Perhaps the most consistent trope in the immigration debate in the West is framing immigration as a kind of obligation that we must meet. Immigration is a challenge that European countries and the Anglo ex-colonies have to embrace and develop progressive solutions to rather than repulse and guard against. As a tactic it is almost always utilized by the left, as well as cuckservatives. It is almost always preached from the top-down; seldom seen are grassroots organizations lobbying to open the gates. The most recent example of this I’ve seen is in the opinions section of The New York Times, an article entitled “The Migrant Crisis in Calais Exposes a Europe Without Ideas” by ((((Roger Cohen)))). I have previously written on or referenced the issue of immigration to Europe (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and why it is undesirable for White countries given our demographic issues and our right to self-determination, but here I would like to delve into the reasoning of the enemy position. For what it is worth, it is worth understanding it if only to counter it, and the linked NYT article is extremely archetypical.
The writer opens with a flourish of poetic gibberish, which he proceeds to unpack later on:
Europe is caught between those who want to get in, those who want to get out, and those who want to destroy it. The incomers are desperate, the outbound are angry and the destroyers are brandishing flags.
Actually it’s not. Europe is caught between those who want to preserve it and those who want to conquer it. Europe, by which I assume you mean the European Union (EU), is a political and economic union of European states, which is currently being invaded by Africa and the Middle East. Those who “want out,” are those who are uncomfortable with the idea of being invaded, something facilitated by the EU’s open borders between member states and unwillingness if not inability to mount a collective defense against the invasion of hundreds of thousands of itinerant foreigners. Obviously, he won’t be drawing my conclusions. But I’d be willing to wager ((((Cohen)))) believes this is a transformation which must take place.
Throughout the article, the author reveals his political loyalties clearly, despite not overtly making a policy suggestion. He is essentially concern trolling the whole of Europe.
At the end of odysseys involving leaking boats and looting traffickers, these migrants are forcing their way into the Channel Tunnel. They have blocked traffic and commerce. They have provoked a flare-up of that perennial condition called Anglo-French friction. They have drawn the ire of The Daily Mail (trumpet for a lot of what’s worst in Britain). The paper thinks it may be time to deploy the army. But bringing in the military, or building walls, will resolve nothing.
Congratulations on being familiar with some of the oldest Western literature. Unfortunately that does not raise my sympathy for people coming to demographically displace Whites from their own homeland. I’m sure you know how Odysseus felt when he returned home to find strangers in his house. It’s also telling is how the “migrants” are framed as purely a logistical problem; they’re blocking movement of people, goods and services. They are of course much more than that, they are fertile and able-bodied foreigners with nothing to their names that they can’t carry with them. And of course the writer had to get in a shot at whatever consists of the racially conscious British right-wing, the “trumpet for a lot of what’s worst in Britain.” Yeah, what’s worst in Britain are British people who want to keep Britain for the British. Totally.
Then there’s this paragraph of shaming:
European countries have a history of turning back desperate refugees — and regretting it subsequently. The European Union came into being to stop the recurrent wars that left millions homeless, with no possibility of return. It may seem quaint to recall the Union’s ideals; it is also necessary to its survival. Where is the statesman’s voice that rises above the pusillanimous chorus of petty calculation and self-regard?
The EU was created by treaties in the 1990s. ((((Cohen)))) is referring to or conflating the fore-running economic trade areas that united Western Europe under the umbrella of NATO with the EU. On the contrary, rather than stopping fratricidal war it was about rebuilding Europe economically to resist the spread of Soviet communism. I really hope the “Union’s ideals” aren’t to be a dumping ground for third world refuse though; that would be really… something. I also disagree with ((((Cohen)))) slandering rational self-interest in the international sphere as cowardly; there is no altruism in politics nor should there be on issues of racial survival and self-preservation. And it’s actually quite a brave and costly position to be anti-immigration in Europe (or the US) given how much our hostile elites support displacement-level immigration.
Then, in the most indifferent fashion, he raises the grievances of the anti-immigration camp and waves them away without any meaningful rebuttal.
Sure, there are excuses. Unemployment is high, growth low or nonexistent. Freeloading on European welfare by those who have not paid for it stirs anger. But these are not reasons for closing doors. The migrant numbers, while large, are absorbable by a community of more than half a billion people. What is needed is a coordinated policy that offers a legal route for migrants — and the political determination to reimagine a can-do Europe. The current European failure is one of imagination and will. The euro crisis cannot be an alibi for inaction, both internally and in countries like Libya where European responsibility is clearly engaged. The European idea must recover its luster.
You know what a stagnant economy with high unemployment really needs? More unskilled labor! And Europeans have every reason to be angry anyone who happens to make it to their shores is entitled to tax revenue from the working people of Europe. Those are absolutely reasons to close the doors, and ((((Cohen)))) does not care. ((((Cohen)))) also implies that the 500M people of Europe and the hundreds of thousands of migrants are evenly distributed; they aren’t and the Africans and Muslims are heading straight for the capitals of the most prosperous White nations. It’s not as if there are going to be 10 of them every square mile or something. There are fucking camps of thousands of people springing up along the northern shores of France. “A legal route for migrants” would not end illegal immigration either; clearly this is an issue that is irrelevant to the author, who wants the invaders to come through any channel available. And what the hell exactly is “reimagining a can-do Europe?” ((((Cohen)))) dreams of a Europe that surrenders without firing a shot?
He also pathologizes White self-defense, which really comes as no surprise:
Britain, feeling threatened by what Prime Minister David Cameron called a “swarm” of migrants, is also the country threatening to leave the Union. Europe, in Britain, has become synonymous with bureaucratic meddling and eurozone disarray. Anger is cultivated daily by the same jingoistic press that wants to refight Agincourt with the French over the migrant crisis — and clear the Calais camp by force.
I’m not sure who wouldn’t feel threatened by a growing Camp of the Saints on their maritime border, maybe a cuck? Anger is a justified and healthy response to invasion. And no one is going to be fighting a second Battle of Agincourt over this; Britain and France are not at war. ((((Cohen)))) is reframing the conflict between Europe and the third world as one between European countries. The problem is that France won’t give these dindus their gibesmedat and Britain will, provided that they make it to Britain first. The camp should be cleared by force; what use are the armed forces of European nations if not for defense?
Finally to cap off his anti-European shitpost, ((((Cohen)))) ties anti-immigration to a Putinist plot to destroy Europe. Of coursh:
The would-be destroyer has clear objectives: a weakened Europe beset by rising leftist and rightist anti-immigrant parties, splintering at its Greek periphery, irresolute about its eastern neighbors, morally debased, navel-gazing as Moscow and Beijing plot the future of Eurasia. His name is Vladimir Putin. He has ideas. Europe, for now, has none. That is dangerous.
Yeah anti-immigration parties are what will weaken Europe and leave it open to a Russian conquest. And Europe has no ideas. Okay merchant. Here’s an idea, Stop the Boats.
What all pro-immigration rhetoric seems to come down to, so long as the aggressor isn’t making any economic arguments, is that Western nations have some kind of metaphysical obligation to let in the third world. We can’t quite pin it down but it just seems like the right thing to do and our raison d’etre. When we oppose immigration it means we are weak, out of ideas, cowardly, and bringing out the worst in ourselves. What we really need to do is tear down our fortifications permanently and let anyone who wants to come to our lands come in. Because it’s not like it’s ours. That would be racist.
From the Rock of Gibraltar to the Rhodope Mountains, not one inch of Europe should be resettled with invaders. At least not without a fight. Your ancestors did not propagate so you could be a minority in your own homeland.