So we can discuss immigration now?

No meaningful resistance is allowed; the population knows that.

One consequence of recent acceleration of social engineering by technocrats is that their agenda is becoming clearer. As that occurs, globalists seem to be unmasking themselves with greater confidence. In an article in The Herald, migration consultant Parag Khanna revealed how technocrats hold in contempt peoples, nations and traditions.

Under the headline “‘Mass migration is coming and the future of Scotland is Asian' says leading migration expert Dr Parag Khanna”, Neil MacKay writes: “The future for Scotland, like the rest of the Western world, is probably going to be Asian. The country will find itself swept up in the coming “Great Migration”. We will see a “brownification” of Scotland, as demographics and mass migration coalesce to change the complexion of the West.”

This “Great Migration” sounds very similar to the “Great Replacement”, which Wikipedia describes as “a white nationalist conspiracy theory”, attributed to Renaud Camus. (The article is under the heading of “Islamophobia”, which tells you something about the editors’ outlooks.) Yet even the United Nations discusses “replacement migration”, and enables it through the ‘Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration’ (2018). Although a non-binding framework, that treaty would make criticism of migration a criminal offence, according to a Dutch politician.

Khanna’s argument is that migration is unavoidable and beneficial. Not beneficial if you wish to see racial diversity preserved globally, however. Khanna, author of Move: How Mass Migration Will Reshape The World And What It Means For You, looks forward to “robust mongrelisation of the world”, as the world’s population becomes more mobile and Asians have more children than ethnic Europeans. This is economically positive, offsetting ageing Western populations. “We’ll see an ever higher proportion of the world’s children with brown complexions and less with white complexions. You can’t refute that or do anything about it – it’s all part of the beautiful, deep tide of history and demographics.”

Shorn of Khanna’s positive sheen, this is exactly what nationalists and conservatives have been saying. States being treated as ant-farms by the sociopathic super-rich, who wish to sweep away thousands of years of cultural history, ethnic continuity and national independence, is the core of the “Great Replacement” theory.

The argument of globalists is as follows. “Globalisation is inevitable and completely out of my hands. We need to make [insert your Western nation here] pioneers in this field. We need to get on this train before it leaves the station. It won’t wait for us.” The globalist can then institute laws and social narratives which facilitates his vision, all the while asserting that he is managing unstoppable progress rather than causing irreversible change. The fact that no one in the UK has ever been permitted to vote on this topic suggests not that globalisation is inevitable but precisely that it could be resisted – an outcome that the political elite could not allow.

No party or senior politician in British politics ever ran on a platform endorsing mass immigration. Yet, ever since 1945, mass migration has increased. This went into overdrive under the globalist Tony Blair government (1997-2007). Net immigration was 48,000 in 1997; in 1998 it was 140,000. Over 300,000 people migrated to the UK in the year ending March 2020. Although COVID-pandemic measures may have slowed legal migration over the last two years, illegal crossings of the British Channel have escalated. No major party is willing to curb immigration – legal or illegal – and no government will increase deportation of illegal migrants and convicted foreign nationals, although candidates benefit electorally from signalling otherwise.

One reason why there is little faith in democracy is that people know they cannot elect a low-immigration administration. If they did elect representatives who wished to reduce (or reverse) migration, they would be demonised by the press, hamstrung by progressive civil servants, undercut by billionaire-funded charities and harried by leftist human-rights lawyers. No meaningful resistance is allowed; the population knows that.

As long as globalists – and politicians ignorant of, or sympathetic towards, the globalist agenda – dominate every field of public life, the reactionary position of disengage, revolt and sabotage, gains credibility every day. A reactionary might even say that such a reaction against democracy is unavoidable and beneficial...