July 31, 2017 by John Bruce Leonard
A Window Through, Part II
WE LEFT OFF with some rather heavy claims regarding the future of Europe and the question of our heritage as Westerners. These are claims which, so far from being generally ruminated by the European status quo, are in general vomited up by it as though they were toxic. Indeed, such claims as those I have made easily go nowadays under the epithet of “racist”—and with that single word the entirety of the conversation comes fast to a halt, for one does not argue with “racism.” This state of affairs in and of itself is most telling; we have literally reached a point in which one of the most burning subjects of our present day has become a taboo. One really ought to ask who is served by silence here.
I am, however, not interested in our contemporary epithets—particularly those which are used to halt conversation, rather than to abet it. So far as the question of “integration” goes, I can direct my reader to a few pieces I have written on these matters (see here and here); and it is likely that more will be forthcoming in the not so distant future, as this is a subject one cannot get around.
We are interested here, however, in quite other fare. And to begin with, we might phrase the question thus; given that the question of immigration is complex, and is fast leading us to a radical change of the very fabric of the West, can we at least put our hold more firmly on this phenomenon, by understanding in a general way what or who is behind it, and what they could possibly want of it?
In the understanding of complicated states of affairs, it is sometimes useful to consider the possible explanations one by one, to see which best fits and which most decidedly fail.
1.) The conventional explanation. It is most telling that of all the explanations which can be given to the “immigration problem,” that which is conventionally presented to us by almost the entirety of our political figures and by the media itself, is the easiest to debunk. This view would have us believe, a.) that immigration arises ineluctably from foreign wars; b.) that these wars are predominately our doing, so that the resultant immigration is our responsibility; c.) that due to these factors, Europe, America, the West suffers and must suffer the phenomenon without complaint. This is the theory of so-called “forced immigration,” as one gentleman has called it. We will have occasion to become acquainted with this gentleman in the near future.
Now, we have already touched on the inadequacy of this view in the first part of this essay. Most of these immigrants come from countries which, if they cannot be called “peaceful,” can still less be called “war-torn.” Most of them come from countries which the West has not so much as touched since the close of the great colonial empires. And most of them arrive at European coasts, brought not by leaky sea-broken vessels, to cast themselves desperately up on our shores; but they are rather brought here purposively from Libya, fetched by non-governmental organizations often at the behest and the payment of the European Union itself. These are not boats which troll European waters for drowning men; these are ships that deliberately travel hundreds of kilometers to the coast of Libya, sometimes within ten kilometers of African soil, to ferry “refugees” hence to Europe. Even supposing we are to admit that there might be “humanitarian” reasons for these ships to stray so far south, by international law they are obliged to bring any migrants to the nearest safe port—which would be in Tunisia or Malta, long before it would be in Sicily. And all of this not to speak of certain magnetic incentives which our politicians are even now attempting to set in place to draw in yet more foreigners—but we will come to this.
“Forced immigration” indeed! Only that what is “forcing” this immigration, so far from being natural or ineluctable historical forces, are the quiet subterranean actions of specific European individuals, who evidently have some hidden agenda in this traffic of human beings.
The conventional understanding, no matter how frequently we are barraged with it by the television, by the newspapers, by the speeches of our politicos, is patently false.
2.) The petty financier explanation. Failing the conventional understanding, the explanation which is preferred by many Italians—who are in the end depressingly inured to such abuses—is that a number of multinationals or large businesses of various kinds are profiting from the influx of migrants, and thus have put themselves to encouraging the phenomenon in any way they can.
Now, this is surely true. As a simple example—the companies responsible for maintaining the famous “immigrant reception centers” are paid a given sum of money daily for each individual that they must shelter. Anyone who believes that such an arrangement is not an invitation to corruption, has my compliments for his faith in our race; but I permit myself to doubt his realism.
The question is whether or not these petty interests can explain to us the entire scope of the problem?
This is not the place to question the intentions of these non-governmental organizations, but we might mention in passing that to take their pretty names and their flowery mission statements at face value is not necessarily the road of good sense. Beyond that, there are sound reasons for doubting the coherency of this interpretation. In the first place, the activity here described is frankly illegal, for which one would expect some resistance, some backlash, on the part of the legal system, political parties, political interests, and even competing economic powers. And yet we have seen, and in the most striking way, almost precisely the contrary. One does not go too far when one says that the political world has coalesced around these “private interests,” protecting them, abating them, concealing their activities from too steady a light. This should be most striking, and would be, if our media had any intention of telling us the truth about anything now happening on our soil, or if our politicians were something other than the miserable creatures of dark powers.
I will give a single example of this from Italy. Some months ago, when the suspicious routes of these NGO boats was first brought to light (not by any mainstream media source, but—no doubt shockingly—rather by the single efforts of a private individual named Luca Donadel), a flurry of accusations and calls to investigate rose amongst the politicians and the press for some few frantic weeks, extending all the way to the Prime Minister himself. Then, of a sudden—mysterious silence. One began to speak, rather than of the illegal actions of these vessels, of new legislation proposed to establish jus soli in Italy—that is, mandating that any child born on Italian soil becomes immediately Italian. I leave aside the question of the justice of such a law; suffice it to note here that such a law could do nothing other than act as yet another powerful allurement to migrants across the world to come to European shores, at a time when what is needed over and above all is pressure and force in the opposite direction. These very suspicious circumstances were made more suspicious yet by the fact that a certain already-mentioned gentleman happened to arrange a private meeting with the Prime Minister in this very period—a gentleman who is not without an even appalling amount of world influence, and who has not been silent about his unilateral support for a unique world government, the abolition of national borders, and perfectly open immigration—
But again, more on this gentleman later.
One is speaking here of a phenomenon whose scope cannot be measured by the money that petty corporate criminals might have at their disposal. The fellow who is turning a buck off of his “immigrant reception center,” often at the expense of the migrants themselves, is surely not in any position to sway Italian politics to such an extent, to say nothing of European ones. There are forces here at sway—it is impossible to get around it—of which we know next to nothing, and which are presently determining the fate of our very homelands, without our even being told anything of it…
3.) The grand financier explanation. It seems to me difficult if not impossible to avoid the following interpretation of present events: there is a group of extremely wealthy and extremely powerful individuals who are using their vast resources and their considerable power to press for immigration, toward the realization of a number of specific and concrete goals. These men are not politicians, but they have a startling deal of visible influence with the politicians. They are not interested merely in a swift return on their investments; most of what they are presently doing has little or no hope of turning a fast profit. They remain largely invisible, because they tend not to act on these matters personally and directly, but rather indirectly, through long chains of intermediary organizations and businesses. More, they have a degree of control of the press. They thus remain distant from any invasive limelight, and can pursue their ends peacefully in the shadows.
If this is true—and again, despite the aura of “conspiracy theory” which hangs about this interpretation, I have never been able to give a reasonable account of what is happening in the world today without it—then we must attempt to understand who these people might be, and what they might want.