All of us at Right On and Arktos express our deepest condolences and sympathies for the victims of Friday’s attacks in Paris, and with all of the people of France. But such expressions are plentiful in the mainstream media and on social media; what is lacking are correct identifications of the causes of these attacks and meaningful ideas of what to do in response. As an American, I am somewhat of an outsider to these events; but as an American of European descent who has spent a great deal of time in Europe, I nevertheless feel deeply saddened by the sight of my ethnic and cultural kin victimised in such a fashion.
It’s difficult to think of what to say after these attacks; how many times since 2001 have we had to mouth these same platitudes? For those of us on the True Right, it is quite a temptation to say, ‘I told you so’, given that we and our compatriots have been warning for decades that such events were going to be an inevitable consequence of the extreme policies of mass immigration that have been adopted in Western Europe – not that this gives me any sense of satisfaction; on the contrary, it is more of a sense of disappointment and tragedy in the knowledge that this situation could have been prevented. Nevertheless, President Hollande and many in the French media were quick to warn the French people not to give in to the temptation to listen to the anti-immigration ‘extremists’ – since, obviously, what is really needed now are more liberal slogans about the wonders of multiculturalism and humanitarianism, expressions of ‘resolve’ in the face of terror (which usually translates into little more than bigger budgets and greater license for the military and security services), and sickly-sweet, vacuous calls for ‘peace and understanding’. (Everyone has their own idea about who is really responsible for these attacks: I have already come across statements from extremist liberals claiming that they were a reaction to European ‘intolerance’ and the rise of anti-immigration political parties, and in another case, that they could have been prevented if women ruled the world instead of men.)
Many of us warned that letting in hundreds of thousands of ‘refugees’ from the Middle East and Africa with little attempt to ascertain their actual identities or backgrounds was asking for trouble – not just by those of us ‘extremists’ of the True Right, but also by Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, perhaps the only European politician willing to speak the truth today. And indeed, less than 24 hours after the attacks occurred, French police discovered a Syrian passport on the body of one of the terrorists which allowed Greek officials to identify him as someone who had passed through Greece only last month as part of the flood of ‘refugees’.
But to focus only on the ‘migrant crisis’, as many are doing these days, is to ignore the fact that mass immigration from non-European points of origin has been an ongoing crisis in Europe and North America for half a century now, and that this latest wave is just an acceleration of that trend. And unfortunately, terrorist attacks are becoming almost as regular an occurrence in Europe as mass shootings in the US. And while this latest attack may have been carried out by men who came in as part of the flow of ‘refugees’, the attacks in Paris in January were carried out by men of Algerian descent who had been born and raised in France, and the attempted attack on a passenger train in France in August was perpetrated by a Moroccan who had been living in Europe for eight years. These attacks would still have taken place, migrant crisis or no.
Neither is terrorism the main reason why Europeans and Americans should oppose mass immigration, even if it is of great concern. After all, only a tiny percentage of immigrants will ever be involved in acts of terrorism. However, the economic impact that immigration has, not only on the countries they migrate to but also upon the ones they originate from, harms both parties and only benefits the masters of globalisation; and even more importantly, it results in cultural alienation for the immigrants, who are cut off from their roots, as well as for the native population, who find the culture that normally would have been passed down to them by their family and community denigrated and replaced by the cult of individualism and multiculturalism, and are taught that they have no more claim to their place of birth and its traditions than someone who just arrived from another continent last week. (Alain de Benoist has already superbly summarised these aspects of the immigration crisis in the ‘Immigration, the Reserve Army of Capital’ chapter of his book On the Brink of the Abyss: The Imminent Bankruptcy of the Financial System, recently published by Arktos.)
But I think we have to resist the temptation to focus on the immigrants themselves when discussing immigration. I don’t blame the immigrants for wanting to come to Europe or America; I love it here, too, and I’m sure that if I were living in poverty with no chance of improving my situation, or was living in a place where I was constantly in danger, I’d most likely be tempted to emigrate to the West myself, especially if I heard that politicians in those countries were actually encouraging me to do so. Immigrants are not evil for wanting to come to our lands; by the same token, we should not feel obligated to allow them to do so.
Likewise, I disagree with those who focus on Islam as the root of the immigration problem. It may be true that Islam is more inherently warlike or unassimilable than are practitioners from other religions; I’m not so much of a traditionalist (in the Guénonian sense) that I fail to notice that there haven’t been very many Hindu or Taoist terrorists in Europe to date. But I think this misses the point. The reason why large numbers of immigrants don’t belong in Europe has nothing to do with their religion – large communities of African or Arab Christians are not desirable in Europe, either – or their scores on IQ tests; it’s because they come from an entirely different cultural and civilisational context, and their presence in Europe can only ever be disruptive and alienating for both parties. That is reason enough to oppose mass immigration. As Mr. Orbán said in a recent address, what is at stake is maintaining Europe’s identity.
Also, we must recognise why immigration is occurring – and this has little to do with either Islam or the immigrants themselves. After all, the recent migrant crisis was facilitated by European politicians and the liberal cultural elite; Mr. Orbán managed to stem the tide of refugees into Hungary entirely within a matter of weeks, which shows what the determination of an illiberal political leader can achieve. Likewise, the Hungarian media and Mr. Orbán himself, in a recent public address, have claimed that there is evidence showing that George Soros and American NGOs have been funding many of the excursions of the ‘migrants’ to Europe, for reasons that we can only speculate about but are unlikely to be in keeping with Europe’s best interests. To quote Mr. Orbán: ‘Who in Europe voted to allow people to arrive illegally in their millions and then be distributed? What is happening today has no democratic basis… The people of Europe are beginning to wake up, they have realised that immigration is a cultural question, our identity is at stake.’
So, the politicians and the liberal elites have opened the gates – but what inspired many of these immigrants to pull up stakes and undertake the arduous journey to Europe? Again, this has little to do with the immigrants themselves, but rather with the policies of the US and NATO, and their allies in the region, in recent years. Since 2001, the US and its supporters have been engaged in a continuous struggle to bring nebulous and ever-changing concepts of ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ to the region – oh, yes, and also to make it safer for Israel and to serve the interests of the oil industry – and in the process have destroyed Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi, and are currently attempting to destroy Bashar al-Assad; essentially every force of secular Arab nationalism in the region that could have actually successfully halted the rise of radical Islamism. This is not to mention the fact that the Western powers and their allies have been actively aiding Islamist groups, including ISIS, from at least the 1980s up to the present. In a sense, then, these attacks are a case of chickens coming home to roost. I am not saying in any sense that the victims deserved what happened to them, but it is important that we recognise that we cannot deal with the problem of mass immigration and terrorism until we realise that it is not something that is attacking us from the outside; it is something very much rooted in our own societies and in the current order of things.
Similarly, beyond the recent migrant crisis, if we look at mass immigration as a whole, the people who enable it have always been liberal politicians and their supporters in the media and academic establishment, who dream of realising a world in which we are all happy consumers pacified in a warm bath of rainbow-coloured multiculturalism where we are no different from one another than the labels in our clothes; and multinational businesses, which view mass immigration as a form of cheap labour to assist in their pursuit of limitless economic growth, and who are likewise attempting to compensate for the falling birth-rate in Western countries – again, all factors which we can scarcely blame on Islam or on people coming from other parts of the world.
The question remains of how we deal with this problem. Many people are already offering their own suggestions. People are painting their Facebook profile photos in the colours of the French flag (Je suis Charlie has fallen out of fashion), and posting images of the French flag along with ‘solidarité’ – although what this is supposed to mean in terms of action, apart from feeling angry and sad for the officially designated period of time before politicians and pundits tell us it’s time to ‘move on’ and forget all about it, is left vague. Likewise, I see people posting images of the Eiffel Tower in the form of a peace symbol – since, apparently, the best way to deal with people who practice random violence against us is to show them that they can’t shake us in our resolve that, deep down, we’re really all just human, and thus we shouldn’t do anything that might upset them.
Of course, our governments have their own ideas about what should be done. Hollande has assured us that France is ‘going to lead a war which will be pitiless’, and that France ‘is a nation that knows how to defend itself, that knows how to mobilise its forces’ – what we typically hear from politicians following a terrorist attack. What this will likely translate into in reality is bigger budgets for the security and intelligence services and loosening of privacy laws, strengthening the surveillance state and most likely harming the French people more than terrorists; and more French engagement in military actions in the Islamic world. Given that the US has been pursuing both of these policies with gusto over the past 14 years and that the only tangible results have been a more paranoid, frightened, and less free America while terrorist attacks (such as the one in Boston) continue to occur, and an endless series of wars which are only multiplying and increasing in ferocity, it seems unlikely that this approach is going to make France any safer. (I will at least credit Hollande with closing the borders.)
If I were to offer advice to the French, and to Europeans and Americans as a whole, on how to respond to these attacks, it would be as follows:
1. Resist the knee-jerk urge to take your anger out on immigrants and Muslims themselves, and instead focus on the forces that are bringing and keeping them here. This is not to say that you should love them, but recognise that they are merely cogs in a machine that is beyond their control, and that they do not necessarily deserve your hate, either. If we unseat the forces supporting immigration, we can solve the problem once and for all; by being rude or violent to immigrants in our communities as individuals, we are only distracting ourselves and others from the real source of the problem, and confirming all of the stereotypes that our liberal enemies have of us. Hate liberalism, not individual immigrants.
2. Refuse to rubber-stamp the establishment of a surveillance state in the name of ‘national security’, which will target you just as much, if not more so, as the people threatening you. Likewise, do not support military adventures in other countries that only serve to exacerbate the problem and further the designs of globalism.
3. Recognise that by adopting the slogans of the mainstream in response to such attacks, you are merely helping to give yourself and others a sense of accomplishment, and are in fact only furthering the establishment’s efforts to divert any attempt to find a truly effective means of response – since they don’t want this situation resolved, being complicit in its creation.
4. Regain a sense of your own ethnic and national identity, and feel kinship with those of a similar background in your own community, as opposed to being ‘multicultural’ or an individualist. Most importantly, connect with identitarian groups in your area, or online if nothing is available nearby. If there is a meaningful anti-immigrationist party in your country, support it – although refuse to give your support to liberal parties that do nothing to stop immigration other than give lip service to it, such as the Republican Party in the US.
5. Whenever possible, speak up when you are talking to others who still adhere to the liberal view of immigration, and make it clear that you disagree with it, and give your reasons why. The establishment has succeeded in making most people believe that only crazy people fail to see the necessity for and wonderfulness of mass immigration; as you are most likely an intelligent and respected individual, if you make it clear that you dissent from this view, and express your reasoning well, it will make others rethink their own position and perhaps come around to your own way of thinking. No one who cares about the fate of their own people, or indeed of the fate of other peoples, can truly support mass immigration when it is considered clearly. By showing that yours is a sensible viewpoint, you will counter the narrative of the powers-that-be and help lend credence to the idea that Europeans must stand up for their own identity and interests once again, rather than for some pipe dream of universal brotherhood.
6. Be worthy of our heritage and actually uphold the values you claim to hold dear in your everyday life. When we say that we fight for Europe, we have to show that we are worthy heirs of our forefathers and stewards of this land. If we live trivial or purely debaucherous lifestyles, we are only dishonouring that legacy and shirking our duty, showing that we do not really deserve this place any more than the immigrants do.
On the Brink of the Abyss: The Imminent Bankruptcy of the Financial System
This book is a collection of essays written in response to the international financial crisis of 2008 and its aftereffects. The problem with most discussions of the crisis, Benoist notes, is that they focus on attempting to reform the present economic system in order to prevent such disasters from recurring. This is a mistake, he […]
The denial of the European peoples’ right to their own heritage, history and even their physical homelands has become part of the cultural fundament of the modern West. Mass immigration, selective and vilifying propaganda, and a constant barrage of perverse or, at best, pointless consumer culture all contribute to the transformation of Europe into a […]
The Real Right Returns
The Right is coming back. After decades of humiliation and political failures, the opposition is reorganising, catching up with the times, and getting itself in order. It is none too soon. Europe faces numerous challenges, challenges which the entrenched, incompetent elites of politics, academia, and the mass media are unable and unwilling to confront. Uncontrolled […]
Convergence of Catastrophes
The thesis of this book is a terrifying one: our present global civilisation will collapse within twenty years, and it is too late to stop it. We shall regress to a ‘New Middle Ages’ akin to the fall of the Roman Empire, only much more destructive. For the first time in the whole of human […]