This is an excellent read and an
article we have posted before. It explains the crucial differences in
immigration types and by extension exposes the ‘diversity’
deception.
If it was absolutely necessary to have
immigration for whatever reason, which btw I don’t believe we do,
then it should only ever be on a guest-worker basis ie for a set
period of time. What we have all across the West is actually
citizenship immigration, or the permanent residence of foreigners who
both culturally and racially are incompatible with Europeans. This
citizenship immigration which allows non-Europeans to build a
demographic base within European nations is what will lead to our
eventual minority status, and as it says in the article the real term
should be racial replacement immigration.
Multiculturalism is a euphemism for
Multiracialism which means replacing the indigenous population with
other races who have a higher birth rate and who are STILL flooding
into our nations. The goal of citizenship immigration, as David
Cameron himself said, is to “build” a multiracial nation, ie
purposefully create a multiracial society for a specific purpose.
Please share this as I believe this
kind of article is crucial to waking people up.
By Stephen H | For Red Ice Creations
When
people discuss immigration there are a hidden set of assumptions
which are never discussed. The advocates of mass immigration will say
things like “all countries have immigration” or “immigration
doesn’t just happen in White, Western countries, it’s a global
phenomena”. Such statements are highly deceptive, and yet the vast
majority of people simply accept them; failing to realise they are
designed to conceal a very ugly truth.
The
reason why the immigration ‘debate’ favours those who support
endless immigration into the West is because the term ‘immigration’
itself falsely implies fairness. It does so by implying that:
1.
There is only one immigration system, and all countries have the same
immigration system, and
2.
The immigration system is fair because the outcome of immigration is
the same in all countries.
Both
these (hidden) assumptions are false. In reality, there are two
different systems of immigration, and they have very different
outcomes. The ugly truth is that all White, Western countries have
been forced to accept one system of immigration whilst all non-White,
non-Western countries are free to choose another. So, not only is the
idea that there is one, universal system of immigration false, but
the outcomes of those systems could not be more divergent and
extreme. We have been silenced by wolves justifying biased, one-sided
policies as ‘fairness’. Yet there is nothing fair about the
outcome they have in mind.
Most
people have heard of ‘guest-worker immigration’. This is the
immigration system which operates in non-White countries from Africa
and Asia to the Middle East. But when it comes to the immigration
system deployed in White countries the system itself has no name.
Unsurprisingly, the apologists for mass immigration into the West
want to keep it this way. Why? Because, if the immigration system you
want to describe cannot even be identified then people are unlikely
to notice the inequality, unfairness and bias being directed towards
them.
Our
first task, then, is to create a suitable name for the immigration
system which operates in all and only White countries. For now, I
will use the term ‘citizenship immigration’. This name highlights
one of the main characteristics of immigration into White, Western
countries; namely, mass citizenship and permanent residence for
immigrants. But citizenship immigration is also a neutral term. This
is appropriate, for now, since we have not yet examined the processes
and outcomes of the two immigration systems. But, once the outcome of
citizenship immigration becomes clear, it will also become obvious
that the term ‘race-replacement immigration’ is far more
accurate. Despite being more contentious, the term ‘race-replacement
immigration’ fully reflects the direction, motivation and outcome
of this system on any population irresponsible enough to deploy it.
To
summarize what we have so far: There is no such thing as plain,
simple ‘immigration’. What is being referred to is either
guest-worker immigration or citizenship immigration. And anyone who
wants to imply they are the same thing is either interested in
justifying inequality through deception (hiding the ugly truth) or
being misled by someone interested in doing so.
The
outcome of guest-worker immigration vis-a-vis citizenship immigration
couldn’t be more extreme, so let’s take a look at each of them in
turn.
Guest-Worker
Immigration
One
of the key features of guest-worker immigration is that immigrants
are treated as temporary, economic residents. That is, they are
granted permission to stay (i.e. temporary residence) and permission
to work for a limited period (e.g. for 10 years on a limited-time
visa), after which they are expected to leave.
A
second, crucially important, feature of guest-worker immigration is
that the total immigrant population always remains the same size.
That is, the total immigrant population remains fixed (once the
required number of immigrants has been reached.)
Let
us say that Country A has a homogenous population of 15 million
citizens (feel free to choose their race, culture, etc.). Country A
decides that, for economic reasons, they need a total of 1 million
immigrants. And so they plan to accept 100,000 new immigrants each
year, for the next 10 years.
After
10 years, Country A has its 1 million immigrants. However, the total
immigrant population never grows above this level because, although
100,000 new immigrants will arrive each year, 100,000 immigrants will
also leave as their visas and residence permits expire. In other
words, every year, 100,000 immigrants will arrive and 100,000
immigrants will return home – leaving the total immigrant
population of Country A at the same fixed level (1 million, in this
example).
The
overall immigrant population will always remain the same size whether
the immigration process continues for 10 years, 100 years or 1000
years. Furthermore, even if the immigrant population has a large
number of births, their children will be returned home with their
parents.
Notice
that if Country A ever wanted to reduce, or remove, its immigrant
population it could do so easily. It would simply stop issuing new
immigration visas whilst continuing to repatriate immigrants as soon
as their visas expired. This would quickly cause the total immigrant
population to decline to zero if so desired. Notice also that
guest-worker immigration poses no threat to the sovereignty,
political power or demographic make-up of the indigenous population
(whatever their race, ethnicity or culture may be). The immigrant
population is fixed and static, so the indigenous population need
never worry about becoming a minority in their own country or about
their culture being slowly replaced. In other words, guest-worker
immigration provides all the economic advantages of immigration
without greatly affecting the demographic balance of the country
deploying it.
Overall,
guest-worker immigration is flexible. It makes immigration easy to
plan and control. It is easy to increase or decrease the total number
of immigrants as the country’s economy fluctuates. And, if desired,
the total number of immigrants can be returned to zero since
immigrants neither become citizens nor permanent residents.
Guest-worker immigration treats immigrants as temporary, economic
guest-workers right from the start. And, unsurprisingly, it is the
most common immigration system in the world. It is the immigration of
choice throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, yet it isn’t
deployed in even a single White, Western country.
Citizenship-Immigration
Unlike
guest-worker immigration, citizenship immigration doesn’t view
immigrants as temporary, economic workers. Rather, it treats them as
permanent residents and future citizens.
Unlike
guest-worker immigration, citizenship immigration is a cumulative
form of immigration; It always leads to an ever-growing immigrant
population because there is no expatriation process to keep the
overall immigrant population in balance (by offsetting new immigrant
arrivals with expatriations). Furthermore, because almost all
immigrants quickly gain the right to permanent residence or
citizenship, any children born to them will automatically acquire
permanent residence and/or citizenship too.
Overall,
citizenship immigration can be characterized by:
I)
Endless inward immigration
II)
No expatriation process for immigrants, only illegal immigrants may
be expatriated.
III)
An ever-growing immigrant population
Let’s
repeat the same thought experiment we did with guest-worker
immigration. Let us say that Country B has a native population of 15
million citizens. Again (just like in our previous example) this
country decides it currently needs a total of 1 million immigrants.
They too decide to accept 100,000 new immigrants each year, for the
next 10 years. This, remember, is exactly what happened to Country A
under guest-worker immigration.
After
10 years, Country B (like Country A) has its 1 million immigrants.
However, the total immigrant population will never stop growing
because, although the same number of immigrants arrive (100,000 new
immigrants each year) few, if any, will leave. Most will become
permanent residents or citizens, and those who acquire citizenship
(including any children they may have) will no longer even be
considered immigrants.
More
crucially, however, since citizenship immigration has no expatriation
process, the overall immigrant population will continue to rise
rather than remain fixed at 1 million (as it did under guest-worker
immigration).
In
fact, in Country B, the immigrant population will grow by 1 million
every 10 years (100,000 new arrivals x 10), and after 100 years the
immigrant population will be 10 million, that’s 10 times the size
of the immigrant population in Country A (under guest-worker
immigration).
Please
note that, even if you believe these numbers are arbitrary, you are
missing the most important point: we have used the same numbers on
both immigration systems. The accuracy of the numbers is more or less
irrelevant in comparison to the process responsible for those
changes. In particular, we are interested in knowing why one system
keeps the immigrant population static and unchanged, whilst the other
system leads to rapid growth.
Citizenship
immigration not only leads to a rapidly growing immigrant population;
it almost guarantees the immigrant population will outpace any growth
in the indigenous population. The indigenous population itself can
only grow through new births, yet the immigrant population grows
through both new births and new immigrant arrivals. And in most
cases, new immigrant arrivals will be from a far younger demographic
than the indigenous population – so they will naturally tend to
have more children.
Overall,
citizenship immigration creates conditions where the native
population will necessarily become outnumbered by the immigrant
population (i.e become a racial minority). Indeed, any country
adopting citizenship immigration must accept the idea that its native
population will (sooner or later) become a vanishing minority.
Citizenship
immigration has a hidden social engineering component which is absent
altogether under guest-worker immigration, and, as we will now see,
it provides no economic benefits whatsoever.
The
Economics of Citizenship-Immigration
Let
us be clear: Handing immigrants permanent residence and citizenship
(citizenship immigration) provides no additional economic benefits
over guest-worker immigration. Indeed, citizenship immigration
weakens, diminishes and undermines the economic benefits available
under guest-worker immigration.
In
economic terms, guest-worker immigration is a far more flexible and
efficient than citizenship immigration. Under guest-worker
immigration, non-working immigrants can be expatriated, older workers
are continuously replaced by younger workers, and the immigrant
population itself is static yet it can be intentionally increased or
reduced as economically necessary.
Under
citizenship immigration, the number of new immigrants being handed
permanent residence and citizenship can, in theory, be increased or
reduced. Yet, because existing immigrants rarely leave, once the
total immigrant population is large enough, it will continue to
expand even if further immigration is stopped altogether!
Citizenship
immigration is founded on the idea that immigrants deserve the right
to permanent residence and citizenship, and so they are necessarily
(as citizens) granted access to welfare, social security, pensions,
medical and healthcare support, housing benefits and other costly
public services. These are clearly additional social costs and
overheads which reduce – not increase – the economic benefits
available under guest-worker immigration. Indeed, under guest-worker
immigration, these social costs and overheads are the privilege of
citizens alone and immigrants are rarely granted citizenship.
Perhaps
most crucially of all, guest-worker immigration leads to an immigrant
population which is fixed in size. This makes it easy to plan for and
accommodate any financial costs and burdens that supporting an
immigrant population may demand (extra schooling, additional
transport infrastructure, etc.) But because the immigrant population
is fixed in size, the additional budgeting is relatively small and
easy to plan.
Under
citizenship immigration, on the other hand, where the vast majority
of immigrants will legally remain forever or acquire permanent
citizenship, the costs of social provisions will grow rapidly because
the immigrant population itself is growing rapidly. Overall, then,
there is a vast difference between planning and paying for a fixed,
static immigrant population and funding an ever-growing immigrant
population whose growth rate and social needs will exceed that of the
indigenous population.
Finally,
citizenship immigration is less economically flexible than
guest-worker immigration. Under citizenship immigration, non-working
immigrants cannot easily be returned home even if it would be
economically expedient to do so. Their legally protected ‘right’
to permanent residence and citizenship (in all and only White
countries) mean that the immigrant population cannot be reduced
without resorting to drastic measures, such as withdrawing permanent
residence status or cancelling citizenship, measures which were
economically unnecessary in the first place.
Overall,
then, there are no economic advantages to offering immigrants
citizenship and permanent residence, there are only additional costs
and social burdens. Indeed, when we compare citizenship immigration
to guest-worker immigration, we find that economics necessarily comes
second to socio-political considerations. That is, economics is made
to suffer in order to accommodate (hidden) political considerations.
Under
guest-worker immigration, the purpose of immigrants is to empower the
economy. But under citizenship immigration, the primary function of
economics is to endorse, justify, and (if necessary) suffer
substantial economic losses for large-scale immigration and
demographic engineering.
Citizenship
immigration cannot be justified on economic grounds. It is less
economically advantageous than guest-worker immigration, it is less
economically beneficial, flexible, and highly likely to cause
large-scale demographic changes. The immigrant population is almost
guaranteed to grow faster than the native population. So why would
any sane country want to implement it rather than guest-worker
immigration?
Clearly,
the motivation behind citizenship immigration is not economic. So,
what is it?
The
Agenda behind Citizenship-Immigration
In my
view, we can gain an important insight into what has motivated our
leaders to adopt citizenship immigration (rather than guest-worker
immigration) by simply looking at which countries have implemented
it. When we do, we find that all and only White, Western countries
have implemented citizenship immigration.
At
first, there appears to be no rational basis for this choice: Why
would any country choose an inflexible, economically inferior system
of immigration which clearly and demonstrably changes the demographic
make-up of the country, especially when a far superior alternative is
widely available?
Choosing
citizenship immigration over guest-worker immigration makes
absolutely no sense, unless radically changing the demographic
make-up of your country is the desired result.
We
are constantly told that immigration is an ‘economic necessity’,
and yet White countries alone operate a completely different
immigration system to non-White countries. It’s more expensive,
more inflexible and it’s vastly more demographical harmful. The
economic arguments are lies. So what are we supposed to think? Once
again, only White countries operate this system, why?
Citizenship
immigration has been imposed on all, and only, White countries for a
reason. And the only plausible motivation which makes any sense at
all is that large-scale social- and racial-engineering is seen as the
primary benefit. Incredibly, this, and this alone, seems to be the
logical motivation capable of explaining citizenship immigration.
When
the advocates of immigration say things like ‘all countries have
immigration’ or ‘immigration doesn’t just happen in White,
Western countries, it’s a global phenomena’, they are not simply
being dishonest; they are deliberately attempting to hide an ugly,
biased agenda. There has never been just one immigration system, and
the idea that all countries have the same immigration system is a
lie. When they say that immigration is fair they know very well that
the outcome of the immigration system is very different in White,
western countries than it is in any other country in the world. And
this should tell us all we need to know about how much these wolves
respect fairness and equality.
Some
Objections:
The
Hong Kong and Singapore Objection:
Some
immigration advocates might argue that Hong Kong and Singapore are
both examples of non-White countries which operate a citizenship
immigration programme. I have no idea whether that is true or not,
but this argument is easily collapsed on different grounds
altogether.
The
primary reason why citizenship immigration is so nefarious is
because, in all cases, a specific racial group is being targeted for
racial replacement. All White countries operate citizenship
immigration, and the result is always the same, less and less White
people. That is a whole racial group, not simply a specific ethnic
group.
By
suggesting that Hong Kong and Singapore operate a system of
citizenship immigration pro-immigration advocates want to imply that
the native population of Hong Kong and Singapore will also be turned
into an ethnic minority, or destroyed as a ethnic group. But this is
simply not true, and it would not be true even if citizenship
immigration was in place in both those countries.
Neither
Hong Kong nor Singapore represents a unique ethnic group, let alone
an entire race of people. As a nation, Hong Kong is ethnically
Chinese, just as Singapore is ethnically Malaysian. So, even if the
entire Chinese population of Hong Kong were to disappear, there would
still be plenty of ethnically Chinese people in the world (in
mainland China where there is certainly no citizenship immigration).
The
same is true for Singapore, whose original inhabitants were
Malaysian. Even if the entire population of ethnically Malaysian
people were to disappear from Singapore, there would still be plenty
of Malaysians because Malaysia itself does not have a citizenship
immigration system turning them into an ethnic minority. The same,
however, cannot be said of Sweden, Germany, Australia or any other
White country. Not only do all White countries have citizenship
immigration, the ethnic group in each White country (Sweden, Germany,
Australia, etc.) would cease to exist if it were to disappear from
that country. Indeed, this is exactly what is happening.
The
truth is, citizenship immigration is deployed in all and only White,
Western countries. So, even if there seem to be examples of something
similar in a couple of non-White countries, closer analysis will soon
reveal that the ethnic groups supposedly under threat is not under
threat at all (as per Hong Kong and Singapore).
It is
also enlightening that both Hong Kong and Singapore are very small,
highly prosperous countries. In fact, both countries operate some of
the most highly valued stock exchanges in the world (the Hong Kong
stock exchange is 2nd largest in Asia, and 5th in the world). This,
perhaps, sheds some light on the power, influence and agenda of the
kinds of people interested in imposing citizenship immigration on the
West.
The
Demographic Decline Objection:
These
days, demographic decline is a common justification for endless
immigration into the West. It would not, therefore, be very
surprising if pro-immigration advocates were to argue that the West
needs citizenship immigration to prevent the demographic decline of
their native White population. On the surface, this appears
plausible, yet the ‘demographic decline’ argument has a serious
credibility problem.
If
citizenship immigration is necessary to prevent economic and/or
demographic decline then why hasn’t this objective ever been stated
openly and publically? In other words, if the governments of White
countries truly believe that the ethnic and racial make-up of all
White countries needs to be sacrificed in order to prevent economic
and/or demographic decline, then why hasn’t this decision ever been
stated openly and clearly? But in truth, the opposite is true:
Western governments, big business, the media, politicians and other
elites have done everything possible to silence any debate on
immigration. And so far they have been very successful in hiding the
truth: That there are two, very different systems of immigration; one
of which is intended to turn all and only White countries into racial
melting-pots in order to save them from ‘economic collapse’ or
‘demographic decline’.
The
fatal blow for the ‘demographic decline’ argument, however, comes
from the highly selective (and secretive) way in which citizenship
immigration itself has been deployed. It exists in all White
countries, and only White countries. Yet, are ALL White countries in
demographic decline? And even if they are, are there not alternative
measures which don’t lead to the indigenous White population
becoming a minority in every White country on Earth?.
If
citizenship immigration is the tool of choice to combat ‘demographic
decline’, then why don’t rich, non-White countries like China,
Taiwan, Israel and Qatar force their people to adopt it?
Qatar,
for example, is a country with only 278,000 citizens, yet it has an
immigrant population of over 2 million! Yet because Qatar operates a
system of guest-worker immigration, the ethnic Qatari population is
protected from race-replacement, despite being outnumbered 8 to 1 by
immigrants! Qataris are a small statistical minority (compared to the
immigrant population) yet their immigrants are temporary guests, not
citizens. Qataris will neither become an ethnic minority in Qatar,
nor lose their culture or sovereignty. So why should we?
The
final nail in the coffin for the ‘demographic decline’ argument,
however, is the openly hostile attitude of Western leaders to
measures which might boost White birth rates and halt that decline.
When
Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, won his country’s
election in April 2014, he called for the total cessation of
immigration into his country coupled with policies designed to boost
native Hungarian birth-rates (see
href=”http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2014/08/25/hungarys-orban-bashes-liberal-immigration-policy/”>here).
The outrage which ensued was as caustic as it was immediate. The EU
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vidar Helgesen (Norway), called for the
EU to immediately impose economic sanctions on Hungary.
Thus,
in White, Western countries it is the worldview of Mr Helgesen, not
Mr Orban, which prevails amongst our leadership. And far from
supporting measures which might halt ‘demographic decline’ (in
all and only White countries), Western leaders utterly condemn such
measures and seek to demonize, ostracize and alienate anyone brave
enough to even suggest them.
Indeed,
French ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy went even further; stating, on
several occasions, that EU countries have a ‘moral obligation’ to
engage in race-mixing and not just accept (citizenship) immigration.
Summary:
We have looked at just two potential objections to
citizenship immigration. But rather than disproving the claim that
citizenship immigration is motivated by an ideological desire for
race-replacement, the ‘demographic decline’ argument, in
particular, seems to lead us back to the very same conclusion.
Namely, that those who seek to justify citizenship immigration are
not motivated by economics or supposed benevolence towards their own
race (i.e. to prevent ‘demographic decline’) but by a covert, yet
fervent, desire to engage in racial engineering in all and only White
countries. Their position is clear: White people must become a
minority in all White countries, and policies like citizenship
immigration have been created to ensure that all White peoples must
become racial minorities in their own native homelands.
(Source: smashculturalmarxism.wordpress.com, redicecreations.com)
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario