"Military Colonist" is a term that has gone out of fashion in this brave
new world of "No Human Being is Illegal" and "Every Refugee Deserves to
university history professor with an office full of fake Indian
jewelery and a view of the parking lot will lecture on the military
colonies of the Roman period, always careful to emphasize their eventual
fate. And he may even get up to the 16th century. But he'll stay away
from the present.
But if you are going to take land or seize
power, you will need military colonists to hold it. The military
colonist may be an ex-soldier, but he's more likely to be someone the
empire, present or future, doesn't particularly need or have a use for.
The Czars used serfs. The present day military colonist who shows up at
JFK or LAX may also be a peasant with even less value to his culture.
military colonists are not military. Often they aren't even Mexican.
But they have managed to take back California without firing a shot.
Unless you count the occasional drive by shooting.
United States sent tens of thousands of soldiers to try and hold Iraq
and Afghanistan only to fail; Mexico took California with a small army
of underpaid handymen who claim entire cities and send back some 20
billion dollars a year. As conquests go, it's not hard to see who did
more with less.
In 2009, 417 Mexican migrants died trying to
reach America, and 317 American soldiers died in Afghanistan. But Mexico
has more to show for it than America does. Every Mexican who settles
across the border is a net gain who sends back money and spreads
political influence. Meanwhile America is spending trillions on a much
smaller army in a country whose land no one actually wants.
In 2009, the year Obama approved a 30,000 man troop surge, 3,195 Afghans received permanent legal status in the United States.
the decade since the US invaded Afghanistan, 24,710 Afghans
successfully invaded the United States and received permanent legal
status. That is an occupying force larger than US troop numbers were at
any point in time in Afghanistan until the very end of the George W.
Bush's second term.
During this same period there were also
19,000 Afghan non-immigrant admissions. As invasions go, the Afghan
invasion of America was far more successful than the American invasion
That is even more true when you consider birth
rates. Military colonists are not a mere invading army. They are
The American birth rate was at 13.5. The
Afghan birth rate was at 37.3 at the time. American soldiers go home
when their time is up. Sometimes they come home with a Muslim wife after
converting to marry her. Afghan immigrants come with a birth rate that
is nearly three times that of the country they are invading.
the ocean, the Algerian War is still going strong and France is losing
badly. There are fewer bombs and bullets. Only men and women showing up
and expecting to be taken care of. An army of millions could not have
landed in France and begun pillaging the countryside. Not unless they
came as immigrants. If you are going to invade a Socialist country, the
best way to do it is as a charity case.
Unfortunately that holds true for us as well.
military colonists flooding our shores are part of an unacknowledged
partnership between their political leaders and ours. Their political
leaders are fighting a war to redress the wrongs of centuries or
millennia. Our political leaders are looking to shift the voting
balances in a ward or a district for the next election. When they
resettle the next shipment of Afghans in an otherwise conservative area
with a view to tilting the electoral balance, they are using them as
military colonists for the short term while their homelands use them as
military colonists in the long term.
There was a time when American settlers acted as
military colonists holding down lands in Florida and Texas. Today
America is being colonized by the settlers of other nations and
ideologies. And we will find ourselves in the same position as the
Spanish did in Florida and the Mexicans did in Texas.
invited American settlers to move in to Texas on the understanding that
they would learn Spanish and otherwise fit in. Instead language and
culture proved to be stronger than land and oaths of citizenship. Many
of the Texas settlers might not have had much use for the United States
at the time, but creed and culture made them American military colonists
whether they knew it or not. The same holds true for the present state
of affairs there today.
It's more than just cultural or ethnic
differences that make one a military colonist. It's a cause. Whether
it's Manifest Destiny or the Reconquista or the Caliphate. Underlying it
all is that sense of destiny. The power of an exceptionalism that makes
it impossible for the settler to sink in and abandon his roots and
beliefs to the tidal pull of a new culture when his grudge against it is
more than the mere personal dissatisfaction of the new immigrant or his
children caught between two worlds.
Integration is hopeless in
the face of that sense of destiny. European nations struggling to
defend some notion of secular space misunderstand the problem as one of
extremism. Some of the more visible terror attacks may indeed be
associated with what can be described as extremism in the sense that its
participants are willing to push the envelope harder and further in
more violent ways.
But Islamic terrorism is only the foam on the
surface. It's the bubbles at the edge of the pot. A minor symptom of a
much bigger problem. Ir's simply the most violent expression of a widely
shared belief that Islamic law is superior to Western law. Most peoples
feel that their ways and customs are best. It doesn't become a problem
until they become the majority and won't take no for an answer.
liberalism and European republicanism have no answers to Islamic
terrorism. Their embrace of the Arab Spring was motivated by the need to
believe that the Muslim world was ready to "advance" to the same
postmodern level of existence eliminating the need to worry about women
in Burkas or Al Qaeda. The same misreading of the power of tribe and
religion that led to the foolish belief that Saudi Arabia's military
colonists could safely be turned into Labour voters led to the Arab
Spring's equally misplaced confidence that the Muslim Brotherhood
wanted to be just like Europe.
It isn't only a tiny minority of
extremists who believe that Islamic values are superior to Western
values and who would like the law to recognize that assumption. It's a
tiny minority of extremists who try to prove their devoutness by jumping
the gun and killing people over it before the full demographic impact
of the military colonists would make a Burka ban into the next Syrian
Think of two armies maneuvering into position. The
extremist is the one who fires before the enemy is fully in range
ruining the strategic effect of the surprise attack. Trying to
understand the extremist not only misses the point, it misses the whole
chain of events in motion. The schemes for integrating the disgruntled
youth and countering violent extremism is symptom control.
is an early warning in the clash of civilizations and all our leaders
can think to do is hold a meeting with the heads of the opposing army
asking them to get their hotheads to stop shooting at us because it's
bringing our civilizations into conflict. Our civilizations are in
conflict and have been as far back as they have both existed. The
occasional plane hijacker is the first snowflake of a winter storm.
Instead of preparing for a storm, we're trying to figure out how to stop
The conflict is primal. It isn't about American
foreign policy or War X or Country Y or Cause Z. These are all
"arguments" that explain the conflict once it's already under way. It's
simpler than that. It's about the incompatibility of cultures,
religions, political and economic systems. And it's about countries with
a lot of oil and not much else trying to buy their way to an empire by
using their own impoverished brethren as cannon fodder. And finally it's
about what happens when birth rates fall.
Western countries have achieved individual comforts with an unsustainable system.
unsuistainability is both economic and demographic as budgets and
children are both lacking. Meanwhile the countries and cultures that
have failed have achieved a perfectly sustainable state of misery. They
may not have much income, but they also don't have much to eat. They may
have high infant mortality rates, but they have even higher childbirth
America of 2013 cannot go on being this way indefinitely.
It probably can't even manage another two decades without major changes
of some kind. Afghanistan 2013 however can go on being the way it is
indefinitely. And that sustainability is what makes its people
effective military colonists. Living the Afghan lifestyle in London or
Los Angeles is even sustainable because food and housing are free.
just leaves large packs of nomadic youths roaming the streets, selling
drugs and rioting at the slightest provocation until it's time for them
to get married and make more nomadic youths of their own. It's not that
different from Afghanistan. It's the tribal life transplanted to the
West. It's a culture with no real purpose except to produce young males
eager to fight and expand tribal power and a religion with no real
purpose except to affirm that as a religious duty.
expansionism. Its directives of male violence and female subjugation
have no other end. They protect the tribal imperatives of endogamy and
violence, of inbreeding and the feud. It has no ideas except to get
bigger and that makes its followers into ideal military colonists.
Post a Comment