 |
| The Huns, led by Attila, ride into Italy from the north, 434 A.D. |
I left this amended and expanded comment on a July
12th Gatestone article by Soeren Kern, “Europe’s Great
Migration Crisis”:
The
main problem is a civilization one. The overwhelming number of “immigrants"
[or “migrants”] bring cultural and moral attitudes with them that are
antithetical to a civilized existence. They will also bring old cultural habits
and generations- or even ages-old animosities towards other immigrant groups
with them and will continue them in whatever Western country they settle in. Witness
the Sunni-Shi’ite division. They will all expect to be "taken care
of" economically by their host governments, thus adding more welfare dependents
to already burdened welfare systems. They will be hostile to the whole concept
of the rule of law that sustains a civilized, ordered existence.
Observe
the attitudes and tactics of Muslims in every European country; they expect the
various European societies to conform to their religious-political norms and
refuse to assimilate into the larger, indigenous society. In Britain, it's not
only the Muslims who thumb their noses at British law and culture; there are
the Romany gypsies and other ethnicity-centered immigrant groups who demand a
"separate but equal" status, as well, and are willing to raise hell
if they aren't granted it.
The
first hint of resistance by authorities triggers cries of "racism" or
"Islamophobia," and the government backs down. The British government
is so fearful of being accused of racism that it won't crack down on Muslim
rape gangs that prey on British girls and women.
At
bottom of all this throughout Europe is the poisonous, moral certitude-sapping
policy of political correctness. The U.S. is now in a chaotic debate over the
invasion of the country but thousands of "illegals" crossing into it
from Mexico. This is aside from the "resettlement" of Muslims in
towns and cities in the country by the federal government.
Soeren Kern wrote:
Europe's
migration crisis is exposing the deep divisions that exist within the European
Union, which European federalists have long hailed as a model for
post-nationalism and global citizenship. Faced with an avalanche of migrants, a
growing number of EU member states have moved decisively to put their own
national interests above notions of EU solidarity. Hungary's parliament, for
instance, has approved the construction of a massive border fence with Serbia
as part of a new anti-immigration law that also tightens asylum rules.
The
move is aimed at stopping tens of thousands of migrants from Africa, Asia and
the Middle East from entering Hungary, which has become a key gateway for
illegal immigration into the European Union.
Hungarian
officials say drastic measures are necessary because of the EU's inaction in
the face of an unprecedented migration crisis, which has seen more than 150,000
migrants cross
into Europe during the first six months of 2015. More than 715,000 people have applied
for asylum in the EU during the past twelve months.
Kern’s article describes the various physical
measures European countries are taking to stem the flow of migrants into their
countries: walls, fences, barbed wire, and, in Britain’s case, corralling
would-be hitch-hikers and stowaways coming from Europe through the Channel
Tunnel in a camp just outside the Tunnel at Calais.
Kern also details the bureaucratic way of stemming
the flow: by making it harder to seek “asylum” in Europe, or by denying it all
together.
But, the first observation to make is: These
European Union countries are fearful of the nonstop waves of migrants alien and
likely hostile to their Western societies and cultures. And the natural
question to ask then is: Why are they so fearful and in a panic? Every one of
these countries has advocated and legislated multiculturalism. Are they now
just realizing what a foolhardy policy it is? Has any one of those governments
the honesty and courage to repudiate that policy? Except for a few individuals
who stand up and say, “Yes, Western culture is infinitely superior to that of
any immigrant settler in the West,” such as Geert Wilders of the Netherlands,
Europe is governed by a variety of statist elites who invested heavily in multiculturalism
and who are making their citizens pay the price for it.
Kern quotes Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Prime Minister:
“The
face of European civilization... will never again be what it is now. There is
no way back from a multicultural Europe. Neither to a Christian Europe, nor to
the world of national cultures."
Say, rather, devolve into a mongrel culture of no
specific character but whose chief distinction will be a dominant Islamic coloring
overseen by dhimmi European
politicians and elected Muslim ones. It would exist tenuously on the remnants
of capitalism and freedom and be sustained temporarily by various welfare
systems – temporarily until the money and inertia are spent and the private
sector finally expires. Then the European elites can impose across-the-board
socialism.
The Liberal/Left’s official history is that the
West colonized Africa and the Middle East and Asia, exploited their “natural
resources” and enslaved their populations, and brought untold misery and human rights
violations to those areas. These areas were invaded and raped by the West. But
now it’s payback time and these regions’ impoverished inhabitants are invading
Europe in turn. The Liberal/Left sees the phenomenon as a form of “cultural”
and “racial” reparations.
That’s the Progressive, Howard Zinn-kind of
interpretation of the current immigration crisis. Who impoverished these
refugees? The unacceptable, non-Progressive answer is that it was the myriad
corrupt regimes and dictatorships in Africa and the Middle East. Like Mexico, they’re
glad to get rid of their excess and unwanted paupers and foist as many of them
as possible on the West.
A welfare state that patronizes the worst in men – the
unshakable desire to be identified with a group, collective, or tribe, and an
implicit obligation to recognize and encourage the collectivist worth of an
individual and an individual’s unshakable identification with the tribe or the
group – be he of an ethnic, religious, or tribal “heritage” – isn’t going to
suddenly see 10,000 Somalians or Turks or Pakistanis abruptly develop an
appreciation for Rachmaninoff, classical Greek art, or laissez-faire economics.
It just isn’t going to happen. That isn’t even happening with most indigenous,
umpteenth-generation European or American youth being “educated” in those
indoctrination crèches called secondary schools and universities.
A British correspondent of mine, responding to my
Gatestone comment above, made these astute observations about the government
policies that have put Europe in a cultural bind:
Whatever
they expect, it was up to the West to clarify its values and ensure that the
rule of law was understood and accepted by all aspiring citizens.
The
reason it didn’t is the widespread belief that cultural values are innate
rather than a matter of choice.
How
can the West have granted Charitable Status to a religion that practices its
own antithetical legal system? Why did it grant planning permission for places
of worship where the values of the West are routinely trashed and where adherents
have no intention of separating Church and State?
Aye, there’s the rub. The whole dreamy policy of
“diversity” and multiculturalism rests on the premise that cultural values are
based, not on choice, but on one’s genes and so are innate and outside of one’s
choice. It is wrong, and the very height of arrogant cultural hegemony, say the
politically correct, to expect immigrants to dissolve their “national
identities” and immerse themselves into a “melting pot” governed by the rule of
law – of objective law founded on the sanctity of individual rights.
But their “currents” have turned perilously awry,
and they are in a rush to establish corrective measures when none will undo
what they have done.
In Part Two I will discuss the American version of
Hamlet’s “To Be, or Not to Be.”
No comments:
Post a Comment