Thoughts On My Immigration Debate With Kevin Barrett


Brandon Martinez / Non-Aligned Media

Reflecting on my recent debate with Kevin Barrett on the open borders globalist agenda, a few points bear repeating.

Many commenters observed that in our debate Barrett frequently spoke over me and derailed the conversation when I was in the middle of making a point, sending the dialogue off into scattered directions to confuse and muddy the issue with semantics. If Barrett had solid footing in his positions, he would not have needed to do this.

Barrett didn’t totally deny that there is an agenda afoot, led by globalist Jews like George Soros, to inundate the West with a tidal wave of endless immigration from the third world. But he essentially argued that it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. He then floated the ludicrous proposition that Soros and his billionaire globalist compatriots could actually be motivated by humanitarian concerns when they lobby Western countries to welcome in millions of refugees and asylum seekers (a large portion of whom are actually opportunistic economic migrants).

The fact that Soros has plunged entire countries into economic crisis with his predatory currency speculation activities demolishes any suggestion that he is a genuine humanitarian. Rather, Soros is an intensely greedy and power hungry globalist-capitalist with a Messianic Jewish bent who wants to eliminate borders and extirpate ethnic, cultural and national identities (except for Jewish identity and Israel, of course) in the pursuit of a globalized mass of mindless consumers.

A recent report revealed that an Italian pro-immigration group, predictably funded by Soros, published a list of terms that they want to abolish from the language of journalism, in order to sugar-coat mass immigration and shield delinquent migrants from criticism. The report said that the Soros-backed group sought to expunge from news reporting all expressions that,

 underscore the ethnicity of certain migrant groups or their illegal status. Terms like “clandestini” (clandestine migrants), “zingari” (gypsies), “nomadi” (nomads), “extracomunitari” (those coming from outside the European Union) and others like them are marked for extermination.

Even such precise terms as “Albanian,” “Maghrebi” and “Chinese” should be excluded from news reports, the association contends, because “today, they are no longer neutral.” The group also insists that the ethic origin of perpetrators of crimes should not be mentioned in news stories so as not to create an association of malfeasance with migrants.

“Islamic extremists” should simply be referred to as “extremists,” the guide declares, to avoid stirring up prejudice against Muslims.

This politically correct censorship has spread across Europe and reached Orwellian levels of insanity during the fallout from the migrant crisis of 2015, with European governments fining and jailing dissident bloggers who criticize their suicidal open borders policies. And this is a continent that already has draconian “hate speech” laws in place, which have been used to silence immigration critics and nationalists for decades. Efforts like the one mentioned above are clear examples of the globalist drive to deface the European continent and stifle any opposition to its annihilation as a unique land space of European cultures. The German government, for example, is now advising migrants how to have sex with local German women. The Swedish government helped produce a music video depicting interracial fornication and an ad redefining “Swedish” as an enigmatic identity that anyone can adopt. These and many more examples form an arrow pointing in a singular direction: towards the erasure of Europe and its indigenous peoples.

Besides the machinations of individual globalists like George Soros, Peter Sutherland and others, alongside their mega-rich fellow travelers within Organized Jewry itself, there are the infamous proposals of Count Richard von Coudenhove Kalergi, the ideological godfather of the European Union. In his 1925 manifesto, Kalergi envisioned a fusion of the races to form a hybrid “Eurasian-Negroid” concoction similar in appearance to the Nubians of Ancient Egypt. The Jews would lead this deracinated homogenized humanity because, according to Kalergi, they are an exceptional “spiritual nobility” destined to rule the world. Kalergi’s insights about Jewish leadership of his imagined borderless Europe are little more than regurgitations of Jewish supremacist fables and prophesies from the Old Testament and Talmud. The “spiritual leadership” notion he parroted was clearly influenced, if not outright copied, from the Jewish religious precept of Tikun Olam, where Jews believe they will lead global social revolution to spiritually “perfect” the “inferior” Gentile world. The destruction of all the Gentile nations is presaged in the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament.

As a white American convert to Islam, Barrett finds himself in the universalist camp which holds that all humans are essentially the same. His Islamic dogma contends that ethnic and cultural differences should be superseded by a monotonous religious identity which says we can all get along and sing kumbaya around a bonfire if we simply believe in the same monotheistic deity. That notion is plainly contradicted by the modern civil wars within Muslim-majority societies, where Shia and Sunni Muslims are literally blowing each other up and hewing off heads for primarily theological reasons, not to mention what is done to non-Muslims caught in the crossfire. Because of his religious predispositions, Barrett finds himself in alignment with Jewish globalist aims for mass immigration into the West, leaning on white guilt arguments of historical misconduct to psychologically ready whites for their demographic displacement.

In his write up about our talk, Barrett says that “‘white’ is not a deep historical identity. “Whiteness” was constructed in the 19th century as an excuse to persecute ‘non-whites.'” While I agree that “white” is a vague term, and I do prefer the more regionalist identities of Europe as opposed to just calling oneself “white,” Barrett goes further than that and says that there is no such thing as “white” and that race doesn’t exist at all. It is one thing to say that “white” is not a deeply rooted historical identity, but another thing altogether to say that “white” (as in Caucasian) doesn’t exist. Caucasians or European-descended people are clearly identifiable by their physical appearance and even through DNA testing. The “race is a social construct” mantra is itself an oblique construct of globalists and cultural marxists who want to discredit the idea of ethnic identity to expedite their borderless world.

While Barrett is hostile to those who wish to preserve European identities and borders, he is extremely partial to the Arab and Muslim peoples of the Middle East whose sovereignty and identity has been under assault by Zionist-led Western powers. Islam is a culturally Arabizing faith, which is why converts to Islam who aren’t Arab take on Arabic-sounding Middle Eastern names after conversion and take up the Arab and Muslim nationalist struggles of the Middle East, like that of the Palestinians. So in Barrett’s partisan view, it is fine to be an Arab or Muslim nationalist in the Middle East or North Africa, but it’s bad and “racist” to want the same if you’re a white European. Barrett is essentially engaged in Semitic cultural appropriation, where he views himself as “one of them” (a brown-skinned Muslim from the Middle East) in perpetual conflict with the white “Judeo-Christian” West.

While I share some of his Islamic criticisms of the decadence and moral degeneration of the West, the remedy for that should not be a wholesale embrace of a foreign Semitic religion and ideology that wants to erase our unique European cultures and religions, and to replace them with Islam and Arabic culture. In one radio show Barrett lent support to massive Muslim immigration to Europe because, he mused, that would shift European sentiment to support Palestine instead of Israel. Prioritizing Arabic causes is, clearly, one major side-effect of Islamic conversion. Barrett’s moral particularism for Arabs and Muslims is extrusive. He’s happy to see whites demographically displaced from their own ancient homelands simply so that Arabs can get more favourable treatment in their conflict with Jewish oppressors in a far-away land.

Barrett’s intense focus on the Israel-Palestine issue, neocon wars and 9/11 truth reveals the Muslim particularism behind his thinking. He devotes colossal amounts of time to issues affecting Muslim populations, but virtually none to ones impacting other groups. Ethnically and culturally disfiguring mass immigration into all Western countries is a “stupid issue” to be concerned about, he said in our talk, because hardships afflicting white people don’t matter since we’re all descendants of homicidal colonialists who should be shamed in perpetuity for the sins of our forefathers. Predictably, this collective guilt is never applied to Arabs and Muslims whose imperialism and slave-trading of yesteryear rivals the European powers in their colonial heyday.

Barrett is spot-on in his analysis of Zionism and its manifold evils, but he fails to recognize that for centuries Organized Jewry have had white Europeans in the crosshairs as their principal adversary whose “persecutions” of the Jews throughout history must be avenged with a modern white genocide. His Arabized faith of Islam has led him to struggle endlessly in the service of foreign causes and peoples who share his religion, and to scorn whites as decadent and imperialist trash who deserve what’s coming to them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>