Skip to content

Immigration, Wages and the Tower of Babel

March 10, 2013

And the Lord said: behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed. Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another’s speech. Genesis 11:6-7

In order to prevent the completion of the Tower of Babel, God gave men different languages so that their complex endeavour would fail. But language was just one aspect of the difference; culture naturally follows from language and thus, by making civilization multi-lingual, God disrupted the economy, so that men were scattered throughout the world. Contrariwise, the collectivists who have sought to enervate Christendom over the last century knew the Old Testament and compelled the West to become multi-cultural to raze its economy, so that Utopia could be built on its ruins.

We have entered a new phase in the coercive imposition of multi-culturalism on the West, because the natives have been startled awake by yet more immigration and must be rocked back to sleep. Till Labour leader Ed Miliband’s speech about a year ago, no one on the Left (which is to say the-powers-that-be) acknowledged that a person could be opposed to immigration (mass or otherwise) and not a racialist. Again, in a recent party political broadcast Miliband said, “It’s not prejudice when people worry about immigration, it’s understandable and we were wrong in the past when we dismissed people’s concerns.” No one should be foolish enough to mistake that sentence for a willingness to end immigration. On BBC’s Question Time program of 7th March (available on iPlayer from 36’26”) Amy Rutland, a Labour apparatchik (not identified as such on the show, but unmasked subsequently) dutifully expressed her two minutes hate for UKIP for daring to have an anti-freeloaders policy. If you express any reservations about immigration, you will be fired for hate speech. This is not a new phenomenon, as Hilaire Belloc wrote in The Servile State (1912)

‘The real sanction in our society for the arrangements by which it is conducted is not punishment enforceable by the courts, but the withholding of livelihood from the dispossessed by the possessors. Most men now fear loss of employment more than they fear legal punishment.’

There is no change of objective, as per two quotations from Miliband’s PPB, “Britain’s diversity is a source of our great strength; it makes us a more successful country… I believe that diversity is good for Britain”. Why would anyone prescribe less of such a panacea? Mass immigration and multi-culturalism are going to continue for as long as people legitimize those political parties that enable it. In the UK that is the LibLabCon which occupies Parliament. Even the great white hope of Britons, UKIP, may be subverted by its leadership. It was reported (see telegraph.co.uk) that UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, had dinner with arch globalist Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch expressed sympathy with UKIP’s euroscepticism but not with its immigration policy (work permits system instead of residency). If Farage kowtows on immigration the party members will leave, and if Farage holds the party line, Murdoch’s machine will wage psychological warfare on those who are thinking about voting UKIP, making them scared to do so. The papers between now and the European “parliament” elections will be replete with scandals, revelations, exposés and the ultimate accusation that progressives use to undermine their enemies – hypocrisy!

That immigration reduces wages is no longer denied, even by the economically retarded progressive nomenklatura. The working class’s share of economic growth has been falling over that time because labour can never extract the full value of their efforts from employers when the supply of labour grows continually. Socialists and capitalists both make the same error in assuming that man is merely an economic agent acting on behalf of the state or the employer, and thus may legitimately be exploited to whatever extent deemed expedient. This is why no matter who the working classes voted for immigration has continued unabated. Labour like immigrants because they provided an excuse to raze the UK’s cultural monotony and justify the imposition of new cultural norms that destroy the old ones. Tories like immigration because it keeps workers in their place and they can afford the accoutrements of the high society that they seek to ape, e.g. domestic servants and exotic holidays. But most important of all, immigration is demanded by the real power in the land, the government we can never vote out – the usurers.

Usurers like immigrants because a heterogenous population, with their thousand languages and cultures will fight amongst themselves for the scraps and never look up to see the hand that wields the whip. Immigrants are necessary to increase the debt-carrying capacity of the economy. It does not matter that immigrants marginal contribution to production is negative (on average they take out more than they put in) because the difference can be expropriated from taxpayers through increased government debt. The usurers are indifferent to the identity of the debtor – natural persons, bodies corporate or government – as long as the debt burden is high and growing they collect their usury and other dishonest profit (counterfeiting money).

Morality dictates the economy. This truism is so familiar it is hard to find the original source, but it has been accepted for two millenia at least. A simple illustration of why morality dominates economics, and why the invisible hand belongs to a moral agent. Say you can produce phones for £100 each and sell them overseas for £200, then before cost of sales, you have a profit of £100 per unit. In order to transport the phones you seek a shipping company and when the captain of a ship attends an interview he is wearing a striped shirt, three quarter length trousers, boots with the tops turned down, a tricorn hat and he says “Harhar Jim lad!” a lot. Do you expect to make a profit selling phones? No, because the moral code of your economic counterparty means your expropriation. As Leo XIII wrote in his encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891),

“We affirm without hesitation that all the striving of men will be in vain if they leave out the Church”.

Therefore, the level of immigration is not primarily a function of economics, but of morality, as dictated by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The Church’s principal document on immigration is Pope Pius XII’s apostolic constitution, Exsul Familia Nazarethana (1952), although almost all the social encyclicals before and since at least mention it, and some expand on it. The principles described in Exsul Familia are based on the circumstances that pertained in the aftermath of World War II, i.e. 12 million displaced European Catholics and other Christians moving from one country to another. In fact, much of the AC is concerned with the needs of émigré Italians to the Anglosphere, e.g. “Since migration has been more common among Italians than other peoples, the Holy See has been especially active in caring for Italian migrants”. The AC does not support the fantasy of multi-culturalism and rather assumes that migrants will i) retain their faith and ii) inculturate themselves, including learning a new language.

“Equally noble were the vigorous ardent labors of bishops and priests who sought to bring the newcomers the blessings of the true faith and to introduce them into the social customs of these new countries. They also facilitated the assimilation of the uncultured invaders whom they introduced both to the Christian religion and to a new culture”.

Even post-Vatican II documents, which take the exhortations of Exsul Familia as formulated for displaced European Christians and apply them to non-Christian, non-Europeans and treat them as identical, acknowledge some reservations,

“Nevertheless, even if emigration is in some aspects an evil, in certain circumstances it is, as the phrase goes, a necessary evil.” Laborem Exercens (1981) Pope Bl. John Paul II

Therefore, I can reject utterly the usurers’ hammer of multi-culturalism, and all the beneficial claims made for it, and do so while remaining faithful to the Church’s teachings on the rights of migrants.

Advertisements

From → Chapter 1

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: