As I mentioned in the previous article, the empathy or lack of empathy arising from ethnic difference significantly affects political behaviour, often subconsciously. This is one reason for the Jewish embrace of multiculturalism in modern Europe. It isn’t necessary to postulate malign intent in order to explain it. They simply lack empathy with the people and culture that surrounds them, with countries their families have often only recently arrived in, and this makes it much easier for them to contemplate radical and disruptive political change to places where they lack roots or any deep sense of belonging.
Similarly, I’ve noticed that many of the loudest pro-immigration voices at the Telegraph newspaper, for example, are from Scots. Tony Blair (technically at least) and Gordon Brown, the two prime ministers who presided over the recent upsurge of immigration into Britain, were both Scots. Occasionally, in the comment sections, you will see accusations that this is some dastardly Scottish plot to get revenge on the English. This is fantastical, as are some claims of a Jewish conspiracy. But it is not necessary to postulate conscious malevolence to explain these patterns of behaviour. It is enough to say that when you see your own country and city and neighbourhood - where your own ancestors have lived for generations - being transformed by immigration, it affects you much more deeply at a visceral, emotional level than it does when you see someone else’s country, city or neighbourhood being so transformed.
Like considerations may apply in Belgium, where Brussels is the city worst affected by immigration and is rapidly transforming into a Muslim colony. I don’t follow Belgian politics as closely as I do French politics, but my understanding of it is as follows. (Belgian readers, please correct me if this impression is wrong.) Left-wing parties are mainly supported by the Walloon (French-speaking) part of Belgium. These parties are strongly pro-immigration, yet the immigrants, in practice, tend to come to Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of the country. Again, it is not necessary to suppose that this is an evil scheme by the Walloons to destroy the Flemish. It is enough to suppose that the French-speakers are just not as bothered by the prospect of the Dutch-speaking areas being transformed by immigration as they would be if it was their own ancestral homeland. A reduced degree of empathy, occasioned by ethnic difference, is enough to explain it. And some instinctive sense of this in Flanders no doubt acts as a driver of Flemish separatism.
To take another example, we have seen Catalonia adopt strongly pro-immigration, even pro-Islam positions in recent years. As a result, Catalonia is now the most heavily Islamised part of Spain. Part of the reason for this is Catalonia’s wish to differentiate itself from the Castilian part of Spain. Latin American immigrants are fairly common in Spain because the Spanish government offers them easier access than immigrants from anywhere outside of the EU. Catalonians fear that, as Castilian speakers, they would reinforce the Castilianness of Spain and of Catalonia if they came there. So they embrace Muslim North African immigrants instead. It’s crazy, but it’s happening.
These are just a few examples to illustrate my more general point that ethnic differences within states tend to act as drivers of the European Genocide, sometimes inspiring indifference on issues that ought to incite strong emotion, at other times creating strong emotions over trivialities that occlude rational judgement on more important matters. So the (usually subconscious) empathic biases that ethnic difference gives rise to act in ways that ultimately facilitate the repopulation of Europe by non-Europeans.
The class aspect of the genocide is also worth considering in this respect. Immigration could be considered a form of class warfare in that it tends to make life more difficult for the lower classes through wage competition and the actual physical and often threatening presence of the immigrants in their neighbourhoods, yet benefits the upper class by providing a cheap and readily available supply of menials for service roles. How does this relate to ethnic difference? Well, class systems often originate in or are accentuated by ethnic difference. The Norman Conquest in England, for example, created a brutal apartheid-like system in England in which an alien ruling class presided over a country of conquered serfs. Of course, these differences attenuate with time but this experience is probably still what accounts for the intensity of the class system in England, even compared to other parts of Britain. So class difference, to some degree at least, is actually a distant echo of ethnic difference. And this, too, creates subconscious empathic biases that make it easier to contemplate political change that disrupts the traditional way of life of the ethnic, or class, “Other”.
To sum up, the boundaries of states should be drawn up according to the felt sense of self of the people. When any other arrangement exists, when different peoples are forced to live together in the same political unit, the empathic gap between them creates a gulf from which, sooner or later, unpleasant things are bound to emerge. And, in modern Europe, those unpleasant things will usually have brown skins and be carrying Korans.