Weapons of Mass Migration

[Cauf Skiviers]

: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.

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.

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.

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.