The Pete Quiñones Show - Martin van Creveld's 'War and Migration' w/ John Fieldhouse

Episode Date: March 22, 2026

80 MinutesPG-13John Fieldhouse joins Pete once more to read and comment on Martin van Creveld's article, "War and Migration." In it, van Creveld explains and demonstrates how migration is equivalent to war. This was episode 1114.There Will Be War 10Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on Twitter Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekignano show. John Field, how's this back? How's it going, John? I'm going well, sir. Cool. All right, we're going to read this article here by Martin Van Creveld called War and Migration. It appears in, I think it's volume 10 of There Will Be War, which was put together by Jerry Portnell. Yes, sir.

And, okay. I was going to ask you, you know, to talk as much, you know, give us an introduction into Van Crevel, then Pornell, the work, because you're the one who introduced me to, you know, to this work. So, yeah, go right ahead. Sure. Yeah, just real brief introduction, though I know we're going to talk a different time about Pornell. But this is volume Pornell of Jerry Pornell's There Will Be War. Jerry Portnell, you can look up on Wikipedia who he was. He's most famous as being a science fiction writer.

Most of his career, he was basically doing strategic forecasting and, you know, future studies for the Air Force and NASA and whatnot. He was actually the guy in charge of the Human Factors Lab during the Apollo projects of the guys who assessed astronaut candidates, whether or not they would become astronauts, which the most important thing about that is this is a guy who wrote sci-fi. who literally selected who would get to go into space, and he never actually opened any of his speeches with that, which tells me more than anything about the man.

So Jim Bang commissioned him to write a bunch of, well, originally one volume. It was an anthology called There Will Be War, which would be about the future of armed conflict. Excuse me. And Pornel took a combination of science fiction writing, some of his own stuff, some other people's stuff, along with nonfiction essays.

you know actual real world essays some of his own stuff a lot more of other people's stuff um and it was based around a specific topic um he either in some cases he would solicit stuff and say hey write me something on this usually it was somebody he went out there he either got their work that they'd already written or he said he wanted something on a specific theme from people he you know both fiction and nonfiction that he uh said thought had somebody really important to say with that and uh either they wrote it specifically or in In the case of this, I think it's more of a case of Van Kreveld, took what he had on there on the shelf and probably just turned it into an essay that meant these requirements.

One more. Sorry, I'm a little sick, so I'm a little short of breath, so I have to pause in between. So, yeah, there was one volume. Then they did another eight volumes after that, up to nine volumes. Wall came down in 91, and there wasn't much of a market for people talking about war in the future after 91 to about. I don't know, 98, 99, because we all thought that we had reached the end of history and there would never be war again. And we were always proven wrong anytime people think there will be an end of war. Because, again, only the dead have seen the end of war.

The 10th volume came out, 2010 sometime. Fox Day, Castile House, got the rights to republish the first original nine volumes from Pornel. Jerry actually, Dr. Pornel included a new intro to a number of those books. And like I tell people, just reading the intro and conclusions. So Zanthologies is some of the best writing on strategic thinking that I could recommend to anybody. So he republished those nine books. Then he published a 10th volume, which this comes from. And here we are.

Sadly, Jerry Pornel died, I believe, in 2017. Castellia House has released one or two new anthologies of the same type under different supervision. They've actually talked about releasing an 11th volume because they have the rights from Cornell's estate to do still. But that hasn't happened. So that's the there will be war. I didn't know if you had any other questions or comments about that, sir. No, that's great. You can still like go on Amazon and buy the by the paperbacks and everything.

things. So they are available, but you know, you can also find, if you look online, you can find them. Why don't you give us an introduction about Van Kreveld and, you know, this essay in particular? Sure. Okay. Martin Van Kreveld, he is an Israeli historian. Yes, he is Israeli. Yes, he is Jewish. Born in 1946 in the Netherlands, Rotterdam era, area, excuse me. Obviously, that's a really interesting time to be born as a you know a Jewish person in the Netherlands I've heard it alleged that his parents he was actually born in a concentration camp I don't know if that was or wasn't the case keep in mind that immediately post-war a lot of the refugee centers were literally they took people who were in camps of various

types and move them next door into wherever the into the barracks wherever the guards have been located so we say he may have been born in the concentration That doesn't necessarily mean behind the wire. But that's his birth. In 1950, they immigrated to Israel. Van Krivel actually has an interesting biography that was published by Kestalia House with an audiobook version that, sadly, I think Amazon is taken down. But if you can get the chance to get it from Castelia House,

really great book for an intellectual historian. which back up a second the reason i recommend this and why reason i tell people to go read van crevall disease probably the premier scholar of insurgency and non-state warfare in the world right now so that's what makes him important that's why he's taught all kinds of you know unusual places like the marine corps amphibious warfare college he's taught a lot at um either him directly or you know using his materials as taught at us army or excuse me u. United States Special Operations Command. He's taught at the Mises Institute.

So again, he's an interesting guy. He will engage with lots of people who wouldn't necessarily you would think he would engage with. But anyways, back to his bio. Yeah, he immigrated Israel in 1950. Weird time. He was born with a cleft palata

that made him unfit for military service, which in Israel, it's always been kind of weird to not serve because the implication is you're a draft dodger. But being medically exempt, he got to finish his bachelor's degree early, and he actually got to start grad school early and go abroad to get his Ph.D. and come back. And he was probably the youngest PhD in Israel at that time, just because, again, he didn't have to go through military service,

which he went to London School of Economics. His PhD thesis was on, excuse me, the the the barmaq in greece and italy excuse me greece in eugoslavia during the uh the second world war um which bring how he got into a military history which people point out the uh the one scholar in his country of his time without a military record it's kind of a little ironic that he's the guy most known for uh military history but that's what he got into um long story throughout his career he's always been known as sort of the guy who either, not necessarily push the

envelope, but the guy who took hardcore scholarship into sort of like the peripheral subjects of military history that civilians don't generally pay attention. Like you looked at command and war, literally has a book called command and war, which deals just that the history of command. What is

the nature of command? How do we develop commanders? How have we attempted to develop, or people attempted to develop commanders in the past? What are the consequences? He got another book on logistics, the history of military logistics, which it's been pointed out that at that time, it was only the second scholarly textbook on a scholarly research, excuse me, scholarly book on military logistics in the world. There was somebody in the Austro-Hungarian Empire produced a book earlier in the 20th century, but nobody really paid attention to that. And again, logistics drives war and army travels on its stomach. As I remind everybody, nobody likes to talk about logistics,

but things like food and ammunition matter a great deal if you want to win a war, especially if you have advanced weapon system. If you can't, I tell people you can have a tank, you can have a fighter plane, you can have the best systems in the world. But if I can't put fuel and ammunition in your tank or a fighter plane, what you have is a giant paperweight. He also did a history of the Israeli military. He did some really cool work that I actually used in my grad school research about the development,

the professionalization development of officer training in the West, which is really interesting because, long story short, most of the West, we pretend that we're imitating Prussian-German military culture while really doing a lot of French military culture combined with a lot of managerialism and that sort of accounts for a lot of our problems in war. Probably the thing he's most known for is 91 he did a book called The Transformation of War that gets into, again, what it says, you know, what it says on the box, transformation of war from a traditional conventional war into unconventional war.

And then what we were beginning to see in 91, which we very much seen since then is non-state actors. becoming combatants, you know, groups like Hezbollah and whatnot, and the, you know, the breakdown of the distinction between what is a true state and what is a non-state actor. From there, he sort of expanded his thesis into the rise and decline in the state, which is how he got in with the Mises guys. And at a certain point, in between all those things, he started writing about, you know, history of equality in the West, history of feminism and stuff, which really made a lot of people unhappy because essentially he, He was accused to become an extreme far-rightist, whereas he would just say he's being intellectually honest based upon the evidence. So he's extremely critical of feminism, as well as a lot of the complaints and things like affirmative action and minority politics. He's known a lot for criticizing things like that. So, yeah, that's the man. That's the work. And again, part of why we know about this guy, why he became so influential is Israeli academic.

or Israeli academia rather, the language of academics in Israel is English. Obviously they speak Hebrew as the first language, but keep in mind throughout Western countries, there are only so many languages that are used for high-level academics because again, if you have a small population language and nobody else speaks, it doesn't do you any good to just do academics in your language. So you tend to do one of the the big four or five like English or or French or Russian or Spanish. And Israel uses English academics, or uses English language for academics, rather.

So that's how we got to know him. This book, or excuse me, this essay, it deals explicitly with the concept of war and migration. Back to this title, war and migration. The very short, I would say, conclusion to it, if you have, you know, it's too long for you to read, which we're going to read it for you. is that war and migration are fundamentally the same things.

If you have mass migration, especially assisted mass migration, into an area where the host population has no connection to you where you are a foreign outside force migrating in, whether you intend to or not substantively, that is no different than warfare. And I think that pretty much sums it up, sir. I think it's interesting that his family moved to Israel in 1950, and he would come to the conclusion that a mass migration into an area would be considered war.

Yeah, and I think he actually deals with that issue directly in here. One of the things he brings up in his biography is his father joked routinely that they moved to Israel just because they didn't want to feel like they were Jewish anymore. He comes from a fairly assimilated family. He describes himself as a Dutch Calvinist who happens to be an atheist Jew. He says that explicitly in his biography. He's one of those people who would say it's almost sort of an accident of ancestry that his family is Jewish. And he's not anti-Semitic in the slightest.

He's not a self-hating Jew in any sense of the word. But he's somebody's very honest that Judaism is not really a defining aspect. of himself so much as it's the religion that defines so much civic life in his country. And even then he said, he said his family would probably much rather have stayed in the Netherlands. But it wasn't, you know, exactly the greatest time to be there for anyone. And the fact that he could get to Israel, sponsored to go to Israel, his family could get sponsored to go to Israel. Whereas they couldn't get sponsored someplace like the United States is just the way it happened, the accident of history. And didn't he write a book that basically pretty much got him banned from Germany?

Well, my understanding is the book is actually illegal in Germany, or at least I know the original cover is illegal called Hitler in Hell. Hitler in Hell, excuse me. Got some shortness of breath because I'm sick right now. Yeah, which is also published by Castelli House. When I spoke to him, he described it as an autobiography of Hitler because he said, you know, as a middle of military historian who did so much of World War II, everybody said he needed to do a biography on Hitler, and he made it clear that it's like, what was he going to say, knew that nobody else had said, and he decided he was going to do it as a fictional autobiography.

The thing is, one of the issues of any time you actually understand the target of your research, you very much have to make whatever effort you can to see from their worldview, their perspective. One of the things our friend Dale Cooper has gotten a lot of hate for recently is, you know, explaining what the issues were concerning Germans and Germany in 1940s. Well, Van Kreveld is one of the people who did this a lot earlier, probably a lot deeper than any of our friends have done. And consequently, he made a lot of enemies. It's just Van Kreveld being Jewish, being Israeli, and his parents being survivors of the Holocaust, us. It's, you can't really throw many stones at in. At least nothing will really stick.

Gotcha. All right. And sorry, man, if I had known you were sick, I would have postponed this. It's complications of medication. I did not know until like 20 minutes ago. All right. I'm going to start reading and stop me whenever. It seems like Mr. Pernell gets a little boomerish in the introduction here. So if you want to stop it, anytime there. Like I said, I love Fornell, and I tell people to read them, but not all of his stuff is the greatest stuff ever. All right, so this is Pornel's editor's introduction to war and migration by Martin Van Crabbled. Martin Van Cruveld is arguably the world's most preeminent military historian. Here he presents us with an analysis of war in migration and reaches the inevitable conclusion.

War is often indistinguishable from migration, although sometimes it takes longer. The governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jandall, himself an assimilated child of immigrants, says that migration without the intent of assimilation is invasion, an act of war. It is often said that the United States is a nation of immigrants. This is true enough, but it is a nation created by the melting pot by assimilated immigrants who entered legally and came to be Americans, or at least were not opposed to. openly opposed to the idea. As Bill Buckley said, one could study to become an American in a way that one could not become Swiss or a Swede. Assimulation was not always easy, and for freed slaves,

it was difficult, but it was generally the goal. The story of America and migration is as old as America. Yeah, I was just going to say, just the idea that in a European country, you can't become, you know, Swiss or Swedish. You know, we've seen a complete attack on that principle in the decade since then. Yeah, I would wonder if I wonder if Pornel would still feel the same way about after witnessing what's and what's been happening, whether he'd feel the same way about all this. He would probably more insistent about it being war.

The more recent migrants do not all accept assimilation as a goal. They seek to preserve their diversity. E. Pluribus Unum is not the goal of the caliphate. Open rejection of toleration without dimitutes. is proclaimed. The United States faces numerous decisions after migration, immigration, and assimilation. Dr. Van Kruvold gives us crucial information on the history of migration from the times

before the Trojan War to the present. Starting the body of the text. War and migration by Martin Van Kroval. War and migration have always been closely related. The relationship was recorded as early as 1300 BC when we were informed the Israelites followed Moses out of Egypt to embark upon the end. enterprise that ultimately led them to the promised land of Canaan. As you will no doubt recall, they promptly conquered it. And since that time, for over 3,315 years, the link between war and the

large-scale movement of people from one place to another has never been broken. Yet despite the way these mass movements of people have had a profound effect on human history, there has never been a systematic effort to explore the ways in which the two great phenomena, war and migration, interact. This essay is a preliminary attempt to rectify the situation. 1. From the Exodus to the Great Trek. The Old Testament tells the famous story of the Israelites, which begins sometime around 1800 BC when Canaan was visited by famine. This caused a patriarch Jacob and his extended family to travel to Egypt, where they and their

offspring were initially welcomed, but later enslaved. Four centuries later, having multiplied considerably, a leader, the name of Moses arose. Under his divinely inspired command, they left Egypt. He's jumping and ignoring a big part of the story, but that's okay. I would hope most people know the story. After crossing the Red Sea, they marched into the Sinai Desert where God, who was waiting for them, gave them the Pentateuch. From the desert, they proceeded very slowly to what is known today as the Kingdom of Jordan. It has said that Moses must have been the first General Staff Officer for who else would have required 40 years to cross what is actually a very

small desert. It's a professional inside joke. And after finally arriving on the threshold of the Holy Land four decades later, he died. His successor, Joshua, who subsequently proved to be a formidable military commander, buried Moses, then led the Israelites across the river and into Canaan proper. These intrepid immigrants swiftly conquered the land and settled it after killing or enslaving most of the inhabitants. Whether or not the tale of the conquest of canaanous historical has been debated for generations, and particular scholars have questioned whether the Israelites could realistically

have fielded a 600,000 man army, not counting the women and children. Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, fancied himself a biblical scholar and considered 6,000 to be a more acceptable figure. His view brought him into immediate conflict with Israel's Orthodox rabbis, who consider literally every word of the Old Testament to be gospel truth. That's a funny... Yeah. And keep in mind, the context of an Israeli, he's basically pointing out that internal society being divided between those who are religious and those who aren't. And the biggest issue in modern Israel has always been that non-religious people are

always making religious-based arguments that they don't believe in in any other circumstance. Yeah, even I read Shahok's book, Jewish history, Jewish religion. He makes that point throughout. But for our purposes, it does not really matter whether the story is historical or symbolic. Still less do the details concern us. What is important is that after all these years, the story of geographical relocation and conquest is still commemorated by all Jews around the world. In other words, migration was war. In fact, insofar, as ancient war frequently involved not only soldiers and armies, but entire nations who left their homeland, mitmann and a ross and wagon, with man and horse and wagon. As the Germans say,

war was migration. And this more than anything is the most important part of the essay. If you got this, highlight this right here, I would tell the reader, that is the fundamental thesis of this essay. The Exodus was far from the only episode of its kind. For example, the Dorians are believed to have entered Greece from the north in the years around 1,100 BC. As with the conquest of Canaan, the question of whether the Dorian migration really took place or not has been much disputed. Thucydides has the following to say about the topic of the introduction to his book on the Peloponnesian War, quoting, the country now called Hellas had no settled population in ancient times. Instead, there was a series of migrations as the various tribes being under the constant pressure of

invaders who were stronger than they were, were always prepared to abandon their own territory. In the belief that day-to-day necessities of life could be secured just as well in one place as in another, they showed no reluctance in moving from their homes and therefore built no cities of any size or strength, nor acquired any important resources. Where the soil was most fertile, there were the most frequent changes of population, as in what is now called Thessaly in Boeisha, in most of Peloponnese, except Arcadia, and in others are the richest parts of Hellas. For in these fertile districts, it was easier for individuals to secure greater powers than their neighbors. This led to disunity, which often caused the collapse of these states, which in any case were more likely than others to attract the attention of foreign invaders.

There's a lesson for today, isn't it? I guess that's eternal, eternal lesson. Very little in human nature has ever changed. It is interesting to observe that Attica, which, because of the poverty of her soil, was remarkably free from political disunity, has always been inhabited by the same race of people. Indeed, this is an important example of my theory that it was because of migrations that there was uneven development elsewhere. For when people were driven out from other parts of Greece by war or by disturbances, the most powerful of them took refuge in Athens, as being a stable society. They then became citizens, and soon made the city even more populous than it had been before,

with the result that later Attica became too small for inhabitants, and colonies were sent forth to Ionia. Without getting too bogged down in the weeds of Greek history, for an American especially, it's important to understand. Greece, obviously, number one, the area extended far beyond what's modern Greece, right? So Asia Minor, you know, the whole peninsula that makes the bulk of Turkey, He was historically part of Hellas, and it started to extend north and east into the Balkans. But anyways, that area, very jagged coastline, which means despite being a relatively small country,

you have huge coastlines throughout, some of which actually lead to inland rivers that go pretty deep inland. And within the country itself proper, you have a few very fertile areas, combined with lots of areas that are either relatively mountainous, very rough, or somewhat arid. So it's a weird population center, a situation in Greece historically, where you have some areas that support large populations, a coastline that you can use to go basically anywhere in the world, and large parts of the interior of the country that are just rough that nobody really wants to live there. There are other examples besides the Israelites and the Dorians. The Etruscans migrated from Armenia to central Italy around 850 BC, according to a recent study. Gale's is how it's pronounced.

I don't know if these are the same Gales from Ireland and Scotland. That's what I was wondering. The Gales launched numerous attacks on the Hellenistic kingdoms in the Balkans and Asia Minor in the 3rd and 2nd centuries, BC, although they were ultimately repulsed. And in 58 BC, as Caesar tells us, the Helveti, wished to migrate from their homeland in southern Germany to southeastern Gaul, and asked him, the newly established pro-consul of Gaul, for permissions across Roman-occupied territory on the way.

After he refused to grant it, they fought him, were badly beaten, and were forced to turn back. That failed migration triggered a whole series of wars, which ended in the Roman conquest of the entirety of Gaul within six years. The nomadic Arabs who occupied much of the territory of the Byzantine Empire in the 6th and 8th centuries provide another informative example. So do the Magyars, whose original home was in the southern Ukraine and who reached what is Hungary today in the 10th century AD. Their westward migration was halted in 955 when they were defeated at the Battle of Lechfield near present-day Augsburg. The Mongol and Manchurian conquest of China, 1205 to 79 and 1618 to 1444 respectively, also led to large-scale migrations as various people retreated to the West,

displacing other nations in turn. And just for context, say, the Huns advance into Western Europe probably was a consequence of much earlier expansion from what is currently Mongolia, you know, putting pressure in their homelands. furnish homeland. The largest and most famous migratory episode, if that is the correct label for a process that stretched out over several centuries,

was the so-called vulgar vandergrung, the migration of peoples. It's entirely transformed Europe from about the middle of the second century AD to the middle of the sixth century, destroying countless old polities and creating an equally large number of new ones. Driven out of the east by their more

formidable neighbors, wave after wave a barbarian tribe crashed into central and western Europe. Some bypassed the Roman Empire to the north, whereas others crossed its frontiers and entered its territory to wage war on the inhabitants. The Saxons reached Spain, the Visigoths' southwestern France, Spain and Portugal. The Vandals invaded North Africa. The Burgundians, whose original home was in Poland, traveled to the land that is now named after them Burgundy.

the Huns, whose original habitat was the Caucasus, the Caucasus, is it Caucasus? Or I never remember how to pronounce it. I think it's usually pronounced it's Caucasus. Yeah, Caucasus. Yeah. Because that makes it sound plural. That's why it doesn't sound right in my head. Yeah.

It is where we get the word Caucasian, though. Correct. Yeah. The Huns, whose original habitat was the Caucasus and Central Asia traveled west, slaying and conquering everyone and everything on their way until a coalition of Romans and Visigoths finally stopped them at Cologne in 4.51. But the defeat of Atilla did not, by any means, put an end to the series of migrations. The Huns were followed by the Lombards, the Lombards by the Bulgars, and between them, they changed the maps and the very place names

of Europe. Yeah. And just so they know the Huns, obviously, the Huns we know about, who probably had from Central Asia putting pressure, again, probably an expansion out of what is now Mongolia. But the Volta Carvanderung, that's literally the Germanic peoples' migrations, which is a huge part of what destroyed the Roman Empire. It's also why we're speaking a bastardized Germanic language in English. All these migrating people, as well as many others that could be mentioned,

were relatively simple tribal societies. In terms of organization, technology, military civilization, literature, the arts, and the like, they could not match the settled, more civilized societies they encountered and often conquered. The Book of Joshua describes Canaan as the land bristling with fortified cities, and yet they were quickly defeated by the nomadic Israelites. At a time when Roman power, encompassing practically all the lands around the Mediterranean, was approaching in Zenith.

Rome's enemies in Germany and Gaul consisted of endlessly shifting tribes who lived in wooden huts. Four centuries later, the Germanic Visigoths sacked Rome. The Huns Amianus Marcellineus, Marcellinus, Marcellinus, says, were a race savage beyond all parallel. He described them in distinctly unfavorable terms, quoting. They are certainly in the shape of men, however, uncouth, and are so hardy that they require neither fire nor well-flavored food, but live on the roots of such herbs as they get in the fields,

or on the half-raw flesh of any animal, which they merely warm rapidly by placing it between their own thighs and the back of their horses. They never shelter themselves under roofed houses, nor is there even to be found among them a cabin thatched with reeds.

But they wander about, roaming over the mountains and the woods and accustomed themselves to bear frost and hunger and thirst from their very cradles. Just to a point when he talks about, you know, sitting on stuff on horseback in order to make meat edible. If you salt it and then you do that, it's called jerky.

The anonymous Roman author of Derobos Bellicus, writing early in the 5th century AD, speaks of other migratory tribes of baying barbarians. Baying may have been all these barbarians were capable of, but they did so with sword in hand. Although the process might take time, such as the 514 years of separated the Simbrian war from the sack of Rome, very often the barbarians eventually managed to defeat their more developed opponents and take over their lands. There are two cardinal factors that explain the frequent victory of the simple and less civilized migrants over their more sophisticated stationary opponents. First, while the settled societies enjoyed technological superiority in terms of jewels of energy available per capita, the primary sources of mechanical energy,

were stationary devices such as windmills and watermills. When it came to war in battle, which are intrinsically mobile, both the civilized soldiers and their barbarian enemies depended entirely upon the muscles of men and beasts. As a result, most of the technological advantage enjoyed by the civilized societies was irrelevant because it could not be brought to bear on the battlefield. Second, the migrations were usually long, drawn-out processes.

Though armed invasions and battles were frequent, there were also long periods of peace. Therefore, there was plenty of time for both sides to take each other's measure and to learn from each other. Renegades and captives taken in war often played a large role. This exchange of information, almost invariably, worked to the benefit of the less-civilized parties. For example, the Mongol armies which conquered China

and came close to overrunning Europe in the mid-13th century included many specialists who utilized technologies learned from the Chinese, including various types of siege engines. 200 years later, the Ottoman Turks did the same in their westward drive towards Constantinople and beyond. Yeah, this is a really important part to understand that migration is conquest. The assimilation by the migrants is a huge part of how they win. The siege of Constantinople, most of the artillery pieces were actually manned by Christians. and basically all of their cannons were produced by Christians.

The Mongol conquest of China, all the siege engines were, you know, various Chinese people, usually ethnic Chinese specialists. And even then the Germanic migrants, migrations, we know just upon some weird Y-Haphaffa groups you see in parts of Europe that they had to have picked up and assimilated some amount of people in their migrations, it integrated them into the migrant culture. So, you know, in both sense of the words, the ability to assimilate as part of how you conquer the enemy. The migratory phenomenon was not, that's, yeah, that's learning the language,

looking like them, dressing like them. And sometimes key technologies, right? Like, one of the most obvious ones, or if you were talked to a military story, and maybe not to the laymen, is, you know, different ways of putting devices, on horses or animals, you know. Like I think it was the Huns who actually introduced the stirrup to Western Europe, which, you know, may not sound very important to us, but understand until you put a stirrup on the horse or on the saddle,

you know, a cavalryman couldn't use a lance and couldn't charge with that, which meant that prior to that, cavalry was mostly something you used for scouting and on the screens, the outside of a formation where suddenly with a stirrup, you start getting bigger and bigger cavalry and eventually like heavy armored knights in the Middle Ages. So, yeah, technology is a huge part of what spreads, and it's not something that's readily apparent at the time, a lot of times.

The migratory phenomenon was not solely a Eurasian one. Africa also abounds with stories of armed migration, some historical, others mythological. 3,000 years are said to have passed since the Bantu tribes began expanding out of their original homelands in what are today, Cameroon and Nigeria, and now they can be found all over the central and southern parts of the continent. The Zulu established Quasulu Nation in South Africa after migrating southward along Africa's

East Coast. Many of these migrations bear strong resemblances to the exodus described in the Pentateuch. In every case, the movement was said to be, have been initiated by one or more gods. On their way, the migrants witnessed many different miracles, which confirmed that they were, in fact, doing the right thing. One of the best known African migration tales is that of Ashanti, a martial tribe, that migrated westward from Ghana into the Ivory Coast, who on their way received Sikadwa, the Golden Stool, a royal and divine throne, believed to have housed the spirit of the Ashanti people. One of the last and most peculiar African migrations was the Trek of the Boers. The Boers were European settlers of Dutch and Huguenot descent,

who left Cape Province in order to remain independent in the face of a growing British presence there. The trek lasted from 1835 to 1846 and was unusual in the sense that the boers set out to settle in lands inhabited by less civilized and less technologically advanced kaffirs, mostly Bantu and Hought tribes, thus reversing the usual pattern of migratory conflict. But like these less civilized antecedents, the boars never hesitated to use their superior arms against anyone who stood in their way. The trek also resembled other previous migrations in the sense that the migrants were strict Calvinists who believe they acted under divine guidance. Visiting the region around Pretoria back in late 1994, I saw the famous monument to the Vore Trekkers. It must be said to the credit of the African National Congress who took over South Africa after apartheid, the region's new rulers have not demolished it. Yet. Keep in mind, these things were written in 2017 at the latest in it.

It's before, you know, a lot of destruction. And part of it, I think, has to do with the fact that the more monument is sort of in the middle of nowhere, and urban blacks probably don't want to visit that area. So migration was war, and war was migration. Aside from relatively equal situations in Africa and North America, when tribal societies fought each other, militarized migrations were chiefly a matter of less developed mobile societies attacking more developed settled civilizations. That likely explains why, in the more technologically advanced parts of the world, migration wars came to an end in the 15th century. As the history of the American

West illustrates, once tribal warriors were able to lay their hands on modern weapons, particularly firearms, they quickly learned to use them just as well as their opponents. But what they could not do was produce the weapons and require ammunition for themselves. The development of firearms was a decisive shift in the balance of power towards more technologically advanced societies, particularly those of the West. How long this advantage will last as an open question, but there are indications that it is already on the wane. Section 2, ethnic cleansing. Thucydides illustrated how the process works in both directions. Migration usually leads to war, but war can also lead to migration. For after war takes place, one of the common consequences is to force migration that is currently

currently known as ethnic cleansing. Some of the earliest migrations of this kind are recorded in the Old Testament. The Assyrian kings had an established policy of exiling half the population from the lands they conquered, one they followed after conquering the kingdom of Israel. A century later, the Babylonians sent part of the population of Judah into exile after subjugating that kingdom. The small quasi-Jewish communities in Kurdistan, as well as the larger pre-1948 ones in Iraq, are said to consist of descendants of the Israelites forced to leave Israel by the Assyrians.

Both empires have made a habit of bringing in other peoples to take place to those that they had exiled. Thus, the Samaritans, a small community of under 1,000 people who currently live in Israel and the West Bank are believed to be descended from settlers brought into the region by its Assyrian conquerors during the 7th and 6th centuries BC. In part of this, too, the unstated part is internal Israeli politics about who's really Jewish. which has always become an issue. Especially after, you know, the last major Jewish populations have migrated to Israel in the United States.

So it's, you know, they're looking at smaller and smaller populations in arguing amongst themselves. So whether or not they're really Jewish and whether or not they can really be assimilated into Israel. The spectacular release at the British Museum that originally decorated the palace of the Assyrian King Senecaab reign 706 to 681 BC at Nineveh, at Nineveh, provide us with some idea of what an Assyrian ethnic cleansing operation may have looked like.

The subject of the release is the siege of Lakhish, a city in the Judean plain in 701 BC. In addition to the military operations, they also show us what happened to the prisoners and deserters who left the city. Men were decapitated, there are a lot of headless corpses lying around, or impaled. Women and children were left more or less unharmed that were taken away by the victors, accompanied by wagons laden with loot. since Lachish was never rebuilt, the captives presumably went to places from whence they never returned. This suggests that women and children represented the majority of those who went into exile, although accounts from the Old Testament suggests that on at least some occasions, men were spared to share their fate.

Very often, depending on if they had any skills or ability that were wanted by a conqueror. The Romans preferred not to exile those they defeated, but to subjugate, rule, and levy taxes on them. Cicero calls such taxes a perpetual penalty for defeat. However, during the period between 200 BC and 120 AD, they regularly took enormous numbers of prisoners. These prisoners, men, women, and children, were then transported to the slave markets, especially the famous ones of Rhodes and Delos,

and sold there. Entire communities, including great cities such as Corinth and Carthage, were left almost devoid of inhabitants. This conquest-based slave trade, brought a wide variety of different tribes, cultures, and religions together, and transformed Rome, the greatest slave market of all, into a new Babylon. The men who followed Spartacus, the Thracian gladiator, who led the great slave revolts against Rome in 73 to 71 BC, came from many different lands. Spartacus's goal was for them to all return to their countries of origin, but his men refused, preferring to stay in Italy where they could kill pillage and rape. They were eventually defeated at Brunzinium by eight legions led by Marcus Licinius,

Crosis, and hundreds were crucified along the Appian way. Spartacus himself is believed to have been killed in the battle, but his body was never found. That's part of why we say there's only one successful slave revolt in history, and that's Haiti. And again, the Spartacus revolt could potentially have been successful, but they decided they just wanted to hang out and loiter in the area that they just escaped from so they were destroyed in the open. In 66 to 70 AD and again in 135 to 37 AD, the Jews of Palestine rose against a Roman conquerors. The Romans suppressed both rebellions and responded by engaging in extensive ethnic cleansing. Hundreds of thousands of people were driven out, and to use an expression coin nearly 2,000 years

later, Jerusalem was made Judendfrey. Jews were prohibited from living in the city and even entering it. Such episodes are by no means rare in history. The reason so many Jewish examples exist is that despite the forced migrations they experience, they managed to preserve their religion and their ethnic identity. Other peoples forced to leave their homelands were either less fortunate or less determined. That does not necessarily mean that Jews kept their race pure. However, for as modern genetic studies show, Jews settled in different countries

tend to genetically resemble the host populations more than they do each other. And again, he's willing to stick a thumb in the eye of sort of mainstream opinion in his own country. Not all forced migrations were the result of war. For example, throughout the Middle Ages and the early modern period, Jews were regularly expelled from many countries, but this had little to do with war. During the century and a half after the Reformation, there were reciprocal expulsions of Catholics by Protestants and a Protestants by Catholics throughout Europe. The most famous example of these forced migrations was Louis the 14th decision to revoke the Edict of Nantes in 1685, which resulted in 400,000 Huguenots being exiled from France.

Even in Switzerland, the cantons were divided on the basis of being Catholic or Protestant, and much smaller forced migrations took place. large-scale ethnic cleansing again raised its ugly head during the early years of the 20th century. The Balkan wars led to the expulsions of Muslims from the Balkan states that broke free of the Ottoman Empire. Soon after the outbreak of World War I, the Turks, fearing less the Christian Armenians might aid and abet the Russian enemy, enacted the first modern genocide. Hundreds of thousands of Armenian men were massacred. The rest of the population was expelled and driven to the Syrian desert where they were left to die. The Turks also expelled the Jews of southern Palestine and drove them north, although some were taken to Alexandria, Egypt, by American ships.

No sooner had the Great War ended than the Turks again initiated a massive ethnic cleansing campaign, this time against the Greeks of Western Anatolia. This region has been home to important Greek communities for over three millennia, but barely 5,000 Greeks remain there today. Yeah, I would say, Daryl Cooper's got a really good episode with Jack O'Willick about the Armenian genocide. But one of the consequences of this is that's why you have ethnic Armenian communities throughout the former Soviet Union, not just in Armenia proper, but other places you have ethnic Armenian communities that are big in Israel. You have them big in a number of other countries. And even then the issue of who was considered Greek, the Turks actually called them Roman, I literally called them Romans, which was a Greek speaker of the Eastern Orthodox Church. So a lot of times that's the only thing that firmly defines whose Greek in Asia Minor, just because most of the people who are Turks or call themselves Turks aren't even really descendant from the Turkish people proper there. you know, descendants of Greeks who converted and had some amount of intermixing with outsiders.

So again, war, or migration is war. The period 1919 to 1921 also witnessed the expulsion of Hungarians from Romania and of Germans from what had been West Prussia and Cilicia, but was claimed by Poland after the war. 20 years later, the jack boot was on the other foot. Having defeated the Poles, Hitler expelled the masses of them from Western Poland and replaced them with Germans. He also expelled the Jews of Alsace-Lorraine, driving them into France, after which they were subsequently re-expelled to the gas chambers in Eastern Europe. As these events touch upon one of history's most infamous crimes,

it is important to note that the series of complicated campaigns of expulsions directed primarily against Europe's Jews, gypsies, and Slavs, that ended in the murder of millions, could never have taken place if it had not been for the cover provided by war. In Hitler's mind, the war and the Endlosung de Judenfrage, or final solution of the Jewish question, were linked. Speaking to Intimates in August 1941, the fear of the Third Right claimed the fact

that so many Germans had lost their homes after World War I justified the humane expulsion of Germany's Jews. Five months later, at the Vancey conference, the policies that lay the foundation for the Holocaust were worked out in detail. Yeah, and again, that needs to be very much understood by Americans. I'm not in any way justifying any of the genocides of the 20th century. But keep in mind that there was a situation post-World War I

where large portion, maybe even the majority of ethnic Germans in Europe, lived outside of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland proper. There were more forced migrations to the east after being unexpectedly attacked by his ally Hitler in violation of the 19th, 39 Molotov-Ribbon trap pack. Stalin ordered the evacuation of the Tatters. Should that be Tatters? Is that Tatters or Tartor?

It's pronounced Totter. The Tauter. The Tauter, yeah. The half-breed descendants of Mongols. Okay. From the Crimea. His rationale was the same as many others before him. He feared the Tatters might join the advancing Germans.

But the expulsion of the Tatters from was nothing compared to the huge migrable. it took place from 1944 to 1946. Yeah, and to his point, a large number of Tatters did side with the Third Reich. Yeah. And again, these are the half-free descendants of Mongols. As the Soviet Red Army marched west towards Berlin, it was often joined by local militias in the Eastern European countries that occupied. Twelve million Germans were driven out of their homelands in Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia,

Slovenia, Croatia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, West Prussia, East Prussia, and Silesia, and and about one-six of them died in the process. As a war came to an end, tens of millions of people were on the move across the continent. Refugees, slave workers, former concentration camp, prisoners, prisoners of war, almost all had nothing but rags to their names, and were trying to either escape the advancing Russians or simply return home. Yeah, and again, this part cannot be really emphasized enough, because it's something Americans, we like to think that, you know,

the war ended in 1945 with this beautiful parade, and suddenly there was peace throughout Europe, which is complete and total bullshit. You know, obviously everything the Red Army was doing, you know, in their territory of operations, which again, Daryl Cooper has a really good episode on this called the Anti-Humans. But we tend to think of countries

and their borders on the ground being very concrete while ethnic groups are kind of soft, whereas Eastern Europe, it's sort of the opposite. Ethnic groups tend to be fairly cohesive, fairly distinct. But even if you have a distinct country, you know, where does the border in? That changes a lot throughout history, especially in Eastern Europe. To the point with Ukrainians, there's all the Ruthenian people absolutely exist throughout history. The numbers of them that are called Ukrainian is always a matter of debate, because Ukraine literally means the borderland.

But where exactly is the Ukraine? Well, it's somewhere between the eastern part of Russia and, you know, central. Poland, and that's gone back and forth throughout history, which is part of the current fight in Eastern Europe. To be clear, I don't have any side in that fight. But again, there are ethnic groups that are on both sides of different lines throughout the world, throughout Eastern Europe, with a huge number of ethnic Germans that have been there for centuries who Stalin forcibly moved west towards into Eastern Germany, excuse me,

into what became the Democratic Republic of Germany, East Germany. And keep in mind, some of these groups had been gone for so long that they never even bothered to speak proper modern Germany, which was an invention of the nationalist movements of the 19th century. There had been German languages. There are German languages, but a formal German hadn't been established. So these are people, in some cases, had hard times even communicating in proper German, who were uprooted from places they'd been for 400 years or so. So it is impossible for Americans to understand the amount of forced migration that took place after the end of fighting in World War II. Well, he talks about people trying to escape the advancing Russians here.

Famously, there are many reports of, well, there are reports of a few camps that were liberated. And the prisoners chose to escape with the Germans rather than wait for the Russians to shut. up. There are. There are multiple cases. In some cases, maybe half or more of the prisoner population going with them. The forced migrations in ethnic cleansing did not end in 1945. The 1947-Iwar divided British India into two different countries and caused millions of people terrified by the interreligious violence to cross the newly established frontier between India and Pakistan in both directions. Triggered by the flight of 10 million Bengali refugees from what was then known as East Pakistan, the third Indo-Pakistani War, which broke out in

1971, brought about the creation of the independent Bangladesh. After the Pakistani surrender, the refugees returned and a smaller, though still considerable number of Pakistanis, were driven out of Bangladesh into West Pakistan. The end of the Vietnam War led to the expulsion of 250,000 ethnic Chinese hoa. Is that hoa? I think it's pronounced. Oh, yeah, Chinese hoa. And they don't even usually use that. Usually they call them Nung in real life. But yeah, there are huge numbers of ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia, and despite being there for centuries,

they are still distinctively ethnic Chinese, despite the fact that the average American thinks that all East Asians look the same. The end of the Vietnam War led to the expulsion of 250,000 ethnic Chinese Hoa from that country as well as the migration of the two million Vietnamese boat people, over half of whom ultimately settled in the United States. The 1980 Russian invasion of Afghanistan caused as many as a million Afghans across the border into Pakistan's northwestern provinces. Despite being settled in refugee camps there,

they eventually came to jeopardize their host's control over the region, a problem that may very well present itself in other parts of the world in the future. Some of the wars that have taken place in Africa since the 1970s, particularly those in the Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, the Congo, Liberia, Angola, and Mozambique, also led to enforce migration on a massive scale. And after 42-year hiatus, ethnic cleansing returned to Europe when following the death of longtime dictator Tito, Yugoslavia broke up. When Bosnia-Herzni Herzna Kovina, whose population is predominantly Muslim, declared independence from Belgrade, the Serb minority in the province embarked on an all-out effort to avoid coming under

Muslim rule. Their efforts were supported by the Serbian government under Slobodan Milosevic, who provided its kinsmen with men, weapons, and money. The Bosnian War, which lasted from 1992 to 1995, witnessed widespread ethnic cleansing. The war was brought to an end by NATO aircraft launching air strikes at the stronger Serbian forces. It later turned out that there was little difference between the two sides, both of whom committed atrocities, including mass executions. The number of people who displaced, who were displaced by that war, has been estimated at 2.2 million, including 250,000 Serbs, who were driven out of the Krasina. Krayena.

Kriyna? Thank you. Just because I watched CNN in the day. That fact did not prevent the world with President Clinton at its head from pointing to the Serbs as the culprits and condemning them by every available means. The current wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other countries in Asia and Africa are also creating large numbers of migrants. Often they are prepared to do almost anything to escape the fighting, even though life as a refugee is a perilous endeavor. Women are in particular danger as they run the risk of being kidnapped and sold as prostitutes. According to the New York

Times, there are currently 60 million people who have been forced to leave their homes. That represents just under 1% of the entire global population. Of the 60 million homeless, one-third are refugees who are presently living abroad. The remaining 40 million have been displaced by the Civil War, but remain inside their own countries. Since the figures include millions of children who were born to refugees, even second-generation refugees, or displaced people after they fled, it is possible that they are inflated. That is especially true in the case of the Palestinians whose number the Palestinian Authority puts at a literally incredible six million. Yeah, that number is literally incredible.

However, there is every sign that the number of displaced people is only going to grow and increase the size of the global mass migration in coming years. Like I said, there's always a lot of subtext with his writing. Same with Litvak, right? Litvac, right? Yeah, which, again, both of them are reading. people we should read. Yes, absolutely. For example, Israel's War of Independence, which the Palestinians called the Nakhba catastrophe, actually led to the expulsion of about 600,000 people. The June

1967 war created at most another 300,000 refugees. Nevertheless, the refugee camps near Jericho have become ghost towns and have largely remained so to the present day. As of 2015, large numbers of Palestinian refugees are scattered in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, while others have joined the ongoing Muslim migration to Europe and the United States. Because Israel's Arab neighbors find it useful to have no intention of permitting it to go away, the plight of the displaced Palestinians is both the most persistent refugee situation, as well as the one that has attracted the most sustained international attention. Unfortunately, the future does not bode well since the possibility that Jordan will eventually fall to Daesh, ISIS, is all

too real. Should that come to pass, it is not inconceivable that the government in Jerusalem would deem it necessary for reasons of national security to drive out the two million Palestinians remaining in the West Bank as well. Yeah. Huh. He is, uh, it was this, and I guess we're probably near the point where we want to take a break, but part of what you have to understand about about unravel is despite being a national security historian who does so much on special operations is really persona non grata with the Israeli defense force. So he's known for having a lot of sources who are, again, because everybody serves in the military veterans who give him information and leaked documents to him.

But the formal IDF has repeatedly criticized him about all kinds of things to the point that he was not allowed to give speeches to like IDF officer schools because they were worried about him starting fights. That's great. All right. But we'll cut it here and pick up for part two. I think we can get through this in two parts, right? Yeah, let me see.

Just pulling up. Yeah, see how many pages we have left. Yeah, we only got like five pages left. You want to finish it now? Yeah, we can do that. Okay, if you got time. Yeah. All right.

Three, voluntary war-related migration. Though the use of force is war's outstanding characteristic, not all war. related migrations are carried out by force. Very often, people decide to leave a war-torn region out of their own free will. One reason for doing so, which played an important role during the 20th century, is the desire to avoid conscription. In the decades following the development of the French Revolutionary Army, conscription became common throughout Europe and was rigidly enforced. Many of those willing to evade forced military service went to the USA, the British colonies, in Latin America.

A huge portion of the American, excuse me, ethnic German migration in North America was from people who wanted to avoid a conscription. Ironically, a huge amount of the Israelis. Because again, I tell people, if you ever get a chance, watch a travel channel. Inevitably, you'll hear about somebody from Israel who's got to go back to take over a family business.

And the unstated part is this is somebody who went abroad for school, made sure they were gone so long. They couldn't get drafted. and now that they're old enough and they can't be drafted, they're going home because, you know, there's no risk to them. Today, Eritrea is the country that produces the largest number of refugees trying to avoid national service, military, or other. The country is governed by a despot named Isaiah Afwerki. Freedom and human rights are unknown.

Men and unmarried women are conscripted, often for life. This has caused thousands of Eritreans, particularly young men, to flee to Ethiopia. From there, they usually continue on towards any other country they can enter, legally or illegally. Again, another part of the subtext is he's from a country that tries to have universal conscription to include women. War also leads to migration in another way. From the earliest days of war, victorious soldiers have been besieged by the women of the defeated in search of safety, food, and not least, sheer masculine force. What a polite way to say that. Yeah, that's a very, that's him being diplomatic.

What a polite way to say that. That still remains the case. Armies often prohibit fraternization as the allied ones did in Germany after World War II. Some states, even forbade marriages between their troops and women from the occupied population. Usually these efforts are to no avail. In World War II, American soldiers overpaid, over-sex, and over here, as their British allies describe them, often had the time of their lives after the war's end. Most of them eventually returned home alone, but an estimated 60,000 American soldiers brought back a signorina or a Freiline as a wartime souvenir.

Eventually got so common for them to seek other ways of getting their girlfriends home that eventually the occupation command just abandoned the restriction. and allowed them to marry. But the Korean War is known to have produced an even larger migration, most likely because of the ban on marrying Japanese women. Japan served as a principal U.S. base during the Korean War, was lifted. From 1942 to 1952, the number of GIs who married foreign women was around one million. That's also a very polite way of saying that a generation of Japanese men had largely been destroyed. The wars in Southeast Asia from 1965 to 1975 that involved about,

2.5 million American troops generated another crop of war brides. But although the phenomenon is not entirely unknown in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is much less common. The difference is that Muslims are extremely jealous of their women and segregate them as much as possible. Hence the U.S. military, in the hope of not further inflaming the occupied populations, has done its best to discourage the troops from fraternizing with the local women. much more important than either of these forms of post-war migration is the kind which is driven by the hope of a safer, more orderly, and more prosperous life abroad. This describes the majority of modern migrations.

Their destinations are primarily the rich countries of the West as well as Australia. Migrants with a Christian background are normally absorbed without too many problems, especially if they are white, as refugees from the former Yugoslavia are. However, the Lebanese Christian diaspora has shown that even those from Arab backgrounds can adapt to the West. Hindus and Buddhists also tend to do well. Just for a completely unofficial point of reference, I have never met people who were quite as racist as Arab Christians who moved to the West. Oh, yeah. I know a couple.

Off-white nationalism, or off-white supremacy. By contrast, most Muslim migrants are fanatically opposed to any kind of cultural assimilation. Using their mosques as community centers and accepting religious imams as their leaders, they actively resist any attempt to integrate them. Some even begin proselytizing for their way of life, as they have every right to do in a democratic country. I love that sentence. He is incredibly, is sometimes political. light with how he says offensive things, but he is blunt.

Their objective is to spread their views on what the late Samuel Huntington used to call identity. Identity, as Huntington describes it, includes the relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen in the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality, and hierarchy. The simple fact that he cites Huntington says a lot about his intellectual position. It also includes general relations between sexes as well as the rights of homosexuals, as well as many of the rights many Westerners hold dear in both their private lives and in the sociopolitical arena.

As of 2015, Muslims form about 8% of the population of the European Union. I wonder what that is now. Yeah, that is also why the unofficial reason why basically everybody opposed Turkey's admission into the European Union. Because Turkey would immediately become the most populous state in the European Union. So it would be a huge shift in balance in terms of Muslims there. I will say that keep in mind, because citizenship laws are so much different in Western Europe, that 8% probably does not reflect huge. numbers of long-term migrants to include people who are, you know, their third generation in a country who are not citizens of their respective countries.

In large cities, especially wealthy ones situated on important communication lines are featuring seaports, the percentage of Muslims tends to be much higher. In some cities, entire neighborhoods have been taken over and reshaped in accordance with the migrants' preferences. These neighborhoods, such as Tower Hamlets in East London and the Currigan District in Brussels, have assumed a decidedly Muhammadan character complete with mosques, veiled women, and moisons. Moisons calling the faithful to prayer. Most of those neighborhoods are slums where the inhabitants tend to be unskilled, undereducated, and unemployed. Many of the residents cannot even speak the language of their hosts.

Further complicating the situation, the newcomers lose their accustomed control over wives and children who tend to be more amenable to integration. this ongoing intra-family conflict not infrequently leads to domestic violence. Muslim immigrants often feel underprivileged and discriminated against, even though they are living off the largesse. One might even say the tribute of the people whose lands they occupy or occupying. I was going to take a moment to point out that the issue with language, not only do they do a poor job of adopting the language of their host country,

the fact they're cut off from the education system in their original country of origin, large number of their children don't grow up speaking, you know, proper Arabic or Urdu or whatever. So you get a lot of people who speak the equivalent of, I don't know, what's the best way to say? Ebonics, except they're not obviously black. They're speaking a non-language that's of such a poor quality that it's like they're not educated in anything. What's interesting here is when he talks about the losing control, to becoming accustomed and becoming integrated. That's exactly what happened to the Jews

when they were in countries that liberalized. They were able to come out from under the power of their rabbis, and they basically, they would then petition for their own rights to get away from their rabbis. Yeah, and as a secular person who's ethnically Jewish, who, you know, he would probably say that explicitly. Yeah. But what was this one?

Further complicate in the situation, the newcomers lose our custom control over wives and children. It's said to be more amenable to integration, this ongoing interfamily conflict, not infrequently at least domestic violence. Muslim immigrants often feel underprivileged and discriminated against, even though they are living off the largest. One might even say tribute of the live. I already read that. Sorry.

It is true that only a small percentage of the immigrants in question turn to violence, let alone politically motivated violence. But it is also true that in all the countries to which they have immigrants, Muslim immigrants are committing crimes at a rate that far exceeds the native population. A portion of this crime represents a continuation of politics that is indistinguishable from terrorism and will inevitably lead to harsh countermeasures and eventually reprisals. Again, migration is war. The present situation is more than a little reminiscent of past migration-inspired wars and bodes ill for the future.

It is estimated that as many as 5 million of France's Muslims already live in zone, urbane's sensibly, where the French police and government have relatively little control. What we call no-go zones. The modern form of economic migration is not caused by war, but it is threatening to turn into a cause of war, as has happened many times before. An informative example of how minority-majority conflict can lead to violence can be seen in the 16th century France. For 30 years following John Calvin's break from the Roman Church in 1530, Catholics and Huguenots looked at each other with increasing mistrust. This mistrust occasionally sparks sporadic violence, and over time, the violence

gradually escalated. In 1562, with the Huguenots numbering 12.5% of the French population, full-scale war finally broke out. The religious issues were intertwined with political differences in foreign powers, such as England, Spain, and the low, England, Spain, the low-country, various German princes and even the papacy were drawn into the battle. By the time Henry the 4th was finally able to put an end to the eight wars of religion in 1598 by issuing the Edict of Nantes, more Frenchmen had been killed than in any other conflict prior to World War I, including the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Conclusions. War is far from the only cause of migration. Other reasons primarily economic have always played an important part in encouraging

people to leave their native lands. As the examples of the Puritans and the Huguenots show, religious motives can also be a factor. Yet even when these other reasons were the cause, war and migration have been closely linked in various and complex ways. At sometimes, war and migration were essentially the same, as in the great migration of peoples during the first few centuries after Christ, the Arab expansion after 632 AD, the Magyar invasion of Europe, the Mongol invasions of China, and the movements of many African tribes from one part of the continent to another. At other times, the relationships between the two phenomena were more complicated, such as ethnic cleansings that rendered war unnecessary, or took place after war's end, mass avoidance of

conscription, or soldiers bringing home concubines and war brides. All these various forms have often intermingled, all appear regularly. in the annals of human history, and all will doubtless continue to do so in the future. The only thing that changes in their relative importance at any... The only thing that changes is their relative importance at any given point in time. As far as the West is concerned, the most significant migration today is the massive influx of Muslims. The reason is that, unlike the people of the secularized West, Muslims take their religion and the way of life it prescribes seriously.

as a consequence, they are much harder to integrate than other more malleable immigrants. Understand this is basically the only reason anybody in the establishment in the West is concerned about this issue. It's also a large part of why, you know, parts of the interior of America, like the South especially, why the establishment hates us is because we're people who still believe in religion and still live it, as opposed to just treating it as a window dressing that means nothing. For the present, it would be. be going too far to say that the refugees, as well as those who are responsible for their plight back in their homelands, are actively waging war against the West. They lack the leadership

and organization required for the effective large-scale violence that war entails. However, it must be recognized that more than a few in their midst are not averse to using violence in order to achieve their aims. They have, after all, invaded numerous countries without regard for the will of the people of those countries and their presence is no less likely to spark resistance than armed invasions of the past. Since war, as Klaus Witts teaches, has a built-in tendency to escalate, the resistance can be expected to graduate into all out-armed conflicts over time, especially as seems likely if the influx continues and all the valiant efforts at integration-proof feudal. From Berlin to Jerusalem, let those with ears to listen, listen.

And that's it. Yeah. The, what was I going to say there? The, we see this now. Yeah. There are reports coming out of Springfield that Haitians are just walking into gun stores and they're selling them guns. Well, again, I mean, part of the problem is if you were not to sell them,

you know, one report to the ATF, and you're probably going to lose your license because race is now the sin. Yeah. Well, I mean, FFL, officially, anybody who holds an FFL is allowed to refuse sale to anyone for any reason. Yeah. That's officially. Officially. But if that reason is racism, you know, suddenly all of your justifications go out. That's the magic word that ends up.

their magic word that is the state of exception in contemporary society. And also he mentions that they have no leadership. So expect them to wage war. They have no leadership. They have, well, I mean, it almost seems like they do now.

I mean, if they're being flown in here. Yeah. And given, basically given places to live and given vehicles. Yeah. And they're allowed to buy. They,

one may not say that, some of that power is colluding with them to commit violence, but one could say that power is definitely creating the opportunity and then looking the other way, and not only looking the other way, but would do anything to, if somebody were to get jammed up by the law, to make sure that they, they walk away. Yeah, and leadership doesn't have to always be internal. It can be external. It can even be hidden, as much as I generally think most conspiracy theories are bullshunders.

that doesn't mean that people don't conspire and that some of these actions don't achieve some level of scale so yeah whether or not it's explicit i think a lot of it is a thousand or probably a billion you know little nudges along the way to produce a result which functionally is the same thing again migration is war um and you know very little in human nature has ever changed and uh we continue to be human Again, I think progressivism is largely a rejection of the fundamentals of human nature. Yeah. Well, I appreciate you bringing this one up and bringing it to my attention so that we could get out here and read it for joining me for commenting on it. And yeah, we'll do this again real soon. I appreciate it and hope you feel better, right?

Yeah, no problem. Take care, man. Yeah. Thank you. Any time.