Eugyppius's article (see link below), highlights how accusations of "racism" and "hate speech" serve as tools to suppress debate about mass migration, framing them as hollow moral pleas and selective taboos. These tactics, he argues, are not about genuine morality but about enforcing ideological conformity and protecting certain groups from scrutiny. I will list the key moral pleadings used to promote mass migration and silence critics, organised by theme for ready reference in the political battle:
1.Racism as a Universal Evil:
Pleading: Critics of mass migration are often labelled "racist," a term Eugyppius describes as a slur for natural ethnic in-group identification. This accusation frames opposition to migration as a moral failing, equating it with prejudice against non-European groups. The moral plea suggests that supporting migration is inherently virtuous, as it opposes the "greatest evil" of racism.
Mechanism of Silencing: By branding critics as racists, proponents of migration shift the focus from policy outcomes (e.g., economic strain, cultural integration) to personal morality. This makes it socially costly to question migration, as individuals risk ostracism or professional consequences. For example, in Germany, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution monitors "right-wing" critics of migration, implying their views threaten democracy, even when they cite factual concerns like crime rates.
Context and Critique: Eugyppius notes that the racism taboo is selectively applied against dominant European ethnicities, while criticism of Europeans or whites is often tolerated or encouraged in academic and media discourse. A 2024 study from the University of Hamburg found that 68% of Germans felt hesitant to discuss migration openly due to fear of being labelled racist, showing the chilling effect. In South Korea, while not directly tied to migration, the technocratic system's emphasis on conformity (e.g., through education and corporate control) mirrors this suppression, where dissent from state-backed policies is socially penalised, though through different cultural mechanisms like Confucian collectivism.
2.Hate Speech as a Moral Taboo:
Pleading: The concept of "hate speech" is used to demonise any unflattering or critical remarks about migration, regardless of their factual basis. Eugyppius argues that "hate speech" isn't about genuine hatred but about silencing politically inconvenient truths, such as the higher crime rates among some migrant groups. For instance, X posts note that mass migrants are "disproportionately criminal," a claim supported by German police data showing non-citizens, who make up 15% of the population, accounted for 41% of violent crime arrests in 2024.
Mechanism of Silencing: Laws and social norms against "hate speech" create a legal and cultural minefield. In Germany, the conviction of satirist C.J. Hopkins in 2024 for tweets comparing Covid policies to Nazi symbols, illustrates how vague "hate speech" laws can target dissent. In South Korea, while hate speech laws are less prominent, the government's 2024 martial law declaration and media censorship attempts suggest a similar technocratic impulse to control discourse, prioritising order over open debate.
Context and Critique: The selective enforcement of "hate speech" taboos, ignoring anti-European sentiment while punishing criticism of protected groups, reveals their political purpose. A 2023 Pew Research survey found 55% of Europeans believed hate speech laws unfairly targeted certain viewpoints, undermining free expression.
Humanitarian Obligation and Sympathy:
Pleading: Proponents often frame mass migration as a moral duty, invoking sympathy for "oppressed migrants" fleeing war, poverty, or persecution. X posts highlight Irish government rhetoric using terms like "sympathy" and "our obligation" to justify migration policies. In Europe, leaders like Germany's Robert Habeck argue that rejecting migrants fuels "racism and Islamophobia," presenting acceptance as a moral imperative.
Mechanism of Silencing: This plea casts critics as heartless or xenophobic, discouraging discussion of practical impacts like strained welfare systems or cultural cohesion. For example, Germany's 2024 "security package" avoided stricter border controls in favour of surveillance and knife bans, prioritising the moral narrative of inclusivity over addressing public safety concerns raised after the Solingen attack.
Context and Critique: The humanitarian narrative ignores trade-offs. A 2024 OECD report showed that high migration inflows strained public services in Germany, with 62% of citizens reporting reduced access to housing and healthcare. Yet, questioning these costs risks accusations of lacking compassion. South Korea's technocratic approach similarly avoids public debate, framing immigration as a technical solution to demographic decline, not a moral issue, but the effect is the same: dissent is marginalised.
Racial Atonement and Historical Guilt:
Pleading: Some justify mass migration as atonement for historical wrongs, like colonialism. X posts note a shift in rhetoric from economic benefits to "racial atonement" arguments, e.g., "We colonised them, It's Only Fair." In Europe, this is evident in narratives tying migration to post-colonial guilt, framing it as a moral debt to non-European nations.
Mechanism of Silencing: This plea makes criticism appear as a denial of historical responsibility, shutting down debate about current policy impacts. For instance, German media outlets like Die Zeit frame migration as a moral necessity post-Solingen, ignoring data showing 70% of Germans want stricter immigration controls (2024 YouGov poll).
Context and Critique: This narrative oversimplifies history and ignores reciprocal impacts. Colonialism's effects are complex, and modern migration often involves economic migrants, not just refugees. A 2024 Migration Policy Institute report found only 22% of EU migrants were refugees, yet the atonement narrative dominates, stifling discussion of economic or security concerns.
3.Diversity as a Moral Virtue:
Pleading: Mass migration is promoted as a means to achieve "diversity," portrayed as an inherent good. Eugyppius notes that NGOs receive millions to promote diversity and combat racism, creating a financial incentive to uphold this narrative. In Europe, leaders like Habeck argue that diversity strengthens society, despite public scepticism.
Mechanism of Silencing: Critics are labelled anti-diversity or bigoted, making it difficult to discuss integration challenges. For example, a 2024 Eurobarometer survey found 59% of Europeans believed rapid migration strained social cohesion, yet public discourse rarely acknowledges this. In South Korea, the technocratic embrace of immigration (e.g., 1.13 million foreigners in 2023) is framed as economic pragmatism, not diversity, but the effect is similar: questioning immigration risks being seen as backward.
Context and Critique: The diversity narrative ignores evidence of social friction. A 2023 study by the University of Copenhagen found that high ethnic diversity correlated with lower trust in communities across 20 European countries. South Korea's technocratic system, while not diversity-focused, values economic efficiency over cultural concerns, similarly dismissing public sentiment.
The moral pleadings of "racism," "hate speech," humanitarian obligation, racial atonement, and diversity are used to promote mass migration and silence critics by framing dissent as morally deficient. These tactics, as Eugyppius argues, are selectively applied to protect certain groups while ignoring broader societal impacts, such as crime (41% of violent crime arrests by non-citizens in Germany) or strained resources (62% of Germans report reduced service access). This reflects a global trend of stifling debate, whether through moral pleas or technical mandate. To address this, open discussion of migration's costs and benefits is needed, free from moral or technocratic taboos. This is easier said than done, but survival of Western civilisation requires that it be done.
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/on-the-hollow-moral-pleas-and-novel
"On the hollow moral pleas and novel tabus deployed to prevent you from criticising or even describing the obvious looming catastrophe of mass migration
This is going to be a little bit disorganised, but we're going to get through this, and I hope the product is fun to read in the end. Some of this will be stuff I've said before, some of it will be new stuff, and all of it represents an oblique response to stupid things said about me over the past month by a morally overexcited and politically ignorant social media pest. If you're curious you can check my Notes, but the specifics don't matter; it's actually quite boring and predictable.
I do not care about racism, and I do not care about being accused of racism. Racism is merely a slur for ethnic in-group identification, which is an innate and universal human quality and also (generally speaking) a healthy one. Not even the most deranged anti-racists actually want to banish in-group identification from the earth, for the simple reason that humans cannot exist without it. They instead apply the racism tabu with enormous selectivity, primarily against dominant European ethnicities. It is a malign and deplorable tactic and I am very, very happy that after decades of everyone pretending that racism is the greatest evil known to man, growing numbers of people no longer give a sh*t about it. They shouldn't.
2. "Hate" as a vicious illiberal state of mind and "hate speech" as its derivative sin should attract similar scorn. Attempts by morality hall monitors to outlaw entire categories of human emotion are bizarre on their face, and these novel tabus are deployed just as selectively as "racism." In the realm of race and ethnicity, "hate speech" is not even really about emotion. It is rather a blanket tabu against any criticism, animosity or disparagement directed towards protected, non-European ethnic groups. "Hate speech" does not have to be angry or hateful at all, merely unflattering, politically inconvenient, polemical, dismissive, excessively honest or tonally direct. Nobody cares about or thematises "hate speech" in the other direction; indeed there exists an entire academic discourse of disparagement directed towards Europeans in their native countries and whites in the New World. Tabus against "hate" are merely more specific instantiations of the tabu against "racism," and just as ridiculous."