The opinions section of Reuters wasn’t always 99% leftist, but as it stands now seems to be a fairly good gauge of what the left thinks US and EU policies ought to be. The latest article to trigger me was one about the “Mediterranean migrant crisis,” which chastises the so-called far-right for opposing the movement of hundreds of thousands of destitute foreigners into Europe and engages in mental gymnastics about the benefits of this invasion. While I have written my thoughts on this before, it’s always a good time to review exactly what is at stake here and to criticize the anti-European and anti-white narrative that dominates political discourse on both sides of the Atlantic. And as my own ideas evolve, my response to the issue of non-white migration into Europe evolves as well. I would like to lay out the following points before proceeding:
- Europe decolonized Africa and the Middle East for the explicit purpose of giving those regions’ peoples their own states to rule and live in.
- That Europe has allowed people from there to immigrate to Europe and let in refugees is a fundamentally anti-white policy. Their tribal lands are allowed to exist unmolested while ours aren’t.
- Combined with low European birthrates, this results in European countries becoming less European as a percentage each year.
- If this trend is not reversed, Europe will become non-European.
- Nation-states are supposed to be run for the good of their nations, not as labor markets. A France which is no longer French would not be France, but a subdivision of a global economy where vaguely differentiated people happen to speak French and live in Western Europe. [Unless of course French is dropped in lieu of English or Arabic].
- It is generally true that the whiter a country is, the better a place it is to live; exceptions to this rule include non-communist countries in East Asia, where having a non-white but homogenous majority also produces high quality outcomes. However, countries like Japan and South Korea do not have generous/foolish immigration and refugee policies while European countries and the United States do, resulting in our demographic transformation over the last few decades.
- For the EU and individual European countries to pursue policies that reduce their native white majority populations and increase that of foreigners is anti-white, genocidal and will unmake Europe and reduce its quality of life.
- For whatever reason, the European left’s desire to promote anti-fascism involves importing millions of illiberal foreigners who given the chance would crack down on the left’s “progressive” sexual, cultural and religious policies. ISIS celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay “marriage” by throwing homosexuals from a roof, which was captured on video. And same-sex marriages are themselves only legal in around a tenth of the world’s countries, and those respective countries are mostly European. Thus non-white migration to Europe is a threat to both European nationalists of all variations as well as the long-term viability of leftism.
- It should be noted that I would love for the left to ideologically perish, but not at the cost of transforming Europe into a non-white continent..
Now that that’s out of the way, let’s take a look at some of things the writer had to say:
With the majority of people landing in Italy, Greece, and other EU countries so clearly leaving home because they have to, there’s a troubling misnomer at the heart of this ongoing human disaster: Why are we referring to this refugee emergency as the “Mediterranean migrant crisis”? The media uses this term almost exclusively — rarely choosing “refugee.” Yet “migrant” implies a choice: that people like Juliet could have stayed where they were rather than burden the EU with their presence. She has not come to Italy for reasons of “personal convenience,” a generally accepted definition for why migrants travel, according to the International Organization for Migration.
So what? Why should Europe be forced to resettle homeless foreigners by the boatload? What does it matter if they are refugees or not? Why not do something to help their homelands improve if you care so much about these people? And not all of these “refugees” are fleeing war. Even if they were, so what? Are the Syrian rebels excused for launching a war against Assad, enabling the Islamic State to come to power, and creating one of the worst human disasters in recent history? When people move, they are migrants. And I am still unconvinced that the demographic replacement of white Europe is justified by your labeling of the invaders as refugees.
Many who are working to help the thousands of people on the move are frustrated by this terminology, which can turn public sentiment, and hence political action, against those in serious need.
Right-wing politicians in Europe have been playing into fears that refugees will spread disease and take the few jobs available in countries suffering from economic crises. The leader of Italy’s far-right party, the Northern League, has been propagating anxiety about the influx of refugees in his country: “There are four million Italians without work, and millions more living under the poverty level,” Matteo Salvini told the Associated Press in May. “I don’t think we can give housing to half the world.”
Well this is entirely a matter of perspective. Refugee carries more emotional and sympathetic appeal whereas migrant is more matter-of-fact and neutral. You obviously want to import hundreds of thousands of non-whites into Europe because of muh feels whereas people who live near migrants or have seen their cities swell with non-whites are a lot less keen on white genocide. And it is essentially correct that every job worked, every space filled, and every tax dollar spent on a migrant is one denied to a native. Italy cannot accept 200,000 homeless and fecund Africans and Muslims a year. Why you dispute this is either totally insidious or for reasons too arcane for me.
This kind of talk rankles Simon Adams, executive director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, which works to protect populations against mass atrocities. He calls the misclassification the basis of “a battle for the heart and soul of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention,” which defines the rights of refugees and states’ legal responsibility to protect them. Adams, whose own family fled Northern Ireland because of war, objects to pigeonholing the 60 million people (half of whom are children) in the world who’ve had no choice but to leave their home countries.
If states have a responsibility to protect refugees, why are states that create them allowed to exist? What a marvelous incentive problem we have here. And that war in Northern Ireland you are referring to was never a full-blown war but merely something Simon Adams is using to boost his victimization credentials. Also, dear god! Do you seriously expect to convince me that Europe needs to adopt THIRTY MILLION refugee children from the third world? Is this literally Camp of the Saints? What are we going to do, give each EU member a million of them? Wow what a shame that Africa and the Middle East can’t function at a Western level; let’s import the children of the people who created and fuel these problems! I guess if they can just offload their unwanted biomass, they’ll be able to stabilize and turn their countries into Denmarks and Swedens right? But what will become of the original Denmark and Sweden I wonder…
“This is not just a matter of semantics,” Adams said. “Desperate Syrians, Rohingya, or Libyans are being presented as greedy migrants who are willing to risk their children’s lives in sinking ships just because they want iPhones and welfare payments.”
Ohoho. This is entirely a matter of semantics, as a political propagandist such as yourself knows all too well but won’t admit. It is a matter of fact that your desperate migrants are risking both their own lives and those of their children to come to Europe, and that upon arrival, should they be processed as refugees, they will be entitled to all kinds of benefits. Perhaps they won’t be getting the latest iPhone, but without a doubt they will have housing and welfare provided to them. European taxes are going to feed and house them. And since when were Syrians, Rohingya and Libyans entitled to move to the most stable and developed countries in the world because of desperation? Can’t they go to some of their neighboring countries which are culturally, religiously or racially similar? Or I am the naive one here thinking that not everyone who wants to live in Europe, i.e. most people if they were given the opportunity, should be allowed to? It’s unfortunate that Eritrea, Libya and Somalia are hellholes, but it’s also unfortunate that they all demanded their independence and were unable to function properly without white governance. That doesn’t mean the solution is for Europe to adopt all of the Middle East and North Africa’s poor people who long to be ruled by Europeans, which in the 21st century takes the form of rent-seeking from European governments. It means at most they could potentially receive some developmental aid. [Which, unless it directly benefits the donating country, is a form of cuckoldry].
Such language also degrades the protected passage of refugees, says Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council. By ending Operation Mare Nostrum, an Italian search and rescue naval operation that lasted for one year and was said to have saved thousands of lives, Italy caved to those who insisted that the mission merely encouraged “migrants” to continue to arrive like a pestilence since their safety was (relatively) guaranteed.
Yeah. That’s the point. We who oppose migration are equally opposed to the protected status of some non-white migrants over other non-white migrants on the basis of them being the poorest and most violent. Like seriously, what kind of sane migration policy gives special treatment to homeless people from war-torn or impoverished foreign countries? You say Italy caved; I say they made a rational and self-preserving decision, something that ought to be very praised and worthy of emulation across the West.
I’ve run out of stamina for this. If Africa is for the Africans and Asia for the Asians, why is Europe also for them? And I am still unconvinced that the demographic replacement of white Europe is justified by your labeling of the invaders as refugees. Say no to refugees, no to immigration, and no to white genocide.