I have posited here on many occasions the reasons why I believe Middle East Muslims are totally unable to secure a functioning, liveable, pluralistic democratic state. It’s because of Islam. What’s piled on top of that dysfunctional, anti-human ideology however, and in fact predates and thrives within it, is a society typically steeped in clannish tribalism.
The reason I believe Iraqis coming to Finland, is for its badly bloated welfare state, better living conditions etc. (at least what’s still chugging along), not from any personal danger. Many of them are coming from Basra, a Shiite enclave where there is relatively little fighting, if any, going on.
That said, others coming from Iraq, or even Syria, who truly come from areas conquered by I.S., do so because they have no allegiance to those who are still fighting to maintain control of their own (unconquered) areas. The concept of the nation state is as foreign to them, as is a rabbi & disciples walking through their village on a sabbath completely unmolested.
The nation state democracy project was first tried out during the Mandate period in a post-WWI Middle East, and was an abject failure, with only Israel succeeding as a truly representational democracy. The rest may have reminders of past French/English influence, but have long since reverted back to traditional norms.
Here is a post by Ryan at Israellycool that touches on this phenomenon. He adds his own observations that should be required reading for all interested in the subject, and you should be, because it’s affecting us all whether we admit to it or not.
Indigenous Status Matters: Here’s Why
I have been asked several times why indigenous status matters. The question is highly complex but at the same time, it’s really simple. Look at the Middle East and you will see the difference between indigenous people and those descended from colonisers simply by one overlooked, yet obvious distinction. The willingness to openly fight for their ancestral lands against all odds.
Coloniser people follow the cultural imperative to acquire, they do not have strong ties to the land, why would they? They can always take more from someone else.
Indigenous people will fight. Now I know there are all sorts of excuses for why a people will not fight: “they don’t have enough weapons”; “ the other side is too powerful”; “nobody will help”; “ they might get wiped out”. But between you, me and the internet, none of those reasons matter to actual indigenous people. Actual indigenous people understand that without the land, we have nothing and our lives become worthless and meaningless. So we do not simply run away when confronted with someone trying to take our lands, we stand and we fight. Because any other decision would be unthinkable. Even when we lose a battle, we still fight on.
A coloniser feels no such tie, to a coloniser land is simply a possession, to be owned, and if something can be owned, it can be given up. Think about it this way: if you have taken something from someone else its only value is the value you as the taker, ascribe it. That value will never be higher than the value of your life because, after all, you can always get more possessions, you only have one life.
This is why you see certain culture/ethnicities with migration and immigration tendencies. If you have no cultural or spiritual ties to somewhere, then you will just look for a better place to live. The migrants in the Middle East are a case in point. Why would someone from Syria, whose family probably only got there a few generations ago at most, feel any more ties to Damascus than Milwaukee? His sacred sites, as an Arab Muslim, are in what is now Saudi Arabia: his language developed in Saudi Arabia. His family was in Damascus for a few generations, so his ties, other than nationalism, do not run deep. Nationalism is a recent creation, how deep can ties to a country only created as a nation in the middle part of the 20th century actually run?
Watch this as well: