Will Germany learn from history?

Germany is considering legislation that would essentially give Muslims separate liberties under the law.

The German government has withdrawn proposed legislation that would have banned immigrants in polygamous marriages from obtaining German citizenship. The proposed ban had been included in draft changes to Germany’s naturalization law, but was quietly removed from the final text, apparently in the interests of political correctness and multiculturalism.

Although German law clearly prohibits polygamy for German nationals, some have argued that the law is unclear as to whether the law applies to foreign nationals living in Germany. The interior ministers of Germany’s 16 states had unanimously called on the German government to clarify the issue by enshrining into law a blanket ban on German citizenship for polygamous migrants.

Critics say that the bill, as it currently stands, would not only create a legal backdoor for polygamous migrants to become German citizens, but would effectively legalize the practice for Muslim immigrants. The changes would, consequently, enshrine into German law two parallel legal systems, one based on German Civil Law and another based on Islamic Sharia law.

The German government has long been debating proposed changes to the country’s Nationality Act (Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz, StAG) that would strip German dual-citizens of their German citizenship if they join jihadi groups abroad. The proposed changes would not be retroactive and would not, for instance, apply to German jihadis who joined the Islamic State.

The original draft included language that would have prohibited immigrants in polygamous marriages, as well as immigrants who lack legal identification, from becoming German citizens. The language was removed from the bill after a Cabinet meeting in early April. The removal of the text, first reported by the newspaper Welt am Sonntag on May 5, has been greeted with outrage.

The parliamentary spokesman for the Christian Democrats, Mathias Middelberg, blamed Justice Minister Katarina Barley, of the Social Democrats, for removing the language. “This is completely incomprehensible and unacceptable,” said Middelberg. “It should be self-evident that naturalization of persons living in polygamous marriages is out of the question in the Basic Law.”

It is really too bad we hardly ever learn from the mistakes we made in the past.  Diversity + proximity = war.  If you let people in that do not share a common religion or ancestry, problems inevitably arise.

Take the Jews in Spain.  The Church was, let’s say, just a touch angry when they learned what the Talmud, which they only recently discovered, said about Jesus Christ.  Even so, they continued to push Sicut Judaeis non, making sure not to harm Jews, but also making sure they did not undermine or subvert society.  They preferred to try conversion instead of violent reprisal.  It took with some, but others abused it by converting to enjoy benefits, like the ability to take public office and move up, while not actually practicing Christianity.  The consequences of reverting back to their old ways became somewhat watered down due to the controversy between voluntary and forced conversion.  Here’s what E. Michael Jones had to say about the situation at this point in his excellent The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History.

After victory at Toro in 1476 over the party of “L’a Beltraneja,” Henry’s putative daughter whom the Portuguese backed as claimant to the throne, the Cortes of Madrigal restored royal prerogatives.  Jews were even more beyond the law than the renegade nobles.  They were tried in their own courts.  They could be prosecuted in royal courts only for criminal offenses, but they could only be punished in accord with their own law.  They could not be summoned to court on the Sabbath.  Even polygamy was tolerated among the Jews, and so they became an ongoing incitement for contempt of the law and of the Christian faith.  The conversos quickly exploited the situation.  The Cura de los Palacios claimed the practice of Judaism was widespread among the conversos.  Lea claims that when the royal couple took the throne, the Judaizers were so powerful that “the clerks were on the point of preaching the law of Moses.”  In addition, the judaizing conversos “avoided baptizing their children, and, when they could not prevent it they washed off the baptism on returning from the church; they ate meat on fast days and unleavened bread at Passover.”  They also continued to benefit from usury, claiming “they were despoiling the Egyptians.”  As a result, they became wealthy and powerful enough to block the enforcement of the laws that would have restored order.  Anarchy thwarted the attempt to impose order.

Separate laws for separate people in the same country breeds contempt and derision.  Eventually it will boil over.  In Spain’s case, the situation became so tenuous the Jews were kicked out, a recurring theme, having happened over 100 times throughout history.  Again from E. Michael Jones:

The Inquisition and the expulsion undid the work of St. Vincent Ferrer.  Jews were convinced conversion was or would be a mistake.  After the Edict of Expulsion was announced, the clergy launched a conversion campaign, but the incentives were gone.  There were few conversions, and most Jews left.  Most went to Portugal, from whence they were expelled a few years later.  Many went to Turkey, which received them with open arms.  It was out of the Ladino community in Ismir that the false messiah Shabbetai Zevi would arise 150 years later, buoyed by the writings of the Lurianic Cabala, whose school had been established in Gaza as a result of the expulsion.

On July 31, 1492, the last Jew left Spain.  In 1494, Alexander VI granted Ferdinand and Isabella the title of Catholic Kings, listing the expulsion of the Jews as one of their accomplishments.  Gian Pico della Mirandola praised them for it too.  Guicciardini, the Florentine historian and statesman, praised them as well.  The expulsion of the Jews along with the defeat of the Moors had united Spain and “raised it to the rank of a great power.”  Guicciardini concluded “had the situation not been corrected, Spain would in a few years have forsaken the Catholic religion.”

Time will tell what Germany decides to do.  Spain became a super power after the expulsion.  Will Germany take the same course?  Or will they continue to allow the globalists to run their country into the ground?

Birth rates continue to plummet in the West

They have declined across the board, save for women over 35.  The entire report from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics can be found here.  Here’s a snippet from the results:

The provisional number of births for the United States in 2018 was 3,788,235, down 2% from 2017 and the lowest number of births in 32 years.  The general fertility rate was 59.0 per 1,000 women aged 15-44, down 2% from 2017 and another record low for the United States.  The total fertility rate declined 2% to 1,728.0 per 1,000 women in 2018, another record low for the nation.  Birth rates declined for nearly all age groups of women under 35, but rose for women in their late 30s and early 40s.  The birth rate for teenagers aged 15-19 was down 7% in 2018 to 17.4 births per 1,000 women; rates declined for both younger (aged 15-17) and older (aged 18-19) teenagers.

Screen Shot 2019-05-15 at 1.20.53 PM

While the birth rate overall dropping tells a story, what’s actually important is the birth rate by race.  Babies born in America aren’t magically a new race that is “American” so the total birth rate doesn’t really matter if a large portion of the country does not want to adhere to the standards and principles the country was founded on anyway.  Non-hispanic whites continue to lag behind, exacerbating the problem of what will soon be a majority non-white country.  But the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 won’t change the demographics of the country, right?  Not surprisingly, they don’t give the race statistics in the same way as every other statistic they cite.  Instead of telling us the birth rate by race, they simply supply the raw numbers.  This is a ploy.  Non-hispanic whites had more overall births, just over twice as many births as Hispanics, but when you consider non-Hispanic whites make up about 65% of the population and Hispanics just under 20% that tells quite a different story on who is breeding in larger numbers, by a noticeable margin.  People will continue to pretend they do not care or that this does not matter.  Just remember that when the percentages flip.  And remember where these people came from and how they ran their governments in their home countries.  This is what we have to look forward to.

Screen Shot 2019-05-15 at 1.31.37 PM.png

In an age where we are told to live for today, who cares about tomorrow, YOLO, etc, it is not surprising to see birth rates continue to drop in the West.  Christianity, which instills a mentality of planting seeds today for trees under which you will never enjoy the shade, has continued to be attacked and removed.  This, perhaps more than any other factor, has decimated birth rates too.  We have grown fat and lazy, indulge way too much in entertainment and other useless vices, and have grown complacent.  It is easy to see the mentality of “who wants the responsibility of kids” when there’s so much other entertainment and distraction out there.  Couple this with back-breaking taxes and the near impossibility of buying a house that won’t steep you in debt for 30 years and it only gets worse.  The only people who benefit from having more kids are those on welfare, further sucking the financial life out of hard-working people.

Sadly, the other factor nobody wants to talk about is the declining birth rate as women become more educated and work more.  One would hope we could have both, but clearly that is not happening.  If people were willing to have an open and honest conversation about this, perhaps something could be done about it.  Men and women age-wise might be better off taking different approaches to education and a career.  Might it not make more sense for women to marry and have kids before investing 10+ years in higher education and establishment in the workforce?  Is it even possible to wonder if this is a possibility without some people flipping out?  Just throwing it out there.

These birth rate trends cannot, and will not, last.  When the economic system finally becomes overloaded due to the combination of increased debt spending, yoking earners with ever more financial responsibility for those sucking off the government tit through welfare programs, and the demographic flip, the collapse will not be pretty.  And the longer it is put off the more it will hurt.

While this all sounds dour, there is hope.  At least for Christians.  That is one of the many beautiful things about Christianity; hope.  We are long overdue for a major correction.  It will come in the form of economic collapse and war.  Over 100 million immigrants and their descendants have come here since 1965 slowly eroding away the fabric of the country.  Eventually it will break.  Now is the time to move to a place and around people you can associate with and build strong communities.  Christians need to band together.  The inevitable loss of entertainment and “easy times” will help pave the way to higher birth rates, and honestly would it be such a bad thing to not be so globally connected and lost in our smart phones all day?  Strong, local, communities will spring up.  New nations will rise.

The Fate of Empires

Sir John Glubb’s The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival is an essay well worth reading.  It can be found in its entirety here.  Empires rise and fall.  It appears that we are in the early stages of the downfall period of America’s current reign.  One does not choose which time period they are a part of but that doesn’t mean we cannot learn, prepare, and still thrive even during a downfall.  There is always a place for optimism.  And that is yet another one of Christianity’s great gifts; it always provides hope.

I Learning from history
‘The only thing we learn from history,’ it has been said, ‘is that men never learn from history’, a sweeping generalisation perhaps, but one which the chaos in the world today goes far to confirm. What then can be the reason why, in a society which claims to probe every problem, the bases of history are still so completely unknown?

Several reasons for the futility of our historical studies may be suggested.

First, our historical work is limited to short periods—the history of our own country, or that of some past age which, for some reason, we hold in respect.

Second, even within these short periods, the slant we give to our narrative is governed by our own vanity rather than by objectivity. If we are considering the history of our own country, we write at length of the periods when our ancestors were prosperous and victorious, but we pass quickly over their shortcomings or their defeats. Our people are represented as patriotic heroes, their enemies as grasping imperialists, or subversive rebels. In other words, our national histories are propaganda, not well- balanced investigations.

Third, in the sphere of world history, we study certain short, usually unconnected, periods, which fashion at certain epochs has made popular.  Greece 500 years before Christ, and the Roman Republic and early Roman Empire are cases in point.  The intervals between the ‘great periods’ are neglected.  Recently Greece and Rome have become largely discredited, and history tends to become increasingly and parochial history of our own countries.

 

To derive any useful instruction from history, it seems to me essential first of all to grasp the principle that history, to be meaningful, must be the history of the human race. For history is a continuous process, gradually developing, changing and turning back, but in general moving forward in a single mighty stream. Any useful lessons to be derived must be learned by the study of the whole flow of human development, not by the selection of short periods here and there in one country or another.

Every age and culture is derived from its predecessors, adds some contribution of its own, and passes it on to its successors. If we boycott various periods of history, the origins of the new cultures which succeeded them cannot be explained.

Physical science has expanded its knowledge by building on the work of its predecessors, and by making millions of careful experiments, the results of which are meticulously recorded. Such methods have not yet been employed in the study of world history. Our piecemeal historical work is still mainly dominated by emotion and prejudice.

II The lives of empires
If we desire to ascertain the laws which govern the rise and fall of empires, the obvious course is to investigate the imperial experiments recorded in history, and to endeavour to deduce from them any lessons which seem to be applicable to them all.

The word ‘empire’, by association with the British Empire, is visualised by some people as an organisation consisting of a home- country in Europe and ‘colonies’ in other continents. In this essay, the term ‘empire’ is used to signify a great power, often called today a superpower. Most of the empires in history have been large landblocks, almost without overseas possessions.

We possess a considerable amount of information on many empires recorded in history, and of their vicissitudes and the lengths of their lives, for example:

Empires.png

This list calls for certain comments.
(1) The present writer is exploring the facts, not trying to prove anything. The dates given are largely arbitrary. Empires do not usually begin or end on a certain date. There is normally a gradual period of expansion and then a period of decline. The resemblance in the duration of these great powers may be queried. Human affairs are subject to many chances, and it is not to be expected that they could be calculated with mathematical accuracy.

(2) Nevertheless, it is suggested that there is sufficient resemblance between the life periods of these different empires to justify further study.

(3) The division of Rome into two periods may be thought unwarranted. The first, or republican, period dates from the time when Rome became the mistress of Italy, and ends with the accession of Augustus. The imperial period extends from the accession of Augustus to the death of Marcus Aurelius. It is true that the empire survived nominally for more than a century after this date, but it did so in constant confusion, rebellions, civil wars and barbarian invasions.

(4) Not all empires endured for their full life- span. The Babylonian Empire of Nebucha- dnezzar, for example, was overthrown by Cyrus, after a life duration of only some seventy-four years.

(5) An interesting deduction from the figures seems to be that the duration of empires does not depend on the speed of travel or the nature of weapons. The Assyrians marched on foot and fought with spears and bow and arrows. The British used artillery, railways and ocean-going ships. Yet the two empires lasted for approximately the same periods.

There is a tendency nowadays to say that this is the jet-age, and consequently there is nothing for us to learn from past empires. Such an attitude seems to be erroneous.

(6) It is tempting to compare the lives of empires with those of human beings. We may choose a figure and say that the average life of a human being is seventy years. Not all human beings live exactly seventy years. Some die in infancy, others are killed in accidents in middle life, some survive to the age of eighty or ninety. Nevertheless, in spite of such exceptions, we are justified in saying that seventy years is a fair estimate of the average person’s expectation of life.

(7) We may perhaps at this stage be allowed to draw certain conclusions:

(a) In spite of the accidents of fortune, and the apparent circumstances of the human race at different epochs, the periods of duration of different empires at varied epochs show a remarkable similarity.

(b) Immense changes in the technology of transport or in methods of warfare do not seem to affect the life-expectation of an empire.

(c) The changes in the technology of trans- port and of war have, however, affected the shape of empires. The Assyrians, marching on foot, could only conquer their neigh- bours, who were accessible by land—the Medes, the Babylonians, the Persians and the Egyptians.

The British, making use of ocean-going ships, conquered many countries and sub- continents, which were accessible to them by water—North America, India, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand—but they never succeeded in conquering their neighbours, France, Germany and Spain.

But, although the shapes of the Assyrian and the British Empires were entirely different, both lasted about the same length of time.

 

%d bloggers like this: