Another American Century
or
Another American Civil War?
By
Fjordman
http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3783&cid=1&sic=19
Americans tend to be
skeptical of any criticism of their country coming from Europeans,
which understandable given the amount of anti-Americanism spewing
out of the European press these days. However, there is some truth
in the old maxim that “clarity is gained from a distance.” Just as
Americans may sometimes see more clearly than Europeans how Muslim
immigration is destroying their continent, perhaps it is possible
for a European to notice some developments in the USA, too.
The following account is written by a European who wishes your
country well, partly because I like it and partly because I, unlike
too many of my countrymen, understand that the USA is still the best
insurance we have for a civilized world order. It worries me all the
more to see that many of the same negative trends that are
threatening to destroy Europe are also present in the US.
In 2006, the total immigrant population of the United States stood
at 33 million, or 11% of the entire population, which, according to
The Center for Immigration Studies,
was significantly higher than at any time in history. With 10.3
million illegals there now, with at least 800,000 more entering
every year, in twenty years there will be 26.3 million illegals,
plus any children they may have. The National Research Council has
estimated that the net fiscal cost of immigration ranges from $11
billion to $22
billion per year.
California has estimated that the net cost to the state of providing
government services to illegal immigrants approached $3 billion
during a single fiscal year. This massive migration has become so
ingrained in Mexico that people
name their babies Johnny
and Leslie, certain that their kids’ future lies in the United
States. “Mexico’s economy, society and political system are built
around the assumption that migration and amnesties for undocumented
migrants will continue – and that the $20 billion they send home
every year will keep coming, and almost certainly grow.”
Even mainstream media outlets such as
Newsweek magazine
have started admitting that this is not without problems:
Being brutally candid means
recognizing that the huge and largely uncontrolled inflow of
unskilled Latino workers into the United States is increasingly
sabotaging the assimilation process.
No society has a boundless capacity to accept newcomers, especially
when many are poor and unskilled. A study of Mexican immigrants by
Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz shows that
Mexicans are now the single largest group of U.S. immigrants, 30
percent of the total in 2000. Indeed, the present Mexican
immigration “is historically unprecedented, being both numerically
and proportionately larger than any other immigrant influx in the
past century,” note Borjas and Katz. In 1920, for example, the two
largest immigrant groups – Germans and Italians – totalled only 24
percent of the immigrant population.
Some Americans take comfort in the fact that “at least Mexicans
aren’t Muslims, and don’t want to blow up the entire country.” This
is true, of course. Islamic immigrants are a special case, with
their inherent hostility towards all others. Americans are correct
in pointing out the mess Europeans have made for themselves with
Muslim immigration. However, they should also remember that this
difference in immigration patterns is also partly an accident of
geography: When Europe gets immigrants from the third world
countries at its southern flank, these immigrants frequently happen
to be Muslims. If Mexico had been a Muslim county, the United States
would have been in heaps of trouble now.
Still, even though non-Muslim immigrants are always preferable to
Muslim ones, that does not necessarily mean that non-Muslim
immigration in whatever numbers or form is always beneficial.
Indeed, there are more parallels between the behavior of Mexican
illegal immigrants in the USA and of Muslims in Europe than many
observers appreciate. First of all, you have the aggression towards
and disregard for the very country the immigrants want to live in. I
have read Mexicans bragging about how little they care about US
laws. Soon they will be the majority in the American Southwest and
will simply change the laws to suit them, so why should they care
what the laws say now? These laws are only temporary, anyway. This
view of immigration as a means of demographic conquest of territory
is similar to what Muslims are doing in Europe, only without the
terrorism.
Second, you have the extreme amounts of hypocrisy, where Mexicans,
just like Muslims, make harsh laws in their own countries, but
scream “murder” and complain about racism if even a fraction of
their laws are applied to themselves. In a paper published by the
Center for Security Policy,
J. Michael Waller points out
that under its constitution Mexico deals harshly not only with
illegal but even with legal immigrants “in ways that would, by the
standards of those who carp about US immigration policy, have to be
called “racist” and “xenophobic.” The Mexican constitution includes
restrictions on foreigners in any way participating in the political
affairs of the country. Equal employment rights are denied to
immigrants, even legal ones. It denies immigrants the right to
become federal lawmakers. Foreigners are denied fundamental property
rights. Article 11 guarantees federal protection against
“undesirable aliens resident in the country.” What is more, private
individuals are authorized to make citizen’s arrests. Article 16
states, “In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the
offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the
nearest authorities.” In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the
right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for
prosecution. The Mexican constitution states that foreigners – not
just illegal immigrants – may be expelled for any reason and without
due process.
Third, many Mexican immigrants have the same total lack of
understanding of the fact that maybe, just maybe, there are some
flaws in their own culture that create the problems they are trying
to move away from. As long as they won’t admit this, it is quite
likely that the same problems will follow them and be recreated in
their new home country. Muslims believe that they can “conquer the
riches of Europe.” But will they, or will the influx of Islamic
culture ensure that Europe will cease being a wealthy continent, and
become more like any other Islamic failure?
Latin America’s love affair with Socialism,
as exemplified by the three Cs – Chavez, Castro and Che Guevara – is
even more pathological than Europe’s. Many of these countries,
including Mexico, have serious problems with corruption. Will all of
this be imported into the USA, too? When California has become
majority Mexican, will it still be the economic powerhouse it has
been for generations?
Lawrence Auster, in an article in FrontPage Magazine entitled “The
Second Mexican War,” describes how
the Mexican conquest of the American Southwest is a war by
non-violent means:
The Mexican invasion of the
United States began decades ago as a spontaneous migration of
ordinary Mexicans into the U.S. seeking economic opportunities.
It has morphed into a campaign to occupy and gain power over our
country – a project encouraged, abetted, and organized by the
Mexican state and supported by the leading elements of Mexican
society. It is, in other words, war. War does not have to
consist of armed conflict. War can consist of any hostile course
of action undertaken by one country to weaken, harm, and
dominate another country. Mexico is waging war on the U.S.
through mass immigration illegal and legal, through the
assertion of Mexican national claims over the U.S., and through
the subversion of its laws and sovereignty, all having the
common end of bringing the southwestern part of the U.S. under
the control of the expanding Mexican nation, and of increasing
Mexico’s political and cultural influence over the U.S. as a
whole.
According to a Zogby poll in 2002, 58 percent of the Mexican people
believed the U.S. Southwest belongs to Mexico, and 57 percent
believed that Mexicans have the right to enter the United States
without U.S. permission. Only small minorities disagreed with these
propositions. Similarly, the Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska told
the Venezuelan journal El Imparcial on July 3rd, 2001:
The people of the poor, the
lice-ridden and the cucarachas are advancing in the United
States, a country that wants to speak Spanish because 33.4
million Hispanics impose their culture...Mexico is recovering
the territories ceded to the United States with migratory
tactics...[This phenomenon] fills me with jubilation, because
the Hispanics can have a growing force between Patagonia and
Alaska.
Auster states that
the Mexican war on America
is supported by all segments of the Mexican society, even,
apparently, the criminals. The situation is thus analogous to
Muslim razzias or raids – irregular attacks short of
outright invasion – used to soften a target country in
anticipation of full scale military conquest.
Many ordinary Americans lament the fact that US authorities are
“asleep at the wheel” on the issue of border controls. This view
could find support in some idiotic comments by US political leaders
quoted
by Diana West
of the Washington Times. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
leader of a city that was hit by the worst terror attacks in US
history only a few years ago, does not want the USA to protect its
borders to make sure unwanted persons do not enter the country.
According to him, deporting illegal aliens would wreak havoc on golf
courses across America. “You and I both play golf,” Mr. Bloomberg
said on the air. “Who takes care of the greens and fairways in your
golf course?” Senator Hillary Clinton addressed pro-amnesty marchers
as the people who care for our children, our elderly, our hotels,
our restaurants, and our lawns. “You are the faces of those who give
us a good day’s work and often not for a fair day’s pay,” she said –
which has to make you wonder what she pays her gardener. The New
York Daily News recently celebrated the illegal-alien economy. “They
clean your office while you sleep and comfort your kids while you’re
away at work. They prepare your morning coffee, deliver your lunch
and clean your plates when you dine out.”
Are the American elites really as clueless as they seem? There is
another, and more disturbing possibility: The US political
establishment are in no hurry to stop illegal immigration because
they have already de facto decided that the United States as a
nation state should be dismantled in favor of a union of North
America, perhaps later of all of the Americas. They just forgot to
inform their own citizens about this. Does this sound like a crazy
conspiracy theory?
Well, this is in fact what happened in Europe. Richard North,
publisher of
the blog EU Referendum
and co-author of the book “The
Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive?”,
describes how Jean Monnet for years he had dreamed of building a
“United States of Europe.” Although what Monnet really had in mind
was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a
state, an “anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to
making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another
intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that
it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its
purpose was to override their sovereignty.”
The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the
beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated
in “Europe
Day,” contains phrases which state
that it is “a first step in the federation of Europe”, and that
“this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete
foundation of a European federation”. As critics of the EU have
noted,
these political objectives are usually omitted
when the Declaration is referred to, and most people do not even
know of their existence. A federation is of course a State and “yet
for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been
swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans.
EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a
supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court,
currency, laws.” The EU founders “were careful only to show their
citizens the benign features of their project. It had been
designed to be implemented incrementally,
as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would
arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.”
There is a very similar project proposed for North and South America
called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), or NAFTA in North
America. Is this the beginning of the dismantling of the nation
states in this region, cloaked and presented to the public as “just
a free trade zone?”
Just as in Europe, national symbols are increasingly dismissed as
symbols of racism and bigotry.
Echoing instances of similar bans of national flags in several
European countries because “this could offend immigrants,” schools
in California, Colorado, and Arizona will ban the display of
American flags and patriotic clothing. School administrators claim
that the bans were put into effect to ease tensions between Hispanic
and non-Hispanic students during recent immigration protests.
As Victor Davis Hanson writes in his book,
Mexifornia: A State of Becoming,
“the goal of assimilation that was once the standard, if unspoken
orthodoxy in our schools and government is now ridiculed as racist
and untrue.” At the same time, illegal immigrants were displaying
Mexican flags in Los Angeles, and there were proposals of making a
Spanish-language version
of the U.S. national anthem.
According to Multicultural logic, tolerance is always a one-way
street where Western countries have to give in.
It is striking to notice how the political establishment on both
sides of the spectrum are unwilling to do anything to uphold the
territorial integrity of the USA. President Bush “has not pushed for
greater enforcement of immigration law (he is the chief law
enforcement officer), has mocked the Minutemen
as dangerous vigilantes
and has done little to discourage the tide of illegal aliens, in
spite of the dangers of a porous border in the post-911 world.”
While Minuteman civilian patrols are keeping an eye out for illegal
border crossers, the U.S. Border Patrol is keeping an eye out for
Minutemen – and
telling the Mexican government where they are.
Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. “It’s
unbelievable that our own government agency is sending intelligence
to another country. TJ Bonner, president of the National Border
Patrol Council, a union representing more than 10,000 Border Patrol
agents, said agents have complained for years about the Mexican
consulate’s influence over the agency. “It worries me (that the
Mexican government) seems to be unduly influencing our enforcement
policies. That’s not a legitimate role for any foreign nation.”
As some observers have pointed out: If illegals from Mexico can get
across the border, what is to stop al Qaeda terrorists from doing
the same thing?
US President George W. Bush has agreed
with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the
September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board
Flight 93, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called
it “our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new
global war, World War III”.
Mr. Bush said: “I believe that. I believe that it was the first
counter-attack to World War III.” Well, Mr. Bush, if this is a world
war, and it likely is, is it acceptable for you country to have
borders like a Swiss cheese at a time of proliferation of nuclear
weapons to states that call for your destruction? Would WW2 have
ended the way it did if Churchill had declared war, and then looked
the other way while millions of foreigners, including potential
enemies, were entering and leaving Britain more or less at will,
draining their economic resources and dividing the nation at the
same time? People who enter the country illegally and display a
blatant disregard for and hostility towards the laws and the culture
of that country should not be called “immigrants,” they should be
called something else. What about insurgents? When will American
authorities start dealing with the insurgents in California and
Texas?
I have earlier
criticized Samuel P. Huntington for
underestimating, in his “clash of civilizations” thesis,
the extent to which Islam is different from all other major cultures
and religions on earth. However, he has many valuable insights into
the importance of culture and cultural differences. In “Who
Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity,”
he points out that the ongoing Mexican and Hispanic immigration is
in many ways radically different from earlier waves of immigration
to the USA. “Never before in American history has close to a
majority of immigrants spoken a single non-English language. The
impact of the predominance of Spanish-speaking immigrants is
reinforced by many other factors: the proximity of their countries
of origin; their absolute numbers; the improbability of this flow
ending or being significantly reduced; their geographical
concentration; their home government policies promoting their
migration and influence in American society and politics.”
Huntington worries that this could create a mental, perhaps even
physical fragmentation
and disintegration of the USA:
Before September 11, among
some educated and elite Americans, national identity seemed at
times to have faded from sight. Globalization, multiculturalism,
cosmopolitanism, immigration, subnationalism, and
anti-nationalism had battered American consciousness. Ethnic,
racial, and gender identities came to the fore. In contrast to
their predecessors, many immigrants were ampersands, maintaining
dual loyalties and dual citizenships. A massive Hispanic influx
raised questions concerning America’s linguistic and cultural
unity. Corporate executives, professionals, and Information Age
technocrats espoused cosmopolitan over national identities. The
teaching of national history gave way to the teaching of ethnic
and racial histories. The celebration of diversity replaced
emphasis on what Americans had in common. The national unity and
sense of national identity created by work and war in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and consolidated in the
world wars of the twentieth century seemed to be eroding. By
2000, America was, in many respects, less a nation than it had
been for a century.
Huntington points out that “as the Soviet experience illustrates,
ideology is a weak glue to hold together people otherwise lacking
racial, ethnic, and cultural sources of community.” Few people
anticipated the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Few Americans now
anticipate the dissolution of or even fundamental changes in the
United States. However, “the greatest surprise might be if the
United States in 2025 were still much the same country it was in
2000 rather than a very different country (or countries) with very
different conceptions of itself and its identity than it had a
quarter century earlier. No society is immortal. As Rousseau said,
“If Sparta and Rome perished, what state can hope to endure
forever?” Even the most successful societies are at some point
threatened by internal disintegration and decay and by more vigorous
and ruthless external “barbarian” forces. In the end, the United
States of America will suffer the fate of Sparta, Rome, and other
human communities.” According to him, America “could soon evolve
into a loose confederation of ethnic, racial, cultural, and
political groups, with little or nothing in common apart from their
location in the territory of what had been the United States of
America. This could resemble the collections of diverse groups that
once constituted the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires.
These conglomerations were held together by the emperor and his
bureaucracy.” What holds the USA together today, not to mention a
generation or two from now?
This echoes claims put forward by
Robert D. Kaplan,
who has stated that the United States may be the first country in
history that was “born to die.” “Indeed, it is not clear that the
United States will survive the next century in exactly its present
form. Because America is a multi-ethnic society, the nation-state
has always been more fragile here than it is in more homogeneous
societies like Germany and Japan.” Kaplan happened to be in Kosovo,
covering a riot between Serbs and Albanians, when the Berlin Wall
was falling, in November of 1989. “The future was in Kosovo,” he
told himself that night, “not in Berlin.”
Samuel P. Huntington thinks that Americans should “recommit
themselves
to the Anglo-Protestant culture,
traditions, and values that for three and a half centuries have been
embraced by Americans of all races, ethnicities, and religions and
that have been the source of their liberty, unity, power,
prosperity, and moral leadership as a force for good in the world.”
Kaplan’s assertion that “the future is Kosovo” mirrors my own
statement that we may be entering a war that will be remembered as
the
Multicultural World War, with a Balkanization
of the West caused by Multicultural
insecurity about our own values and runaway immigration without
assimilation. This may not be unavoidable yet, but it seems to be
the direction in which we are now heading.
If the current Mexican immigration invasion of the USA is allowed to
continue, there are several possible futures, all of them which will
imply a significant weakening of the US as a nation state, and thus
jeopardize its superpower status. French separatism and demands in
Canada has for generations weakened that country as a nation. An
increasingly bilingual and bicultural America would be faced with
the same internal tensions as other bicultural countries such as
Canada or Belgium.
 Maybe
in the future, the border of Latin America will be moved northwards
to Vancouver and Montreal, where it will merge with the Islamic
Republic of al-Canadistan. A worse scenario is that the USA will
physically fall apart. As the Southwest de facto becomes a part of
Greater Mexico, as the white majority diminishes and maybe
disappears and Americans are told to “celebrate diversity,” they may
wake up some day and discover that the country has become so
“diverse” that they hardly have anything in common anymore. Such a
situation could lead to peaceful separation, but also to civil war.
There is a reason why some of the largest
Islamic organizations in the USA
came out in support of the rallies in major cities in support of
illegal immigrants. Muslims see this as a way of weakening the Great
Satan. And they are right. Americans need to understand just how
much is at stake here. We are probably, as President Bush himself
has hinted at, in the early stages of a world war with Islam.
Muslims are working to get nuclear weapons and are openly calling
for the physical destruction of the West. Your enemies are watching
the way you are handling the illegal situation, and they are not
impressed. Do you think the North Koreans or the Iranians are scared
of a country that allows itself to be intimidated and held hostage
by a bunch of Mexicans who shouldn’t even be in the country in the
first place? When you’re a superpower, the line of separation
between domestic and foreign policy hardly exists. During the Cold
War, the Soviet Union was impressed by the way Ronald Reagan handled
an attempt of blackmail by the civil air traffic controllers. He
simply fired them. This signalled to your enemies abroad that you
were not going to give into blackmail anywhere.
What is at stake here is your credibility as a superpower. In the
longer run, it could be your physical security from nuclear attacks,
perhaps even your very survival as a coherent nation state. DO NOT
give in to Mexican intimidation. Build the border fence, and deport
the illegals. Yes, ALL of them. No amnesty. We are facing decades of
what could potentially become the deadliest war in human history,
where the very survival of Western civilization and perhaps human
civilization in general hangs in the balance. We cannot win this
without you.
You are the indispensable nation, and if you break down, the rest of
the planet is in serious trouble. Europe will have to concentrate on
just surviving, India has Islamic problems or her own, Russia is
neither willing nor able to lead a fight against Islam, and China
doesn’t care. It may even prefer a conflict that will eliminate its
Western rivals. The major obstacle to the agenda of Islamic world
domination is the USA. The issue of illegal immigration is not about
your golf courses, your lawns or your nannies, it’s about whether
your children and grandchildren will grow up facing another American
Century or another American civil war. And by extension, whether
large parts of the world will be following sharia law.
Can Americans take back their country from the illegals and their
own, appeasing elites? Have they still got the spirit of the Boston
Tea Party in them, or have they become too softened by Mom and apple
pie? Much depends upon the answer.
Fjordman is a noted
Norwegian blogger who has written for many conservative web sites.
He used to have his own
Fjordman Blog in the past, but
it is no longer active.
Article
Reproduced From:
http://globalpolitician.com
|