• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Throughout history, nations have taken violent exception to being invaded by large masses of foreigners. The Canaanites did not take kindly to Israelite immigration into the Promised Land, nor did the Israelites later welcome the arrival of Philistine immigrants from the Aegean Sea. The Arabs, who immigrated to Palestine in the centuries that followed Hadrian’s destruction of Judea after the Third Jewish War, are still actively resisting the return of the Jews to their ancient ancestral lands 63 years after the Israeli war of independence.

In Spain, the Reconquista took 770 years, from King Pelagius’ defeat of the Umayyad Caliphate at the Battle of Covadinga in 722 to the last European sultan’s capitulation to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella in 1492.

People value their cultures, their traditions, their religion, their land and their blood. They always have and they always will. The false mantras of the multiculturalists, which proclaim in Orwellian fashion that “diversity is strength,” “the greater the diversity, the greater the perfection” and “my country is the world” do not become any more true with repetition. Social science has supported the long-standing verdict of history; Harvard’s Robert Putnam was distressed to discover that “immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating impact on social capital, the fabric of associations, trust and neighborliness that create and sustain communities.”

In other words, diversity is socially and societally destructive. And yet, one so seldom sees that historically and scientifically established fact on bumper stickers or university advertisements.

The more rigid discipline of genetic science has also shown the notional foundations of multiculturalism to be false. We are not all one human race. Indeed, we are not even all one human subspecies. The anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus, whose theories about interspecies breeding between Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis were supported by the DNA evidence in 2010, points out that the 1 percent to 4 percent of Neanderthal DNA discovered in modern non-African humans is a minimum figure and may ultimately turn out to be much higher.

Because the American national identity is not based on an actual ethnic nation, but rather an intellectual ideal, it is often difficult for Americans to understand that for Europeans, there is very little distinction between national and ethnic identity. Moreover, the smaller geographic and demographic sizes of the European nations means that the open borders favored by multiculturalists are simply not possible. Italy, France and Denmark are already violating the Schengen agreement that permitted open movement throughout the European territories covered by the treaty while ethnic violence has erupted everywhere from Italy to Hungary. These are factors that must be understood before Americans can understand why European nationals are reacting more violently to much smaller immigrant populations than Americans have to the 31.8 million Mexicans now resident in the United States.

While the global media are putting on long faces and performing their customary rituals of mourning la tragédie du jour, the lethal attacks in Oslo and Utoya were little more surprising than Amy Winehouse’s fatal drug overdose when viewed from the historical perspective.

What the multiculturalist progressives omitted to take into account in their early proclamations of victory over nationalism is that nations which will readily tolerate a small and well-behaved group of immigrants will never accept numbers that dictate the eventual displacement and ultimate elimination of the native population. The multiculturalists also forgot that what may be acceptable in times of economic growth, or even perceived debt-funded economic growth, are totally unacceptable during periods of widely recognized economic contraction.

No doubt the Ummayads also assumed, after 89 years of rule over al-Andalus, that their triumph was complete. They did not anticipate that conquered Spain would one day rise against them, much less have the heart to wage a centuries-long struggle, any more than the modern quislings of the Norwegian Labour Party expected murderous violence to be directed at them by a Norwegian national.

The tragic aspect of the multiculturalist attempt to eradicate human tribalism, ethnic identity and national culture in the name of tolerance and diversity is that it guaranteed, from the start, the very ethnic violence it hoped to eliminate. The murderous attack on the multiculturalists of Norway is neither the first example of the inevitable ethno-national reaction nor will it be the last. The tragedy is that it was absolutely unnecessary for any such crimes to take place; simply maintaining the national borders that had been maintained for decades, if not centuries, would have rendered them both unthinkable and impossible.

As historian Victor Davis Hanson has chronicled, the Western way of war is focused on destroying the enemy, not merely defeating him. The Utoya massacre is an example of this, as the New York Times wrote the following of the killer, Anders Behring Breivik: “He predicted a conflagration that would kill or injure more than a million people, adding, ‘The time for dialogue is over. We gave peace a chance. The time for armed resistance has come.’”

The frightening reality is that Breivik is probably correct in anticipating violence of this magnitude in the future. Indeed, it may well be that he is erring on the conservative side. Just as the depression of the 1930s set the stage for large-scale military conflict, the even larger global depression that began in 2008 is likely to build upon the dreadful foundation that was foolishly imposed upon the West by the multiculturalists. What the eventual outcome will be is uncertain. It may be the global government of progressive dreams, but based on the pendulum principle of history, it will more likely mark a return to the pre-World War I state of balanced and ethnically homogenous powers.

On Saturday, Matt Drudge reported a shooting in Seattle that was rather less covered than the Utoya one. Ten people were shot, none fatally, and no one was arrested. But the gunfire at the La Raza car show was every bit as significant as the more lethal shots fired in Norway, because it represents the other side of the coming immigration conflict. According to the statistics, more Americans will die in the next eight days at the hands of immigrants than were murdered in Oslo and Utoya.

Thus far, Americans have proven to be more tolerant of the ethnic vibrancy in their midst, despite the Sept. 11 attacks and 4,380 annual murders by immigrants. But, as the Norway attacks show, apathy and tolerance will not last forever. And when the separatist conflict comes to America, as history tends to suggests it eventually will, it should not be forgotten that primary responsibility for the bloodshed will lie with short-sighted immigration advocates such as Rep. Emanuel Cellar, Sen. Philip Hart, Sen. Edward Kennedy and former President Lyndon Johnson.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.