Understanding the Moral Aspect of Third World Immigration
We recently wrote an article regarding the moral issue of non-stop Third World immigration into all and only white countries, and people’s tendency to feel like they have to be a “necessary evil” when opposing these policies that are forcing our people to become a minority in our own countries. This article aims to explain the moral aspect of Third World immigration further.
The world has become a more uneasy place to live in, due to much distress and its many conflicts and disputes. This is nothing new, but there are now more people on this planet and many from the Third World would not think twice about coming to our countries for our resources and infrastructure, in order to live more comfortable lives. The consequence of this is that it has caused a great migration from the Third World into the Western world, and although some may think that the time when we could enjoy peace and picnics in flowery fields is now over for good, that does not need to be the case. Avoiding conflict here in the West will take some political brain power and positive action. It will require a lot of responsibility from all parties involved.
Most people would agree that we should not give up our homelands, and that we should look for peaceful solutions to these issues, rather than turning to violence or conducting terror. Ultimately, something like a multicultural civil war would harm our own people more than anything else, so finding peaceful solutions to the problem caused by the anti-white mindset is imperative.
There are many ways to help people from the Third World that do not necessitate bringing them all here and forcing us to become a minority in our own countries. For instance, we could continue to provide them with education and technological advancements that will help them develop their own infrastructure, in order to help them become more self-sufficient and less dependent on foreign aid in the future. To assume that they cannot be independent is to view them as inferior.
Chaos and socio-economic distress are great in the Third World, and many Europeans think that letting the non-whites into our countries is a good deed, an act of kindness. Critics of immigration often say that we are “too good” or “too kind”, which intimates that opposing mass immigration means taking a position of “necessary evil”. But is that right? Is it evil to want our countries to be ours, the place where we live? The collective mind of the Western world has been indoctrinated into thinking so, while it really is not. It is not inhumane for Pakistanis to live in Pakistan, Turks to live in Turkey or Chinese people to live in China. It is not moral to give up our own existence in order to save a few by taking them in. If we want to help, then taking people in to our territories is a poor way of doing any good since it hurts us and them at the same time and is a source of conflict rather than an act of good.
Contrary to what many critics of immigration may think, it is good to be a tolerant and inclusive person who acts well toward others. But it has gone too far and the so called tolerance has turned into a self-hating madness. The whole ethos here is wrong; that you are either a good tolerant endorser of multiculturalism or a hard and fierce European patriot who sets the necessary boundaries. Here is why that picture is wrong: firstly, it is incorrect to believe that it is “necessary evil” when you really want something constructive and healthy. Secondly, it is wrong to think that standing for something destructive and unhealthy, such as forcing mass immigration of non-whites to all and only white countries, is positive.
It is like a father who thinks he is a good person when he feeds his children with candy, for it seems like that is what the kids like and want. But, having been fed with candy, the children become sick and unhealthy because it destroys their bodies. Thus it is a short-sighted and misguided perception and ultimately a destructive act rather than an act of good.
Comparatively, the parents who give their children healthy food see themselves as persons of “necessary evil”, but have children whose bodies are fit and healthy. How ridiculous is that? It is quite clear what is good and what is bad, when one looks at the outcomes of actions. Thus we must always look to what the outcomes of our actions are, rather than at the short-sighted delusions of goodness which the sugar brings. We need to understand that giving children healthy food is good because it results in good health, and to feed the children with candy instead of healthy food is something that is evil because it results in long-term problems.
When we understand the moral aspect of this metaphor and apply it to immigration, we understand that it is not strict, hard and “necessarily evil” to want to bring a halt to mass immigration, because no one wants to be a minority in their own country. It is not right to destroy our countries, customs and peoples because of a short-sighted need to feel good about an action that is evil and destructive.
The psychology behind many Europeans’ way of thinking is that they want to be social, open and inclusive people; it is recognised as the characteristic of a strong and good person. Europeans, and self-professed multiculturalists most of all, think of themselves as strong and that they have to help “the poor Africans”, since they unconsciously view themselves as superior to “the poor third-worlders”. That this mindset is, in and of itself, very “racist” is something they have never contemplated. What they are doing is interfering with other cultures, the lives of other peoples and the fate of other nations by trying to make them into us. Rudyard Kipling once wrote a poem that describes the whole situation very well, called “the white man’s burden”, back in the days of the colonial empires. What we are doing now reflects the same kind of mad mentality.
It is immoral for us to force Africa into becoming like Europe, or vice versa. It is not good for Africans, and it is not good for Europeans. Why must we persist with this mad behaviour? What we really need is to let each other be, to live in peace and to accept that we all can exist as we are, in our own habitats. Thus, we can finally begin to understand the moral aspect of Third World immigration.