A question – please answer, if you can!

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.

Thank you!

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?

Advertisements

While I do not usually post music…

…this is a deserving exception!

Valentine’s Day 2015 Massacre – Je Suis Lars Vilks!

At least one person is dead at a Freedom of Speech event:

OK – at this point, we don’t know the identity of the murderers, but, does anyone seriously think this is anything other than jihad?

UPDATE:

February 6th – International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation

How Roman rule expanded through the lands

Did you ever learn how the Romans were able to spread their empire so far and wide…and so quickly?  Yes, they had a strong army and were not afraid to use it but the army was there to back up their primary method of colonization.

Romans would send some citizens to live in far away cities to facilitate trade with Rome. Makes sense, right?

These citizens brought their families with them and would build their houses close to each other for mutual support and entertainment.  As the trade grew, so would these self-segregated Roman neighbourhoods.  Eventually, once these neighbourhoods got large enough, Rome would offer trade incentives to the rulers of the city to permit the Romans within their enclave to be ruled by Roman laws and be subject to Roman authority  directly.

It was that subtle ‘carrot and stick’ routine:  the carrot of reduced trade tariffs and the stick of the not-so-proverbial sabre-rattling of the Roman army.  Most city states thought that this was a beneficial arrangement and agreed.

After a while, the members of the Roman enclave would ask that the Roman law should apply not only within their little enclave but when they traded with the locals:  after all, Rome got rich from trading and they all wanted to benefit, no?

Slowly and in very small increments, the Roman enclave would grow – and the demand for more and more Roman laws and norms within the host city would keep pace with this growth.

No matter how hard the host city would try to appease their Roman enclave, they could never satisfy them fully and eventually, Rome would have to point out just how cities that don’t treat their Roman minorities nicely happen to be the next ones to be burned to the ground by Roman armies.

Thus, through self-seggregated and un-integrated immigration, economic pressure and threat of violence, Roman rule spread throughout the lands!

Oh boy, am I glad that we live in enlightened times, when we would never permit members of a supremacist culture to build multiple enclaves throughout our countries and then demand that more and more of our laws conform to theirs, or they will do violence to us!

The Jihad of Words

In the words of the one and only Inigo Montoya:

Or, if you are more into classical music:

“Because, you know, sometimes words have two meanings…”

It is impossible to hold a meaningful conversation with somebody when you both think you know what the words you are using mean, but in reality, you each subscribe to a completely different meaning of that word.

For example, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood government that had come to power in Egypt following the ‘Arab Spring’ was lead by Morsi’s party, which was called the ‘Freedom and Justice Party’.

Muslim Brotherhood = Freedom and Justice?

Why, yes – if you mean what the Islamists understand these words to mean.

‘Freedom’, according to Koranic sources, is defined as ‘freedom from the laws of men’.  In other words, being ruled by the word god, Allah, alone.

In other words, they understand the word ‘freedom’ to mean the implementation of the Sharia and Sharia alone.

And ‘justice’?

‘Justice’ according to laws of God and God alone:  again, Sharia.

In these people’s mind, the way we use the words ‘freedom’ and ‘justice’ is a perversion of their true meaning (Sharia and only Sharia) and we are ‘spreading mischief’ by perverting these words.

And under Sharia, the penalty for ‘spreading mischief’ is death.

A simple way to tell a moderate Muslim from an Islamist is to ask their view on whether Sharia should be implemented in the West.

If they say no, they are here because they are attempting to flee the horrors of life under Sharia and we must do our utmost to protect them, because they will be the first victims of the Islamists.  Many are afraid to speak out, for very real fear that relatives stuck in Islamic countries would be harmed for their words:  Islam is a clan-based culture where you are often held responsible for your relatives actions.

If they say yes, then they are an Islamist who is advocating, in no uncertain terms, the elevation of SHaria above our own laws.  This is treason and our societies must treat it as such.  All advocates of Sharia in the West must be arrested and charged with treason, because that is what trying to replace our laws with Sharia is.

Following is an excellent video.  It is a bit longer than what I usually post, but it is most excellent:

Generation Identitaire occupies the roof of a French Mosque

Last week, I had posted a video in which a French group calling itself Generation Identitaire introduced itself.

Today, they occupied the roof of a mosque (which has ‘fiery’ imams who frequently preach hate and violence) in France…

This is going to get interesting…

BCF has more.