Many get lost in the word remigration.
They hear only coercion, expulsion, deportation.
In that case - if the understanding of the word is so one-sided - I can understand why people take to their keyboards in indignation and attempt to speak grandly about morality, ethics, and problematise it.
But this form of response simultaneously evades - perhaps intentionally(?) - the actual question, which is not about the word.
So let us invent a new one, if it gets in the way, so we can get to the core.
What is being discussed - regardless of what one means by it - is fundamentally about the right to self-determination.
Every single country, every single people, and every single culture throughout history has recognised one thing -
A society can only exist if it protects its cultural identity, its values, and its cohesion.
It is neither extreme nor radical.
It is the foundation of civilisation.
Everywhere on earth - from Japan, to Israel, to the wealthy Gulf states in the Middle East - this is the norm.
You do not give political influence to people who are not embedded in the culture that has built the country.
It is not malicious.
It is responsible.
Only in Europe do we call it racism when a people wishes to preserve itself.
Or.
It is actually a term we reserve exclusively for ourselves - because everyone else is allowed.
Africans, for example, are allowed to protect themselves against influence from external cultural forces. Greenlanders likewise. Just as no one questions Dubai's policy. All Honky Dory.
Somewhere down the road over the last 80 years, confused university professors invented the idea that self-annulment - self-dissolution - that is, cultural suicide - is a morally elevated virtue.
The more a society can shift itself, dissolve itself and annul itself - the better people, and the better culture, it is.
(I'll just wave away the old cannabis fumes..)
But the truth is simple.
If a culture is not allowed to protect itself, it will be replaced by one that is.
And it is important to keep focus on this, regardless of what one believes the solution to Europe's current challenges is - because what is being discussed is not "the dream of sending someone away".
What is being discussed is -
Should Europe have the right to choose its own future?
Should European values, civil liberties, and Western civilisation be allowed to continue - or should it be replaceable?
In my opinion -
If the population of Europe wishes to submit to a theocratic ideology and political law-religion that seeks to overturn everything they know, then that is naturally their right.
But if they do not wish it, then it is also their right to say -
"No thank you.
This is our home.
Our culture.
Our values."
To protect one's culture is not hatred of another. It is love of what one is.
We are not talking about skin colour.
We are talking about worldviews, values, civilisation.
And we can see with our own eyes what leads to what when we look out over the world.
Where the misunderstanding arises, particularly for those who have not thought further than three or four minutes and who simultaneously have a tendency towards drama and strong, aggrieved feelings, is here -
Religions and ideologies are not neutral.
Some systems are built to exist side by side.
Others are built to dominate.
If Europe is to survive as Europe, it must relearn what the rest of the world has never forgotten -
You cannot preserve a civilisation you are not willing to protect.
I do not know the answer - but I reserve the right - the civil liberty (which is such a small Western thing that disappears in theocracies) - to discuss, debate, turn over and examine this, in the hope of finding a reasonable solution that matches our Western value foundation.
Whatever you may wish to call me for doing this - the price is worth it.
It is also worth it for you - and your children and future generations - if you are broadly happy with the Western world's arrangement compared to other civilisations, cultures, and societies.
Happy Wednesday.
❤️🔥🪽
