In debates regarding multiculturalism there is an argument that occurs on repeat:
“Would you live with in a house with someone who has radically opposing views?”
“Your house is not the same as a country! What happens inside your home is different. You can decide what happens inside your home, but in the outside world it doesn’t matter, we should live in a cosmopolitan utopia where everyone is free to do as they please. An open society is good for us all because we can experience an immense amount of cultures all at once, we can live in a wonderful ‘melting pot’ in which no war will occur between radically opposing views, it isn’t like any of them will fight for supremacy over others, that has never occurred before. It isn’t like the history of the human race is loaded with people fighting over who has the best ideas!”
Let us dismantle this illogical nonsense briefly.
Firstly, what happens in the external world shapes what occurs in your home. Have they never heard of armed robbery, break ins, drive-by shootings? The objects you purchase then put in your home require you venturing out into the world around you. If the world around you becomes a war zone then your home will become one as well. Do you want to be in fear of going out to purchase items you require; food, clothes, alcohol, bullet proof glass? What about the people that live with you, do you want them to feel safe as well? If they leave the house then surely you want them to safely return. Just as you would want other people you love to be able to leave their homes as well. This decadent, virtue signalling nonsense shows a complete lack of care for other people in your life. If you see the country in which you live becoming increasingly dangerous, harder to live in, filled with unemployment, an increasing suicide rate. If you see these things occurring and continue to promote ideas that allow them to continue just because you want to present yourself as a moral, virtuous hero, a good little herd animal, then you are a masochistic pervert.
Secondly, anyone who is advocating mass immigration should be required to take these people into their homes and provide for them. Western countries do not have an infinite amount of money to support these people, and taxing the wealthy higher (which I agree with, and while we are at it, we should crack down on the money they distribute to tax havens as well. These people are anti-nationalistic degenerates who thrive off mass migration in the first place) does not take into account a constantly increasing population, one which is already being negatively effected by automation in the first place.
Importing large amounts of unskilled people with little to no grasp of the English language (thus impeding their ability to communicate with the population; no skills for employment; who move here with no actual attraction to the existing culture; no regard for cultural and ethical norms of the existing population – no, I am not saying each and every single migrant is like this – is detrimental in the first place. This is a situation that will continue to grow as this portion of the population grows. Taxing the wealthy more and distributing money to them with no push for them to adapt to the existing society is, in essence, throwing money into a well. They will form enclaves which will be replications of the society from which they originated, the social incompatibilities will be further accentuated by the existing population becoming increasingly agitated with people taking their taxes and using them to continue to live in an alien way of life.
Would anyone who find this acceptable move to Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, India or Indonesia and start to create a Western progressive enclave? Demand the normalisation of radical-Left values? Would you feel comfortable trying to enforce your norms upon these Eastern nations (which in some sense they are trying to with the culturally imperialistic United Nations)? Do you think it would be all peaceful if you tried to do this?
Of course, they will counter by saying Western nations are more adaptable, that individualism is all amazing, yada-yada, etc. This doesn’t take into account the consequences. As these ideologies, with which contain ideas entirely incompatible with progressive doctrine, begin to spread and gain a larger presence, the adherents will demand legal acceptance of their ideas. Gay rights will be attacked, feminism will be attacked, all the others billions of gender related things will be attacked. To this these groups will say that our ‘liberal democracies’ will protect these things. Oh really, how does democracy function again? Something about majorities having power over the smaller groups or whatever.
So, how will they counter these groups gaining power? Prevent political parties campaigning on policies they don’t like? Well, then they would be interfering with democracy, it is antithetical to democracy to prevent parties running because of their views. Yes, I will acknowledge that it was undemocratic for governments to interfere with the communist parties post-WW2. Unless a political party is actually doing something directly illegal then you should not in any way prevent that party from campaigning within a democracy. If a member commits a crime, arrest that member and investigate what occurred. The moment you cross the line and actively shut down a party you are saying to the public that they are not allowed to make their own decisions.
As mass migrant populations increase, so will the desire for Islamic laws. As more Islamic politicians are in Western governments, all those restrictions you put in place to protect your minorities will fall away – no law is complete safe, laws change, what do you people not understand about this? Wake up!
This has already happened in other countries. To all the Australians reading this, you know that country above us? Indonesia? Indonesia continues to become increasingly Islamic.
“Oh but that is Indonesia, it won’t ever happen here” – famous last words of the virtuous herd.