From Youtubers to scholars affiliated with the Mises institute, most anarchists I examined recently praise anarchic Somalia. To the extent that their support of anarchy in Somalia contributes to its perpetuation, they own not merely their own abstract stateless intentions but the very particular and readily visible consequences that statelessness in Somalia has wrought.
Among the consequences is the Somalification of Western countries. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled stateless Somalia to escape persecution, largely at the hands of Islamist warlords. Stateless Somalia is such a hellhole for a great many Somalis that they are fleeing to other hellholes within Africa, including neighboring Ethiopia. How desperate do you have to be to dream of a better life as an Ethiopian?
Somali asylum seekers are ending up in Britain, Norway, Sweden, Canada, and the United States by the thousands. Parts of Maine, Tennessee, and Minnesota have been Somalified. Minneapolis now has an area of town known as "Little Mogadishu."
What does it mean to get Somalified? It means being subjected to the characteristics of Somalis. They tend to have low IQs, few if any valuable skills, and often little ability to even communicate in the language of the country that takes them in. They bring culturally hostile, anti-Western worldviews, whose foundations are typically Islamic. Somali Muslims exhibit high rates of welfare dependency and high rates of crime. And it’s not just petty crime. Somali gangs are known to specialize in crimes of a sexual nature, including gang rapes and the trafficking of underage girls who have been forced into prostitution.
I would wish Somalification upon only a nation that I hated passionately. But I don’t hate and could never hate any country passionately enough to wish upon its future generations, its completely innocent babies and its yet unborn, an inheritance of the genes of Somalia.
Who could possibly be for the Somalification of the West? Only its bitterest enemeies. They include avowed enemies such as Muslims and cultural Marxists. They also include unwitting enemies such as open-borders libertarians and anarchists who cheer the Somalis for being ungovernable and support the very conditions from which many Somalis find it necessary to flee. Anarchists would presumably like to see the entire continent of Africa thrown into anarchy and the entire Western world. Africans would scatter across the globe like fire ants whose nests have been destroyed. Those may not be the consequences anarchists desire in their minds, but those are the consequences of anarchy in reality.
Now it is true that regardless of the conditions that exist outside a particular country, it is that country’s responsibility to set its own immigration policy. Western countries allow and even provide financial inducement for Somalification, at least to some extent. Many of the refugees fleeing Africa for Europe are gaining access illegally.
But the sad, inescapable truth is that Western nations have been afflicted with a suicidal ideology. It is rooted in the age-old mind-body dichotomy. Westerners have convinced themselves that nations are mere ideas, that it doesn’t matter who physically populates a country. Muslims understand the demographics is destiny. Through migration and through disproportionately high rates of fertility, Muslims are slowly fulfilling the mission given to them by the Koran: to grant Allah victory through conquest.
It is a conquest that is largely being granted to them without a fight. The West is committing suicide. When you’re dealing with a friend who is suicidal, you don’t give him access to the poison he implicitly craves. You don’t send Somalia or Libya or any other country in Africa into anarchy knowing that a mass exodus will land on Europe’s shores and that Europe will not have the willpower to resist the demographic poison presented to it.
Some libertarians, especially those in Europe, are waking up to the existential threat posed by immigration. Nobody in Europe believes that efforts at integration have been successful. Even establishment multiculturalists such as German chancellor Angela Merkel now publicly acknowledge that multiculturalism has failed. Libertarians can join the left in the deluded belief that more efforts aimed at promoting integration will lead people who hold anti-Western values to change. Or libertarians can get real and realize that what’s happening to their countries is tantamount to an invasion, which is something any true champion of freedom would be obliged to oppose.
Unfortunately, most libertarians are stuck in a 20th century mindset. Then, the sole major threat to freedom and prosperity was statism. That paradigm would still be operative if I were a North Korean. But if I am a Norwegian, being against statism is not sufficient to extricate my country from the unfree fate to which it is likely doomed by the continuation of current demographic trends. A Norway increasingly awash in the ideology of Islam and in the genetics of Africa is a Norway that increasingly ceases to be.
It is not the privatization of roads in Norway that will save its people from the bleak future predicted by demographics. Minarchist ideals require for their implementation a citizenry that values them.
Policies that aren’t ideal are sometimes necessary. War is never ideal, but circumstances sometimes dictate that a war must be waged. Right now the survival of the Norweigian people is at stake. The good news is that no blood needs to be spilled in order to win the battle for survival. If the nations of West employed the same resolve they exhibited with regard to overthrowing Saddam Hussein toward the objective of fostering sustainable demographics – increasing their birth rates and restricting the flow of immigration (and reversing it if feasible) – the West could be saved for future generations.
Anarchy will not save the west. There are anarchists who claim otherwise. Some hypothesize that private legal agencies would perform border security. But most who subscribe to the notion of market anarchism believe that any given individual’s acre of oceanfront property would absolutely be his to use, if he so desires, as a conduit for boatloads of hundreds of foreign migrants every day. They may be hostile. They may be infected with contagious diseases. All they’d need is the ability to access a single mode of transportation, and they could wreak havoc upon the country.
Yes, I know there are alternative ways in which such a situation could be handled in a nation without a state. I’m not interested in “could be’s.” Anything “could be.” Ron Paul could get elected president. I could win the lottery. To express views about what anarchy could be apart from what it is and has been – and it’s never been libertarian in nature – is to express one’s subjective intentions. One anarchist’s desire for open immigration vs. another’s for immigration controls is a debate that takes place entirely in the subjective realm. There is nothing inherent in the concept of anarchy and nothing evidenced by its limited real-world manifestations that make either view objectivity credible.
What immigration would be like in reality under statelessness would probably abhor both types of anarchists. I suspect migration would be neither open nor controlled. Migrants likely would get into a stateless society with relative ease. Some would come as predators. Some would come to work and would risk vigilantism at the hands of anti-immigrant mobs. If I speculated much further than this, I too would be entering the realm of the subjective.