I recently read a novel in the Ludlum style of international spies and intrigue with a healthy dose of terrorism that had just enough factual reality to make it disturbing and thought provoking. The facts woven into the fabricated story revealed an interesting but rarely addressed hypocrisy.
The European Union has essentially erased its member state borders, with the unspoken goal of importing cheap labor, allowing massive migration within its jurisdiction that extends as far north as Finland, as far south as Crete, west to Portugal and east to Romania. Turkey is also included as a member of the European Free Trade Association. The integrity of the EU therefore, is only as good as its most porous border. Once admitted into a EU state, immigrants are free to travel across any borders within the union, with the majority of them seeking the most generous welfare states found in Germany and Sweden. Over one million immigrants arrived in 2015 with the majority, 800000, gaining entry through Greece, most of them trafficked by sea from North Africa and Turkey. In 2017, Italy received 67% of immigrants, again mostly by sea. As host countries have been overwhelmed and border security increases, the immigration shifts to other more porous points of entry such as Spain where, according to the BBC, entry is gained through Ceuta and Melilla, Spanish enclaves in North Africa. The majority of the immigrants arriving in Greece originated in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan whereas Spain and Italy saw their influx from Tunisia, Eritrea, Sudan, Nigeria, and a host of sub-Saharan African countries. As a result, Europe has essentially been invaded by Muslim immigrants, mostly from former their former African colonies, who brought their mosques, food, and culture with them. Unlike their white European counterparts, this Muslim population is far less likely to assimilate into the culture of their adopted country. Some 3.3 million Muslims lived in Germany in 2010, a figure that swelled to 5 million by 2016, a period that saw the general population decrease from 77.1 million to 76.5 million according to the Pew Research Center. That number is expected to top 10 million by the year 2050. Although France estimates 5.6% of its population is Muslim, upwards of 10% of the population under 25 years of age identifies as Muslimand 21.5% of babies born in France in 2019 were given Muslim names. One-third of all births in France are classified as non-white. These statistics may be even higher as it is illegal In France to conduct race-based surveys. Ranking only in the top 20 in France, the 10th most common given name to a baby in Belgium is now Mohamed. Similarly, in Great Britain, 24.4% of births were recorded as non-white, and whites are projected to become a minority there by 2060. According to Guillaume Derocher of American Renaissance, Muslims will account for 11.2% of Europe’s population by 2050, with Sweden projected to absorb the highest percentage at 12.4%. And those numbers will likely swell as white European birth rates continue to fall while Muslim fertility rises. In Germany, the non-Muslim population reproduces at a rate of 1.4 children per woman whereas their Muslim counterparts are more prolific at 1.9. The statistics for Europe as a whole are more daunting, with non-Muslim birth rates at 1.6 children per woman paling in comparison to the Muslim birth rate of 2.6 according to Pew. Europe is thus undergoing a massive change in demographics, most likely as a by-product of porous border policies and generous social programs. In Enoch Powell’s controversial 1968 speech ominously entitled “Rivers of Blood”, he wrote that Immigration is “like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre”. In 2011, the French philosopher Renaud Camus, opined that the leftist French elite class were essentially endangering white Europeans by allowing mass migration of Muslim minorities in a pattern he called “reverse colonization” according to Faima Bakar of Metro. Naturally the left argues that responses such as these are examples of white supremacist ideals, and points to deranged manifestos by mass murderers such as the Christchurch killer for his rants alluding to the “great replacement theory” and calls such anxieties examples of “genocidal rhetoric”. Pseudo-intellectual race experts like Annie Kelly, PhD claim that replacement theory “reconfigures peaceful movement of people…as an existential threat” and is a “baked-in justification for acts of terror in the white supremacist mind.” And as any good little liberal soldier will recommend, she advises that ”such ideals”, by which I assume she means immigration facts, “mustn’t be given air time”. Never let facts get in your way. You know, facts like Sweden’s spike in murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery disproportionately attributed to migrants, figures that are even higher for non-registered migrants. Or perhaps the overwhelming reliance on socialprograms with evidence suggesting that there is ”increased participation in welfare programs of rich countries” (Borjas 2011) and the fact that immigrants with poor employment skills tend to “cluster in countries with the highest welfare benefits”. Sinn in 2002 suggested that countries with “open border policies and generous welfare systems attracted immigrants who receive more from the public sector than they contribute in taxes” as reported by Danielle Samuel at the University College of London. Does this sound at all familiar?
So, despite everyone’s fondness for statistics, where am I going with this? A similar comparison can be made with the porous southern border of The United States, which is allowing the free passage of Central American immigrants into this country. We too have allowed a significant influx of Muslim immigrants as well with an estimated population of 3.3 million in 2015 projected to swell to upwards of 10 million by 2050. It is estimated that we will outpace our European brethren and become a majority non-white nation by the year 2040. Good luck with that. But isn’t it interesting that these demographic shifts in Europe and the US are so well tolerated by the left under the guise of humanitarianism and racial equity in allowing so called persecuted ethnic groups to invade our shores and potentially alter the very demographics that define a country’s identity? And herein lives the irony: On the other hand, white migration, people who were in their time escaping religious persecution and economic strife by coming to America’s shores, arenow condemned by the left for suppressing the indigenous culture of the native Americans and spawning white supremacy. And in America, shouldn’t the black man, despite being forcibly brought here under different circumstances, be viewed as much ofan invading species as those that brought him? Yet it remains incongruous that only the white man remains the sole suppressor of other cultures, the usurper, the aggressor, when history tells us, at least in the American experience, that his motives were no different than the migrants of today. And with the roles now reversed in the indigenous lands of the Europeans, with minarets dotting the skylines of cities in France and Germany, with Africans from the former French colonies migrating to the colonialists’ countries of origin, it is somehow viewed as something completely different by the left. Perhaps it’s viewed as retribution, a payback of sorts for the sins of the past. And of course the retort from the progressives will be that any contrary view to the concept of globalism and an open border policy is, you guessed it: Racist. But it can’t always be one-sided. Can it?
Cultural appropriation has become yet anothercatchphrase in our era of racial division when a white woman with her hair in corn rows, a white man playing jazz, cooking barbecue or, God forbid, rapping are told to get back in their lanes. Even the talented Bruno Mars, a Filipino, was accused of cultural appropriation for his ventures into R&B and soul music genres. Yet Jamie Fox playing Daddy Warbucks in the Black version of Annie, the Broadway show “The Wiz”, Idris Elba being considered for the role of James Bond, and the Founding Fathers rapping their way through Hamilton is applauded asprogress. So which is it? Even when the recent selection of a single white player to the Olympic basketball squad was derided as tokenism, the equality crowd remained silent. But this is America, the melting pot, the ultimate blend of cultures and ethnicities that may be another matter altogether. However, watching European culture slide into the abyss is something different, and rather disheartening. I want to go to Paris and be treated badly by the French, preferably wearing a beret, not subjected to Algerian rap music and the smell of falafel wafting out of a café by the Seine. And before you call me a racist again, know that I’m equally disgusted by Le McDonalds on the Champs Elysees. Or a garish Nike store in Oxford Circus in London. A distinction must be made here: culture is not color. If wanting to preserve the unique cultural flavor of European cities makes me a racist, so be it. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer immigration to be assimilation rather than have it supplanted by invasion. When Paris loses its cultural identity, when Rome is New York and Berlin is London, and Brussels is Dubai, when globalism and racial equality make the world progressively more beige, won’t we have truly lost something precious?
No comments:
Post a Comment