Skip to main content

Why are Australia's immigration levels so high when they are disadvantageous to the existing population?

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote*:
The ideas of the ruling class are, in any age, the ruling ideas

This is an obvious idea when you think about it. However, it is easily lost on those who do not realise who the ruling class is, or who significantly mischaracterise them. Of course, there is no 'ruling class' that can easily be identified as in the days of royalty. In modern democracies the 'ruling class' is a loose-knit conglomerate who exercise their power through the the mass media and finance (party donations, investment decisions, kickbacks, etc.).

The ruling class of Australia are pro-mass immigration. Anyone who supports the ideology that supports mass immigration are pro-ruling class. This includes those who identify as 'Far Left'**. The various elite benefit through mass immigration in several ways:

  • Governments: more people means more taxes, which makes the revenue side of the budget look good (the liability side is ignored). Governments can also say they created more jobs, despite the unemployment rate remaining stagnant or going higher, as many of those jobs went to migrants.
  • Consumer goods: Harvey Norman, Coles, Woolworths, etc. all benefit from increased demand for their goods
  • Banks and other financial institutions: more people to lend to means more profits
  • Universities and RTOs: universities are highly dependent on foreign students to survive. They are a means for foreigners to maintain visas and a popular pathway to Australian citizenship, so universities and most of their staff are pro-mass immigration.
  • Migrant rent seeking business: visa and settlement services, ESL, and other social services extract rents from government and taxpayer. They call this 'compassion.'

With so many powerful beneficiaries of mass immigration, it is less wonder why those who want a lower immigration, sustainable future are marginalised. The ideas of the ruling class are, in any age, the ruling ideas.



*I am not a Marxist! Socialism was the greatest disaster of the last millennium. I am pro-market, NOT pro-corporatism, rent-seeking, crony capitalism.

**The labels Left and Right are very misleading when it comes to immigration. Many on the supposed 'Right' are anti-immigration, and many on the 'Left' are pro mass immigration. The real difference is in class: the upper-middle and upper class are generally pro-immigration, regardless of whether they are socially Left or Right. Those on the 'Far Left' and some of the 'Centre-Left' and 'Centre-Right' are ignorantly pro-mass immigration due to the misguided, virtue-signaling politics of identity - despite the only beneficiaries being the capitalist elite.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Multiculturalism is responsible for every war in history (almost)

people informally segregate all the time. You will find various ethnic enclaves in Melbourne and Sydney. Ethnocentric in-group preference is also seen in choice of friends and communication levels among work colleagues of different ethnic backgrounds. While there may be enough tolerance to allow semi-deracinated individuals to participate in capitalism and consumerism, the reality is that in-group preference is innate and Multiculturalism/diversity should be avoided a much as possible, because it breaks down social cohesion and trust. Diversity is our greatest weakness - an observable, scientific reality (footnote: Robert Putnam). Remember that forced integration has lead to many conflicts in the 20th and 21st century. WWI and Hitler would not have happened if various ethnic groups had sovereignty rather than being under the thumb of oppressive empires. Iraq and Israel/Palestine are two current examples of Multicultural conflicts. There is widespread revolt against forced integrati...
Post a Comment
Read more

How Liberalism enslaves

Aristotle, the Stoics and other ancient Greco-Roman moralists posit a very different idea of 'freedom' that involves combating the tendencies that divert us from human flourishing and contributing to our community as social animals. It is naturalistic, albeit pre-Darwinist, but it is not dogmatic like Liberalism, Leftism, etc. This ancient teach us what freedom really is, and Stoic practices in particular can inculcate an honest sense of autonomy. Liberalism claims to grant people autonomy but it only gives them a false sense of it. It effectively enslaves people to denial of their biology, hedonistic consumerism, keeping up with the Jones', seeking celebrity, lower quality social and family relations, workplace and other forms of alienation, pursuit of happiness in all the wrong places: career, travel, shiny things, sleeping around, taking drugs, etc. Liberalism won't necessarily lead to all these things, but it makes people vulnerable to their marketing, and being h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Equality, Liberalism and the Big State

Shelley makes Liberalism sounds as idealistic and Utopian as any religion. I even see some parallels with the Sermon on the Mount. What is the relation between 'equality' and the 'individual'. (I don't think we are equal and my reification of the 'individual' has become weaker lately). Must one have a strong view of equality to have a strong view of the individual and their 'rights'? I think so, although those regimes pushing equality the strongest - the Communists - have ended up being the most hierarchical and totalitarian of all, with the State on top and the plebs below. Equality ends ups sacrificing individual 'rights' for the sake of whatever new set of individual 'rights' are trendy at the time. e.g. we need to pretend that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones therefore our 'free speech' right is sacrificed so as to protect the new 'freedom from hurt feelings' right of another. New indiv...
Post a Comment
Read more