Is mass immigration a denial of political realism?

Public opinion was and continues to be held in contempt by the European political class. Mass immigration was never a matter for the European peoples to decide

106406644
Are our borders still important?
Vincent_cooper_289
Vincent Cooper
On 12 December 2012 10:41

There is a political doctrine that all national governments throughout history have always followed. It’s called political realism.

Academics have debated the meaning of political realism since Machiavelli – he gave realism its definitive form – but ordinary people and the traditional political class have always intuitively understood it.

That intuitive understanding comes down to two principles: (1) The ability to see the world as it actually is and not as liberals would like it to be, and (2) The belief that all nations or cultural and ethnic groupings always pursue their own interests and power, even at the expense of others. In other words, blood is thicker than water.

This is not an entirely negative view of human nature. It doesn’t rule out the possibility of ethical ideals and moral dealings with others. But it does insist on the underlying, self-aggrandising power struggle that can and will come to the surface in difficult times.

And there are always difficult times. The world is, and always will be, a hostile and dangerous place, in spite of the naïve and uniquely Western pop-culture notion of “All you need is Love” – other cultures would never produce such a silly idea.

Historically, the most important concern of any realist government was the survival of the nation. The prime duty of any government was security both at home and abroad. That remains the case today of course, but for the West, particularly Western Europe, something has gone badly wrong.

For political realism to work, a nation needs a realist political class that shares the common sense of its people. On the fundamental issue of external and home security, government and people need to be at one. After the Second World War, European leaders and the ordinary people of Europe parted company on this fundamentally important matter. The European political elite denounced and rejected all expressions of European culture and nationalism – yet embraced and promoted every non-European culture.

Fifty or sixty years ago, the Western European political class, from the Scandinavian countries to France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Britain, all  started to allow virtually unlimited non-European immigrants to settle in Western Europe. That immigration policy continues to this day, with the result that the number of Muslims in the EU could be well over 22 million; the US National Intelligence Council predicting a doubling of that figure by 2025, a mere thirteen years away.

Judged by the political realism standards of home security, was such immigration realistically sensible? Or was it the making of the gravest betrayal a ruling political class could possibly inflict on those who entrusted it with the democratic will? After all, every opinion poll on the immigration issue has always, without exception, shown a huge majority of Europeans against mass immigration.

This democratic opposition to mass immigration is something most politicians refuse publicly to admit.

Back in the 1960s, there were those who were horrified at the long-term cultural and security implications of this liberal immigration policy. Notoriously at the time, Enoch Powell used military language in speaking of “detachments from communities in India or Pakistan encamped in certain areas of England.”

For Powell, such mass immigration had nothing to do with labour needs in Britain. It was a massive migration shift whose consequence, if not stopped, would be the cultural and racial replacement of the indigenous people. In France, the writer Jean Raspail produced a novel The Camp of the Saints depicting the overrunning of France by millions of Indians.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus