Immigration - The State vs. The People

“Would it not be easier for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?” - Bertolt Brecht

  

Members of the elite, the people who make public policy, are generally above average intelligence.  They are generally well informed.  Why would they promote a policy that is clearly not in the best interests of their nation?  Their stated reason for encouraging immigration from the third world is to replace workers that are absent due to demographic decline.  Immigrants are expected to finance the retirement of aging Americans and Europeans.  This is a questionable proposition.  What other motive could they possibly have?  Perhaps it is supplied by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI: "There is a self-hatred in the West that can be considered only as something pathological. The West attempts in a praiseworthy manner to open itself completely to the comprehension of external values, but it no longer loves itself; it now only sees what is despicable and destructive in its own history, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure there."

It is not uncommon for member of the intellectual elite to criticize Western civilization.  However, few members of the political elite have been as frank as former British Home Secretary Jack Straw who allegedly said, “The English as a race are not worth saving.”  Straw was part of the British administration that opened “up the UK to mass migration.”  When asked “what is Swedish culture, Mona Sahlin, former leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party replied, “I can’t figure out what Swedish culture is.  I think that’s sort of what makes so many Swedes jealous of immigrants.  You have a culture, an identity, a history, something that binds you together.”  This might be described as oikophobia, an aversion to home surroundings.

Healthy people have a natural affection for their family, community and nation.  Citizens of some of the worst hellholes on earth can be fiercely patriotic.  This affection needs to be cultivated, however, and should not be defamed.  Theodore Dalrymple writes about his experience with burglars, muggers, blackmailers, kidnappers, rapists, and murderers.  He talks about their, “utter indifference or even hostility to the achievements of the past.”  He explains, “Nor is this indifference or hostility spontaneous; rather, it has been programmed into them by indoctrination that the past is nothing but the slave trade and the oppression of women.”  This indoctrination can be traced back to the “Father of American Anthropology,” Franz Boas.  Boas wrote: “I often ask myself what advantages our 'good society' possesses over that of the 'savages' and find, the more I see of their customs, that we have no right to look down upon them ... We have no right to blame them for their forms and superstitions which may seem ridiculous to us. We 'highly educated people' are much worse, relatively speaking . . .”  The problem in the West is not the opinions of burglars, muggers, rapists and murderers.  It is the fact that a large portion of the elite have adopted these beliefs.

What are the consequences of elitist policies?  John Cleese recently declared: "London is no longer an English city."  What will be the inevitable result of Britain no longer being an English country?  Britain was not necessarily a country rich in natural resources.  Its wealth depended upon its social capital.  Is Britain importing the necessary social capital to maintain its standard of living?  One only need to look at these metropolitan area to come to the correct conclusion.  The city of Detroit was once a dynamic center of economic activity.  Today it is a drain on the national treasury.  Even immigrants recognize the deterioration of the quality of life in Western cities.  Mohammed Abbas, an Iranian refugee who came to Sweden in 1994, stated, “In the old days the neighbourhood was more Swedish and life felt like a dream, but now there are just too many foreigners, and a new generation that has grown up here with just their own culture.”  This culture does, however, stimulate auto sales.  Periodically they go out and burn massive numbers of autos.

The multicultural doctrine is based on the belief that all cultures are equal.  To deny this fact is to be labeled a Nazi.  Multiculturalism is ordained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007.  It states, “that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.”  This nonsense is not even believes by the migrants. Haitians bypass Cuba, Muslims transit through Turkey and other migrants pass through half a dozen countries to reach the narrow minded oppressive West.

Potsdam: The End of World War II and the Remaking of Europe by Michael Neiberg

Professor Neiberg provides a fairly conventional account of the Potsdam Conference.  He highlights President Truman’s unpreparedness for the conference.  As Vice President Truman was kept totally in the dark.  On assuming the presidency he was still, in spite of his efforts, handicapped.  As Neiberg points out, “No one could find the official copies of the minutes of the Cairo, Tehran, and Yalta proceedings.” (p. 26)  He, like FDR’s State Department and the American public, was denied access to this information.  After 70 years it is about time to investigate some of this information.  

Bryton Barron, assistant chief of the State Department’s research and publication division, claimed, “the historian in charge of the Potsdam compilation had informed his superiors in the Historical Division that he had uncovered documents ‘too hot for public eyes’ and wanted these papers returned to the files.”  Some of this information is available to a dedicated researcher.  Some are probably still classified and some have disappeared into a Sandy Berger type’s underwear.    

Neiberg provides more information on the decision to leave the Central European capitals to the Soviets than is usually provided.  However, he cites General Omar Bradley’s estimate that the capture of Berlin would possibly cost 100,000 American casualties and compares that to the actual Russian casualties of 300,000.  This assumes that, in spite of the Morgenthau Plan, German resistance to U.S. forces would have been as ferocious as it was to the Soviets.  Colonel Frank Howley was informed that there was only one SS regiment between the Ninth Army and Berlin.     

I had never read that Eisenhower informed Truman that Russian assistance would be unnecessary for the defeat of Japan.  Neiberg claims John Deane and Admirals Leahy and King also held this view.  He states that the “Soviets demanded a restoration of some of what they had lost to Japan in 1905,” for their participation in the war in the Pacific.  He does not explain that this would be a restoration of Tzarist imperial goals that would be paid for by our ally the Chinese.   

On the negative side it appears that Neiberg suggests that the Cold War was to some extent the responsibility of the Truman administration which began with Truman’s first meeting with Soviet ambassador Molotov.  He attributes Russian policies to their paranoia which appears to justify their behavior.  He makes several references to the massive Russian casualties as a justification for their demands.  There is no mention of the number of self-inflicted casualties.  There were nearly one million Soviet citizens fighting with the Wehrmacht.  This often neglected fact should have been a clue that "Uncle Joe" was not the sweetheart that he was frequently portrayed as. 

Lastly Neiberg attributes a quote to Henry Morgenthau that according to John Morton Blum was made by FDR (p. 195).  He cites Benn Steil’s The Battle of Bretton Woods (p. 283).  I could not find it there.  John Morton Blum in From the Morgenthau Diaries (p. 342) attributes it to FDR.