The second entry into my series of posts explaining why I hold the views I do, part one can be read here.
In the early 2000's while in my early 20's I left the north of England and went into Europe backpacking, I ended up remaining in Europe for over a decade, primarily living and working in the Benelux countries. Like many young people who set off for Europe I had a set of preconceived ideas as to how various European countries would be, not just ethnically, but culturally, the general 'feel' of being in France would be different to Holland or Germany and, of course, Britain.
These naive assumptions were swiftly dispelled upon actually entering France, the first country I traveled to. I had never before seen so many non-White people in one place, it simply wasn't very 'French'. The fast-food chains and fashions of Britain were all here too, all that really had changed since passing through London was the language. I became still more disillusioned when traveling further, from Paris it's a mere few hours aboard a train then you're in another country, another capital city. But it didn't really matter, whether it was Brussels or Amsterdam, it would always be remarkably similar. It would always be 30-40% non-White and the Global brands would always dominate the streets along with blacks and Muslims.
I'd never been Politically Correct, indeed, I'd never been political at all, so I didn't know it was taboo not to ask why France wasn't full of French people or why Holland wasn't full of Dutch people. I became increasingly curious about this phenomenon and, lacking the internet, I didn't have a ready supply of answers at hand. I was willing to accept that a country in Europe had at some point made a bureaucratic blunder which had handed citizenship to, say, Africans, particularly in the case of France which I knew had an extensive colonial history. But I simply could not understand why or how every country I visited was making the same mistake...and there was no question at all for me, this was a gigantic 'mistake'.
Settling into a rather pleasant life on the Dutch-Belgian border with a job and flat taken care of, I spent an extraordinary amount of time drinking in the local cafes and bars, picking up a modicum of Dutch as time passed. I frequently questioned my fellow barflies on the immigrant and Muslim issue, mainly they were working class and refreshingly lacking in Politically Correct indoctrination, though there were a few teachers and professionals who found the subject matter of so much of my conversation rather uncomfortable. What I discovered, what had the Belgians and Dutch people confounded, was what I came to think of as the ''Passport Paradox'' and at that time it occupied my mind no end.
The central problem with the Passport Paradox was that when immigrants were granted a passport, citizenship, they effectively became French, or Dutch or Belgian. To argue against granting, for example, a Nigerian the title of 'Dutch' could only be done by being racist, and as nobody wants to be called racist, Europeans simply had to accept it. To be sure, the civic and historical baggage carried by certain European countries didn't help, Belgium is a country with 3 indigenous ethnic groups and France long ago lifted the classification of 'the French' out of the ethnic and the racial, as I discovered after being frequently 'owned' in discussing the matter.
Nevertheless, the problem appeared to me very clearly, the state was declaring people from the Third World to be something which they were not, and to point out that they were not was morally wrong, racist. After some stumbling and head scratching I couldn't help but be convinced that something was deeply wrong, I exchanged my example for another European country which I knew had no colonial baggage and most definitely classified as one nation, one people, and chose Denmark, though the principle remained the same. If the Danish government granted a passport to a Turk, I asked, does the Turk then become Danish?
Morally speaking the onus was always to make 'minorities' European, but what I found horrifying was that, if all it takes is a stamp and a piece of paper to make somebody Danish, then what happens to the real, ethnic Danes? their identity, exclusive to themselves, has been abolished, and indeed, that was the case right across Europe. But how? why? surely, I thought, surely if I can see this disaster then so too can the politicians.
And so the nature of the paradox became clear, the various people's who collectively comprise 'Europeans', were engaged in a chess game in which they'd been checkmated before they were aware the game had started. The choice before them was to have their ancient identities erased, or become moral pariahs by becoming racist.
Particularly galling was that so many of the Turks and Moroccan immigrants held dual citizenship, they carried the passport of their native country, as well as the passport and citizenship of the country within which they resided. So they held what the Dutchman held, while retaining a genuine identity disallowed to the Dutchman. The Dutchman ended up with nothing.
Recognizing the nature of the checkmate, the 'No Win' scenario within which I saw Europeans, led me back to the my original quandary over the ubiquitous nature of the paradox. I could accept that a single European country had stupidly removed the ethnic identity from its people via a bureaucratic failure, but I assumed that would in time be rectified. That the same country would then compound that bureaucratic incompetence with inventing a word 'racist' to shutdown discussion was pushing my credulity, but to have all European nations adopting the very same flaws simultaneously was simply not possible, this was not an accident, this was being done deliberately.
My thoughts then turned further to the magic word of power 'Racist' it was now obvious to me that this was a psychological weapon being used to destroy us, the question was, who and why....