Reverse migration

too_many_people_for_beautyAn estimated one hundred young men left the Netherlands to go to Syria to help their brethren fighting in the civil war. More are leaving soon.

Investigation suggests that this reverse migration consists of Netherlands-born muslims, usually with pretty decent school grades, radicalized only after receiving feedback from a small group of similarly-minded people and the immensely popular “internet imams.” Other euro-countries are also seeing the rise of these “sharia-tourists” too. Mosques, parents, politicians and independent groups in Syria are discouraging youth from coming to the country to fight. They opt for the most reasonable alternative, which is giving money for aid.

Until recently, discussion on this topic has been limited. All current discussions produce no answers, only the same circular reasoning. The result is that important questions are ignored in order to preserve the binary nature of politics. Since votes are like purchases, political ideas are “sold” to groups cultivated by promises. You are either good or bad, with us or against us. But there is another dimension to this situation.

The fundamental question is this: if a citizen of a European nation stands for introducing sharia law in that state, what in earth’s name is he doing in democratic, Jewish, Christian, pluralist Europe? People are like this are completely incompatible with the surrounding society they live in, and yet are mysteriously out of sight by the governments of such states. It is not surprising that they choose to leave for a society that, while perhaps less affluent, is more compatible with the values that are clearly close to their hearts.

As we all notice daily, life is full of choices. We each as individuals make choices every day. Some important, some unimportant. But we all have to live by the consequences of the choices we make. If I want to migrate to another society that offers what seems like a better life to me by my own individual standard, then I’m free to start working there with a visa and from there build up my own position.

Not all of us should make such a deal. People work best and contribute the most when they are comfortable with the people and society around them.

As a country, you have a responsibility to not infect the other apples in the basket. And that leads to the more dangerous questions about this issue. What kind of signal do you give the law-abiding European worker when governments respond to this situation by making two sets of rules, one for the Europeans and one for the immigrant-born? Is a democracy injected with skilled fighters, who fought for sharia law on another continent, a safer place? How are we going to take care of these people when they return maimed and with PTSD? But most importantly, if we’re going to have people here, should we make sure the values of their hearts are compatible with our culture, values and habits?

I can imagine that Americans have way more intellectual context about this, since they are surrounded by soldiers who fought to protect the American way of life. Europeans who are engulfed by ex-sharia fighters do not need PhDs to tell that this situation is unstable. Unless your brains are caught in an Amsterdam threesome with a bag of marijuana, a cheap hooker and a tram, you can see how illogical this two-faced approach is for Europe.

Fundamentally, this is a question of responsibility. If I want to fight a battle for sharia rights, than it is my right to do so! However, at that point my government has also got the right to cut me loose and to refuse to let me participate in western society anymore. At that point, I have chosen a different values system than the one that is European. This way each party finds the surroundings that are most comfortable to them.

This is exactly what needs to be done. Reverse migration shows us the choices that people make when they think about values, and the schism that they keep in their hearts. Instead of forcing migrants to abandon their values, we should stop being two-faced and state clearly what we value. This forces each person to make the choice and face the consequences. If someone is incompatible here, we should cut them loose to find a place that fits their needs.

16 Comments

  1. Anon says:

    The major problem is that Western Europe (and North America too) does not know, or has forgotten, what it values, so it cannot really state it. As expounded upon by this site many, many times, the West is infected with pluralism, and clings on to it dearly as one of, if not its chief, virtue over any other society.

    So while it may be true that most Europeans can agree that Islam is incompatible with the European way of life, they cannot actually make this official policy due to, amongst other things, economic concerns, and the cherished pluralism mentioned above.

    As a Muslim myself, I don’t understand how one can choose to immigrate to countries hostile to your way of life. Even if the hostility is more passive-aggressive and subtle than anything else; it’s still there, everywhere you go and choose to practice your way of life.

    However, many immigrants are, of course, born in the country their ancestors immigrated to, or immigrate because their countries are being torn apart by civil war/poverty/etc. So being looked at funny and called names is a small price to pay in order to not get blown to bits or die from hunger. So that’s the other side of the coin.

    Before we get into blame games (and I trust the readers are intelligent enough to steer clear of that), we should all be reminded that this mess all stems from Globalization and the resulting open border policies of the West.

    It’s true that (voluntary) reverse migration probably isn’t a bad thing for Europe; however, it’s effect will probably not be felt to any significant degree. I am, however, in full agreement with the sentiment of making it clear who’s welcome and who’s not. One of the many negative side-effects of liberalism is that it produces a society which is hypocritical and constantly “speaking with forked tongue”. Societies infected with it will welcome anyone with open arms, then use them for cheap labour, mock them subtly in the media and piss on anything they hold sacred.

    1. I wouldn’t want to migrate to a place hostile to my way of life, or just radically in conflict with it.

      Unfortunately, in the modern West, that place is my ancestral home.

      When Europe’s values turned from “have values” to “everything is OK because everyone is OK” our fortunes began their decline.

      This was prior to the French Revolution, probably prior to the Magna Carta, but not by too much. It takes centuries for any act’s effects to be seen.

      Perhaps it started with the Mongols. The plagues certainly accelerated it, causing a replacement of natural aristocracy with those who were good at business.

      In my life, “good at business” has come to mean a stingy-minded, selfish, irrational person.

  2. 1349 says:

    So while it may be true that most Europeans can agree that Islam is incompatible with the European way of life

    Isn’t islam more compatible with the true European way of life, than the individualism, feminism and homosexualism that are posed today as “European way of life”?

    Societies infected with it will welcome anyone with open arms, then use them for cheap labour, mock them subtly in the media and piss on anything they hold sacred…

    …then, deservedly, be converted to Islam by force and be pounding out namaz.

  3. 1349 says:

    …Jewish Europe…

    Maybe i don’t see a joke here?

    if a citizen of a European nation stands for introducing sharia law in that state, what in earth’s name is he doing in democratic, Jewish, Christian, pluralist Europe?

    Isn’t it clear what he can be doing here? Bringing this dungyard to order and cleanness, probably?
    If a citizen of a European nation (say, Germany) stands for introducing monarchy in that state, what in earth’s name is he doing in democratic, pluralist, feminist, atheist Europe? ;)

    1. Resurrecting its older traditions?

      1. 1349 says:

        1) Are you nuts? What kind of “monarchist traditions” can there be in a democratic, pluralist, feminist, atheist Europe? Its way of life isn’t subject to change, for, y’know, it’s its way of life! ;)
        2) …What matters more than which old tradition belongs to where, is what the future will be like and who will survive and represent Europeans (or humans in general) in that future.
        There’s not much difference to, say, German people between their old monarchy (which is dead & gone for most of them anyway, and thus ALIEN) and a hypothetical alien islamic theocracy.

        1. RiverC says:

          I, for one, welcome our new Islamic overlords.

          By the way, the old traditions are not entirely dead; but you have to go looking for them. That is, if you want to find them instead of taking the easy way out.

          In this analogy, embracing Islam is The Easy Way Out(tm).

          1. Only diversity can save us.

            From, you know, having a values system in common and not just being for sale to the highest bidder.

            But if that way is “wrong,” I don’t want to be “right” because it could really upset my friends, relatives and customers.

          2. 1349 says:

            1) I do not embrace islam.

            2) Your local Islamic “overlords” could possibly be as white as Michael Schumacher. Just in case you thought you would be ruled directly by semitic-looking towelheads. ;)

            3) Converting a homosexual and “free” nation to Islam wouldn’t be easier than restoring its monarchy. I don’t believe islam is the easy way.

            …Anyway, we’ve gone too far in details.

            You resist Islam today as something completely alien to Europe;
            but Christianity and Judaism (the latter having, all of a sudden, become an integral part of Europe according to a number of authors) obviously had nothing to do with Europe back in the day. Where does your Europe start? ;)

            1. RiverC says:

              I am an Orthodox Christian. It is our belief that all human cultures, in some way or another, have seeds of the truth in them, needing only to be awoken. We’re very patient at this; it will not happen in a generation or a score of generations.

              Europe falls back when she comes to think of herself alone as great; as if all her greatness comes from herself. But it doesn’t: the genius of white Europeans has always been the ability to understand and assimilate the foreign. When she can no longer do this, for whatever reason, she turns to stone.

              There was a time, before Islam, when the intercourse between Africa, the Middle East and Europe was more open. Legend says that Coptic monks taught the Irish how to brew whiskey.

              I connect to Orthodoxy because it is a living tradition and continuity that is ancient. Many of the attempts to resurrect pagan Europe fail because Europe, that very pagan Europe, adopted Christianity by its own will. The Christianity of someone like Evola is the living link to Pagan Europe.

              It would make you think that the Christianity such men originally converted to is different than Christianity was at the time of Nietzsche.

              To see the argument between the great Palamas and Barlaam is almost to see a prefiguration of what was to come.

              1. 1349 says:

                Europe falls back when she comes to think of herself alone as great

                Who speaks about “greatness”? I do not, i have no inferiority complex on a personal, regional or global scale.

                the genius of white Europeans has always been the ability to understand and assimilate the foreign. When she can no longer do this, for whatever reason, she turns to stone.

                (Although what you say has hardly ever been true, at least for the version of Europe i live in,)
                excellent!!! Then there’ll be no problem for you to adopt islam. What are all these talks for?

                I connect to Orthodoxy because it is a living tradition and continuity that is ancient.

                Excellent. You will connect to Islam because it is a living tradition and continuity that is ancient.

                that very pagan Europe, adopted Christianity by its own will.

                Plain lies, or ignorance.
                First of all, Europe is not some single, thinking organism to have some kind of “its own will”. Second, you either don’t know of or deliberately ignore certain facts about the spread of christianity in Europe.
                Third, Europe’s becoming christian is a result of an ideological defeat. Whites were quite humble, they had nothing to prove to the world, no mission, no global scheme, so they were defenceless before a pro-active proselytic ideology (a misery which needed company).

                1. We can very easily fall into infighting here…

                  Our ancestors accepted Christianity for a reason. Probably because it was close to what they believed anyway.

                  Europe originally had no designs on the world beyond Europe, except to explore. When we started having to fight modern wars, that is nation-states trying to include as many people as possible to have more cannon fodder than the next guy, the defense of territories worldwide became important.

                  Now we can’t escape that. The world is what it is. The question is where we go next?

                  Europeans for Europe would be a good start. Next up would be to stop the infighting, agree on a few values we either share or find not horribly offensive, and start building up our culture, society, etc. again.

                  1. 1349 says:

                    Our ancestors accepted Christianity for a reason. Probably because it was close to what they believed anyway.

                    a) I’ll tell you something about how my particular ancestors (in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, later Belarus) accepted christianity. :)
                    1387: the Grand Duke, a pagan, converts to catholicism for purely political reasons (to become king of Poland, among others). Soon afterwards they were “christening” the army.
                    A captain (or whatever they were called those days) addresses a sotnia:
                    - Now lisna me guys. You’re officially christian now, got it? Remember your new christian name: you’re all Alexanders now, got it? …’Kay, next sotnia! (To himself:) Now these will be “Pauls”, a’ight…

                    The last known pagan (pre-revival pagan) temple (mainly an oak tree and a stone where a priest exercised some kind of rituals and gave counsel) is reported to have been situated in our capital as late as 1940-s!

                    East European Orthodoxy is in fact semi-pagan. The calendar consists of pre-christian, Sun cycle holidays but with christian names. Not “Kupalle” (“Ligo” in Latvia) but “St.John’s day”, not “Day of Yaryla” but “Day of St.George” etc.
                    The Reformation was an attempt to purify christianity of pagan elements (cyclic holidays, symbols, understanding of the world as an extension of God etc.). Protestantism still has no respect here.
                    Unfortunately, local popes seem to have started some kind of purification lately, themselves. For instance:
                    it’s an old traditional element of Easter (which clearly is a pre-christian holiday) to visit your dead, i.e. go to cemeteries to tidy the graves, talk to the departed, symbolically offer them a meal etc. So, lately, popes have been teaching people not to do this, stating this is not christian.

                    agree on a few values we either share or find not horribly offensive, and start building up our culture, society, etc. again.

                    Abrahamic religions are proselytic and missionary. Which is quite incompatible with peace and agreement.

            2. 1. I embrace Islam for people in Islamic countries. It’s a legitimate religion that deserves respect.

              2. However, I don’t want it here because it doesn’t belong here.

              There is no disconnect or incompatibility between those two viewpoints.

              1. 1349 says:

                I embrace Islam for people in Islamic countries.

                This is nonsense. There can be no dedicated “islamic countries”, islam doesn’t care what people are practising it.

                because it doesn’t belong here

                A whim, nothing more.
                Today it doesn’t – tomorrow you gladly swallow this third magic abrahamic pill.

  4. EvilBuzzard says:

    It’s commonly known that certain organizations exist just to infiltrate European and Western countries and lessen their resolve and ability to discern. Stunts like CAIR sponsoring the “Flying Imams” were prime examples of that in the US.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.717 seconds