The word ‘Islam’ seems to have become by now, especially on the rightwing social spectrum, an all-encompassing code word for non-White residents and migrants. Predictably, the so-called asymmetric or hybrid wars waged by the US and EU against the ISIS are creating a widespread, albeit still muted, hatred against Arabs and Muslims among the majority of US and EU White Christians. Scenes of ISIS terror attacks in Europe and the US are additionally provoking feelings of hostility toward non-Whites, with more and more Whites calling privately for the expulsion of Muslims from Europe and the US.
The continuing mass arrival of non-European migrants into Europe and the US, accompanied by almost daily scenes of ISIS terror attacks — real or foiled — cannot be examined from the perspective of the religion only. Understanding the waves of non-White, largely Muslim migrants, as well as ISIS terror attacks, requires different angles of analysis, with each leading to a different and often mutually exclusive conclusion.
Undoubtedly, the easiest method to explain away the mass inflow of Arabs and African migrants in the West is by laying the blame on catastrophic conditions in their war-torn countries ruled by clannish and despotic rulers and plagued in addition by ISIS and Taliban bombers. However, blaming lower-IQ Arab and African migrants, or Muslim radicals as the only cause of political instability in Europe and the USA is a form of self-delusion.
The root causes of African and Arab mass migrations to Europe and the USA can be traced back to the grand scheme on how to reshape the Middle East and North Africa, doctored up in the 90s of the previous century by US neoconservatives. Later, in the early 2000s, as the first “pro-democracy” domestic upheavals started boiling in North Africa, the upheavals were rebranded by the EU/US media into a cozy name of “the Arab spring”, as if young North Africans and Middle Easterners were all too eager to be cloned into a copy of happy go lucky White liberal Europeans. Not to be forgotten is the earlier PNAC scheme devised in the late 1990s by the prominent American Jewish neocons, including Irving Kristol (pictured), Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Frum, whose goal was less the desire to raise the level of political tolerance in Arab states but rather the compulsive wish to double down on Israeli predominance in the Middle East. Fifteen years later the chaotic aftermath of the Arab spring is resulting in the surge of incessant local wars, dysfunctional and lawless states, mass migrations, and the global threat of terrorism.
An early example of “fake news” can be traced back to Western propaganda stories about the existence of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD) in Iraq, a story which on the eve of 2003 became an excuse for America and later France to launch expensive punitive military missions in the Middle East and later in Libya. An always itinerant world-improving and self-promoting Franco-Jewish philosopher-king, Bernard-Henry Lévy (pictured), played a significant role in coaxing the late French president Nicolas Sarkozy into bombing Libya. However, the origins of fake news, which also recently marred Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, go back much further into history. Their crude signs first surfaced on the eve of World Wars I and II when supernatural tales about Germany’s “WMDs” started circulating in the USA, France and Great Britain. Those early tales of weapons of mass destructions took on often bizarre phrasings in the portrayal of German armies allegedly hacking off hands of children in occupied Belgium. On the eve, during and after WWII the language about the weapons of mass destruction culminated in the Allied propaganda consisting of horror stories featuring alleged Germany’s ambitions on enslaving the entire world.
After having failed in the phony effort to export liberalism as a commodity in the war-ravaged North Africa and the Middle East, the end result of contemporary Western/American faked news foreign policy has been to set into motion huge non-White migratory waves. Although Israel and its Western allies certainly bear responsibility for the resulting instability, it is always problematic to speculate about the real or alleged size of the Israeli or US neocon involvement in orchestrating the present migratory tsunami in the Middle East and the resulting mass exodus of Arab migrants.
Instead, one should facilitate the inquiry by posing a rhetorical question: Cui bono? Who benefits most from the instability in Northern Africa and the Middle East and the ensuing displacement of millions of locals toward Europe? As long as the main pivot of US and EU foreign policy revolves around the unquestionable support of Israel and its Western fifth column, actors bent on causing chaos will be waiting in the wings.
Chaos on the EU/US doorstep
The geopolitical chessboard is an important field in explaining the current non-European mass migrations, although it carries less weight than dominant political ideas and historical myths that have shaped political decision makers in the EU and the US ever since 1945. Millions of migrants who are waiting now in makeshift camps in Turkey, Jordan and Libya for their entry into the EU may be poorly educated, but they are by no means stupid. They know that they have two powerful allies in the West — the ruling and often self-hating intellectual and political class, and the Catholic clergy. Surely, one can blame George Soros and a host of murky NGO’s for flooding the West with African and Asian migrants. Yet the fact remains that these migrants follow first and foremost the unilateral invitation calls from EU high ranking politicians seconded by the Pope and the high Catholic clergy.
The underlying ideology of present day America and the EU is multiculturalism — a new secular religion. Its legal tenets must never be questioned by public officials if they are to avoid professional disgrace and become proscribed individuals. Each African or Arab migrant knows that once he reaches the Western shores, he will become untouchable. In modern Western political narrative, the African migrant is portrayed as a quasi-saintly figure symbolizing the victimized “wretched of the Earth” whose time has now come to face off with the evil White Man. Should a Spanish, Italian or French border guard accidently utter a word of rebuke against unlawful behavior of a non-European migrant, he will be charged with a “hate crime”—and likely lose his job. All migrants using the Mediterranean Sea route know that it is far better to be than not apprehended by the European coastal police. When embarking on their rundown boats, they know that when fished out of water by a flotilla of EU high- tech warships off the coast of North Africa, they will soon be able to savor first class medical treatment that they couldn’t even dream about back home. Once reaching their desired destination in an EU state, and even if engaging in unlawful activities, the legal process aimed at shipping them back will take years if not decades. Recently, despite being rejected for asylum in Germany, Anis Amri, the Tunisian terrorist who drove a truck into a crowd in Munich, was not deported — because he did not have a passport.
In another TOO article, I noted that communism fell apart in the East because its theoretical tenets have been much better achieved in practice by the liberal West — albeit under different and less polemical title, such as “no more borders” and “multiculturalism.” Undoubtedly, the mind of Angela Merkel, a chief EU mastermind of open borders policies and the “welcoming culture,” should receive a thorough clinical assessment, although it must be noted that Merkel’s mind doesn’t differ substantially from that of other EU and US politicians. Instead of asking what type of a self-hating, do-good, hypermoralistic politician she is, one should rather raise a more apt question: What kind of species have Germans and other European peoples become in order to tolerate politicians who are deliberately working on Europe’s destruction?
One can dispense with antifascists, with Marx, with multiculturalists, and with modern social justice warriors. One can also offer a host of sound arguments or weird conspiracy theories about Jewish intellectual moguls planning to turn Europe and America into interracial cesspools. But most White Americans and Europeans, even those with a strong racial identity, can barely stand criticism of Christian ecumenical and multiracial trappings. It is often overlooked that the higher Catholic clergy, both in Europe and the US, is a prime advocate of non-European arrivals. The German Bishops’ Conference, presided by the influential and appropriately named Reinhard Marx — aka “multikulti Marx” — stands at the forefront of the multicultural doctrine, openly preaching the gospel of borderless racial mixtures. Unlike liberal or antifascist activists, Cardinal Marx does not even try to hide his transracial pro-immigrant sympathies, which he made quite clear in his interview for the German daily Rhein Neckar Zeitung (on February 6, 2016):
Charity knows no borders, just as it ignores any limitations to our asylum law. Anyone entering European soil needs to be treated decently and receive a fair procedure. The borders of Europe must not become the borders of death. It is a shame that already estimated thousands of refugees have died in the Mediterranean or maybe even more. … Last year I was at the border between the US and Mexico where I saw this huge fence and barriers. I thought to myself: this must not be the future for Europe’s borders.
Archbishop’s Marx’s words only echo the words of the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops and its president Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, who openly pledges solidarity with Muslim refugees. “Welcoming the stranger and those in flight is not one option among many in the Christian life. It is the very form of Christianity itself. Our actions must remind people of Jesus.”
Not all Catholic clergy are exuberant about the arrival of non-European migrants, as witnessed by some rebellious Catholic Franciscans in Eastern Europe who are critical of globalism, Islam, and multiculturalism. Yet they seldom dare voice their views in public. The very conservative and nationalist-minded Catholic Church in Poland, Hungary and Croatia is quite racially aware and therefore frequently on a collision course with the prescribed EU refugee quotas, or with their superiors in Rome. They must however respect the Church hierarchy because breaching the Pope’s words is considered a sin.
The Catholic Church in Poland or Croatia, for instance, is not just a conveyor of a specific religious belief; it is primarily the embodiment of national identity, even among local atheists and agnostics. The local Catholic clergy in Eastern Europe has little in common with more secularized and immigrant-friendly German and Austrian clergy who still suffer from the stigma of the National-Socialist tainted past and who therefore feel obliged to show the entire world feelings of historical repentance. The present Pope himself serves them as a role model; he is quite explicit about his multiracial ardor, additionally baffling and bewildering many traditional Catholics in Europe who are no longer certain whether to follow his multiracial homilies or listen instead to the calls of their native soil.
Nordic non-Catholic nations, such as Sweden or Denmark, are the cherished goal of Arab and African migrants. These countries, however, unlike Catholic Center or South, have a long tradition of group-oriented tolerance and civic modesty based on the legacy of Lutheran pietism known as Janteloven. To a White Central European or a White American visitor, this brand of civic modesty and excessive tolerance toward the Africans often appears pathetic — a far cry from early pagan Vikings who never feared blood or violence. A stray Arab immigrant in some Eastern Europe downtown knows that, late at night if walking alone, he may be worked over by the local youth. It is often the other way around in guilt-ridden Germany or submissive Denmark.
Hence a dilemma for many racially and ethnically aware White Christians in the US and Europe: on the one hand, they are well aware of the destructive nature of multiculturalism, while on the other they cannot ignore early Christian sermons for a multiracial and global society, as put forward by St. Paul’s Epistles to Galatians (3:28): “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
The task of creating White-majority homelands won’t be easy.
ER recommends other articles by Occidental Observer
About the author
Dr. Tom Sunic is an author. His new book Titans are in Town is to be published by Arktos.