There is a proposal on the table that apparently will be voted on and discussed later this month, concerning making it illegal to be a critic of mass-migration, and I guess its effects, which are notable (historically speaking). This is to be done in order to initialize and/or continue with mass migration into Europe without any criticism. I wonder if this makes it illegal to review and talk about History books and/or whether or not it will also make it illegal to write that Norway was converted by the sword, which was the case, only that it was the sword of Christianity. History gives us the key to who we are and what sort of challenges we might face as nations/individuals and how to tackle these … Here is the video:
Ok … now over to what I was actually going to write about:
I was quite surprised when I read an article a while back about anti-immigration riots in South Africa. It was of interest since it depicted Africans demonstrating against other Africans entering into their territory. I linked to the article here on my site and here I’ve found a video about anti-immigration sentiments in Israel.
Once again it illustrates how we all tackle a lot of the same issues regardless of where we live. With our current technology it makes it increasingly easier to compare cultures and how different population groups react to the same challenges.
What is of particular interest in the video is how the two Israeli women start shouting at one another since they disagree about whether or not they should take in the migrants.
Attitudes and behaviours that Westerners seem to regard as outdated are well and alive in other parts of the world, which you quickly realise when reading about the persecution of Christians.
Enforcing certain values and a clear identity will not happened quietly as anything that falls on the outside of the spectrum has to be removed or silenced. This paints a brutal picture that feels foreign in today’s “liberated” Western world of “Thou What Thou Wilt.” It makes sense to say that “when you go to Rome you do as the Romans” and unless you do have an unhealthy fixation on, let’s say, Islam; it makes sense to say that if you live in a Muslim majority country, then once again “you do as the Romans.”
You are a guest; which is why you’ll have to pay your respects or re-locate.
When observing how “respecting other’s sovereignty” plays out in practise though it actually means that you quietly stand by as genuine minorities (such as LGBTQ characters in Russia) are treated poorly, while political dissenters are sent into camps (China), while it also means silently supporting terrifying human-rights violations (Saudi Arabia) all in the name of respecting “sovereignty” and a claim to practise ones “identity.”
Even in Western societies that are officially trying to be “bring-your-own-beer-countries”; they do want to enforce something, which is a normless society. This means that if you actually do stand for what has traditionally been the identity of your territory, well then you must be a bad-guy. Having “no-identity” becomes the identity, in this strange, awkward case. There is no culture, there is no heritage, there is no history, there is no nothing. Only a territory that you define upon your arrival.
Even though I’ve been writing about how important it is to respect a Nations sovereignty and identity, I have to admit that in this I’ve failed on a small-scale by sending words of comfort out to persecuted Christians who in some cases are breaking the rules of the territory that they find themselves in by possessing a Bible and/or being open about their beliefs.
I’m also failing at “bringing my own beer” into identity-less Western territories as I’ve always integrated. This though becomes an issue if you live in a territory where “a deconstruction” is taking place. It means that you are aligned with the old (what the territory used to be) rather than the new (what the territory is becoming).
This might then oddly enough transform you into a dissenter by you successfully integrating into an established identity that is being killed on purpose by whatever establishment…..
Another example of sovereignty violation is this: if environmental pollutants are to be fought against effectively it also means being “rude,” since boots on the ground will be necessary in Africa and Asia to crack down on the worst “climate-offenders;” so there goes your peace and respect for sovereignty!
I wonder sometimes if outspoken celebrities and spokespeople truly understand the natural conclusion of what they are stating and supporting….If you are an actual eco-warrior, well then you can’t respect anyone’s Sovereignty!
Pollution is really and truly a global problem, and we in the West are not the worst offenders.
I’m mentioning this to showcase how difficult it can be to have certain stated principles, only to realise that things might not be as easy as previously thought…
It might also be worth mentioning that global corporations can in some ways operate like “one world governments” for the simple reason that they are their own thing completely and are everywhere, regardless of Nation or Continent.
Their influence is greater than anything else I’m sure.
National Sovereignty is consistently disrespected by world leaders who initiate sanctions and/or declare war against the leadership of other Nations, who they deem unfit to rule. Hence, no respect for sovereignty, nor the enforcement of National Identity.
The reason for this is probably due to how painful it actually is to witness Nation-State enforcement of territorial identity and also (in most cases I’m guessing) how unprofitable it is if Nation States break away from unions where so-and-so is/are the decision maker/s and/or big player/s.
Back to the migration issue; people are protective of their environment because they don’t want to lose out on their resources, which is one of the reasons as to why people have trough the ages “fortified their positions.” Something that is illegal in today’s Western Europe, unless you are a member of the establishment…..
Previous enforcement of ones right to be in a territory is also why we have distinct population groups, because group such and such was not erased by being absorbed into someone else’s “thing.” Hence in order to have a Nation and secure the continuation of said Nation you actually have to exclude, which a lot of people instinctively do; but this is never going to look pretty, especially not on a large-scale, which is what I’m talking about in this entry.
This of course makes an “open world” scary since it is a dangerous illusion; nobody is really interested in being squeezed out, not even those who are initially “open and inclusive,” when all of a sudden they wake up to find out that they have become a minority and that their claim to whatever territory and influence is null and void.
Their definition of their territory that they once upon a time wanted to generously share with others, have slipped and doesn’t include them any more. They simply lost it.
(It might be an idea to note that citizenship also becomes bizarre in “an open world” since citizenship is merely a piece of paper in this case. You territory belongs to everyone, and anyone can be of your territory. The same can be said of legislation tackling digital abuse and scams online. What you get is digital-global-anarchy since a criminal operation from one Nation abusing the member of another cannot really be prosecuted. Which governing body is supposed to police human interactions over the global internet?)
There are those who clearly do not see the arrivals of large hordes of other population groups as problematic. This is precisely why the arguing becomes so ugly, because those who end up being exposed to these transformations have a tendency of being very loud and extremely upset when their home-areas change suddenly. Especially if trust breaks down and inter-racial and/or inter-ethnic violence (the targeting of those who are not part of your in-group) becomes a thing.
The same can be noted now with anti-immigration sentiments here on the continent, that would appear to be reserved for Africans and Arabs primarily, but are also extended to other European Nationalities as well, in addition to heated arguments between individuals who look just the same (due to being members of the same Nation), because of disagreements over whether or not EurAbia or EurAfrica ought to be forcefully created, regardless of the human cost in the process.
I think it can be argued with certainty that trying to unite Europeans was a challenge great enough, just like trying to unite Africa is a monumental challenge due to inter-Racial diversity.
Now it can be witnessed that it is all falling apart here in “Europe,” since it was simply “too much, too quickly, too soon.” Rather than admitting that this has all been a spectacular political failure (unless you want chaos) the political establishment in Brussels appear hellbent on forcing their vision on everyone else, regardless of whether or not people actually want this in great numbers…
Things are already getting ugly since the survival of one “ideological vision” in this case, means the destruction of the other.
The good news is: that this is how humans behave, regardless of where they might be….
Here is one case of internal dissent in Germany and a proposed solution by a French academic: