ANTI-IMMIGRATIONISM IS JUST THE WAY "ANTI-IMMIGRATION" PEOPLE ACCEPT IMMIGRATION

Anti-immigration feelz being converted into grift cash and continuing mass immigration

by Colin Liddell

Every day, there is a shitload of naive, blind, and stupid talk about anti-immigration on the internet. In fact, it has increasingly become like a kind of mental and emotional spam, clogging up the mental and emotional pores of millions of depressed and irritable people. Luckily, most people in the wider world are just too drained by normie considerations to get sucked in, but many aren't. So, for those poor cursed and entrapped souls, here is the low-down on anti-immigration:

"Anti-Immigrationism is just the way "Anti-Immigration" people accept immigration."

Yup, you got that, and I know it hurts, and you are not ready to accept it. You are already reaching for your bag of copes. That'll make everything alright again, at least for a short time. Go for it, bro. It sucks to have your feelz attacked. But let's press on. Yes, Anti-Immigrationism is just the way "Anti-Immigration" people accept immigration.

"Hey, this doesn't even sound logical!" But it is, so that cope is not going to work either. Let me explain the rather simple mechanism: There are several stages to accepting new things. A generally used conventional formulation is:

Denial, Anger, Depression, and Bargaining, followed by Acceptance.

There are other ways to put this. Personally, I think complaining, moaning, kvetching, and signalling play a bigger role, but there you go. 

Accepting new things, especially things like mass immigration that break our connection to the eternal, is just hard. But ultimately accepting facts on the ground is always going to be easier than not accepting them. As for changing them, now, that's the hardest part -- but who really wants to go there.

With immigration what we inevitably see is the following pattern: moaning with a bit of shrieking, but nothing of real substance happening. Politically, this sometimes transitions into people voting for certain parties or individuals who promise to shut the borders or to even reverse migration. Usually, you need a few migrant outrages, riots, crime waves, etc., to get this started, but often the resilience of the public to such stimuli knows no limits.

In the more extreme cases, some parties or politicians might even get elected on the promise to do "things," and some of those "things" might even get done...a bit, for a time at least.

But there are some things they’re simply NOT going to do. That includes putting real pressure on "reforming demographics." the fundamental problem, as that would cut too much into feminist freedoms and individual choices. God forbid! Don’t piss off the voters FFS!

So, putting all your remaining copes to one side, what does this mean? Well, obviously it means fertility rates staying around 1.5 kids or less per woman in most of the West. That is a 25% or more generation-on-generation depopulation and an eternally shrinking and aging economy. That is, without mass immigration.

At least we're not South Korea, where fertility is now down to 0.8 and a 60% generation-on-generation depopulation, which is why the North (1.8) will win.

NK Ultras: objectively the best Korea

So, without doing anything radical that would instantly piss off the voters and crash the debt-laden economy, what is the solution? -- sorry, what is "the solution”? -- as quotation marks are essential here.

It is to generally allow mass immigration, while either hiding or downplaying it a bit, combined with efforts to "tweak" it a little to make sure the migrants aren't too unpleasant, badly behaved, or alienated. Not to mention the occasional token "hard-line," "anti-immigration" gesture. Remember "Build the Wall" and "Muh Rwanda" anyone?

This kind of fudge approach represents the utilitarian maximum of the "greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible number" with emphasis on "possible." Effectively everybody’s kind of, sort of, but not really happy. But anything else would cause a ruckus.

This, then, will be the pattern of the next 30 or 40 years of politics. To REALLY stop immigration there is only one way -- a wholistic approach enforced with almost North Korean levels of authoritarianism.

This would mean closing the borders and sending the migrants back. But it would mean so much more too. It would mean reforming society drastically to restore fertility to the healthy level of 2.1 kids per woman. A big ask from a crowd of Taylor Swift fans!

The nannying costs of attending Taylor Swift concerts are minimal and falling.

Restoring healthy fertility would take some doing. Either, you would have to recreate a “trad” society in the modern world, with all its inducements to breed. (Imagine what that would look like without LARPing). Or else you would need to literally set up "breeding factories" of some kind, where women were “forcibly” impregnated to some degree. Horrific by our standards!

The most politically acceptable version of a demographically positive future would be a tech solution of using artificial wombs to raise eggs into embryos and human beings. But how does even that -- or any of this -- sound to normies today? Pretty crazy, right? But, guess what, the alternatives -- including the path we are on now -- is immeasurably more extreme and radical.

Conclusion: only a tyrant or a totalitarian system dedicated to the goals of healthy demographics has any chance of survival into the 22nd Century. Anything else will simply be a camp for mass immigration that will eventually run out of populations to import, while also having near zero continuity with its past. In fact, any such society can be guaranteed to virulently hate its past, or, more accurately, its "former host body."

In fact, I think we got there early:

This prognosis includes even scenarios where populist "nationalists" (Trump, Farage, Orban, Meloni, or even Putin) are elected.

This is because populist anti-immigrationism, without a wholistic solution, is simply just the rather odd way that anti-immigration people accept immigration. We have to conclude that secretly they love it.

____________________

Follow @cbliddell

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. As there is absolutely zero reward for writing honest content like this, support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia). or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.