Discover more from John Waters Unchained
Europe’s death rattle, Part II
Mass migration is not, as it seems, an organic emanation of humanity from poor countries, but a calculated project to repopulate the territory of the declining West, with racism its chief instrument.
Open Borders, Shut Mouths
Though, in his remarkable book, The Scramble for Europe, Stephen Smith tends to soft-focus these aspects, what we can see clearly from his analysis is that there is in train a cultivated exodus from Africa into Europe that is orchestrated from within the West, with motives that are self-evident to even the casual observer. Although conventional wisdom in the West has it that the issue of mass migration out of Africa (and by extension other ‘developing’ countries — for which read ‘the undeveloping countries’) is one of absolute need on one side and a ‘duty’ to step up and deliver ‘compassion’ on the other, the reality, as we have seen, is rather different. The vast majority of migrants are not ‘the poorest of the poor’ of popular bleeding-heart spin, but the relatively better-off. They are, as Smith explains, the ones who have managed to up sticks and come to the West as a direct result of Western aid that was, nominally at least, intended to provide Africans with a jumpstart in their own countries, but is instead functioning to suck the most intelligent and creative human life out of Africa and deposit it in Paris, Dublin, Berlin and London. The point of this has to do with neither the dreams and desires of the migrants nor — even less — the betterment of poorer countries, but is entirely about achieving certain outcomes in Western societies, the first among which is to drive down wages so as to make the world even more congenial to corporate interests. And there are other motives also, as we shall see.
One of the foundational tricks of this orchestrated invasion of the West is the leveraging of an enduring cultural empathy, one of the few strong residues of the two millennia of Christian civilisation remaining at play there. This operates fundamentally off a sense of culturally imputed guilt arising precisely from the former pre-eminence of Western civilisation and the riches thereby bestowed on its citizenry. Now, as this prosperity evaporates and the countries of Europe are beset by an all but unprecedented demographic shrivelling (we need to go back 700 years to the aftermath of the Black Death to find an equivalent state-of-calamity as that which confronts the West at this moment), a new plan is being rolled out by stealth. As the surviving peoples of this once great imperial continent remain assured and convinced that the only claims being made upon them are directed at their ‘humanity’ and ‘generosity’, the truth is that there is far, far more in the balance. What stands to be lost is the very existence of Europe qua Europe.
Of course, the obvious risks and dangers of this are fudged and camouflaged by a narrative that reduces things to a simplistic and malevolent racial hypothesis, using the culturally immobilising weapons of prejudicial ideological categories: ‘black’ Africans versus ‘white’ Europeans. The idea is put about that the sole factor prompting the escalating alarm at these drifts on the part of whole sections of every European population is an antagonism towards people of a different skin colour and/or ethnicity. Those who seek to point out that, self-evidently, the indigenous population of Europe is being ‘replaced’ from the ‘developing world’ (for which read ‘the undeveloping world’) are accused of ‘racism’, a charge that resonates jarringly with both the residual ‘compassion’ of Western cultures and the guilt that underlies it. In reality, of course, the issue of race is but a superficial manifestation of a process that has a far deeper and more ominous meaning: the cultural supplanting of the greatest civilisation the world has known, more or less randomly, from the population of an undeveloping culture, whence people cross into Europe imagining that they can immediately acquire, as though by magic, the inheritance, personalities and auras of Western civilisation. This, of course, is a fallacy of quite an extreme kind, for the integration of such outsiders into the Old Continent can be beneficial only up to an indeterminate point, which will be attained by osmosis without any indication that this has occurred, and after which the culture of Europe will descend into an abyss, in which it will become not a second Africa, or a second Pakistan — and still less a ‘New Europe’ — but a nothing culture comprising nihilism, degeneracy and anomie. Those who say, ‘If you import the Third World, you get the Third World’ are wrong: If you import the Third World you destroy both the Third World countries — from which you will have sucked the human energy and cultural memory — and eventually also the cultures of ‘host’ countries into which these vast tranches of humanity are being channelled. The continent of what was previously ‘Europe’ will remain, and that name may be preserved over the door, but the fabric of European civilisation will have corroded and dissolved, to be replaced by something else that we are unable to imagine in advance of its manifestation. Although unlikely, it is theoretically possible that this culture or civilisation might in time prove to be an improvement on that which, debased and intimidated, now prevails on the Old Continent. This is so because Europe has indisputably undergone some radical degeneration in the past half-century or thereabouts, though it is ominously interesting that those most to blame for this degeneration are more or less conterminous with those who advocate mass inward migration, who now add the risk of imposed undevelopment to their crimes against Europe. But whatever it may be, what will emerge will not be Europe in any sense referential to the Europe of Erasmus, Joyce, Proust, Yeats and Havel, but something new, or perhaps, as already noted, a ‘new nothing’.
And here is the core point: This will have occurred without any consultation or conversation having occurred between those promoting this agenda of replacement and the vast majorities of the indigenous peoples of the Old Continent — the home of democracy, liberty and human rights.
The chief instrument of this ruse is the use of the spell-word ‘racism’ to intimidate the indigenous populations of Europe into silence in the face of their own obliteration. In this process, the word is used as a cultural cattle-prod to humiliate and punish those who dissent or protest, isolating them from their fellows as examples of nefarious defenders of past injustice and wrongdoing, and purported continuing harmful discrimination. It is an objectively astonishing thing that the fear of being sanctioned with this word is sufficient to outweigh even the inevitable consequences, which include the loss of just about everything Europe has achieved, promised and stood for, as well as the personal cost, which amounts to the existential and metaphysical homelessness of the successors of each European currently answering to that categorisation.
In the past decade and a half, this process of humiliation has been greatly assisted by the existence of a profoundly corruptible system of telegrammatic and instant messaging, by which the contrived ‘sentence’ of — purportedly, but not really — public opinion could be transmitted at degrees of speed and multiplication as to become unanswerable. At the peak of the last major European migration crisis in September 2015, Chancellor Merkel of Germany asked the Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, what he could do to stop European citizens writing criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. ‘Are you working on this?’ she asked. He assured her that he was.
For all their pretences of ‘compassion’, the Western authorities do not simply issue policy mandates and throw their borders open. Instead, they maintain the pretence of secure borders while allowing in those who make it through the often hazardous obstacle course of the illegal people-trafficking process, as though imposing a kind of ‘survival of the fittest’ ethos on those seeking to make it to the West. The pretence is for public consumption in their own countries, camouflaging — if only marginally — that the borders of Europe are in actuality as open pores. The result is that some migrants die along the way, but this, channeled through the mendacious Western media, serves to increase the conscience pangs of the ‘host’ countries, thus making the strategy more effective and even less liable to criticism.
Let us take a brief look at Ireland as a typical example. At the start of the Ukraine conflict — which, to be clear, was provoked by the behaviour of Ireland’s ‘allies’ in NATO — the Irish Government announced that it would accept an unlimited number of migrants allegedly fleeing the war in that country. In fact, no vetting of applicants was carried out in order to ascertain whether they fell into this category, which meant that the war was used by sundry uninvolved aspirants who used it to negotiate whatever remains of Irish vigilance against the exploitation of its hospitality. Within a short time of the commencement of a massive campaign of bullying and moral blackmail, in which the Irish population were lectured about their ‘responsibilities to Ukraine’ and informed that they would have to prepare to make enormous sacrifices to fulfil these alleged responsibilities, it became clear that most of the refugees coming in under the Ukraine war rubric were not from Ukraine at all. Photographic memes of the ‘refugees’ arriving in various rural communities went viral, showing local worthies posing with their adopted ‘Ukrainians,’ most of whom looked about as Slavic as me. The Telegram vlogger Philip Dwyer made a video of himself interviewing ‘arrivals from Ukraine’ at Dublin Airport, attracting the attentions of airport security dogsbodies clearly intent upon preventing him talking to any of the ‘refugees.’ When Dwyer persisted in speaking to the new arrivals, the reason became clear: most of those he encountered were from Kashmir. Although the official line was that the only people arriving were women and children and men aged over 60, the average age of the males spoken to by Dwyer was about 30. ‘You’re very young lookin’ for your age, if you don’t mind me sayin’ so,’ observed Dwyer drily.
Whenever the issue of numbers was pressed, Government spokespersons would mention a figure of 200,000, though almost invariably adding that there was no plan to cap the number of ‘refugees’. When you multiply this figure by the average factor of 20 that has applied under the heading of ‘family reunification’ for many years, you get a figure amounting very close to a doubling of the present population of Ireland. By early June, it was reported that in the region of 40,000 ‘Ukrainians’ had arrived and been settled in accommodation, and this while a decade-old homelessness crisis among the indigenous Irish continued unabated.
The Ukraine psy-op may in time emerge as an ‘emblematic event’ that encapsulates the entire journey of Irish would-be ‘multiculturalism.’ For much of the past two decades, Irish parents have been conveying their children to the various airports before waving goodbye to them as they departed for distant lands because the country they were born into has been unable to meet their basic needs for shelter and the means of feeding and clothing themselves. On their way to the departure lounge, many of these young Irish people would meet their replacements coming in the opposite direction, arriving to feed off the fat of the land at the invitation of Irish NGOs and politicians. Indeed the Irish state has made it clear, in a relentless message disseminated by the state-sponsored media, that young Irish people need have no expectation of ever owning their own houses in their native country, or of attaining a sufficient level of income to have any hope of overcoming that de facto fatwa of homelessness. Meanwhile, the Irish political class has assumed its right — under instructions from external forces intent upon the destruction of Ireland and every other hitherto functional national culture — to invite in the entire world promising front door latchkeys, abundant social welfare payments, full citizenship for a song, and the protection of ‘hate speech’ laws lest any of the locals might seek to raise an objection. Newcomer migrants to Ireland are coached by NGOs in the tactic of getting their retaliation in first by accusing their hosts of ‘racism’ at the slightest hint of reservation.
Meanwhile, Irish people who had emigrated in the past — and the offspring of such people — have to jump through hoops should they seek to return to the Irish homeland, being required to sever all connections with the country they wish to return from, abandoning every facet and residue of their former life, including employment, dwelling-place and financial entanglements, and, in the unlikely event of being successful in their applications, being required to face a gauntlet of obstacles before they could be accepted as even residents of the country they were by birth entitled to call their home.
The message is clear: an Irish connection all but disqualifies; aliens only are enthusiastically welcomed.
Until now, the native population has been swallowing hard in acceptance of this utter travesty of justice and decency. If they object, they are daubed as ‘racists’ by agents provocateur employed for precisely that purpose by the Irish state, and paid for out of the pockets of the very people whose noses are being rubbed in the ideological dirt, and who are threatened with fines and jail if they object or question.
It would, in the end, be ironic if it were the Ukraine ‘crisis’ that marked the beginning of a reawakening. In the first place, as stated, the ‘crisis’ was engineered and timed by precisely the same agents and actors who had been instructing Irish politicians that they must absorb more migrants, ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’ — essentially the eurobullies who have saddled the Irish people with most of the community’s debts arising from the economic meltdown of 2008. These people think the Irish people a soft touch, because they have found that their representatives are soft in the head.
The ‘racist’ trope is doubly malevolent in the case of Irish people, who never had an empire and were not, until recently, to be regarded as belonging to the Collective West. The particularities of the Irish situation are ‘interesting’ for all kinds of reasons, not least because, even though Africans are utterly unaware of this, we are in a comparable historical boat to them, having ourselves been colonised by, in effect, England in various guises.
The Irish never thought of themselves as ‘white’ until they were so defined on arrival in America. But the newcomers are not colour-blind: they see ‘white’ faces, or at least not ‘black’ ones. (Not all migrants into Ireland are Africans, but they have certainly seemed to make up the most significant extra-EU cohort.) These newcomers do not see the commonality of history, the shared experience of colonisation, occupation and subjugation, not least because the Irish have refused to see it themselves, and because Irish NGOs ensure that such ideas are not allowed to circulate among the newcomers. In Ireland itself, this omertà is the egg of the chicken of the egg of colonisation: The vexed questions of post-colonialism are such that — ideological weaponising aside — they tend to slip behind everyday reality, most of all in the most affected contexts. By its nature the post-colonial condition remains unspoken. Shame, guilt, self-hatred — all the pathologies colonialism inflicts — tend to ensure that its nature remains hidden.
Another of the many ironies for Ireland is that we continue to be an emigrating culture, so that, these days, as already noted, Irish emigrants and African immigrants cross paths at Dublin airport: Until the present year, we have been shedding almost as many natives as there were aliens arriving, though 2022 looks set to reverse that slight imbalance. Meanwhile, the fact that our ancestors were forced by genocidal famines to seek a life elsewhere, and therefore went to Britain and US to build roads and bridges and skyscrapers, is used to suggest that we have no option now but to open our borders and shut our mouths. What nobody says is that the departures of such people was one of the primary factors in the failure of Ireland to become independent and make its way in the world by its own lights. Now, we learn that we are part of the ‘white’ world, as taunts of ‘white supremacy’ and ‘white privilege,’ issue — almost invariably, though not exclusively — from the mouths of people whose faces are themselves conspicuous by their paleness.
The comparisons to be pointed to between Ireland and many African countries are legion. The failure of Africa’s postcolonial states has been widely discussed in the academia of the West. But what we understand from this, as Stephen Smith notes in his book, purely concerns what Africa lacks: good governance, sound fiscal practice, infrastructure — it tells us what Africa is not. But we know almost nothing of what Africa is, and why and how it has been able to survive in a sort of independence for 60 years. Its ‘lack of institutional capacity’, in World Bank parlance, remains as though a profound mystery to Western observers. One problem, undoubtedly, is that, because the colonial state was by definition extrinsic, the colonised peoples came to see government as an extraneous phenomenon. All power resided in the metropole, to which all resources were promised and destined, including human resources in times of war. ‘In the eyes of many Africans,’ writes Smith, ‘this foreignness of the state — its extraneous character — translated into a governance that was arbitrary and alienating.’
This raises ominous possibilities: That, emerging from their dysfunctional continent to arrive in the metropole, Africans feel they have, in a sense, arrived at the centre of their own polis. What is foreign to them is the only ‘core’ their homelands possess. That is what they have been taught by the ancestors of present-day Europeans: that they are not African, but British, French, et cetera, from which they naturally adduce that Europe owes them something, at the very least a living. Added to that they have a smattering of knowledge of Woke concepts like ‘equality’ — which seem to suggest further categories of entitlement — and the protection of the United Nations, which makes of each migrant a kind of mobile jurisdiction of international law, attracting protections and rights which far exceed those of many of the current inhabitants of their chosen new European homelands. This too is a recipe for disaster.
Colonialism, bequeathing to the mentality of modern Africans an odd legacy of attitudes — hostile and submissive, acrimonious and deferential — had the paradoxical effect of empowering the sidelined categories in Africa’s prior native gerontocracies — in particular women and the young. For Africa’s powerful gerontocracy, Smith writes, quoting Nicolas Argenti, the era of the Whites became ‘the era of insolence,’ when children, ‘their mouths on fire,’ emerged from a long silence. In other words, colonialism already carried the seeds of what is nowadays called Cultural Marxism: the colonisers planted the seeds of their own future destruction.
On arriving in Ireland, then, such wayfarers, imagine themselves to have arrived in the ‘White World’, whereas they have in fact arrived in a post-colonial outpost not all that unlike the place they left behind.
Ireland shares not just the essence of the African experience but also many of its pathologies. Smith cites the American anthropologist Rebecca Hardin on the matter of ‘concessions’ — formal legal arrangements by which foreign actors are enabled to manage and exploit land or other natural resources of former colonies, which have long been a feature of Irish ‘economic’ policy. The ‘beauty’ of these arrangements, he explains, is that they not only satisfy rent-seeking states, but even better, reinforce the sovereign power of such, despite the supplicant states’ inability to exploit their own resources themselves. This phenomenon of ‘concessions’ has been an unnamed and unacknowledged feature of Irish ‘development’ policy since the 1960s, with massive tranches of multiple natural resources being sold for a song to foreign interests. Today, the breadth of what our political class has been selling off is imaginative indeed; they sell, in effect, the very essence of Ireland: its resources, yes, but more so its values, culture, uniqueness, weather, laws, constitution, natural rights, landscape, particularities, citizens’ rights, citizenship, passports. The intake by stealth over the past two decades of hundreds of thousands of outsiders is yet another example of such concession-granting: the transnational tech and chemical corporations from which the Irish political class obtains its lifeline trickle of financial run-off, need low-cost labour to allow their business models operate to maximum efficiency. Many of these companies — which were supposed to hire Irish workers — are now overwhelmingly staffed by imported labour.
Smith’s description, intended as a sketch of African political reality, provides another unwitting but devastating insight into modern Ireland:
‘What is fascinating in this political alchemy is that it transmutes incapacity into profits, or base metal into gold: the less the state can act on its own, the more it has to offer to external partners. They stand in for the state and pay it recognition rights — tribute.’ This, in under 50 words, amounts to a precise summation of Irish industrial policy since the early 1970s.
The charge of ‘racism’ is not merely disingenuous and utterly destructive of sense and reason — it is also a projection. Those who orchestrate the replacement of the European population are engaged in an unprecedented exercise in ethnic cleansing, but they conceal this behind a shield of misappropriated history and profoundly dishonest sleights-of-hand. Drawing its energy from historical acts of inhumanity — almost invariably resulting from the colonial incursions of European settlers in Africa and the Americas — the word ‘racism’ has legitimately acquired a profoundly toxic power. Themselves arguably the most appropriate candidates for such a designation, these malevolent manipulators seek to achieve the same outcome as the long-gone adventurers who first gave the term life, while dousing themselves in altruistic sanctimony. In reality, their project is a racist one, and not merely in its vicious onslaught on the populations of Europe, whom it seeks to dispossess and render historically homeless, as though in reparation for past sins and crimes. It is racist also in the attitudes on show towards, as well as the treatment of, the human quotient appropriated to carry out the dirty work of dispossessing Europeans — the dark-skinned peoples of the ‘Third World’ who are used as demographic, economic and cultural battering-rams to effect what is an at least fourfold purpose: to drive down wages in European countries so that the fabulously wealthy exploiters of human labour may become even more fabulously wealthy; to create a new consuming class to replace the dying boomers and those who come after; to provoke a chaos of racial strife within Europe so as to render it easier to plunder; and to provide the pretext for increased authoritarianism — road-tested in the Covid exercise — which can be used to quell any future dissent and enforce the new dispensation.
Strangely, or perhaps not, the obliteration of the ‘white’ peoples of Europe does not itself constitute racism under the terms of the governing ideology of Cultural Marxism. This is because only the alleged victims of past wrongdoing — i.e. the descendents or colour-coded proxies of those sufferers of colonial/imperial wrongs — may be regarded as victims within the meaning of the ideology, and this does not apply to people exhibiting the paler shades of skin.
The implicit condescension in what is occurring towards the humanity of the human pawns used to re-populate the former civilisation of Europe is such as to constitute several entirely new incarnations of racism: the infantilisation of entire categories of humanity in order to appropriate them as cultural and economic sledgehammers, and the designation of peoples and individuals as ‘privileged’, or ‘supremacist’ on the mere basis of skin-colour.
The narrative permeating Western societies concerning their responsibility to the ‘developing world’ also omits to refer to the fact that nations within the Third World are far more zealous in protecting their own borders than any Western country of today. What in the context of mass migration is called ‘racism’, therefore, might, counter-intuitively, be seen as a feature also within Africa. As Stephen Smith writes: ‘Westerners tend to play down the legal implications of “otherness” involved in intra-African migration, as if black people in black Africa were bound to “naturally” get along; as if certain rights were not the privilege of nationals only and special duties were not incumbent on immigrants.’
Africa has its ‘open borders’ agitators also: ‘Often,’ Smith writes, ‘these same “Pan-Africanists” have a tendency to mark as racist any opposition outside of Africa to the arrival of African migrants. Yet the repertoire of negative reactions towards foreigners — or simply more foreigners — is the same south of the Sahara as it is elsewhere. Ranging from a reasoned refusal to murder.’
Interestingly, too, one of the factors contributing to the increase in migrant traffic from Africa to Europe has been the closing off of the option of migrating to South Africa, once the post-apartheid ‘rainbow nation.’ In 2008, South African introduced a meritocratic points system to administer inward migration, and enacted laws that put an end to automatic citizenship for holders of long-term residency permits. If Ireland or any European country were to attempt such a system, it would find itself labelled ‘racist’.
In 1980s Nigeria, when the welcome for migrants who had come to work in the oil industry ran out with the oil, several hundred thousand ‘foreigners’ (citizens of other African countries) were expelled in two large waves (1983 and 1985). In 1983, two million migrants — over half of them Ghanaians — were deported from Nigeria, with a further 200,000 in 1985. Nigeria said the aliens were taking jobs from Nigerians and causing high crime rates. Ghana claimed that, in the course of the 1985 deportations, the Nigerian police killed 65 of its people. This was denied by the Nigerian government.
Such evidence pointing to the prima facie hypocrisy is of limited value seeing that the determinist manipulators of European and Africa demographics control the media and the internet to a degree unimaginable even 20 years ago. The total corruption of the journalistic profession by facile ideological ideas and sentimental catch-phrases has ensured that the onslaught of propaganda is unanswerable with mere facts and reason.
What is afoot is an ostensible, though undeclared, non-negotiable programme of retribution and reparation, used as a front for a new wave of colonialism, in which the heirs of the former victims become the tools of the elites who are themselves the true-blood descendents of the ultimate perpetrators of Europe’s former imperial crimes. The peoples of Europe, therefore, are being bullied into surrendering their homelands and their existential homes on the basis of, in effect, unchallengeable allegations relating to the behaviours of their ancestors, long dead — by groups and forces, migration- and ‘anti-racism’ NGOs in particular, — on behalf of interests/individuals whose ancestors were almost certainly profouncly implicated in the same wrongdoing. The result will be the colonisation of Europe on precisely the same terms as the colonisation of Africa and South America in the past, including the introduction of a neo-feudal system amounting to slavery, in the name of historical justice-seeking. Anything more sinister and hypocritical would amount to a feat of imagination worthy of a Nobel Prize for Literature.
Another factor rarely mentioned by those advocating mass migration is the centrality of criminal organsations to the process of reaching Europe from any of the countries whose people seek to get there. The criminal aspects of trans-Saharan migrant trafficking are not widely ventilated either. There are, according to Stephen Smith, ‘hunters’ who drive the migrants into ‘ghettos’, where they wait in makeshift lodgings until it is time to leave; and ‘fixers’ on mopeds who accompany the convoys ‘like swarms of mosquitoes’, bribing the police at various check-points so the human cargo can pass. In Libya there are the gidambashi — ‘credit houses’—which function as detention and torture centres for migrants who have run out of money. We hear little of this from the advocates of mass migration.
Smith expands: ‘Photos or footage of these captives — in a pitiable state, starved and swollen from beatings — are posted on Facebook or sent via WhatsApp to extort money from family members to secure their release.’ Those for whom no ransom is paid are auctioned off on slave markets.
Something else the public rarely gets to hear about is that the EU has for some time been engaged in bribery of intermediate countries in attempts to limit the number of migrants arriving on European shores. A year before his toppling and murder by the US government, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi demanded an annual payment of €5 billion for Libya to continue blocking the way of migrants heading to Europe. In March 2016, the EU paid €6 billion to Turkey to close off the routes via the Aegean.
The water-carrying on behalf of these sinister interests is almost invariably done by bought-and-paid-for leftists (is there any other kind?) in the service of globalist billionaires who stand to gain enormously by the transformation of both Europe and Africa. The chief task of these puppet-parrots is to distract from the true nature of what is happening and divert public attention to the ‘compassion’ narrative, asserting — as though this were self-evident — that the sole conceivable basis of objection to what is happening is hatred of people with a different shading of skin. It is interesting that they jump most eagerly on concepts like ‘invasion’ and ‘replacement’, which convey the true nature of what is in train, instantly depicting those who employ such terms as ‘racist’. In fact, neither of these epithets is, in general, used to refer pejoratively to migrants, but to the use of migrants by closeted schemers. The concept of ‘replacement’, for example, was first formulated by the French writer and philosopher Renaud Camus, himself a longtime leftist, who wrote a book titled They Will Not Replace Us after he began to understand what was happening. The ‘they’ does not refer to migrants but to the orchestrators of the plot to destroy Europe, who are themselves — overwhelmingly, if not entirely — ‘white’.
To speak positively about Camus is to attract to oneself all the epithets employed against him. Even a neutral reference to him or his work is jumped upon by leftists as evidence of ‘racism’. Camus’s Wikipedia entry is typical of the smears inflicted on anyone seeking to raise truthful questions about what is happening: ‘[A} French novelist, conspiracy theorist and white nationalist writer. He is the inventor of the “Great Replacement”, a far-right conspiracy theory that claims that a “global elite” is colluding against the white population of Europe to replace them with non-European peoples.’
In other contexts, even when the same argument is made by figures not so easily daubed with the ‘racism’ brush, the tactic is to remain silent. This occurred in the case of the Guinean-born prelate, Robert Cardinal Sarah, who, counter to the globalist propaganda of the Bergoglian Church of the New World Order, has consistently spoken out against recent migratory trends, warning that they threaten to destroy both Europe and Africa. In April 2019, for example, Cardinal Sarah gave an interview to the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles in which he called migration a ‘new form of slavery’ and made clear his view that proselytising in favour of the mass movement of peoples from Africa to Europe is at odds with the Christian message. ‘It is better to help people flourish in their culture than to encourage them to come to a Europe in full decadence,’ he said. ‘It is a false exegesis to use the word of God to promote migration. God never wanted these heartbreaks.’
In a book, The Day is Now Far Spent, published that same year, Cardinal Sarah expands on these observations:
‘Everything must be done so that people can remain in the countries that saw their birth,’ he writes, warning of the risk incurred by those seeking to make a break from Africa to Europe. He also warns of the consequences for Europe if these trends are permitted to continue: ‘Very soon, we know, there will be in Europe a singularly dangerous imbalance on the demographic, cultural and religious levels.’
‘Globalized humanity, without borders, is a hell. The standardization of ways of life is the cancer of the postmodern world. Men become unwitting members of a great planetary herd, that does not think, does not protest, and allows itself to be guided towards a future that does not belong to it.’
Warning of the deadly cocktail of abortion and mass migration, he writes in the strongest terms concerning the urgency of the situation: ‘If the West continues in this fatal way, there is a great risk that, due to a lack of births, it will disappear, invaded by foreigners, just as Rome has been invaded by barbarians.’
Cardinal Sarah, remember, is not some ‘white supremacist’ but a formidably intelligent black African native who sees what is happening within a broad frame. Although he has been attacked on pseudo-theological grounds by some of Bergoglio’s henchmen, the leftist servers at the altars of globalism tend to think better of taking him on. His Wikipedia entry, unlike Renaud Camus’s, is respectful and broadly fair.
The issue is not simply that Europe is now under unprecedented threat, but that the ‘solutions’ on offer will destroy Africa’s chances of recovery also. The people of Africa and other ‘Third World’ situations have as much right as anyone else to happy and decent lives, but this outcome is not dependent on their being moved from their homelands to Europe or another Western location. There are other options, some of which have never been tried, or have been tried to such a pathetically feeble degree as to have had no chance of success. What Africa, for example, requires more than anything else is know-how concerning how to rebuild itself from within, and this is widely available in the West, were the will there also to genuinely assist Africans to have better and more prosperous lives. The suggestion that mass migration offers any kind of solution is simply the self-serving prescription of manipulative and exploitative interests, who can buy large swathes of corruptible manpower to put across their twisted message and drown out all alternatives. As Cardinal Sarah says, mass migration destroys both party-nations to the transaction — the ’host’ nations to which the floods of emigrants arrive, and the left-behind nations that are further impoverished by their departure. Neither deserves this; both deserve more.
One of the things the manipulators and agitators fail to reveal is that, as Stephen Smith outlines, the divides in the contemporary world are not so much, as previously, between poor countries and rich countries but internal to countries in both the ‘rich’ North and the poor(er) South. Globalisation has, since about 1980, created new forms of economic division, by which this rich-poor split became internal to nations, North and South, rather than between First and Third words per se.
‘Today,’ writes Smith, ‘the West shares with “the rest” the fact that wealth no longer divides the world into rich and poor nations as much as it separates the winners and losers of globalization in each country. Africa, unfortunately, is the only part of the world that has so far lost out on both counts: its internal disparities have dramatically increased, while at the same time it has not gained enough ground relative to the standard of living in the developed world due to its population growth and the law of large numbers.’ This is in part due to the constant haemorrhaging of its population to wealthier lands. And all these conditions have been exponentially exacerbated by Covid-justified asset-stripping of the middle-classes of all countries in favour of the richest-of-the-rich in the three years since The Scramble for Europe was published.
There are those who, surveying these incontrovertible facts, decide that Europe, the Old Continent, has contracted some kind of collective suicidal ideation, a death-wish, perhaps based on an inability to imagine itself beyond its present ‘progressive’ incarnation.
The British writer, Douglas Murray, in his 2017 book The Strange Death of Europe, writes: ‘Europe is committing suicide. Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide. Whether the European people choose to go along with this is, naturally, another matter . . . I mean that the civilisation we know as Europe is in the process of committing suicide and that neither Britain nor any other Western European country can avoid that fate because we all appear to suffer from the same symptoms and maladies. As a result, by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home.’
Most European countries are now struggling to perform the impossible trick of maintaining themselves at half the replacement rate for indigenous populations: 2.1 children per adult female. By 2060, applied to present demographics at present rates of population decline, there will be a 45 to 50 per cent fall in the population of what is now the European Union. At present rates of decline, the indigenous populations of many European countries will have collapsed to the tune of 85 per cent by the end of the present century. In some instances, these figures are being massaged to present a rosier picture than actually pertains. Ireland’s current fertility rate, for example, is officially at 1.7, but this is a composite figure, concealing the rather different patterns prevailing within the indigenous population compared to those among recent arrivals from countries where the birthrate is many multiples of Ireland’s. Whereas in 1970, the Irish fertility rate was 3.8, it is now less than one-third of that figure, having collapsed to little above 1.1 — half the replacement rate. Abortion, which is promoted by the same forces and interests that are pushing mass migration, is a key element of the suicide of Europe. The countries that have legalised abortion are the ones leading the plunge to the demographic abyss.
Worst of all is that Europeans are not even permitted to openly discuss what is happening to them.
Murray again: ‘Europe today has little desire to reproduce itself, fight for itself or even take its own side in an argument. Those in power seem persuaded that it would not matter if the people and culture of Europe were lost to the world. Some have clearly decided (as Bertolt Brecht wrote in his 1953 poem ‘The Solution’) to dissolve the people and elect another . . .’ He identifies two main causes for Europe’s drastic situation. One is mass migration into Europe, which he says turned Europe from ‘a home for the European peoples’ to ‘a home for the entire world’. The lack of integration and assimilation made innumerable places in Europe into places that were not European in the least. The normalisation of mass immigration and the delusional expectation of integration blinded us to the truth about what has been done. We Europeans know, says Murray, that we cannot become Indian or Chinese, yet we are expected to believe that anyone in the world can move to Europe and become European.
The second factor he identifies was the destruction by Europeans of their own beliefs, traditions and legitimacy. Europe had forgotten that everything you love ‘even the greatest and most cultured civilisations in history, can be swept away by people who are unworthy of them.’ The myth of progress is used, he says, to blinker the people of Europe to the calamity unfolding in their midst. Europe is weighed down with guilt about its past. And there is also, he says, a problem in Europe of ‘existential tiredness and a feeling that perhaps for Europe the story has run out and a new story must be allowed to begin.’
We are, as a result, in the process of replacing an ancient tradition based on philosophy, ethics and the rule of law, with a shallow anti-culture based on ‘respect’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ — trite concepts with no effective meaning other than the imposition of a bar on speaking one’s mind. Had it been possible to discuss what was unfolding, Murray writes, some solution might have been reached. ‘Yet, even in 2015, at the height of the migration crisis, it was speech and thought that was constricted.’
The loss of ‘unifying stories’, he says, ‘about our past and ideas about what to do with our present or future’, would be a serious conundrum at any time. During a time of momentous societal change and upheaval, it is likely to prove fatal. ‘The world is coming into Europe at a time when Europe has lost sight of what it is. And while the movement of millions of people from other cultures into a strong and assertive culture might have worked, the movement of millions of people into a guilty, jaded and dying culture cannot.’
Such a hypothesis might seem to invite a degree of compassion for Europeans themselves — on account of their psychological inability to continue ‘taking care of business’ as they once did. This might, in turn, be seen as some kind of admixture of residual Christian empathy (for the newcomers) and the guilt (concerning Europe’s imperial past) that might seem to underpin it. But there is a less flattering interpretation: that the dominant note in this dissonant fugue of self-justification is actually the unspoken selfishness of the present generation of ‘adult’ Europeans, who are so indifferent to the fates of the children they have permitted to be born in the decades since the 1960s — that they are prepared to sell their birthright of homeland so as to dramatise their virtue or ameliorate their guilt. Thus, the elaborate shows of middle-class approval that have greeted the multiple recent invasions of Europe under the subvention of invisible manipulators have concealed a darker fact: that the ageing European natives do not lose sleep about what happens to those who come after them; possessing no real beliefs, they have no heed of the future or the consequences of their actions in the present; and they do not care if Europe turns into a satellite of an Africa dying for different reasons, once they are gone.
In concluding his book, Stephen Smith says: ‘The massive migration of Africans to Europe is in the interest of neither Young Africa nor the Old Continent.’ For Europe, only a very selective filtering of would-be migrants will provide any benefit because of the highly competitive nature of its jobs market, which is likely to contract further as automation and especially robotics roll out. In the end, he says, somewhat optimistically, ‘the decline in its working population will almost certainly be a net gain for Europe, not a loss. Africa, on the other hand, has far more to lose than to gain from the large scale “exportation” of its youth.” He is right: Africa needs investment, entrepreneurship, creativity, not the continued haemorrhaging of its most vibrant young.
‘Africa’s challenge, he reiterates, ‘is not an excess of young people but a lack of adults,’ by which he means people capable of leading their fellows into a new era of African life. Similarly, Europe, which prates undergraduate pieties in the face of an impending catastrophe for both continents.
Smith describes his book as an attempt to ‘de-moralize’ the debate, i.e. remove it from the ambit of the ‘politics of pity.’ ‘While there are obviously important ethical implications, the decision for or against a migratory policy is not a choice between Good and Evil. In European democracies, it is about first deliberating and then agreeing on the rules for the admission of third-country nationals to EU territory.’
These rules, he says, ought to be in the best interests of Europeans. ‘It is a question of good governance, not of heaven or hell on earth.’
‘A border is not a barrier,’ he adds. ‘A border is a space of negotiation between neighbours, who cannot disregard the problems on the other side.’
Such an approach requires realism, not emotionalism. Africans are not a homogeneous group: they come from a vast continent with a multiplicity of tribes, cultures, tradition, norms and values — factors that, Smith stresses, ‘it is not inappropriate for their hosts to examine before extending their hospitality.’ A scattergun ‘politics of pity’ is misplaced and unhelpful. ‘In short, when trying to formulate a “good” immigration policy, irenic universalism inspired by a vague brotherhood of men is a prejudicial as nationalistic or nativist egoism, or any cult of blood and soil.’
As an alternative to the present insanity, he proposes that European countries might consider ‘new forms of ‘circulatory migration’— based on multiple entry visas or even residence permits granted for two or three years, according to a new national quota system that makes the arrival of a new African conditional on the prior departure of a compatriot. This, he claims, ‘could harness the self-regulatory effects of the job market and . . . make the policing of migratory flows a shared responsibility between Europe and Africa. One-for-one migrant substitution — one leaves, another enters — would no longer be the defence of “Fortress Europe” but co-management of its drawbridge.’
‘If you’re a European, you decide who’s getting into your country — you can’t count without your host. Only Europeans can decide who enters Europe, but they cannot decide in a void.’
The arrival of foreigners in a society, he observes, can be destabilising. Pretending otherwise is ‘surely disingenuous.’ He cites the Algerian writer Kamel Daoud, who warned against ‘an angelic attitude that can ultimately kill.’ Neither host nor stranger is a priori good, or evil, generous or selfish. No outsider has the right to dictate to a community how it should define the commonality of its members — especially not those applying for membership. ‘One doesn’t join a club by relaxing the rules,’ Smith observes. ‘These can be renegotiated, but only after one has become a member.’
‘In any event,’ he writes, ‘except for the duty to rescue that applies to asylum seekers (and it limited by the principle that they should not constitute a criminal threat to the community), indifference is neither wrong nor immoral.’ Freedom of association implies also the right not to associate. ‘Whatever the response, a concern for greater international equality should not be confused with a vision of open borders as the royal road to achieving that goal. It is not inconsistent to favour worldwide social justice and oppose the free movement of persons.’
John Waters Unchained is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.