CHAPTER 19 (EXCERPT)
Immigration had become a winning
issue for right-wingers and nationalists in Europe, so why not in America? That was the worldwide trend in the First
World, and Trump identified it, rode it, and used its momentum to dupe the
American people. Of course, nobody
seemed to ask the question about where (particularly Islamic) immigration was
coming from into Europe. Not “where” as in
a geographic standpoint, but “where” as in: “What is the origin of immigration
from the Third World to the First World?”
People, immigrants, don’t just arrive in floods from the same geographic
location randomly. Like NAFTA’s effect
upon Mexican immigration to the United States, there were real, quantifiable
reasons for the amount of immigrants to Europe from the Middle East following
9/11, and they had nothing to do with Radical Islam putting a Jihad upon
Western Civilization. Here’s one: the
war.
If you
start bombing people in a certain region, people are going to want to leave
that region (all internal political turmoil that occurs after bombings and
occupations aside). Yes, in war-torn
countries, warring factions battle for control of the region’s tax system. Using drones to bomb civilian weddings,
funerals, schools and hospitals because of intelligence - which may or may not
be accurate - claiming knowledge of the existence of a terrorist in the general
area is going to stir up a debate in any country, including one with nuclear
weapons, like Pakistan, amongst the country’s ruling elite. The infighting and general loss of
infrastructure and wealth from such imperialistic aggression creates a region
significantly more impoverished than it once was, which creates a lower ratio
of resources to people, and therefore induces a wave of immigrants leaving the
oppressed and divided nation, or region.
I
experienced the United Kingdom immigration “services,” back during the Obama
years, following the invasions, bombings and occupation of Middle Eastern
countries by the Western World. After a
fight with my long-distance girlfriend whom I had traveled to visit, I took a
flight from Venice back to England, where I hoped to catch a flight back to the
states or to try to work things out with her.
She obviously realized I hadn’t boarded the plane from Venice to Rome
with her, and she would have a choice to finish the vacation without me, or to
come back to England. But the flight
from Venice back to England experienced a great deal of turbulence after a long
delay on the runway, due to a sudden need for “repairs” to the plane. The turbulence got so bad, the crew thought we
might crash, and consequently loaded us up with wine, compliments of the airline. If someone offers me free booze, I’m drinking
it. I stumbled into customs, drunk. They searched my bag (thanks Bush and
Cameron), and found my left-wing and anti-war literature, A People’s History
of the United States, by Howard Zinn being an example. More importantly, they found some poetry I
had written on the topic of how I felt the UK treated Muslims and the overtly
racist attitudes I saw directed by English citizens toward Islamic immigrants. I didn’t appreciate or approve of the often
negative references to Pakistani immigrants as “Packies.” They detained me and transported me
throughout the network of government-only roads which are attached to major
airports. I was placed in a barred
vehicle with illegal English immigrants from Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the
exception of one man who was from Ghana, practically the only Christian I met
in the system. The vast majority of the detainees
were from Pakistan and Afghanistan (two countries belonging to one region the
natives refer to as Pashtunistan, a major bombing site for American and Western
military power) and were Muslim. I
interviewed several of the men who could speak English, and was informed of
horrible, demeaning living conditions (cameras in the bathrooms being an
example) which existed in some of the concentration-camp styled detention
centers I was lucky enough to not be placed in, but only viewed from the
outside, their high fences, security gates, sectioned off housing and barbed
wire eerily bringing anecdotes of Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia to
mind. When it comes to capturing people,
rounding them up based on their ethnicity or place of birth alone, imprisoning
them, and controlling their ability to freely move, I’m not sure World War II
ever truly ended. In terms of the
concentration camp approach to dealing with foreigners, immigrants, and those
who are kidnapped and incarcerated by the state without even committing a crime
and treated like property of the state, or perhaps its trash, World War II in
my mind started back when the British invented the first concentration
camp. The war’s concentration camp
legacy still exists today in the design and use of immigration detention/deportation
centers.
I was
deported back to America after several days, long enough for me to get the idea
these sadistic motherfuckers wanted me to understand: “If you love the Packies so much, we’re going
to treat you like one.” And this
hateful, racist attitude was manifesting into rhetoric and policy in Europe,
and it was coming to the United States.
Now it’s arrived, and liberals seem to be thrown for a loop over
it. I had been on the fence about
immigration before I was detained, dragged through the immigration system, and
deported. Immigration policy as it
currently exists is antithetical to what the concept of human rights is
supposed to be all about. The only moral
position is a policy of open-borders.
What the
right-wingers and nationalists have never had to defend is the existence of the
immigration system itself, and that probably has a lot to do with leftists
continuing to use and keep that system while in power, in office. The system is inhumane. The nationalists likewise never had to
explain what the origin of Muslim immigration was. Mexican immigration was never explained to
the American worker. I listened to a lot
of Rage Against the Machine growing up, aside from developing a background in
Geo-politics, or International Relations.
According to Zach de la Rocha (who quit Rage after speaking at the
United Nations and realizing his political, or rather humanitarian goals were
not achievable through music), immigration from the Third World to the First
World is a result mainly of Western exploitation of the Third World, one of
those mechanisms for exploitation being imperialism. You stick your nose where you don’t belong,
you try to control and profit from the natural resources of the Third World,
you bomb the shit out of nations whose leaders don’t comply with selling out
their people, or at least their own political power, you’re going to get scores
of thousands of immigrants coming to the shores of the First World. If you give a people a choice of: move, or
get bombed or die starving or live in poverty, a portion of the people will
move. Ron Paul explained to a crowd of
Republicans in a Republican primary debate years ago that the CIA has referred
to the so-called “phenomenon” of something they call “Blowback.” This is the concept I’m highlighting here –
Blowback. But the average liberal didn’t
listen to the obscure congressman from Texas.
Liberals around the world and Democrats in the United States generally
do not have an understanding of this dynamic of Blowback, and are unaware of
(or are willing to endorse while their side is in office) the exploitation
and/or obliteration of the Third World.
Where I differ from, or rather expand upon Paul’s official position on
the matter is I extend the logic from “Imperialism leads to terrorist attacks”
to “Imperialism leads to not only acts of terror, but to immigration.”
The
concept of borders is unethical and bombing and sanctioning of foreign people
is wrong. If the left continues to
support politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who are complicit in
and endorse the existence of aggressive wars against foreigners and the existence
of the immigration system itself, they cannot win elections consistently and
create any meaningful, positive change in the world. They will continue to lose elections and
struggle to improve the nation because of the contradictions in their own
belief system and actions.
What
liberals are missing is that they are playing into the nationalists’
hands. They are supporting the idea of a
wall being built between Mexico and the United States by endorsing the concept
that the United States and Mexico should have a border and an immigration
system at all, without seeing the contradiction in their belief systems. The apparent “strength” of Trump and the
anti-immigration crowd’s arguments are all based on the following argument:
Nations exist objectively speaking, they are real-world entities and not
abstractions (I would argue vague abstractions like God, used as a mechanism to
create a religion, one now referred to by many anarchists as “Statism”). If these nations have an obligation to protect
their “own” people (as has been commonly assumed since the Magna Carta), and
uphold their “own” people’s, or citizens’ rights, then it must be recognized
that some nations are “better” than others, with the propaganda of America
being a great, if not the greatest nation on earth in the back of the
brainwashed minds of the average American Public School student. If America is a “great” nation, of course
foreigners would want to immigrate, to migrate to American soil, either for
opportunities lacking in their own countries (which to the average, dumbed-down
liberal has nothing to do with Western Imperialism), or perhaps due to some
innate jealousy that drives them to travel across the world in some sort of
Holy War, or Jihad. According to the
logic, these foreigners therefore threaten the “rights” (advantage) of the
citizens of “great” countries like America, which creates a need for something
like an immigration detention and deportation system. It’s been Democrats refusing to embrace or
accept the truth which prevents them from winning arguments with nationalists,
right-wingers, Republicans, neo-Nazis and neo-fascists, that has led to this
“need” for liberals to punch right-wingers in the streets, and the truth is
this: the concept of a border itself is incompatible with humanitarianism.
