By Selwyn Duke

Let’s do a little thought exercise here. Imagine that some
force was flooding an indigenous people’s lands with millions of unassimilable foreigners,
and it was understood that this influx would irretrievably change that land’s
culture and replace the population. What would anthropologists call this
phenomenon? Cultural genocide comes to mind.  

Of course, in America we call it “immigration policy.”

Now, when King Edward I “Longshanks” said about dominating
the Scots in the film Braveheart, “If
we can’t get them out, we’ll breed them out,” it was to be expected from an
enemy of Scotland. And how should we characterize America’s immigrationists,
who have long been washing American culture away with endless waves of
unassimilable foreigners?

Before answering, let’s first consider the testimony of
Fredo Arias-King, ex-aide to former Mexican president-elect Vicente Fox (hat
tip: Timothy
Birdnow). About how he and his colleagues spoke to 50 US congressmen and
senators back in 1999 and 2000 he writes:

Of those 50 legislators, 45 were
unambiguously pro-immigration, even asking us at times to "send
more." This was true of both Democrats and Republicans.

…[Moreover] [m]ost of them seemed
to be aware of the negative or at least doubtful consequences of mass
immigration from Latin America, while still advocating mass immigration.

… [The Democrat legislators] seemed
more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase
the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended
to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more
dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political
class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting
per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in
supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks
to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding
Fathers….

Republican lawmakers we spoke with
knew…that they may not now receive their [the naturalized Mexicans’] votes,
[but] they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing
American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they
could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans
seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their
Democratic competitors did.  

…Also curiously, the Republican
enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the
end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators
seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating
straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms.
In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty,
demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general
would "go away" after tinkering with the People….

…I remember few instances when a
legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them
"rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect
attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic
composition of the United States as an end in itself.

This isn’t unusual
in the West, either. In fact, it was revealed
in 2009 that the UK’s immigrationists sought to socially engineer a
“multicultural” Britain because they wanted to “rub the Right's nose in
diversity and render their arguments out of date” but didn’t want to divulge
the scheme lest they lose their “core working class vote.” With friends like
that….

Now, what would you
call people who visit such a thing upon their own culture solely to gain power?
And what fate do they deserve?

G.K. Chesterton’s comment, “It is terrible to contemplate how
few politicians are hanged,” comes to mind.

In fairness, Mr. Arias-King’s experiences predate the Tea
Party revolution, and the House GOP did defeat John McCain’s shamnesty bill in
2007. I also suspect that it was legislators partial to immigration who were
inclined to meet with him in the first place. And while I don’t doubt that closeted
culturally genocidal maniacs still exist (in abundance), there are also those
who genuinely believe that diversity should be “an end in itself.”
Unfortunately, bad policy is equally destructive whether implemented out of
malice or stupidity.

Speaking of which, multiculturalism can only ever be what it
is, an ideology; it can never be a workable reality. Having many different
cultures within the same borders is actually called balkanization, and its consequences
have been repeatedly observed throughout history. If the differences among the
disparate peoples become great enough, the nation may be partitioned so they
can go their separate ways. And there are only two possibilities for avoiding
this. One is if an iron fist of tyranny holds the competing cultures together,
as Marshall Tito did in the former Yugoslavia (and we all know why it’s
“former”); the other is if one group prevails over and subsumes the rest, as
the Japanese have largely done with the Ainus, an aboriginal people who once
dominated the island of Hokkaido.

This is absolutely the norm. Do the names, Saxons, Alans, Franks,
Visigoths, Vandals, Avars, Alemanni and Frisians sound at all familiar? They
were once distinct groups that occupied early medieval Europe, but they are no
more, having been subsumed into a wider culture. This may be good thing if it’s
a superior culture, it may be a bad thing if beauty was lost, or it may be a
mixed bag. But it is an undeniable thing.

This brings us to the myth of diversity. All it can ever be
is a liability to, hopefully, be overcome; it can never be the “strength” it’s
billed as (without even a shred of evidence in support of the notion). And,
interestingly, here’s what the Online Etymology Dictionary tells us about the origin of the term “diversity”: “mid-14c.,
from O.Fr. diversité (12c.) ‘difference, oddness, wickedness, perversity,’ from
L. diversitatem ‘contrariety, disagreement, difference . . . .’” “Contrariety”
and “disagreement”…. It certainly worked out that way in Yugoslavia, in the
Soviet Union, in Czechoslovakia, in India (when two regions broke away and
became Pakistan and Bangladesh). Why, even in Canada, where Quebecois and other
Canadians are racially identical, there has often been talk of secession.

So how much more of a problem it is when a group not only
has a different language, but is different racially, economically, culturally
and ideologically? And what about when that group of diversifiers supposes it
has a rightful claim to your territory (a poll showed a majority of Mexicans
believing that the Southwest belongs to Mexico and that they have a “right to
enter the U.S. without U.S. permission”)? What about when you try to teach
these newcomers American history and they say, as a teacher respondent reported
to me some years ago, “We don’t care about this — we’re Mexican.” When people
have come to your land mainly to make money and have loyalty lying elsewhere,
it doesn’t bode well for assimilation.

The kicker here is that flooding a nation with unassimilable
foreigners may do no more for diversity over the long term than pythons in the
Everglades. Sure, the swamp is currently more diverse — with tens of thousands
of fascinating non-indigenous creatures added to the mix — but how diverse will
the ecosystem be when they decimate native species? Thus have Florida
authorities decided that amnesty for the snakes probably isn’t the best idea.

So it is with a cultural ecosystem. Harking back to my
earlier point, the introduction of new cultural elements isn’t always just a
matter of simple addition; subtraction and division can be factors as well.
When worlds collide, when there is an incongruence of cultural elements, there
may be mixing as with the wolf and coyote. Or there may be an extinction, as
with how the Dodo on Mauritius was wiped out by rats. Of course, a new
equilibrium is always established, but it may very well be less diverse. And,
for sure, it will be different.

The good news here, if one can call it that, is embedded
within the bad. The history of social engineers is that they possess no clearer
a crystal ball than do futurists or science-fiction writers. If the
immigrationist traitors simply want to destroy America, they will certainly get
their way. But they will never have Mexico Norte, a republic they can
comfortably rule as patrons of complacent clients. Because nature — in this
case man’s — takes it course, and some people will likely realize that less is
more — and that only divided we stand.

                   Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

                                                  © 2013 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved