INative Westerners who oppose mass immigration from the Third World – that is, the majority, whose wishes have been repeatedly ignored and betrayed – are accustomed to the disingenuous arguments and fallacies used by both these immigrants and their advocates. The British, for example, are accustomed to variations of the following:

• “Your economy needs third world immigration.”
• “Your birth rates are falling. Immigration from the Third World will help with that.”

These arguments can be classified as the “this is how it benefits you” variety, writes Watching Poland .

It is more than 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, it costs our countries more money than it contributes, it sucks public resources away from the native population, reduces social cohesion and fuels the rise in 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 birth rates, no country ever has to justify its ethnic replacement. Even if “assimilation” were not proven to be a lie, with second and third generation immigrants from the Third World generally continuing or even exhibiting worse patterns of criminality, dysfunction, and even terrorism than their forebears—no nation or people on earth should be expected to welcome their own dispossession and replacement. Yet whites do.

The 'revenge' / 'consequences' argument

Faced with the outright refutation of the above arguments, anti-white politicians and other proponents of mass immigration (open borders activists, NGOs, journalists, left-wing legislators, globalist think tanks, etc.) and the immigrants themselves resort to a second justification:

• “You colonized countries with the British Empire, this is just revenge.”
• “Britain has always been a nation of immigrants. What about the Huguenots, the Jutes, the Normans.” etc.
• “The world is changing. It is inevitable, get used to it.”

These arguments can be classified as the 'revenge' or 'consequence' arguments. What is striking about these arguments is that, unlike the first group of arguments, they abandon any pretense of any benefit to the indigenous host population.

Let’s first briefly address the above, the first point which many will recognise as the ‘sins of the father’ argument. Whatever your views on the British Empire – the premise of this position is that a people are always responsible for what their ancestors did. According to this logic, everyone is guilty – go back enough generations and almost everyone has at some point been descended from an invading, colonising or at the very least warring people. No one ever uses this argument for Turks in relation to the Ottoman Empire, Indians in relation to the Mughal Empire, Chinese in relation to the Qing Dynasty, Mexicans in relation to the Aztec Empire and so on. As always, only whites are guilty; the eternal original sin.

As to the second point, despite the fact that those ancient migrations to Britain were not just centuries but thousands of years ago, they were all White peoples. The uninvited, unwanted third world immigrants will often refer to these ancient migrations (as if they have been taught to do so) to justify their own imposition on us, in an attempt to blind us to the obvious fact; that we are not the same and never will be .

The third argument is simple, but it is a common one among (often Jewish) pro-immigration advocates; the idea that the unwanted and unsolicited influx of large numbers of Third World immigrants is natural, inevitable and irreversible. This is clearly nonsense on all three counts; far from being organic, even most leftists would have to admit that the browning of white countries is a gigantic, coordinated, well-funded effort, spearheaded by hostile elites not only within supranational organizations but also embedded within Western governments. Networks of NGOs, human rights lawyers and the media are all part of this machine.

Native white populations have always resisted mass immigration from the Third World

It is a fact that native white populations have never specifically voted for third world mass immigration. If Western democracies really represented the wishes of the people, every European country would be overwhelmingly homogeneous by now.

Western Europeans have become accustomed to the above arguments and rhetoric. Increasingly, the same arguments are now being used to convince the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe that they too should welcome large numbers of Third Worlders into their overwhelmingly homogeneous nations with a high degree of mutual trust.

Poles are often told, as are residents of all white countries, that those who enter our countries illegally are desperate refugees fleeing oppression and persecution, and to whom we must provide refuge. Jewish activists spend a tremendous amount of time and energy trying to convince us that these people will benefit us, that they simply want to work, build a life, and could even be our next generation of rocket scientists, doctors, and so on.

All these illusions were shattered when 21-year-old Polish border guard Mateusz Sitek was murdered on May 28, 2024 by a third world migrant who was trying to enter Poland through the border with Belarus. This young man, who died defending his country, was fatally wounded with a makeshift spear that the migrant threw through the border fence. Other migrants continued to throw stones and sharp objects at his colleagues as they tried to help him as he lay dying. There is at least one positive outcome of this horrific incident – ​​the authorization for border guards to use live ammunition to protect the Polish border.

Illegal and 'legal' immigration from the third world are two sides of the same coin

One lesson that the cynical and hardened inhabitants of Western Europe would no doubt impart to their brethren in the East is the danger of viewing illegal and 'legal' immigration from the Third World as entirely separate issues. The sheer amount of social disorder and crime committed by 'legal' Third Worlders or their descendants in white countries shatters the lie that the granting of passports or visas to these immigrants distinguishes them from those who enter our countries without the approval of the authorities. Legal immigration, like illegal immigration, is not driven by a desire to enrich or benefit the host country in any way. It is a matter of selfish advantage for the immigrants and their accomplices which, more often than people realise, is accompanied by an underlying hostility and resentment.

Like Sweden and many other countries that have experienced mass third world immigration, Poland has never colonized the third world and is therefore immune to the 'Empire strikes back' argument. But that doesn't stop them from using the other arguments. Of course, those 'arguments', as illustrated above, are quickly and easily debunked, often leading to what can be described as a 'mask off' moment, where those who minutes earlier insisted that their presence is good for you, suddenly reveal their true motivations; envy, greed and racial resentment.

It’s a very familiar pattern, seen thousands of times on X when anti-whites try to debate British nationalists and patriots like Steve Laws and Serena Brown . While it’s worth breaking down their “here’s how it benefits you” arguments in the public sphere – not least because it tends to elicit “mask off” honesty – I would argue that the obvious falseness and dishonesty of their arguments means that it’s a trap to take them too far, and that we should go no further than simple refutation.

All forms of mass immigration from the third world are a plague on white countries

The simple truth is that Third World people do not belong in white countries. Whether they entered illegally or were given visas by a treacherous government makes little difference; the benefit of their presence accrues only to them and the elites who both profit from their lower labor costs and seek to destroy white nations—all at the expense of the native majority. Whites are a global and endangered minority; no white country needs to justify its right to remain white.

Countries like Iran and Pakistan, which are currently busy deporting Afghans en masse , provide little obvious PR or justification for their actions; they simply continue with the logistics of removing large numbers of people who are a proven detriment to their nations.

Western European countries such as Britain, France, Germany and many others have progressed so far along the path of multiculturalism that without a significant change of course they risk becoming minorities in their own countries within decades. This should serve as a dire warning. Countries such as Poland, one of the few remaining countries in the world with a predominantly white native population, without even the legacy of an empire, should feel no hesitation in protecting and preserving their rights as a nation and a people.

---

 

---

Copyright © 2024 translation  by Frontnieuws. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a direct link are given.

Follow Frontnieuws on ? //telegram.im/@FrontnieuwsCom" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Follow Frontnieuws on Telegram