After Cologne we have to ask ourselves why there is such a disparity between how the Right and the Left view migrants. Where do our ideas on migrants come from, and is there a way to express why the Left always views migrants in a positive light, and why the Right is far more sceptical?
The simplest explanation for why the Left loves migrants is simply the ethnomasochism of many of its adherents, which has led to the corruption and decay of traditional institutions ranging from the Church to the institution of marriage. There is much evidence of this within the political class, the press, and academia. My goal here is not to describe their views, but rather to examine the three types of migrants who come to the West, and to show that the Left latches on to one particular type, who are often a tiny minority.The first class of migrants are those I would term the ‘converted’. These are men and women who look at the West and love what they see, from our values to its scientific wonders and beautiful art. There is an equivalent type of person in Western society, the otaku or ‘weeaboo’ who loves and apes Japanese culture with the aim of moving there one day. These people often look toward this other culture with rose-tinted glasses. They see a very romantic version of the society they admire, in the case of the migrants because the West often exports an image of itself that is very different from reality. The classic example of this is the Indian who has grown up with romantic notions of England, wishing to someday own a Jaguar and sip tea in a cosy café in the English countryside. These converts are very often disappointed when reality does not match their preconceived notions. These types tend to come from wealthier backgrounds, and often shun their own culture for being barbaric or backwards. Leftist progressives likewise fill these ranks in the West, such as the cosmopolitan man who fetishises the Indian mystic as the Beatles did in the ’60s, or the professor who sings the virtues of cultures of simpler societies in Africa and Australia.
This first group are the ones Leftists assume all migrants to be, or at least the very majority of them. They do not expect that these people will need to be integrated, as they assume these people already love the liberal ideals of the West. They may bring vestigial amounts of their own culture, like food and foreign ways of dress, but deep inside they will be converted to a Western viewpoint, Leftists believe. This is a dangerous way to look at things, because while I believe such people really do exist, they are a minority, and often their children do not feel the same way, as they feel disconnected from birth from their original culture. This often leads these children to become the next type of immigrant, the ‘soldier’.
The soldier is also a minority within the Great Migration. He is the jihadist, the revolutionary, the would-be conqueror. The solider not only has no interest in Western culture, he is actively desiring to change or destroy it. These are perhaps the most dangerous kind of migrant, and tend to be the ones most likely to commit terrorism, form anti-European organisations, and preach revolution or violence against the Western world. As I have mentioned, the children of the converts often find themselves in this group, and this explains why terrorists like the 7/7 bombers were born in the UK.
These are the people whom we on the Right identify as threats to our civilization. Often the mainstream will acknowledge their existence, but will rarely give credence to their actually being a threat. They view these people mostly as pests and not capable of gaining popular support. In a country with very few migrants, this is likely true, as their ability to inflame the souls of native Europeans against their own culture very limited, at least so far. Unfortunately, this is changing because of the arrival of the final type of migrant, which comprise the majority of the people in the migrant wave: the ‘isolationists’.
The majority of the migrants flooding into Germany and Europe today are people who do not care about European civilisation or its values, but neither are they overtly organised to overthrow it. These people are the ones who attacked the women in Cologne. They did so not because they wish to actively conquer, but because they have no respect or affinity for Western ways. These are people who wilfully do not wish to integrate. They want to remain as they are and don’t care if that happens to be in Syria, Iraq, Sweden, or Germany. They will not integrate into another society, and they will form ghettos on an even grander scale than previously. Because of the scale of the current migration, it is easy for these migrants to form self-sustaining ghettos in which they do not need to learn a new language or new values by which to live their lives. These are by far the most dangerous people, because they will view any pressure to integrate as an attack on their values, and perhaps join with the ‘soldier’ type. This is the biggest problem we face, because while these people are not actively trying to overthrow our values, by giving in to their demands to be allowed to treat women as chattel and to be able to retain the same culture as where they came from, we do the work of the soldiers for them. It is not that these (mostly) men want to change our society, but rather that they want to live according to the values of their own society. And so our Leftist politicians change our society to accommodate them, rather than simply not allowing them to enter en masse.
The job of the real Right in 2016 is to show the average people the genuine reality of the nature of these migrants. The notion of ethnopluralism only works when geography works. At best, we are inviting migrants to create no-go ghettos in which the soldier types can preach and recruit freely, and at worst, we allow the Leftist politicians to sell the people the lie that the migrants are ‘converts’ in their hearts, while in practice they only appease the isolationists. The end result is the end of Western civilisation.