The EU is showing itself as an evil, autocratic organisation as it tries to force Poland to commit cultural suicide.
Here’s a short article from The Independent talking about how Poland has refused to take a single migrant from Africa and the Middle-East, and is doing so under threat of huge fines to be levied against it.
If you think that it’s a bit strange for a trade union to be forcing one of its member states to reform its immigration policy from an inherently restrictive and conservative position to an extremely permissive, liberal position, then you haven’t really been paying attention. The EU is currently pretty much only about open borders.
Here’s some evidence.
Elections in France and Holland both turned on the question of immigration, as floods and floods of low-quality, low-compatibility African workers assaulted both countries. The question of Brexit also had a lot to do with the EU open border policy. The rampant, ravaging crime waves that have followed these migrants is no longer a question—most of the pro-open borders policymakers have openly said that sexual, criminal, and murderous domestic terrorism are things that Europe is just going to have to get used to. Macron, Merkel, and the mayor of London are all on record as registering this sentiment.
It appears, though, that there are bastions of humanity left in Europe who are resisting that particular zeitgeist, and they are doing so in the face of EU disapproval.
Poland, of course, I have mentioned. Hungary has begun construction of a wall on its borders. Most Eastern European countries are anti-immigration, taking their cues in a big way from Moscow.
That people listen to the Kremlin isn’t necessarily because they love or are scared of Russia—there is, in fact, little reason for anyone to be either right now. Rather, the Russians are a great power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and are nuclear-enabled. They have a long history of performing on the international stage, and are currently one of the remnant voices of reason near Europe.
While Russia maintains a number of both internal and external Muslim satraps, it cannot be accused of making any real attempt to “integrate” Muslims into its framework. Russian President Putin is on record (and I’m paraphrasing) as having said that if people want to follow Sharia law, they should emigrate to places where that is the law of the land.
Russia sets a powerful case example for sticking to your guns. It’s a very conservative position—but they have a unique advantage. Russia has always been surrounded by enemies, attacked by invaders, and generally sees itself as constantly being at risk, writes Henry Kissinger in World Order. That national mindset lends itself to a certain amount of paranoia which can be unhealthy at times, but at other times can be very healthy indeed.
The question of migrant inclusion depends on a lot of things. What’s your economy like? Can it support hordes of people who don’t speak the language, don’t have high-end skills, and need a lot of support (on average, as a trend) to get started and established?
If the answer is no, and a lot of these Eastern European countries are still reconstructing themselves out of the Second World after the fall of the USSR—Russia included—then it makes no sense to accept migrants.
Lots of reasons for that. One is that if the cost to accommodate migrants creates a situation where your economy can’t recover, there will eventually be nobody left to help the migrants. It’s like giving a pile of termites too-small a piece of wood. They eat it, and then have to move on to find more wood—but the original piece is lost and now can’t help anyone at all.
The EU is also threatening wealth transfer. Picture that for a moment—here is a trade union threatening to steal or extort money from member states for not allowing in people who might very well be terminal for the member state’s trade, which would render it useless to the trade union.
None of this makes any sense. What makes less sense? The wealth transfer in question—basically charging Poland or any other member state a flat amount per refugee turned away—will be transferred to countries which are allowing migrants. So you’re seeing countries being, essentially, bribed to accept their own destruction, which would flood them with mouths to feed and render them inert in a trade union.
I’d like to re-iterate here that the EU is a trade union—or, at least, it started as one.
At this point, I haven’t been able to glean the details for this possible bribe. Is more money allocated to countries with higher migrant populations? Is this a monetary incentive to import as many migrants as possible, stolen from countries which cannot afford to pay it?
If so, this is a double-ended attempt to rip Europe to shreds. It’s a death sentence for all its member states as they currently are.
What’s the counter-argument, though? How do we argue against the claim that EU has ceased to be a trade union and is currently attempting to enforce ideological and demographic uniformity through dysgenics?
The weird thing is that there kind of isn’t any. You could argue that the EU just wants global equality, but that’s not actually a counter-claim. Global unity doesn’t mean “bringing people into Europe where everything is equal.” It means making the Middle-East just as good a place to live as Europe is. Making Africa just as good a place to live as North America.
Even in making that claim, you’re already conceding that the EU is no longer about peace and trade—there is a larger geopolitical agenda at work at the EU headquarters in Brussels.
Ironically, every time they try to do something like what they’re doing to Poland, they strengthen Russian, Iranian and other “rogue” state claims that the West is attempting to globalise itself like a pandemic. This makes other nations currently on the sideline more sympathetic to the positions of Russia, China, Iran, and others.
So, what do I think will happen? I think before Poland agrees to pay a tithe like this, they’ll simply drop EU membership. The Brexit sets a dangerous precedent for the EU, and it has to start being really careful about ordering member states around—but it isn’t. The EU is very pointedly becoming worse, and more aggressive, about trying to dictate domestic policy in member countries.
Merkel et al may be attempting to commit suicide, but you can’t expect that a lot of countries who have very recent experience having been part of economic-ideological collectives—again, the Soviet Union’s shadow is cast darkly over the Eastern European map—will be eager to embrace the prospect again.
The more Stalinist that the EU becomes, the more precarious its position grows. It may well wind up with a defunct economy, a billion migrants it can’t support, and cultural dissolution brewing itself into a storm if it continues on its present course.