Conduct Hun-becoming

An unusually candid British military strategist foresees the distinct possibility of Western civilization breaking down as it is invaded by overwhelming masses of migrants from poor countries in a Camp of the Saints scenario … as early as the year 2012.

According to an article in the June 11 Sunday Times:

In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African "barbary" pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years.

Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries — a "reverse colonisation" as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flights. The idea of assimilation was becoming redundant, he said.

Mass immigration, even more than al-Qaeda-like Muslim terrorist groups, is the most overwhelming threat to the survival of orderly and prosperous First World cultures in the 21st century. Not that most immigrants are terrorists (although foreign enclaves do provide a backdrop and refuge for terrorist cells), but today's conditions nurture a kind of aggressive and self-serving form of migration that is indifferent to any values of the host society other than those the invaders can exploit. While today's and tomorrows Huns are far less violent (so far) than the originals, who laid waste to what was left of the western Roman empire, they may turn out to be just as destructive in their way.

[Parry] pinpoints 2012 to 2018 as the time when the current global power structure is likely to crumble. Rising nations such as China, India, Brazil and Iran will challenge America’s sole superpower status.

This will come as "irregular activity" such as terrorism, organised crime and "white companies" of mercenaries burgeon in lawless areas. The effects will be magnified as borders become more porous and some areas sink beyond effective government control.

Parry expects the world population to grow to about 8.4 billion in 2035, compared with 6.4 billion today. By then some 68% of the population will be urban, with some giant metropolises becoming ungovernable. He warns that Mexico City could be an example.

Cut-rate plane flights, the Internet, cell phones that allow people to call the other side of the world almost as cheaply as across town, and other modern wonders smooth the way for "reverse colonization" of relatively healthy societies by the populations of the sickest. But the appalling alliance of the Liberal Establishment and the Corporate Establishment is by far the greatest enabler.

For both, national boundaries are a nuisance. In the degenerate form that liberalism has taken, the nation state is a hindrance to the ideal of one world ruled according to universal principles decreed by unelected bureaucratic mandarins, as in the European Union. Large-scale migration, by ignoring borders, is favored as a key to breaking down national identity. And, of course, the left's socialistic element believes that all wealth should be redistributed — not only within countries, but among them. And the easiest way to do that is to insist that anybody anywhere has a right to pack up their troubles in their old kit bag and move to wherever they think they can live off the fat of the land.

For international corporations, whose only ideal is profit, nations are a source of a few lingering trade restrictions, but more important, they're a threat to the now widespread system of importing a vast low-wage servant class to wherever they're needed, while passing on the social costs of their wage slaves to middle-class taxpayers. As of now, the corporations have bought out the President of the United States and the Senate, and in the House of Representatives it's going to be a closely run thing. A society that functions reasonably well because people have a language, traditions, and values in common is irrelevant to the Corporate Establishment: to it, people are simply units of production and consumption, a viewpoint popularized by numerous pundits, such as econo-twit Larry Kudlow, educated beyond their intellectual means in business schools that are vacuum-sealed against the cultures of individual nations.

Parry predicts that as flood or starvation strikes, the most dangerous zones will be Africa, particularly the northern half; most of the Middle East and central Asia as far as northern China; a strip from Nepal to Indonesia; and perhaps eastern China.

What should relatively successful countries do for the dysfunctional ones? First, they have a moral obligation to remain strong and capable. You can't help anyone else if your own house is being eaten up by woodworm. The worst thing the First World nations could do (which is what many among their academic, journalistic, and political stupidentsia want) is to open their borders to all comers. All that will accomplish will be to create horrendous problems of overcrowding, poverty, and perhaps disease in the host countries, sinking them to the level of the failed states they want to fix.

We have to recognize that countries in a state of permanent collapse are essentially victims of themselves, whether in the form of bad rulers, bad religions, bad value systems, bad economies, or all of those and more. Yes, some of them were colonized, although it's a toss-up whether that was a good or bad thing for them (mostly good in the case of the British empire, mostly bad in places ruled by other European and Asian powers). But it's been 40 years since colonialism bit the dust; today's death-wish countries have had plenty of time, foreign aid, and in some cases potential wealth from natural resources to sort themselves out.

If they don't, we can't do it for them.

Does that mean we must abandon them? In a few cases perhaps, realistically, yes. But a sane foreign policy, while maintaining the integrity of our own borders, could do a few useful turns.

We should refuse any economic aid, other than disaster relief, to the world's pathology zones until they institute serious programs for population stabilization and show that they're working. If that means a one-child limit, well, tough. It's better than mass starvation and desperation. Overpopulation eats up every bit of aid we provide and then some, and creates much of the pressure for migration.

We should knock off a sickbag dictator from time to time. Only, instead of following George the Unready's cracked plan for occupying and transforming the places thus liberated, we should immediately get the hell out and let the inhabitants make whatever they can of their new freedom.

It's not certain that Parry's nightmare scenario will come to pass. History is full of surprises, and you can't just extrapolate present trends indefinitely into the future. But his warning seems to me one that should be pondered very seriously. Will the nations that still have the luxury of choice take heed? I doubt it; more people would consider their future at risk if the Coca-Cola company announced it was reviving New Coke.

Still, there is one person who happens to be reading these words, understands the situation, wants to keep Western civilization from being overrun by mass Third World migration, and is willing to do something about it.

You know who that is, don't you?