Mass immigration- proponents avoid debate with cowardly “racist” smears.

Are you opposed to mass immigration, and sick of being labelled a racist by the fact impoverished elite whose opinions are given prominence in the fake MSM these days?

Overwhelming logical and rational arguments exist to support your view, but your opponents only have one response, and that is to smear you with the pejorative label “racist”. A response that makes them bigots.

The simple and factual argument for opposing mass immigration will be presented below, but first, its necessary to ask and try to answer a couple of questions-

  1. Why do mass immigration proponents need to try and smear opponents? Why can’t they allow a public discussion?
  2. Why do these people favour mass immigration. What is their compelling argument for invasion of the West and destruction of our traditional cultures. Surely there must be an upside right?

The answer to question 1) above is the same old same old. Cultural Marxism, the left’s preferred option for slowly bringing the West to its knees.

Cultural Marxism must be forced upon us by means of slow almost undetectable change because the ideas that underpin it are not rational and will not stand scrutiny. The stealth is a means to avoid scrutiny, but when it arises, and becomes public, it must be shut down. Given there is no logical argument available, the only other recourse is public shaming.

So anyone challenging mass immigration finds themselves not facing a rational argument, but rather dealing with allegations of racism or xenophobia. In other words, the CMs (Cultural Marxists) will try to turn you into a non-person. They attempt to marginalise you, and your views therefore become unworthy of further consideration.

The answer to Question 2) is again, the left and its Cultural Marxism strategies. The focal point is the dis-empowerment of the group the left perceive as “the white male ruling class”.  They see this group as a major impediment to their political ambitions, and seek to reduce its influence. Mass immigration of contrary groups will naturally reduce the proportion of white males in the population and accordingly reduce their power.

Mass immigration will also weaken us and divide us. So in our weakened divided and warring state, the left, driven by their desire for full global political ascendancy,  can oppress and or destroy all other political/ social groups and attain full and unchallengeable power. So there is no real upside, except of course for the global left.

Now the facts for the argument against mass immigration. The basic view is given in the short video below of Australian Conservative Party Senator Cory Bernardi on the Bolt Show. Mass immigration is a negative for its costs and its impact upon our culture. We actually gain nothing.


The Australian state of Victoria is an excellent example for study. Over the last seven years, Victoria’s population has grown by a million with 146,000 new citizens in 2016 alone. The state’s Labor government claims its economy is the strongest in Australia, driving the nations jobs growth.

The truth is that Victoria’s economy is a typically socialist Ponzi scheme that has failed miserably to lift the living standards of the incumbent population. Since 2008 Victoria’s Gross State Product has risen by a miserable 0.8%. Its worse if you apply a per capita measure. Victorians are not in fact enjoying any increase in their material living standards. The unemployment rate too is above the national average.

Rampant immigration has increased the size of the economic pie, but nobody has actually ended up with more pie. In fact, if one looks at the wider impact, the average pie slice has shrunk in size.

Endless population growth only increases demand for service industries and the housing industry. Meaning prices rise in these areas. The average incumbent Victorian sees no benefit coming his way, unless they’re in these artificially inflated industries.

Across the whole per capita state, no one is actually better off. Debt continues to accumulate, and taxes have to increase to pay the interest on this debt.  Exports recorded minimal growth in the 14 years to June 2016, whereas imports more than doubled. Accordingly, the state’s trade deficit had blown out to a whopping $47.5 billion in the year to June 2016

Economic and social infrastructure is becoming increasingly crush-loaded every year as rampant population growth continually outstrips capacity, leading to overcrowding on roads, public transport, and in schools. Housing affordability and rental availability has also deteriorated markedly on the back of the population deluge.

Victoria is increasingly a socialist basket case economy, and the mass immigration the govt claims is so beneficial is in fact just a Ponzi scheme.

Need further proof? Watch this excellent Andrew Bolt interview of Australian and Victorian Treasury Economist Leith Van Onselen, whose Macrobusiness article is the main basis for the seven paragraphs directly above. You’ll be left with no doubt as to the damaging and detrimental effects of mass immigration.


Lastly we have some more helpful truth on the state of the mass imigration play from a recent United Nations news report-

Japan’s prime minister said Tuesday that his nation needs to attend to its own demographic challenges posed by falling birth rates and an aging population before opening its doors to refugees.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced at the U.N. General Assembly that Japan is ramping up assistance in response to the exodus of refugees to Europe from the Middle East and Africa. He said Japan will provide $1.5 billion in emergency aid for refugees and for stabilization of communities facing upheaval.

But speaking to reporters later Tuesday he poured cold water on the idea of Japan opening its doors to those fleeing. “I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities by women, by elderly people and we must raise (the) birth rate.

Japan sees the way forward clearly. Why didn’t our own leaders see things so perspicaciously, and why are we now saddled with the disasters mass immigration has brought with it?  Readers can of course come to their own conclusions as to the answer to that question.

Next time someone calls you a racist for opposing mass immigration, send them to this page.

23 thoughts on “Mass immigration- proponents avoid debate with cowardly “racist” smears.

  1. The one thing you left out was the problem in NZ that only NZF has addressed. Have you heard how the Watermelons have called NZF immigration policy racist.


    • Hi Chuck. Yes I know Winston has tried to argue against mass immigration but he’s 1) a bit low on ammunition, and 2) massively out-gunned by the progressive fake MSM and the other parties.

      The plan has always been to suppress discussion on this issue while we are invaded to the point where it becomes too late. A point I think we reached some time ago.

      You can’t expect more from the Greens. I don’t even view them as Cultural Marxists so much as victims of that strategy. They’re mostly too low IQ and too indoctrinated and too uneducated to think in any way outside the way they’ve been programmed to think.

      I hope Winston and anyone else with a view opposing the CM status quo comes to this page and absorbs the arguments I have outlined. I’ve yet to see any credible counter arguments around the traps.


      • Winston missed his chance when school children were asking questions. A Sikh boy asked “why are you against immigration” and (I think) “why is it only Asians?”.

        He could have done a Donald Trump. The point of “They’re rapists, they’re …..” is affirming them and us. If you look across at the worlds peoples and see us as just one big lake then you are also disavowing the right of a people to be a people in a national boundary.

        Because it is our country.
        – we are a distinct ethnic group (Maori/Pakeha). We have been here since the 1840’s.
        If change happens it should happen at the behest of New Zealanders (through intermarriage and genuine economic justifications) ; the government has proactively been diversifying NZ.
        This is a developed country – bringing migrants in to stimulate the economy is just a sugar rush.
        Immigration policy shouldn’t just be about the most skilled but about relative desirability and opportunities at all levels For example the reason it is harder for Kiwis in Australia is because of immigration from India and China.
        China has only naturalised 1448 citizens (2010).
        Do we owe it to take in people from countries who have shit in their own nests because they didn’t share the protestant ethics of keeping the birthrate low?


        • NZ like most developed countries has a below replacement birth rate. The problem is not immigration as such but immigration of a culture that refuses to assimilate.


          • Immigration is a problem when a country’s population out strips it’s ability to keep living standards increasing. For example, we have more tourism but real wages in tourism and hospitality have been falling since the 1980’s when a policy of population increase began.


  2. If someone calls me a racist I’m quite happy to reply, ‘If you say so, but I say you are an ignorant bigot. I hope we can both agree on this and be friends’. Of course they don’t (usually they splutter in confected rage) and they have no intention of being our friends, they are in fact our avowed enemies.


    • That’s a canny response Bill, as it neutralises the common leftist arguing technique of framing your point of view as immoral. They just say racist, or xenophobe or troll or whatever. They’re all words with the same intent, which is to categorise the opponent as immoral and therefore beyond argument.

      The real reason for this strategy though is that either no good argument exists, or the leftist is too stupid to formulate an argument even if there was one.

      Its a short cut to shutting you down, except that as you say, it doesn’t work any more, and the leftists are as usual too dull to catch up with that development.


      • I’ll try this bigot thing on SJW step daughter. She’s moved back home (briefly I hope) and is making home life stressful. She knows nothing but will lecture you on everything. Her lecturing me on my driving while she has been 6 years on her learners is especially annoying. I’ve told her mum (who is just as annoyed and wonders where the heck she got indoctrinated) there’s going to be consequences for the little darling if she doesn’t pull her angry head in.


        • Universities today. Their primary function is not to educate, but to drive a cultural wedge between children and their parents and their grandparents.

          They are producing brainwashed Marxist cultists who sadly have no idea of what has happened to them, or how it happened. So we have peer groups full of individuals who whether they went to uni or not, all think the same out of fear of being ostracised.

          Normally such indoctrination would be remedied through the kind of intervention that is used to free victims from cults.Scientology, Jim Jones etc.

          However because it is so widespread, its an accepted norm and we let it go.

          There really needs to be something done about the way universities have been weaponised by the left.


  3. Nice job Red.

    A timely distraction to the reminder that is election year in NZ and we few taxpayers remaining are so horribly served for voting choices it’s embarrassing.


  4. Well red, I just found out another one, at the age of three a child is meant to go to preschool, and if you are on a benefit, you must do so or you will be punished. So from the age of 3 a child is snatched from the parents. I have a slightly different view on their bottom line. My thinking is that their are 7.5 billion people on the planet and the left wants to do something about not allowing the population to grow.

    So this means making it difficult for families. By giving children rights, it makes it more difficult for fathers. And then if the marriage fails their goes your assets and property. So what I’m saying is they are trying to make it impossible for young potential fathers to have a happy family and relationship.

    And by mass immigration this means your wages will be lower. If I have $10,000 worth in tools, equipment and machinery my productivity will be high meaning a high free market wage. Now if the population doubles everybody only has $5,000 in tools, equipment and machinery. Your productivity is lower, meaning your wages are lower.

    The more people their are the less capital equipment per person unless these migrants bring capital in the form of money with them. So that’s the other part of their plan. So their bottom line is to limit the population by discouraging fathers, and destroying our economic independence.


  5. Thank goodness for Andrew Bolt.
    I have been telling friends to tune in.Nothing in New Zealand to compare.
    Turnbull and his left Liberals are just like National pursuing policies of mass immigration and other fails like the Paris Agreement as though they have been indoctrinated by the UN in some secret agreement.
    I do feel there is a groundswell against this mass immigration which could be part of a backlash in September.


    • Apologies for not releasing your comment sooner John. For some reason went into spam sector.

      Yes, Bolt is excellent value. There is still plenty of fight left in the Australians, while NZ has surrendered long ago. Sky News in particular gives Conservatives & the right wing a pretty fair go. Never see it in NZ.


  6. Pingback: The Weekly Headlines – My Daily Musing

  7. Pingback: The Weekly Headlines 15 July 2017 – Br Andrew's Muses

  8. This harks back to 1950s Canadair add I saw the other day about communist professors infiltrating universities and “subtly” spreading their propaganda via education system.
    Yet here we are some 60+ yrs later and not much has changed, in fact it’s intensified somewhat.

    “Communism and Twisted Education
    In the eyes of Communism, a child is simply something to be warped into one shape, ignorant
    of moral responsibility, devoid of intellectual honesty… a creature of the State.

    In its drive for world power, Communism has found it most profitable to influence teachers
    and alter text books… to use the intimate bond between teacher and scholar to spread doubts about the old ways and Christian ethics… to insinuate ideas of atheism, regimentation and false idealism in their place.

    We, parents and teachers alike, need to be on our guard, to re-affirm the truths we once learned and now teach, to vow to keep our children free from Communism. Wasted would be all other defences – navies, armies or air forces – if Communism could take the citadel from within.”


  9. Blogger Wayne Mapp said…

    Who is “white” these days?

    I guess 75% of the North America, and a similar percentage of Europe, plus the small numbers of Australia and New Zealand. So yes, less than a billion.

    In large measure known as the “west”, though that obviously excludes Russia. It also excludes the several hundred million in Latin America. Yet a number of people in those countries are obviously white.

    Rather than focussing on race you should look at who is the “West”, because in my view that is the power structure you are really talking about. And while it may have European origins, it clearly is no longer a racial construct, if it ever was. Because Japan, South Korea and Singapore clearly have signed up, to a greater or lesser extent, to the construct of the “west”. President Obama was clearly a leader of the “west” as was Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice. No matter what you say, none of them can be considered dupes. The characteristics of the “west” are not derived from race, they derived from shared values. Which is why Russia is not yet fully part of it, but Japan is.

    This has all been exhaustively analysed by Niall Fergusson, which I am sure you are full aware of.

    Don’t underestimate ethnicity Wayne Mapp. People and place are not fungible.


  10. Redbaiter I don’t know if you have come across “separation of nation and state”?

    and here:
    Of course this task was not left to ranginui alone Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou was preceded by a number of Pakeha historians and others who helped construct a very different history of colonialism. Honourable mention ought to be made of Dick Scott, Claudi Orange, Jock Philips, James Belich and Anne Salmond. But Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou which was published in 1990 was the most important and influential colonial history by a Maori author. What is interesting is that his criticisms were couched in a language which was familiar to the middle classes who provided the management and leadership to our core institutions. His was an original and powerful voice in critiquing the state (although of course not te only voice). It was a voice that took the arguments of an international politics of liberation : the Marxism of Gramsci the notion of hegemony the critiques of colonialism offered by Fanon and Césaire the liberation theory and the possibility of a transformative education of Freire and Illich and put them into a New Zealand vernacular.
    For much of the twentieth century it was assumed that the state operated on behalf of a single nation that the two (the nation and the state were indivisible) The state represented all New Zealanders. It deserved their undivided loyalty and in return the state was neutral with respect of the ethnic identity of it’s citizens. The identity politics of Maori challenged all of these elements. The nation was made up, it was argued, of two groups and the operation of the state ought to recognise the particular circumstances and the rights of Maori. Something which it had not done previously. In fact the state had seemed to operate in ways that had directly disadvantaged Maori. The state was hardly neutral. According to Ranginui and others the state preserved Pakeha interests even if it continued to claim universality and neutrality. It was a radical rethinking of what the nation state of NZ ought to be. It required a de coupling of the nation now defined as Maori and Pakeha or Maori and the Crown and required the state to operate in new and different ways. A new understanding and a new social contract needed to be established . But of course there was no compulsion for the state to acknowledge these new expectations. It was left to the good sense and sensitivity of some key players: Maori, Pakeha and representatives of the state to explore what this means.


    • I believe the current focus on te Reo and the Maori Wars on RNZ are because we are rapidly arriving at the crunch when Maori are out numbered and the proponents (house Maori etc) at RNZ are in the diversity is good camp. It fits with the meme that Maori were treated terribly through our colonisation, but now we have “vibrancy”, “diversity” and all the other clothes the Emperor isn’t wearing?


  11. Why does Don Brash think it is so important that we are one people?
    by Steve Maharey

    But that is what is happening. Ever since the Treaty of Waitangi became the basis for settling long standing greivances, we have seen Maori move out of the cul de sac Brash, apparently, would like to see them tucked away in.

    A powerful reason for this is that New Zealanders of other ethnic backgrounds discovered that in a globalising world the only thing that distinguishes them from other nations is the culture that is unique to the land they live in – Maori. That is why they sing the Maori version of the national athem with gusto, learn the haka, learn the language at school, value Maori brand names and support the use of the Maori language in everyday life.
    Behind the “one people” slogan sits a belief that Maori are at no disadvantage. Afterall, they enjoy the same opportunities and play by the same rules. It is, Brash suggests, patronising to think otherwise. The disturbing story told by prison, health, housing, education, employment and income statistics can, therefore, have nothing to do with the history of Maori as a colonised people. Any problems can be placed at the feet of Maori themselves.

    Jordan Peterson says that you cannot argue with these people; they will not let you, “they are cowards”. In fact one cannot argue on Pundit, Public Address, The Standard, The Daily Blog; the one thing that scares them is the massive hole in their belief system: evolutionary psychology.


Comments are closed.