While mass
immigration gives rise to many genuine economic and social concerns, there is
something about discussion of the topic that generates a sense of unease. This
underlying issue is a sensitive one and requires a great deal of attention.
Focusing on the economic impacts and social ramifications of foreign
immigration into “white” nations is inevitably seen by many as an attempt to
distract from the role race plays in the debate. Critics of mass immigration in
the politically correct Western nations are often dismissed as racist or
xenophobic in their intent. While no one can deny that this is indeed the case
for some extremist groups, it still presents a sort of ethical dilemma
regarding freedom of speech and how issues of race should be addressed in
society.
With the best of intentions, many European parliaments
have resorted to passing several “anti-hate” laws to combat those who seek to incite
violence against any specific group of people. This came about in the wake of
the Second World War as leaders of the new European Union set out on a project
of “purging Europe’s individual countries of nationalism.” This effort was largely
successful and patriotic rhetoric became increasingly exclusive to radical
rightwing hooligan types. Speaking out in defense of cultural heritage or
expressing doubts about the benefits of introducing multiculturalism into a
society is tantamount to heresy and can even be punished as a crime. However,
as time goes on, more and more people are failing to be convinced by “political
correctness.” Champions of politically correct thinking often take stances that
more and more citizens find utterly ridiculous. Caldwell gives the examples of
Dutch groups campaigning against traditional Christmas narratives and
Christians being arrested for citing biblical arguments against homosexuality. Caldwell
goes on to claim that “a new, uncompromising ideology was advancing under cover
of its own ridiculousness – not as the Big Lie of legend, perhaps, but as
something similarly ominous that might be called the Big Joke. As anyone could
see, its advance was also accompanied by intimidation and fear.”
I would argue that
the obligation that post war Europeans felt they had to create a more universal
and less chauvinistic society was, at its core, a good thing. However, any type
of value system is a product of the cultural characteristics of the people
themselves. A ruling establishment can only maintain such a value system if the
people see it as legitimate. Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli might comment that
legitimacy can be acquired through the good will of citizens or taken by
violent force. According to the gospel of Matthew, the legitimacy of a
worldview can be determined by examining its results. Matthew warns us “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but
inwardly they are ravenous wolves…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can
a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into
the fire. Therefore
by their fruits you will know them.” Many in Europe are beginning to see
the worsening economic and social situation as a sign that the politically
correct values of the EU establishment might not deserve their endorsements.
This backlash against the current regime can be seen in the rise of populist rightwing
political parties and the growing fame of revisionist figures like Vladimir
Putin.
Those who criticize
mass immigration, at least the more outspoken critics, tend to fall on the
right side of the political spectrum. Groups like the Golden Dawn in Greece as
well as ultra-rightwing groups across Europe make no qualms about the
relationship between race and their opposition to the influx of foreigners. This
moral stance caused me to investigate the biblical stance of ethno-nationalism.
While reading an
article by David Opperman titled “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism,” I
discovered that the Greek word used to describe nations in scripture was ethnos – from which we get the word
ethnicity. Opperman goes on to write that “raceless or tribeless societies
become decadent due to anonymity and loss of patriarchal authority, which is
inevitable in these regimes. When people forget their ancestors they will not
regard their children and future descendants!” Apparently the bible doesn’t
provide any normative ethical opposition to the concept of ethno-nationalism as
the foundation of a state. Several books frequently emphasize the ethnic
identity of Israel and all other nations. A major claim Opperman makes in his
conclusion is that “The foundation of a Biblical nation as defined in the Table
of Nations is derived from common ancestry, common religion, common history,
and common customs, and mutually possessed ideas and values will be built upon
this foundation.”
As I stated in my
previous post, I believe that all of the natural diversity of life is all part
of the same creation that embodies the will of God. I think it is a great
tragedy that history has linked nationalism, a force that has the potential for
so much good in the world, with chauvinism and racism. Pride in one’s ancestry,
history and traditions can be used to encourage social harmony within a nation
while providing a sense of security that promotes mutual understanding between
nations.
