From Pittsburgh to Paris, from Berlin to Chicago, huge numbers of Muslim immigrants and the children and grandchildren of Muslim immigrants have mobilised to make known their anger at Israel’s harsh response to the slaughter of 1400 of its citizens.
In London, hundreds of thousands of members of the “British public” took to the streets, across multiple days, marching right to the centre of government in Westminster. Under Islamic banners that looked suspiciously like those of the ISIS Caliphate, the tawny throng chanted slogans ranging from the relatively benign and non-committal “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” to the much more sinister “Patience, patience, Jews, the army of Muhammed will return”, or the simple – but very catchy – “Jihad! Jihad! Jihad!”
The J-word was on many lips in Britain’s capital. In yet another demonstration of its true allegiance, London’s Metropolitan Police were quick to reassure the actual British public that, according to their own internal experts, “the word ‘jihad’ has a number of meanings”, so there was no need to worry. This is good jihad, not the bad kind that’s been going on for decades and has claimed the lives of thousands of Westerners in atrocities like 9/11, the Bataclan massacre (still not properly explained, by the way) or the Manchester Arena bombing, not to mention the lives of tens or even hundreds of thousands of Muslims across the Middle East.
Thank goodness there’s someone who can tell the difference, because I certainly can’t!
Incomprehension was also evident in the responses of most of the liberal commentariat. How did things get this bad? It was never like this at Harvard in my day! They even faced the terrible prospect that they themselves might bear some responsibility, somehow, for the growth of the sentiments being expressed. They couldn’t have that, so they conjured a variety of chimerical explanations, the solutions to which were even less well-defined than the “problems” themselves.
Let’s be frank. Charlie Kirk is right on the cause of the problem: mass immigration is the issue here. It’s never been clearer than it is now that mass immigration has failed to make Western countries better. In any way. Rather than ushering in a new age of harmony, understanding and prosperity, the multicultural experiment has impoverished our nations, divided them and brought them to the brink of anarchy.
It may yet push them over the edge. The summer’s rioting in France, in response to the police-shooting of a teenage criminal from North Africa, brought weeks of open lawlessness to the streets of the French capital and other French cities. Stylish Paris, once the city of haute couture, gastronomy and romance, looked more like a giant dumpster that had been turned over and had its contents set on fire. I’m told that’s how parts of the city look all the time these days.
In his prophetic novel Submission, the French author Michel Houellebecq describes an Islamic takeover of France with the connivance of the country’s decadent liberal elite, a takeover that happens largely without loss of blood. Now we see another potential future, not of acquiescence but of open ethnic conflict – and not just for France but the whole of Europe.
Charlie Kirk is wrong, though, in his specific claim that mass immigration has failed. Mass immigration has not failed. To say that mass immigration has failed would be to assume that its Leftist architects wanted to use it to improve Western countries.
They wanted no such thing.
For example, between 1997 and 2010, under the New Labour governments of Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown, the annual figure for net migration to Britain quadrupled from 48,000 migrants a year to 198,000. Net migration across the entire period totalled over 2.2 million, more than twice the population of Britain’s second city, Birmingham.
Why did this happen? Let’s ask the architects, themselves. In 2010, Andrew Neather, a former advisor to the Labour government, went on record to say that mass immigration had been encouraged, first and foremost, “to change the make-up of Britain.” The policy was specifically designed, he said, “to rub the right’s nose in diversity”, ensuring that the UK became “truly multicultural” and making it much harder for a genuinely conservative government ever to be elected again.
Senior figures in the Labour Party did their best to spin this damaging admission, which confirmed what many already suspected, but then three years later Peter Mandelson, a former member of Tony Blair’s cabinet, all but confirmed what Neather had said. At a meeting of the think-tank Progress, Mandelson said that, despite Britain being “almost… a full employment” economy in 1997, with next to no economic need for immigration let alone mass immigration, the freshly installed New Labour government was so keen to get immigrants to come to Britain, it actually sent “search parties” abroad to find them.
Perhaps not every government that introduced policies of mass immigration wanted the same outcomes as Britain’s New Labour, or even foresaw them. Personally, I think that would be a generous interpretation, generosity being the thing our politicians deserve least of all (except, of course, respect). But decades into the experiment, as we are now, there’s no excuse not to see that mass immigration has changed the West almost beyond recognition.
And yet today, wherever you care to look, there is still no mainstream alternative to the parties and governments of mass immigration.
In the twelve years of Conservative Party rule since 2010, migration into Britain has continued to skyrocket, rather than fall. Last year, it reached an absurd high of 504,000 migrants net, over ten times the figure in 1997. There is every indication the figure for this year will be even higher. It’s hard not to wonder what’s going on, since mass migration was intended, in part, to destroy the Conservative Party’s electoral chances, and it’s been a manifesto pledge at every election for two decades that the Conservatives would reduce net migration to “sustainable levels” of “tens of thousands” a year. At the very least, we can say that the Conservative Party doesn’t give a damn about its traditional constituencies, which overwhelmingly want to see immigration reduced and mistakenly still believe voting Tory is the way to achieve it.
Italy’s first “far-right” leader since Mussolini, Georgia Meloni, allowed over 100,000 migrants to land in Italy between January and August this year, double the number in the same period last year. How did that happen? Well, when Meloni took a call from what she thought was the head of the African Union, but was actually an inventive Russian prankster, she let slip that, in her view, mass immigration is such a big problem that it's literally impossible to stop! The only thing worse than her betraying her supporters by saying this is the ominous prospect that she might be telling the truth about just how hopeless things are.
And make no mistake, despite some tough talk in response to the pro-Palestine demonstrations, there’s no question that the people who reduced us to this desperate state won’t be the ones to save us from it. A week ago, Germany’s chancellor Olaf Scholz said Germany would deport 50,000 illegal migrants – a drop in the ocean, if you’ll forgive the figure of speech – only to be told by the German police union that it would take 80 years to do so legally! No government of Europe, not even Meloni’s, whatever she may say, is going to put up a naval blockade of the Mediterranean and begin mass deportations or even repatriations.
The stakes could not be higher. This is a truly existential crisis, one with no foreseeable end unless it is forcibly stopped. Every indication suggests that our rulers want to increase mass migration even further. The threat of “climate migration”, in particular, the insane notion that large parts of the Third World – tens or hundreds of millions of people – will have to be relocated to the West in advance of devastating climate change, could sink us for good.
Advocates of climate migration, like the bug-eyed Gaia Vince, author of Nomad Century, and globalist politicians like Al Gore know that migration on such a scale would require a transformation of every aspect of Western life and a new form of supranational government. They may be more right than they think, because if climate migration becomes a reality, Western nations won’t simply be transformed: they’ll be obliterated altogether. The only thing more alarming than how much patriots across the Western world have to do to stop that, is how little time they have to do it.
