The Existential Crisis of Europe
I’ve been trying to get started
on this blog for some while now, but it’s been hard to know exactly how to get
a purchase on it. The main problem is
that the mindset of most British people has been so corrupted that if you so
much as mention the word ‘immigration’ you will instantly be branded
‘xenophobic’. Or if you suggest that
picking up Africans floating a few miles off Libya and ferrying them to the
European mainland where they will be housed and fed might not be the most sensible thing to do, you are clearly a
racist who wants to see them all dead.
Well I’ve got to the point now
where I’m beginning not to care about what the opinion shepherds want us to
believe or what other people think about such things, because their name
calling has ceased to have any meaning, rather like the boy who cried ‘Wolf!’
and then got ignored.
The seed crystals of news which
have caused the condensation of these thoughts in my mind have come over
recently from the Grauniad and the Telegraph.
I used to be a Grauniad leftie from before the beginning of time until
some vaguely unspecified date about a year or three ago when I began to realise
that I didn’t actually agree with them any more. In fact I began to realise that they were often found to be
spouting dangerously biased and irrational nonsense.
Take the recent Danish election,
in which the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party made significant gains and
now holds the balance of power.
Beyond the facts of the election result itself, I would draw people's
attention to the way the Grauniad has covered these results. To save you time I
have lifted a series of quotes from their coverage and copied them below. They
are clearly trying to control the narrative for their own ends rather than
report in an unbiased manner.
Words such as 'populist' 'seductive' and 'divisive' pepper the text,
and you don't need a qualification in Neuro-Linguistic programming for it to be obvious that the Grauniad is doing its best to diss
the Danish People's Party. I love the way they attack the vote as relying
heavily on over 60s. What should we
make of the fact that 57% of their voters were under 60? Now that
I am over 60 it is obvious to me that there is a repository of wisdom and
stability in our older population which should be drawn on. Until the Cult of
Youth took over, the wisdom of age was respected. Now it is sneered at because
it could be the last bulwark against the multi-culti insanity which the elites
are trying to impose on us.
Democracy is great isn't it? Except when the people make the 'wrong
decision' of course, and need to be corrected. **** off Grauniad and respect a
sovereign nation and its people's choices.
'Soft-spoken and plausible'
'populist tide' ' Whatever people may say about the clean-cut, politically
savvy Thulesen Dahl and his *divisive* anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant,
anti-Brussels stance, he is no Nigel Farage.' [WTF is that supposed to mean?]
'Others suspect a more destructive agenda.' ' it seems clear the DPP surge fed
off fears about the “enemy within” symbolised by February’s deadly attacks in
Copenhagen by a *lone* Islamist extremist.' [Emphasis mine] (When it's a muslim, it's a 'lone gunman', but when, as in Charleston, SC, it was a 'lone' white man, we see a massive psychological attack on blaming all white people and their culture. Yeah, I noticed the inconsistency.) 'Coincidentally or
not, 43% of DPP voters were older than 60.' 'It was a seductive campaign
narrative that pulled rival parties, including Thorning-Schmidt’s Social
Democrats, to the right while denying them a clearly separate ideological
identity.' So now the DPP is controlling other people's ideological identity? I
thought that's what the EU had been trying to do for several decades! This is
trash propaganda of the slimiest sort.
Firstly this is undisguised
opinion in what should be a disinterested and objective news report. Obviously the major issues and future
ramifications need to be mentioned, but this is heavily slanted, fear mongering propaganda.
The Grauniad is known for its
pro-immigration position, and this is what it is all about. Those nasty racist Danish people want to put
a stop to it, and the Grauniad wants it to continue. Very much. Very, very, very
much indeed.
I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and
consider the possibility that many on the Left genuinely believed that full
scale multi-culturalism would be a good idea and work. They had of course never tried such a mass
experiment under controlled conditions, but they thought it would be a good
idea. For some reason or other that is
now lost in the memory hole of time.
When it became clear a number of
years ago that this whole thing wasn’t working (and Cameron, Merkel and others
said this), not only was nothing done to reverse the trajectory, but in recent
times the directives from the EU have if anything pressed to increase the
numbers of immigrants. As long ago as
2001 the UN predicted that the EU would need over 100,000,000 immigrants to
replace population. State policies and
tax breaks for families could easily improve the indigenous European birth rate
so one has to ask why is there this confluence with the continued political
pressure for immigration?
I have seen a link which mentioned a
figure of 159,000,000 immigrants being needed by 2025, but can’t seem to find
that precise one at the moment.
There is much discussion of aging
demographics and the need to maintain tax revenues etc., but almost no mention
of how to stimulate the birth rate of indigenous Europeans, which is surely the
best long term solution, a simple reversal of the cause of our demographic
decline.
Clearly the cheap labour is a
significant part of it. We have a
couple of million floating unemployed in Britain, and yet open door economic
migration continues as normal business.
The EU Schengen Zone obviously has led to this to a great extent, and so
we have to mention the Kalergi plan.
Quote from Kalergi “The
Eurasian-Negroid race tomorrow, outwardly similar to the ancient Egyptian, will
replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of personalities.”
A quote from Kalergi’s ‘Practical
Idealism’
“The man of the future will be of
mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the
elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the
future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the
diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European
Judaism against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to
their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary
process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the
Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate
care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the
European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews
[due to the actions taken by the French Revolution]”
I didn’t write any of that, Count
Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi did.
This has become well known about in truther circles over the last few years. The mainstream is
very reluctant to discuss Kalergi, and won’t talk about his plan. I actually have a friend who is a life long Labour Party member who threatened to walk out on me if I tried to discuss it. Really! Why? She wouldn't say.
Frankly, I wouldn’t take it seriously but
for one rather glaring connection that is too big to ignore. Both Chancellor Merkel and EU President Van
Rompuy have both been awarded the ‘Charlemagne Prize’ for services to the pan
European ideal, of which Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi was the first
recipient in 1950.
And what Kalergi suggested seems
to now be taking place. Join the dots my friends.
I would offer in supportive evidence the
complete abdication of any right to rule by the current crop of EU leaders
(with one or two exceptions) in the face of the current invasion of Europe
currently taking place. The first duty
of our government is to defend the realm.
This is clearly not being done. The
dominant leadership from Brussels is continuing to try to force this down the
throats of what is left of an indigenous European population with economic
arguments on the one hand and moral on the other.
Let’s put the cheap labour behind
us and get onto the ‘universal ethics’ which require Europe to sacrifice itself
on the altar of African need, shall we.
Allowing
ingress of hostiles is treason.
‘Social Justice
Warriors’ don’t reason or even argue with you, all they do is sling abuse. It’s predictable, ‘Racist’ ‘Bigot’, 'Xenophobe', for
simply wanting your own people to remain the main group in their own country. Apparently the multi-culti Cultural Marxist
agenda is now so advanced that they think they can silence anyone with a few
well chosen weaponised words of abuse. But it has
reached the point where we don’t care as I suggested above.
The woman who
wrote the following piece for the Telegraph is a bit more savvy about all this
than the Grauniad, but she hasn’t quite got there yet. Fix their countries for
them? That would be racist colonialism,
wouldn’t it? This piece written before
the Tunisian massacre of European tourists.
One of the main problems with all
this is that most Europeans haven’t any experience of sub-Saharan Africa, and
many of those who do have only seen it through the eyes of tourism, protected
in western standard hotels and shepherded around in tour buses and safari
groups. I spent a substantial part of
my childhood in West Africa and saw this all through different eyes. I have little doubt that while the cities in
Africa may have some of the trappings of modern civilisation these days, the
average peasant will still be living in the manner that they did in the fifties
or sixties, whether that be the 1950s or the 1850s, or earlier.
But I hear you say that if the
conditions are so primitive, then shouldn’t we be doing all we can to
ameliorate them? Let’s be clear about
this. There are over a billion native
population in Africa, nearly twice that of Europe, and their continent is much
larger, with immense natural resources, not to mention a climate more conducive to plant growth in much of its area. Oh, and the almost limitless sunshine which could be used for electrical generation and thereby economic growth.
Firstly we should consider the simple matter of space, housing,
employment and so forth. Clearly the
continuous arrival of unlimited numbers of people of foreign origin must have
some impact on these.
But it is the actual people that
we should consider. I hear people from
the likes of the Green Party saying ‘Give them time and they will become just
like us’. Really? Does the growth of Islam in Europe support
this supposition? It seems rather the
opposite to me.
We have to accept that the
average sub-Saharan African has lived a life of what we would consider
unremitting hardship, but that is from a European perspective. Until recent times most of the European
peoples toiled and sweated to survive in a similar manner, with added winters unknown in Africa, to boot. Our advanced technical civilisation has
removed us from that basic level of survival and, frankly, made us soft.
When Europeans see pictures of
Africans in mud huts their altruistic hearts go out to them and want to help
them. But how should this be done? Countless billions of pounds, euros and
dollars have disappeared into black holes of corruption over the decades,
fuelling on the one hand Presidential palaces, and on the other endless
wars. European guilt at the colonial
era is a large part of this, but how long must we go on paying? We hear more about colonial exploitation now
than we have ever done. I am not
unaware of the massive debts with which the World Bank and their likes have
entrapped the nations of the continent, but this should not be laid at the door
of the common European peoples.
The so-called ‘moral’ argument
for allowing endless streams of Africans into our historical homelands relies
largely on the colonial past, which ended in the aftermath of the Second World
War, and on altruistic feelings of wanting to help them. Firstly I would suggest that the aid budgets
and loans have done little to benefit the common African, and secondly that
simply allowing them to come to Europe and find a future here is not a viable
option, either for them or us, despite the assertions of bankers and eurocrats that we actually need this feral population.
Pictures of the migrant boat
people I have seen do not actually look like African peasants in fact, but more
like semi-westernised city dwellers. I
see leather jackets, jeans and sunglasses.
But they doubtless still have the tenacity of their peasant ancestors.
It is fairly obvious to me that
word has got round amongst the urban poor of Africa that Europe has gone soft
and is letting them in. And not just in
Africa, but pretty much throughout the Third World.
The likes of Angela Merkel only
encourage this. I have just seen news
coming in that Hungary, one of the few European nations to offer resistance to
the no borders and unlimited migration policy, has been whipped into line by
the EU commissars. But the Hungarian
people are not happy with this.
This is based on a fundamental
misrepresentation of the African migrants.
They are put to us by the media as poor suffering refugees, fleeing a
continent riven by war and strife.
Well, I won’t argue with the riven with war and strife, but these are
wars of their own making. You don’t see
women and children on the boats coming across the Med, it’s all young men. They are clearly economic migrants. (A junior Tory minister dared suggest this a
few days ago, and was roundly attacked ~ by immigrants.)
It brings to mind a story I read
about four or five years ago when I was going through a motivational and
personal development phase. I was
reading a lot of stuff about how getting ahead in life required effort and
vision, and the implications of one story rather disturbed me. It was about how a certain African man had
not had the opportunities in his native Kenya that he sought for his economic
advancement, so he walked, hitch hiked and smuggled himself north until he
found his way to Europe and then with hard work and diligence made a life for
himself and was successful. All very
well when it is one person alone, but I fear that many millions of Africans
have heard such stories and are planning to do the same. In fact, one of the main points of the story
was put over that you have to go where the opportunities are, you won’t make a
million in the desert. True ~ but do
these people have the right to impose themselves on us? I would suggest that the answer is no, or at
least that we have an equal right to defend our ancestral lands from
invaders. The lack of obvious firearms
does not prevent them from being invaders.
The price of Globalisation is
that hot spots of economic activity attract people to them. But the downsides are many. The indigenous populations of the hot spots,
such as Europe and the United States, become marginalised in their own lands. (And before you complain about Americans of
Australians not being indigenous, ask yourself how the Native Americans or
Australian Original people will do if their countries are taken over by Islam
and Sharia law, or is swamped out by African or mestizo populations? Less well than at present I would suggest.)
The incoming populations do not
become like the indigenous. At first
they may have been compliant with the local culture, but as time has gone on
and they have become stronger in numbers, they have become more assertive. The demographic time bomb of what is now
potentially millions of feral Africans settling in Europe, in addition to the
already burgeoning Middle Eastern Islamic population, is something that the
likes of Angela Merkel seem not to understand, other than to want to
promote it. Remember Count Richard
Coudenhove-Kalergi? This is exactly
what he described, and claimed was necessary.
The incoming African boat people
will not become like us. They see this
as an opportunity. Europe, which always
in the past was an unattainable Elysium, has become soft and faces an
existential crisis as to its identity and future.
From an evolutionary survival
adaptation perspective the African behaviour is perfectly understandable. Organisms seek environments in which they
can prosper. This happens all the way
from the amoeba to human beings. But
all organisms need to defend their territories, and the leaders of Europe have
abdicated that responsibility for this.
The Social Justice Warrior crowd
have now built a collective zeitgeist in which the ideas of ‘One People’ and
‘No Borders’ have become dominant memes.
But they do this with no recourse to anything other than claimed
morality. Why should you have all the
benefits of European civilisation just because you were born there? Why should the poor of the Third World not
be entitled to all those benefits as well?
Your borders are artificial constructs etc etc etc
Not long ago a friend stated on
social media that (he believed) it was ‘immoral’ to maintain European borders
against migrants who wished to come here.
He asserted this as if it were a proven fact that brooked no
disagreement. This chap lives in a
rural part of southern England where he probably doesn’t see a non-European
face from one week to the next. He,
like so many of the liberal classes of the west, is not yet impacted by the
social and demographic impacts of many millions of people arriving here to take
perceived opportunities. Unlike those of us in large cities.
And yet it is admitted from time
to time that the Third World migrants harbour in their midst murderers, drug
traffickers, rapists and all manner of undesirables. Their identities and criminal records are uncheckable by European
border authorities. A recent incident
involved some twenty five boat people being murdered by their fellow travellers
because they were Christians. Not that
I imagine they were wonderful people, but if that is how a boat load of
immigrants treat others of their people simply for being Christians, then how
might we expect them to treat white European people? It was recently admitted that 100% of rapes in Oslo are committed
by people of non-Norwegian ancestry ~ immigrants. Obviously some immigrants are more responsible than others, but
the kind of unrestricted migration we are seeing at present across the Med from
Africa is unlikely to be dominated by the kind of responsible, educated
immigrant that the Labour party went to so much effort to present to us before
the election. I would venture that
there are few brain surgeons or information technology experts amongst the African
boat people.
The leadership of the West has
abdicated responsibility. Either they
have lost the plot entirely or have been co-opted by interests who seek to
destroy the West in the manner proposed by Count Kalergi.
Every nation and people have the
right to control their borders and maintain dominance in their own ancestral lands. This is a fundamental fact which has been
ceaselessly attacked, undermined, argued against and sneered at increasingly
over the last few decades. And yet all
other ethnic groups, all other countries and nations are permitted to maintain
their borders, control the movements of immigrants into their territories and
define themselves by their ethnicity.
Except those peoples of white European ancestry.
One of my favourite episodes from
ancient literature is from the Bhagavad Gita.
On the night before the great Battle of Kuruksetra, Arjuna asks Krishna
why it is necessary to face his relative the Kauravas in battle, and if there is any alternative. In essence, Krishna replies ‘You would
rather let them kill you and your entire family then?’
Christian morality is fine when
you live in an homogeneous culture where all share the high trust values. But allowing in millions of people from
different cultures that don’t believe in these values is suicide. They see our high trust societies as a soft
touch to be exploited, taken over and turned to their values. If you think that muslims and Africans will
become like us rather than adhere to their own ancestral values, then I wish
you luck with that when you are stoned to death for having views on women’s
rights or freedom of speech. I have heard
recently that in mosques muslims often talk about ‘When the time comes’.
And what time might that be I
wonder? Anyone who imagines that an
aggressive belief system which has conquered some fifty or so countries by the
sword and which makes no secret of the fact that it seeks to ‘convert’ (coerce)
the rest of the world to its ‘peaceful’ ways is living in a fantasy land. The body count of the jihad over the
centuries stands at some 300 million or so I understand. Lovely practices such as 'striking off the fingertips', or simple beheading, of unbelievers are recommended in the koran as methods whereby they can achieve mastery.
The leadership and peoples of the
West face a severe existential challenge.
Do we continue with a universalist ethics which insists we give away all
that our ancestors achieved because someone has found a vulnerable point in our
ethics that they can exploit like a Trojan horse virus, or do we face up to the
fact that we have to protect ourselves from being swamped out by barbarians? It happened to Byzantium and
all the remains of the Roman Empire. Charles Martel prevented it in 732 at Poitiers.
The good people of Austria saw it face to face in 1683 when the muslim hordes
besieged the gates of Vienna.
Do we let our identity and
culture fold because we have had a manipulative mind game played against us to
make us feel guilty of our historical success, or do we follow the
suggestion of Krishna, and seek to secure a future for ourselves, our European peoples and children?
You decide.
