Sep 8, 2015

The Prime Ministers of Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Slovak Republic Fully Support Hungary, Refuse Mandatory Quotas, Demand Stronger Borders

via The European Guardian

We, the prime ministers of the Visegrad Group countries, meeting in Prague on September 4, 2015 on the occasion of an extraordinary summit of the Visegrad Group to migrate accept the following joint statement:

The Visegrad Group countries expressed deep regret over the loss of lives of thousands of people in the context of the current migration situation in Europe. Stress that migration flows represent a complex and serious challenge for the EU and its Member States. Hungary is among the countries that are most exposed to migratory pressures and affect their impact. The Prime Ministers of the Czech Republic, Poland and the Slovak Republic therefore reaffirms its full support for Hungary in dealing with this challenge. As an expression of its solidarity are the prime ministers of Hungary ready to provide further assistance.

Visegrad countries declare that they will continue to perform its obligations under the EU acquis, including the responsibility to protect the external borders of the EU and the Schengen area. Visegrad countries emphasize that under the current most urgent circumstances, the EU must focus on constructive dialogue leading to effective joint action and to avoid mutual recrimination.

The Visegrad Group countries recognize that all Member States should contribute to finding adequate and effective long-term solution, since migration flows are felt with increasing urgency throughout the Union. In the spirit of shared European values ??of humanism, solidarity and responsibility with the Visegrad countries actively involved in the ongoing process of defining and implementing a series of measures responding to migration challenges.

Visegrad countries constantly stress that causes the effective management of migration flows is a key element. The EU Action Plan contained in the June European Council conclusions in this regard provides a good foundation. Progress in its implementation is not sufficient. Visegrad countries therefore called for its swift implementation. The Visegrad Group countries invited the European Commission to the extraordinary meeting of EU interior ministers on September 14 gave an overview of activities undertaken to date, and to present feasible measures to effectively reduce or stop the "pull" factors.

Visegrad countries declare that they are fully prepared to step up their commitments in this regard and to contribute to joint actions, in particular through:
  • Strengthening bilateral assistance schemes, and assistance with particular regard to the countries of transit and origin:
    • help particularly vulnerable groups (eg. orphans, people who have suffered injuries, families with children);
    • financial and material assistance to countries with significant populations of refugees (Turkey, Jordan, Iraq / Kurdistan, Lebanon, including refugee camps, and transit countries of the Western Balkans);
    • Support the strengthening of cooperation with the candidate and potential candidate countries in the context of the accession negotiations;
    • relevant projects and programs aimed at stabilizing.
  • Provision of experts and equipment for:
    • protection of the EU's external borders (including Frontex and bilaterally, the most affected states);
    • asylum procedure and the relevant supporting actions (including EASO and called. hotspots);
    • assistance to border control and migration management in the Western Balkans.
  • The full potential of international development cooperation on migration issues; Visegrad countries will explore the possibility of further increase in bilateral development assistance for countries of origin and transit for the period 2016/17.
  • Strengthening financial, technical and expert missions, participation in the Common Security and Defence Policy against networks of smugglers and traffickers.
  • Gain punishment and the fight against smugglers and traffickers on the national level as well as the intensification of police cooperation and cooperation of the intelligence services.
  • Continue support to the international coalition fighting Da'esh in Iraq and Syria, and funding (political, military and humanitarian) contributing to the efforts of a coalition to stabilize Iraq as tangible forms of sanctioning causes of migratory pressures.
Visegrad countries reiterate that discussions on these issues at EU level should pursue a comprehensive and balanced manner and on the basis of full implementation of the conclusions of the April and the June European Council. The Visegrad Group countries invited the European Commission to mobilize the relevant resources and coordinate actively in all relevant EU policies and instruments so that they can be fully utilized, strengthened, improved and aligned with national policies and instruments.
The Visegrad Group countries are convinced that the main elements of a common EU approach in the coming months should include in particular:
  • A quick and full implementation of the conclusions of the European Council.
  • Due emphasis to the next dimension of migration challenges - due to the dynamic nature of migration flows should not be an EU approach restricted to the Mediterranean region, but must adequately reflect the migratory route through western Balkans and eastern migratory route, which involves a more balanced distribution of financial aid. Functioning border controls in the Mediterranean region must be improved so as to limit the negative impact on the migration path of the Western Balkans.
  • Effective control and protection of external borders of the EU - a joint operation led by Frontex should complement existing national capabilities in the most affected Member States, bearing in mind the fact that the EU legislative framework clearly sets out the responsibilities of each Member State for the protection of the external borders of the EU and the Schengen area by any appropriate means under EU law.
  • Fulfillment of legal obligations by all Member States and the responsibility of getting the EU institutions - it concerns the full and accurate fulfillment of existing asylum acquis with particular attention to the Dublin regulation, functioning system for registering and effective return policies, including creating a common list of safe third countries. The European Commission should immediately introduce a proposal that list.
  • Maintaining the voluntary nature of EU solidarity measures - and each Member State may build on their experiences, best practices and available resources; principles agreed at the highest political level, including the conclusions of the European Council must be respected; any proposal aiming at introducing mandatory quotas for permanent and solidarity measures would be unacceptable.
  • Rapid implementation so. Hotspots in accordance with the conclusions of the June European Council - the so-called. Hotspots should be an integral part of the registration process, documentation, screening (including proper identification of persons who meet the criteria for asylum and economic migrants) and the return of illegal migrants. Creating so. Hotspots must be a top priority in order to ensure rapid implementation of relocation schemes. Other structures on the basis of so-called. Hotspots should be immediately established EU assistance in the most affected transit countries outside the EU along the migration routes of the Western Balkans.
  • Step up the fight against organized crime and smuggling - EU and Member States should carry out vigorous action against the organizers of illegal migration based producer of this human tragedy, including existing missions, Common Security and Defence Policy. These efforts should be comprehensive and should include, among other things, a more active approach to the related negotiations at the United Nations.
  • Intensify cooperation with the international community on the issue of illegal migration - particularly with the United Nations, the African Union and the Arab League.
  • Active contribution towards resolving the situation in Libya, Syria and the Middle East - the EU and Member States should strengthen their diplomatic activities and negotiating efforts on all sides, including the United Nations, leading to a peaceful and lasting solution and subsequent stabilization, rehabilitation and reconstruction. These efforts should be aimed at inclusion of all relevant international actors, including the United States and the Russian Federation.
  • Long-term solution to the situation - EU and Member States should increase its development assistance to countries of origin and transit countries, to ensure that assistance is well targeted and results-oriented (conditionality), and call on all relevant actors in the world to join this effort. The EU and Member States should also intensify the countries of origin and transit countries, their cooperation on issues of prevention and fight against illegal migration, as well as in tackling the causes of migration (eg. Projects focusing on education, job creation and small and medium-sized businesses).
  • Readmission agreements with key countries should be filled as soon as possible to introduce a common European program of restoration, without delay, under the leadership of Frontex and in direct connection with the emergence of so-called. Hotspots.
  • Conference in Budapest, dedicated to the migration route of the Western Balkans conference in Valletta should bring tangible results and lead in this regard for effective action.
This joint declaration will serve as the basis for a coordinated position of the Visegrad Group countries before an extraordinary meeting of EU interior ministers on Sept. 14, 2015, and before the October European Council.

Netanyahu: Israel ‘too small’ to Accept Syrian Refugees

via Jewish Telegraph Agence

Israel is “not indifferent to the human tragedy” of refugees from Syria and Africa, Benjamin Netanyahu said, but it is too small to absorb mass numbers of them.

“We have already devotedly cared for approximately 1,000 wounded people from the fighting in Syria and we have helped them to rehabilitate their lives,” the Israeli prime minister said Sunday at the start of the weekly Cabinet meeting.

“But, Israel is a small country, a very small country, that lacks demographic and geographic depth; therefore, we must control our borders, against both illegal migrants and terrorism,” Netanyahu said.

His statement came as Israeli lawmakers debated how to respond to the regional refugee crisis. . . . Read more

Review of The March: ‘You Will Watch Us Die’

via TradYouth

The foolish and sentimental cat lady mistakes sentimentality and superficiality for humane charity, reliably leaving a trail of dead, diseased, neglected, and starving feral cats to destroy her home to the point where it’s no longer safe to live in it. Her approach to the microcosmic problem of homeless pets is analogous to the responses of Europe’s politicians to the Camp of the Saints nightmare unfolding throughout Europe. White (and only White) Christians, we are told in the most obnoxiously pious tones by both liberal Christians and atheists alike, have a profound moral obligation in the eyes of God to cuckold and condemn ourselves, our families, our communities, and our nations on behalf of the hostile invaders.

Nietzsche was apparently wrong about God being dead. He’s merely napping, and awakens from time to time to command Christian Europe to kill itself off.

For now, The March remains available on YouTube. The script is a rip-off of Raspail’s apocalyptic novel, so much so that he attempted legal action against the production company. It foreshadows how our sentimentality, superficiality, and corrupt clergy will conspire to genocidally condemn our nations to oblivion. More importantly, it highlights the indecisiveness and timidity of those who realize what’s to come but who lack the courage to stand up to the social pressure to condemn their future generations to a hellscape of chaos, poverty, rape, and terror.

You Will Watch Us Die

In the film, the invasive leader even appeals directly to our cat lady sentimentality by planning a campaign deliberately predicated on watching them die, leading a death march through the Sahara which is designed to force Europeans to rescue them. This reminds me of the picture of the deceased Syrian child who washed ashore earlier this week, a child whose death is not deemed the fault of his irresponsible parents who were perfectly safe in Turkey, is not deemed the fault of the warmongers whose war against the Assad regime has driven his parents out of their homeland, and is not deemed the fault of irresponsible European policies of actively encouraging and incentivizing boat people by rewarding the ones who survive the trek.

No. Somehow, despite all logic, reason, and common sense, the dead baby’s corpse splattered across every bit of Western media is an indictment of those who demand that the boats be stopped. There’s no point in reasoning with the liberal masses for now, as the elites have successfully whipped them into a hysterical moral panic. And there’s no point in reasoning with Europe’s elites, because they are firmly under the orders of the Jewish and corporate oligarchs who wish to see traditional Europe destroyed by a tidal wave of third world invaders.

The film and the novel both predict an essentially Malthusian driver behind the immigration, with climate change, overpopulation, and starvation driving people from the Third World into Europe. Apparently the relatively promising economic and demographic developments in Africa and the Middle East over the intervening decades have forced the elites to take matters into their own hands. Our governments have deliberately and systematically caused the current refugee crisis by instigating wars throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

The Jews have pulled off a trifecta, defeating Israel’s opponents using Western armies and then driving the refugees of those wars into the European heartland. And now they’re whipping up saccharine calls for common citizens to give up their own homes for these invaders. There are too many inception levels of cuckoldry to keep track of, with no end of the calls to start more wars in the Middle East, take in more and more sullen foreigners, and offer up more and more of our land and resources to them.

We Are Poor Because You’re Rich

The film tortures the viewer with deep questions about global disparity, lending legitimacy to the dark army’s mantra, “We are poor because you’re rich.” Throughout, the Europeans carry on about how complex the problem supposedly is. Of course, most of our readers know the uncomfortable truth, that most of the West’s wealth springs from within, from our innate intelligence and creativity, our culture of discipline and education, and our charity and fair-mindedness toward our neighbors.

These are things which cannot simply be stolen from us. And as the Blacks of Detroit and Ferguson will tell you, simply invading a White community, driving them out, and laying claim to their abandoned homes and institutions accomplishes nothing. We Whites are indeed rich. We’re indeed privileged. We’re indeed blessed. But these gifts are on loan from God, from our ancestors, and from our future generations. Charity toward the third world is fine, and assistance for refugees is noble. But what’s happening in Europe and the film is not charity, Christian or otherwise. This is a sentimental suicide which will not only doom ourselves but guarantee we’re no longer capable of offering the noble and sustainable charity we provide to these nations by the trillions.

Do You Have Enough Bullets To Kill Us All?

The film imagines that the Africans themselves dream up a way to impose a moral frame that Europeans lack the resolve to challenge. Of course, it’s the West’s elites who are doing that. In reality, the Syrians are being driven out of their country by the United States government, and the dead babies are tragic accidents. But the effect is all the same. There’s not even any starvation or warfare in Mexico, and our elites have trained most of our populace to imagine that Latin America’s immigrants are all somehow legitimately refugees because their GDP lags behind our own.

In the film, the third world prophet leading the march to Europe dares us to shoot them all, and that’s how the Western media will frame it, too. They may very well get their wish if they push too much of these dangerous and sullen young men on their communities too rapidly. Even the modern European is capable of violence if sufficiently cornered. But it’s a false frame. If we firmly deny them refugee status, consistently deport them back to their regions (not necessarily their countries), and kill their dreams of a European future, we won’t need any bullets.

Most importantly, if we stop starting wars for Israel and the multinationals in their homelands, we won’t have this confrontation. Contrary to what most White Nationalists and liberals alike presume, the vast majority of the people who aren’t European would rather resolve their own problems in their home countries and remain there than swamp and destroy the West. Let’s stop impeding those efforts.

"Antisemitism": The British Union and the Jews

via Ur-Fascist Statistics

Oswald Mosley (1896-1980) and his British
Union of Fascists struggled against Jewish
efforts to start a British-German war
More drivel is talked about the Jews than most subjects; both ways. The views that all Jews are born wicked, or that all Jews should be the sacred objects of the system, seems to me equal nonsense. I am neither an anti-Semite, nor a sycophant of Semites. The attitude of our movement has been both consistent and intelligible throughout. We have never attacked any man on account of race or religion, and we never shall. But we attack any man, whatever his race or religion, who acts against the interests of Britain or Europe; particularly Britons who ought to know better than to serve alien interests. It is a straightforward attitude, which has been formed by clear principles.

Why then have we been involved in clashes with Jewish interests, and why are so many Jews violently against us? The answers again are clear. Before the war I believed that certain great Jewish interests were trying to involve us in war, not in a British, but in a Jewish quarrel: I still believe it. The reasons for our belief and for the Jewish action are equally intelligible. It is true that a considerable number of Jews were having a bad time in Germany, and it can also be argued that if a similar number of Englishmen had been having an equally bad time in Germany, there would have been a demand among many Englishmen for war against Germany. But it is beyond question from the evidence of the period, that powerful Jewish interests were trying to produce war between Britain and Germany. They made it their business to start a war in the Jewish interest. I, and my friends, made it our business to stop that war, in British interest. That led to a head-on clash, and I still think that we were right in doing our utmost to prevent that war.

The issues between us, and those Jews before the war, were therefore quite simple and clear. They wanted to make a war, and we wanted to stop it. That is the long and the short of the whole matter. There was no question of racial persecution on our part. That was entirely contrary to our principles, which I put on public record at the time. We British were running a great Empire composed of many different races, and any suggestion of racial persecution would have broken it up. For practical, as well as moral reasons, it would have been the gravest error for us to pursue a policy of any kind of racial persecution. The Germans had entirely different national problems, as well as in some respects, a different national character, which was derived from a diversity of historic experience.

Our duty then, was to hold together and develop a multi-racial Empire. Their task, was to bring together and unite, the German peoples of one race. Because we wanted entirely different things, there was no need whatever, for a clash between us. The man you were apt to quarrel with, is the man who wants the same thing you do. The closely related peoples of Britain and Germany were by every design of nature complementary powers; a sea power concerned with a great Empire, and a land power concerned with its own people in a continental land mass.

The crime of those who then ruled Europe on both sides was to permit the division of Europe, which resulted in fratricidal war. The division of Europe was the supreme crime. It is true that the British Government actually declared war in a quarrel which was none of our business. But the errors of the German Government certainly assisted that act, and the consequent catastrophe. The world combination of their enemies against them was facilitated by the precipitate arrogance of the “patience exhausted” line, which provides a striking and instructive contrast to the more adroit and successful policies of characters so different as, Bismarck and Khrushchev. But the fatal line-up against Germany was above all aided by their anti-Semitic policy, which enabled their main enemies, in the international finance world, to build up a front against them. These errors brought to nought, all of the great social achievements of the National Socialist movement.

We, always rejected the nonsensical doctrine that a whole people were born wicked, and doomed to sin and damnation from birth. This is the deep moral and intellectual error of anti-Semitism, which has for a long period impeded the whole movement of European renaissance; despite all its wide diversity of form, in different countries. Neither before, during, nor after the war, did we have anything to do with the doctrine of anti-Semitism. Our policy now remains the same. When after the war, at the time of Suez, some Jewish interests were trying to drag us to war, not in a British, but Jewish quarrel, we again attacked them. We have neither fear nor favour; we attack men not for what they are, but for what they do. When you see in some periods little or nothing about Jews, in our speeches or publications, it does not mean that we have changed our principles, but that at this time we see nothing to quarrel about. We only attack a Jew, a Gentile, an Englishman or an Eskimo, when he is doing something against the interests of Britain.

But, reply those possessed by a fuddled anti-Semitism, many Jews are doing something wrong all of the time. Quite right, we reply, and so are a number of Englishmen and members of other peoples of this island. The point is, that we are going to bring all of these damned rackets to an end, whoever does them. Those who run the rackets will find themselves either in jail, or out of the country, whoever they are. We shall do this by the fearless application of existing law, which could stop this corruption, if the government itself were not corrupt. If this is not enough, we shall ask the people to give us the power to make new laws. We are going to smash this corruption. That will solve the problem.

If the views of the anti-Semites were correct, then all Jews would be caught by these laws; so they have nothing to bellyache about. But, of course, their view is not true, because no people have what the Victorians called “a double dose of original sin”. The only effect of this foolish opinion is to let the big rogues go scot-free.

While anti-Semites are busy pursuing the little Jews, the big villains of all races who run international finance are sitting back and laughing at them in the City, or Wall Street, or in kindred haunts of the usury species. How many of them were ever caught by the Nazis ? On the contrary, the error of some Nazis played right into their hands, and gave them the weapons to defeat the European renaissance in every country. Now comes again, in a newer and higher form, the renaissance of the European man; this time not to lose, but to win.

Border Security and Anarcho-Tyranny

via Radix

Tony Hilton sent me an interesting article yesterday, taken from the last issue of The Economist. Entitled “Own goal,” this piece is about America’s immigration rules, which are “the opposite of what it needs,” according to the London-based weekly.

I was expecting a long complaint about the plight of poor free-market-asserting, family-values-defending Mexican Randian entrepreneurs, in the same manner as Robert Heineman’s appalling speech during the 2013 H.L. Mencken Club Conference. The picture illustrating the article shows a Hispanic woman holding a baby who wears a “Born in the USA” t-shirt and waves a stars-and-stripes flag. Under the picture, the caption reads: “Getting ready to pay for Medicare, Medicaid and the rest,” which is as counterfactual as you can get. I had thus good reasons to be wary of this article.

But instead of that, what I read was a very complete piece on the reality of immigration in today’s America. Far from the “open-border” situation that some American citizens might imagine, America is actually very closed when it comes to legal, working immigration. Again, that may be surprising to American people who lost their jobs because of the low-wage competition of Mexican or Chinese immigrants, but how many of these immigrants came to America with the normal procedure, i.e. first getting a job and then applying for a working visa? Very few, given that only 6 percent of green cards are given to working immigrants. The remaining 94 percent are handed out to refugees or relatives of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

An uncommon kind of Hispanic immigrant**

The Economist brings the case of a Venezuelan PhD candidate, Andrea Sanchez, who will likely go back to the Bolivarian Republic once her doctoral defense at University of South Florida is over. Sanchez being a very common name among Spanish-speaking people, I couldn’t check what she looks like, but I bet that it’s closer to her neighbor country’s former president, Colombia’s Álvaro Uribe, than to her late presidenteHugo Chávez. But I digress.

As most foreign students, Andrea works outside the campus. But she’s not the typical student serving melted asphalt sandwiches at Subway between her Post-Structuralist Studies course and her Multiple Identities Seminar. She’s actually studying civil engineering and “is working on a project funded by FDOT to model the lifespan of reinforced concrete in bridges exposed to sea air.” Still, every potential employer she met in Miami was deterred from hiring her by the harsh regulations that apply when a company wants to hire a foreign worker. The Economist explains that “to employ a foreigner, even on a temporary basis, a firm must file paperwork with the Department of Labour certifying that no American workers are being displaced and that a market wage will be paid (to avoid depressing Americans’ earnings). Once that is approved, the prospective employer must submit evidence of the applicant’s qualifications to the Department of Homeland Security, along with $1,575–5,550 in fees, depending on the size of the company and the urgency of the application. Everything is then passed on to the State Department, which interviews the applicant and checks the other bureaucrats’ handiwork.

Even for companies willing to jump through all these hoops, visas may not be available, as Congress has put a limit on the number that can be issued each year. All 85,000 short-term visas for skilled foreign workers (H-1Bs, in bureaucratese) on offer this year were snapped up within ten weeks. That was a lot better than in April 2007, when the limit was reached in less than a day. Even in the depths of the downturn the quota was always fully used. Indeed, demand has exceeded supply every year since 2003, when Congress slashed the number of visas on offer by two-thirds.

At this point, I want to make myself clear: I’m by no means saying that this girl has a “right” to immigrate to America just because of her skills. The American people should be able to determine whether they welcome immigrants to their country—and if yes, how many. The problem is that Americans have been denied this right for about half a century, since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

Today, with around one million immigrants settling in the country every year, it seems odd that people who come to work are treated in such a tough way, while future welfare recipients are given a preferential treatment over native Americans. Either borders are open (totally or partially) or they are closed. But they can’t be open only to those who won’t enrich their new country.

The way immigration and border control are managed in Western post-democracies is illustrative of what Sam Francis called “anarcho-tyranny.” Western governments let millions of people in who are, at best, indifferent to the indigenous culture, while people who could contribute to the national life are deemed undesirable. Today, it goes as far as custom agents suspecting every temporary visitor to try to immigrate on a week-end trip from Canada. (I know, because it happened to me.)

It is not “inconsistent”

This situation is not “inconsistent” at all: it is, on the contrary, perfectly consistent with the will of our rulers to import welfare-depending populations who will be subservient to the power, even if they seemingly disrupt the society’s order. As a matter of fact, even this disruption benefits the political class, which can reinforce their power by promising to bring back “law and order.” There’s no contradiction in the fact that more and more money is invested in security while urban centers and suburbs are less and less secure: the more crime, the more popular demand for security. Why would politicians and bureaucrats solve a problem that legitimizes them?

The only “inconsistent” ones are maybe immigration restrictionists themselves, who give politicians the opportunity of strengthening controls at borders and airports, not to mention preventing competent foreigners from settling in the country. Would people have accepted those degrading TSA scannings after 9/11 if they had not also accepted the necessity of “fighting terror”? Was Muslim immigration in Europe and North America reduced after that? No, it has actually increased ever since. Western populations are now presented with a false choice, that between living in a police state or suffering civil war. As people have families to feed and protect, they naturally chose the former, as if it were an actual antidote to the latter.

The consequence is that, much like in a lunatic asylum, it is now easy to come to the West, but for the people who’re already in, it is becoming increasingly difficult to move inside it. Every people is being locked in its own padded cell, which is called a “nation-state.”

Immigration restrictionists would be better advised to stop giving our governments justifications to restrict our movements even more, and start thinking of another future for their children and those who look like theirs. It would mean letting their bankrupt nation-states go over the cliff, as they should, and instead laying the intellectual ground for the Ethno-State to come. It is a matter of time before they understand that, or, rather, a matter of a generation.

Merkel, Cameron, and the European Compassion Market

via Alternative Right

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and, right now, with the migrant hordes battering at the unhinged doors of Europe – while being fed and watered for their trouble – it is quite easy to stand head and shoulders above the low level of Europe’s leaders. Especially the childless Angela Merkel, whose brain seems to have been strangled in her skull by a late, misplaced, post-menopausal mothering instinct, which has imprinted on the feral, squealing hordes of Third World welfare shoppers, pushing towards Germany.

In the crumbling of Europe’s puny defences, there have been some bright spots, such as the Czech refusal to take non-Christians, along with similar noises from the Poles and other Slavs. Viktor Obran in Hungary has also put up some token resistance, but obviously not enough. The Hungarian police have never looked more pathetic than they have in the face of the migrants, egged on by the bleeding-heart international media. The invaders have ignored them and gone round them, only stopping to pick up free bottles of mineral water and snacks to sustain them in their campaign of continued disobedience. But, then again, it is not Hungary and the Slavic states that the migrants are interested in. It is affluent North European countries, like Germany, Holland, the UK, and those in Scandinavia.

Surprisingly one bright spot has been David Cameron. While Germany, under the rule of Merkel’s lastest hot flush, has decided to throw its border in the trashcan, Cameron has been fighting a surprisingly gritty rearguard action. Possibly this is related to his own non-Arab Middle Eastern ancestry, or more likely it is a recognition of the latent power of British nationalism, currently slumming it in UKIP and the drier reaches of the Conservative Party rather than a real nationalist party.

This nationalist tendency has been shamed, guilted, browbeaten, and cowed into accepting a lot, but a wholesale Camp of the Saints scenario, like the one unfolding in Germany, where a minister reported that the country is expecting nearly a million refugees this year, could well be the last straw for what is in fact a tightly coiled spring. To be cavalier with the concerns of this demographic could prove a hubristic act for a Conservative Party that is pretty well set for permanent power in the face of a shrunken, leftward-drifting Labour Party, whose only hope now lies in extreme economic chaos.

How exactly has Cameron been responding to the crisis? While the crisis seems to have caught much of Europe on the back foot, Cameron has actually been warming up for the challenge with the situation at Calais, where a motley crew of hardcore Third World border jumpers has been disrupting traffic between England and France for months in an attempt to get to the UK.

Third World welfare shopper chooses Germany.
While Germany and other parts of Europe have learned to their cost the danger of not having an effective and occasionally lethal border, Britain, blessed by nature with a sea boundary – which, as Shakespeare pointed, out "serves it in the office of a wall/ or as a moat defensive to a house/ against the envy of less happier lands" – has been largely sitting out the crisis unscathed. Cameron has respondied to German demands to "share the burden" by accepting a relative handful of refugees by the standards of the West. According to the BBC, the numbers are a tiny fraction of what’s on Germany’s plate:
"Nearly 5,000 Syrians have been granted asylum in the last four years and the UK has accepted 216 Syrian refugees under a scheme to relocate the most vulnerable begun in early 2014."
But while Britain’s maritime borders have ensured that it is reasonably insulated from this crisis, it is far from insulated from the emotional shitstorm brewed up by the media, who realize that dead babies sell papers, provide moral justification for BBC TV licenses, and please advertisers, always keen to ameliorate their hard-edged business realities (downsizing, outsourcing, profiteering, etc.) with a fuzzy, pink pose of human compassion.

Politicians, especially incumbents like Cameron, are therefore under pressure to make some moral signals. In Scotland, where the Scottish government doesn’t actually deal with UK border issues, the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has declared that Scotland (population 5 million) is ready to take 1,000 refugees. While this sounds good to liberals and leftists, it is actually extremely conservative, considering the number of Syrian refugees already in Europe. One is reminded of Dr. Evil's anticlimactic ransom demand in Austin Powers. If the whole of the EU were to take refugees on this scale, the EU with its population of around 500 million would only be able to handle just about 100,000. Not bad!

Cameron is doing even better. Like any mainstream Western politician, his overall record on corporate-driven immigration is abysmal, but in this crisis he has shown a commendable desire not to turn Britain into a Third World dumping ground and Islamo-terror factory.

Due to the emotive, dead baby shitstorm, cooked up by the media in recent days, he has been forced into making some concessions. If he hadn’t, elements of the media would be able to effortlessly pillory him as a “heartless monster,” while causing splits within his party, as some elements veered towards moral posturing. His main rival in the Conservative Party, Boris Johnson, has been 'compassion signalling' with a vengeance in order to embarrass Cameron.

Those who should be refugees can't.
But rather than going along with Johnson on his Left, and thus causing problems on his Right, Cameron has played a skillful hand, showing resistance to the migrant invasion while offsetting this with high value compassionate gestures.

Most notably, he has made a distinction between those well-fed-and-funded migrants already in Europe, who have been steadily losing sympathy by repeatedly breaking laws and disrespecting their host societies, and the real refugees suffering from the conflict, most of whom are too poor, sick, confused, or traumatized to storm Europe’s southern borders.

Cameron’s approach is to spend more money for the refugees in the countries neighbouring Syria itself, announcing £100 million in humanitarian aid for those in camps in Syria, Turkey, Jordan and the Lebanon, while taking a few thousand refugees directly from these camps, most notably orphans and rape victims.

Needless to say, these refugees have a higher "compassion value" on the feels and moral signalling market that is feverishly trading in Europe and therefore fewer of them are needed. While Germany is being swamped with 'subprime' fake refugees in its desperate attempt to jump up-and-down and say, "Look, we’re not Nazis anymore," Cameron has been defending his own "bastard spot" by investing cannily in small amounts of gilt-edged compassion stocks, a move that allows him to defend himself from attacks from the Left without doing too much damage on his Right.

It's only the Beginning of Illegal Invasion Says EU President

via White GeNOcide Project

President of the European Union, Donald Tusk
The President of the European Union, Donald Tusk, has said that Europe has only seen the beginning of illegal immigrants breaking through the borders.

The present wave of migration is not a one-time incident but the beginning of a real exodus, which only means that we will have to deal with this problem for many years to comehe said in a speech, at a Brussels-based think tank.
Therefore, it is so important to learn how to live with it without blaming each other,” “But let us have no illusions that we have a silver bullet to reverse the situation.

Compassion is one of the foundations of solidarity, but in order to be able to help others we ourselves must be pragmatic at the same time.
The question is: why is the happening now? Why are these illegal immigrants pouring in now, and not say, 100 years ago, or even a 1000 years ago?

Because 100 years ago, the rulers of Europe were not trying to turn White people into the minority.

It’s only since the 1960’s that Europe’s rulers have decided to force the continent to become “diverse”, in blatant disregard to the peoples will.

This is legally White Genocide, because anti-Whites are deliberately trying to turn White people in Europe, and across the planet, into the minority. That is genocide.

After the Deluge: A Post-National Future for the White Race

via Western Destiny

Assume the White Man has lost.  What next?

Introduction:  Hard times are upon us. The type of invasion of Europe predicted in The Camp of the Saints is occurring today, not in some distant future, and the pathologically altruistic response of weak, deracinated Europeans is exactly as outlined in that novel.  In Germany, the monstrous harridan Merkel is behaving as an inverted anti-Hitler, presiding over the genocide of her own people. In the UK, the sight of one dead Syrian child invokes an outpouring of compassionate action that hundreds of sexually molested English children in Rotherham failed to elicit. The navies of Italy and Greece are dedicated to saving the invaders instead of repelling them, to facilitating the invasion instead of stopping it. Mainstreaming nationalist Orban of Hungary makes bombastic statements, while migrants riot in the streets of Budapest, and as invaders make a mockery of his pathetically porous cheap chicken wire “razor fence.”  In France, mainstreaming heroine Maine Le Pen is more concerned with denouncing her own father than in standing as a new Joan of Arc against the invading hordes. Everywhere in Europe are the sights and sounds of surrender, of a people so fecklessly reckless (or is it recklessly feckless?) that they sacrifice their patrimony without the slightest hint of resistance whatsoever. In America, the System has long ago given up any pretense of guarding the border, and floods of illegal aliens join the unending stream of “legal” immigrants.  And the only leading Presidential candidate who says otherwise is an abrasive buffoon whose main concern is showing he does not wear a toupee, and who wants a “big fat open door for legal immigrants.”  Facts are facts: majority-White nation states are doomed if the present trends continue. What could come next?  What should come next?  What is the post-national future for a stateless White race that will not have any majority-White nations to call their own?  What to do?  How to survive?  Is there a contingency plan?

There are those who will not be happy with a discussion of such a scenario. The “hard-core” “SuperHitler1488” types, sitting in front of their computers, with a toothbrush moustache crudely hand drawn in their upper lips with black marker, will rail against this “defeatism” and will proudly proclaim their “willingness to fight” (after they watch the latest movie or football game); the concern trolls will tell us all we need to do is follow Amren-style mainstreaming for another quarter-century and all will be well; the “hate the messenger” sweaty obsessives will object to the message primarily because I am the one delivering it.

Nevertheless, this must be discussed. Contingency plans need to exist.  A race considered “superior” by some, with much commentary about “future time orientation” and “planning and discipline” – you would expect the nationalist leadership of such a race to be very seriously considering alternative future scenarios and how to strategically prepare for, and deal with, each. Perhaps such planning is occurring, somewhere hidden from the view of “small-fry” such as myself, who dares not intrude upon the majestic thoughts of the mighty titans striding across the racial nationalist landscape of today. If such planning is indeed taking place, I applaud the initiative and wish it all the best. The problem is that I really do not believe anything of the sort is taking place. The inept “quota queens” of the “movement” are, I’m sure, mired in their foolishness and fantasies, which is why, in fact, we are in the trouble that we face today.  Decades of complete uselessness does indeed incur a price on the inability of Whites to deal with the racial crisis.

Discussion: Therefore, imagine a scenario in which the USA is majority non-White, many of the major nations of Western Europe are majority non-White, other European nations are rapidly headed for similar status, Whites are a subaltern minority in what used to be their nations and homelands, a minority ruled by sneering aliens and step-and-fetchit White traitors. The grand dream of a White resistance to “turn the tide before it is too late” has failed to come to pass. The mainstreaming nationalists have failed to cash in on their groveling slithering toward the political center. The game is up and the White Man has lost. What then?

This is hard to answer without knowing the details of the situation. Are Whites still a plurality if not a majority?  Are all the non-White populations allied against the Whites?  Do law and custom still allow some degree of White resistance?  Are there any majority-White nations still in existence and what is their level of power and their commitment to a racial resistance?  These questions, and many others, need to be considered as possibilities. And, given how pathetically masochistic and delusional Whites are, we need to ask if, even at that late date, with the failures of multiculturalism on display for all to see, is there yet a significant fraction of Whites who “buy into” racial nationalism and finally realize the folly of pathological altruism?

Some may invoke the ethnocentric model of cohesive Jewish Diaspora group evolutionary strategies, as outlined in Kevin MacDonald’s works, as one possible model to follow for Whites who find themselves effectively equivalent to a stateless, diaspora people. There is much to say in favor of this, to an extent, although I note that the large amount of admixture which occurred with Jews at the beginning of their diaspora would be unacceptable for European preservationism, although the later stress on endogamy of course is exemplary.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will suggest an approach based at least in part on Codreanu’s Legionary movement. One could envision a pan-European, trans-national movement, highly elite, comradely and collectivist in orientation, with an emphasis on productive action, creating a higher form of man, with a defined style of living.  In a sense, this legion would be analogous to some of the trans-national and pan-European crusading orders of the past as well as recreating the best aspects of Codreanu’s movement, adjusted for modern times (e.g., pan-European, rejecting universalist ethos, etc.). All of the differences between Codreanu’s movement and the failed racial nationalist “movement” of today (particularly the American variant) that I discussed in my book review (linked to above) would be relevant here: all the best of Codreanu’s movement would be embraced and all the flotsam and jetsam of contemporary racial and ethnic nationalism would be absolutely eschewed. Such a movement would provide the elite leadership to the stateless masses of the world-wide White minority, guiding Whites through the dangers inherent in their status as a people without any nation states of their own. Such a movement would help to bind Whites worldwide in a brotherhood of solidarity – while of course absolutely rejecting White traitors – and will draw a hard line against any miscegenation between ethnic Europeans and those newcomers who have invaded White lands. With this Legion at the head, Whites – or at least racially conscious Whites – would be bound to each other through ties of race and culture and of a shared history, as well as of shared problems and the shared sacrifices necessary for survival. While respecting and preserving the distinctiveness that exists between different European groups, and honoring the histories of the lost nations of Europe, this Legion and the masses it leads will absolutely reject the intra-European divisiveness that led the race and civilization to their sorry state (and the sorry state we are in right now, already, even before the final defeat).  Faced with existential threats to race and civilization, promotion of retrograde blood feuds among Europeans would be considered treason or madness, and treated as such (I would argue this should be applied today as well, and if it was, perhaps the scenario discussed here would not have to occur at all).  Just as Codreanu’s movement aimed at creating a new type of Romanian, the movement described here would aim at creation of a new type of European, a change in mind, a change in attitude, a change of spirit.  In the fires of defeat, a new type of White Man will be forged to deal with the dangers of new realities, realities created by behavior that would be, finally, recognized as defective and rejected. No more pathological altruism, no more surrender, no more universalist ethos, no more groveling to the world of color while fighting fellow Whites – no more stupidity and no more error. It will take a special kind of elite to do these things, and that is what is proposed here.

Now, of course, I believe we should be doing off of this this now, to prevent the fate of dispossession from occurring in the first place. Indeed, I believe we should do this even in the event of a total White racial victory, not only to prevent the racial crisis from ever happening again, but also simply because it is the right thing to do, especially after World Wars I and II.  In the end, this was the over-riding objective of the currently defunct Legion Europa project – a project which, in the last analysis, ran afoul of the “movement’s” affirmative action program. Thanks, “movement.”

An aside: I must say this to those who champion petty nationalism, who believe that narrow ethnic nationalism is the key to survival: now is as good as time as any to see your thesis demonstrated. Various European ethnies still have control of their nation states, they are still the majority, and in certain European nations, ethnic nationalist political parties exist. I suggest, I urge, I implore for these ethnic nationalists to use the power of narrow ethnic appeal to stop the invasion of Europe.  While that would not prove that ethnic nationalism is the way of the future, and would not prove it superior to racial nationalism, it would at least prove that ethnic nationalism has some utility, that is has sufficient power to at least temporarily arrest the demographic eclipse, the outright invasion, of the relevant narrow ethnies such nationalisms are concerned with. The time to do that is now. If you cannot even do that, if narrow petty nationalism cannot even motivate an ethny in the midst of an existential crisis, then what good does it have at all?

Summary: If and when Europeans become effectively stateless, when they loss control of all the institutions they have built, then the only thing they will be able to depend upon will be each other. The only thing that will ensure survival is each other. The only thing that can hold out the promise of taking back, or creating, nation states for themselves, is each other. It would be optimal to learn that lesion now, before the final Fall of the West, but if the only way to learn is through the bitter experience of total dispossession, so be it. If World Wars I and II were not sufficient lessons, and apparently they were not, more painful and humiliating lessons are just around the corner.

Conclusion: This essay is in no way meant as any sort of comprehensive analysis of this question; it is instead merely meant to “wake up” relevant individuals and groups to the necessity to ask the question and come up with some answers.  However, in the process of doing so, I outline, in very broad terms, one possible approach – the Legionary elite leadership approach - to consider as a possibility in dealing with a post-national White future.

An Autopsy of PEGIDA: Lessons for "Grassroots" Activists

via American Renaissance

Populist movements have been making steady progress in Europe. A major development of the past year has been PEGIDA, a grassroots movement founded in Dresden, Germany. PEGIDA–a German acronym that stands for Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West–is a textbook case of how a grassroots movement can quickly rise and then flame out even more quickly. It saw participation at its rallies grow from a few hundred in October 2014 to no fewer than 25,000 in January 2015. Spinoffs spread to other German and European cities, such as Cologne, Munich and Copenhagen. At what seemed the height of its popularity the movement collapsed, with attendance at Dresden rallies dropping to just a few thousand. PEGIDA still exists, and announced it will run candidates in the upcoming elections, but its prospects are nothing like what they could have been. What happened?


Who are the activists?

PEGIDA arose in response to mass immigration and waves of Third-World “refugees.” Its demands are modest: more restrictive immigration and asylum policies, stiffer law enforcement, and more “direct democracy” in the form of referenda.

Contrary to the impression given by the media, a PEGIDA rally is generally more civilized than a college graduation. In my experience, the crowd is a mix of people of all ages and walks of life. There are couples with young children holding signs that read “Für die Zukunft unserer Kinder” (“For the future of our children”). These signs are often decorated with their children’s drawing.

Some people pass out flyers calling for direct democracy while others hold signs that read “Echte Meinungsfreiheit jetzt!” (“Real freedom of opinion now!”). The crowd waves a number of flags, including the German national flag, regional and state flags, and some other national banners. People chant slogans such as “Heimat, Freiheit, Tradition! Multi-Kulti, Endstation!” (“Homeland, freedom, traditions! Multi-Culti: final stop!”). These words “homeland, freedom and traditions” truly sum up what the crowd stands for.

National and regional flags at a PEGIDA rally.
National and regional flags at a PEGIDA rally.

Of all the slogans, the most compelling is “Wir sind das Volk!” (We are the people!), which is chanted at all PEGIDA rallies. The reverberations of “Wir sind das Volk!” coming towards you like a wave are truly electrifying.

In brief, PEGIDA is a grassroots movement protesting mass immigration and the lack of accountability of governments towards populations they are supposed to represent.

A banner at a PEGIDA rally.
A banner at a PEGIDA rally.

Calumnies and the ‘Lügenpresse’

An expression often heard from people participating in the rallies is ‘Lügenpresse’–the ‘lying press’. It refers to the media distortions about the rallies. The press typically describes the participants as ‘hooligans’, ‘extreme right’, ‘racists’, ‘neo-Nazis’ and so on. From within the crowd, very civilized demonstrators could often be seen talking to journalists with camera crews, but these interviews were rarely aired. The media preferred showing images of the occasional demonstrator with a shaved head, or even of people just waving their hands in a way that might be interpreted in a still shot as a Nazi salute. The press also tended to underestimate the head count.

Many of these perfectly legal demonstrations were planned as marches through cities but were then illegally blocked at their initial meeting point by hooded and masked “anti-fascist” counter-demonstrators. Rather than arrest or disperse the far-left thugs, the police often simply formed a cordon between the two crowds.

Hooded, self-proclaimed “anti-fascists” forming a human wall, preventing a legal demonstration from taking place.

Remarks from politicians were childish. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said there was no place in Germany for agitation against immigrants. She also famously added that the leaders of PEGIDA “have prejudice, coldness, even hatred in their hearts!”
Christian leaders have criticized PEGIDA. In one famous symbolic move, the floodlights of the Cologne cathedral were switched off to protest a PEGIDA rally.

Floodlights of the Cologne cathedral switched to protest a PEGIDA rally.

Leaders of organized minorities were quick to oppose PEGIDA. Aiman Mazyek of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany said that “right-wing extremists once again give the false impression of a Germany that is hostile to foreigners.”

Joseph Schuster, the chairman of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said PEGIDA supporters were “neo-Nazis, parties from the far-right and citizens who think that they can finally let out their racism and xenophobia.” This is both sad and silly. European Jews are far more threatened by the Islamization than by any ghosts of fascism. Moreover, one of PEGIDA’s clearly stated positions is the protection of Germany’s Judeo-Christian culture and its logo clearly distances itself from Nazism.

The PEGIDA logo features a discarded swastika, flags of the Islamic State and Kurdistan Workers’ Party, and the Anti-Fascist Action symbol.

Collapse: what happened?

On January 15th, an Eritrean immigrant was found murdered in his Dresden apartment. Politicians and the media were quick to blame “an atmosphere of hatred and resentment” stirred up by PEGIDA. Later it was reported that the victim’s Eritrean housemate was the killer.

At the peak of the movement’s popularity, on January 19th, the Dresden police stopped a rally, claiming there was a “concrete threat” to PEGIDA’s leadership. This “threat” was apparently an Arabic-language Tweet saying that PEGIDA was an “enemy of Islam.” It is not possible to know if there was a real threat or whether the police simply wanted to halt the growth of a seemingly unstoppable movement.

The fatal blow was the discovery of a picture of PEGIDA’s founder, Lutz Bachmann, with a Hitler mustache. He claimed it was an old picture that was meant as a joke, but the damage was done. A private Facebook conversation also turned up, in which Mr. Bachmann called immigrants “animals” and “trash.” This is considered hate speech in Germany, and the authorities opened an investigation into Volksverhetzung or “incitement of the masses.”

Mr. Bachmann resigned as leader but the movement collapsed. The graph below shows attendance figures at PEGIDA rallies.

Number of participants in Dresden rallies over time (Source: Wikipedia).
Number of participants in Dresden rallies over time (Source: Wikipedia).

The most obvious lesson to be drawn from this catastrophe is that leaders must be morally unassailable. Mr. Bachmann had a criminal record for burglary, drunk driving, drug dealing, and assault. The system will exploit every angle of attack, and it was needless stupidity to give it the extra ammunition of a Hitler pose.

On the other hand, people who go to PEGIDA rallies appeared to be well aware of the Lügenpresse, and were not prisoners of political correctness. PEGIDA never received good press anyway. Why was the movement so fragile?

The main reason is probably the power of the Nazi label. It is poison anywhere in the white world, but especially in Germany. It makes no difference how reasonable or popular someone is today. A swastika in his past can spoil it all.

The slogan ‘Together Against Racism’, written on the transgender-themed banner of an anti-capitalist front.
The slogan ‘Together Against Racism’, written on the transgender-themed banner of an anti-capitalist front.

But there is a more subtle effect. Any opinion about the preservation of Europe is controversial, and people keep their views to themselves. Most of us take refuge on the Internet. We may have only one or two friends and relatives with whom we speak freely. Even at a large PEGIDA rally, most people probably attended with only a few friends.

A loosely-connected community of this kind is vulnerable. To be accused of creating the atmosphere for an anti-immigrant murder; to have a major event canceled because alleged threats of violence; and, finally, to have the movement’s leader tarred as a Nazi–this is enough to increase the perceived risk of participating. As soon as it becomes known that a few people are dropping out, a series of defections can quickly ripple through a movement.

A more interconnected community might have survived. More successful organizations,, such as the National Front in France or the Freedom Party in Austria, are based on a strong local presence. They are active at the municipal and regional levels. Reinforcing the existing community is at least as important as reaching out to new members. More seasoned, multi-layered organizations are less dependent on a single person–though Jean-Marie Le Pen and Jörg Haider played crucial early roles. All these factors must be considered as we move forward.

The continuing disqualification of our rulers in the face of calamities such as mass immigration, financial and economic disaster, geopolitical miscalculations in the Middle East and against Russia can work only in our favor. The inability of European governments to stop the Mediterranean boat people may be a blessing in disguise. The basic trends, and the energy and frustration to which they give rise are on our side. We just need to build community structures that can successfully channel them.

Pulling Our Heart Strings to Bring Us Down: How the Enemy within Uses Our Empathy against Us

via The Occidental Observer

Dead Syrian child washed up on Turkish beach
“If anyone does not take care of his own relatives, especially his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” -1st Timothy 5:8

A year ago, I came very close to falling victim to a variant of the so-called “Grandparents Scam.” The scam works like this. Someone posing as your granddaughter or grandson, affecting distress, phones to tell you that he or she is in deep trouble in a distant land. She has been jailed for a given offence, and is too embarrassed to ask her parents for help. So she asks for your money. And you send it.

To pull it off, the scammer must make the victim feel that she is indeed a relative that you have lost touch with. That’s the first hurdle. But the second one is to convince the victim of the urgency of sending the money. You must act now before it is too late. Hurry.

Once the victim’s emotional button has been pressed — and there is little time to stop and think — sending a money order to her fake lawyer post-haste is a likely response. In my case, two imposters —who should be given an Oscar for their performance — succeeded in making me believe that my nephew — whom I had not seen for years — was about to be sent to jail if money was not sent to his lawyer immediately. It is a long story, but I almost bought the pitch. Imagine, a ‘smart’ guy like me.

Following the phone call, I called the police, and was referred to the West Vancouver Police Department, and a certain Constable who specializes in that scam. Why West Vancouver? Because it’s target rich. It has a very high density of rich grandparents and folks in my age category. Folks who want to leave a legacy, or do something for those in our family who need our help.

During the interview, the Constable revealed a very interesting fact. You don’t have to be a sucker or simpleton to fall for this scam. Some very intelligent and well-educated people, including retired doctors, engineers, architects and teachers have been taken in. Why?

The answer is that we are not rational creatures. When our emotions are fully engaged, they can instantly overwhelm our judgment. That, I think, is the case with the issue of refugees, or those sad, tearful and emaciated African kids that we see on the screen whenever World Vision is conducting a drive. “Just a dollar a day will allow little Akbar to eat and go to school.”

Of course, some people are more susceptible to this kind of emotional manipulation than others. Especially those who do not use the left side of their brains to its full potential. Creative, right-brain people typically cannot think in quantitative terms. They are governed by emotions, and ooze with empathy, which has become the buzzword of pathological altruism.

They are typically innumerate — and typically leftist in their politics. When they tell us that we must fund the Arts, or invest more in education or the health care system or daycare or outreach programs for under-represented minorities, they will not say how much. When they tell us that we must run a deficit to kick-start the economy, they will not say how much or when it will be paid down. When they tell us that we must accept more immigrants or refugees, they won’t tell us how many. They will only say “more.” And if they do give a figure, it is only provisional, a stepping stone to future solicitations. Their demands are always open-ended. The goal posts are always moving.

They are not numbers people because their emotions are in the driver’s seat, and they make a point of showcasing their “compassion,” especially those of them who are running for office. Slogans like “People before profits” and “The economy exists to serve the people, not the other way around” fit their mindset. When you want to appeal to emotions to win the day, it always useful to present a false antithesis.

That is why the Arts Community in Canada is almost uniformly in support of the far left New Democratic Party. And naturally, they drink from the trough of the CBC Pravda, which, like public radio and television in the U.S., presents itself as the voice of elite (i.e., left) culture and artistic expression. If you see an NDP lawn sign, most likely you will see a “We Vote CBC” alongside of it.

It is therefore imperative that in order to mobilize the vast numbers of people who “think” in this fashion, the state media — and the social media — frame the refugee debate in purely emotional terms. Pictures of desperate people, of tragedy being played out every day and every hour, must be front and centre of every news item on the subject. The tragedy must be given a human face.

However, those in the host countries who must move over for these migrants, or see their social safety net collapse from the burden, or face future job displacement from cheap labour, are left unseen by the cameras. There is no human face attached to their plight. The only images of them that we are permitted to see are those of angry demonstrators — spiced up with a few neo-Nazis for good measure — shouting outside of migrant reception areas. Nothing like tarring legitimate outrage with the Nazi brush to discredit their grievances.

State media and its clones have a game plan:

The discussion must not be allowed to stray into the cold territory of numbers, resources, or likely long-term effects. Viewers must not be confronted with the reality that Europe simply does not have the capacity to accommodate the numbers of people who seek sanctuary and residence within its borders. Or that so-called “rich” countries like Canada and the United States, propped up by fiat currency and a bubble of purchasing power, cannot accept the hundreds of millions, and possibly billions of migrants who are anxious to flee poverty, famine or war. In short, viewers must not be allowed to understand the concept of limits.

If Western civilization is to be buried in an avalanche of migrants, its epitaph will be, “They died of misplaced empathy.” Empathy stoked up by photos and images promoted by our hostile elites in the media, eagerly grasped by ambitious politicians, and channeled towards the outsider at the expense of those within our ranks who are asked to sacrifice their space, their resources and their cultural heritage to serve the cause of “humanity.” Of course, those who would oppose this agenda are characterized as callous or selfish — worse.

But the issue is not one of compassion or lack thereof, but to whom compassion should be directed. Who should receive priority. Them — or us? Theirs — or ours?