The Migrant Invasion of Europe and the Dawn of a New Multicultural Dystopia

Refugees from all over the world keep pouring into Europe in an endless tide.
What can we do to stop this invasion of our homelands?
CLICK TO EXPAND

 

“Migrant crisis? What crisis?
There is no migrant crisis!”

— Ian Birrell, British political pundit, in the Daily Mail

I do Mr Birrell a wrong by implying that he is unaware of the caravans of illegal immigrants pouring into Europe unrelentingly, mostly from five Muslim countries: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Eritrea.

He would have to be living on a different planet not to be aware that the “migrant crisis” is a crisis indeed: not so much for the migrants who have everything to gain if they can smuggle themselves into Europe, but it’s obviously a crisis to their European host countries who have everything to lose if the migrants should succeed in gaining a foothold here and, in the process, force their alien values and culture upon us.

This is what multiculturalism, if the truth be told, is all about: destroying the existing culture initially by dilution, and later on by subtle discrimination, verbal attacks, and, finally, by criminalisation.  Traditional values and the Christian ethos, once the prevailing norms in Europe and the US as late as the 1950s, are now quaint relics of the past, held in almost universal contempt by a thoroughly brutalised population of decadent philistines and tiresome trendies. Widespread neurosis, if not mental sickness, is rapidly becoming normative; and the vices of our ancestors are now the age’s new virtues.

Britain, new ‘Promised Land’ for Asylum Seekers

Mr Birrell, in the startling epigraph quote above—unavailable online but found in the Daily Mail hardcopy edition of 31 December 2018, p.15, under the headline ‘Myopic May damages our nation’—was in fact referring to the 139 illegal immigrants, mostly from Iran, who had recently been caught sneaking into Britain. His sympathies lie with them entirely. He regards them as heroes for surviving torture and oppression in their own countries, for braving the storms and treacherous tides of the Mediterranean, and for slogging their way over mountain passes and through inhospitable enemy terrain in immense caravans of misery, finally to fetch up in the icy waters of the English Channel in a last desperate attempt to get to the land of their dreams—the glorious shores of Great Britain.

This is hardly a “crisis”, Mr Birrell opines. It is a cause for rejoicing.

Apart from Matteo Salvini, there is not a single influential politician anywhere in Western Europe who is lifting a finger to stop this ongoing invasion of our homelands by hordes of African, Asian, and Middle Eastern migrants, all claiming to be “refugees.” And it just keeps getting worse. During the Christmas season more boatloads of illegal immigrants were welcomed into Britain by an inept and dysfunctional British government, most of whose MPs are incidentally “Friends of Israel.” These so-called “representatives of the people” seem to bend over backwards to appease the powerful Jewish lobby here, ignoring the wishes and diktats of this small minority at their peril, a situation not unfamiliar to our equally pressured American confrères.

The man in charge of dealing with the migrant crisis in Britain, Sajid Javid, is himself the offspring of a Muslim immigrant family of Pakistani origin. (See his picture here). His other credentials for dealing with the migrant influx, which he has done nothing remotely effective to limit or discourage so far, are his obsequious loyalties to the state of Israel. A long-time supporter of the Conservative Friends of Israel, Mr Javid has endeared himself to Jewish interests by declaring in 2012 that of all the countries in the Middle East he would like to settle in permanently, his first choice would be Israel. That’s where his Utopia lies, his Promised Land of milk and honey. Only in Israel, he says, would his children feel “the warm embrace of peace and liberty.” The problem, of course, is that he can’t prove Jewish ancestry. Would that Britain had analogous laws.

Javid is the man who is now Britain’s Home Secretary and a current contender for the ‘Top Job’, hovering patiently in the background like a hungry vulture for the corpse of Theresa May to be borne out of 10 Downing Street on a metaphorical stretcher at any moment.

Well, we can’t wait either! Britain’s first Pakistani Prime Minister should provide an interesting landmark in British history, like the conquest of Mount Everest by Sir Edmund Hilary in May 1953.

Curiously enough, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan (pictured), is also of Pakistani origin and cut his teeth working for a solicitors’ firm in London called Christian Fisher which later changed its name to Christian Khan. (See here). It’s interesting to note that the chief partner in the firm, Michael Fisher, was (he died four years ago) half Jewish on his father’s side. So it appears that both our current Home Secretary and our Mayor of London have two striking features in common: both are of Pakistani origin and both have had careers which have advanced steadily under Jewish influence.

The alternative government-in-waiting, led by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, widely reputed to be “anti-Semitic” and pro-Muslim, would be just as bad (if not worse) if it ever got into power. This party of the left, purportedly founded to look after the interests of the working classes, is even more committed to multiculturalism and mass Third World immigration than the rival Tory party. The “migrant crisis” in Britain actually  began under Tony Blair, the mendacious war criminal who founded “New Labour,” and it has continued without intermission under successive British governments ever since. Only today this headline (unavailable online) appeared on page 2 of the Daily Mail, 14 January in large, bold-face type: CORBYN: I WANT TO KEEP OUR BORDERS OPEN TO MIGRANTS. This from the “Workers’ Party,” the party whose members voted overwhelmingly for Brexit in June 2016 in an unprecedented referendum in which 17.4 million Brits insisted on an end to uncontrolled mass immigration and the enforcement of the strictest border controls.

Democracy? If you’re hunting for that critter, you won’t find it in Britain. Both the Prime Minister and the majority of MPs seem determined to give the people the very opposite of what they voted for over two years ago: a fake Brexit or no Brexit at all, with the country remaining a vassal state of Europe for the foreseeable future. Even Corbyn, however dangerous he may turn out to be, got it right when he described the Prime Minister’s treacherous Brexit plan as a “Frankenstein deal” cooked up by a “zombie government” (16 January).

The deliberate wreck of the British referendum vote by the political class in this country calls to mind the German poet Bertolt Brecht’s scathing comment, “Would it not be easier for the Government to dissolve the People and elect another?” Just substitute “import another” for “elect another.” 

Pathological Altruism, British Style

If you wish to study pathological altruism at close hand, Sweden and Angela Merkel’s Germany would be good places to start. We shall concentrate here on Britain, because it is increasingly becoming a “soft touch” for asylum seekers. (See here,  “Our soft touch system acts like a magnet”)

The phrase “migrant crisis” has recently taken on an entirely different connotation here. If you think this means that there are too many migrants landing up uninvited on our shores and that they need to be stopped, you are wrong. “Migrant crisis” now means failure to rescue more illegal immigrants on the high seas, ferry them to safety, and bestow them with benefits — in effect, to collaborate with the people smugglers and act as a delivery service for their illegal cargo.

Pathological altruism, it seems, has no limits to its absurdity. More patrol boats are needed in the Mediterranean Sea and in the English Channel, it is being argued, not to form a protective armada or shield against dangerous invaders, but to serve as lookout points for any illegal immigrants found thrashing around in choppy seas—their boats wrecked or overturned—and to rush to their assistance at once before they drown or freeze to death in the icy waters.

Since October 2018, 434 migrants, most of them Iranians, have been discovered trying to cross the English Channel from France. On Christmas Day, 40 migrants arrived in Kent on five vessels, “two of which were assisted to shore by lifeboat crews.” The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), which has been carrying out this humanitarian work, has recently come in for severe criticism for acting as “a taxi service for illegal migrants“.

The result? Hundreds of British donors to this exceptionally well-heeled charity have now cancelled their regular donations and monthly direct debits. The main object of this charitable organisation, they point out indignantly, is to rescue ordinary folk who are in danger from drowning at sea, not to assist the people smugglers by picking up their contraband cargo and acting as a free delivery service for illegal immigrants.

The chutzpah of the people smugglers is almost unbelievable. They not only expect their illegal cargo to be “rescued” and given free transportation to the targeted country as a “human right.” They expect the process to be made as painless as possible to themselves. Migration Watch reporter Sue Reid writing in the Daily Mail:

Their modus operandi [the people smugglers] is to sound the alarm, EVEN IF A BOAT IS NOT IN DISTRESS, because that is a sure way of getting a rescue vessel to carry their valuable cargo to shore for them. (Emphasis added)

The incompetence of the British government—or rather its heinous bad faith—is highlighted by the fact that no serious attempt is ever made to eject failed asylum seekers.  Two out of three bogus refugees are allowed to stay on in the country with the government’s full connivance—or even its secret blessing. (See Only 1 in 3 failed asylum seekers end up leaving Britain as the others vanish into the ‘black economy’)

Channel 4 TV recently featured an unidentified Iranian who had arrived here by dinghy, explaining why the U.K. was so attractive. “In France they feed you, but you can wait for three to four years without benefits.”

A revealing comment. It looks like Britain is seen as the new freebie heaven, offering generous incentives to illegal immigrants in order to lure them here against the will of large sections of its indigenous people. Even the women in Britain, it is rumoured, are notoriously “easy meat,” easy to groom and sweet-talk into inter-racial liaisons. Which is obviously an added bonus for the lonesome traveler from distant lands — the sex-hungry single, military-age fugitive in search of seminal ejaculation in the presence of (or inside the bodies of) an indigenous British woman or girl. Such recreational activity often ends in gang rape and murder. (For the systematic rape of underage girls in Britain, see here. And if you can spare a moment, take a quick look at some of the perpetrators guilty of terrorising the female British population.)

So how do the politicians respond to this crisis? By letting in more people from the same troublesome hotspots that bring in the rapists!

Mindless? An act of pure treason? A crime against the people who elected them and pay their inflated salaries? You decide.

I think most people today would sympathise with G.K. Chesterton’s rueful comment, “It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.”

“Operation Invade Europe”

Take a look at the map below. It shows the huge percentage of foreign-born immigrants in each European country roughly three years ago. Every single West European country has, at least until recently, thrown open its borders submissively to this tsunami of refugees. The only countries in the EU to offer a spirited resistance to this invasion by foreigners have been the Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia) and now Italy as a result of the heroic activism of Matteo Salvini, resulting in ongoing battles with the EU bureaucrats. I will not discuss here the complex reasons for their exceptional behaviour, except to say that I approve of it and wish these heroic activists good luck.

CLICK TO EXPAND

These official UN figures highlighting the migrant crisis in Europe for 2015 are demonstrably an underestimate, since they fail to take illegal immigrants into account. In any case, the figures have increased substantially since then. Every year since 2015 has seen a steady rise in Third-World migration to Europe, with 2016 showing the most spectacular jumps — with an estimated 1.6 million “refugees” being admitted to Germany alone under the watch of the demented Angela Merkel.

Meanwhile in the US, according to the latest data released by the Census Bureau, the foreign-born population surged in 2017 to 44.5 million people, or 13.7 percent of the population, with more immigrants coming in from Central America and Asia. In 1970 it was a mere 5 percent. (See here.)

The UN Refugee Agency has calculated that there are currently 28.5 million refugees and asylum seekers worldwide, with most fleeing war and oppressive governments in Africa, the Middle East and the Far East. The three hotspots mentioned in the report are Afghanistan, Syria and South Sudan. From here the refugees fan out into neighbouring countries which then have to bear the brunt of their influx: these are Turkey, Lebanon, Uganda and Pakistan, the four largest refugee-hosting centres in the world. (See here)

The next step can be described as “Operation Invade Europe.”

Theoretically, the 28 countries of the European Union could solve the refugee problem by agreeing to accept at least one million refugees each. This quixotic scheme for sharing out misery equitably, like each participant in a suicide banquet nobly agreeing to eat an equal slice of the poisoned cake, is of course risible, but it is exactly the sort of formula advocated by Merkle and the EU and rejected by the Visegrad countries.

Such a formula fails to take into account two basic facts. Firstly, the supply of future refugees is potentially unlimited, given that the pool of possible refugees comprises the teeming billions of chronically unstable Africa and the Middle East and other areas of Asia. We can’t possibly let them all in, however much this incalculable mass of unfortunate human beings should clamour for entrance.  Secondly, there is no compelling reason why the native populations of Europe should be forced to put up with this insupportable onslaught against their wills. There is no obligation to commit collective suicide at the behest of a hostile elite.

For more on this subject, and in particular on the Jewish role in promoting mass immigration, see this meticulously documented  article by Andrew Joyce. In the words of Kevin MacDonald, quoted here be Joyce: “Jewish organizations have uniformly advocated high levels of immigration of all racial and ethnic groups into Western societies and have also advocated a multicultural model for these societies” (here).

For yet more on the concerted effort to funnel a whole new generation of Third-World immigrants into Western countries, check out this groundbreaking exposé  by Andrew Joyce tracing the hidden Jewish hand in starting the ball rolling as early as 1948, the same year international Jewry managed to found their apartheid, ethnic-cleansing state on the ruins of Palestine. Joyce has researched this topic for several years and is now collating his extensive notes for a full-length book on the subject. He writes:

From the early 19th century until the First World War, English Jewry was ruled by a tightly connected oligarchy. Daniel Gutwein states that this Anglo-Jewish elite comprised some twenty inter-related Ashkenazi and Sephardic families including the houses of Goldsmith, Montagu, Nathan, Cohen, Isaacs, Abrahams, Samuel, and Montefiore. At its head, of course, stood the House of Rothschild.

Fast forward to the 21st century and to the present incumbent of 10 Downing Street … and join the dots. Here is Francis Carr Begbie in an article published three weeks after the British referendum of 23 June 2016:

Anyone wondering about the priorities of Mrs Theresa May should follow her actions from the moment she learned she was to become Britain’s next Prime Minister. Her first act was to sign a pledge committing her to remember the Holocaust and ‘stand up to hatred and intolerance’. And her second was to spend the evening before her confirmation by the Queen at a private dinner at the home of Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis.

British Prime Minister Theresa May
with her friendly adviser Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis

These unpalatable facts simply cannot be brushed under the carpet any longer. Anyone who attempts to deny them deserves to join the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand.

The focus of the present article however is not to ask, “Who is ultimately to blame for the invasion of Europe?” We already know that. It is to ask, “How can we stop the invasion now it has begun?”

Stopping the Invasion

How to deal with this endless horde of economic migrants posing as helpless “refugees”? If they are not to be classified as “invaders”, as they would definitely be in Jewish-dominated Israel, the word ‘invasion’ ceases to have any meaning. Is violence in self-defence justifiable if failure to act decisively threatens one’s own survival? This is the ticklish question that will have to be tackled sooner rather than later. It cannot be dodged or deferred indefinitely.

It has been suggested that one effective non-violent way of dealing with the migrant crisis is to adopt the Australian method: tow the migrant vessel away, back to its country of embarkation. That offers some hope. Unfortunately, this will only work with larger vessels where the country of embarkation is already known. It won’t work in the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel with smaller vessels such as rubber dinghies and tiny fishing boats; this is because the occupants of these vessels not only refuse to disclose where they come from but actually destroy their passports in advance.

Getting tough seems to be the only answer.

Here is a snippet from a recent letter in the Daily Mail  headlined ‘Misdirected kindness’ (3 January 2019, Letters section; not available online). This comes from one Philip Hodson from Newmarket in Suffolk. It daringly mentions gunfire. “Due to a policy based on kindness,” the writer comments kindly, “we can expect to see migrants dying as they attempt to cross the Channel.” He does not suggest shooting the migrants to stop them getting any closer, which of course would be unkind of him. But he does suggest — and this is the first time I have come across such a sentiment in the mainstream press — that a spectacular display of machine gun fire might have a bracingly effective deterrent effect:

As a former Army officer, I would suggest laying down machine gun fire in front of migrant vessels to discourage future attempts that could result in deaths.

Beautifully put.  A bit of tough love, it seems, might well be in order. However, a word of caution. It’s OK for an unknown member of the public like Mr Hodson to voice such sentiments in the Daily Mail, if only to prove that robust free speech is still alive in the British media. But if a top politician or international celebrity were to suggest shooting at illegal intruders on sight—literally gunning them down on the beaches—there would be a universal outcry.  It would be the end of the world, with much talk of the ghost of Enoch Powell rising from the dead.

I wish I could avoid quoting myself—a bad habit I’ve done my best to avoid so far—but this is what I said in March 2016 in a hastily written article that has almost sunk without trace. What I said then, applies with even greater force now:

A time may come when the now “inconceivable” occurs: this is when the unstoppable hordes of illegal immigrants are finally seen as hostile invaders and are forcibly stopped by declaring war on them. The anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party (AfD) has in fact recommended this hawkish approach. Just weeks ago, we learn:

“AfD chairman Frauke Petry provoked outrage when she advocated border guards open fire with live ammunition on illegal asylum seekers. Days later, a poll found that almost 30 percent of Germans agreed with her.”

Think of those alarming statistics. Almost one in three Germans, if asked, would now agree that it is a sensible policy to bomb the refugee ships and shoot illegal immigrants on sight.

Frauke Petry, an anti-immigrant, anti-Islamist, pro-life wife of a pastor (pictured here), had won the leadership of Germany’s fast growing Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) political party. Later she softened her stance on violence  against illegal immigrants by telling the Mannheimer Morgen  newspaper: “The use of armed force is there as a last resort. Previously she had said bluntly, German police should shoot at migrants.”

The idea of violent resistance to the invasion of Europe has already occurred in fictional form. So this isn’t something new. It was first mooted by French writer Jean Raspail, author of The Camp of the Saints. This was long before the problem of mass immigration had achieved crisis levels. Raspail’s prescient novel was published in 1973, 45 years ago.

Here is Jared Taylor’s bleak warning of the shape of things to come if no remedial action is soon taken:

The Camp of the Saints has never gone out of print and has been translated into all major European languages—and yet the coverage of the European “migrant” crisis goes on as if it had never been written. The masses pouring in from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and a host of African countries are doing exactly what Raspail predicted.

The Camp of the Saints put the white man’s dilemma in the harshest terms: slaughter hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children or face oblivion.

The flotilla sets sail confident that Europeans do not have the nerve to kill in order to survive. Today as well, the Third World is crossing the Mediterranean confident that whites don’t have the nerve even to turn them back. Every vagabond who gets a bed in a reception center in Dortmund or Malmo tweets the good news to a hundred people back in Somalia and Syria. 

They will come in endless waves until they are stopped, and if they are not stopped Europe will die, just as it does in The Camp of the Saints. (here)

Raspail is playing it safe. He is not advocating the mass extermination of illegal immigrants. He is simply pointing out matter-of-factly: When push comes to shove, we won’t have the guts to stop the Third-World invaders. We’ll chicken out. We’ll just let them in, wringing our hands like pathetic wimps. And the result? Our own extinction. Because of our cowardice in adopting a false sense of morality — a morality which is intensely promoted by our hostile elites, our doom is sealed.

The popular placard slogan, REFUGEES WELCOME, is indeed Europe’s death wish.

REFUGEES  WELCOME!
“They will come in endless waves until they are stopped, and if they are not stopped Europe will die.” — Jared Taylor

Violence in Self-Defence

As a pacifist, it is not in my nature to recommend violence and mindless cruelty. There is nothing I abhor so much as the infliction of pain on the weak and vulnerable. As a pragmatic realist, however, may I offer the mild suggestion that this problem is not going to go away unless drastic measures are soon taken. There is an old Latin proverb: Remedio amaro amaram bilem diluunt. Loosly translated: Drastic remedies for drastic diseases.

Robert A. Heinlein, author of the cult novel Stranger in a Strange Land (1961), was more than a great science fiction writer. His knowledge of history and politics, like that of Orwell, Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, was profound. What would Heinlein have thought of the migrant invasion of Europe and what solution would he have offered to the problem? I don’t think Heinlein would have minced his words. His thoughts on the role of violence in world history, heavily influenced by Darwin, are well worth noting:

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue—and thoroughly immoral—doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms. (Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers (1959), quoted here, p. 350)

Darwin himself, or indeed any of his faithful disciples, could have penned that final sentence: Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

Violence, sanctioned by the State and enshrined in legislation, may soon become necessary in the interests of self-preservation.

And what if the State refuses to act? If the State won’t step in, impatient political activists will sooner or later take the law into their own hands. Be sure of that. New Bastilles will be stormed. And the necks of the ruling classes will go under new versions of the guillotine. The ruling classes therefore have a choice: to act in the interests of the people they serve or be swept away in a new revolution that will make all the revolutions of the past look like Sunday school picnics.

Self-defence needs no defence.

Conclusion

In our current environment, playing the race card is enough to silence anyone who dares to suggest we should get tough with the illegal immigrants who threaten our values and our way of life. It was enough to destroy Enoch Powell. Yet at no point did Powell preach violence. He simply predicted there would be “rivers of blood” one day if drastic action were not taken to clamp down on Third World immigration before it got out of hand.

The race card is a powerful one, and here it is again deployed in order to silence and intimidate anyone who dares to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. This comes from a recent article in The Observer:

We should be ashamed of our response to this refugee ‘crisis’…. Sometimes you can smell the stench of racism before you are actually upon it. When you encounter racism in the raw or the utter absence of compassion at the plight of people fleeing death and torture, it’s like looking into an open sewer.
— Kevin McKenna, The Observer, 30 December 2018. 

The open sewers are the migrant-receiving countries themselves, created by hostile elites for their own interests — and utterly opposed to the interests of the despised masses of indigenous Whites who are now seen as little better than sewer rats.

A delegation of benign visitors from a distant planet, in search of a world to settle in, would only need to take one look at our plastic-polluted oceans and rat-infested, rape-gang cities full of lawlessness, degeneracy and despair, and they would turn away at once in disgust. “No thank you!” they would say. “This is an outpost of hell!”

In the words of the Evangelist: Mundus totus in maligno — The whole world lies in wickedness.

Will there be “rivers of blood”?  Only time will tell.

Compared with what they were like after World War II, or even in the 1960s, both Western Europe and America now resemble open wounds. Western Europe lies prostrated, unrecognizably traumatised by the migrant invasion, and America has become a vast wasteland of the spirit.

Our ancestors, if they could return from the trenches of World War I or from the killing fields of Vietnam, would be horrified to see the world we have created. They would ask, “Is this what we died for?” And they would cry out like Kurtz in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness — “The horror! The horror!”

 

35 replies
  1. James Clayton
    James Clayton says:

    Yesterday, Los Angeles “successfully” negotiated with teachers striking over classes that are way too large (and diminished in effectiveness due to a number of obvious problems including English not being the first language of most of the students), the good reason. And a pay raise, probably more like the real reason.

    It is important to understand that these are simply comorbidities and symptoms rather that the fundamental problem. It is important to synthesize rather than throw-out what was an idea put forth by advocates from population control such as Paul Ehrlich that, whatever your cause, its lost unless we control population. Simply substitute the word migration for population. Anything else is simply distraction– shoveling sand against the tide– and a distraction.

    • Original J
      Original J says:

      Tribe-member Paul Ehrlich published a book titled “The Golden Door.” It advocated high levels of Third World immigration. The restriction of reproduction that was termed essential by Ehrlich was meant to apply only to Caucasians.

      • James Clayton
        James Clayton says:

        Yes, Ehrlich’s a racial Jew and was a professor at left-liberal Stanford. But I haven’t seen evidence of your assertion he’s advocated non-White-western immigration. My understanding is that regardless of who expressed it, including Garrett Hardin (See his essays esp. Lifeboat Ethics), whatever cause is being advocated (here) is lost unless we White-westerners control or reverse non-White-western immigration.

        Review of The Golden Door (on BARNES & NOBLE)

        “Our most potentially disastrous national problem, along with the danger of nuclear war and threats to the environment, is the pressing catastrophe of massive illegal immigration. The 2,000-mile United States-Mexican border is the only place in the world where a wealthy, heavily industrialized stable country is confronted directly by a struggling, preindustrial nation. United States prosperity relies on a stable population, and Mexico, with her burgeoning population, increasing poverty, and massive unemployment, is threatening the traditional U.S. lifestyle. Stereotyped thinking, based on racism or fear, will not solve these problems. The Golden Door is a sensitive exploration of a difficult situation, and this edition includes material on the Cuban, Salvadoran, and Haitian migration to the United States.”
        o Author: Paul R. Ehrlich
        o First published: 1979

  2. melvin polatnick
    melvin polatnick says:

    Brown and yellow skinned people are moving in and there is no general will to stop this invasion. Whites have to make a difficult adjustment to this harsh reality. Many will love the sexy new racial mixture.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      Whites have to make a difficult adjustment to this harsh reality.

      I can assure you, there WILL be a deeply “difficult adjustment” – though it will most certainly not be the one you fondly imagine.

  3. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    I cannot think but that these immigrants will eventually overtake the political order in Europe and take control of the armed forces and the weapons of mass destruction. Then what?

  4. Randy
    Randy says:

    Excellent article (as usual) by Dr. Darkmoon. Will stopping the invasion be a sufficient remedy? To really save Europe, won’t it be necessary to repatriate the Third Worlders who have already settled there? This would presumably be much more difficult than halting new arrivals. The alien parasites would scorn any attempt to persuade them to leave voluntarily, and they would fight like demons to resist deportation. Any European country that tries to expel the invaders will probably have to pay a high price in blood, treasure and international opprobrium.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Will stopping the invasion be a sufficient remedy? To really save Europe, won’t it be necessary to repatriate the Third Worlders who have already settled there?

      First, a disclaimer. It hardly needs saying that the invasion is a long way from being stopped, and reasonable men and women can and do disagree as to whether it will be stopped at all. But if for present purposes we assume the best, it ought to be noted that there is a laudable precedent for repatriation—or to call the thing by its proper name, expulsion: the heroic Edict of Expulsion of March 31, 1492. This was the payoff of the Reconquista, and unlike its present-day partial parallel, the Mexican border wall (aka Trump’s Wall of BS), it was given far more than mere lip service.

      The Jews were expelled (at least nominally expelled) from Spain because for centuries they had been the allies and bankrollers of the degenerate Muslim occupiers of the Iberian Peninsula. Anyone comparing Jews’ conduct in medieval Spain with their conduct throughout the modern West, however, ought to conclude that similar punishment nowadays would hardly require justification. Indeed, it might reasonably be thought little more than a slap on the wrist.

      But back to 1492 Spain. Unfortunately, the fact that, as is now known, a great many of the putatively converted Jews turned out to be Marranos indicates that Ferdinand, Isabella, and the Inquisition were far less draconian in their expulsion policy than they might have been. Yet even in this best-case scenario, that our own victorious rulers would exhibit even a tenth of the strength of purpose exhibited by the Spanish monarchs is hardly a winning bet.

  5. Thomas daley
    Thomas daley says:

    it is obvious to all but the ‘Low info individuals that Illegal immigration, multiculturalism and anti-Christianity are financed by the Jews by their “cultural Marxist phycology’ of brainwashed acdemia,control of the politicians through bribery and threat of being removed from office and financial ownership of the media along with this,the complacency of the white Christian population to do nothing but submit and View their own genocide, The only way to deal with this Malignant Diease of Jew perception is to revolt against any that support it and to take drastic measures to irradicate the problem, This requires balls if only White Christians can remember where they left them!l

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “This requires balls if only White Christians can remember where they left them!l”

      Actually, it requires ammunition. Lots of it. Until we have that everything else is just talk. I don’t want underestimate the value of talk. How could I? Plus, it sometimes leads to action.

      Regarding Christians or the Right in whatever form, plain old Right, alt-Right, dissident-Right, they might provide an important contribution to whatever fight we put up, if we ever do put up a fight, but they will never ever save anything.

      I’m very suspicious of making White and Right synonymous. Schaeffer Cox mostly saw himself as a Patriot and Freedom fighter, and he was framed by the FBI and is sittting in a jail cell in CMU in Marion, Illinois. Just read

      The Federal Framing of Schaeffer Cox

      to find out more.

      I find it very odd that, though he never advocated violence, was never a race talker, said nothing about Jews, and talked more about defending our basic freedoms than about ideology, they really worked him over and ruined his life, while the more public figures of the Alt-Right are free, still making the rounds.

      Not only that, but I find it odd that I’ve never heard them mention Schaeffer Cox at all. Maybe some have dropped his name here and there. But none of them have help make his case more well known. Which is very odd, given their exposure and opportunity.

      Because of this, and not just this, I find them totally unbelievable. They were always uninspiring.

      If there’s any resistance it will probably be random and easily crushed.

      Orwell spoke of the power of facing unpleasant facts. And it is a power. Probably the only power left us right now. And the unpleasant fact we have to face now is that these are dark days in deed.

      The only way to bring some light is to discover another kind of power. The kind we can use to do all that we can to let them know we won’t go quietly.

  6. Commentator Mike
    Commentator Mike says:

    I don’t quite understand this concept of “pathological altruism”. Whatever it is it’s certainly pathological but I doubt it’s altruistic. Let me try to get this straight, it’s perfectly OK to advocate and use violence (massive amounts of violence as in wars) on those very people in their home countries, even though they don’t threaten the west, and thus drive some of them to the west, but you’re not allowed to advocate and use violence to protect yourself once they actually reach the west and present a threat. And now suddenly all these western politicians and citizens are altruistic because they want to help these poor, needy and suffering refugees while at the same time calling for and supporting more military interventions in their home countries, to drive yet more of them westward. It sounds like a bad joke dreamed up by a very sick mind. Well many of those on sites such as this know how and why all this is going on but it seems mental processes of most people have become so twisted to accept the illogical as logical, abnormal as normal, sick as healthy, and it’s against the law to try to even get people to reason straight. A fine mess everyone’s in.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Using force for self-defense would be selfish and morally impermissible. But wait. . .

      Morality- Christian morality- requires making oneself into a doormat. Until it doesn’t. Others before self is a basic Christian teaching. . .

  7. Tom
    Tom says:

    Looks like the radical hippies won the culture wars of the 60s and 70s. They bore children and passed on their nonsensical “All you need is love” philosophy everywhere – except of course love for themselves, their traditions and their cultural-genetic heritage. The really amazing thing about leftist devotees is their total ignorance of population and genetic displacement/eradication. The dolts really believe that European civilization can and will survive in the midst of a demographic onslaught. They really do not think that they will be displaced and they have a complete faith that alien peoples will simply assimilate into European civilization. They’ll simply look a bit different.

    My Danish ex-girlfriend won’t even talk to me any longer after I sent her a link to a recent illuminating article by Tobias Langdon. She refused to read the article simply because of the OC’s subtitle – White Identity, Interests, and Culture. As she put it, the words made her “vomit”. When I asked a few years ago if she feared the Islamization of Denmark by the end of the century, she replied: “…who cares, I’ll be dead by then”. But what about your grandchildren, I replied. Do you prefer that they be Islamicized eventually? In typical leftist fashion, she refused to answer. A pity that leftists couldn’t just commit suicide as soon as possible.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      Tom: I believe that you have planted a seed in Little Miss Dummy’s brain, I really do. That is why she won’t talk to you anymore: she is terrified that you succeeded in making a crack in her consciousness and cannot bear to own up to the fact that she is now a different person. She will never be the same, she knows what is going on, and rage is the only response she knows. For now.

      I recall ranting against “racism” 25 years ago. It is true. God (however you see the universal order) works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.

      • Dave Bowman
        Dave Bowman says:

        she is now a different person. She will never be the same, she knows what is going on, and rage is the only response she knows.

        Bravo.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “She refused to read the article simply because of the OC’s subtitle – White Identity, Interests, and Culture.”

      Funny you should mention that. I’ve often wondered what kind of traffic this site would get if it didn’t have do that. In fact, I’ve often thought that they do that, or were told to, exactly so they wouldn’t have traffic. It’s like a ball and chain.

      If, by their own admission, most White identification is implicit, not explicit, why think you can change something so deeply ingrained. It seems foolhardy, given the difficulty, not to mention the risk.

      In any event, it’s certainly a question worth asking. As well as another one.

      Has it helped?

  8. exlib
    exlib says:

    Right now it loks like the invasion will continue without a peep of protest until Europe is as much of a shithole as Africa. The elites will still be doing just fine though, while the white mainstream will allow themselves to be raped and tortured to death as penance for their inborn racism.

  9. Robert Marshall
    Robert Marshall says:

    I’m glad to see Dr. Lasha Darkmoon, who has been very pessimistic about this, provide the correct answer regarding what must be done: whatever it takes. But remember it’s the ruling hostile regime who are the instigators and organizers of this. It will necessarily entail not just civil war, but revolution.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      “Civil war”, “revolution”… whatever. You can call it whatever you like. I truly believe now the only important element is that they must all die.

  10. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    I wish the Americans would end their occupation of Europe.
    They have been here too long.They desroyed the European empires, kicked the Europeans out of Africa, helped the Central Powers in WW1, sent the Japanese South to save the USSR, caused the cold war which wasted 5 Trillion USD, ordered th UK to accept Windians in the late 1940’s murdered Gen Zia, Benazir Bhutto,the Shah of Iran, Hugo Chavez, ordered the UK Argentine war to remove Gen Galtieri, caused the troubles in Ireland and God knows what else.There will be no end to the invasion of Europe as long as the Americans and their stooges are in place. I know most of this because I am related the a Jew banking family in London.They disowned my side of the family for being communists, although the Bank of England funded Lenin.
    The family and friends have total contempt for the Americans but I was never allowed to know what they call the Americans.
    They called Trotsky “A nasty little shit who turned into a nasty big shit”
    Yakee go home!

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      “Yankee, go home”? As framed here, this is nothing but a specimen of blowhardism. Why haven’t you directed the demand at those who are positioned to make it a reality: namely, your “Jew banking family” and your other Jewish relatives?

  11. James Clayton
    James Clayton says:

    The point of my mentioning Ehrlich was neither to promote the man nor his positions. It was simply to credit him for the idea that made and makes sense to me: Whatever one’s natural resource protection cause– White genetic and cultural preservation through separation included– its lost unless we control population and that of course means both legal and illegal immigration.

    https://www.capsweb.org/blog/bill-gates-badmouths-paul-ehrlich-immigration-–-gates-wrong-not-right-reason

  12. joe webb
    joe webb says:

    Just having read a few words about Evola, I recalled that he was against biologically based racialism.

    He also yammered on and on about “freedom” which I guess he saw as trumping biology.

    Anybody who talks about Evola in any positive way, should be ridiculed.

    It is all biology. Totally. Not that Bad Ideas do not play a role amongst and probably only Whites.

    Whites do have something close to the term “pathological altruism” and that is heavily related to affluence. as in plenty of money to go around. When the going gets tougher, and the State can no longer afford keeping all the duds and misshapen babies around as pets for the lonely hearts, especially when the State pays for it, then things will change.

    Europe is getting a bit woke about the trash coming in from the South. Extinguishing the deformed white babies as well as the trash from the global South will become more and more salient, especially if economics demand it. We need a depression to sober white folks up.

    Meanwhile civil war will sharpen matters here at home, and lots of people will be killed, starting probably with Whites who hate each other. As somebody on Fox Jews put it a while back, he said he did not understand where the libs and rads talked all their trash talk when Whites got all the guns. These folks think they are invulnerable.

    Pathological Altruism only infects Whites. True enough. But there is a large element of opportunism in it, and of curse, conformism.
    It also is contingent, again, on affluence. The upper-middle could care less about paying high taxes….up to a point…to keep the biologically unfit happy in their animal existence. When the welfare rolls are trimmed,….etc.

    The biology of white altruism is limited to relatively good economic times. Hopefully that will change soon.
    Also, the latest trend by our enemies with regard to welfare, is to put Blacks and Browns in Free Houses out in the suburbs. We will see how that works out. Another essential is for White women to have babies, to contain their LOVE quotient and keep it within the bounds of family and race.

    Joe Webb

  13. tadzio
    tadzio says:

    For centuries Negro slaves were imported to North Africa. They were castrated to prevent the native stock from being diluted. Israel without obtaining consent administered drugs to Negro Jews to prevent breeding that would alter the ethnic balance of the Jewish population. It is a tried and true tactic.

    Europe and White countries everywhere are being invaded by military aged males.They should be led to believe that the price of staying is to submit to castration. Fear of this can be engendered either by law or propaganda. Once the idea takes hold the invaders will flee in great numbers.

    The intruders may love welfare benefits but they love their private parts more. Unauthorized and untrue scare posters announcing that 50 migrants got the snip-snip last week, with more to follow, would do more to repatriate the young men out of London, Berlin, Oslo, Stockholm and Paris to their homelands than deploying ships offshore. It would be a lot cheaper and does not have to be true. Fake news can be a very effective weapon.

  14. Reziac
    Reziac says:

    Regarding the map of percentage foreign-born — to be really useful, we need to see percentage of foreign-born who are non-European. Plus a heat map of *their* offspring. Because that’s the real measure of whether you’ve been fully conquered.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Indeed. For Switzerland for example the percentage of “foreign born” is given as 29,6. But the percentage of Muslims is only 5,2 and for other non-Christian religions only 1,7. Thus only about 7% of the Swiss population may be of non-European descent. In the Baltic states, Belarus and the Ukraine the “foreign born” are overwhelmingly of European descent.

  15. Gnome Chompsky
    Gnome Chompsky says:

    I agree, I read Ehrlich’s Population Bomb when 11 or so, at the time, world population was less than half than that of now.

    I don’t believe (at least from that book alone, and I recently bought a second-hand copy and re-read it as an adult) that it was in any way specifically anti-white. He spends some time on India, discussing the difficulty (or impossibility) of making a dent.

    I have the ‘notify’ button, so will be keen to read other comments re. Ehrlich, have only read The Population Bomb, and a couple of short essays, where, sure, he seems to be a tribalist neocon.

    Of course, Indira Ghandi started trying for India, but was assassinated for her efforts.

    India is still bad, but now replaced by various Moslem and sub-Saharan African places as the worst in the world.

    Leftists like to make all sorts of excuses, but for example, look at photographs of the world from space since the early ones, Africa is the worst, desertification is very widespread.

    For another good example, look at an aerial or satellite photo of the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti.

    The former quite green, the latter a mass of mud. Nothing green anywhere.

    In any case, Erlich’s old book may have been a little premature, but as the human and sub-human population screams up towards 10,000,000, 000, it will hit a wall.

    The overuse of resources by elites is a factor, but overpopulation, almost invariably by near beasts, is *the* problem, with, for we of European descent, all of (((their))) hideous ideological creations having taken root in all too many, blinding too many people to reality.

Comments are closed.