EU Migration

Thoughts on Britain’s “Rwanda Plan”


“It seems fair to conclude that 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.”
Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique

 On April 14, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson outlined a remarkable immigration agreement with the nation of Rwanda. Under the agreement, “everyone who enters the UK illegally will be considered for resettlement to Rwanda,” where their asylum cases, should they wish to make one, will be processed. Even if a migrant is granted asylum, he or she will be encouraged to remain in the east African nation for at least five years. If their application is refused, Rwanda will offer them permanent residence, prompting Johnson to speak of “tens of thousands” of migrants who will be permanently removed from Britain in the years ahead. In return for taking Britain’s unwanted migrants, the UK government has offered Rwanda an initial payment of £120 million in cash and investment. It’s the kind of policy that would have prompted Enoch Powell, who always championed a policy of incentivized repatriation, to nod in agreement.

Despite its surface level appeal, however, those furthest to the right have expressed suspicion of the measure as yet another conservative sop, intended to mask spiralling legal migration and the fact the UK’s new points-based immigration system seems designed to keep numbers high. I agree with this suspicion. I also believe, however, that the Rwanda scheme is important in terms of setting a precedent that can eventually be built upon. We should be absolutely clear here that, at the level of first principles, what is proposed by Johnson is a step forward in population removal and the rejection of the idea that non-White migrants have a fundamental right to live among Europeans. To employ the well-worn Lenin adage, our ideas must probe with bayonets: When they find mush, we should push. I believe it is worthwhile pushing the Rwanda scheme. Concurrently, when the bayonet meets with strong resistance, we should pause and examine the nature of the obstacle. 

Jewish Objections

One of the most outspoken opponents of the Rwanda plan in recent weeks is Larry Bottinick, an American Jew and the UN Refugee Agency’s current envoy to the UK. Bottinick’s lack of ties to the British people hasn’t prevented him from prolific and outspoken interference since the announcement of the plan. His main point of attack seems to be accusations that the plan will become “eye-wateringly expensive” and that it could “violate international law.” He told the Associated Press “There’s nothing in international law that says you have to ask [for asylum] in the first country you encounter. UNHCR understands the frustration of the U.K. government on that, and is not in favor of Channel crossing, of course. We think there’s more effective ways and more humane ways to address this.” By “effective and humane” he means doing nothing at a time when “more than 4,500 migrants have crossed the English Channel from France to Britain in small boats … four times more than the total this time last year.” Bottinick’s real fear seems to be that these migrants will never be allowed to settle in the UK, telling one skeptical interviewer that his understanding of the Rwanda plan is that “Once they’re in Rwanda they won’t be brought back to the UK. … You’re trying to deter them from coming.”

Bottinick has claimed that the Rwanda plan, the primary aim of which is to prevent migrant crossings of the English Channel in small boats organized by smugglers, won’t do anything to prevent people smuggling. I suppose it might be a coincidence or the simultaneous deployment of the Royal Navy to patrol the Channel for migrant boats, but in the nine-day period immediately after the plan became public knowledge, there were no migrant crossings in the English Channel. It’s clear that such attempts to enter Britain will seem radically less attractive to migrants if they result not in walking the streets of Notting Hill, but rather those of Kigali or Muhanga. This relates to the truth that the ultimate goal of the vast majority of even genuine asylum seekers to the West (to the extent that they do in fact originate in a country experiencing violent conflict or where they personally experience persecution) is not to find peace and security, but to take advantage of the chaos in their country in order to fulfil their pre-existent material ambition of living among Europeans and deriving any benefit that might entail. The basic principle of international refugee law contains, and approves, this ambition implicitly. It is the unspoken enshrinement of what we might call the international right to live among White people. This is why we see the widespread phenomenon of so-called asylum seekers passing through a dozen or more perfectly safe and welcoming countries in order to reach their chosen Northwest European destination, selected from the global map in the same way you’d pick your prize at a fairground. It’s also why we see the outlandish examples of Africans crossing an ocean, trekking across Latin America, and presenting themselves in the United States where they claim asylum.

Larry Bottinick

Rwanda has three times the intentional homicide rate of the UK, low by African standards, but not quite the asylum seeker’s desired prize. If the Rwanda plan was put into full effect, migrant crossings of the English Channel would become almost non-existent — a fact that seems to deeply alarm Mr. Bottinick. Bottinick’s ideas on the outcome of the Rwanda plan aren’t just wrong, of course, they’re also deeply hypocritical. In previous employment, according to one legal document, Bottinick worked as a “Senior Resettlement Officer,” in Tel Aviv, during which time he participated in a working group designed to “work to facilitate the departure to third countries to be determined of some 16,000 Eritreans and Sudanese under various programmes, including sponsorship, resettlement, family reunion and labour migration schemes.” Under Bottinick’s watch at least 4,500 Africans were removed from Israel to third-party nations, apparently without the process becoming “eye-wateringly expensive” or resulting in an increase of illegal immigration or asylum applications.

Another significant objection to the Rwanda plan has been raised by Enver Solomon, Chief Executive of the UK’s Refugee Council. Solomon’s name has the air of a Dickensian villain, which is about the only English connection he really has since he’s the son of a Jewish father and a Muslim mother. Shortly after the plan was announced Solomon wrote:

We are appalled by the Government’s cruel and nasty decision to send those seeking sanctuary in our country to Rwanda. … Sending people seeking asylum to be processed abroad will do absolutely nothing to address the reasons why people take perilous journeys to find safety in the UK. It will do little to deter them from coming to this country, but only lead to more human suffering and chaos – at a huge expense of an estimated £1.4 billion a year. Far from enabling people to rebuild their lives, we know from where this has been done by other countries, it only results in high levels of self-harm and mental health issues and can also lead to people ending up back in the hands of people smugglers. We urge this Government to immediately rethink its plans, which are in such stark contrast to what every Conservative Prime Minister since Churchill has sought to do by providing a fair hearing on British soil for those who claim asylum. Instead, the Government should focus on operating an orderly, humane and fair asylum system, and developing safe routes such as humanitarian visas, rather than harming lives and destroying our reputation as a country which values human rights.

Enver Solomon

I must applaud Mr. Solomon for his literary talent in crafting mendacious, manipulative propaganda. Every trick in the book is present here. Consider, for example, the emotive language “cruel and nasty.” Look also at the many diversions, like it “will do absolutely nothing to address the reasons why people take perilous journeys to find safety in the UK.” Is it the responsibility of the UK to address internal stability in every nation on earth? Isn’t the presumption that some people are incapable of governing themselves “imperialist thinking”? Apparently not when you can use to it pry open borders. He then proclaims that sending migrants to Rwanda will lead to “high levels of self-harm and mental health issues.” Why? The missed chance to see Buckingham Palace or the Beatles Museum? Aren’t these people fleeing war zones and death threats? The UK government has stressed that Rwanda is a “fundamentally safe and secure” location, perfectly suitable for the relocation of people in genuine distress. If you are thrown into distress because you missed out on Piccadilly Circus and instead find yourself in another situation in which you will be safe and cared for, then perhaps you weren’t in that much peril and need in the first place. Finally, and predictably, there is the coup de grâce — an appeal to abstract values so near and dear to the the British (and completely missing among Jews re Israel): “our reputation as a country which values human rights.” And yet Solomon himself has previously described Britain not as a country which values human rights but which is typified by “empty rhetoric” and “nationalist posturing.” Mr. Solomon is indulging in a cynical and petty moral blackmail.

Following in the footsteps of Enver Solomon’s screed, the Guardian published an open letter by a collective of “rabbis and members of the British Jewish community,” spanning Orthodox, Reform, Masorti, and Liberal sects of Judaism. The offended postmodern Israelites complained that

we are utterly appalled by the government’s inhumane plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for offshore processing. Such a policy flies in the face of Jewish values, and would be a cruel, moral failure to those in urgent need of protections. It is particularly disturbing that such plans have been announced shortly before our community celebrates Passover, a festival where Jews recall our journey to safety from Egypt. As we prepare to read the story of Exodus, it is deeply unsettling that the government is seeking to deprive the opportunity of freedom to those fleeing modern-day tyrants. Such proposals also bring to mind unpleasant memories of the overseas internment of Jewish refugees in the second world war. This policy was a grave error: we urge the government to learn from this historic mistake, uphold international refugee law and ensure all those seeking safety in the UK are treated with dignity and respect. If the government is serious about preventing small boat crossings, it should act to introduce safe and accessible routes to sanctuary in the UK. Seeking to replicate Australia’s disastrous offshoring system in Rwanda, a country frequently condemned for its appalling human rights record, would be a terrible abdication of responsibility. We urge the government to instead stand up, fulfil its moral duty, and protect, not punish, those fleeing conflict and persecution.

Oy vey indeed. Our Hebrew friends are deeply distressed that the Rwanda plan reminds them of ancient stories that involve talking shrubs, sticks magically being transformed into snakes, and self-parting oceans. It’s almost criminal that Britain’s civil servants hadn’t considered this possibility when drafting the plan. In all seriousness, however, we see here precisely the same rhetorical tactics employed by Bottinick and Solomon. Again we see the emotive language, “cruel” and “inhumane.” It’s disparaged as a “moral failure,” and a “terrible abdication of responsibility” and “moral duty.” It’s an affront to “Jewish values” — values that are somehow missing in Israel which has deported thousands of African refugees to Canada against their will.

It’s cynical and petty moral blackmail another illustration of the power of moral imperatives in making Westerners act against their self interest. Cynical because, try as I might, I can’t find these same people issuing similar statements in the aftermath of Israel’s eviction of its Africans under Bottinick. You might argue that that’s because these are “English Jews” concerned with what’s happening in England, but that doesn’t add up either. The main author of the Guardian piece is Edie Friedman, who’s from Chicago, in yet another example of an American Jew bleating shamelessly about values she feels native Britons should adhere to.

In fact, much as with the American situation, almost everywhere one looks in the context of British refugee and migrant organizations, Jews are found in leading roles. The executive director of British Red Cross is Zoe Abrams, who has said she is “profoundly concerned” about the Rwanda plan and, echoing Bottinick, Solomon, and the Guardian complainers, added that “the financial and human cost will be considerable.” She wants the UK to accept “at least 10,000” migrants, and claims “We’re an island, but we can afford to be more generous, and as Global Britain — we should be.” Boris Johnson recently complained that refugee policy in the UK in recent years has been bogged down due to opposition from an “army of politically motivated lawyers,” but unmentioned is the fact that most British “refugee lawyers” filter through the University of London’s Refugee Law Initiative, founded and directed by the Jew David Cantor, and led academically by “Senior Lecturer in Refugee Law” Sarah Singer.

Christian Complicity

Aside from Jews, outspoken nonsense has also gushed forth from the Church of England, in the form of its abysmal Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. I’ve previously written of Welby:

At the heart of this disease is the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Church of England, Justin Welby, a man who looks like ten minutes of manual labor would actually kill him. He is the definition of all that is wrong in modern Man. Setting aside his uninspiring physical presence, Welby is a literal bastard, his mother Jane Portal having cuckolded her husband, the alcoholic Jew Gavin Welby (born Bernard Weiler) with her boss, Sir Anthony Montague Browne. The result of these chaotic origins is that Archbishop Welby/Weiler/Browne has fled entirely from any sense of meaningful identity, asserting in 2016: “I know that I find who I am in Jesus Christ, not in genetics, and my identity in him never changes.” If Welby limited himself to personal genetic oblivion there might not be a problem. A problem does, however, emerge, when Welby uses his position and influence to attack those who do pursue their interests. In 2016, when Nigel Farage told the press that sex attacks by migrants were “the nuclear bomb” of the EU referendum, Welby/Weiler/Browne told MPs in the home affairs select committee that he “utterly condemned” Farage for an “inexcusable pandering to people’s worries and prejudices, that is giving legitimization to racism.” If that wasn’t bad enough, Welby/Weiler/Browne, who has confessed to struggling with his mental health, appears to have an almost Freudian desire to replace the Jewish father he thought he had with the current Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis. Welby/Weiler/Browne has taken to accompanying Mirvis on numerous excursions, echoing the Rabbi’s sentiments on almost every subject.

For once, however, Welby seems to have taken the lead. While Mirvis has yet to say a word on the Rwanda plan, Welby has decided to speak for his deity, announcing that the plan is “the opposite of the nature of God.” I personally think Welby’s motivations for opposing the plan might be a little more earthly than heavenly. A recent London School of Economics study found that while native Britons are spending less and less time in Welby’s churches, “Migrants into the UK are more than three times more likely than natives to attend a religious service weekly, or to pray daily.” Welby probably thinks he’s boosting his pious flock, but it’s not quite so simple. It was reported by The Week last November that the Church of England was merely helping asylum seekers “game the system” by converting to Christianity. A Home Office source was quoted as describing the way in which asylum seekers would “show they are committed Christians” and can then “argue that their new faith would put them at risk in their home country.” The Telegraph reported that “thousands” of asylum seekers had been “welcomed into the Anglican faith in recent years, with clergy even given written guidance on how to navigate the Home Office system.”

Several newspapers pointed to a tribunal decision on an anonymous asylum case in 2017 that suggested an “improbably large” number of Iranians attending the Liverpool Anglican Cathedral cast doubt on whether they were all “genuine converts.” In other cases, asylum was granted after conversions were deemed authentic — normally after evidence of the very regular church attendance of the kind described above (three times more than native Brits). Modern British Christianity exists only as a left-wing immigration assistance body. It’s most notable conversion in recent years is that of Emad Al Swealmeen. He was denied asylum in 2014, then had a sudden road to Damascus moment which resulted in his baptism a year later. In 2017 he was “confirmed” to the applause of hundreds of idiots in Liverpool’s Anglican Cathedral. Four years later this confirmed Christian prematurely detonated a bomb in the name of Allah, intended for a military remembrance event in the heart of Liverpool. I wonder if Archbishop Welby considers whether assisting such people, and making a mockery and a fraud of his religion, is “the opposite of the nature of God.”


Surrounded by hostile forces, there is a temptation within our camp to adopt contrarian stances towards almost everything emanating from mainstream politics. There is a lot of context around the Rwanda plan which is far from ideal and is in fact contemptible. The Rwanda plan has been introduced by Home Secretary Priti Patel, who recently sought after the interests of her own ethnic group by signing the Migration and Mobility Partnership (MMP), a deal that has been instrumental in the dramatic rise of Indian immigration to Britain. The immigration profile of the UK since Brexit has been transformed, with a huge drop in east European migration, and a large increase in non-EU migration, especially from India and China. Much of this migration is in the form of student visas for Chinese and Indian students, which might lead commentators to assume that this is a “temporary” migration problem that doesn’t result in long-term settlement. A comprehensive study of the relevant figures in 2015, however, found that trends consistently show “a majority of students were not going home. For the past three years the estimated inflows of students has been significantly higher than the number of self-reported former students estimated to be leaving.”

Britain has a massive legal immigration problem, and the Conservative party seems to be cynically playing to its audience. The party is traditionally the choice of rural England, while Labour is the choice of the industrial heartlands and the major cities. By curbing east European migration through Brexit, the Conservatives removed visible migration from rural areas where these migrants were occupying jobs in agriculture and food production. Legal migration is less visible to rural England, since it tends to flow in large part to the universities and workplaces of the major cities, which are regarded as fully multicultural anyway. As such, simply through geography and demography, Boris Johnson and Priti Patel can increase migration while giving the opposite impression to their key voters. The Rwanda plan is in many respects another part of the ploy, since it gives off an air of being hardline and appeals to the instinct of Conservative voters to want to tackle illegal immigration.

Those of us looking on at this charade from a radical Right perspective have a difficult choice to make. Do we support such charades knowingly and opportunistically, in the hope that it is something that could be built upon culturally and politically? Or condemn it honestly as a legislative hoax, and make no inroads at all in terms of the political landscape? I suggest probing with bayonets, but without getting your hopes up.

On Migrant Deaths

“I observe that men run away to other countries, because they are not good in their own.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Culture, 1876.

“Cast a cold eye On life, on death. Horseman, pass by!”
B. Yeats, Under Ben Bulben

The sight and smell must have been horrific. On October 23, the bodies of 39 East Asians were found in an airtight refrigerated truck container in Essex in eastern England. Bloody handprints smeared the walls, and the bodies, mostly naked, foamed at the mouth. A murder investigation was immediately launched, but the circumstances, despite their horrific nature, were hardly mysterious. The movements of the haulage truck, the racial uniformity of the dead, and the conditions of transport all pointed to a catastrophic attempt at organized illegal entry into Britain. The driver was arrested and charged. Arrest warrants were issued. Documentation was seized and examined. Autopsies and collaboration with foreign police forces revealed that the deceased were Vietnamese, and that their final journey to Britain occurred via Belgium and Ireland. It is, as yet, undetermined at which geographic point the process of suffocation began, though it is believed they were alive in the container for around ten hours before they succumbed, one by one.

It is a story that, in all its macabre and gory features, lends itself to exploitation — and the Left has exploited it to the full. The narrative has emerged that the corpses in Essex were the result of Third World “desperation” and a heartless immigration system that fails to provide “safe routes” for migrants. But is this really what’s happening, both in Britain and across the West? Is this really the explanation for drownings in the Mediterranean, bodies on Turkish beaches, and deaths in the Arizona desert? Much as I empathize with the particularly nasty deaths of the deceased Vietnamese, I argue that they were the victims of their own materialistic and often criminal desire to live in “First World” conditions among Whites, of a sociopathic Irish people-smuggling gang that cared not for their illegal cargo or Europe, but for filthy profit alone, and of a much broader and more profound phenomena — the deepening exploitation of Europe and Europeans under manipulative humanitarian pretexts.

“The Migrant Personality”

A common theme in mass media treatments of migrant deaths is the emphasis on a putative “desperation” among migrants. The term implies a lack of choice, and implicitly suggests that migrants don’t really want to move to the West, but have been forced to do so by circumstances. These narrative strains, undoubtedly cultivated to provoke sympathy and reduce opposition among European natives, are in stark contrast to the reality that Third World migrants to the West invariably pass through many safe and reasonably prosperous countries prior to their arrival. This reality suggests that choice is actually a very strong feature of migrant behavior, and reduces the likelihood that such behavior is motivated by genuine desperation.

Perhaps because of the obvious weakness of “desperation” narratives, much energy has been expended on the development of propaganda on the putative migrant personality, especially aspects concerning ambitions and motivations. For example, an extensive literature has developed in both popular culture and academia suggesting that migration selects for educational qualifications, motivational characteristics, and positive risk-taking behaviors. In line with this thinking, government, mass media and academia in the West have invested heavily in persuading native populations that mass migration from areas as distant as Africa and South Asia is a net gain for receiving countries, since it involves importing highly-motivated and capable people. The problem with arguments such as these is that they are based heavily in nostalgic visions of the (predominantly American) past, and aren’t remotely based in the contemporary global social reality. Ideas of energetic pioneers arriving from abroad are clearly more applicable to the pushing of a nineteenth-century frontier populated by Northwest Europeans than they are to mass migration to fully-established twenty-first century nations with advanced economies and generous welfare provisions.

In 2018, a team of scholars from The Migration Observatory, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, at the UK’s University of Oxford, published their findings on “arguments about a common migrant personality.”[1] The study was one of the first of its kind since the serious analysis of the putative migrant personality has been rare indeed. Rather controversially, the Oxford team’s findings “seem to contradict the arguments about a common migrant personality put forward by social psychologists, as well as most of the predictions of standard economic models. We do find, however, some support for the welfare magnet hypothesis.” [emphasis added] The “welfare magnet hypothesis” is, in the polite expression of the Oxford scholars, essentially the argument that “very generous welfare states can lead to negative skill selectivity.” If one wanted to be less polite, the welfare magnet hypothesis could be usefully explained as the attraction exerted by an abundance of free resources on large numbers of unskilled migrants with poor cultural and behavioral aptitudes, who are thus destined to become net drains on their target nation. In fact, the study found Turks migrating to wealthy European countries to be negatively selected for motivation and aptitude, meaning that only the less capable and talented among the Turks left for Europe.

Despite findings like these, contemporary mass migration is almost exclusively presented to Western populations as a humanitarian matter, and most media treatments of the issue are replete with appeals to emotion and concepts of fairness. It is rarely, if ever, admitted that mass migration is often deliberately pursued by “exporting” nations as a means of relieving the burden of criminal elements and surplus populations, and also a means of generating revenue from money remitted by established migrants. And it is rarely admitted that left in Western societies sees these immigrants as clients and a future voting base, the latter already having profound effects in the United States.

While there has been much talk about Syria as a zone of war and destruction, little has been made of the fact that, like the Russian Jews in 1880 (whose own migration path was eased by largely fictional humanitarian tales of woe), it has one of the highest population growth rates in the world (2.4%). In the seven least-developed of Syria’s 14 provinces, women have between 3.8 and 6.2 children, and their fertility rates are not expected to decline much in the next 15 years. In 2010, Nabil Sukkar, a Syrian economist formerly with the World Bank, said “We have a population problem, no question. Unless we cope with it, it could be a burden on our development.” Sukkar said labor supply was growing about 4.5 percent a year, due to rapid population expansion in earlier decades, outpacing the capacity of Syria’s economy to create jobs for the cohort of 250,000 young people arriving on the job market every year. “Too big a population means a high burden on government services, such as education, electricity and health care,” he said. “Perhaps in 20 years the growth rate will go down to 1.5 percent as in Egypt, but in the meantime we do have a problem.” Since Syria spent the period 2011–2019 exporting its entire surplus cohort under the cover of a perfectly-timed civil war, Sukkar’s problem, like the similar one facing Africa, is now Europe’s problem.

“The Migrant Contribution”

The same pattern is witnessed across the varying ethnic hues of mass migration, even taking into account the dead Vietnamese in Essex. In a study of Vietnamese illegal immigration to the UK and Germany, academic Trang Nguyen found that “immigration agencies and brokers that are affiliated to the Vietnamese government” have been providing logistical support to illegal Vietnamese in Europe because “illegal immigration to Europe is widely recognized by Hanoi as a welcome solution to their unemployment problem and as a source of growing remittances.” Remittances from what? The Vietnamese have rather quickly established themselves in Europe as the dominant players in the sale of illegal cigarettes (Germany) and the mass cultivation of cannabis in indoor plantations (UK).  In 2012, more than 60% of UK arrests for cannabis production involved Vietnamese migrants. The title of Nguyen’s article, and his central thesis, is that this is “government-sponsored crime” in the sense that Hanoi is providing logistical support for the activities of its illegals plying these illicit trades on European soil. Nguyen continues:

They developed methods to turn networks of large houses into clandestine cannabis plantation farms (Luke, 2012). Information from Vietnamese-language online fora in the UK indicates that these houses are rented from housing agents using fraudulent or stolen identity papers. Set-up costs for an operation vary between £15,000 and £50,000 while annual profits from a single ‘grow house’ run from £200,000 to £500,000. According to interviewees and other media reports, Vietnamese-run cannabis farms are mainly located in the suburbs of London, Manchester and Birmingham.

The background of Vietnamese migrants is almost uniform. Nguyen remarks that they overwhelmingly tend to have a rural origin and low educational attainment, and have few ambitions other than finding illegal work in cigarette and cannabis manufacture (males) or in nail bars (females). Despite quasi-Romantic narratives proffered by the Left-Liberal media, these individuals do not come to Europe with visions of cultural synthesis and embracing European “values.” Rather, Europe is seen as a lucrative cash cow, to be milked for welfare or criminal proceeds. Nguyen relates how one illegal told him that “Many of them (cannabis “gardeners”) went to the UK and made a fortune, but came back not knowing a single English word. They probably did not even see the Big Ben tower.”

A significant proportion of these illegal proceeds are funnelled back to Vietnam through a network of “legitimate” Vietnamese businesses operating in Europe, such as grocery stores, logistics companies, or translation agencies, who receive foreign currencies from undocumented migrants and launder it for them. In 2017, the Ministry of Labour of Vietnam set the target of exporting 225,000 migrant workers over a 24-month period. The policy has resulted in Vietnam now being one of the top ten global remittance recipients, receiving between $10 and $14 billion since 2012, accounting for 6–8% of its GDP. Rather than warning prospective migrants about the potentiality of their becoming engaged with criminal elements, Nguyen found the Vietnamese government complicit in assisting “criminal networks to lure and traffic individuals and encourage the undocumented migrants to enter illegal markets.” In fact, many of the same networks are actually “state-owned or stated-affiliated.” At time of this writing, Hanoi has never reported “any investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of officials complicit in human trafficking offences,” and the Vietnamese government has made it extremely difficult for European nations to deport Vietnamese illegals back to their country of origin.

The scale and calculation behind international migration networks, and the complicity of population-exporting governments, surely exposes, or at the very least problematizes, the myth of a humanitarian crisis. In the case of the Essex incident, unfortunately, a willful ignorance has prevailed across the UK media and important sections of society. A good example is an awful piece of journalism that appeared in The Scotsman. The article begins, predictably, with humanitarian and emotional appeals: “Who could ever forget the heartbreaking picture of a toddler lying dead on a Mediterranean shore, or the impact it had on public consciousness? … What happened in Essex this week is simply one small incident in a massive international problem.” What problem? The journalist, Christine Jardine, can’t seem to articulate it, but then she also can’t articulate who the dead people actually were, identifying them instead as originating in “the poor, coastal, province of Fujian, in south-east China.” She continues:

But all victims of incidents whether here, on the continent or on Mediterranean have at least one thing in common. Desperation. Nobody risks their lives clinging to an inflatable raft crossing dangerous sea routes unless they feel that is the only option they have. None of us would put our children at risk, or gamble on surviving thousands of miles in the back of a refrigerated truck if we were looking for an easy life. It is too easy to blame the victims rather than look for solutions.

All the common features of the Left-Liberal narrative are here — desperation; lack of options; not looking for an easy life but a place to pursue their ambitions. But we know that these migrants risked their lives to make a “fortune” in illegal trades, that they have absolutely no affinity with the nation or people they hope to make their criminal proceeds among, and that their government cynically assists them in their efforts. These are unintelligent and otherwise unmotivated people who chose to be criminals in foreign lands, when they could have chosen to remain in their home nations.

Jardine adds:

If we are ever to make progress, ever to prevent these deaths, we need to be looking at ways of providing safety for those whose lives have become intolerable because of war or persecution. We need to look at ways of providing safe passage and work with international agencies, both those who deal with aid and those who tackle crime. Tracking down the traffickers at source and tackling them before the damage is done is vital. We also have to consider that perhaps many of those who fall prey to the traffickers would not do so if they felt there was a realistic hope of a safe legal means of immigration. Looking at our own immigration system to ensure that what we provide is fair, compassionate and effective for those who want to come here is essential. But so is providing international aid to those countries where the desperation for a better life is most keenly felt.

I wonder what international agencies Jardine would propose we work with, in order to relax our borders and prevent this happening again. Perhaps the government in Hanoi? Yes, they’d be very receptive to our decision to open our borders, which could be very lucrative for them indeed. Sarcasm aside, consider the infantile level of a mind that suggests the only ways we can prevent illegal migrants from dying while attempting to enter our nations are to either grant them unqualified access or to throw money at their home governments. What should we give to Hanoi? $10 billion? $12 billion? Do we offer to make up 10% of their GDP, to beat the 8% they already derive from us in cannabis farms and illegal cigarette sales, in the hope they will stop operating criminal migrant networks in Europe? Do we add this to the €6 billion we have now pledged to Turkey in the hope they won’t flood us with more migrants? How many nations do we agree to bribe? How many nations are “desperate”? How many billions are at our disposal to stop bodies in trucks and on beaches?

The truth of the matter is brutally stark: Without a massive strengthening of border control, the West will succumb to mass migration with devastating consequences for native populations and their culture. Jardine’s two options are, in essence, merely the same, since both entail eventual mass invasion and the only difference being that one also offers the prospect of immediate national bankruptcy.

Contradictions of Opportunism

One of the most ferocious and darkly comic novels I’ve ever read is William Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying, the text that arguably won the novelist his 1949 Nobel Prize in Literature. The novel follows the Bundren family as they take a casket containing the family matriarch across state lines so that she can be buried, in accordance with her dying wishes, among the graves of her own well-heeled kin. As this odyssey plays out, each member of the family is revealed as having their own perspectives and intentions. But perhaps none of these quasi-migrants is more reprehensible than the grifting, begging, and selfish patriarch, Anse Bundren, who fantasizes about getting his hands on enough money for “new teeth” and, in doing so, tragically and catastrophically betrays his children. I won’t spoil the ending, but Faulkner’s masterpiece came powerfully to mind when news broke in 2015 concerning the death of the three-year-old Syrian Aylan Kurdi, whose body washed up on a Turkish beach after a failed attempt to cross the Mediterranean. The Kurdi family had been living in relative comfort in Turkey for three years but, according to a large number of sources, a decision was taken to illegally move the family to Europe so that Aylan’s father Abdullah could get free dental treatment and “new teeth” from one of Europe’s welfare states.

Was the Kurdi family “desperate?” What aspects of the “migrant personality” did they exhibit? Shortly after the death of young Aylan, Australian politician Cory Bernardi, a Senator of the then-governing Liberal party, told his country’s parliament that Abdullah Kurdi and his family were not real refugees and suggested many others seeking asylum in Europe were merely “opportunistic.” Bernardi stated, during the course of a debate:

I find it a bit sanctimonious for [Green] Senator [Richard] Di Natale to bring in these emotive arguments, and particularly to characterise this as some sort of humanitarian mission by using the terrible image of that young boy who was picked up from the beach after having drowned at sea … The facts remain that that terrible image was not brought about by recent events in Syria or Iraq. That boy and his family had lived in Turkey for three years. … The money for that boy’s father to pay the people smugglers was sent from Canada. The father sent them on that boat so the father could get dental treatment. … They were in no fear, they were in no persecution and they were in no danger in Turkey. … This seems to me to be becoming an opportunistic cycle.

Bernardi was, predictably, subjected to scathing attacks, being described as an “embarrassment” to parliament and as worthy of being “treated with contempt.” But was he wrong?

Bernardi was of course correct to portray mass migration as “opportunistic” — a term that can serve as the opposite of “desperate” in this case, since it implies the existences of choices and opportunities and, most importantly, it returns agency to migrants. The truth of the matter is that non-European migrants have an abundance of choices in their countries of origin. Those who die on their way to Europe or the United States will have made a sequence of bad and ultimately fatal choices based on their material desires and wants and, indeed, their level of intelligence. We must consider that these same people look upon badly damaged and flimsy boats, or upon airtight refrigerated vehicles with no internal locking mechanisms, and decide that these are appropriate and risk-worthy methods of attempting illegal entry to their destination of choice. To date, no media source has reported on a deceased migrant found to have previously been in a state of severe malnourishment or fundamentally ill health. In other words, deceased migrants invariably appear to have been well-fed individuals facing no immediate threats to their existence beyond their own poor decision-making.

The position of Left-Liberals in these matters can only be considered fundamentally irrational, and Catholics have been notably prominent in indulging this mindset. Sarah Teather, director of the Jesuit Refugee Service UK, has evoked the meme of “desperation” and said:

The desperation of those in the container is an indictment of our failure to provide sanctuary to those in flight for their lives. This horrendous tragedy highlights the urgent need for more safe and legal routes to migrate and to seek asylum. If the government wants to ensure this does not happen again, it is not enough to focus only on criminal gangs — it must ensure that those seeking sanctuary in Britain can get here safely. It must build bridges, not walls. [emphasis added]

That we live in increasingly strange times is evidenced by voices from the Marxist hard-Left, who have also pointed out the irrationality of this position. Slavoj Žižek, for example, recently pointed out:

Pia Klemp, captain of the ship Iuventa which was saving refugees in the Mediterranean, concluded her explanation why she decided to refuse the Grand Vermeil medal awarded to her by the city of Paris with the slogan: “Documents and housing for all! Freedom of movement and residence!” If this means that — to cut a long story short — every individual has the right to move to a country of his/her choice, and that this country has the duty to provide him/her with residence, then we are dealing here with an abstract vision in the strict Hegelian sense: a vision which ignores the complex context of social totality. The problem cannot be solved at this level.

In an ideal world, Žižek would elaborate on what precisely he means by “the complex context of social totality,” but elaboration and clarification are, alas, not his strong points. He is, nonetheless, absolutely correct to counterpose Klemp’s abstract vision of open borders with social totality, which one assumes to refer to Heidegger’s dictum that all essential and great things can only emerge from our having a homeland, from being rooted in tradition. Human beings need both home and homeland. In contrast to a social totality that inheres the delineation and demarcation provided by national borders, the blank openness of a borderless world offers no homeland, and dissolves all tradition. In a world without borders, all identities melt away. Man is reduced to nothing more than an economic integer and, in some important sense, ceases to exist as Man. Again, it is ironic that Žižek, a Marxist of the hard-Left, should be forced to make it clear that “refugees want to have their cake and eat it. They basically expect to get the best of the Western welfare state while retaining their specific way of life, which is in some of its key features incompatible with the ideological foundations of the Western welfare state.” In other words, non-Europeans are knowingly exploiting (choosing to exploit) the altruistic and humanitarian aspects of the European personality without any intention (or perhaps even capability) of reciprocation.

Where we diverge from Žižek is his insistence that mass migration can be solved by “change to the global economic system,” by which he obviously means Marxist revolution. While there is undoubtedly an economic component to contemporary mass migration (the welfare magnet, international crime, Globalist desire for cheap and mobile labor, wealth disparities among nations), there are other factors that cannot be overlooked. Mass migration can be usefully understood as a semi-organic phenomenon that is also heavily cultivated. The global expansion of mass media, especially in the last three or four decades, has brought Hollywood’s idealized visions of the multicultural West onto television sets in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and the Far East, with hundreds of millions of non-Europeans coming to the belief that they too can potentially be part of this wealthy multicultural paradise. Never forget, when considering Hollywood propaganda among Whites, that these products are inevitably pumped into countries outside our own, and that they serve an equally devastating purpose. Muslim visions of Western women arguably originated in Sex and the City as much as they did in the Koran. Hollywood debased our culture and carved it open, before broadcasting the aftermath to the rest of the world — a dunghill certain to attract flies.

What isn’t broadcast to the Third World is the reality of the multicultural West — that it is a bitter and divided condition that only grows more bitter and divided by the day. The migrant sees that the streets aren’t paved with gold as they seem in so many Hollywood productions, but are instead increasingly paved with trash. Still, they are better than “home.” Western women, though you can see their faces (and even their limbs!), aren’t really willing to have sex with just anyone. This comes to the newcomer as a great disappointment, and he becomes resentful and, in his resentment, dangerous. And the native Whites, well, they are a tolerant bunch, but they seem to prefer to live among themselves, and they have a culture that simply baffles and confuses the migrant in those moments where he pays it fleeting interest. What matters most is that he finally got his hands on that welfare payment, thanks to his immigration lawyer Mr. Cohen, and that, in some small way at least, he is living the life once promised on his television screen. And there are grounds for optimism — each day he sees more and more of his own kind on his street, in his town, all across his new country in fact. These Whites really are a tolerant bunch.

Technological advances in communication and transport have facilitated the growth of forms of coordinated international chain migration that would have been unimaginable even fifty years ago, allowing potential migrants in almost every Third World country to plan and execute their own journey to the West with relative (though not risk-free) ease. Since this technological genie cannot be put back in the bottle, and economic changes are simply too gargantuan for transformation even within this century, the only solution to mass migration is a “revolution of the will” in migrant-receiving nations. Tolerance in the West has been nurtured and cultivated by decades of consistent propaganda, of which the “dead migrant” tale is but a minor genre. It must be rejected. And it must be rejected along with multiculturalism which is the form of society that provides illegals with anonymity and opportunity. An illegal Vietnamese in a multicultural society simply vanishes into the mass. An illegal Vietnamese in a mono-ethnic European nation has nowhere to hide. Europe must decide that it wants to live.

Yes, what happened in Essex was nasty and tragic for those concerned. But what’s happening to the West is worse. Without a homeland, it is we who will be trapped with no exit, no internal locking mechanism. We are running out of demographic oxygen. The next time you see propaganda about migrant deaths, cast a cold eye upon it, and pass by.

[1] Polavieja, J. G., Fernández-Reino, M., & Ramos, M. (2018). Are Migrants Selected on Motivational Orientations? Selectivity Patterns amongst International Migrants in Europe. European Sociological Review.


Family Reunification Is Former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s “Great Regret”

French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing was the center-right president of France between 1974 and 1981, a bit more of a liberal than a conservative. Giscard presided over the consolidation of continuous postwar Afro-Islamic immigration. His biographer, Éric Roussel, has recently revealed that the institution of family reunification is the “great regret” of his presidency:

Family reunification is his great regret, which was decided by a simple decree by [his prime minister] Jacques Chirac in 1976. . . . The idea of letting immigrants’ families come seemed, at the time, to be natural. The massive increase of immigration from Muslim countries however proved deeply divisive. Raymond Barre incidentally suspended [the decree] three years later [as prime minister], before the Council of State [France’s highest court] annulled this decision arguing that family reunification was now one of the general principles of law.

We note here the revolutionary redefinition of the law by the courts, in effect declaring restrictive immigration policies illegal. This is scandalous in light of public opinion’s hostility to immigration and the fact that there is no evidence that immigration restriction, especially to preserve national identity, is in any way incompatible with France’s founding Republican principles. In June of this year, France’s highest court similarly declared a “principle of fraternity” whereby it was declared unconstitutional to prosecute someone for housing illegal immigrants. The courts are betraying the very constitution and law they have sworn to uphold.

Giscard, now aged 92, has said that he regrets enabling chain migration into France: 

The idea [of family reunification] was right and generous in itself. . . . But it was applied badly and I was wrong to not have monitored its implementation more closely; I am therefore responsible. . . . We aimed for the core family as we understood it and we saw the arrival of completely different family cores.

In short, by applying the assumptions of the Western nuclear family to Muslims, family reunification allowed enormous Muslim clans to settle France.

Giscard had also considered repatriating 500,000 Algerians during his term but backed down. Giscard has been vocal since 2002 in opposing Turkey’s joining of the European Union, saying that “Turkey . . . is not a European country.” Turkish membership would be in his view “the end of the European Union!”

In other news, the former president’s son, the 61-year-old Henri Giscard d’Estaing, was recently violently mugged and robbed by two Gypsies in Paris as he was withdrawing money from a cash machine. Just one more unpleasant example of daily life which the French must accustom themselves to since President Giscard and his fellow politicians and jurists decided that it was just fine to completely transform the demographics of France without popular approval.

In all this, Giscard is typical of an entire generation of postwar European politicians who felt that the Afro-Islamization of Europe was a mistake and yet did nothing to prevent it. German conservative chancellor Helmut Kohl, for instance, had also considered repatriating half of Germany’s Turkish population in the 1980s. German social-democratic chancellor Helmut Schmidt similarly said in retirement that Turkish immigration had been a mistake.

Enoch Powell’s famous phrase comes to mind: “All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”

Germany Rises as ‘Eurostan’ Looms Closer

The new ‘Eurostan’ in the making: Countries impacted by the migrant crisis

The writing is on the wall. The old Germany of our Christian ancestors is in the process of being destroyed. And after Germany, Europe is the target.

The EU, as we all know who have eyes to see, has now become the United States of Europe in all but name — an undemocratic and despotic confederation of states without borders whose primary aim appears to be White Genocide — the slow and systematic destruction of the white indigenous people of Europe by means of uncontrolled mass immigration and mongrelisation.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been the main force behind the ongoing destruction of the Europe of our ancestors, the Europe of traditional values firmly rooted in its Christian ethos.

Under Angela Merkel’s auspices, Germany has heard its death knell. It has seen its great cities with their shimmering Gothic spires, and its peaceful towns and villages nestling in the green countryside, invaded by well over a million uninvited guests from lawless lands who have turned their nation into a multicultural zoo. German women are being raped and sexually assaulted literally every day of the year by migrants. And still Frau Merkel sits there smiling complacently amid the ruins of her country, making no attempt to turn back the tides of mounting terror. Read more

Feckless European Leaders

It is impossible to exaggerate the complacency and irresponsibility of the ruling class in Europe today.

European leaders are not stupid, nor are they unaware. Consider the following speech from October of last year by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker:

I do not often cry, but when I look evening after evening at this long procession of refugees which remind me of those black-and-white images at the end of the Second World War which I saw when I was young, I sometimes almost cry. I do not like this Europe — this navel-gazing Europe, this Europe which is closing itself to the hopes and expectations of others. I love the Europe where hundreds of thousands of volunteers come to help, to support the refugees. Me, I know full well that we cannot welcome on our territories all the misery of the world, but we need to at least look at the misery of the world before acting.

We were able to end the Cold War. We were, and I am proud of it, able to fuse nineteen national currencies into a single currency. In fact, I am the only politician in Europe left who is among the signatories of the Maastricht Treaty which created the European Union and the euro. . . . We must relearn how to be proud of Europe. We were able to end this tragedy where Europe was a continent of wars. We have peace. The entire planet admires us for this. Except sometimes, and more and more often, the Europeans.

We very often forget, my dear friends, that Europe is the smallest continent. The European Union is a territory of 5.5 million square kilometers. Russia, a European country, represents 17.5 million square kilometers. Our relative share of global gross domestic product is shrinking. Within a few years Europe will represent 15 percent of global gross domestic product. Already 80 percent of growth is taking place in countries outside the European Union. And we are already demographically very weak. We were at the beginning of the twentieth century, us Europeans, we represented 20 percent of the world population. Today, 7 percent and at the end of century among 10 billion men, women, and children, Europe will represent 4 percent. Therefore we are the smallest continent. We are demographically weakened and will remain so. . . . Therefore, the moment has not come for us to divide ourselves into leagues and national categories, the moment has to come to ensure that the European Union remains together, that it emerges strengthened from events and from crisis events. . . . And therefore, we must be careful to respect the nations. The nations who incidentally must remain internally united. There are too many divisions in Europe. No more must be added. Therefore, I would like that the whole of Europe remain coherent and remain consequential in its actions and not merely in its ambitions. [My emphasis.]

Read more

Terror in Paris: What did the Elites Know?

Translated from the German by Gregory Ritter

Original article on Info-Direkt.

Note: The hyperlinks in the original Info-Direkt article were to German-language media. Where possible, these have been replaced by links to English-language articles covering similar material.

Terror in Paris: What did the Elites Know?

Flying blind usually ends in disaster. The disaster in Paris (which was but a prelude) was foreseeable. The political leaders did nothing to stop it. And they will do nothing to stop it in the future.

by Florian Meyer

“How can anyone be shocked?” asked the US-based Gatestone Institute, expressing its skepticism at the way the press covered the public mourning among politicians and the official media. The EU politicians “exhibited an irresponsibility and lack of leadership that is almost infantile.” In reality, politicians and the media were, and are, very well informed about the catastrophic security situation in Europe. They just do not report it, because it seems that their real job is to reassure the masses.

Experts warned of Terror

On Friday, Info-Direkt published a video-interview of retired Austrian army Major Rudolf Moser at Spielfeld on the Slovakian border. Moser covered the situation in the border town from a military point-of-view. According to him, the Austrian government would fail in every respect and would implement no sort of inspections or security checks—the whole situation would inevitably lead to civil war. Then that evening, fewer than 10 terrorists managed to put France under a state of Emergency. Read more

Croatia Under Siege: Migrants vs. Mad Germans

WhiteSlave Jean J.A Lecomte du Nouy (“The White Slave”, 1888, oil)

The article below is the slightly abridged English translation of the Croatian original published in 7Dnevno.

The Afro-Asian and Middle Eastern mass migration to Europe, falsely labeled by the mainstream media as the “refugee crisis,” is being examined from all angles. Why use the word ‘refugee’ if the majority of migrants passing through Croatia are men between 20 and 40 years of age? Unlike the present where hordes of non-Whites are welcomed with open arms, genuine refugees at the end of World War II had no luck of finding a welcoming culture despite being White. Let’s start with the alphabetical “K” letter in the description of the topography of death. Real refugees were German civilians in early 1945 who were fleeing the Bolshevik troops and Tito’s commissars south of Königsberg (Kaliningrad) and east of Constant; and then west of Karlovac; and then further west to their mass execution fields at Kočevski Rog. For hundreds of thousands of Croatian refugees, at their first station of the cross in Klagenfurt, in May 1945,  the English troops did not wait with “Golden ale,” nor were there American women like those in Salzburg or in Linz with boxes of Hershey’s chocolate. They were quickly dispatched by those liberal Anglo-American democrats into the jaws of Communism. Read more