History is full of uncanny patterns. Either we’ve learned nothing as a species or things are repeating themselves. Time is cyclical or man is forgetful. Maybe there is a “natural law” at work or something like that. Or maybe not. Nailing these down with precision is honestly not all that important though. Ideas have consequences sure, but ideas also have antecedents. They are chained together over the course of civilizations. And one of the most eternal recurrences is that of precarious elites importing human resources from other tribes than their own.
Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on how one relates to that authority and his views on how a society should be ordered, as well as the historical context. Perhaps the elites did not feel safe relying on their own countrymen. Perhaps the outsiders were particularly skilled at something the locals could not provide. Perhaps falling back on divide et impera was not only the simplest way to maintain order but also the most effective. Maybe a deficit just needed to be filled.
The Achaemenid army consisted of an ethnic Persian core surrounded by the levies of conquered nations. The late Roman army was heavily non-Italic and included large contingents of Germans and Illyrians. The Byzantine emperor had a royal guard—the Varangian Guard—composed mostly of Norsemen, and later on even Anglo-Saxons. Powerful Irish chiefs would retain bands of gallowglass, or “foreign Gaels” from Scotland as their personal troops. The Doge of Venice recruited men from Istria and Dalmatia (Croatia), called schiavoni in Italian, to defend his palace. The Pope’s foreign retinues are perhaps the most famous, the Swiss Guard. The Mongol conquerors of China in the thirteenth century brought over a number of Muslims and other non-Han peoples to help them govern their new lands. The Ottoman sultan would abduct young Balkan Christian men to serve as soldiers and administrators of his empire, known to posterity as janissaries.
The American War of Independence was primarily led by Cavaliers while fought by Borderers, leading at least one foreign observer to remark that it was a “Irish-Scotch Presbyterian rebellion” against England. Adding to the ethnic quirks of this conflict, for her part, England brought over German Hessian mercenaries to fight the separatists. Almost a century later during the American Civil War, the Union was able to muster a larger army due to decades of mass migration from Ireland and Germany, and by raising black regiments to fight the Southern confederates. Austria-Hungary elevated divide and rule to an art, always stationing troops and state police of different nationalities from the areas they were responsible for (e.g. Germans in Italy, Hungarians in Bohemia, and so forth). After the first world war, the Allies made a point of placing colonial African troops in Germany’s occupied Rhineland.
The United States government, through the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and refugee resettlement programs, likes to put ethnic minorities into the middle of homogeneous, often conservative, White areas (whether these transplants are sourced locally or from abroad). The government also issues H1B1 visas to predominantly Indian (South Asian) migrants so they can work in the technology and corporate administration sectors of the American economy. A Jew always runs the Federal Reserve, and three out of the eight Supreme Court justices are Jewish (Obama's nominee Merrick Garland is a mischling).
Xenoskepticism is the ordinary idea that just maybe we should be a little bit more critical when someone in a position of power tells us that foreigners are the best thing ever or starts to rely on them increasingly. If you’ve heard that the American economy would collapse without illegal immigrants picking fruit in California, or that foreign-born people (often Russian Jews, Chinese, or Indians) make better entrepreneurs, or that immigrants just have better families than Americans do, you’ve been fed justification for the status quo by someone who benefits from it. In the legal world, that’s considered a conflict of interest.
I don’t like the term xenophobia. I’m not irrationally afraid of people who aren’t like me. I'm not afraid of them, period. The smarmy, irony-steeped numales and catladies who upbraid the men of the right for being “afraid of new things” or “racist” are just demonstrating that their ability to do risk assessment or perimeter defense is grossly impaired and compromised. Virtue-signaling is the way of the pharisee. We know that these people are in fact quite uncomfortable with vibrancy, since they move away from it when they want to start a family or earn enough money. Supporting the idea of diversity is often sufficient enough for them, let others experience it. Let others deal with militarized police and the impact of counter-terrorism. Let others deal with failing schools and high crime. Let others deal with stagnant wages and increased competition in the labor market. Let others deal with anomie.
The xenophile fancies himself a progressive and enlightened critical thinker, but the reality is that merely his brain can take a heavier load of cognitive dissonance.
The xenoskeptic on the other hand, notices that the elites of his society—whom many already regard with suspicion if not outright ire—have become great moral defenders of foreigners. He believes that this relationship has both cause and consequences. He knows he is not the primary benefactor of this relationship, and he is right. It’s not a coincidence. No one asked him whether Israel was our greatest ally, if Islam is a religion of peace, or if he wants his neighborhood to become mestizo.
Why does the prince surround himself with foreign bodyguards? And why should we wait for the day when we are ruled by transgender communist mamluks?
Also published at Atlantic Centurion.