European elites are in denial over the refugee problem. This was made clear—to me at least—after reading the many statements of European leaders, as well as articles that have attempted to discuss the issue in the popular press. I read one recent article in a popular news site that indicated just how divorced from reality much of the commentary has been on this matter.
Consider the article Refugees Will Change Europe For The Better, written by one Paul Hockenos, who is described as “a journalist living in Berlin.” Hockenos’s cheerleading on behalf of (apparently) unrestricted immigration calls attention the myopia, obfuscations, wishful thinking, and delusion that the modern European liberal is able to muster on behalf of his position. We will examine his arguments here.
Hockenos’s first point is that unrestricted immigration will be a positive good for Germany and Western Europe because it will reverse what he calls the “demographic crisis” that is (supposedly evidenced) by the drop in German population in the past decades. With a straight face, Hockenos even mentions that migrants need to be “lured” to Germany to help pay the pensions and support the social programs of the country’s current population.
What Hockenos does not tell us is that the phrase “demographic crisis” is a loaded term. The history of the world is the history of populations. They rise, they fall, they ebb, and they flow. It is actually natural in the life of a nation for its population to fluctuate, sometimes with great volatility. The fact that there has been a dip in population does not mean we should automatically import hundreds of thousands of foreigners into our borders to “rectify” a problem that may not even exist.
Indeed, it sounds like what Hockenos is really worried about is the fact that there won’t be enough live bodies to staff the liberal welfare state set up by the post-WW II generation. And maybe this is a good thing. He never thinks to probe the reasons why European populations are declining. Could it be that the states there have created a toxic, hazardous environment for the raising of families?
Could it be that men have no incentive to marry and raise families, since their traditional roles are denigrated and disparaged on a daily basis by a feminist-centric cultural ethos? Such questions are, of course, not permitted to be asked, as they fall outside the permissible scope of discourse in Europe and America.
Far easier is it to import thousands of alien bodies to turn the gears and push the buttons of the existing system. Maybe, one thinks, it’s irredeemably rotten and should be left to collapse.
The second “benefit” Hockenos touts with refugees is the supposed “economic” benefit. By just sliding these people into the existing economic fabric, a new boom will be created—he assures us—and Germans will eventually “get to know Syrians the same way they know Turks.” Which, of course, is not at all.
Here is where Hockenos ideological bent verges on willful delusion. Vast numbers of immigrants from a foreign land, unceremoniously dumped inside another land, create more problems than they solve. Hockenos is unable to cite a single historical example where such an event actually occurred. What we get instead is the language of “could” and “might” that he apparently views as equivalent to definitive statements.
All in all, Hockenos’s views, while typical of the European elites, are revealing more in what he does not address. No one is saying that all immigration is bad. In fact, it is natural and normal, provided that it is done in a way that there is time for the host society to adjust. It should flow as a gentle stream, not as a tidal wave. Herein lies the difference.
Never once in his article does Hockenos address this reality, or provide us with any sort of metric to measure the “absorption rate” that a society can tolerate before serious social problems are created. In his world, there apparently should be no restrictions or limits.
Also not addressed is the fact that his comfortable lifestyle is dependent on a system that he is now undermining. Culture comes from populations; change the population, and you change the culture. There is something disturbingly self-negating, viscerally self-loathing, about the modern European liberal’s rush to embrace the migrant tidal waves. It is difficult to put one’s finger on, but it is there nonetheless.
Why doesn’t Hockenos advocate for the reform or abolition of the very policies that have caused the (alleged) population decline and economic stagnation that he claims to be outraged by? Why not reform or abolish the existing social and political systems that have ill-served Europeans, instead of dumping hundreds of thousands of foreigners into the mix?
Hockenos simply glosses over the fact that there are huge migrant populations in Europe that have simply never integrated, either deliberately or by historical accident. To imagine that this assimilation will automatically happen is simply wrong. One could just as easily say that the new populations will form de facto cantons, and contribute to the fracturing of the national cultural identity.
He has no answer for this, of course. And the reason is simple: he, like the European elites who are forcing their migrant policies on their people, is benefiting from the existing system. The parasitic elites in Europe have systematically sold out their countries: they have thrown away their military traditions, they have presided over vast wealth gaps among the populace, and they have been too willing to throw away tradition as the wisdom of centuries of experience. For this, the continent is paying a very high price.
Decades of wealth, affluence, and neglect of the martial virtues have rendered Western Europe vulnerable to foreign incursions. The elites there seem determined to ignore any historical or social reality that contradicts their doctrinal imperatives. That is now being revealed with disturbing clarity.