When the police are trying to track down the perpetrator of a crime, then on the basis of a handful of the pieces of evidence and witness reports, having taken account of possible motivations and the like, they first construct a model of what might be behind the criminal act. They elaborate possible scenarios, then discuss them and select one or two or as many as seem to correspond to reality. Then the officers, the investigators go about their business of finding out who the culprit was.
Scholars do the same when they study history: on the basis of the available sources, archaeological findings, comparisons with similar events and – not least of all – common sense they first create in their minds an assumption of how things must have played out. It is only then that they try to fit the evidence to the preconceived story. If the match clicks, then they deem the truth about an event to be uncovered. If the match does not click, they look for another model.
In the sciences the same practice is applied. Again, on the basis of the handful of data, mathematical formulations, a theory is developed which is then proved or disproved, verified or falsified, by means of experiments and calculations, as the case may be. We somehow do not call such an approach a conspiracy theory. We regard it as normal.
When it, however, comes to current policy, then we have been trained to brand a similar approach as a conspiracy theory. Why? The answer is obvious. Those who do not want us to design a workable model of what is actually playing out seek to discourage us from unearthing the truth.
Herein we are going to indulge in conspiracy theories. In particular we are going to look into the immigration that’s been taking place for decades and has markedly changed the demographics of the Western world. We will scrutinize the language first.
The phenomenon of resettling people from the Third World to Europe and North America is mendaciously labelled by the media as migration, without the prefix im-. Why? Apparently the powers that be want to mislead the public. Migration is associated with haphazard movement now here, now there; migration of birds certainly implies the movement from south to north and then back from north to south. That’s probably what the managers of the Western world want to create in our subconscious: we are supposed to believe that the people who land up in Europe and North America are here for a time and are certainly going to head back for their countries of origin. In other words they are here temporarily: either for the purpose of studies or employment or because of hostilities in the regions where they are from. Once they have completed their studies, have earned enough money or the conflict in their region of origin has come to an end, they will all – or at least the overwhelming majority of them – leave Europe and North America. Because that’s what migration implies. We all know that the ugly truth is different: they are here to stay.
Then we are confronted with another piece of vocabulary that is foisted upon us in the media: the immigrants are going to assimilate and integrate. Some consumers of the information seem to believe it, some do not, but never mind. The immigrants are going to assimilate and to integrate, that’s the message. Decades have passed and it turns out that the arrivals rather than assimilating and integrating began to build parallel societies in no-go zones and they are hostile towards the host nations – probably as a sign of gratitude for being admitted and taken care of. So the famed assimilation and integration has backfired as it was sure to backfire. Now you do not need to have much experience in these matters to realize that assimilation and integration between diverse cultures, religions and races never works, never has, never will. Proof? Look at the gypsies scattered around Europe: they have preserved their language, garb, custom, food – you name it – and they keep to themselves. No measure of the effort to assimilate and integrate them has worked.
The assumption that cultures or religions or races can assimilate and integrate is based on wishful thinking. Draw a comparison between Islam and Christianity on the one hand and between the so-called far-right and far-left political convictions on the other. Can there be any common denominator between them? Integrating cultures, religions and races is as futile as integrating languages: even closely related ones do not let themselves be amalgamated into a new language, how much more difficult is it with unrelated languages! Yes, attempts of integrating languages have been made – of these Esperanto is the best known – but, first, how many people speak this language, and, second, Esperanto is an attempt to create an artificial language from a couple of related, Indo-European tongues! Try integrating European, African and Asian languages! Just a challenge.
Now that everybody can see that assimilation and integration have failed to materialize, a new mantra has been rolled out: that of enriching diversity. This change of vocabulary reminds one of the same linguistic tactics when it comes to the so-called man-made climate change. The masterminders behind this climate mantra have been notorious for not knowing whether the planet earth is threatened by global warming or global cooling. The same is true of immigration: the managers of the Western world change their views from those of assimilation-cum-integration to that of diversity. They are tailoring their propaganda to the current needs of what they want to achieve and what is perceived by the common man.
Beyond a shade of doubt immigration is wanted by the powers that be. It is as wanted as the conflict with Russia or the annihilation of nations or the erasure of the distinction between the biological sexes. The managers of the Western world want to obliterate ethnicity, race, sex and religion. Now the question arises why.
Before we indulge in solving this question let us make a small remark: the managers of Europe and North America ‘bless’ their populations with ‘values’ that they themselves have no share in. They themselves do not live among immigrants, they themselves nor their children do not participate in the war in Ukraine, they themselves do not send their children to ethnically mixed schools, and so on. The managers of the Western World are divorced from the masses. That’s what makes them so arrogant. But back to the question why. Why do the powers that be want to mix the divergent ethnic groups? To answer this question let us look for precedents in history.
The Weimar Republic. The late twenties and the early thirties of the previous century. Germany was shocked to the core with internal fights. It was the social-democrats against the communists, the communists against the national-socialists, the national-socialists against the social democrats. Constant brawls and constant rallies. It was somehow tolerated for a couple of years. Such set of circumstances, such historical contingency created a hotbed for the wildest political ideas and was fertile ground for the emergence of staunch and unwavering leaders or supporters or defenders of this or that political persuasion. Citizens were either forced to take sides or to cheer from the sidelines. The majority of them wished for this mess to end soon. Social order was shocked to its core while societal anxieties were on the rise. Such circumstances helped those lusting for power to successfully pursue it. It may have been the communists, it may have been the social-democrats… As we know, eventually it was the national-socialists who gained most momentum, who gained traction and rose to power. Dictatorship was formed within months. Much to almost everybody’s relief.
Are we not witnessing something similar nowadays? The immigrants are becoming more and more arrogant and they feel more and more entitled to goods and services; the indigenous populations are becoming more and more indignant, outraged, and livid. The mendacious media only add fuel to the fire of this indignation and accumulating wrath. There are occasional riots in the streets of cities, while the resistance of the white population is growing and taking shape. One of these days this concoction of ethnicities and religions, of social classes and ‘genders’ will erupt in a volcano of civil war. Before that war breaks out, or maybe shortly thereafter, a leader might emerge who will promise solutions in exchange for dictatorial powers. Most of the populations will agree to it with relief. That might be the grand plan behind what we are seeing in Europe and North America: the imposition of a strong leader with dictatorial powers. Because one thing remains certain: things cannot continue after this fashion.
A Germany or a France with fewer than 50% of genuine, indigenous Germans or French is not going to be Germany or France. The same is true of the United Kingdom and Sweden, of Italy and Spain, of any country or nation. If there is no civil war, then the Western World will cease being the Western World: it will be the Third World par excellence. Because it is not the culture that makes peoples and nations: it is peoples and nations that make a culture. Byzantium taken over by the Turks stopped being Byzantium: it became the Ottoman Empire. Egypt taken over by the Arabs stopped being Egypt: it became an Islamic state. The Turks or the Arabs did not absorb the Byzantine or Egyptian culture: they brought their own instead. There remained lots and lots of Greeks in the Ottoman Empire – descendants of the host nation of Byzantium – and they were turned into second rate subjects of the sultan. Worse, towards the end of the Ottoman Empire they were for the most part done away with, as were the Armenians.
It is often claimed that Arabs preserved ancient Greek science and scholarship. That might be true to a certain extent, but notice the following: it was the Europeans who really revived ancient Greek science and scholarship, even if thanks to the Arabs who had preserved it, and it was the Europeans who carried that ancient knowledge accumulated in Greece over and developed it, not Arabs! All the discoveries and inventions that the world is enjoying at present have been created within the area covered by England, France, Northern Italy and Germany. The discoveries and inventions credited to Americans are really the discoveries and inventions credited to Europeans, while America and Canada have been ethnic extensions of the Old Continent.
The managers of the Western World must be aware of it. So what are they after? They certainly want chaos. They certainly want some kind of obliteration of the world as we know it now. They certainly want to dissolve in order to coagulate after a different fashion. They are certainly up to something. With threats posed by different ethnic, religious and racial groups it will be relatively easy for them to make people believe that a surveillance state is a solution to all social ills. A surveillance state might entail not only cameras everywhere around us, not only tracking of the traffic in the internet, but also the introduction of digital money and the abolition of cash. The argument will be simple: first, we can only punish bad behaviour and reward good behaviour if we have full control of everybody’s sustenance, i.e. money. Second: if you are a decent, honest, law-abiding citizen, why should you be afraid of having your finances controlled? Faced with a choice between the constant street brawls between aliens and the indigenous, between far-right and left-right, between the many genders and what not, most people are likely to consent to being controlled in exchange for having peace. They will consent to being controlled with a relief.
It is not far-fetched to say that very many people were glad when the likes of Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin came to power after periods of turmoil and upheaval. If that was the only way out of trouble and life in fear, people consented to it.
Is that why we are seeing those cohorts of foreigners imported to the the Western World on such a grand scale? That’s at least a workable assumption.
