December 08, 2011

Then, in the 1960s, at about the same time as their American cousins, British socialists and love-the-world globalists realized that mass Third World immigration was a marvelous weapon to wield against both their native working class, who were getting ideas above their station, and domestic conservatives and traditionalists of all kinds, whom the globalists needed to delegitimize so that Davos Man could take over.

Forty years on, one in eight of Britain’s population was born abroad, most in the Third World—that is to say, in places whose net contribution to human civilization over the last millennium has been zero, if not actually negative.

The consequences fill Britain’s newspapers. They filled them rather spectacularly in August this year, when the ineducable, unemployable, and unassimilable descendants of those Third World settlers burned and looted British town centers.

They have filled them this past few days with the story of Emma West, a British woman who, admittedly in salty language, had the audacity to lament her homeland’s demographic transformation in public. Ms. West is in jail as I write, charged with “a racially aggravated public order offence,” though no disorder seems to have ensued. Ms. West’s children have been “placed in care,” which is to say, sent to reeducation camps where they will be taught to hate their mother in between sessions of sex play with the pedophile camp staff. “Being the child of an enemy of the people” was the charge in Stalin’s time.

You will comb the records of British courts in vain to find anyone but a native Briton charged with “a racially aggravated public order offense.”

(In France the authorities are more tolerant. You can even, in a public-transport vehicle, call aloud for the extermination of an entire race, as in this case…except that…wait a minute…oh, forget it.)

The USA has come to the same place by a slightly different route. America has been multiracial from the beginning, so American patriotism based on ethnic solidarity has always been problematic (though the Founding Fathers seem not to have noticed). The globalists’ task in smashing up any kind of national feeling, including even a mere attachment to national sovereignty, has been correspondingly easier. It has been further assisted by the energetic romanticizing of immigration, so that complaints about, say, the mass importation of Somali refugees are drowned out by loud evocations of Ellis Island and the Famine Ships.

None of this has got much purchase in Russia—an odd thing, since Russia’s ruling classes are even more corrupt, unscrupulous, and contemptuous of their lower-class citizens than are Britain’s and America’s. If they thought it was in their interests to swamp Russia with millions of Mexicans, Somalis, or Pakistanis, then Putin and Co. would undoubtedly do so.

Still, Russia is in a bad way. The early post-Soviet years’ hopes have all faded. On Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2011, Russia is ranked at 143, tied with Uganda and Nigeria, actually below Pakistan. A wave of emigration is underway. The country’s demographics are terrible—African levels of mortality combined with East Asian birth rates.

Still, great numbers of Russians love Russia. In a conversation with a young Russian woman—college graduate, worldly, excellent English—I mentioned having dined at the Yesenin Café, which is named for a Russian poet, an old favorite of mine. She said she was a Yesenin fan, too. “I love his verses. So patriotic.” Imagine hearing that from a college-educated American girl!

Perhaps that’s why Russia’s rulers, as cynical and ruthless as they are, hold off on bringing in Muslims and Africans to break the ethnic back of their people. Nobody has yet managed to make any large number of Russians hate their own ancestors.

Russia’s post-Soviet rulers are certainly very wicked people. They have sucked their country’s precious natural resources out of the ground, sold them on world markets, and pocketed the proceeds, leaving Ivan and Katya to trudge through freezing mud for a lousy wage or starvation-level pension.

But are they more wicked than the Anglosphere’s rulers, who have swamped their own people with millions of hesperophobic welfare-dependent foreigners from regions of low mean IQ and high mean criminality—mullahs, muggers, and moochers—just for the satisfaction of humiliating their own domestic enemies? Will they, in the long run, have done more to destroy their nation than our rulers have done to destroy ours? History will tell.



Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!