Yes, I usually post my never-humble-opinions.
But this time, I know I would be out of my depth had I offered one….
Still, the question itself has kept me up on more than one night.
Granted, my early schooling came behind the Iron Curtain – so, perhaps the very premises of my question are flawed. Yet, I have read enough (among the little bits of ‘H’istory that I have indulged myself in) here, in The West, that suggests to me that this question may, indeed, be more valid today than it has been in, well, almost a century.
Therefore, my dear reader, I beg you to indulge me in asking my question and, if you can, in enlightening me with the answer.
Now, for my long-winded question:
Before World War 1, the movement of peoples between nations was not regulated.
At least, it was not regulated in the manner in which it became regulated later on in the 20th century.
Yes, of course, there were border controls: but these were meant mostly for economic purposes (import/export taxes) and to apprehend criminals.
After all, it was not so long ago that mainland Europe was still using the Feudal System of governance, where the freedom of movement of country folk was under complete control of their landlords.
And the aristocracy was not limited by borders: crossing them freely and unencumbered to pursue political marriages. The land they held was their only anchor to the kingdom in which they held it.
The craftsmen were also not anchored in place by ‘kingdom-governance’ (I cannot think of a proper term for this), but by the self-regulated guilds of their region, under which they were permitted to practice their craft: guilds were built upon the apprentice-based artificially created scarcity of their products within various regions, calculated to ensure higher-than-market value of their work and thus inflating guild-members standard of living and social standing.
Similarly, scholars and artists moved freely between kingdoms, based on where they could find private patrons willing to fund them and their works. (Note: painters may be regarded as ‘artists’ today, but, prior to accessible photography, they were considered craftsmen and thus subject to the guild system.) For example, consider the alchemical court of Rudolph the Second.
After centuries of feudalism, it took a bit from when the shackles were shattered to when people gathered the courage to reach for freedom and travel to far-away lands – not just to learn, or as a right of passage, but to settle for good.
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the human migrations truly became unfettered and populations began to migrate.
From my own cultural background – this is where the huge exodus of Czechs into Texas began: so great was this migration that it was not until the 1970’s that Spanish overtook Czech as the second language of Texas. The University of Austin still has the largest Czech Studies department outside of the Czech Republic… And don’t even get me started on ‘Miss Czech Texas’..
Yes, I realize that I am providing just one example here, but, I am no historian: which is why I hope to get responses which will enlighten me.
Now that I have set the stage…
It has been suggested that one of the most important ‘behind-the-scenes’ reasons for the First World War was the absence of proper regulation on
the migration of populations across political borders.
Yes, of course – there were the ‘obvious’ reasons: but I have heard the claim that these ‘obvious’ reasons were, in fact, brought about because of the cultural instability and tensions brought about by, in practical terms, unregulated migration of populations across culturo-political borders.
It would be difficult to argue that what we are seeing now, in the EU in particular and in all of Europe in general is exactly the same type of unregulated migration of populations across cutluro-political borders!
But, it is even more pointed now than what it had been prior to WW1: at least back then, the migrations did not tend to cross religio-cultural borders – something that is most definitely happening now. The new migrants flooding Europe, without any true governance, are not just politically and culturally different, they are also religiously different: subscribing to an intolerant, supremacist religion that permits exploitation and violence against non-members of said religion and refuses to recognize any culture other than its own…
Finally, the question:
Are the current, practically unregulated migration conditions into Europe as dangerous, if not more, than the ones that sparked World War 1?
September 16, 2015 at 20:52
There is nothing unregulated about these mass migrations!
And they are not limited to Europe.
They are taking place everywhere in the world, and their purpose is to dilute and destroy the national identities of nation-states, as a prelude to depriving them of their sovereignty and assimilating them into the fold of “global governance.”
This is being driven by the globalist plutocrats, using their favourite method, the open conspiracy – in this case, the Global Forum on Migration and Development, run by Peter Sutherland: UN Special Representative for International Migration, chairman of Goldman Sachs International, former chairman of British Petroleum, and… a Bilderberger.
Here is the admission, in his own words: Peter Sutherland: Global agenda, nationalism & migration
Additional articles can be found here: •EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief and here: Migration is part of the plan to destroy the nation state.
These globalist plutocrats of the New World Order are not at all deterred by the certainty that these migrations will ignite cataclysmic civil wars all around the world. On the contrary, they see these wars as the natural and necessary continuation of the destruction of the Old World Order which was begun by the two bloodiest wars (World Wars I and II), the two most horrific revolutions (Russia and China), and the two most devastating depressions (Germany and America) in human history.
So… are these migrations dangerous?
You bet they are. They are part of a worldwide agenda which is more dangerous than anything else the world has ever seen.
September 16, 2015 at 22:13
You have not said anything that is new to me – or that I suspect most people even vaguely aware of world politics are quite aware of.
Because this is the publicly announced policy of the UN: and has been, for years.
And, of course I understand the UN’s desires and role in this.
But, that still does not get to the nub of this: if this is according to the UN plan, than all of this human migration will alter the composition of nation states and undermine the very existence of nation states until only EU, UN and other monstrosities exist.
This is the overt plan and there have been no attempts at hiding it.
What I am getting at, with my question, is whether the EU, UN and Bilderbergers can possibly contain this mass migration within their governance structures, as they hope, or whether, like prior to WW1, the pressures among the populations themselves will situation so volatile that it cannot be contained and spark the start of internal revolutions so large, they will literally begin WW3.
September 17, 2015 at 14:16
That’s just my point: it will be a worldwide plague of civil wars, not a single worldwide war.
And no serious attempt at containment will be made until the globalists are certain the affected nations will accept the concomitant loss of sovereignty.
There was a time when it was thought that a third world war would be needed to finish the job started by the first two, but now it has been realized that a flurry of concurrent civil wars will be just as effective, without incurring the risk of nuclear escalation inherent in world war between large geopolitical power blocks.
Therefore, utterly incompatible – and hence, mutually inimical – cultures and races are being pushed into dangerously close proximity, all over the world. At the same time, international bankers are manipulating markets and currencies to extract the last iota of wealth from the public and set the stage for a worldwide financial collapse, the timing of which is entirely in the hands of the globalists.
When that trigger is pulled, racial and cultural tensions will erupt into an epidemic of localized conflicts that will provide the excuse for, and motivate public acceptance of, overt military intervention in the internal affairs of many nations at once.
As Henry Kissinger is rumoured to have said at the 1991 Bilderberg conference in Evians:
Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful!