Europe-The Final Countdown?
“The Orontes empties its garbage into the Tiber.”-Juvenal
We live in a world of intense contradiction. Europe, the most racially homogeneous continent on Earth, nearly uniform with, broadly-speaking, only minor ethnic variation, has in record time been transformed into a repository for the globe’s population run-off. The well-off, the well-adjusted, and the easily-adaptable are not the ones trekking from Cameroon and Senegal to pose as charcoal-skinned Syrians, bleeding the European Union dry. These “migrants” are rationally pursuing their self-interest—who wouldn’t want a swank villa in Italy or a pensioner’s well-maintained house in Germany plus generous stipends and legal immunity?—but the European Union is criminally insane to allow millions of un-vetted faux-refugees to pass through its borders and subsequently terrorize the formerly-peaceful nations of the continent. It is yet more insane to compound the problem by bringing in even greater numbers when the first batch failed miserably to integrate or contribute. If 10,000 was a nightmare, 100,000, or, hell, one million should be a picnic! And let’s do it annually!
The insanity defense is of course being charitable with the leaders of the EU’s motives, for over the objections of a majority of their populations, the project continues unabated. By fiat or force, the replacement population continues to come in NGO-ferried wave after wave, visions of supine alabaster women to accost and rape, and Monopoly money euros dancing in their eyes. For still others hot under the collar for the jihad, Europe’s sitting ducks are a rather enticing target. To quote Michael Scheuer:
The leaders and bureaucrats of the European Union (EU) are fortunate that they have largely disarmed the citizens of EU member states. If the citizens of Europe had personal weapons, all officials at all levels of the increasingly authoritarian EU organization might well be under fire — and rightly so – for causing the horde of unwanted, unneeded, and non-assimilable migrants that is now inundating Europe. The migrants will produce further lawlessness, a debilitating level of societal tensions, enormous increases in the expense of social services and public housing, and contribute nothing worth having to the nations of the EU. The migrants also will wreck the status quo in EU security as the many hundreds of thousands of incomers are mixed with a goodly number ISIS and al-Qaeda organizers, recruiters, fighters, and suicide attackers who will make the job of EU security and intelligence services even more undoable. Indeed, the only upside of the migrant flood is that elected and appointed EU officials will feel proud of themselves for spending the money of the EU’s wildly overtaxed citizens for a “humanitarian purpose” that, to anyone with commonsense, clearly carries the seeds of terrorism, the end of the EU, fascism, and civil war.
This is why Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 28:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
The people of Europe are lambs to the slaughter—and try speaking up about it. The curtain of totalitarianism is closing on the continent in real time. The few brave enough to speak out are killed, driven in to hiding, or imprisoned by the state. The “migrant” criminals and the jihadis mercilessly torment Europe’s native populations with the state’s complicity; at best it is criminal negligence, at worst it is a consciously-undertaken genocide. We are at present witnessing the realization of some horrific combination of the Global Caliphate, the Kalergi Plan, 1984, Brave New World, Idiocracy, and the Supra-National Corporatocracy.
The moral imperative of mass immigration is but one of Shiva’s many civilization-destroying arms. It is a symptom of a much larger project to dismantle the West piece-by-piece until it has no will to defend itself, or even a sense of what it is supposed to be defending; in its stead are vague notions of universalism: “tolerance” “inclusion,” “diversity.” Across the West, the “anti-civilization” project is experiencing varying degrees of success, from remarkable—Germany, Sweden, the UK—to failure (so far at least)—Hungary, Poland, Slovakia—to TBD—Italy, the United States, Austria. For Jean Raspail:
Our hypersensitive and totally blind West . . . has not yet understood that whites, in a world become too small for its inhabitants, are now a minority and that the proliferation of other races dooms our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction in the century to come, if we hold fast to our present moral principles.
We are told accepting the global downtrodden is our moral obligation. We are guilted for our wealth, our safety, our past sins…whatever it will take to ensure Europe and its progeny become bedpans of the Third World. With the obligatory (and thoroughly debunked) economic argument, UN Secretary General António Guterres chimes in: “We must convince Europeans that migration is inevitable and that multiethnic and multireligious societies create wealth.” Ask Yugoslavia how that turned out, or better yet, take a vacation to Burma. Migration is most certainly not inevitable, and framing it as a wholly natural phenomenon is disingenuous. This is done to preclude any resistance; why fight that which is pre-destined? And if it’s wholly natural, millions of Middle Easterners and Africans have always streamed unresisted into Europe as sure as the sun shines, right? Wrong. Rod Dreher writes:
True enough: there are unprecedented masses of both war refugees and economic migrants moving from the Middle East and Africa to Europe in boats. If Europe lets them all in, it will soon no longer be Europe. How do those nations defend themselves against invaders who come unarmed, seeking charity? If one is a Christian, what is the Christian response? Keep in mind that you are not simply giving over your country to the Other, but are giving over the country of your children, and all your descendants.
This is a non-issue if you simply stop having children, as Europe has done. Not one single country is having children at replacement level, a demographic death spiral which, coupled with mass immigration, is approaching civilization-destroying proportions. What remains a mystery is why, despite an objection to open borders, rampant criminality, and almost-daily Islamic terrorist attacks, when the voters do actually have a say, a majority turn to figures like Emmanuel Macron. France has so little social capital that it cannot have outdoor World Cup viewing parties with large numbers of people for fear of terrorist attacks, and there is now an eight-foot security wall around the Eiffel Tower. Those critical of the Islamization of their nations have literally been imprisoned in the UK, Sweden, and Germany, and subjected to heavy fines in France. The Netherlands has explored punting on political immunity in order to prosecute politicians critical of Islam. In the heart of Europe, Germany is falling apart before our very eyes, threatening to take the whole continent down with it. Too many nations seem happy to oblige. As Pat Buchanan wrote in 2015:
Germany, which took in 174,000 asylum seekers last year, is on schedule to take in 500,000 this year (my note: the numbers turned out to be more like 1.3 million that year). Yet Germany is smaller than Montana. How long can a geographically limited and crowded German nation, already experiencing ugly racial conflict, take in half a million Third World people every year without tearing itself apart, and changing the character of the nation forever? Do we think the riots and racial wars will stop if more come? And these refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are not going to stop coming to Europe. For they are being driven by wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, by the horrific conditions in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan, by the Islamist terrorism of the Mideast and the abject poverty of the sub-Sahara. According to the U.N., Africa had 1.1 billion people by 2013, will double that to 2.4 billion by 2050, and double that to 4.2 billion by 2100. How many of these billions dream of coming to Europe? When and why will they stop coming? Does Europe have the toughness to seal its borders and send back the intruders? Or is Europe so morally paralyzed it has become what Jean Raspail mocked in “The Camp of the Saints”?
I’ve spent a lot of time considering where this paralysis comes from, and I’ll continue to do so. One central question regarding immigration specifically is why has a policy that has literally never enjoyed popular support not only continued, but escalated and expanded? Obviously the first cause is the leaders of the nations themselves (and the financial interests they are indebted to) want this to continue, and will take whatever steps necessary to ensure that it does. Laws are neglected and a full-court press of propaganda from education to television endlessly clobbers Westerners from every conceivable angle that this is good for them, when it very obviously is not. A substantial minority have bought this fiction hook, line, and sinker, unshakably convinced that it is their moral imperative to be dispossessed and, in extreme cases, exterminated. For the majority, then, in addition to resigned acceptance of the proclaimed inevitability of mass migration and a general estrangement from their heritage, both racial and civilizational, not to mention the inherent feelings of isolation and emptiness brought about by this dystopian modernity, they can be expected to be crushed by their own governments or else cut down in the streets by a machete or lorry, nail bomb or knife.
Unfortunately virtually all positions of prominence and power, from the corporate world to the political world to the media, are occupied by individuals with this particular proclivity for assisted civilizational suicide. The EU itself is a suicide pact, its post-national globalist utopian sundae laced with strychnine. Returning to Raspail:
There are only two solutions. Either we try to live with it and France – its culture, its civilization – will disappear even without a funeral. This is, in my opinion, what will happen. Or we don’t make room for them at all – that is to say, one stops regarding the Other as sacred, and we rediscover that your neighbor is primarily the one living next to you. This assumes that you stop caring so much about these “crazy Christian ideas,” as Chesterton said, about this erroneous sense of human rights, and that we take the measures of collective expulsion, and without appeal, to avoid the dissolution of the country in a general miscegenation [métissage, a word that in French carries more the sense of the English words “multiculturalism” and “diversity”]. I see no other solution.
I’m feeling more positive about the direction of Europe lately—from Austria to Italy, new policies signal the assertion of national sovereignty and a refusal to be held hostage by Brussels, NGOs, or implacable Moslems—but we are by no stretch of the imagination in the clear. This is a generational struggle. Even if we score substantial political victories now, will our efforts be enough, or is it too little, too late—Raspail’s gloomy forecast ultimately proving prophetic?