This article is not typical of Samantha Burns’ site, which mostly consists of witty humour. This is fairly long, but hopefully worth the read.
The left has abandoned this slogan as of late, but they fail to realise just how right they are (although for the wrong reasons). As the story goes, it will all make sense in the end...
Previously I wrote an article 'Everything you need to know about Al-Qaeda'.
To sum up the premise, Al Qaeda has a global ambition of world domination and intends to take over by toppling governments into a state of chaos, thus allowing Taliban-style takeover possible. I gave three choices to survive: partial surrender, full surrender, or fight.
If you haven't read it, now is the time.
However, there exists a threat even more effective at conquering than terrorism. The trouble is nobody can identify this threat without being called a racist, bigot or far worse. Unlike many others, I take the thread of terrorism extremely seriously, and I believe a non-confronted Al-Qaeda could conquer a world of people whom do not rise to the occasion. What can possibly be more effective at conquering than terrorism?
Uncontrolled immigration and concentrated ethnic population growth is more effective at conquering and dangerous to national identity! I can already feel the immediate gut reaction of racist charges being brought on by those poisoned by the church of political correct thinking.
Yes, I'm talking about those PC thugs.
Being a Canadian where everyone believes in a multicultural Canada, verbalizing such a thought is practically a hate crime here. Note to self: check the Canadian criminal code before I post this article...
Let me set a few things straight before I get the hate police on my doorsteps. First, I like immigrants. That old cliché 'some of my best friends are...' immigrants is actually true. My ex-wife is a US immigrant to Canada with various mixed cultural backgrounds. My children are such a hodgepodge of multicultural genetics that I don't think anyone could sort it out in a lab if they tried.
The danger is not immigrants themselves, but concentrated ethnic population growth brought about by uncontrolled immigration combined with a high ethnic birthrate.
Picture this scenario: the government allows massive immigration from a particular country or ethnicity. This group has a massive birth rate compared to the host country and prefers to settle in areas close to each other and chooses to identify with their country of origin rather than as being an important part of their new host country's culture. With a large close-knit ethnic population, those living within that group and their children don't even have to learn their new host's language or interact with the host's culture.
Fast forward this scenario a few years into the future and what ends up happening? As history will teach us a very bad situation can emerge.
With an unchecked birth rate, the ethnic population will no longer be a minority but the majority. This culture will be ethnically pure with a culture that does not associate itself primarily with their host's culture. The ethnic population likely will demand special rights, separate government or demand to abide by separate laws. Basically, a state within a state will form. The host country will no longer be a united country, but a divided country based on ethnic lines.
When this scenario reaches a breaking point a few things end up happening. The ethnic community declares their independence from their host country. Civil unrest, riots and civil war emerge. Or worse, an attempt to evict or exterminate through genocide occurs.
Those events are not mutually exclusive.
Canada has a state within a state. We have a national government and regional governments with equal relationships in unity with the others, except for one province: Quebec. Quebec is largely Francophone and for all intents have their own government. They have their own laws and duplicate agencies set up to mirror their national equivalent. Everything in Quebec's nationalistic government is designed so that one day Quebec can split from Canada. The actual separation of Quebec was only narrowly defeated and is a constant worry of every regional Canadian government.
Fortunately, Quebecers are largely pacifists and don't believe in violence to achieve their cause. There are notable exceptions, however, like the October Crisis, for instance. Quebec tries, to their best effort, to keep culturally pure from English Canada. The 'not withstanding clause' in Canada allows provinces, namely Quebec, to violate the Canadian constitution to protect their culture by setting up what English Quebecers call 'the language police'.
Thankfully, separatist Quebecers lack one key element to succeeding independence: birth rate. Like many western cultures, Quebec has a low native birth rate. Simply put, French Quebecers are not having enough babies to make themselves ethnically pure and hence increase support for separation. Much to the separatists' dismay, there is a large Anglophone, First Nations, and immigrant population in Quebec that by-in-large want to stay within Canada federation; separatist French Quebecers have been unable to outbreed these groups.
Despite all Quebec does to ensure a pure French Quebec, the separatist Quebec movement fails primarily due to low birth rate. Other examples in history have not met with Canada's fortune of a low Quebec birth rate.
The Kosovo War in 1999 was such an example.
Before I continue, let me state emphatically that Slobodan Milosevic was a tyrant and without a doubt was guilty of war crimes, especially genocide. His rationale for what he did: Albanians in Kosovo were trying to ethnically purify Kosovo; while Milosevic's actions cannot be justified in any circumstance, some truth exists to this madman's rationale.
Kosovo's Albanian population is an example of massive immigration combined with a high birth rate. The Albanians were allowed to immigrate to Yugoslavia in massive numbers and their population had a much higher birth rate than the native Serbians population. The Albanians, by-in-large, stuck to their own kind and lived in close proximity in Kosovo and did not integrate into the larger Serbian population.
Keep in mind, those who consider themselves Serbians were not ethnically pure themselves, but consisted of various Euro-Serbian groups. Many lived in isolated Euro-ethnic groups in townships while the cities were much more ethnically diverse.
Serbia is a land that has been conquered and performed conquering throughout the generations of its existence, much like most of Europe at one time or another.
Albanian refuges immigrated to Serbian lands in massive numbers to escape various blights and wars over years and maintained a large birth rate to the extent that native Serbs became the minority in Kosovo, which now is host to a huge majority Albanian population. While Kosovo is still legally part of Serbia, it’s effectively run by NATO and acts as its own country after a costly war for all parties involved.
The immigrated Albanians, being predominately Muslim, had a separatist Kosovo Liberation Army movement which decided that the majority Albanian population needed their own country in Kosovo separate from the Serbians.
Muslim extremism that the world has become more familiar with was indeed part of this movement.
Records exist of instances in which Albanians removed the native population by giving the native Serbians a choice: Either take a large settlement for your land or be harassed until you decide to leave (e.g. end up mysteriously dead). The funding of such native Serbian land buyouts was sponsored largely by oil-rich Muslims who sought to expand the Muslim territory.
What followed was genocide, war, and refugees as Slobodan Milosevic decided that Serbia should protect the integrity of its country from the immigrated population of Albanians. Aside from the obvious evilness of genocide and expulsion, the trouble is that Milosevic was one hundred years too late to prevent the fall of Kosovo to the Albanians.
Serbia lost control of its land by its friendly immigration policies and lack of immigrant integration into their culture. The 'solution' of genocide can never be excused and should never be used to purify lands of any ethnic background.
Any country that wants to protect itself from ethnic takeover should have immigration policies for cultural integration that work and recognize the difficulty of some cultures that do not wish to integrate into an existing national culture. The Nazi-like final solution of war, mass expulsion, and genocide are not acceptable methods of dealing with uncontrolled immigration.
The rise of Hitler happened for similar reasons as for Milosevic in Yugoslavia. Hitler pitted the native Germans against immigrated Jewish populations. Hitler played the economic failures in Germany (largely the result of WWI and the great depression) as being a conspiracy by successful Jewish businessmen that would only help their own Jewish kind, consequently leading to the suffering of the proud German people. Hitler used a non-integrated Jewish population as a tool to fuel racism and hatred. The perceived economic disparities between the close-knit ethnic Jewish population and the native German population were a catalyst for one of the bloodiest and deadliest periods in history.
Ironically, the war to end all wars - WWII - caused several secondary immigration problems that still fuel hatred and tensions in the Arabic world today.
The first is the formation of Israel. Israel at one point did not exist. What should not be disputed (at least not honestly) is that the land Israel occupies was largely and majority inhabited by Jewish people for thousands of years. The area is not ethnically pure as both Christians and Muslims lived in that area and the area has been conquered countless times. Like all conquering and counter-conquering, this has lead to disputes as to whom actually owns what lands. The Allies set up Israel and recognized it as a country, so the Jewish population would have their own lands; the Jewish people were given a nation to fight future wars against those whom would perform genocide against their people, like Hitler did.
Arabs often complain that Europe was responsible for the Jewish genocide and should have created an area in Europe to give to Israel as retribution. The Arabs miss one key point: the area Israel occupies was largely inhabited by a Jewish population and was well on its way to becoming Israel due to the demographic makeup of Jewish people in the area even without the Allies interference - through bloodier means no doubt (if that is possible to imagine). Creating another Jewish land would have been pointless and would have meant displacing yet another culture when a concentrated area of Jewish people already existed. Of course, the debate over the exact borders for Israel will last generations and undoubtedly, some madman will eventually try and carry out the threat to wipe out Israel, often a loose threat in that region.
Second issue brought about by the formation of Israel was Palestine. The formation of Palestine, or as it was known Philistine, has a long history. As the story goes, originally Palestine was given its moniker as part of re-drawing a border after a Jewish revolt to escalate tensions between Jews and Muslims by the conquering Roman Empire.
As Maxwell Smart might say, the old 'divide and conquer' trick.
Subsequently, this area has been under dispute for generations as both Muslims and Jews compete for this land. The last historical escalation of claims was brought about by the British Mandate, which officially declared the land inhabited by the Jews as part of Palestine. The redistricting by the British Mandate had much to do with European imperialist territorial dispute than anything based on solid historical claims and rights.
Modern Palestine consisting of the Gaza strip and the West Bank, but the largest dispute about the area arises from immigration. Israel on one side argues that much of the land claimed by Palestinians was sparsely populated and was populated by Arab immigrants rather than any native population. The Arabs counterclaim the land was not filled with immigrants as Israeli claims, but was host to Arab population for generations and thus the land should be owned by Palestinian Arabs.
History doesn't mean much when it comes to final formation of borders. Ultimately, who claims ownership of a land has much larger to do with the current ethnic makeup and state association than it has to do with whom historically lays claim to what territory. Nations have conquered nations endlessly and laid claim to lands throughout time, but final borders are always ultimately determined by how the population associates with their own ethnicity or state.
If Arabs want peace, they will have to recognize that Israel is a nation comprised of mostly Jewish people; and if Israel wants peace, then Israel will have to recognize the areas populated by Palestinians regardless of historical claims to the lands. What happened in the past, while tragic and bloody, should be put aside once and for all. The entire continent has been conquered over and over by so many cultures; whom historically lays claim to what is just a bunch of gibberish compared to the realities of today. The bitter hatred and distrust founded by accusations of crimes on both sides won't solve anything. In reality, an Israeli state and a Palestinian state exist even if both sides hate it.
Unfortunately, Iran and other like-minded rogue elements seem to think that the destruction of Israel is the solution. Odd - the very people who deny the realities of the holocaust are the very people who cry out for the complete destruction and genocide of Israel.
Even North America can be used as an example of uncontrolled immigration. The Europeans came, settled, multiplied, and the First Nations population dwindled. Ultimately, the First Nations could not out populate the uncontrolled immigration of the Europeans, and North America was lost to them.
Today, many countries are under immigration assault. France, England, and Germany are under immigration assault from Muslim nations. In France, the Muslim population is so large that any policy seen as anti-Muslim cannot be enacted without fear of turmoil from their large Muslim population. The reason why France has been opposed to any Middle Eastern interference and enforcement has much more to do with their immigration than it does with eating cheese and monkey surrendering.
The United States is under immigration assault from Mexico, which actively uses emigration to help support its own economy and provide for its economically impoverished population. The Mexican issue isn't as simple as some racist whites not wanting any Mexicans to come to the United States as politically correct police would have us believe. This is an issue of Mexicans coming to the United States in swarms (especially illegally, i.e. not under government immigration policy control) and not associated themselves as Americans first, but as Mexicans living within in a land they believe was stolen from Mexico. Given their birth rates and immigration rates, a Mexican majority could eventually exists in parts of the US yielding untold turmoil and racial tensions. If the immigrating Mexican population does not integrate and remains loyal to Mexico first, eventually this is a recipe for disaster.
While Canada has the permanent issue of Quebec, Canada also faces new ethnic issues as uncontrolled immigration has led to large ethnicity non-diverse areas within major Canadian cities which have formed communities that do not integrate into Canadian society.
So what lessons are to be learned about immigration? Well, uncontrolled immigration combined with high birth rates ultimately will cause land to be conquered over time and one culture to be replaced with another. Uncontrolled immigration can fuel racism, hatred, wars, and genocide as ethnic lines become more distinct rather than more diverse.
If any culture wants to protect itself from being absorbed by another, then effective immigration policies combined with a high enough local birth rate is critical. Failing to do so will mean the eventual falling of a nation and culture; for good or for bad is for historians to decide.
For those who believe that my statement of protecting one's culture is racists, I am not referring to protecting a genetic racial background. A culture is not just about their historical genetics, but about the formation of a society that interacts with unique characteristics. Further, culture is always in flux. The culture today is not the same as it was 40 or even 20 years ago, so ultimately you can't protect a culture or keep it static, but you can shape its future evolution.
I believe there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect any culture from being replaced with another culture, especially if you are proud of your own culture. Ultimately, you can't stop a culture from evolving, but you can certainly stop a culture from dramatic and quick replacement by another culture. The politically correct police can believe whatever they want, but protecting your own culture is nothing to be ashamed of.
Oddly, the hippies were right: start making love and having babies to uphold your nation and culture, not war.
The following articles have trackbacked this article:
Tuesday's Best - Round-Up [by 123beta]
Blogrolling 2006-09-06 [by basil's blog]
Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this
The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns
Please click some blogads to support this site.
