Weapons of Mass Migration

Steadfast on Europe, negligent on Texas

“Man has, since the Enlightenment, dealt with things he should have ignored.”
Andrei Tarkovsky

To Marx, history repeats itself; to Mark Twain, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. Today, we know history’s a bad pun, one that leaves us not laughing, but agonising over the infamy of it. “History, I’m confused,” we say in our belief that ‘this time it’s different,’ when, in fact, it’s just a new scene in the same old play: “Hi Confused, I’m History.”

On the chill morning of January’s last day, from the guts of Norfolk, Virginia, NATO will roll out its big guns for the world to see. In the largest show of force since the end of the Cold War, the alliance will demonstrate its ability to rapidly deploy forces from North America to secure the borders of Europe.

Dubbed ‘Steadfast Defender 24,’ the exercise will mobilise ninety thousand troops. A fleet of 50 warships will cut through the Atlantic’s blue. The sky will buzz with 80 fighter jets, helicopters, and drones. And on the ground, 1,100 combat vehicles, will testify to the seriousness of this exercise.

NATO officials speak of a “fictitious” Article 5 scenario, triggered by an attack against the alliance launched by a “near-peer” adversary. But the world knows the unspoken truth: the line between fiction and reality is as shifty as the quicksand it is drawn on.

USS Gunston Hall sailing from Norfolk, Virginia. Credit: US Navy.

Remember, when you hear ‘NATO,’ it mostly means Uncle Sam wearing a different top hat. And just this week, the British Army chief raised the alarm about NATO’s distant runner-up: their military is “too small” to handle a conflict with Russia, urging a need to “mobilise the nation.” With their forces halved over the last 30 years, whispers of civilian conscription are in the UK’s air tonight, for the first time in 60 years.

I’m not one to bash NATO for flexing its muscles — in fact, I wish they’d flex harder, more often, and with real conviction. I even believe an isolationist approach to NATO is both dilettantish and misinformed. But here’s the head-scratcher: since 2022, 300,000 Russian boots have tramped into Ukraine, uninvited. In the same period, 4 million souls have crossed the U.S. southern border, also uninvited.

Sure, it’s apples and oranges in why they’re coming, but the scale — it makes you think. One border breach calls for such a grand display of power, the other? Hardly a whisper. Ironically, the same hand ordering troops to secure European borders seems ready to undermine the U.S.’s own.

Twenty-five states have pledged to support Texas defend the U.S. border.

Widespread warnings of a civil war in the making are growing louder. But it’s one thing to fight over how to run your own nation, a tragic but familiar song; it’s quite another to pick up arms to help and abet outsiders in tearing at the fabric of a nation. Turning the homeland into a battleground for foreign interests isn’t engaging in civil war; it is committing treason.

When We Least Expected, They Surprised Us Again

In 2021, the European Union woke up to a ‘new’ threat: weaponised migration. Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus’ strongman, had herded thousands to Europe’s gates threatening to “flood” the EU with “drugs and migrants:” Kurds, Syrians, Afghans — all promised a golden ticket, then left to freeze and starve at the EU’s borders, in a manufactured ‘humanitarian crisis’ unfolding in the frost of an approaching winter.

EU aspirational laws ordered ‘member states’ to open the gates. But the real people at the borders — in Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia — said ‘back off,’ not with words, but with tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons. The pen, supposedly mightier than the sword, was promptly hung out to dry. Putin, and his lapdog Lukashenko, laughed out loud, having cornered the EU yet again — leaving them embarrassed and divided.

Foreign policy ideologues were quickly out of their depth facing a real crisis — one that wasn’t cooked up in their think tanks. Those weren’t imaginary ‘climate migrants.’ EU’s home affairs boss, Ylva Johansson, couldn’t believe her eyes — how dare them “using human beings in an act of aggression?!” To the Lithuanian foreign minister, the refugges were turned into “live ammunition.”

Lukashenko’s move was far from a novelty. In the 1970s, India already accused Pakistan of “a new crime of refugee aggression” when ten million illegal migrants crossed into their country. In the mid-1980s, East Germany would recruit Middle Eastern and South Asian migrants to pressure West Germany into political and economic concessions. In the 1990s, Albania traded migrant control for economic and military aid from Italy.

The U.S. has been playing this game since at least the 1950s when President Eisenhower faced strong criticism for ordering ‘Operation Wetback,’ which apprehended and deported an estimated 1.3 million illegal immigrants. A precedent perhaps to keep in mind.

In the 1980s, President Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan bargained against the U.S., using 3 million Afghan refugees as chips while looking for concessions that included nuclear programme leniency. In the 1990s, the Aristide regime in Haiti used the threat of opening the floodgates of mass migration to enlist U.S. support in a bid to regain power. In 2021, Nicaragua dropped visa requirements for Cuban nationals, to try and create a reserve army of migrants that can be weaponised against the U.S. in the future.

Across the Atlantic, Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi threatened to turn Europe “black and Muslim” with migrants multiple times to make the EU bend to his demands. His success might have inspired Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s threats to “flood” Europe with migrants to the same effect. In a meeting with EU officials in late 2015, Erdogan reportedly quipped, “so how will you deal with refugees if you don’t get a deal? Kill the refugees?”

The Muslim world knows the West gets its own dilemma over ‘refugees’ wrong. “We are ready to sacrifice millions of lives so that nobody approaches a grain of sand [in North Sinai],” were the words of Egypt’s Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly when asked about how Egypt planned to deal with Palestinian refugees last year. “Egypt will never be imposed upon,” he clarified to the benefit of anyone looking stunned.

Demographics is Prophecy

Mohammed, known for many titles, might best be called the prophet of demographics because, more than destiny, demographics is prophecy. This idea underpins his followers’ understanding of time through the lens of eternity, while the infidels in the West are too fixated on the next election or the newest iPhone.

In their structural, unwitting ‘white supremacy,’ liberal Westerners believe everyone thinks like them. They assume the Muslim calendar must start with Mohammed’s birth, like the Christian begins with Christ’s. But no, it begins with a migration (the ‘hijrah’) in 622 AD. Not an ‘exodus’ seeking a promised land, but a mass migration, taking advantage of an offer of sanctuary from the leaders of Yathrib, a city about 200 miles north of Mecca — later renamed Medina.

Mohammed and his followers fled Mecca, escaping what one could call — anachronistically — ‘Islamophobia.’ The dominant Quraysh tribe had had enough of Mohammed’s ‘hut to hut’ preaching and denunciation of their tribal religion. Due to the unrest, the Quraysh imposed harsh social and economic sanctions on Mohammed and his followers, causing them to seek refuge in Yathrib.

The migration from Mecca to Yathrib (now Medina) was indeed marked by peace. No sign of a jihad. Once in control in Medina, Mohammed signed the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with the Quraysh from Mecca, establishing a ‘two-state solution’ of sorts.

Mohammed thus created the blueprint for Islamic colonisation, following a pattern of migration (hijrah), demographic explosion, conflict, peace treaties (hudna), conquest wars (jihad), and power consolidation (Dar al-Islam). While Muslims understand this strategy well, Westerners can’t see the big picture, focusing instead on the ‘immigration crisis,’ on the left, and the ‘holy wars,’ on the right.

We are now three decades into the hijrah stage in Europe. In Israel, we are in a tentative hudna (or ‘peace treaty’) stage. While in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, we are in full-on jihad stage.

Muslims, who don’t tolerate blending the sacred and profane as the West does, see migration as it is: demographics in motion — in time and space, both concepts holy to Islam. Through war and peace, their leaders see themselves as following Mohammed’s path. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis wielding rockets in the same way Mohammed wielded the sword.

And Westerners see the mirage of a refugee crisis in economic aspects of the struggle of migrants, missing the picture that the hijra is not just historical or theological; it’s a playbook for political change, a slow-burn path towards submission.

Islam isn’t just prayers and fasting disconnected from civil and military life like Christianity; it is totalitarian, encompassing everything from philosophy to civil codes and even science.

Islamic leaders from war-torn countries, places where Western leaders believe are suffering through a ‘migration crisis,’ urge their people to practice hijrah: migrate and then disregard local laws wherever they are accepted, in anticipation of Allah’s ‘true’ law.

Civilisational Free Lunch

Weapons of mass migration are well understood in both Islam and Eurasia. Belarus’ Lukashenko, when giving a helping hand in the spread of the hijrah over Europe, was following a rich tradition.

One that includes Egypt’s towering border wall in Gaza, standing 30 feet above and 50 feet below ground, to keep the Palestinians out. In 2018, Syria’s Assad turned the Yarmouk refugee camp into dust, leaving tens of thousands of Palestinians displaced. Jordan, during the Black September in 1970, purged its lands of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Fast forward to 2023, and it’s Pakistan’s turn, showing 1.7 million Afghans the door.

Yet, speak of this, of the reluctance of even culturally closer nations to open their arms to unvetted refugees, and the labels of ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobe’ are swiftly applied, accused of buying into the ‘great replacement conspiracy theory.’

And the irony? Those screaming the loudest against the resettling of Palestinians away from the war zone in Gaza, do so fearing that they will be, literally, ‘replaced by the Jews’ in their own homeland. More evidence that the ‘refugee crisis’ is just Western liberals’ geopolitical alien hand syndrome.

Not every immigrant is a refugee, nor are they all agents of a grand hijrah. The millions crossing the southern border are not seeking to plant a foreign flag. They are economic migrants, of course, just chasing a dollar, trying to scrape together a life.

Yet, we shouldn’t swallow that line liberals are selling, that concerns over public services, unemployment, terror attacks and crime rates are the only valid arguments against mass migration. That only serves to dismiss other viewpoints as mere xenophobia, leading to intellectual charlatanism like David Frum’s warning that “if liberals won’t enforce borders, fascists will.”

The true weaponisation of mass migration lies not in its economic or security dimensions, however real they might be. It lies in the slow, simmering cultural clashes, set to erupt politically over time. The way Islam took over the Middle East, and Renaud Camus and Michel Houellebecq have been warning about Europe. And the liberals are ahead of the game in the U.S.

The concerns around deteriorating demographics are not xenophobic or racist. Nothing exposed this better than Governors Abbott and DeSantis’ stunt of bussing illegal migrants into Democratic-ruled states. The elitist NIMBYism over mass migration was on full display, hypocrisy unseen since the days of Elian Gonzalez.

The right ‘pounced,’ branding the Democrats as the ‘real racists.’ But peel back the layers, and it’s clear as day: there’s a tacit understanding that demographics, and the cohesion of the social fabric, matter. Those selling out our civilisation are beginning to realise the truth of Big Daddy Kane’s words: “pimpin’ ain’t easy.”

But time may have already outrun us. In Britain, the liberal narrative has already shifted, from London’s Mayor, Sadiq Khan, normalising terrorism as “part and parcel of living in a great global city” in 2017, to former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn justifying massive public demonstrations of support for Hamas as now “part and parcel of the British way of life” in 2023.

In the U.S., progressive Republican Nikki Haley, with increasingly tired eyes on the presidency, is willing to flip a coin on whether to let Hamas-affiliated Gazans into the country.

Whether a coin flip or Russian roulette, when you consider who’s calling the shots on the ground, it might be time to upgrade the Statue of Liberty’s inscription to the more realistic: “Give me your radicalised, military-age men.”

We’ve fooled ourselves for too long that there’s no free lunch in Western civilisation, except for the free lunch of a Western civilisation itself. We’ve conned ourselves into believing that paying taxes is the price of living in an organised society when we all know it’s only the easiest way of passing the buck, outsourcing our responsibilities.

As the ones in charge steer us, not away but toward the weaponisation of mass migration, our once great cities engage in a race to the bottom to see who becomes the Mecca of post-liberalism.

The West, once thought it would spread its secular liberal religion through trade and talk, is now left with no answers as it is threatened not by armies but by tides of people, slowly reaching a tipping point. As if dancing in a rave party at the gates of Gaza.

---

More Articles

When Taiwan Falls, It Will Be Like Constantinople

The Sixth Day of the Rest of Our Lives

The Right to Die for the Telephone Company