A nationalist response to 'The Woke Europe of Immigrants'

Good day all Hivers,

After not having written a thing on Hive for almost four months (far too long, I know), I've decided to end that drought today. This article is in response to one written by @Steemychicken1 , which can be found here, about the European elections and its implications.

I was writing a comment that was becoming far too long-winded, so I'll respond to parts of it here. I'll highlight/quote parts of his article, and respond in kind. As mentioned in the title, I'll be doing this from my own, nationalist, Dutch perspective. Don't worry though, the entire thing is in English.

Demagogues

that are pushing citizens towards populist and demagogic figures who promise simple solutions to complex problems

This is a point made in passing, but it warrants some attention. Modern politics has become simple in its entirety. EVERY politician/party promises simple solutions to complex problems. This is because of the mass electorate; every man/woman on the street participates, even those who do not pay attention and/or are not smart enough to grasp complex issues. Their vote is worth just as much as that of the people who DO pay attention. Appealing to them is simply worth it. This is not something confined to the populist parties in Europe.

Just illegal immigration?

Firstly, the influx of illegal immigrants, predominantly from Muslim-majority countries, is a significant factor. European governments are struggling to assimilate these individuals into our societies. The cultural chasm is vast, and many of these immigrants do not wish to adopt the Western way of life.

I agree that illegal immigration is a serious issue. The author, being from Greece, is on the front-line in this case. However, Western European discourse these days is going much farther than just talking about illegal immigration. Illegal immigrations is a fraction of total migration towards the West.

This total migration is simply of catastrophic proportions. In 2022, total immigration towards the Netherlands was slightly over 400.000 people, compared to a total population of 17 million (13 of these ethnic Dutch).
This cannot be managed in any serious way. So talk of reducing migration is not just about the illegals, it's also about legal migration, and reducing total numbers.

On top of that, it is about re-migrating those who are already here. You might have noticed the German trend of 'Auslander Raus' on social media, talk of a Remigration-ministry in Austria, and similar statements in the Netherlands.

And this flows into the last point made here: 'adopting the Western way of life'. Is that even possible on a fundamental level? I believe people are different and unique. I also believe this is the case for groups of people and, in extension of that, nations.

This leads to the fundamental question: Is attaining the European way/form of civilisation possible for non-European peoples on their own? As the author mentions, many non-Europeans fail to do so, even when they live amongst us. This completely goes against the grain of liberal ideology, which sees humanity as a tabula rasa, an empty slate on which everything can just be put as necessary. I disagree; our genes matter, both as individuals and as groups.

(I will skip over the section made by the author regarding inflation, because I agree with the overall points made there)

Non-extreme LGBT?

While the essence of the civil rights and LGBT movements is undoubtedly important, the extreme versions of these ideologies can be alienating.

The author does not seem to understand the nature of the progressive ideology. It is, as the name implies, to progress. Progression is the opposite of standing still. To ask the progressive movement (a pleonasm) to halt at a certain point is like asking a man to voluntarily stop breathing.

To expand more specifically: the progressive movement is always on the lookout for 'oppressed' groups. In the 1980s, these were the gays during the heyday of the AIDS-crisis. So they agitated for gay rights, up until the institution of gay marriage, which is widespread in the Western world at this point (for the record; I, as a Christian, am opposed to gay marriage).

Gays today are far less 'oppressed' than they were decades ago. Does this mean the progressives just call it a day? Of course not. They moved on to the recently added 'T', which now permanently settles in the acronym LGBT, it seems. So transgenderism has become their go-to issue over the past 10 years.

As the author mentioned, this might be the limit for many people who were fine with it before, but now think that things are going 'too far'. But there is no stopping the progressive train: it will barrel ever forward, and will always find a new oppressed group that should be helped.
Maybe it will be de pedophiles next, after the 'civil rights' of transgenderism are secured? One might baulk at the idea, but if you told people in the 1980s that we are doing sex-change operations on children because little David likes to play with dolls, it might not seem as outlandish.

The only way to stop the progressive train is to derail it, which means rejecting the 'essence of civil rights and LGBT movements', in my opinion.

And culturally, we must foster an environment where civil rights are upheld without alienating those with differing viewpoints.

Politics have always been war in peace-time. The strongest camp will force its beliefs on the rest. One cannot uphold the values of one camp without alienating the other. One cannot hold a Gay Parade in Amsterdam (considered civil rights by the Left) without alienating Christians in the Netherlands, and one cannot forbid that same parade without alienating the gays. There is no satisfying everyone, that's just a pipe dream.

Death of Europe?

The democratic powers must solve the problem of the people and not of the ones that fund their campaigns otherwise Europe will probably die in 5 years.

The ending statement is, unfortunately, somewhat vague. Which part of Europe dies is not clear, neither is the timing. Politics always suffer from recency bias; every current/upcoming election is 'the most important ever'. Especially Americans are very good at this game.

I agree that from a nationalist perspective, things are going from bad to worse: immigration is sky high, our own cultures are being questioned, economies are stagnating, the housing situation is terrible because of aformentioned points, etc etc.

However, the idea of a clear 'breaking point' remains hard to predict. Western civization has a high tolerance for suffering and deteriorating circumstances. I'm reminded of South Africa, where 4 million whites are trying their best to keep a country running that is falling apart at the seams under black rule. If that is how far Europe has to decline without a clear breaking point, this current situation could last for decades.

Conclusion

I think the author makes some solid points, yet does not fully grasp some of the implications of the current political climate. I personally don't know if the current elections will make any change to the goings-on in Europe. The European Parliament especially is a lot of show and little policy: they have the un-elected European Commission for the big decisions, which unfortunately often takes its cues from Washington D.C. But that is a whole other can of worms.

This article is mostly to stimulate further discussion, so please leave a comment if you want to question/elaborate/disagree with any points mentioned. That's what this platform is for. I'll see you all soon,

-Pieter Nijmeijer

(Top image: source)