The Consequences of Multiculturalism
Focusing on the Moral Question
We recently received an email from one of our followers. The article he linked to talked about the concern of what would happen if Muslims became a majority in Western countries. He wanted our perspective on the matter.
There seems to be an overwhelming perception amongst many people, nationalists included, that the current levels of Third World immigration are detrimental because of their practical consequences such as increased crime rates, a weakened economy, problems with integration/culture adaptation, etc.
Some people say that multiculturalism or immigration has “gone too far”. We used to believe this also (the idea that it was beneficial up to a point is something we acknowledge). But when we began to understand the anti-white mentality and the moral issues related to the espousal of increased immigration, we started to see that the intention of bringing in more migrants was more nefarious to begin with.
We understand that practical problems that affect our economy and safety are real concerns, but what we want to highlight is that all of this is irrelevant when compared to the fact that our people are becoming a minority in our own countries.
This is a Moral Question. We never should have opened up our borders and gotten into this situation in the first place.
Of course, we do not want high crime rates and a failing economy either as these contexts make matters worse. We believe that focusing on symptoms and failing to see the moral aspect of the bigger picture is not the way to go. We need to be able to talk about the destructive results of mass immigration into our countries from a moral perspective.
The Moral Perspective
When we understood that the anti-white way of thinking had been around for a long time and that some people in leading positions, several decades ago, had had the idea of creating a melting pot, or a blended humanity in only white countries (which would imply the destruction of our people), it became clear to us that the concept of importing third world immigrants en-masse was not an originally well-intentioned plan that just turned out not to work well in practice. Rather, the design was morally bankrupt to begin with.
Remember, all of this raises questions regarding morality. Doing away with any group of people is wrong, whether it is Jews, blacks or us whites. As we have talked about before, the methods of doing away with a group of people (committing genocide) are largely irrelevant. Genocide is no genocide no matter how it is perpetuated, and for those with strong moral character, genocide is to be abhorred. Even IF these policies could make a society better, or even if immigrants did not commit any crimes and boosted our economy or adapted to our cultures, it would still be wrong to do away with whites.
This goes back to what we aim to do with This is Europa; give people a mindset that is effective in the society of today and help them to develop it. Such a mindset would allow people to communicate effectively about moral issues that concern us people and would serve as a foundation for building a better society. It would not, however, be based on hatred for, or fear of, other groups.
In other words, we wish to help people understand the moral aspect of Third World mass immigration and other policies leading to us becoming a minority.
Supporting a goal that leads to the destruction of white people is in itself wrong. The reason that white genocide is terrible is not because it leads to more crime, Islamic influence or a worse economy. It is because the objective to do away with a group of people is of course morally repugnant.
Realising this also brings us to a very practical point:
If we argue purely in terms of economics, crime rates, social cohesion and so on (e.g. if we debate purely over whether immigration is a benefit or a drawback in terms of the economy), we ignore the most important moral element of the discussion; that of the fate of native Whites.
If we keep arguing in this way, we are implying that what happens to our people is of no concern at all.
If we convince people that lax immigration policies today are bad because they lead to more crime (for example), then logic follows that less immigration is good if it leads to fewer crimes committed.
Equally, if we convince people that pro-immigration legislation today is damaging because it weakens economies, the logic again stipulates that a decrease in immigration is good if it improves the economy.
Our people are valuable. For the record, that does not mean that other peoples are not or that they are worth less. Other peoples have a unique value as do we. But if we fail to understand this or talk about it, how are we going to get other people to understand it? Our people will never begin to feel that all of these policies are morally wrong to begin with if we do not bring the grim reality of the situation to their attention. They will not think about it in a way that highlights the moral aspects of replacing Whites if we never talk about it or point it out to them.