Robert Henderson
British Prime Minster Boris Johnson has recently blithely announced that millions of Hong Kongers will be given the right to come to Britain on visas which grant them the right to stay for five years working, studying or whatever. At the end of five years these people will be able to apply for British citizenship.
This astonishing promise has met with precious little condemnation in the British mainstream media and from British politicians, a fact which tells you how strong a grip political correctness has on the British elite.
Johnson estimates the number of Hong Kongers who would qualify at three million. That figure will probably not be the final total because
1. Those who qualify will be allowed at some point to bring in dependants.
2. if China treats Hong Kongers really badly any conceivable UK government will probably allow Hong Kongers to come to the UK who are not qualified to receive for the Johnsonian visa.
Of course, it is possible that many of those who qualify for the visa might want to stay in Hong Kong despite the increasing destruction of their freedoms by China. But If , say, only a million came it would still put a tremendous burden both materially and psychologically on the British people .
To put the full promised burden in context net immigration to the UK in the year ending 31st December 2019 was 270,000 . That means the Johnson promise of three million (and counting ) is a fraction over eleven times the total increase to the UK population in the year 2019.
Does Johnson believe that the UK can deal with such an almighty influx? Possibly, but more plausibly he could be taking a shabby gamble on a belief that China will stop people coming or Hong Kongers will move to other places in Asia. If so, Johnson is being utterly reckless because there is a serious chance that far more than a million will come
China’s ambitions
China has made its desire to dominate the world as clearly as Hitler made his ambitions known in Mein Kapmpf. She wishes to be not a world power but the world power. ( Infuriatingly Western politicians are doing just what most European politicians did in the 1930s. They are ignoring the threat no matter how much evidence China provides. )
If the situation is looked at honestly there can be no doubt that China is serious about swallowing Hong Kong sooner rather than later. If that happens the repression Hong Konng is likely to suffer might well spark a wholesale dash for the UK.
Whatever the Chinese government says publicly now – that the U K is interfering in internal Chinese matters by making the visa offer and will suffer for it – – they might privately welcome such a development as it would at one and the same time seriously embarrass the UK and get rid of the Hong Kong opposition on the ground.
The UK could even be landed with large numbers of criminals and the disabled if the Chinese wanted to be really cheeky and copied a ploy of Castro in 1980 when he agreed to Cubans leaving if they wished to then emptied Cuba’s prisons and hospitals and shipped thousands of these people to the USA in what became known as the Mariel boatlift.
Mass immigration is conquest by non-military means
Mass immigration should be judged by its effects. Look around at virtually any major Western city and you will find areas which have been effectively colonised by immigrants. There is no inevitably about it as the politically correct like to insist by claiming that “we live in a globalised world”. This surreptitious colonisation is ultimately entirely the responsibility of the politicians who permit it
As the numbers of immigrants and their descendants increase the native population becomes more and more dissatisfied and politicians turn ever more to propagandising about the joys of diversity while passing laws which criminalise dissent and place the immigrant descended groups in a de facto privileged position. (The Tory politician Enoch Powell’s famous 1968 speech quoted a comment made by one of his constituents: “In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.” In terms of how public policy favours ethnic and racial minorities in the UK that prediction has come true. )
The great hypocrisy
Morally the most contemptible thing about mass immigration is that the elites which have allowed it to happen and lauded it to the skies are under no illusion about the state of heavily settled immigrant areas . We know this because they generally take very care to live far away from the supposed wondrous diversity .
Take London. The middle classes bleat constantly about the joy of diversity in the capital whilst taking flight from the joy by fleeing to very white, very English places.
Those left behind – primarily the white working class – are left to deal with the “ joy. “
A form of theft
Mass immigration is a form of theft. It robs the native population because it creates competition for housing, healthcare, education, jobs and most fundamentally the right of a people to enjoy their country without having to worry about their culture being diluted or even ultimately overthrown.
The futility of multiculturalism
Albert Einstein is reported as saying “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” That is precisely what happens when the multiculturalists attempt to deny reality. They find it does not correspond with their dreams of a society comprised of multifarious minority groups living harmoniously together . Instead of accepting human nature and its consequences they attribute the lack of harmony to an insufficiency of social understanding and think that the answer is re-education in the ways of liberal internationalism.
That this approach invariably fails is unsurprising because ironically multiculturalists advocate a form of living which in practice guarantees perpetual strife by promoting the idea that minority ethnic groups should be encouraged to maintain “their own culture”.
The reality of race and ethnicity
The fact that humans have external racial differences which are sufficiently distinct to allow people throughout the world to broadly categorise an individual into categories such as white and black , Asian and Africanis in itself indicative of the innate human tendency to breed with those who are racially similar, even though for several thousands of years large human populations of different racial types have existed in close proximity. If human beings did not have an innate preference for those who racially resemble themselves, humanity would have bred itself into something approaching a uniform racial type, at least in those parts of the world which were not very.
The alternative explanation to an innate tendency is the truly fantastic one that Man everywhere spontaneously developed cultural barriers to breeding which had nothing to do with any innate tendency.
Trust
Any human society whether it be a small band or a huge nation state requires trust. Nothing creates trust better than similarity. The fact that someone looks like you in general terms and speaks your language in an accent you associate with your group provides a ready reckoner of trust. That is why both physical type and ethnicity are so important when looking at human behaviour.
A secure territory is integral to a successful society because without it a the essential trust cannot be formed. Allow mass immigration and this trust is categorically sabotaged.
The politically correct may insist till the cows come home that humans are all basically the same but the reality is that heterogeneous societies are invariably fractious . Homogeneous societies are not immune to discord but it is rarely on the same all-pervading level.
Most importantly disputes in a homogeneous society can realistically be expected to be settled: class inequalities can be ameliorated, the balance between state and private enterprise changed, tyrants can be overthrown.
In heterogeneous societies where each group is fighting for its own benefit such alteration is impossible because the basis for each group is biological, that is, the group exists because of the natural tendency of humans to associate with those who most resemble them.
Treason
Consider this. If the UK had politicians who conspired with a foreign power to allow huge numbers of foreigners to invade we would call it treason.
If dissent about such an invasion was suppressed we would call it treason
If a foreign power invades though force he may be thrown out without inviting domestic and international opprobrium.
If invasion by mass immigration is allowed the situation is entirely different for two reasons: (1) the practical difficulty of where to send them and (2) they cannot be expelled without opprobrium.
That is why permitting mass immigration it is the most fundamental form of treason: it is the most difficult to reverse.
Living In A Madhouse 