season, from that guilt-expiating September in 2015 to “rapist refugees go home” after the Cologne attacks that same New Year’s Eve.

Of all refugees, the most frightening is the womanless male migrant, his eyes hungrily scanning the exposed flesh of the white woman. The words the tabloids and right-wing politicians use to describe these Afghan or Moroccan men are similar to terminology used to describe black men in the United States in the early 20th century: as sex-hungry deviants.

As the Atlantic Monthly explained yesterday, even today feminists college anti-rape apparatchiks are actually white racists viciously persecuting innocent black male athletes for just being friendly and inviting their teammates to enjoy sloppy seconds.

In 1900, South Carolina Sen. Benjamin Tillman spoke from the U.S. Senate floor: “We have never believed him [the black man] to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him.” Fast-forward to 2017: “Pro-rata, Sweden has taken more young male migrants than any other country in Europe,” said Nigel Farage, a British member of the European Parliament, in February. “And there has been a dramatic rise in sexual crime in Sweden — so much so that Malmo is now the rape capital of Europe.” …

… While it is true that there are horrific stories of organized rings of rapists with immigrant backgrounds — such as a group of Pakistanis in Rotherham, in the U.K., who groomed teenage girls for sex — there’s no evidence that immigrants overall rape or steal at rates higher than the general population. Mug shots of dark-skinned criminals, whether Moroccan or Mexican, somehow strike more terror in the Western imagination than those of homegrown white rapists. The fear is primal, tribal: They’re coming for our women.

Driven by this fear, voters are electing, in country after country, leaders who are doing incalculable long-term damage: Donald Trump in the United States, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Andrzej Duda and his Law and Justice party in Poland. It was fear of migrants that led British voters to vote for Brexit, the biggest own goal in the country’s history. The phobia of migrants can be the greatest threat to democracy.

“Democracy” being defined as Not Electing the Wrong People.

Look at Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel, with its flourishing economy and democratic institutions,

For example, I’m sure you’ll remember the lengthy, serious debate in Germany from 2013 to 2015 over whether or not to let in a million Muslims? I mean, it wasn’t like the German Chancellor decided upon a whim to alter the demographic balance of Europe during summer vacation. Oh … that is what it was like?

Well, anyway, by definition, that is democracy for you!

… All hail Western civilization, which gave the world the genocide of the Native Americans, slavery, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, and global warming. How hypocritical this whole debate about migration really is. The rich countries complain loudly about migration from the poor ones.

This is how the game was rigged: First they colonized us and stole our treasure and prevented us from building our industries. After plundering us for centuries, they left, having drawn up maps in ways that ensured permanent strife between our communities.

Then they brought us to their countries as “guest workers” — as if they knew what the word “guest” meant in our cultures — but discouraged us from bringing our families. Having built up their economies with our raw materials and our labor, they asked us to go back and were surprised when we did not.

… Now, again, they ask us not to come, desperate and starving though they have rendered us, because the richest among them need a scapegoat.

This is how the game is now rigged. In 2015, Shashi Tharoor, the former U.N. undersecretary-general for communications and public information, gave a compelling Oxford Union speech that made the case for (symbolic) reparations owed by Britain to India. “India’s share of the world economy when Britain arrived on its shores was 23 percent. By the time the British left, it was down to below 4 percent. Why?” he asked. “Simply because India had been governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain’s rise for 200 years was financed by its depredations in India.”

James Watt stole the blueprints for the steam engine from a Brahmin in Uttar Pradesh.

Tharoor’s speech reminded me of the time my grandfather was sitting in a park in suburban London. An elderly British man came up to him and wagged a finger at him. “Why are you here?” the man demanded. “Why are you in my country?” “We are the creditors,” responded my grandfather, who was born in India, spent his working years in Kenya, and was now retired in London. “You took all our wealth, our diamonds. Now we have come to collect.”

Boy, right now I’m really feeling like it would be a good idea to let in more of the Mehta family. It sounds like they have my best interests at heart.

… And so they will keep coming, in boats and on bicycles, whether you want them or not — because they are the creditors. Why are Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans desperate to move north, to come to U.S. cities to work as dishwashers and cleaning ladies? It’s because Americans sell them guns and buy their drugs. Their homicide figures are indicative of a civil war. So they move to the cause of their misery; they, too, are the creditors.

If you don’t like them moving here, don’t buy drugs.

Maybe we should stop them coming here to sell us their drugs by building, you know, a Wall?

… The immigrant armada that is coming to your shores is actually a rescue fleet.

So Jean Raspail’s 1973 dystopian novel The Camp of the Saints was actually correct: except, you white people deserve it.

After this article, you can’t complain that our Globalist Elites didn’t tell us exactly how they felt about us and what they had in store for us.

[Comment at Unz.com]