Sultan Knish
The old paradigm that a country has the right to decide who enters it
has been decisively overturned in Europe, it's under siege in such first
world countries as America, Canada, Australia and Israel by the creed
that says it's the human rights obligation of every nation to accept
every refugee.
Given a chance a sizable portion of the third world would move to the
first, a minority because of oppression and a majority because the
opportunities and freebies are much better there. Even low ranked first
world nations still find themselves swamped with refugees looking to
move in.
International law does not assign any priority to a nation's citizens
over any person who happens to stray across the border. At the ground
level that means the end of borders and the end of citizenship which is
why immigration isn't just a touchy issue in Arizona, it's a touchy
issue in Sydney, Tel Aviv and Birmingham. You can hardly open a
newspaper of the liberal persuasion without being treated to another
group of refugees in some troubled part of the world walled up behind
fences and trying to get over to London, Sydney or New York.
This sort of thing can't be called immigration anymore, it's a
straightforward migration and it has no apparent limits. However many
you take in, there will be more waiting and always burdening you with an
unsolvable crisis.
One approach is to try and stabilize whatever crisis they are supposedly
escaping from. Too many Libyans running away to Italy? Just bomb their
dictator and they'll go home again. At least that's the theory, it
doesn't work too well in practice. For one thing Libya is more dangerous
and unstable than it was under Gaddafi. Stabilizing it would require an
Iraq level investment of money and manpower, and Iraq isn't stable
either. And London is still full of Iraqi refugees dating back to the
1980's.
The disparities that make migration aren't fixable, but nor is mass
migration a viable option. There's a reason that the refugees are
running away and they are often part of the problem. Every nation is
troubled in its own way and mass migration imports those troubles. It's
why beheadings have come north of the border and the Jihad has set up
shop in countless Western cities.
The melting pot myth was that people leave their identities behind to
join in a mass identity. That worked only marginally back in the day, it
doesn't work at all today when the refugees are immersed in their
Little Mogadishus, which have popped up in a frightening amount of
American cities foretelling the day when those cities will become as
violent and broken as the original Mogadishu.
In place of the melting pot is the No Go Zone, which is the inverse of
integration, it sets up tribal encampments in major cities which run on
the laws of the tribe. That sort of thing has always been around in one
form or another and it is survivable in limited numbers so long as those
zones don't also become factories of violence. That's the difference
between Amish Country and a Muslim banlieue, it's also the difference
between separatism and supremacism.
The United States has had its Fenian raids, its assorted wars being
waged by immigrants from its soil, and the attitude toward those
conflicts has been mixed, depending on whose ox was being gored. But
there's a fundamental shift when those wars are being waged against it.
That shift from immigrants using it as a conflict base to becoming the
target of their conflicts is a somewhat recent one whose full
implications have still not been absorbed.
Across the southern border it faces mass immigration from a country
whose history is riddled with old scores to settle and whose politicians
use it as a whacking post for their national troubles. And to the east
and the west it faces mass migration from the Muslim world, which is
operating on its own form of manifest destiny, settling Europe and
European colonies, the way that European colonists once settled America.
The news is no better in Canada or Australia, it's certainly no better
in Europe where the EU sees mass migration as a convenient way of
completing its project of dissolving national identities. Encouraging
separatism at the regional level is one way of doing it, but mass
fragmentation of nations gets the job done even more thoroughly and
comprehensively.
The EU is working off another melting pot model, much like the national
governments who think that they can create a pliable left-leaning
electorate by opening up the borders. What they actually end up creating
is chaos and chaos eventually becomes order. The only question is whose
order it will be. It isn't likely to be their order, which leaves few
options.
If nations are meaningless, then national identities are equally
meaningless. All that's left are clans, religious and ethnic groups in
the borderless multicultural globe. A chaos that sorts itself out
through the old reliable means of brute force, accompanied to dollop of
deceit and coalition building. The coalitions that the left built up to
consolidate its rule are being hijacked and used by the Brotherhood as
the building blocks of their rule instead.
In a chaotic environment, tribalism and a compelling ideology can
combine to carve out an expanding sphere of order. That is how Islam got
its start, that is how it is operating now. In a fragmented
environment, it has a leg up because it is organized and it has the
money and vision to move forward, which is more than the natives or most
of the other immigrants have.
To Islam, Europe, America and the rest of the non-Muslim world are all
Mogadishus, they are the Dar Al-Harb, the realm of the sword, where the
faithful are destined to bring order. Every social problem proves how
much the infidel world needs them to bring order and the violence that
they bring raises the stakes and drives everyone toward an inevitable
conflict.
Borders are created to keep things out, like invading armies and
suicide bombers. The border represents security and ownership, and when
you take away the border those are gone and the soft vulnerable
territories within are up for grabs to the ruthless and the canny. If
the borders are down, then why not go north where there's wealth and
power up for grabs and take some for yourself.
National identity in the Muslim world is already weak, outmatched by
religious identity on the one hand and tribal identity on the other.
That set of conditions makes it quite difficult for them to build and
maintain functional countries of their own, but leaves them quite well
adapted to using tribal and religious ties to take over regions in a
state of multicultural flux.
Islam is not built for competence, it's built for conquest. Its
effectiveness lies in its ability to create chaos, rather than maintain
order. And every suicide bomber, every plot exposed, every riot over a
cartoon demonstrates the power of that chaos and how far the local and
global authorities who try to maintain order will go to appease the
causers of chaos.
A West that has become increasingly secular, where nationalism is
suspect and ethnic identity for the natives is taboo, is frighteningly
ill-adapted to such a conflict. It has thrown away the survival skills
necessary to cope with the situation and the survival skills it has are
built on adapting to change by submitting to a new state of affairs,
whether it's a new set of ideas, a new set of forms or a new set of
laws. Change and future shock have become the way of the West. Islam's
past shock follows the same narrative and makes the same demands. Adapt,
learn to recite the new truisms and get on with your life.
The West has learned to forget and it no longer knows the answer to the
question, "Who are we?". Who are we beyond people in an experiment to
create a new and better society and then spread that wonderful society
to the rest of the world? And what exactly is that society we are
spreading?
Muslims who know quite well what new and better society they are part
of, have an advantage because they understand their role better than the
natives. The ability to answer the big questions is a key factor in any
struggle. Every battle begins with an army that has to be composed of
men who have to be convinced to leave their homes and participate in a
conflict that may cost them their lives. Getting them lined up and in
good fighting shape is a lot easier if they understand why they are
here.
They are better adapted to the end of the state, because they have never
truly internalized the reality of the state, than the Westerner for
whom the state has become the fundamental unit of existence.
Westerners have become the ultimate refugees, lost at home, refugees in
their own countries, wanderers in their own cities. The same processes
that have turned their countries into superpowers are now drowning them
in their own effluvia. And the citizen of the first world often finds
that he seems to belong less in his own country than the refugees
flooding it. He has become a displaced person, a familiar enough feeling
to many of his new neighbors who are also victims of ethnic and
religious conflicts. But while the conflicts they have fled are
official, his conflict is not. He is the victim of a nameless conflict
that cannot be named, of a colonization that cannot be described as such
and of the ethnic cleansing of his national identity and the theft of
his future.
No comments:
Post a Comment