A simpler solution to the current war of attrition at the United States border with Mexico would be to treat the illegal immigrants as what they are: foreign invaders.
According to Carl von Clausewitz, "War is the continuation of politics by other means."
We saw this with the Civil Rights movement in the United States, where failing to enact change through voting and election, activists turned to alternatives. MLK is contrasted with Malcolm X as two different sides of the same coin, with MLK having cultivated a public image of nonviolence while Malcolm supported more aggressive actions, both in the name of racial equality.
What they were doing was seeking to amend the empire to benefit blacks in the United States, much the same way that the Irish and Germans did before them, and the Hispanics and Asians would do after, and their efforts all provided a precedent for equality on even less tangible terms, such as religious belief and sexual preferences, to where we are today where one's preferred view on reality is given credence, such that a person who identifies as an animal or supernatural being genuinely expects to be accommodated.
The dynamic at play is one which exists in a multi-cultural empire, and that is identity politics.
Identity > Culture > Politics
When a people share identity and culture, the disagreements occur on the plane of politics, and this is why so many people believe that the United States is a "nation of immigrants", or a "proposition nation", or a "nation of ideals", because people are ignoring that prior to 1965, it was also essentially all white, of British descent, and Christian.
When one wants to come to an agreement, things that are shared can be skipped past. If both parties already agree, they don't need to go back over those things, but will instead spend their time discussing the things they disagree on, the topics where something isn't shared.
If everyone is white, of British descent, and Christian, then there is a huge amount of common ground when it comes to values, morality, ethics, rituals and traditions and so on, which will never need to be re-hashed, agreed to all over again, because those things are baseline to being alive at that time.
Parents who are white, of British descent, and Christian will bear children that are white, of British descent, and Christian, and will naturally create a culture that is resonates of being white, of British descent, and Christian.
But what happens when someone who isn't white, of British descent, and Christian tries to live in such a country? They will not only be at odds with the politics, the downstream discussion, but they're also going to possess a different culture, and will also likely possess an entirely different identity as well. They will break laws that seem arbitrary or trite, they will commit social faux pas out of ignorance, and they will view the practices and traditions of the people around them with an extremely skeptical eye.
Now, this doesn't say that any particular trait or practice is good or bad, just that they are different, and that historically such differences were what formed a distinctive nation in the first place.
People who shared blood and God, or gods, had their own way of going about things which was distinctively theirs. They would have allies and associates that may share some of these things, but because they did not share all of them, they were still a separate nation.
Israel existed in Egypt for hundreds of years and yet they did not become Egyptians, but still retained the distinctive characteristics of their nation.
In the same manner, when even legal immigration laws for the United States were changed in 1965 to lift the racial restrictions, there were many nations that saw an opportunity to make use of the wealth and resources that existed in the United States to benefit their own nations, and all they had to do was relocate themselves physically in order to gain such access.
Where before 1965 the only nations present were largely descendants of Europeans or the slaves, after 1965 even more nations joined the mix, and the groundwork laid by the blacks would serve as a template for other nations to try and carve out their own place in the United States empire.
Now, the reason the United States was an empire is because of the first Civil War. Tensions between the "North" and the "South" grew because there were two different nations supposedly being served by the same central government. The "North" sought political unity with the "South", while the "South" sought to retain its own distinctive character and preserve its own nation.
When the "North" defeated the "South", what formed was an empire, similar to Rome's, where superficial distinctions of conquered peoples were allowed, but by force of power many different nations would serve a single state, a single government. While the issue of slavery is used as a catalyst to try and paint the "North" as "good" and the "South" as "bad", the practices were already on their way out the door, as slave labor is simply never really capable of keeping up with technology and dedication. On economics alone, slavery was going to be destroyed,, but it wasn't happening fast enough, and the unity of the states was at stake.
Instead of allowing the "South" to exist independently, the "North" conquered it, and this created the empire of America, and that empire would grow worldwide, given that the United States has military bases around the world, and is the primary supporter and enforcer of the United Nations. Like conquering of the past, the threat of punishment and destruction was offset by a shared monetary system and promises of favorable treatment, and this was supposed to be an acceptable exchange.
And folks wonder why there are people in the "South" who are still upset. They were a conquered people, their distinctiveness outlawed, and they were then forced to abide by the rules of their conquerors on penalty of death.
So the "Civil War" of the United States wasn't really a "nation divided", but the exposure of, even at that time, at least two nations connected by a single government.
And that hasn't changed, but has only gotten worse, since 1965, because each nation that arrives is under the same expectation.
There will be one nation that ultimately serves the state, that defines the values that all the other nations they have conquered adhere to, and every additional nation that came under the jurisdiction of the United States government put even more pressure to remove that which was white, of British descent, and Christian.
The minorities, nations unto themselves, did not seek to conquer from scratch, but to wrestle controls of the mechanisms of conquering, and end up in essentially the same result without nearly the amount of bloodshed and sacrifice of their own people.
War, in other words, but without bullets and blades.
To conquer and rule and have others serve your nation.
Now, the reason that so many foreign nations had no problems accepting these extremely loose terms is that there was no expectation that they change their identity, and so even if they were subservient to those who were white, of British descent, and Christian, they still fared orders of magnitude better than anyone else in their nation in their homeland.
When the Samaritan woman referenced the scraps that fell off the table for the dogs to eat, if the kingdom is sufficiently prosperous, then even the scraps will be of such a quantity and magnitude that "subservience" in the new system will still leave one better off than "freedom" under the old system.
Sure, there will be problems with practices, rituals, and clashes with law enforcement, but even so, it's still better than what they had before.
Until these various nations think that they can do it better.
Until these various nations think that the wealth they enjoy by proxy could be enjoyed in fuller measure if they were at the table instead.
And so that is what the last half a century of political chicanery has been. All the non-white, not of British descent, not Christian nations seeking to "take their place" and reap the rewards.
Only that without the white, of British descent, Christian people at the helm, the whole system breaks down and begins to look just like the homelands that these various nations abandoned, because if those nations could have created such a civilization, they'd already have done it in their homelands and they'd not have had any reason to escape them for something better in the first place.
In their greed, they seek to take the helm and steer the ship as they see fit, not realizing that they lack the fundamental characteristics to keep the ship sailing correctly at all, let alone to find even greater treasures and enjoy even greater wealth.
Each of these nations then is not seeking to benefit anyone else but their own. Where white, of British descent, and Christian people altruistically offered help to the rest of the world, their offers are swatted aside in arrogance and in ignorance by people who think they can do a better job, but are literally too stupid to understand why they cannot.
The altruism of even the two American nations is drowned by the insatiable avarice of the rest of the world, the greed which undermines the homelands of so many nations and directly prevents them from ever gaining any semblance of advanced civilization, let alone civilization at all. Where the "North" and "South" disagreed is downright trivial compared to the disagreements they have with Hispanic, African, or Asian nations.
So the people who jump the borders, what are they? They are soldiers, even if they do not carry guns. They are agents for a foreign nation, seeking to benefit their own nation, never thinking of the consequences to anyone else. They are selfish, they are ignorant, and they have more in common with locusts from a biblical plague than people.
But they are people.
And their plight does demand an action.
But that action is not invading and undermining another nation's homeland.
Soldiers are killed by their enemies during times of war, until a victor has conquered or the participating "sides" lack the resolve or resources to keep fighting.
Instead of deporting, we should be executing.
Instead of encouraging legal immigration, we should be repatriating people to their homelands.
If the civilization that solved to many problems and fostered so much technological advance is to survive, what made it distinct cannot be drowned out by the hunger of peoples who reject the core characteristics for themselves. If a nation does not want to adopt a trait, they should be free to reject it, and live in the consequences that come from it in their own lands.
No nation has the right to extinguish or steal from another.
No nation has the right to rule over or conquer another.
Such actions are acts of war, and should be resisted with lethal force.
And it is for this reason we'll see a Civil War 2, only that the distinction between the nations will be much more stark in contrast.
Instead of disagreements on politics, or even culture, we're going to see identity and race come into play. The nations will redefine themselves to avoid being swallowed up, and those that define themselves and fight will retain some portion of the existing territory for themselves.
So long as they can hold it.
We can't avert this path, because even should we do what we should, the outcry and backlash would ignite the war all the same.
We're on a path with no other options. No way to escape the inevitable. We've cast out bet and thrown the dice.
Be ready to act regardless of how they land.
No comments:
Post a Comment