Isis is much more than just a terrorist organization; moreover, it has goals – one of those being dominion through a European caliphate – and a European strategy, i.e., promising stability. This strategy is not absurd, for in the meantime European intelligentsia are unwittingly increasing instability through their policies – for instance immigration.
I know what I am writing will come as an absolute surprise to most readers: What are you saying? Isis means chaos, it is a terrorist organization which wants to destabilize the entire world!
To begin with, I am going to analyze Isis’ strategy, not its goals. Second, I would like to stress Isis’ final goal is not chaos, it is dominion. Look at the state it had built in Syria and Iraq: a highly centralized state ruled according to strict rules – iron rules, but rules nonetheless.
And now comes a second surprise: European intelligentsia are unwittingly bent on instability, i.e., they are increasing instability through a series of actions.
Under these circumstances, Isis’ strategy – promising stability – is anything but naive.
Russian-Syrian operations in Syria and subsequent Western coalition’s ones are being successful in destroying the Isis state. Without a state, Isis will suffer many setback, also in its European operations, but it is not going to be stopped: the Western world reacted too late and too weakly – in the meantime many terrorist franchises were established worldwide. In the meantime, Isis propaganda took the advantage of a safe sanctuary to spread everywhere, notably across Europe – the consequences of such spreading being evident: terrorist attacks on a daily basis. I know many incidents are described as actions by disturbed people, but it seems to me – and to the man in the street – this is not the case and that mass media are trying to downplay the situation.
HOW EUROPEAN INTELLIGENTSIA ARE INCREASING INSTABILITY
I am not suggesting European intelligentsia are fostering instability on purpose; I am saying their actions are increasing, through byproducts, instability – we may speak of collateral damage.
Let me give you an example: immigration.
For a background of Europe’s immigration “project”, I would advise you to read Immigrazione – Conseguenze Strategiche ed Aspetti di Gestione.
It is evident immigration is one of European intelligentsia’s mainstays; less obviously, it is the child of ideological factors.
It is also evident immigration in Europe is causing instability on a huge scale; it is also leading to the growth of populist parties and huge popular discontent.
Many immigrants are Muslim; while many Muslim got integrated, many more often live in ghettos – banlieues – notably so-called migrants. Many immigrants live as if they were still in their country of origin: the may or may not speak the local language, they are subject to Sharia, they marry people from their native land, the young are often on the dole, the block where they live may even be a no-go area for the police.
In a few words, we are describing enclaves; it is obvious many such enclaves are a source of instability for the host country.
It is also evident people living inside enclaves are dissatisfied with their host country.
Notwithstanding many unresolved problems, European intelligentsia are focused in getting more migrants – for they are driven by ideology. More migrants entail more instability, both within and without enclaves.
Let me give you another example: economic policy.
The EU has been applying iron rules, and in this it is not dissimilar from Isis: without taking into account anything but its self-imposed parameters, it has been distributing punishments to whomever is not in line with said parameters. When it comes to Greece, it has been ruthless – or at least this is the perception of the man in the street.
In a few words: the EU is actively contributing to instability – it makes no difference whether on purpose or not.
EVERYONE WANTS STABILITY
As results of European intelligentsia’s actions are so evident and as said actions are increasing instability, the man in the street has taken note.
What about migrants? They crave stability – in this wanting exactly what native European people are craving for.
On top of this, European intelligentsia’s reactions to terrorism are lukewarm at best – both natives and immigrants have taken note. In a few words, the intelligentsia are not only increasing instability, they are unable – and unwilling – to fight terrorism but through heartfelt words and we-love-each-other speeches. I am not overdoing: this is the message the man in the street is getting.
Citizens’ safety, namely public order, has dramatically deteriorated – I know European intelligentsia are denying this is the case, but it seems no one believes them.
Hence, the man in the street:
- Is craving for stability, but is witnessing increasing instability
- Is craving for safety, but safety is decreasing – if he lives inside a Muslim enclave, he may even be a hostage to local “militias”
- Is craving for the state’s presence, but the state is often unable to take action against terrorism
- Is witnessing the growing power of terrorism
- Has seen thousands of foreign fighters leaving Europe to fight – and commit atrocities – for Isis in Iraq and Syria, then returning unmolested to Europe
- Watches the police acknowledging there are no-go areas like the Molenbeek block in downtown Brussels
- If living in an enclave, he is craving for clear rules – but the host nation is often not implementing its own rules. That is to say, anarchy rules.
According to the man in the street, European states are not granting stability, often are not granting safety or even basic presence – a no-go area meaning the state has failed – are not able (or not wanting) to decisively deal with terrorism, are not implementing their own rules – even when it comes to basic human rights.
On the other hand (according to the man in the street) the European intelligentsia are ruthless when it comes to implementing cruel meaningless rules conceived by unelected bureaucrats – and in pursuing their immigration policy which is contributing greatly to instability. This is leading to much anger – I have dealt with this factor in Rischi Geopolitici in Italia.
ISIS’ STRATEGY – PROMISING STABILITY
As we have seen, in Europe everyone is craving for stability – everyone is witnessing increasing instability.
What is Isis promising?
You should attempt not to think of Isis (solely) as a bunch of terrorists; is it implementing a strategy?
Isis’ way of waging war is composed of many souls: terrorism, guerrilla, conventional war; some kind of guerrilla is the prevalent one.
Isis has been sending foreign fighters back to Europe for a long time – this flow may have increased as a consequence of recent defeats, but is has always existed.
Read a guerrilla treatise: first rule – infiltrate the enemy’s territory, better if through locals trained elsewhere; start in places where the populace is friendly or not overtly hostile; create sanctuaries and become the ruler of such sanctuaries, i.e., provide safety, administration of justice, defence (against the host nation’s police), administration, and so on.
In a few words, Isis is doing nothing more then what guerrilla movements have been doing for decades.
Think of the Vietnam war: on the one hand Vietcongs attacked governmental and American forces, on the other hand they made use of terror and violence in villages – to show peasants they were in control. Nowadays, in Europe those villages have become Muslim enclaves and governmental forces have become European civilians.
Isis immediate goal is to show its force, to demonstrate Europeans are depraved people unable to defend themselves, to create small caliphates in Muslim enclaves (banlieues) and to give stability to such enclaves. Besides, Isis is sending a message to those enclave guys: You can live here as you used to live at home, we are going to create an Islamic caliphate in Europe.
It does not end here: it is not a secret more and more Europeans (and migrants who weren’t Muslims before landing in Europe) are becoming converts – some other express admiration for the strength Islam is showing when compared to Europe.
Having created IS (the Islamic State), Isis has proved a caliphate can be created elsewhere. Isis is showing the world it can strike everywhere; its attacks and European intelligentsia’s reactions to such attacks are showing the world European states are not able to wield power anymore. On top of this, European intelligentsia stand behind their ideological daughter: immigration. Immigration means more and more Muslims, which in turn entails Isis can count on an ever larger source of militants, supporters and “populace”– guerrilla warfare does not work without a populace, the goal being turning such populace into subjects.
In a few words: Isis is showing European civilization is weak and a source of instability; on the other hand, Isis is trying to prove it is able to wield power and to give stability – and the possibility for migrants of making Europe home. This is much more enticing to a migrant than having to integrate into a society so alien to him, a society many migrants despise.
Video: Geopolitics, NGOs and other Non-state Actors – Three Case Studies
WHAT ABOUT NATIVE EUROPEANS AND INTEGRATED MIGRANTS?
As for integrated migrants, history is clear: integration is one hundred percent reversible, notably if the populace is not protected by the state – we are instead witnessing European states attempting to solve problems by empowering local unelected organizations.
BTW, the tendency to empower NGOs and the rise of NGOs and NGAs (Non-governmental Actors, such as Isis) is a growing trend which is gnawing at the roots of Western democracy and contributing to instability – see Geopolitics, NGOs and other Non-state Actors – Three Case Studies.
In the meantime, more and more Isis militants are returning to Europe, obviously willing to employ the same methods already employed in Iraq and Syria.
As for native Europeans, it seems many are resigned, many more are angry at European intelligentsia – thereby populism is on the rise. There is a third possibility: violent action – usually against would-be shelters for migrants (refugees) – is on the rise; as I wrote in previous articles, I would not rule out the possibility of terrorism – as when Protestant terrorism was born in Ulster as a reaction to IRA’s terrorism.
In any case, this is going to lead to more and more instability. In the meantime, it is in Isis’s strategic interest to plan and foster further terrorist attacks in Europe.
Next step? I fear Isis will attempt something like the Tet offensive, i.e., a full blown attack on security forces and on the civilian population; maybe this will happen on a smaller scale than in Vietnam, but a demonstrative action in just one city – and simultaneous smaller attacks a bit everywhere – will be enough to create mayhem.
I would advise you to read The USA after Charlottesville – A New Civil War?, and to attempt imagining the combined effects of what I have been writing about today and ‘… a new civil “war” spilling into Europe …’
It is my intention to scare no one. I am outlining a worst-case scenario.