Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December 23, 2017

In the history of politically disastrous pronouncements, perhaps nothing exceeds Texas politician Clayton Williams’s ill-considered joke that if a woman is going to be raped, she might as well “just relax and enjoy it.” Yet something akin to this passes for political philosophy for the leadership of the European Union. How else can we explain the declaration by Dimitris Avramopoulos, European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs, and Citizenship, that there is nothing the European Union can do to stop mass migration?

In a column for Politico, Mr. Avramopoulos writes: “It’s time to face the truth. We cannot and will never be able to stop migration.”

He adds:

It is foolish to think that migration will disappear if one adopts harsh language. It is naïve to think that our societies will remain homogenous and migration-free if one erects fences. It is unwise to think that migration will remain on the other side of the Mediterranean, if one only shows solidarity in financial terms.

The truth is quite different. Harsh language alone can discourage migration. As Peter Brimelow noted in the Daily Caller, even before building a wall or doing much of anything, President Trump’s views on immigration (and the overheated media reaction to them) encouraged illegal aliens to leave. Illegal immigration has recently increased — just as a new amnesty is being broached by the Republican leadership.

As for fences, the real complaint of the European leadership seems to be not that fences don’t work, but that they do. The Hungarian government’s swiftly constructed border wall cut the number of immigrants entering Hungary by over 90 percent. Israel’s border wall has met with similar success, as even hostile media outlets have admitted. The partial fence on America’s southern border has dramatically increased security.

When Mr. Avramopoulos writes about the mistaken belief that “solidarity in financial terms” will keep migrants on the south side of the Mediterranean, he is probably talking about the idea that if we can put the Third World on the road to riches, Third Worlders will stay home. He’s right to think that’s a pipe dream — but only race realists know why.

Mr. Avramopoulos recognizes only two other possibilities: some kind of border control or no border control. But Africans and Middle Easterners will fight any kind of control. Mr. Avramopoulos’s solution? Somehow eliminate “the recent discourse on migration — influenced by rising nationalism, populism, and xenophobia” — which has “limited our opportunities to put in place smart, forward-looking migration policies, at both the national and European levels.”

What are these “smart” policies? Evacuating migrants from Libya “through resettlement or assisted voluntary return,” “a comprehensive and fair asylum reform,” and more “legal channels for economic migration,” especially skilled for workers. This last recommendation is nonsense. Skilled workers are already fleeing nations like Germany because of the effects of mass migration, and the migrants replacing them are not just unskilled, but unemployable.

Beyond that, though Mr. Avramopoulos talks about the need for a comprehensive plan, he doesn’t have concrete suggestions. His only real message is that there is no possibility of actually solving the problem: “[W]e all need to be ready to accept migration, mobility and diversity as the new norm and tailor our policies accordingly.” But why do we “need” to do these things? The problem started because of the incompetence, pathological altruism, and the bungled foreign policies of the European Union itself.

Mr. Avramopoulos brags that “thousands of migrants have been helped on the ground in Libya in cooperation with international partners.” But he leaves out why: because the European Union pushed for an unnecessary regime change in Libya. The overthrow of Gaddafi did nothing for human rights, as it created a new base for Islamic terrorists and the reintroduction of exotic practices like African slavery. It also led to the situation Gaddafi predicted, as there was no longer a strong government to prevent sea crossings to Europe.

Though few even bother pretending anymore that all of these migrants (or indeed most) are Syrian, it’s also worth noting that one of the reasons the war in Syria has gone on for so long is because the European Union keeps trying to help overthrow Bashar al-Assad.

And what initially prompted the flood was Chancellor Angela Markel’s snap decision, evidently made without consideration of the long-term consequences, to admit an unlimited number of migrants. It’s the supposedly centrist European leadership that has been reckless, not dissident “populists.”

Indeed, it’s not that European nations can’t prevent mass migration — it’s that the European Union won’t let them. Just this week, the European Commission, of which Mr. Avramopoulos is a member, voted to sanction Poland because of the nationalist government’s attempt to remove Communist-era judges from the bench. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban noted that the true intention of the EU is to punish countries opposed to mass immigration.

The inability of European nations to assimilate their already sizable non-white populations should have led to caution about inviting more. The continent will now be saddled with a host of permanent problems created by importing a permanent underclass. That is why Mr. Avramopoulos is right to conclude that “migration is deeply intertwined with our policies on economics, trade, education, and employment — to name just a few.” But if the future is to consist of dumping an unlimited number of poor, uneducated, and culturally alien migrants on Europe, it will become nearly impossible to have any policies on education, health care, infrastructure, or the environment. Europe is doing the equivalent of developing a more effective bucket to bail water out of a boat, while doing nothing to stop the leak.

Mr. Avramopoulos has a way out: “integration and inclusion,” but Europe has tried a variety of approaches, from Sweden’s slavish multiculturalism, to Germany’s neglect, to France’s relatively stern civic nationalist approach. All have failed. Mrs. Merkel herself said multiculturalism had “utterly failed” in 2010 — thereby creating for her society an impossible problem by her own logic.

“The supreme function of statesmanship,” said Enoch Powell, “is to provide against preventable evils.” Mr. Avramopoulos tells us that mass migration is not preventable. But if preventing the movement of huge masses of strangers into Europe is something beyond the capability of the united governments of Europe, what is the European Union for? Certainly, preventing migrants from entering Europe is a more attainable goal than assimilating tens of millions of Africans, ensuring that Third World immigrants make as much money as native Europeans, or preventing terrorist attacks. But then, preventing terrorist attacks seems to be something European governments can no longer do. As “British” mayor of London Sadiq Khan explains, the threat of terrorism is simply “part and parcel of living in a big city.”

The oldest trick of the managerial elite is to create a nonexistent problem, make it a permanent condition, and use it to justify the existence of a class of professionals whose job it is to “manage” the problem. Decades from now, assuming migrants aren’t swiftly removed, we’ll be reading sob stories about how Africans are having a hard time competing in the German economy, replete with quotes from professionals employed by well-funded “NGOs” telling us that Europeans must “do more” for the oppressed. If Poland, Hungary, and other Eastern European nations can resist such pressure, they will avoid the long-term costs created by such problems and the accompanying entrenchment of the parasite class that profits from them. Ironically, by being more “racist” now and keeping migrants out, Eastern Europeans will avoid accusations of “racism” in the future.

The only people who profit will be the class that created the problems in the first place. And Mr. Avramopoulos is a member of that class. He is a kind of parody of European leadership. He boasts an array of awards and decorations from various governments and is a “knight,” a “grand commander,” or a holder of a “grand cross” in the various orders of chivalry with which emasculated national governments amuse themselves. Yet he has won no victories in defense of his homeland and indeed has done far more to destroy it than any Greek since Ephialtes. Imagining this ludicrous creature festooned with his cheap ribbons lecturing Europeans about how mass migration will be good for them is reminiscent of Brezhnev dressed in his “Hero of the Soviet Union” and “Order of Lenin” medals telling everyone that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan will be a great success.

Mr. Avramopoulos is not managing an unavoidable process. He is promoting an invasion, and working to thwart those who are trying to stop it. There’s nothing natural about what is happening; it is promoted by the likes of Mr. Avramopoulos. Civilization will be saved only by those who defy what traitors tell them is their inevitable fate, and instead meet the crisis with a spirit their ancestors would recognize.