The immigrants who have been coming to Canada since 1967, when all race discrimination provisions were eliminated, until the present, are radically different from the native born Quebecois/Acadians and English-speakers, the internal migrants from British North America, the pioneers/settlers from the British world and Europe, who came before 1914/1945, and the hardworking White immigrants who came between 1945 and 1967. It is not simply that post-1967 immigrants are from the Third World; it is that they are ideological pawns who have been invested by our hostile elites with a historic mission: end forever the Anglo-European national identity of Canada and create a totally new multiracial and multicultural identity.
Immigrant versus White Working Class
Not long ago Marxists invested the working man with the mission to overthrow capitalism, end human exploitation, and create a society of free producers. Most workers, however, refused to play this mission as they remained happily attached to their heritages, traditional values, national identities, and common sense conservatism. They simply wanted a better economic deal with their bosses, and once real wages began to rise steadily after the 1840/50, welfare socialists were always more persuasive than revolutionary Marxists. There were communist revolutions in Russia in 1917 and China in 1948, but these were peasant revolutions led by parties tied to a small segment of a nascent working class.
With the revival of hyper capitalism in China during the 1980s, and the eventual collapse of Soviet communism, classical Marxists were fully discredited, and yet a new form of Marxism, identified as “the New Left” in the 1960s, managed, nevertheless, to infiltrate all the institutions of the advanced West by the 1990s, with a whole new program of “human emancipation” set directly against the entire culture of the West, values of individualism, traditional family, and “institutional racism.” These cultural Marxists were no longer betting on the workers but on a widespread constituency of subjects, women, homosexuals, gays, blacks, aboriginals, minorities, students.
But only recently, I would argue, has the Left fully realized, together with cosmopolitan global elites, that non-White immigrants are inherently the most revolutionary agent they can muster against Western culture, for only this agent can grow continuously in numbers and only this agent is intrinsically diverse and intrinsically oppose to the “hegemony of Whiteness.” This realization has come in tandem with the realization that the working class, the one supposed to make a communist revolution in the advanced West, the White working class, has become the most vocal opponent of New Left politics. White workers do not like immigrants radically altering their neighborhoods, cheapening their labour, and raping their women. Therefore, leftists have now realized they can only muster limited support among White workers in regards to economic issues, with no support on the cultural front, since White workers, and middles class traditional families, men above all, tend to be rationally xenophobic and nationalistic.
Since the White working class, which includes large segments of middle class families, is the most important demographic force in our age of mass parties, the immigrant masses (arriving continuously with a higher fertility rate) are the only counter force that can be set against it. This is what the New Left has realized recently; that there is no other subject more radical in its essential nature than the millions of immigrants arriving yearly.
Post-1967 Third World Immigrants
This is the more reason why it is essential to understand the nature of Canadian immigration, dispel the lies and obfuscations, and bring home the message that the immigrants who are coming now, since 1967, are not comparable to the European immigrants that came to a ready-made Canada between 1945 and 1967, and certainly totally different from the natives and settlers of the past. The immigrants coming now are the major political force at the hands of the cultural Marxists determined to destroy Canada’s European heritage.
Most immigrants arriving since the 1970s are Third Worlders. This dramatic change in the ethnic composition of immigrants was visibly obvious right after the racial criteria were eliminated in 1967 and Canada was designated as a multicultural nation in 1971. Ninety percent of newcomers to Canada before 1961 were from Britain. But during the 1970s the proportion originating in Europe was cut by half, and the proportion coming from Asia almost quadrupled. Of the 1.5 million who came between 1971 and 1981, 33 percent came from Asia, 16 percent from the Caribbean and South America and 5.5 percent from Africa. This trend, as we all know, was intensified dramatically during the 1990s so that today roughly one out of every four people in Canada is a member of a visible minority.
Ever since Karl Marx spoke of the proletariat as the “gravedigger” of capitalism, the Left has been preoccupied with finding the right revolutionary agent. The immigrants of the post 1967 era in Canada, and similar dates in the other settlers states, have now been embraced as the most potent agent of radical change by cultural Marxists.
This is not to say that mass immigration from the Third World was a policy fully thought out from the beginning with a view to finding a new revolutionary agent. When Canada, and the settler states of Australia, New Zealand and the United States decided to end the use of race as criteria for immigration, they did so because these policies had been fully discredited in the war against Nazism. Although I don’t think that Western borders were opened primarily for economic reasons, such reasons were alluded to by business sectors. Canadian business leaders lobbied for substantial immigration from countries other than in Europe because by the early 1960s it was evident that Europeans were no longer as interested in emigrating, the baby boom was coming to an end, and so they calculated that the only way to keep the economy expanding was through the welcoming of immigrants from outside Europe.
However, neither the elites that argued against “racist” immigration laws nor the elites that insisted on the economic benefits of Third World immigrants, consciously envisaged Third Worlders as agents for the termination of “White supremacy” in the same way that Marxists had envisaged the working class. It is only recently that the Left has come to see that immigrants are the most powerful revolutionary agency imaginable.
The word “agency” connotes intentionality, choice, freedom, and so it may be objected that Third World immigrants cannot be compared to a revolutionary class consciously aware of its economic interests and of the institutions and values that need to be changed. The revolutionary agents, it may be argued, are the elites currently eulogizing diversity; they are the ones who need to be challenged. Some even say that immigrants are potentially on our side against what is perceived to be the main enemy, American globalism, Western modernity and individualism.
Karl Marx on the Historic Mission of the Proletariat
This is a mistake; we have long been living in the age of the masses, an age in which every political movement needs masses that are structured to the existing order in such a way that they can be used as powerful agents of change. The leaders responsible for spreading the lie that diversity is enriching are obviously our ideological enemies, but so are the immigrants chosen as the mass revolutionary agent to terminate White identity. When Karl Marx first identified in 1843/44 the proletariat as the weapon to achieve “full human emancipation” he did so on the basis of four key observations (“Toward the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law: Introduction,” and “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts” in Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society, eds., Loyd Easton and Kurt Guddat, 1967):
- the proletariat is the source of private property and capitalist wealth, and yet the one class that is property-less and under the tutelage of a form of wage labor that keeps it in a state of “self-alienation” producing the very property that keeps it enslaved.
- the proletariat, in having no property, has nothing to lose but its enslavement to wage labor; it is the one class that has a total interest in “the negation of private property,” the abolition of classes altogether, and thus the emancipation of humanity.
- the proletariat achieves human equality “by abolishing itself as a separate class” and becoming the general representative of humanity in its rejection of all property.
- in this negation of all property, the proletariat is the first class in history to act as a universal agent able to embody in its interests the common interests of humanity for full emancipation, a society based on principles reached by reason independently of any particular economic or property-oriented interests.
From these observations, Marx concluded:
Just as philosophy finds its material weapons in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its intellectual weapons in philosophy…Philosophy is the head of this emancipation and the proletariat is its heart. Philosophy can only be realised by the abolition of the proletariat, and the proletariat can only be abolished by the realisation of philosophy (as cited in Shlomo Avineri, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, 1968, p. 61).
In his later years, less Hegelian, more “scientific” phase, Marx saw his own theory of capitalism, rather than the “bourgeois” Enlightenment, as the intellectual weapon for the proletariat to bring about an end to capitalism and start a communist society. But since this meant that Marxist theoreticians, rather than workers, would be the “head” of the working class movement, intense debates would divide Marxists for many years over the exact relationship between the Marxist party elite, with its claims that its “philosophy” was an expression of the supposed will of the workers, and the suspicion of others who believed that Marxism, if it was to express the democratic will of workers, had to be an expression of the spontaneous actions of workers fighting against capitalist exploitation.
Working Class Refuses Marxist Mission
By the time Lenin came around in the 1890s there were obvious signs across the most advanced nations of Europe that the proletariat was more interested in higher wages than in bringing Marxist philosophy to actualization. In his famous 1902 political tract, What is to be Done?, Lenin would in fact conclude that the working class was not spontaneously or naturally inclined to push beyond economic improvements within capitalism. The only way to bring about a Marxist society was through a small cadre of professional revolutionaries acting as an intellectual and political vanguard of the working class with a clear understanding that the task is the overthrow of class divided society. By 1905, moreover, Lenin had come to the conclusion that a successful revolution in Russia would require the support of the landless peasantry as a junior partner, thus calling for support of “the peasants’ demand for all the land” as a key platform of the Bolshevik Party.
Extermination of Peasants for Refusing Marxist Collectivism
In the end, even though the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and in subsequent decades created a “Workers State” that would seek to eradicate the entire Russian past, it did so only with minimal support from the workers and next to zero support from the peasantry. The Bolsheviks had gained temporary majorities in the St. Petersburg and Moscow Soviets during their October coup, in the worker’s councils that represented the autonomous wishes of the workers’ movement. However, these councils completely lost their autonomy soon after as the hierarchical Community Party dominated by Lenin and then Stalin set about remaking Russia according to Marxist philosophy. Before the Bolsheviks liquidated all their opponents, while they were in power through the 1920s, they only controlled the land between St. Petersburg and Moscow, or a band of territory 30 miles by 400 miles in size. It was through sheer violence and terrorism that they actualized Marxist philosophy, not through the actions of autonomous workers. Once the peasantry realized the Bolsheviks would never allowed them to own land, they turned against the revolution and the collectivist ideals of Marxism, which prompted the Politburo on 30 January 1930 to call for a final solution to the peasant problem: the policy, in the words of Stalin, of “eliminating the kulaks as a class,” with 3-6 million killed through forced starvation in the next few years.
This revolution, and the Maoist peasant revolution, which entailed the extermination of about 45 million peasants, during the Great Leap forward of 1958-62, would both end in failure with the collapse of the Soviet bloc in the early 1990s, and the return of capitalism in China after 1976. In the advanced West, all Marxist parties failed to bring about revolutions, as workers opted for higher wages within capitalism, and continued to identify with their respective nations rather than accept the Marxist claim that the proletarians of “different countries” had “common interests…independently of all nationality.”
As it became clear that the working class was unwilling to play the historic mission “philosophy” had assigned it, Marxists after the 1920s began to look for alternative agents of revolution. The Frankfurt school came to the conclusion that the working class was raised within bigoted authoritarian families dominated by fathers attached to their respective nations, ethnic traditions, and churches. Bourgeois culture had to be transformed in order to create a true revolutionary agent, and this culture could only be transformed through actors unattached to Western ethnic loyalties and traditional sentiments, or actors with major grievances against Western culture.
Discovery of Immigrants as Key New Agent of Revolution
 |
| White Italians welcoming African Migrants with “an afternoon of songs, dances and especially friendship” in a town in the province of Genoa. |
From the early 1900s, and in earnest after WWII, Marxists also began to observe that a new epoch of capitalist development had emerged in the twentieth century, the epoch of Western imperialism, which, on the one hand, involved the “super exploitation” of millions of non-Whites across the world, the “wretched of the earth,” and, on the other, was allowing capitalists in the advanced countries to pay the White working classes higher wages, thus ensuring the integration of this class to the system. Henceforth, new theories of national liberation, rooted in Marx’s writings, were proposed with the impoverished peasants and workers in the Third World identified as a new revolutionary agent of Marxist theory. Anti-colonial struggles would be directed both against the ruling classes in the Third World and against the “racial hierarchy” sustained in the world economy by Western imperialists. “National minorities” inside Western nations, Blacks, Aboriginals, Latinos, would be designated as moral partners in this struggle against the intrinsic racism of White imperialism.
In the 1960s Herbert Marcuse pulled these observations together announcing that the working class of the advanced West, the White working class, was no longer revolutionary but a beneficiary of Western trade union imperialism, “better paid and better off than many members of racial minorities.” The “new revolutionary subjects” were instead “marginal groups, oppressed racial and national minorities,” women under White patriarchal rule, and students and academics willing to speak out for these groups.
Some Marxists would call for a multiracial working-class upheaval against capitalism. But this strategy, advocated in the main by orthodox Marxists still preoccupied with economic inequalities, was not the key one developed during the 1970s through to the 1990s by cultural Marxists, who had become the far more influential members of the New Left, less interested in communist ownership than in a cultural revolution. These cultural Marxist views found expression in a wide variety of new philosophical outlooks, such as postmodernism, critical race theory, postcolonialism, deconstruction, and multiculturalism. Within these currents, White heterosexual working class males in the West no longer came to be seen as a trustworthy agent but as a bulwark against the cultural emancipation of humanity, in the degree to which they rejected the liberation offered to them by women, gays, minorities, blacks, and critical Frankfurt theorists.
However, only in recent years, certainly not before the arrival of the new millennium, did cultural Marxists become explicitly aware that non-White immigrants were the most powerful new agent of revolutionary change. They may not favor feminist and gay rights, but they certainly constitute the one weapon that can be used to break up permanently the mass power of the White race embodied in the White working class. Immigrants, they have come to see clearly:
- prefer to vote for leftist parties, ensuring an unending sequence of progressive agendas
- love multiculturalism, and provide an ever growing pool of new subjects to justify the expansion of the welfare state
- constitute an endless source of job opportunities, grants, media exposure, academic tenure, indeed, a rationale for a vast bureaucratic network sustaining and regenerating Leftists in every area of social life
- are an excellent justification for the total termination of Eurocentric curricula at all levels of education
- in the case of Muslims particularly they constitute a direct challenge to the historic hegemony of the Christian religion in the West
- and, most importantly, immigrants are the one mass force that embodies the racial diversity necessary to bring an end to White particularism and produce a generic species that can finally speak a language of universal principles for humanity.
Cultural Marxists have found their “material weapon” in the immigrant. Leftists continue to support mass immigration with ever more intensity in the face of Islamic terrorist attacks and the systematic raping of White women in Europe because diversification through immigration is the only way to widen the sense of “we” which they see as necessary to overcome the “us versus them” that they think is intrinsic in solid Whites countries. Only mass immigration can bring the race mixing required to abolish permanently the “particularism” of the White working class with its narrower solidarities of nation, race, and religion. The inconveniences of immigrant criminal behaviour are minor in comparison to the actualization of “philosophy” through the abolition of racial identities and the creation of a population tied by common principles.
Some members of the cultural Marxist elite have calculated that White identity threatens their group interests, their current control of the media and intellectual life in academia, and have successfully managed to persuade millions that White identity equals White supremacy and violence against non-Whites, whereas non-White identity adds to the cultural fabric of Western culture. Some naive Whites have interpreted this argument in a universalist manner believing that race mixing is truly the road to human emancipation. Their aim is not to keep immigrants as they are, but to emancipate them by educating them with their universal philosophy.
All in all, our currents elites, to paraphrase Marx, have concluded that philosophy can only be realized by the abolition of the White race, and the White race can only be abolished by the realization of philosophy.
