Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Know Your Military Colonists

"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 be Resettled."

The 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.

Mexico's 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.

While the 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.

In 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 of Afghanistan.

That is even more true when you consider birth rates. Military colonists are not a mere invading army. They are generational footholds.

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.

Across 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.

The 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.  

War is about controlling land, resources and populations. Land just sits there. It's the populations that cause the trouble. The military colonist makes a more enduring occupation possible by settling the land and giving the conquering power a deeper foothold in the enemy territory.

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.

Mexico 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.

American 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 Civil War.

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.

Terrorism 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 snowflakes.

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. This 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 rates.

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.

That 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.

Islam embodies 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.


ericcs said...

"Instead of preparing for a storm, we're trying to figure out how to stop snowflakes." Just superb, Daniel.

I often wonder at the utter cluelessness, the absolute inability of the current intelligencia to analyze a problem in any terms other than economic. Perhaps it all stems back to Marx. Even though he prattled on a little about class, those were economic classes (as best I understand it) instead of anything based on cultural differences. So now TPTB have been so steeped, so marinated in Marxist dialogue that every problem is interpreted to be an economic nail, and they immediately pick up the Marxist hammer.

But what about multiculturalism, you might ask? I think that simply posits a banal equality to the point where actual hard-core chauvinist or triumphalist differences can be easily swept under the rug.

"Extremism" and "terrorism" are posited to be realitively minor symptoms easily handled, while "poverty" is still the underlying cause of everything under the sun. All the rest of us are forced to live in the resultant chaos.

Anonymous said...

This is one of your most important essays. Absolutely to the point.
That it will be taken seriouslyby those in power is a forlorn hope.
We are governed by the worst generation in Western history.
And yet there are so many good people in the West. Just why have we allowed this dreadful generation power over us and our children?
If we can answer this then we can start to put things right.
Dave S.

Anonymous said...

It's easy to destroy a culture that has been systematically taught to be ashamed of itself. Taught to be proud of being ashamed of itself.

IgorR said...

It's interesting to speculate to what degree the inability of Americans to see what all these colonists are all about is due to (a) propaganda (b) the desire to see only good in people (c) lack of education (d) lack of intelligence (e) religion-based compassion. If some vagrant moved into the vacant house next door and started behaving in a threatening fashion, they'd know what to do, but if millions of colonists move into the country, they seemingly have no idea. Perhaps it's a matter of what I call "the bubble of caring": if it's outside of their immediate personal space they simply don't care enough to apply their critical faculties. Other more xenophobic cultures who hate everything foreign would be more primed to react, but they are more irrational in the opposite direction. Rationality is hard to find.

Anonymous said...

more brilliant analysis in one article than you'll find in a lifetime of brilliant analyses provided by all the pulitzer prize winning idiots put together

-- mr. spanky

Ex-Dissident said...

Incompatible civilizations.


Extinction of one, the other, or both.

Pvt.Joker said...

Spot on, sir.

Chuck said...

This article is positively terrifying in its vision of the relentless march of Islam and tribalism. Made all the more inevitable by America's oblivious belief that we are somehow exempt from history.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant diary. 100% correct. Glad I'm 63. I'm not going to transition well to what appears to be in store for this country.

Ex-Dissident said...

Wow. Everyone is speechless after reading your latest post. Brilliant and not for the faint of heart.

mrs adela bradley said...

In the clash of civilizations we have, on the one hand, Christendom or the Western Tradition, as it encompasses and synthesizes the Greco-Roman-Judaic, and, on the other, Islam. And, I say Christendom, because secularism lacks the power and substance to win in this fight, or even to properly engage the enemy. Although, in truth, as Islam is a destroyer of civilizations, this is really the battle between civilization and barbarism.

Anonymous said...

There are no previous comments to this stark column because it is certain that the Euro-centric make up of the USA will be ended in a few generations with the next amnesty, just like the demographics of California were upended by the prior amnesty. Any politician that votes for any amnesty is a traitor

Andy Texan.

Anonymous said...

Pretty depressing

Edward Cline said...

I offer this as an instance, forwarded to me, of what Greenfield refers to as military colonization. A dispatch from the front lines of the "reconquista" from a friend of mine who lives right at the Texas/NM/Mexico border. What it's like to live around the poor, put upon Hispanics when your background is Irish:

There's no way I can leave this area. I'm stuck. I'm trapped. You have no idea what racism even is until you have to live down here with your big blue eyes and ugly white skin. All these years--decades, actually. I love being a substitute, but I'm not going to be able to be one any longer. You have no idea the shit I've put up with at the hands of the students, the staff, all of them. You can't call for help--you can't go to the law--you can't do anything--you just have to take it, endure it, try to survive. Keep a smile on your face and a nice polite word. Ignore the slights and insults. They've cut back how many hours a substitute can work. So, what they've done, every campus, they have a cadre of substitutes that they want--ALL of them Hispanic--the jobs are given to them--the secretaries decide who does and does not work--even if a teacher comes in, with you right beside them, and says that they want me, for instance, to sub for them, when the teacher walks away, like all Miss B did was crumple up the note with my name, snorted, said: "I decide who subs on this campus" and threw the note away right in my face. there is no legal recourse, no help, if I said anything--if I even voice objection--all it would do is cause them to deny me what few jobs I'm getting. They just look at you smiling, so matter of fact, butter not melting in their mouths. You ask if there's any work and they say no there isn't, and, then the little hispanic subs go by "see you tomorrow, Miss Bonnie, or Miss B and smile at you and off they go. You ask again if there are any jobs and the secretary says: "All my subs are taken care of." and you've been subbing there EIGHT YEARS. It hurts so very much Linda. It really does.

There's a report we're never going to hear from the MSM. Not even from FOX. There are the Mexicans (or "Hispanics," if you prefer), and then there are the Muslims, busy propagating and colonizing and claiming their "rights."

Anonymous said...

Mexico is only recuperating what is rightfully theirs. The vast territory comprising all of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas plus portions of Colorado, Utah and Oklahoma was the Northern part of Mexico up until the early 1830's. Two hundred years later, they're about to get it back without firing a single shot.

As you indicate, Mexicans are slowly conquering back those territories bringing their culture (or lack thereof), religion, language and daily customs. And together with their Cuban and Central-American cousins, they are also including in the conquest Florida's southern tip, (which was Spanish anyway).

It's a reverse colonialism that mimics what the Europeans and (two centuries later) the Americans did starting in the 16-th century and well into the 19-th century. Europe might very well be over-run within the next 30 to 50 years by arabs and muslims and the U.S. will follow suit with a Hispanic-majority population well before the end of this century.

However, this reverse colonialism will bring darkness, corruption, poverty and backwardness into the conquered countries. L.A., Dallas, Phoenix and San Francisco will be more like the bad neighborhoods in the slums around Mexico City. Just look at Detroit with its muslims and East L.A. with its Mexicans to have a "sneak preview" of what's coming to the U.S.

And in due time, the Hispanic citizens of Nuevo México and Tejas will demand from 0bama's grand-daughter, Empress of the Disunited-States that she relinquishes the sovereignty of the Neo-Mexican territories back to Mexico.

Poetic Justice. As a bitter taste of their own medicine, Americans led by the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas and Kerrys who pressured Israel to "give back" to the arabs what wasn't theirs to start with, will now be forced to give back the land to (in this case) their rightful owners.

And wouldn't it be nice to add insult to injury, if the muslim grandchild of the worst American president ever, honoring the tradition of appeasement and cowardice of her grandfather, gave back to Mexico the pre-1836 territories taken from them?

Max Modine said...

It appears it takes a member of the most endangered tribe of all to understand tribal behaviour. I suspect most Americans won't really understand what you mean by tribal as it pertains to survival, as most Americans of European descent have become domesticated. They don't, with few exceptions, recognize the magnitude of the existential threat which is only beginning to percolate and which will be in fast boil within 10-15 years. America needs to take a very close look at how Israel survived despite monumental odds. There isn't much time and there are no leaders who really really grasp the threat and are prepared to do whatever is required to defeat it. I look at Netanyahu in Israel and I remember the impact Entebbe and his brother's death there had on him. Israeli's live daily brushing up against extinction. They know what is required. Great article.

Reality Check said...

If you want to know how huge the asylum and refugee racket has becme in the West, you must visit
refugeeresettlementwatch. Really shocking. It is one of the most least critisized components of the progressive's agenda for the West's destruction financially, culturally, and demographically, and you're paying for it!

Anonymous said...

"You can't call for help--you can't go to the law--you can't do anything--you just have to take it, endure it, try to survive. Keep a smile on your face and a nice polite word. Ignore the slights and insults. They've cut back how many hours a substitute can work. So, what they've done, every campus, they have a cadre of substitutes that they want--ALL of them Hispanic--the jobs are given to them"

huh... sounds like workplace izlomozation - violent or otherwise

FCW said...

Anon: "Mexico is only recuperating what is rightfully theirs. The vast territory comprising all of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas plus portions of Colorado, Utah and Oklahoma was the Northern part of Mexico up until the early 1830's."

This ignorant "history for dummies" stuff really gets tedious. Yes, the United States conquered that territory that was claimed by Mexico. But exactly how was all that "vast territory" rightfully the property of a European-conquest derived government in Mexico City in the first place? It is "rightfully theirs" in the same sense that the territories claimed by the British Empire in North America rightfully belong to Americans and Canadians.

It never ceases to amaze me that people blank out that this claimed "vast territory" was nothing but a European empire of conquest, not some pre-Conquest native state. (Seriously, dude, do you think Aztec culture and government was holding sway in the Pacific Northwest?) "Mexico" was an imperial state that conquered, slaughtered, enslaved, etc. the plethora of native nations in that territory, just as the Anglos did. If people are going to piss and moan without end about anglophones "stealing land" from Native Americans, and their descendants the Americans keeping the stolen property, it's about time they started applying the same moral logic to Mexico. If Mexicans have some sacred and eternal right to everything up to Vancouver Island and then some, then Americans have the same rights to their age-of-empires conquests.

Unless they're Apaches or from another people whose lands straddled the frontier of the two contesting European empires, the Mexicans and Central Americans, etc. pouring into the U.S. do not have any meaningful cultural and genetic ties to the pre-Conquest indigenous people. The border did not, as a matter of fact, cross them. The old Spanish culture in the territory's pre-Anglo days was just that - Spanish. And sparsely populated. Juan from Oaxaca does not have any ancestral territory on the Columbia river from which he was dispossessed.

What's sauce for the Anglo goose is sauce for the "Hispanic" gander. Jus' saying.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

it is ridiculous to see Southern European colonists suddenly being term oppressed minorities

Anonymous said...

"Mexico invited American settlers to move in to Texas on the understanding that they would learn Spanish and otherwise fit in." - they wanted a buffer state between them and the indian tribes that everyone seems to want to forget about. Requirements to learn spanish, become catholic(and have mexican prisons emptied out into Texas) didn't come until Santa Anna decided that he wanted to take a nominally loyal area over for his party.

"U.S. will follow suit with a Hispanic-majority population well before the end of this century." - that isn't too likely, mestizos are demographically spent, they aren't having 7 children families at home, and second generation fertility here drops off as well. the death blow to America won't be delivered by them, but probably by Asians and African, who do have the numbers and 7+ TFR respectively. Or we could suddenly decide that we really don't want to give up our country, demographics don't really count for much on a modern battlefield.

Anonymous said...

"Mestizos are demographically spent..."

That may be so (even though I don't think your data is correct) for mestizos in the U.S. But there is an avalanche of us South of the border waiting at every chance to go across. And every 10 years or so, the President in turn sends an amnesty bill to Congress to spare "just for the last time" the 10 million illegals recognized in the statistics, while another 20 million just sit by low-key, quietly taking jobs that "not even a black would take" as per Mexico's President Vicente Fox, and draining the U.S. economy at the tune of 20 billion dollars per year sent as "remesas" to Mexico. And that's only Mexico. Add Central America, plus Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and the Caribbean.

And this is the "good" immigration. There's also 0bama's pals, the muzzzzlims and africans. At least the Hispanics get there to work. The muslims are taking over as an ulcer or a cancer, bleeding the system to bend over and support their devious, dictatorial ways.

So don't worry. The U.S. is getting the 1-2 punch, from both mestizos and muslims, and ever aided by your myopic POTUS (who happens to be both a mestizo and a muslim) and assorted garden-variety leftists.

Post a Comment