What can we learn from history? That there is nothing new under the sun? That we seem bound to repeat the mistakes of the past regardless of whether we’re aware of them as such or not?
Flashback to the Fall of the Roman Empire
In the first century CE, Roman emperors began ordering the construction of a vast defence system that was later to be referred to as the limes (plural limites). In Europe these often consisted of earthen walls, or dikes, crowned with palisades running along the river banks of the Rhine and the Danube. At every other kilometre along these lines there was a fortified tower and, at longer intervals, whole fortresses containing infantry or cavalry, or both. This system, deploying myriads of soldiers to keep watch over the vital waterways – coinciding with a natural border between Roman civilisation and the impenetrable woodlands teeming with barbarians beyond its pale – was on the one hand, and for the longest time, very efficacious. On the other hand it eventually became a tremendous financial burden to the Empire. It also allowed the interaction of Roman soldiery with these barbarians, who often ended up as mercenaries in the Roman army.
Earlier in her history, while she was still expanding, Rome had primarily relied on new conquests to fill her craving belly, but when the defensive strategy mentioned above was developed, culminating in the wall that Emperor Hadrian bespoke as a bulwark against Scottish tribesmen, the army had to be financed through levies and taxes raised in urban centres such as Rome. Unsurprisingly, the burden of these taxes was not equally distributed, nor adjusted according to economic capacity among the Romans themselves. On the contrary, they widened the gap between rich and poor, creating further social tension and the threat of riots. Already in the first century the emperors felt compelled to subsidise the urban proletariat by providing it with panem et circenses (free bread and entertainment) in order to mitigate its blind fury. This worked for a while; yet it was a precarious truce.
Meanwhile, the armed forces became an increasingly decisive factor, to the detriment of the Senate, in the choosing and crowning of new emperors, of whom many met ‘unnatural’ deaths at the hands of their political enemies or even their own bodyguards. By the end of the third century Diocletian, who was elected Emperor by his troops, didn’t even care to travel to Rome to receive the traditional, albeit purely formal, investiture by the Senate, a gesture clearly indicating how utterly unimportant the opinions of its remaining members were considered to be (many of the old aristocratic families traditionally providing candidates for public offices and members of the Senate had been eradicated in political vendettas and purges over the previous centuries).
Steadily, fewer of the Roman soldiers were in fact born Romans, but barbarians originating in the vast hinterland of the limes. The dwindling Roman population might have thought that these barbarians would be immensely impressed by the mere existence of such magnificence as the city of Rome, but it is doubtful that this was ever the case. To many of them it might have seemed as nothing more than a perfect place to loot, if only the circumstances would allow for it. Eventually they did, and the inner proletariat of Rome joined forces with the barbarians to home in on the carcass of the dying Roman wolf from all sides. By this time even the last vestiges of dignity had been stripped from the imperial title, and the rapid coming and going of Germanic emperors during the period of the final decadence of Rome merely added fugitive names to a list devoid of any historical significance.
It might thus be said that the mightiest empire the world has ever seen went out with a whimper rather than a bang, leaving oblivion to preside over a nation, the native citizens of which were both ignorant of and profoundly uninterested in the stoic Republican virtues and iron will to power that had forged and united the nation in a common endeavour during the earlier days of her history. It rather dissolved from within due to spiritual exhaustion, brought to its knees by centuries of political corruption, financial mismanagement, and a cynical hedonism among the rich which was matched only by the starved frenzy of its immigrants. Deprived even of the belief in its own reason to continue to exist, and at the mercy of any stranger who succeeded in laying claim to its blood-soaked purple for a brief moment, Imperial Rome quietly slipped out the back door, leaving the historical stage to budding Christianity and the motley crew of immigrants henceforth spreading freely across its heartland.
Back to the Present
In 1989 there was hope across Europe that the reign of Bolshevik state terror over and against millions of people in Eastern Europe was finally coming to an end. No more walls; no more barbed wire; no more land mines, tanks, and machine-guns along the borders. Ever. But the fanfare of hope had hardly sounded before it was muted. The nation of Israel, ‘light unto the other nations’ in her own opinion, initiated the retrogression by erecting walls and fences along her new-fangled borders. The United States followed suit by erecting a fence along its Mexican border.
For the moment these measures have proved reasonably successful in regard to their intended objective: to keep the ‘barbarians’ out of the promised land. But when a small country, on the fringes of European civilisation, began to do the same, with the openly avowed aim of protecting its borders (which had been completely disregarded by both Hitler and Stalin in the recent past) and its culture against the flood of barbarians, which had been unleashed by joint American and Israeli policies and military interventions, then the world by and large is incited to condemn its government as anti-human, racist, and savage. No one seems to realise that the same pejorative epithets, if accepted, by elementary logic must also apply to the US and especially to Israel – a country that to this day has not allowed a single Syrian refugee to remain on ‘its’ soil. On the contrary, the Israeli government openly boasts of its efficiency in keeping unwanted ‘strangers’ out of the country, while steadfastly defending the Jewishness of their national home which in 1948, through acts of bloody terror sanctioned and even carried out by the country’s soon-to-be political leaders, declared itself a sovereign state in the midst of Arab territory, and has remained so ever since.
If we compare this situation to the existence of the limes of Latin antiquity, we can see that although these barriers were insufficient in the long run to prevent the barbarians from gaining a foothold within Roman territory and to then proceed to eventually conquer its western provinces, it did halt them for quite some time, giving Rome a respite to ponder its own demise in the course of a majestic decline. But there is little doubt, I think, that if the Romans hadn’t even tried to stem the tide of the barbarians, the decline of Rome would have been a much speedier affair and probably resulted in her being sacked repeatedly already under what is now considered its golden Indian summer, partly coinciding with the benevolent and politically cautious reign of the Antonine dynasty.
I would therefore like to conclude this brief historical comparison by underscoring that if the Jews of Israel, as well as the American authorities, find it appropriate to fence off their territories, just as the Chinese did at one time, against peoples whom they consider inadmissible for whatever reason, I don’t think that any European nation should feel in the least ashamed of doing the same, since it is precisely the lack of shame that has made Israel and the United States so successful in the past.
Meanwhile it is the Europeans who have been forced to bear the full brunt and stigma of a bad conscience (originally, but no longer Christian), which Israel and its executive branch, the US, are only all too keen to wield as a supreme weapon against it. As long as these superpowers show no sign of turning the other cheek to the enemy when they are hit, there is absolutely no reason for Europeans to even consider being so infinitely meek and humane without inviting Israel and the US to join the philanthropic party.
We consequently know beforehand that the Israelis are always going to try to sell us the same old story: their situation is so delicate and special that it can’t be compared to any other historical circumstance ever to have appeared on Earth – yawn… To which the Europeans may rightly and naturally object, that as long as the fundamental weakness of the European predicament, namely an inveterate and millennium-old Christian tradition of ‘bad conscience’ is being ruthlessly exploited and administered by radical Leftists and their Zionist allies, the Europeans should just hit the moral missile back to the Israeli side of the pitch and be prepared to receive another curveball in return. At least the Europeans would still be in the match by the same token, and that is by far better than to just tolerate the intimidation and continue to admit that there is some kind of moral duty for only Europe (as opposed to Israel, Russia, China, or the United States) to receive masses of unidentified people on the move, having been induced to do so by the military aggression of Israel and the US in several Muslim states.
Beware of Pity is the English title of a Stefan Zweig novel (original: Herzens Ungeduld), and he was both Jewish and aware of the danger of letting compassion get the better of your reason. By fencing out what they perceive to be their enemies, the Jews of Israel still show a determination to preserve their ethnic, cultural, and religious identity. Their purist racial stance is probably just as doomed as was the Roman effort to keep the barbarians at bay, but at least it will buy them some time. Even if I don’t personally approve of the way in which this is done, I can respect that many Jews of Israel think of this as the only way to get ahead. Considering how they acquired the land which is now proclaimed as theirs for all eternity, I’m even inclined to agree that they have a solid reason to fear Arab vengeance.
But to have the Western media sing Hallelujah after claims to the unlimited benefits of unlimited Muslim immigration to Europe, and even to have these media pundits condemning any caution and restraint in this regard, is such a monumental act of hypocrisy that it should make us all wonder what the purpose of allowing Europe to become a future caliphate really is? In other words: who is the architect and chief engineer of the Europe of the future, and why on Earth does He want its native populations to be replaced as quickly as possible by Arabs and Africans? I mean, after all, the Leftist media depends on the Western style of ‘tolerance’ that is unlikely to last long in an environment subject to the worldview of people who are hardly noted for their appreciation of Western values. As far as Israel and its allies in Europe are concerned, there are still many secular, and even Orthodox, Jews who would like to remain, work, and thrive in Europe. So where’s the point in prematurely ruining it?
The motivations of radical Leftists are clear: they have long wished to destroy the last vestiges of traditional Europe, even at the expense of the very conditions which made their worldviews possible in the first place. But I have a hard time understanding the attitudes of liberal and certain westernised Jews in this regard. The only workable and reasonably realistic ‘explanation’ for the voluntary destruction of Europe I have been able to come up with so far is that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent, as well as repeated, invitation to European Jewry to leave Europe behind, and under favourable financial auspices settle in the Holy Land, corresponds to a long-term plan of draining the Middle East of Arab populations by gradually transplanting them to Europe. In this way European anti-Semitism will steadily be deflected towards Arabs, who will in turn shake their fists at absent Jews, leaving Israel free to expand her own territory in order to better accommodate her dispersed children, who will be eagerly seeking a new home as they find Europe growing more and more inhospitable for them.
Could it be that the Muslim invasion of Europe is thus part of a wider Zionist plan involving a quest for ‘Greater Lebensraum for the Jews’? If so, a natural consequence of this would be that the defensive walls and fences keeping non-Jews out of Greater Israel will one day be further extended. Quite contrary to what many Europeans might have come to believe, namely that the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe is deeply worrying to all Jews, it may in fact be part of a deliberate Zionist strategy, and consequently quite welcome to some of them. Only the future will tell whether a second ark, destined to rescue only certified Abrahamoids rather than animals this time, is about to be launched as this human deluge in the making hits Europe.
But even if such scenario remains an unverified hypothesis for the time being, what is sure and certain is that the idea of global multiculturalism – nowadays considered by many to be such a self-evident and unavoidable reality that it doesn’t even need to be argued – has so far also eminently served Diaspora Jewry by diffusing the origins of its concerted activity – financial, political, cultural – throughout the entire Western world. At the time when the Western nations were ethnically homogeneous, the Jewish presence was still clearly felt as something ‘alien’ that necessitated some time to digest. It even involved an effort on the part of the Jews themselves to at least assimilate some aspects of the culture hosting them. Today being Jewish is in itself synonymous with the norm for optimal societal integration and success, thus something we should all aspire to emulate to the best of our capacity. The Jews during the past two centuries have not only travelled far and wide by land and sea. They have also undergone a spiritual metamorphosis transforming them from pariahs into masters. By tacit Gentile consensus they have thus become our new role models.