By Mike Konrad
In the book of Genesis — whether you take it literally or metaphorically — a nation is essentially an extended family. Genesis Chapter Ten, often referred to as the Table of Nations, lists the peoples of the Earth, from Israel’s perspective, along with their lineages. The number, apart from Israel, came to 70.
Each particular nation was traceable back to an ancestor. Mankind was told to fill up the whole Earth, but disobeyed, and started to build the Tower of Babel, where, in Chapter Eleven, the languages of men were confounded, and the peoples were forced to scatter and separate.
Again, whether taken literally or metaphorically, the principle is that the deity did not want a uniform world, a one-size-fits-all culture and language, precisely because — given the nature of men — they will conspire to do evil.
And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. —Gen. 11:6
There was a purpose for this scattering. It was to keep men out of trouble.
There is real divine wisdom to this. Things may run slower when nations exist, but they run smoother. With mankind broken up into little portions or nations, each competing against one another, there are checks and balances in the world, with the chance of a major dictator taking over being reduced.
Leaders do not see it that way. One nation creates a successful society, a better way of doing things, in contrast to its neighbors, and decides to conquer. The reasons are multifarious.
The conquest can be simply for loot — the Spanish sought gold. It can be for glory — think France. It can be for revenge — Alexander the Great wanted to avenge the Greeks on the Persians. Or it can be just sheer monstrous brutality — think the Assyrians or the Nazis.
Of course, the most pernicious motive is that, being the carrier of a superior way of life, the empire will be improving the lives of the people conquered, and thus doing them a favor. The Romans thought they were bringing good order to the world. The British thought they were bringing decency and law. A lot of American foreign policy has been shipwrecked trying to impose democracy on people who don’t want it.
It is this last motive which often breaks and bankrupts empires.
Though the Romans did bring good order to the north, with the promise of increased trade, prosperity, and roads, Herman (Arminius) informed the Romans that the Germans did not want their help, at the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest.
The English never quite understood why the Highland Scots kept revolting, and they ended up having to ethnically cleanse them during the Highland Clearances.
Thomas Jefferson expected Canadians to flock to the American cause during the War of 1812. After all, didn’t America bring the promise of good Republican government and liberation from British monarchial tyranny?
What went wrong?
Putin can’t seem to understand why Ukrainians might not want Russian leadership.
Napoleon had massive success conquering Europe. A lot of nations joined him. His Grand Armée brought the ideas of the French Revolution, and a lot of those ideas were indeed better. He liberated Jews from their ghettoes and broke the power of oppressive European nobility. So why did Britain and Russia refuse to concede to his superior civilization?
The problem is that people are different. They were meant to be different. And sometimes, even if your society and way of doing things are genuinely better, conquered people don’t want to have improvements imposed on them, or have it rammed down their throat. They’d rather do things their own way.
Like individuals, nations and peoples have different personalities. They may be equal, but they are not identical, which is the problem with affirmative action.
Because of this natural tendency to resist homogenization, it will be impossible to quickly impose “improvements” on the world without dissolving the nation state. Nation-states — when operating rightly — are an outer fortress that can protect the people from the outside world.
And to destroy the nation, Progressives have to destroy families. The family is meant to be an inner refuge. Yes, both nations and families can go toxic, but when they work right, they are a bulwark of freedom. Indeed, families are at the core of nations. Families beget tribes or clans, which beget nations. It took England (the most modern nation at that time) centuries to break the clan system of Scotland. Though the clans were highly dysfunctional, they still held out.
In the West, Progressives have pretty much advanced on the destruction of the family to the point where Europe is failing to reproduce its native stock. European nations will soon be dissolved.
And then there is the issue of the economy. It costs money to subsidize such idiocy, and empires always go broke.
America is all but broke. China — the victim of its own brand of leftist tyranny — is broke.
Back in Europe, the Progressives had to import completely incompatible Muslims into the continent to replace — and that is the proper word — the declining German population. Berlin is now the capital of Eurabia. A sane person would have taken in the fleeing white Boers instead of letting them go to Russia.
The Boers are of Germanic (Dutch) and French stock. Easily assimilable into Berlin. Germany could have told millions of the Boers to come home. Leave South Africa. Isn’t that what the blacks wanted? Instead, Angela Merkel took in millions of Arabs, because, after all, whites are evil.
France is 9% Muslim. Ireland is now 20% foreign. Of course, a lot of that is Polish, German, and British, all of whom would be highly assimilable, but Islamic numbers are increasing.
This is what the Progressives want: a disconnected society of broken families can be ruled by elites. Destroy the family. Destroy the nation-state.
Multiculturalism is a façade. It is a lie meant to usher in a one-world order. When nobody is related, everybody is dependent on the state and can be controlled.
But the playbook is also Islamic.
Unlike early American colonists — who brought in their own wives, thus keeping their root culture — when Islam conquers a nation, it sends in single men, who intermarry with the natives. Within one generation, they produce a class of hybrid elites. Religious, family, clan, and national ties are destroyed. Once that is effected, Islam can take over.
Indeed, Islam does not have a concept of a nation, but rather an Ummah, an Islamic homeland. ISIS ripped down national flags. They wanted a one-size-fits-all caliphate.
[T]he latest edition of ISIS’ propaganda magazine, Dabiq, places a major focus on rejecting nationalism, presenting religion as the key unifying force for their “caliphate.”
This is why Israel has a hard time with the Palestinians. While Palestinians may have a national identity, their chief identity is Muslim, and Muslims want an Ummah, a unified caliphate.
It seems that both Islam and Progressives use the same tactics to produce the same end. Destroy the family to destroy national unity, and usher in a one-world order. And they are both doing a very good job of it.
Islam will conquer Europe without firing a shot.
—Gaddafi
The Progressives and Muslims agree on everything but the nature of that final order. They may be in for a surprise if a dictator steps in to take over the mess they both have created.
What is clear is that both Progressives and Muslims work from the same playbook. They want population replacement, and familial destruction, to destroy families and nations. They are the left and right hand of that same pair of gloves.
Nation-states are real. They are an extension of the family. Both Islam and the Progressives seek their destruction for the same reason. They want a one-size-fits-all new world order. Whether it be a liberal paradise or an Ummah, it is the paradise they seek.
A dictator will be the result. When you seek to create heaven on earth, apart from Christ, you end up creating hell on earth. We are watching the early stages of this implementation.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/07/what_islam_and_the_left_agree_on.html
