Mass Immigration and the End of the Aussie Way of Life By James Reed

     Anyone who was following the immigration and multiculturalism debate in the 1980s and 1990s, would remember that the key argument of the Growths was that none of this would change the Australian way of life, but that diversity would enrich it, with all the metaphors of meals, dinners, salads and things that the decadent chattering class, liked. It was a lie for the time, just like populate or perish was for the World War II era. Here is Ross Gittins, still going at it, God bless him:
  https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/high-immigration-is-changing-the-aussie-way-of-life-20191126-p53e5e.html

“The nation’s economic elite – politicians of all colours, businesspeople and economists – long ago decided we need to grow our population as fast as we can. To them, their reasons for believing this are so blindingly obvious they don’t need to be discussed. Unfortunately, however, it’s doubtful most ordinary Australians agree. A survey last year by researchers at the Australian National University found that more than 69 per cent of respondents felt we didn’t need more people, well up on a similar poll in 2010. This may explain why Scott Morrison announced before this year’s election a big cut in our permanent migrant intake – while failing to mention that our booming temporary migrant intake wouldn’t be constrained. He also foreshadowed measures to encourage more migrants to settle in regional cities. What he didn’t say is what he’d be doing differently this time, given the many times such efforts had failed in the past. In between scandalising over the invading hordes of boat people, John Howard greatly increased the immigration intake after the turn of the century, and this has been continued by the later Labor and Coalition governments. “Net overseas migration” accounts for about 60 per cent of our population growth. In 2000, the Australian Bureau of Statistics projected that our population wouldn’t reach 25.4 million until 2051. We got there this year. Our population is growing much faster than other developed countries are. The growth in our economy has been so weak over the past year that they’ve had to stop saying it, but for years our politicians boasted about how much faster our economy was growing than the other economies. What they invariably failed to mention was that most of our faster growth was explained by our faster-growing population, not our increasing prosperity. Over the year to June, for instance, real gross domestic product grew by (a pathetic) 1.4 per cent, whereas GDP per person actually fell by 0.2 per cent. That’s telling us that, despite the growth in the economy, on average our material standard of living is stagnant. All that immigration isn’t making the rest of us any better off in monetary terms.”

     It does not matter what the present population thinks, or votes, because the elites are set to demographically and ethno-racially change the entire population to get the compliant nation of slaves they want, because the present nation of slaves are an ugly white colour which the Masters of the Universe, do not like. Don’t even get started on the plight of white men:
  https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2019/11/the-21st-century-worst-time-history-to-be-alive-for-men-west.html

“Compared to the 21st century, life in traditional Western society, before the Industrial Revolution, was more bearable. Men were able to lead fulfilling lives because society gave them greater freedom of choice. In those bygone days, elites were wise enough to understand that making it easier for men to satisfy fundamental biological needs would be conducive to the well-being of society.

Among these biological needs are sex, female companionship and the continuation of one’s genetic lineage. The Greeks allowed these needs to be met by introducing enforced monogamy, which had the beneficial side effect of mitigating sexual competition between males. This competition is the result of the female’s hypergamous mating instinct. However, this desire to “marry up” is an irrational impulse because it drives the female to pursue the best man even though, as F. Roger Devlin, in his excellent study on feminism, points out, “only one man can be the best.” In Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae, Praxagora and her female compatriots pass utopian communistic laws in the Athenian assembly, including one ordering attractive males to copulate with old, ugly hags who prefer young handsome studs over men their own age. This episode is among the most accurate portrayals of female hypergamy in literature. Since women are under the control of their emotions, hypergamy will always play a significant role in female decision-making, whether consciously or not. This is why women neither make suitable workers, nor suitable leaders. Hypergamy practically guarantees that women will lack a sense of fair play, especially with men who don’t “make the cut,” sexually speaking.

Female hypergamy always turns the work environment into a sexual battleground, with outcomes predetermined by Darwinian laws of sexual selection. Male worth is no longer decided on innate ability, but on indicators of reproductive health, i.e. a chiseled jawline. When hypergamy is unrestrained, with too many females in administrative positions, it destroys the livelihoods of all but the most dominant males. Without enough males to sustain families on a workingman’s wages, fertility rates will decrease, undermining the government’s ability to produce wealth. Ancient societies would be highly vulnerable to collapse because of runaway hypergamy, given the rudimentary development of labor-saving devices. These technological and economic limitations made ideas like womens’ liberation virtually inconceivable, since without sufficient manpower, ancient Mediterranean societies would not have been as wealthy or as powerful. This need for manpower – bodies – was undoubtedly the motivation behind Augustan family legislation penalizing adultery, celibacy and childlessness. The emperor feared the extinction of the great Italian families, along with the empire, unless they replenished the population at or above replacement levels by continuing their genetic lineage.

Pre-industrial life offered other advantages. If a man was, through sterility or some other disability, unable to procreate, he could make his mark on the world by becoming a poet, philosopher or artist. Since few people were literate and leisure time was scarce, competition among writers and artists was never as fierce as it is now. Among surviving works, are many of slight literary merit, i.e. The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius, which have outlasted their authors by centuries, to be mined as a treasure trove of historical information by generations of scholars. When enforced monogamy was the norm, perpetual chastity reflected genuine moral resolve in the face of temptation. Witness the enormous popularity of this ascetic practice among Christians of late antiquity, after Anthony had abandoned urban life for the Egyptian desert. These days, perpetual chastity is a reflection of underlying genetic inferiority, not moral resolve or ascetic mastery over bodily impulses.

The Greeks and Romans, like all Aryan peoples, inherited a caste system (which was neither as trifunctional nor as pronounced as the caste system of the original Indo-European society), with slaves relegated to the most back-breaking, menial tasks. This imbued life with a sense of interconnectedness, giving meaning and purpose by assigning each man a predetermined role according to birth or ancestral origin. In such an order, individual worth was evaluated on how well each man performed his respective role. Able-bodied persons were not left out, unless they chose to abandon society, like the Cynics or Egyptian hermits. This highly structured social hierarchy was viewed as an integral part of the Aristotelian Great Chain of Being, beginning with the tiniest grain of sand to the primordial source of all motion, the Unmoved Mover.”

     Yes, there is not much point living today compared to past times, when men had a real life, with meaning. The claim that extra years given by modern medicine makes the present-day superior to the past is an illusory argument, when those years count for nothing. It is just added years on a prison sentence. We desperately need to change this world.
  https://www.unz.com/book/f_roger_devlin__sexual-utopia-in-power/