Natives of the West who oppose mass third world immigration — that is to say the majority, whose wishes have been repeatedly ignored and betrayed — are well used to the disingenuous arguments and sophistry used both by said immigrants and their enablers. The British, for example, are well used to hearing variations of the following:
- ‘Your economy needs third world immigration’
- ‘Your birth rates are declining. Third world immigration will help this’
These arguments can be classed as the ‘this is how it benefits you’ variety.
It’s beyond proven, and increasingly published in various national studies, that mass third world immigration is a net negative on all fronts; both fiscally and socially; in other words, they cost our nations more money than they contribute, they drain public resources at the cost of the native population, reduce social cohesion and fuel increases in rates of crime in White countries. Therefore the economic / GDP argument is a lie, as is any notion of social benefit. The reverse is true.
As for the birth rates — no nation ever needs to justify opposing its ethnic replacement. Even if it weren’t proven that ‘assimilation’ is a lie, with second and third generation third world immigrants generally continuing or even displaying worse patterns of criminality, dysfunction and even terrorism than their forebears — no nation or peoples on earth should be expected to welcome their own dispossession and replacement. Yet Whites are.
The ‘Revenge’ / ‘Consequences’ Argument
Confronted with the straightforward obliteration of the above arguments, anti-white politicians and other enablers of mass immigration (open border activists, NGOs, journalists, leftist lawmakers, globalist think tanks and so on) as well as the immigrants themselves tend to resort to a second modality of justification:
- ‘You colonised countries with the British Empire, this is just payback’
- ‘Britain has always been a nation of immigrants. What about the Huguenots, the Jutes, the Normans’ etc.
- ‘The world is changing. This is unavoidable, get used to it’
These arguments can be classed as the ‘revenge’ or ‘consequence’ arguments. What’s notable about them, unlike the first tier of arguments, is that they abandon all pretence of offering any benefit to the native host population.
‘You deserve it’
Firstly, let’s quickly deal with the above; the first point many will recognise as the ‘sins of the father’ argument. Whatever your views on the British Empire — the premise of this viewpoint is that a people are always accountable for what their forefathers did. By this logic everyone is guilty — go back enough generations and near enough everyone is descended at some point from an invading, colonising or at the very least warmongering people. Nobody ever levels this argument at Turks regarding the Ottoman Empire, or Indians for the Mughal Empire, the Chinese for the Qing Dynasty, the Mexicans for the Aztec Empire and so on. As always, only Whites are guilty; the eternal original sin.
As for the second point; notwithstanding the fact that those ancient migrations to Britain occurred not just centuries but millennia ago, they were all constituted of White peoples. The unasked for, unwanted third world immigrants will often refer to these ancient migrations (as if they’ve apparently learned / been taught to) to justify their own imposition on us, trying to blind us to a quite obvious fact; we are not the same and we never will be.
The third argument is a simple one, but it’s one frequently heard from (often Jewish) pro-immigration advocates; the idea that the unwanted and unasked for imposition of vast numbers of third world immigrants is natural, unavoidable and irreversible. This is obvious nonsense on all three counts; far from being organic, even most leftists would be forced to admit that the browning of White countries is a gigantic, concerted, well-funded effort spearheaded by hostile elites, not only within supranational organisations but embedded within Western governments. Networks of NGOs, human rights lawyers and the media are all part of this machine.
Native White Populations Have Always Opposed Mass Third World Immigration
The fact is that native White populations have never specifically voted for mass third world immigration; indeed, polling consistently shows they have always opposed it. If Western democracies truly represented the wishes of the people, every single European country would be overwhelmingly homogeneous today.
Western Europeans are by now well accustomed to the above arguments and rhetoric. Increasingly, the same arguments are being used to convince the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe that they too should welcome vast numbers of third worlders into their overwhelmingly homogeneous, high-trust nations.
The Poles are frequently told, as are the natives of all White countries, that those entering our countries illegally are desperate refugees fleeing oppression and persecution, to whom we must give refuge. Jewish activists put immense time and energy into trying to convince us even that these people will benefit us, they simply want to work, build a life, and could even be our next generation of rocket scientists, doctors and so on.
Any such illusions were shattered when the 21 year-old Polish border guard Mateusz Sitek was murdered by a third world migrant attempting to enter Poland via the border with Belarus on May 28, 2024. This young man who died defending his nation, was fatally wounded with a makeshift spear thrown by the migrant savage through the border fence. Other migrants continued to hurl rocks and sharp items at his colleagues as they tried to help him as he lay dying. There has been at least one positive consequence of this horrific incident — the granting of permission of border guards to use live ammunition to protect Poland’s border.
Mateusz Sitek, martryed defending his nation
Illegal and ‘Legal’ Third World Immigration Are Two Sides of the Same Coin
One lesson the cynical and hardened natives of Western Europe would no doubt impart to their Eastern brothers is the danger of seeing illegal and ‘legal’ third world immigration as entirely separate matters. The vast amount of social disorder and crime committed by ‘legal’ third world nationals, or their descendants within White countries, puts paid to the lie that the granting of a passport or visa to said immigrants differentiates them from those who enter our countries without approval by the authorities. Legal immigration, like illegal immigration, is driven not by a desire to somehow benefit or enrich the host nation. It’s a matter of selfish benefit for the immigrants and their enablers which, more often than people realise, is accompanied by an underlying hostility and resentment.
Like Sweden and numerous other countries which have been subjected to massive third world immigration, Poland never colonised the third world and is therefore immune to the the ‘Empire strikes back’ argument. But that won’t stop them deploying the other arguments. Of course, as illustrated above, those ‘arguments’ are quickly and easily demolished, often leading to what can be described as a ‘mask off’ moment, whereby those who minutes before were insisting their presence benefits you suddenly reveal their true motivations: envy, covetousness and racial resentment.
It’s a very familiar pattern, seen thousands of times on X as anti-whites attempt to debate British nationalists and patriots like Steve Laws and Serena Brown. Whilst demolishing their ‘this is how it benefits you’ arguments in the public sphere is worthwhile — not least because it tends to trigger the ‘mask off’ honesty — I would argue that the obvious falseness and dishonesty of their arguments means that being drawn too far into them is a trap, and should not be indulged beyond simple refutation.
All Forms of Mass Third World Immigration Are a Blight on White Countries
The simple truth is that third worlders have no place in White countries. Whether they entered illegally or were granted visas by a traitorous government makes little difference; the benefit of their presence accrues only to them, and the elites who both profit from their reduced labour costs and wish to destroy White nations — all at the expense of the native majority. Whites are a global and endangered minority; not one White country need justify its right to remain White.
Countries like Iran and Pakistan, right now busily setting about mass deporting Afghanis, are providing little apparent PR or justification for their actions; they’re simply getting on with the logistics of removing huge numbers of people who are a proven detriment to their nations.
West European nations like Britain, France, Germany and many others have advanced so far down the path of multiculturalism that without a significant change of direction, they face being minorities within their own lands within decades. This must serve as a dire warning. Countries like Poland, one of the few left in the world with an overwhelmingly White native population, without even the legacy of an empire, should feel no compunction whatever in protecting and preserving their rights as a nation and a people.
Yes, they must start shooting invaders. That is a way to stop an invasion.