My friend forwarded a hypothetical conversation...
This is, more or less the template used. If you ask too many questions, think too much about it, draw conclusions other than Politically Correct ones, we will take action against you. So shut up.
Birth pop/multigens - What is the benefit of immigration?
Culturalist - Cultural diversity.
Birth pop/multigens - But what about cultural conflict caused through this diversity. Shouldn't we have a right to free speech under democracy if we believe that immigration is alienating is in our own country.
Culturalist - Everyone has the same needs therefore there are no cultures. Anyone who says that there are cultural differences are racist. You must be a racist if you're asking that question. If you keep asking these racist questions we will call you a racist, your employer will take away your job and probably replace you with an immigrant. Best that you don't ask these sorts of questions.
But why do we have this situation in the first place? Is this a Left/Right thing?
The answer is, not as much. There are those on the right who are very pro-immigration. John Howard was one of the most pro-immigration Prime Ministers we have had, and he is a right wing conservative. Many on the left are pro-immigration, but even news sites like theage.com.au, articles about immigration draw far more comments against our current mass immigration levels than for it. The Alt-Right disagree greatly with the Centre Right when it comes to immigration, and the Alt Left likewise.
We can see the "alt" movement as being against the globalist economic hegemony. With this view, the reason that many Bernie supporters were loathe to support Hillary, despite both candidates being Democrats, make sense. The reason that some people were supporting Bernie and Trump, make sense. They were against the establishment, and the establishment is globalist in nature.
We have changed from being a nation of people, to a people servicing an economic system, an economic system with no allegiance other than to the 1%. What has happened since WWII, and perhaps the roots for this were established earlier, is the slow transformation of the nation-state to being an entity which exists for the benefit of a people, a specific identifiable and somewhat defined people, to an abstract economy, which exists for no sake other than its own, and the small minority who make off like bandits.
France is no longer a nation for French people, but an economic zone in the EU, and the meaning of France has changed from a nation-state home for French peoples, to an administrative entity, which has a mass of fungible human beings, whose purpose is to advance the economy. The same is true for Australia, UK and many other Western countries. China on the other hand, remains staunchly for the Han Chinese. These economic states we live under, consider themselves just as valid if they were to replace their population wholesale with humans from other parts of the globe. A globalist would see an Australia which had been completely transformed, replaced ethnically as still Australia, whereas a nationalist would consider this one nation being destroyed and supplanted with another. This idea is as silly as replacing your family members with people from China and India, and claiming that not only is it still the same family, but the families situation has improved because the school grades may have marginally improved and these kids are making a little more pocket money.
The arguments against racism, and the attacks against "racists" therefore serve to perpetuate this system. The anti-racists who attack nationalists are in effect, defending the globalist status quo, but resisting a transition away from a nation identity based on economics. Their language gives it away.
"Immigrants are good for the economy."
"Immigrants create jobs."
"Immigrants increase our GDP by 0.05%"
These statements indicate a thinking which pushes the welfare of the economy above the welfare of the nation. True the two are interlinked, but it is possible to damage a nation in order to improve the economy, and when such a conflict of interest arises, the globalist left, and globalist right, place the welfare of the economy first and foremost. Better to have property owners realize massive capital gains at the cost of social cohesion and continuation of identity, than have these owners realize only modest gains, but maintain social cohesion, safety and preservation of identity.
The Nationalist believes that some "economic gain" can be, should be, sacrificed, if necessary in order for the nation to maintain itself as a cohesive and sustainable ethnic and cultural entity. This is a false choice though, because the argument that high immigration is an economic boon doesn't match empirical reality. High population growth in Australia through immigration has resulted in the situation we have today, a social crisis through a housing bubble, stagnating wages, record private debt, high structural debt and high public debt. That young people today are panicked and stressed about buying a house, in order to compete with all the diversity that enters our country this year, doesn't really give the argument that immigration is great for us all much credence.
There is an opportunity here for a synthesis between the left and the right. The left want to maintain a liberal, secular and free society, and economic opportunity for all, and the "far right" essentially want to be left alone, free from the pressure and existential threat that mass immigration imposes. Many on the left are realizing that open borders doesn't facilitate a liberal, secular and progressive society, but rather hampers it. The new people entering our countries don't have the same attitudes towards gays, womens rights or secularism, and the benefit of this immigration seems to go towards the 1%.
The left may be loathe to associate with the 'hard nationalism' as put forward by the Alt-Right, both genuinely and ironically, but a 'soft nationalism', which is little more than the realization that a state and its institutions are for a people and not just anyone may be more palatable.