Om konservatismens invandringspolitik

Haz Al-Din, nu företrädare för nya American Conservative Party, sammanfattar på X konservatismens invandringspolitik. Relevansen även för Europa är uppenbar. Sammanfattningen visar tydligt varför populistnationalismen är meningslös och överspelad, i alla fall om syftet verkligen är att lösa invandringens och mångkulturens problem. Ja hur den bara förvärrar dem genom sitt stöd för den antikonservativa höger som är deras främsta orsak.

“First, if they seized power, Communists would restrict all unilateral global immigration. No Communist state in history had ‘open borders’.

Immigration would be restricted to countries with bilateral economic agreements to ensure that it is rational and harmonious with national economic plans.

Additionally, cultural differences would carefully be taken into account so as to not produce scenarios of misunderstanding, conflict and confusion that inflame national, ethnic or religious tensions.

This is how, practically, all Communist states dealt with immigration. Carefully and extremely controlled.

Under socialist economic planning, spontaneous and unrestricted mass immigration is impossible.

The flow of labor, the settlement of populations, and the patterns of life cannot be treated as a ‘free for all’ when your economy is actually planned in a rational way.

But at the same time, Communists reject antagonizing immigrants under the current capitalist system. Here are the reasons:

1) Strategically, it makes no sense to give your enemies – the capitalist ruling class – a free base of support.

By demonizing immigrants, you drive them into the arms of your enemy. The enemy should always be divided, never given the chance to unite on any basis.

2) It is fruitless. The same cannibal frenzy and instincts that lead people to demonize immigrants will eventually lead to cannibalism and division within the ranks of the national working class. Especially in multi-ethnic countries like America.

Division within our own ranks cannot be tolerated and must be stamped out ruthlessly.

Prioritizing the issue of immigration only builds a movement that is focused on immigrants themselves – not any actual institutional or state policy.

We can see that anti-immigrant politics never actually changes the policy. Look at Meloni in Italy. Trump also didn’t ‘build the wall’.

It just whips up duped and distracted idiots into supporting the system.

To change any state policy one must have an impersonal, wise, and collected view. Anti immigrant hysteria is not conducive to this.

3) It reinforces national chauvinism in the context of US imperial policy. By demonizing Haitian immigrants for example, consensus is built for more US-led intervention into Haiti.

It is also hypocritical and unprincipled to forego responsibility your own government has in enforcing the same global imperialist system that devastates and enslaves other countries, leading to huge refugee populations and economic migrations.

To oppose immigration policy while supporting the US global system is a violation of one’s own national honor. It is craven, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt.

4) It mistakes the cause for the effect. The chief cause of mass migration is to import a class of foreign slaves so as to enforce the dismantlement of the native power of Labor.

But the domestic cost of labor has only risen so immensely because rentier parasites have driven up the cost of living to an extraordinary degree. This has led to de-industrialization on a mass scale.

Mass immigration is not the chief cause of the destruction of the power of Labor- but a symptom of it.

Therefore, the focus should be based more on the root cause, which is the domestic struggle for economic sovereignty and emancipation from debt slavery.

The more Americans face economic pressure, the more they will be whipped into a frenzy looking for people to hate and to blame. The more resentment will increase.

Communists, while having the correct, realistic and wise position on mass immigration and its root causes, will not lower themselves to this frenzy of stupidity and cannibalism – or somehow confuse it for a principled opposition to the policy of mass immigration.”

Alltså fortfarande: konservatismen mot det globalimperialistiska etablissemang som nu alltmer är tvunget att stödja sig på populistnationalisterna och fascisterna, som å sin sida villigt ställer sig i dess tjänst som en del av systemet.

Hade populistnationalisterna, som det ett tag såg ut som om de skulle kunna, drivit en egen, självständig linje av en ny socialkonservatism på nationell grund, tydligt skild från både systemetablissemangets och den skenoppositionella fascismens, och utifrån denna plattform från den borgerliga högern vunnit över seriösa och genuina konservativa av det meningsfulla slag som vill stå för överordnade värden, hade det varit en sak. Det är en annan sak när de visar sig vara endast vad Haz kallar lurade och förvirrade idioter.

Frågan nu för etablissemanget (som givetvis består även av vänstern, det hade inte gjort någon skillnad om populistnationalisterna allierat sig med den i stället, den är nästan bara en opinionsmässigt nödvändig alternativ förpackning av monopolfinanskapitalets regim) är hur det ska kunna fortsätta genomföra den fascism i sak som systemets – inklusive invandringspolitikens – överlevnad kräver, och samtidigt upprätthålla bilden av att detta är den “liberala demokratin”.