[Another “timeless” article on this important topic]
WHAT must you not speak? Any expressions of opposition to immigration policies, of course. And that proscription applies to any citizen living in the Western world. The influential Sierra Club used to talk about it a lot, but no more. Not too long ago, this organization sensibly warned about the inevitable negative consequences that would come from “rapid national population growth.” But, these days, the group toes the politically correct line on the subject, and keeps silent about the almost 80 million people who have been added to the United States population in the last 30 years.
Club members no longer express concern over the effects of population “sprawl,” whereby more and more rural land in the U.S. is being converted to suburban and urban use. On the contrary, many Sierra Club members spend time worrying over the plight of land in other countries. A Club director recently expressed his sorrow over the fact that civil wars in Indonesia have caused over 100,000 people to flee into the jungles (”rain forests”), where they have promptly destroyed the natural environment. He lamented that those 100,000 were not relocated to the United States, which would have prevented the spoilage of all that Indonesian land.
One is tempted to ask, Why stop at Indonesia? Whenever we learn of strife and warfare on other continents, why not offer to open up our borders to half of Africa and India too? And isn’t everyone expecting a mess to break loose in China? Look at all the “rain forests” we could protect around the globe, if the U.S. would unselfishly remove any and all few remaining restrictions on immigration.
On that same note, the President of Bangladesh has the right idea. By the year 2050, Bangladesh is expected to have a population of 240 million, which is double today’s population. Recently, when President Sheika Hasina was asked how Bangladesh plans to “feed, educate, employ and house” all these people, she laughingly responded, “We’ll send them to America.” She went on to claim that “Globalization will take the problem away,” since there’s “free movement, country to country.” She talked of a world “without boundaries,” where countries with big populations could send its people to countries with small populations. She never did indicate just what positive steps Bangladesh, as a nation, would take to improve the lot of its people, besides shipping them off to all those countries “without boundaries.”
The most potent weapon used against those who advocate reform of immigration laws is the old, reliable “racist” tag, with “xenophobe” often thrown in for good measure. In order to keep up the fiction that only disgruntled whites are against current policies, almost no public attention is given to those American blacks who are part of the movement to limit legal and illegal immigration. Yet organizations such as the National Society of Black Engineers, the Northern California Council of Black Professional Engineers, the National Action Council of Minorities in Engineering, the Human Resources Network of Black Professionals, and others, have vociferously challenged the H-1B visa programs and current immigration policies in general.
What happens when you don’t stay shushed and insist on speaking out against the obvious suicidal tendencies of the Western world? You get kicked, good and solid. England’s Conservative party member, John Townend, can tell you about it. So can France’s retired actress Brigitte Bardot, as well as many others who try, in various ways, to awaken their countries’ citizens to the coming calamity called open borders.
When John Townend made his first open attack on multiculturalism, his party’s leader, William Hague, scolded him for impertinence and insisted that Townend’s comments were “totally unacceptable.” Using unimpeachable statistics on crime, Townend openly blamed immigrants for the rising levels of crime in England and for “seriously undermining” Britain’s homogeneous Anglo-Saxon society. He soon learned that concern for ethnic unity and solidarity is the preserve only of the colored races. Whites are punished for any expressed desire to cleave unto their own, and Townend discovered that he had broken a steadfast taboo.
The Conservative party’s opposition had a field day, as one politician after another grabbed the spotlight to grandstand and rail on about the glorious benefits of a multi-cult society. Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke of support for immigration as the “morally right” position to take. A couple of weeks prior, Blair and all the main party leaders had signed a compact promising not to allow any of their candidates to issue campaign material “likely to generate hostility or division between people of different racial, national or religious groups.” In other words, a public policy issue as important as immigration was not to be discussed at all.
When John Townend broke the silence (he was not a current candidate for office), a Cabinet minister expressed the fear that Townend’s remarks could give the green light to others “to make speeches of this nature.” So, Townend’s party colleagues, in an attempt to get tougher with him, threatened to expel him from the Conservative party. A party official is quoted in London’s Daily Telegraph as saying, “He was told in the simplest terms: be quiet or else.”
On another front, Swaminathan Aiyar, after dismissing the notion of an Indian takeover of the sub-continent, candidly writes, in the Times of India: “Forget about an aggressive takeover of the sub-continent, we should aim for a friendly takeover of the whole world, starting with the USA. Actually, takeover is the wrong word. More correctly, we must aim at a global inter-mingling where our sheer numbers matter. The world has six billion people, of whom one billion are Indians. Since population growth has slowed or halted in China and large parts of the West, by the year 2050, one in five human beings will be an Indian. So, if globalisation facilitates the free movement of people, Indians should in due course account for a substantial chunk of the population in all countries that are desirable destinations for migrants.”
Even the boldest proclamations issuing from those who celebrate the inevitable transformations yet to come of this country’s social and political institutions do nothing to bestir a sleeping citizenry that is bent on “making nice” and staying out of politically incorrect trouble. But a day of reckoning will bring with it an understanding of the profound changes to the way of life that we now take for granted, when the race/culture shift is complete.
Columnist Sam Francis sums it up best: “There was an ethnic and cultural homogeneity to the American people that made their nation cohere and their creed and their peculiar form of government work at all. The Founders had no problem whatsoever in understanding and recognizing that America does indeed have a specific ethnic and cultural foundation and that when that foundation vanishes, the American republic disappears with it. . . . It’s hardly an accident that as ethnic and racial diversity has flourished, the limited republican government the Founders created from their own British heritage has begun to wither.” Full Article HERE