Lauren Southern’s BorderlessGregory Hood
I wasn’t going to watch Borderless, Lauren Southern’s latest documentary. I thought Farmlands, her film on South Africa, was important. Yet I knew enough about Europe.
But YouTube censored Borderless, so I changed my mind. If Big Tech doesn’t want Americans to watch something, it’s probably important.
Borderless is not what I was expecting. Lauren Southern says it wasn’t what she expected to make. It’s not incendiary propaganda like With Open Gates. Instead, it soberly examines human traffickers and NGOs.
Miss Southern refers to “massive demographic changes” in Europe. She also blames the “Arab Spring” and the collapse of the Libyan government for enabling the crisis. She grasps geopolitics better than most Western politicians.
Yet this is background. The documentary begins with Miss Southern and her crew hiding from human traffickers and/or Turkish police. This is typical; Borderless doesn’t provide much data or policy analysis. It’s a collection of compelling stories. Miss Southern and her crew travel to different locations (some quite dangerous) interviewing human smugglers, migrants, NGO members, and others.
For example, Miss Southern interviews a Turkish farmer. His community is plagued by traffickers “who act like the Mafia.” The farmer complains women must be continually escorted—something familiar to anyone who remembers Cologne. Miss Southern states there is a “Turkish perspective” which most have overlooked.
Miss Southern interviews several migrants, mostly young, single men. They have paid hundreds or even thousands of euros to human smugglers. Those interviewed come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Mali. Most migrants are not “Syrian refugees.” Some migrants allege ISIS members are in the “refugee camps.”
Many migrants regret their decision to leave home. Human smugglers tell them Europe is paradise, but many migrants end up in a squalid camp or under a bridge. “I think this is a business!” one angry migrant declares.
He’s right. Human smugglers can make 100,000 euros per boat transporting migrants. The fact migrants can afford to pay human smugglers show they are not real “refugees.”
Still, the documentary has a sympathetic tone. “In Afghanistan, we have all the time war, we don’t have economy, we don’t have money,” says one Afghan migrant. Yet some migrants feel entitled. One declares he wants to go to “Belgium or Iceland.” Why these countries must accept him doesn’t seem to be a consideration.
Many NGO employees appear more cynical than human smugglers. The documentary shows Ariel Ricker, executive director of Advocates Abroad, “coaching” migrants to gain refugee status with “a formula we came up with.” Miss Ricker says she and others are partially driven by “anger” at President Trump’s election. The documentary shows some NGO workers and human smugglers are hostile to the very concept of borders.
Corporate media like Buzzfeed have already written hit pieces about this segment. Buzzfeed doesn’t attack the NGO workers, but the “far-right You-Tuber” providing information “weaponized by other far-right internet personalities” and “Russian state broadcaster Russia Today.” Borderless does show a lot of raw video footage from RT. However, that’s likely because RT often provides raw video, in contrast to other networks that mostly provide commentary.
The documentary contains an interview with Panos Moraitis, founder of the Emergency Response Centre International. Mr. Moraitis was recently arrested for various crimes, including money laundering. The documentary captures his lawyer seemingly admitting the organization laundered 500,000 euros. Furthermore, “if you engage with NGOs,” the lawyer said, “you know it’s a small amount of money actually for three years.” Miss Southern thus identifies what is likely one hub in a huge money laundering network built on human smuggling.
Miss Southern interviews some members of the European Parliament, including British MEPs Steven Woolfe and Janice Atkinson and the French National Rally’s Nicolas Bay. Mr. Woolfe argues the migrant crisis costs 150 to 200 billion euros each year. Miss Atkinson says, “Merkel let in too many people,” and the influx has had a “profound effect” on European societies, especially Nordic ones. Mr. Bay specifically criticizes French president Emmanuel Macron for wanting more mass immigration from Africa. His comments are especially interesting given National Rally’s victory in the EU elections.
Miss Southern has one segment you might expect from a leftist journalist. She accompanies a Bulgarian militia that claims to have turned back around 90,000 migrants. She calls them “well-organized and intimidating,” though they are usually armed with Airsoft “weapons.” The militia has a murky partnership with Bulgarian law enforcement. Miss Southern covers this calmly, not disguising the group’s militaristic affectations, but not hysterically denouncing it like a leftist journalist would. Progressive viewers will likely find the existence of this group disturbing. Miss Southern’s choice to include it indicates she is striving for balance. She may also be suggesting such groups are inevitable given the present chaos.
Miss Southern’s documentary concludes with an examination of Wickslow, Ireland, where the town’s “Grand Hotel” was used to house migrants. Some residents express concern and anger about the policy. The disconnect between rulers and ruled is displayed when one councilor complains about Ireland’s housing crisis yet refuses to comment when asked about foreign refugees. The hotel’s owner states he agreed to house the refugees for commercial reasons, raising further questions about who is paying for all this.
Irish journalist Gemma O’Doherty says in the past, she would be “on side” with refugees because “what journalist wouldn’t be?” (This is a revealing statement about the profession.) Yet she feels too many resources are going to refugees when Ireland faces a housing crisis. What’s more, she says, “our cities have become so multicultural they don’t even feel Irish anymore.” “We have one tiny little island to call home,” she says of her people.
The “refugees” living in Ireland agree to some extent. “I don’t really blame people who don’t accept us,” says one. A refugee from Zimbabwe admits she paid to create a fake passport and received instructions about what to do. One can sympathize with those escaping from Zimbabwe without conceding that the Irish must be replaced so Africans can flee their own post-colonial societies.
“We fought hard for our independence, now we have it, a hundred years, and what are we doing with it?” asks Miss O’Doherty. “Giving it away again. Makes no sense.” She is currently posting school photos revealing Ireland’s demographic transformation on Twitter.
Miss Southern concludes by recognizing the migrants’ humanity. They aren’t “invaders,” but people born in “unfortunate” countries and circumstances who have been “sold a lie.” She condemns the “very wealthy evil men” profiting from this situation. The “story of a borderless Europe is a story where nobody wins,” she says.
This isn’t true. The “evil men” are winning. Those who want to deconstruct Europe’s nations are winning. While some migrants end up in poverty, others receive massive welfare benefits. They are winning.
Many migrants don’t want to deliberately destroy Europe. Yet if enough arrive, they will. Their “unfortunate” circumstances aren’t bad luck, but the result of immutable genetic characteristics and deep-seated folkways they carry with them. Sometimes, Western governments are to blame for creating a crisis, like in Syria and Libya. However, it’s usually the same leaders that launched these wars who support mass immigration.
Still, Lauren Southern’s documentary is a tremendous achievement. She reveals fraud by NGOs. She shows the financial considerations motivating many immigration supporters. She doesn’t treat migrants like helpless victims requiring white saviors.
The word “journalist” is almost an insult. I hesitate to call Lauren Southern one for that reason. Yet there’s no alternative—Borderless is a great journalistic achievement. It reveals the massive criminality driving the invasion of Europe.
There is more investigation to be done, more data that must be assembled. Unfortunately, the corporate media won’t do it. Instead, they’ll just try to silence those brave people who will.
The State of the Nation for White Advocates
Nuclear Families: Threads
Of Donkeys and Men: A Review of The Banshees of Inisherin
Trevor Lynch’s Classics of Right-Wing Cinema
Race and Ethics in John Ford’s Stagecoach
Enoch Powell, poslední tory
John Wayne’s The Alamo & the Politics of the 1960s
The Banshees of Inisherin
It’s a good documentary, but it drags in spots:
“Day 1 … nothing happening.”
“Day 2, moved to a different location … nothing happening.”
“Day 3, yet another new location … nothing happening.”
Also, she’s a pretty girl but it’s sort of comical to see her on a stakeout at 4 a.m. with full false eyelashes and red lipstick and perfect foundation.
You omitted one of the most jarring scenes, the interview with the Wicklow, Ireland City Councilman —
Documentarian: “We’ve spoken to several local residents and there seems to be a question regarding funding …”
Councilman: (interrupting) “Not answering that. No. Nope. Not answering that. Turn the camera off, please.” The Irish mustn’t know their taxes are putting Somalians up at their local Grand Hotel, especially when many of their own citizens are homeless.
I applaud anyone who moves beyond Keyboard Kvetcher. Good for Ms. Southern. Worth a watch.
It’s a visual medium and she just seemed camera-ready to me. Her appearance is of-a-piece with the over-all high production values of the film and helps to lift what is a squalid subject, to make it more palatable and accessible to the general public.
I only wish that Southern would have spent a bit more time discussing the effects on European peoples as a whole. Still, it’s a great piece.
Agreed. Also, I wish there had been more analysis and inquiry into the ngos and money sources. At one point, Southern offers that the invaders have sold homes or businesses to pay the traffickers. At another, she notes that the invaders are most often from countries not affected by war, who had had no thought of invading Europe until approached in their country.
I doubt however very few of the invaders sold valuable assets to pay for passage. Rather, I think people in the non-White 3rd World are being recruited and paid to lay waste to Europe. And, there is no other point to it than that; and the sooner we see that the whole endeavour is dedicated to no other purpose than our destruction and dispossession, the better.
Did she mention Alan Shatter?
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.