Here’s some last, quick thoughts on the French immigration crisis.
First, some disclaimers. Are all [insert category][insert slander]? No. Clear? Good. We’re talking trends and history, today.
Second. This article isn’t about tolerance, one way or the other. I’m not arguing for intolerance, and I’m not arguing for tolerance. That’s everyone’s choice, and my own personal decision you can come ask me about sometime, if you’re interested: @GreyLayerBlog
This is an article on the geopolitical motivations and causes for mass immigration, and I think I can fairly easily make the case that the migrant wave is actually an invasion.
First, the history.
Islam, of course, has been a militant expansionist theocracy since it appeared near Mecca in the seventh century. Militant is military. Expansionist societies are societies which attempt to assimilate other peoples into their culture or to eliminate local populaces and control the natural resources in a given area. That is, those societies desire to expand. Militant expansionism isn’t the only form of expansion; there is also cultural assimilation practiced most by the Chinese and economic assimilation practiced most by the late Western democracies. A theocracy is a thought-policed religious state, of which it is debatable where the first appearances may have been.
Some of the best examples, though, have actually been secular or state-based religions. Stalin worship in the USSR, for example, carried with it severe penalties for defiance including death, imprisonment, unreasonable stricture, and as a police state, Soviet military units could search and seize with no reasonable restriction.
The words “There is only one God and he has only one prophet” has been phrased and rephrased in many ways, but it carries the kernel of the entire religion. Islam requires the submission of the person to the God and the words of his prophet. There are no acceptable counter arguments.
Islam, therefore, is not a religion which can naturally incorporate “moderates.” Moderates are people like you would meet on the street; they mouth the words, and go to mosque, but really are just paying lip-service to the whole thing—sort of like how most Canadians do politics.
In Christianity, for example, moderates vary wildly between actual Crusaders and inquisitors to people who sometimes remember that they should be in church on the odd Sunday. That’s because the root message from Jesus was “Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and render unto God that which belongs to God.” Coupled with a general message of self-recognition and deferred gratification (do good things now, get happy happy heavenly rewards later) can be understood in myriad ways.
In the example of the Bible, it is the individual gospels that can be contended with. Leviticus, or Deuteronomy, or John. But rarely is the basic message contested outside the Old Testament, which is actually Judaean rather than Christian.
Islam carries no such gray areas. I realise here, and will make not that there have been attempts to modernise and moderate Islam, but they are not catching on very well as we will see.
At some point shortly after the ascension of their Prophet, Islam schismed. Sunnis contend that Abu Bakr was a legitimate successor appointed by a council empowered by the prophet himself. Shiites contend that succession could only pass along bloodlines, and therefore fell to the Prophet’s cousin Ali.
Since then the two sects have gradually become nearly irreconcilable. Today, the major Shiite power in the world is Iran. Other powers are ISIS, Bahrain and Azerbaijan.
I mention ISIS somewhat pointedly, because it is an entire nation that the rest of the world views as a group of illegally-operating terrorists which they are currently at war with. There has been no formal declaration of war merely because most countries continue to refuse to recognise ISIS as a country itself. This has a lot to do with the fact that ISIS has laid claim to territory largely controlled by the Western-toppled states in the region—Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
However, ISIS construes itself as a legitimate caliphate. A caliphate is a theocratic kingdom under the rule of a “caliph” which is the Muslim equivalent of “Pope.” As such, it doesn’t actually need borders.
The Jewish people, of course, lived without border or government aside from religious guidelines for a very long historical period. I contend that Islam in general is very similar, both in its inability to integrate with other religions and legal systems (for reasons I will briefly outline in a moment) and its desire for submission to a single deity.
Taken aback by that last? The Jewish peoples have only recently begun to properly integrate into other societies. History’s sight generally recognises them as itinerant rebels who declared non-Jewish persons as being “unclean.” Some of the more militant sects do not acknowledge infidels and apostates as human, a tradition that Christians went on to take a little too seriously, in many cases.
In this same vein, most Islamic states which do not come under the purview of a greater state can only use Sharia law. Sharia law is a system whose tenets are outlined here.
Some highlights include the death penalty for apostates and blasphemy, amputation for theft, and women not being allowed to drive things. In fairness, there is disagreement among Muslim nations about how to enforce this law. In similar fairness, no Muslim necessarily denies that they must follow that law.
Because “there is only one God” is a constant theme in Muslim society, and because Sharia is that God’s will, there is no cessation in terms of attempting to expand the reach of that law. It is factual that most Muslims, past a certain threshold of devoutness, literally cannot accept any other legal system or God as legitimate.
I have left certain threshold of devoutness as a vague definition because we are arguing trends. Justifying each action by every person might fill a lot of blog pages, but I have other things to do, and at some level you have to accept or not accept these fair and researched views of Islamic society on your own.
In the end, if this doesn’t convince you (and I didn’t even mention Islam’s bloodsoaked march up through central Europe from north Africa) nothing is going to, but here’s how all this pertains to this weekend in France in particular.
Borders do not halt globalism. Borders encourage globalism. By allowing the people of various nations to retain a stem identity without force or friction, they become far more liberal about integrating and accepting and tolerating others.
A good analogy is how you might feel if your house was made of glass. You wouldn’t suddenly become an exhibitionist—or, most people wouldn’t. Collectivism is a fantasy. Most people need someplace to unwind, sit around in their underwear and watch television. Your country, for your population indigenous and cultured, is that dirty, unvacuumed couch with your butt-groove intact and inviting. Those moments give you the strength to go and perform for the world outside when you go to work or to the gym or to the bar.
Now picture entire nation-states trying to relate to one another while internal friction gradually becomes unbearable. For example, your house is glass. You’re sitting in your chair trying to watch TV in your underwear, but people keep pointing and laughing, or shaking their heads at your choice of program, or wonder aloud (and pointedly) about why you can’t chew with your mouth closed.
This causes a lot of resentment and counter-will. It wouldn’t be so bad if it was a friend or someone you could tell to go and take a running jump, but these people are just strangers passing by. Their motivations are at best unknown, and at worst hostile—there’s no way to know except by proven behaviour.
And if some identifiable group by whatever means—let’s take Chinese men dressed in Shaolin outfits—throw rocks at your house every time they pass by, it’s time to ask what might be done about these strange monks who are so hurtfully precise with their rocks, isn’t it?
ISIS is at war with the West, and characteristic of Shiite majority systems, view everything but Shia-aligned systems as illegitimate and worthy only of enforcing submission upon. Their rocks, thrown at the various houses all around, come in body counts and casualty numbers. They are being helped by a bunch of people inside the house leaving the windows open, because they no longer know why they even have walls if they’re made of glass.
ISIS has massively infiltrated the migrant wave. From the ongoing rape and pillage of Sweden, to the rising crime wave in France (with the latest incident occurring on the Champs-Elysee itself on April 20th) to German women no longer feeling safe walking down the street, there can be no denial that a hostile force is at work.
A vote for anything, anyone, and any concept that mitigates the damage (both done and potential) and begins to restore order to the Western world is a concept that will lead to enhanced diplomatic relations and a better life for everyone involved.
As I have mentioned, it was Western meddling in the Middle-East which birthed this crisis in the first place.
The best thing we can do now is vote to stop.
So vote populism. Vote borders. Vote nationalism. Vote Marine Le Pen, vote AfD, vote everything and anything that ceases geopolitical interference, and will deport harmful immigrants under the laws of their current country without compromise.
Even liberals should do this. Islam is not a liberal religion, as I think I’ve indicated, and it makes no sense for the left to cuddle up to them in the long-term—even if, in the short term, it buys the left more ignorant votes.