"Eastern Europe may still be spared, if its leadership and indigenous populations make the right decisions."
The likes of Poland, Hungary, and other Visegrad nations, have the opportunity to avoid the legitimate problems experienced by their Western neighbours with respect to cultural and demographic disaster. However, that opportunity WILL BE LOST after they let large numbers of different groups in. This is because, as I described above, legitimate anti-racist arguments do apply to already diverse nation-states that wish for continuity with the generations old ethno-nationalistic state that once resided there. This is because, their only option to regain the benefits of cultural and ethnic homogeneity (see Japan), once immigration has already taken place, would be to kick out citizens from the countries of their birth, on the grounds of how they look or where there parents or grandparents are from, which is not ethically viable.
In this respect, like in so many others, demography is indeed destiny, since the mere presence of immigrants in sufficiently large numbers fundamentally alters the capacity of an ethno-nation to act in its own interests. This is immense power. It is the power to turn Sweden, a nation that has been ethnically homogenous for all of recorded history (no I’m not counting competing clans), and racially homogenous for as long as modern humans have existed, into an entirely unrecognizable ethnic and cultural geo-political construct in the space of a generation. Suddenly, the ethnic Swede, who’s line has existed in modern Sweden since the dawn of human history, may no longer even claim to the “Swedish” ethnicity and certainly not any nationhood associated with it, because the Swedish nation in which he NOW resides is defined by ethnic groups from around the world. Indeed, all the cultural, economic, political, religious and any other dynamics that form a society all hinge on the demography of that society. If that demography should change, nothing can be done, the progeny of ethno-cultural nationhoods thousands of years hold lose all control over that nation in all its respects. This centuries old continuity and control, over the collective expression of a genetic association between a certain group, which itself may have been built up for millennia, can be instantaneously rended from history by the decisions of a single politician acting on something as brief as an ideological commitment, which come and go through the centuries like the wind.
It is plausible, if, unlikely, that there are shady figures among the globalist elite who understand the principles I have just elucidated and try to exploit them. Personally I do not believe they exist, but it is worth mentioning that if I were interested in replacing indigenous Europeans with more “diverse” groups of people from elsewhere, I would adopt the following tactics.
Step One: Convince the indigenous European populations that the newcomers will bring wonderful benefits. This would include overplaying the value of new kinds of food, while underplaying the risk of increased terrorism, crime and poverty, as well as the implicit detriments of lost homogeneity (see Japan). Further, I would argue that the newcomers would never arrive in sufficiently large numbers to ever pose a true existential threat to the indigenous European demographic group(s), and that to assume otherwise amounts to racist conspiracy theorizing. examples of the position I have described are perfectly clear in the pro-immigration arguments made in the 70s and 80s, before the indigenous groups of the United Kingdom and France had their majorities and, their future political power over their home nations legitimately threatened.
Step Two: Once groups from around the world had arrived in sufficiently large numbers to make it logistically taxing to remove them, step two would commence. Step two would rely on the argument I put forward above, that kicking out those who have been born in a country on the grounds of their appearance or ethnic origins amounts to genuine racism. At this stage the argument would go something like the remarkable Swedish “anti-racism” and public service advertisement circulated in 2016. This message asserts that that there is no reason to complain about or resist the loss of the Swedish ethno-nation and its associated geographic sovereignty. It claims that there is no reason to resist the permanent loss of Swedish “ethnicity” even being a concept, since the Swedish nation no longer refers to any specific ethnicity, or even culture.
In making this argument, the public service announcement does not try to claim that there is no good evidence that Swedish society has degenerated by any number of objective measures and metrics, or try to contend that there is no legitimate reason to be concerned about the permanent loss of control (caused by the decisions of a single generation) over a nation that has had a continuous and recognizable ethnic and cultural lineage for hundreds of generations, or even that such a concern is evil and “racist”. It need simply state that a multi-ethnic/multi-cultural society is now the status quo. This is all that is needed, because there is now nothing to be done. It is nearly impossible to remove such large numbers of people, and even if it were not it, would now be unethical to do so. The demographic growth of different ethnicities and their respective cultures, and eventual electoral dominance of these ethno-cultural groups over the very nature of your centuries old Swedish nation and society is now inevitable. Pro-immigration idealogues may even be free to admit that there are huge problems in these host socities that they were wrong about claiming wouldn’t come to pass, as many do, since there is no risk of the indigenous population ever correcting these problems through undesirable methods, since it would simply be impossible to do so without violent revolutions, that even anti-mass immigration thinkers like myself, would do everything in our power to prevent. This is evident in the Swedish Ad, whose thrust, if you break it down, is essentially that, “yes that yes, there are large enough numbers of people to fundamentally change your society (a complete 180 on the pro-immigration arguments put forward in the 70s and 80s), but there is nothing to be done about it.
What’s more, once enough foreign ethnic groups have moved into your society, the onus of adapting flips from the newcomers to the indigenous populations since. This is evident in the Swedish Ad which now asserts that yes, there are large enough numbers of people to fundamentally change your society, and as a result YOU need to be forward thinking and adapt to this situation. “YOU CAN’T GO BACK”. Those opposing liberals and the left may argue, “well you lied initially. you said it was conspiracy theorizing to predict that foreigners would arrive in sufficiently large numbers as to fundamentally alter our cultures, and threaten our majorities in our own countries”. My hypothetical self, bent on replacing European populations, would be entirely immune to such criticism, however, as it would now be too late. I would feel no need to even respond to such accusations, because to do so would be pointless. The situation would already be beyond repair, and I could sit back and let the ethnically justifiable aversion to removing those born in certain societies, on the grounds of their appearance or ethnic origins, do my work for me. I could just sit back and watch the inevitable effect of low birth-rates of indigenous Europeans and the high birthrates of newcomers. This is not to even mention the immigration I would still encourage, whose critics I could still comfortably condemn as “racists!”
The point of this two step strategy I have described is not to make the case, as many do, that there is some shady, probably Jewish, globalist conspiracy to replace indigenous Europeans and indeed the majorities of European descended populations around the world. I do not buy into this, because those who do have not managed to disprove the less complicated, and thus more likely situation, that these two steps occurred because of the inherent inconsistency of post 60’ left-wing dogma. This notion requires far fewer assumptions, has yet to be disproved, and thus I argue is the more likely to be cause of the demographic replacement of European groups and groups of European extraction around the world.
In all likelihood, those in charge of demographic policy, those publishing the main-stream media outlets, and those dictating the tone of rational and civilized conversation, all bought in, to various degrees, to a set of ideas. This set of ideas was so logically inconsistent and so far beyond any criticism, that what has occurred, and will continue to occur at an accelerated pace, in Western Europe regarding the demographic replacement of indigenous Europeans and the fundamental alteration of their cultures and even histories, amounts to perhaps one of the most devastating mistakes in all of Western, and even human history. Perhaps this mistake is just the inevitable manifestation of that invisible hand illuminated by the maxim of the august historian Arnold Toynbee, that the greatest civilizations are never murdered, but rather, they commit suicide However, I maintain that while this two step mistake I described is probably impossible to reverse in Western Europe and Germany, Eastern Europe may still be spared, if its leadership and indigenous populations make the right decisions. If they don't, the likes of Poland, Hungary, and other Visegrad nations, will lose their ability to avoid the existential problems experienced by their Western neighbours.