We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.
With these words in 1968, Enoch Powell spoke truth to power the concealed fears of many Britons that an increasingly non-British populace would be the death knell of traditional Britannia. At the end of Powell’s speech criticizing Commonwealth immigration and anti-discrimination legislation, he excoriated those who were pushing these topics by echoing Virgil and looking ahead, far ahead, into a future non-Anglocentric Britain:
As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood”. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
It was with this speech that Mr. Powell sacrificed his professional life to expose the festering racial wound. The Conservative leadership immediately went forward with the removal of Powell from his post, despite the results of a Gallup opinion poll that found that 74% agreed with what Powell had said in his speech; 15% disagreed, and that 69% felt (Edward) Heath was wrong to sack Powell and 20% believed Heath was right. The public’s opinion, while being soundly in Powell’s favor, was not enough to save him as his party leadership moved quickly to scrub their party of association with Mr. Powell.
Powell’s prediction of widespread ethnic dispossession and conflict seemed rather unlikely to many at the time; yet approximately 50 years later, the public sentiment that Powell represented can largely be considered “vindicated”, in Britain as well as throughout the entire West. The ruling elite of the European Union have opened the gates of Europe to a flood of economic migrants from the non-Western world. In recent years, Eurocrats have adopted a near “Open Borders” policy to migrants from the Middle East & Africa who claim to be from Syria. These migrants are attracted to Europe primarily by the generous social welfare policies paid for and meant for the native ethnic Europeans. Particularly in Western Europe, this policy has resulted in a swift change of Europe’s demographics. Many major European cities have even turned majority non-White.
This trend towards ethnic replacement of the European peoples has been exacerbated in recent years by a massive migration of Muslim peoples from the MENA region. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been the most outspoken critic of the European policies that allow and encourage further migration to the continent. Orban’s criticism of the European Elite has been couched largely in the language of ethno-nationalist populism, and Angela Merkel has been a privileged target for his attacks.
A modern day mass migration is taking place…that could change the face of Europe’s civilization. If that happens, that is irreversible. There is no way back from a multicultural Europe.
Orbán quickly moved on his convictions by erecting security fences along the Hungarian border to the delight of the Hungarian people. His security fences worked phenomenally well, and lowered the number of illegal migrants from thousands per day to pre-crisis levels. Soon afterwards, in another astonishing speech, Orbán performed the ultimate taboo against the Eurocratic dogma – by insinuating that Europe has a unique cultural identity that deserves to be defended, he broke rank from the secular otherculturalist elite who deny that they even have a culture to preserve.
Everything which is now taking place before our eyes threatens to have explosive consequences for the whole of Europe. Europe’s response is madness. We must acknowledge that the European Union’s misguided immigration policy is responsible for this situation. Those arriving have been raised in another religion and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? There is no alternative, and we have no option but to defend our borders.
This overt act of wrongthink could not be tolerated. Between the highly problematic acts of building a security fence and declaring that First World nations have a right and duty to preserve their own unique identity and character, many Western European leaders attempted the standard shaming techniques of calling Orbán a ‘racist’, or insinuating he is a ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’. Yet only weeks later, in the face of a flood of immigrants that will seemingly never stop and a series of terror threats and attacks across Western Europe, other countries like Austria are silently beginning to mimic Orbán’s tactics. Despite the news that other countries are beginning to implement some of the protections that Hungary and other members of the Visegrad Group have undertaken, are these actions too little, too late?
There are two primary components to the threat that this soft invasion poses to Europe. The first threat is a straightforward one: ISIS, as well as their Salafist and hardliner Sunni allies, are attempting to utilize the migrant crisis as an opportunity to carry out hijrah, or “jihad by migration”. ISIS has announced previously to the world that they are using the crisis to sneak into Europe, and have published documents calling for their members to migrate to Europe for the explicit purpose of carrying out jihad. This threat is overt, short-term in nature, and relatively easy to understand.
To see the second threat from the irresponsible European migration policies, we need to channel Mr. Powell’s foresight and look down the road two or three generations; we need to look at demographics and the inevitable ethnic struggles that will arise from widespread European dispossession of their ancestral homelands. Currently, Muslim populations of European countries vary from <0.1% in Eastern European nations like Hungary to 7.5% of the total population in France. While this doesn’t look like much at first, the real issue is one of time and fertility; native Europeans in 2013 had a total fertility rate of 1.55 children per woman, and that figure has stayed relatively stable going back until at least 2000. Globally, Muslims have the world’s highest fertility rate, sitting at 3.1 (well above the 2.1 required for a stable population). For Muslims specifically in Europe, historic rates have shown them to have a fertility rate of 2.2, compared to the 1.5 of the native population. By 2050, it is projected that Britain will be a majority Muslim nation and that Europe as a whole will be 10% Muslim. This is misleading in itself, however, due to the fact that Eastern European nations such as Hungary and Poland are projected to continue to have a very tiny Muslim population. This implies that the Muslim populations of Western European nations will have to be even higher to bring the average up to 10%, considering the much smaller Muslim population of Eastern Europe.
What will this mean for Europe? The Liberal doctrine demands we believe that all people are inherently good, inherently the same, and that they only require a guiding hand of rationality to see past the limitations of their backward religious beliefs. The Liberal doctrine of the current ruling parties of the European Union cannot reconcile itself with the viewpoint of those borne into a completely antithetical ideology – Islam. Liberal responses to Islamic aggression will be mishandled and misguided, dependent on the erroneous belief that Salafists and other fundamentalist Muslims can be won over by a welfare check, housing, and love. Francois Hollande and Jean-Claude Juncker demonstrates this perfectly with Hollande’s response to the Bataclan theater terrorist attack in Paris: The French response was to increase bombings on ISIS strongholds, yet commit to voluntarily bring in and house another 30,000 unvetted migrants from the very areas where the enemy’s house is built. Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Union, responded that “the attacks should be met with a stronger display of liberal values including internal open borders” (with no expected change to the de-facto open external borders, either). James Burnham, in his book 1964 critique of Liberalism titled “Suicide of the West”, had much to say about the inability of Liberalism to understand and respond to the realities of force and power:
There are, thus, specific features of liberal doctrine and habit that explain, in each case, liberalism’s demonstrated inability to meet the primary challenges to Western survival. The deficiency can also be related, as I have already suggested, to a more general trait: to the fact that liberalism cannot come to terms with power, in particular with force, the most direct expression of power. It is not that liberals, when they enter the governing class (or when they constitute a revolutionary opposition striving to become the governing class) never make use of force; unavoidably they do, sometimes even to excess. But because of their ideology they are not reconciled intellectually and morally to force. They therefore tend to use it ineptly, at the wrong time and places, against the wrong targets, in the wrong amounts.
But the liberal is prevented by his ideology from admitting the necessary and integral role of force, and by his temperament he dislikes to plan consciously ahead concerning the ways and means of using force. Moreover, most liberals, as we noted, are foxes rather than lions. They belong to the types, professions and classes who seek their ends by shrewdness, manipulations and verbal skills. What tends to happen, therefore, when liberals become influential or dominant in the conduct of a nation’s affairs is that the government tries to handle the difficulties, dangers, issues and threats it faces by those same methods…as to shy away as much as possible and as long as possible from the use of Force. In fact, the liberals tend to employ the social agencies of force – police and army – as above all instruments of bluff. Their actual use of force, which will always be necessary no matter what the theory, becomes erratic and unpredictable, the result not of a prudent estimate of the objective situation but of their own impatience, panic, or despair.
Ever poignant, his critique in 1964 still rings true today as both the US and European governments employ an erratic foreign policy against ISIS and the Assad regime. This is done all while actively increasing the number of people it imports from the very region where its enemies live and occupy. To say that the Western response to this Islamic aggression is simply laying the groundwork for creating a future of Islamic insurgency in its own nations is anything but far-fetched. This is precisely the result ISIS was wanting; to gain entry into Western nations, in order to strike from within.
The threats that irresponsible immigration policy has created for Europe are clear, both short and long-term, and amongst the Western European nations, there exists little hope in my mind of avoiding Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood”. Luckily, the Visegrad Group – Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia – have all maintained a strong opposition to the absolute madness of the Merkel migration doctrine. This institutional opposition to accepting the migrant hordes, as well as their nationalistic citizenry, all combined with the relatively low level of government benefits given compared to the Western nations, has allowed them to sidestep the initial migrant blow and will help them in maintaining their national security, economic outlooks, and unique ethnic and cultural identities. Will these series of steps taken by the Visegard group prove to be the watershed decisions between Western and Eastern Europe’s fate?