A tribe of beavers are building a dam, they are two-thirds of the way across the raging river when a few of the beavers, who don’t like being buffeted by the river and who don’t like getting wet and are unhappy about being cold, begin to complain about having to complete the difficult and perilous task.
The majority of the beavers tell the few unhappy beavers to stick with it and persevere, saying, ‘Separately we are weak, but united we are unstoppable!’
As the minority of beavers ponder what to do, they hear the cries of foreign beavers, from many rivers away, declaring that their dam is already built, that their beaver society is happy to accept all those beavers who have no interest in building dams and remaining united in their home rivers, who are invited to live and work in the already built beaver-dam paradise, which features a blue flag flying overhead, with stars formed into a circle, representing that there is unity and conformity there.
The offer of being able to move to a ready-made dam is too much temptation for the beavers who complained about being responsible for building their dam, so they declare that they wish to leave their native beaver community forever, choosing to abandon the dam-building project, opting instead to become refugees who will go in search of a new tribe of beavers to take them in. The first tribe they will ask for help, housing and protection will be the tribe with the blue flag with stars on it because their dam seems very strong and secure and is a long, long way away, which will ensure that they will never return to their home river because the journey is too far to endure twice, this is a one-way journey only.
Predictably, their absence causes the dam in their home river to fail, destroying the defences of the beavers because there weren’t enough beavers left to complete the dam. The river completely destroys the dam and, afterwards, destroys the beaver village also.
Psychology of sympathy for refugees: I will use the example of a politician who is a vocal pro-refugee advocate who wants millions or tens of millions of refugees to share in the fruits of his labour and the fruits of the labour of everyone else in his homeland.
When politicians say that all citizens should desire to love refugees and accept as many refugees as possible into their nation, into their welfare systems and even into their homes, they are not saying this for ‘good Christian reasons’ such as charity, being a ‘Good Samaritan’ or other core components of that religion, which most Europeans are familiar with.
Rather, they are communicating a psychological instruction due to the consequence of the decision to accept refugees—that being the revolution that could have happened if there was a wall built around the country in question, which was prevented due to seemingly benevolent or masochistic or opportunistic actions—big business desires new customers, the middle class desires cheap workers, big business desires to stagnate wages and slum landlords seek to increase rents.
The politician, naturally wishing to remain in power even if he makes mistakes, and we all make mistakes, we’re all human, knows that in order to increase political power and state control it is necessary to give the people a glimpse of the potential end result of their attempt at taking on the state. (When refugees from a war-torn country are living next door to you, your mind is ever on the suffering you imagine they experienced with their very presence being a vigilant reminder to keep your head down, pay your taxes and keep voting for the people the polls say are going to win.)
The big disincentive for desiring individual responsibility, a greater stake in society, is the example (having open borders) of the potential future fate of the indigenous taxpayers should they ever attempt to divorce politicians, politics and state power.
Further, taking in refugees gives the general impression that if you are dissatisfied it’s easier to leave your shores because some ‘kind country’ will take you in than it is to launch a revolution.
Thus, the EU is willing its citizens, if disgruntled, to leave (for the US, Australia etc.) rather than engage in an uprising.
The terrible irony of this situation is that due to those who usher in such liberal agendas as open borders not living near refugee centres or minority quarters of towns or cities, they have long been unaware of the building xenophobia, which now, having been allowed to fester with genuine concerns not being addressed, threatens to disturb the peace and threatens social order, things every citizen must fight to preserve. Listen to no man who tells you to fight another; use your own judgement. Always choose peace and dialogue wherever possible, but always defend yourself.
The EU is basically saying they don’t want to encourage a Tiananmen Square or the guy who stood up to the tanks in the iconic photograph; instead, they think this man and these students should have left China as refugees and not tried to change their country. They are preaching surrender to all citizens, everywhere, on planet Earth.
If the EU had existed during the time of the French Revolution but France was the only nation not in the EU, an interesting and terrifying thing would have taken place. The EU, due to having a very liberal immigration and refugee belief system, would have accepted hundreds of thousands of starving French men and women, the same men and women who would otherwise have fought and won the French Revolution.
The only reason France is what she is today is due to no other nation offering to house, feed and provide healthcare services to millions and millions of French men and women, most of whom wouldn’t have arrived with ID documents or even proof that they were from France.
If men from Spain heard that millions of Frenchmen were getting free houses, cell phones and dental work all thanks to the German taxpayer and their bizarre liberal refugee programme, of course many Spanish men and women of that day would dress as their French neighbours, would learn a few words of French and continue shouting, ‘I am a refugee, protect and help me.…’
If a French man or woman was heard shouting that phrase before the moment of that nation’s revival from tyranny, the revival never would have taken place.
Fighting back against bullies is hard. The Russians fought and won their revolution, so did the French, so did the Americans, and even as a Brit I can’t help but be proud of the Americans for standing up for themselves to a far more powerful colonial power.
The USA is called the land of the free for one reason and one reason only: because when the Red Coats came with bayonets fixed, the Americans answered with clenched fists rather than declaring they were refugees and seeking protection from her neighbours to the south.
What France, America and the EU are saying (via admitting refugees) is, ‘Although it took great sacrifice and martyrdom to win the freedoms all of our citizens enjoy, we don’t want you to have to put in the same effort we did against the British Empire or when we fought against the Roman Empire or when we fought against the Third Reich.’ This creates refugees and refugee problems and waves of economic migration. This has the end result of undermining all Second and Third World nations, of demotivating beavers everywhere.
What the West is saying is it doesn’t matter if foreign beaver dams fail due to their attractive Western liberal generous welfare systems and tolerance enticing beavers away from work and toil towards the bright lights of the West—which has already built modern dams, already done all the hard work.
The question is, is the West deliberately causing all of these foreign beaver dams to fail or is this merely an unfortunate consequence of their hubris, supremacy and liberalism?
(This chapter originally appeared in the book Ending the Migrant Crisis in Europe: Preventing Class Wars, Race Wars and the Destruction of the EU)