I typed the following prompt into ChatGPT: “Imagine a scenario in which there is large-scale white European immigration to Somalia. What would the likely reaction of Somalis be to such an influx? Additionally, how would white Europeans on the progressive left be likely to respond to this development, given their well-known attitudes toward indigenous peoples and immigration?”
Here’s ChatGPT’s answer (it’s quite good):
“If large-scale white European immigration were to take place in Somalia, the Somali response would almost certainly be hostile. Somalia is one of the most homogeneous societies in Africa, united by a shared language, culture, and Islamic faith. That national identity has long been bound up with resistance to outsiders: first against British and Italian colonial rule, later against neighboring Ethiopia, and more recently against Western military interventions.
“In such a context, the arrival of Europeans in significant numbers would not be seen as benign but as a direct threat to Somali sovereignty, culture, and religion. For a society that values both Islamic unity and clan-based traditions, mass European settlement would feel like an attack on the very foundations of Somali life. Resistance could be expected not just politically but also socially, and even violently.
“On the other side of the world, Western progressives would likely respond in a very different, though still negative, way. The progressive left tends to champion immigration into Europe and North America as morally enriching and socially just, especially when it involves people from the Global South. Yet that same framework shifts when the flow is reversed.
“Were Europeans to immigrate to Somalia in large numbers, progressives would almost certainly condemn the project as recolonization. They would frame it as an act of cultural imperialism, an assertion of European power into a region already scarred by colonial domination. Respect for indigenous sovereignty and suspicion of Western influence would guide their critique, not any celebration of multicultural ‘enrichment.’
“In this way, both Somalis and Western progressives would reject mass European migration into Somalia, but for different reasons. Somalis would see it as a threat to their religion, culture, and autonomy; progressives would see it as a violation of postcolonial justice. The common ground between them would not come from shared values, but from overlapping rejections—one grounded in the defense of Somali identity, the other in the politics of anti-colonial critique.
“The irony, of course, is that when the direction of migration is reversed—from Africa or the Middle East into Europe—these same progressives argue the exact opposite, portraying cultural change as enrichment and dismissing native resistance as xenophobia. What is defended as sovereignty in Mogadishu is condemned as bigotry in Paris or Berlin.”
What ChatGPT generated is obvious, but I wanted to see if OpenAI could overcome its progressive bias to generate an answer without the ideological rationalizations it’s known for. The exercise shows that, with the right prompting, AI can negate the left- political hegemony that shapes the corpus of information that it scrapes from document scans and Internet searches and yield a good answer. The result reveals that even an LLM can readily identify the profound double standard that marks white progressive arguments concerning Third World immigration to the West.
I could have typed out a similar argument, of course. However, this is only a piece of a larger argument in need of making: to wit, the crucial importance of distinguishing between immigration and colonization; moreover, the need to place cultural integrity and national sovereignty ahead of immigration. Mass immigration benefits the West no more than it benefits the non-Western world. The history of colonialism transformed the world, and the result cannot be walked back. This experience tells us that the time to resist colonialism—which today the humanitarian rhetoric surrounding immigration endeavors to conceal—is now, not later, when the results of the failure to resist are irreversible.
Regarding the first matter, the key difference between immigration and colonization lies in the intent of the incoming group. Immigration, at its best, occurs when newcomers enter a host country with the willingness to assimilate into its cultural framework, respecting its institutions, social norms, and traditions. Integration allows for some diversity without undermining the social cohesion. If the West is going to tolerate even modest immigration, the practice must proceed on these grounds without compromise. Cultural pluralism, or multiculturalism, militates against integration, and therefore must be rejected. The progressive rhetoric that assimilation is cultural erasure is designed to advance the cultural erasure of the indigenous and native peoples of the host society.
Colonization, by contrast, happens when newcomers insist on maintaining their own distinct cultural enclave, seeking to reshape the host society’s rules and institutions to conform to the customs they carried from their country of origin. In such cases, the movement of people is not an act of joining a nation but of remaking it in their own image—an assertion of cultural dominance rather than integration with the host culture. Multiculturalism is elevated as a cultural value in the West because it facilitates colonization.
We see this with the problem of Islamization in the West. Muslims enter (nominally) Christian societies without announcing the intent to Islamize those societies when their numbers grow large enough. As experience shows us, their numbers need not be very large. This pattern is well documented in history, and it is occurring before our eyes in the West. What progressives are demanding when they insist on tolerance of Muslim immigration amounts to what Gad Saad calls “suicidal empathy.”
However, even if European immigration to Somalia were carried out under the ideal model of integration as described here—where newcomers fully assimilate, adopt Somali customs, and respect local traditions—the project would and should still be met with local resistance. For Somalis, the issue is not simply whether immigrants behave peacefully or follow the rules. The deeper issue is the reality that large-scale settlement by outsiders will inevitably dilute the cultural core of the nation.
This is true across the non-Western world. Imagine large-scale Swedish immigration to Japan. At some point, there may still be a country called Japan, but it would no longer be Japanese. After all, a nation is not merely a territory; it is a people. The Japanese, therefore, would have a right to restrict Swedish immigration to their country. And no progressive would decry this as “racist.” (Hat tip to Lauren Southern for this example.)
As the AI bot noted, Somali identity is tightly bound to a shared faith, language, and history of resisting foreign domination. Even well-intentioned assimilation by Europeans would, over time, transform that identity, if not out of existence, into something alien to the Somalis. At a small scale, such a change might be absorbed; but at a large scale, it would mean the gradual erasure of Somali culture itself, replaced by something hybrid, unrecognizable to those who fought to preserve it, a struggle the progressive would regard as heroic. The same would be true in the Japanese example.
Indeed, progressives are eager to talk about the experience of many cultures across the world that came in contact with Europeans during the expansion of Western culture in the development of the capitalist world system. There’s a reason there are so many Third World people who are Christians. This is also why there are so many non-Arabic Muslims around the world; this is the result of the expansion of the Islamic world system before and after the rise of Europe. Europeans are hardly the only colonizing force in world history.
So the burning question is why progressives recognize the right of Third World peoples to defend their culture and sovereignty, yet deny the same principle to their own nations and peoples? Why is cultural integrity and preservation celebrated abroad but dismissed at home as intolerance or xenophobia? Why are white Europeans who defend their culture and sovereignty smeared as “racist,” while Somalis—or the Japanese—who we expect would defend their nation, acting predictably and entirely reasonably? Both progressives and conservatives would share this opinion. So why, if large-scale immigration into Somalia would be rightly criticized as a threat to Somali identity, why is the analogous transformation in Western societies treated as morally virtuous rather than cultural disruption and a threat to the indigenous peoples of Europe?
We can explain the progressive double standard regarding immigration (or colonization) and cultural preservation by grasping it as a form of cultural self-loathing and entrenched anti-Western sentiment internal to the West itself. Progressives are, for the most part, Westerners who work from an anti-Western worldview. We can all hear and see this: Among left-wing circles, Western history, institutions, and values are framed as inherently exploitative, morally flawed, and oppressive. This frame manufactures an ethical imperative to undermine and dismantle the West.
This is why white progressives accuse whites in America—escaping judgment for themselves by elevating their stance to the esteemed status of “ally”—of harboring “implicit racial bias,” sustaining “systemic racism,” and enjoying “white privilege.” White progressives engage in public rituals of racial atonement while excusing the pathologies of the minority communities they have cultivated and corrupted, the maintenance of which is bolstered by the tokenism of DEI. The same sentiment that justifies Third World people’s aggressive resistance to colonialization is used to spin domestic crime and disorder. This is the idea of “internal colonialism,” where the drive to colonize becomes exclusively white desire. Yet progressives themselves uphold a system of internal colonialism as specified in their own theories.
The result is a pervasive ideological asymmetry: the cultures of the West are treated as disposable or at best suspect, whereas the cultures of the Third World, now imported en masse into the West, are elevated to a sacred status. The progressive worldview demands admiration for non-Western societies’ right to defend their cultures while simultaneously portraying Western peoples as lacking a legitimate claim to preserve their own traditions.
The progressive double standard is not accidental. It is reinforced and propagated by political elites, corporate power structures, and academic and media institutions. Having taken in academic culture now for nearly forty years, recognizing the source of the double standard is unavoidable. University programming and academic books and journals, along with think tanks funded and directed by corporate actors, produce theories that emphasize anti-Western critique, global inequality, and the moral imperative to welcome “diverse” populations, framing Western traditions as inherently oppressive or moribund. The extreme relativism of the humanities and social sciences, amplified by the hegemony of the postmodern epistemic, long ago entered public discourse and policy, creating an environment where the cultural preservation of Western peoples is treated as reactionary (Eurocentrim), while the same instinct in other societies is celebrated as legitimate and noble.
Fear of ostracization for expressing skepticism of immigration finds academics with such views, after carefully vetting other guests, speaking in whispers at dinner parties—if they speak about such matters at all—while those around them loudly virtue signal their love of the immigrant, some participating in organized resistance against immigration restriction and the deportation of illegal aliens. (We see the same thing with black overrepresentation in serious crime and the doctrine of gender identity.)
The pro-immigrant sentiment on the left is only partially explained by intellectual production, however. There is a deeper, but no less obvious, force at work here. Beneath the double standard lies a strategic goal: the intentional disordering and reordering of Western societies to make their peoples more malleable to the globalist ambition of transnational corporate elites. By encouraging large-scale cultural, demographic, and ideological change, progressive elites and the institutions they have captured cultivate environments where traditional cohesion, identity, and sovereignty are weakened by the people themselves.
In this project, the progressive framing of immigration, multiculturalism, and social transformation as unalloyed goods serves to normalize and legitimize the globalization process, presenting it as ethical and inevitable, while masking the underlying aim of cultural and political realignment: the managed decline of Western civilization. The double standard is not, therefore, merely ideological inconsistency—it is a tool of social engineering, a project to reorder the West in ways that benefit narrow transnationalist interests.
There is an irony in all this. Underlying the progressive double standard is an implicit form of cultural hierarchy (one that progressives would identify as racist, if they were honest) from which people of the Third World are excused. As we can see, the values that progressives promote—openness to mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the transformation of Western demography—are treated as inherently enlightened and morally superior. Those who resist these changes are, in contrast, framed as backward, intolerant, or unenlightened, regardless of the legitimacy of their concerns. At the same time, the same progressives view non-Western peoples who defend their culture, social cohesion, or national sovereignty in a positive light, celebrating them as culturally authentic and morally justified. Why aren’t the Third Worlders backwards, intolerant, or unenlightened? After all, they do not by definition share the white progressive self-perception of being the advanced, tolerant, and enlightened among the peoples of the world.
One of the more obnoxious forms this implicit cultural superiority takes is the selective exaltation of indigenous cultures, no matter how backwards, intolerant, and unenlightened. We see this, for example, in the left’s embrace of the clerical fascism of Islam. Progressive women who condemn patriarchy and misogyny—even the idea of the traditional family—are often the first to defend the extreme patriarchal attitudes and practices of Muslims. Feminist teachers take their students on fieldtrips to mosques to learn how to properly don the hijab. We see this, as well, in the queer community, where the virulent homophobic sentiment inherent in the Islamic worldview is met with allyship, not condemnation. Homosexuality is punishable by death in some Muslim-majority countries.
Implicitly, this paradox perpetuates a hierarchy in which Western peoples who defend their culture and sovereignty are treated as intellectually inferior and morally flawed, while non-Western peoples are valorized for acting in exactly the same way, with white progressives elevated to the status of omniscient beings who determine who among the inferiors is to be condemned and who is to be exalted. The result is a profoundly contradictory mode of judgment in which identical instincts—cultural preservation, resistance to external imposition—are praised when exhibited by non-Western peoples but condemned when exhibited by Europeans and those descended from them.
Mass immigration is a threat to Western civilization. Europe and North America must sharply restrict immigration and carefully vet those few who are allowed to enter the Western gate. But Europe and North America must also deal with the problem of leftwing progressivism and the power elite who pull the strings that make them work. We cannot save the West until we contain and marginalize those who are destroying the West.
The scenario I asked ChatGPT to generate can be replicated by readers of this blog. Swap out Somalia with some other Third World country and run the prompt. Use the result as a template to advance comparisons that make the progressive contradiction obvious to others. Don’t worry about changing progressive minds; they’re too impervious to reason to change. But the exercise will produce in others the mutual knowledge necessary to awaken the peoples of the West.
freedom and reason 