Post # 2601 Image
Post # 2601

The Somali experience — In view of events related to the Somali community in Minnesota, to the recent history of Somalia, to the Western way of dealing with foreign cultures and to the impact of uncontrolled immigration on local traditions and customs, this post highlights the risk of turning Western countries into states affected by the plagues that have struck the lands from which multitudes of migrants try to flee.










THE SOMALI EXPERIENCE _[Post # P2601] Image

January 11, 2026

Last month, news outlets started talking about a suspected fraud involving Minnesota's leadership and members of the local Somali community.

Here, we will not discuss the alleged fraud, but, in view of controversial comments (also mentioned in the CBS News article cited above) about Minnesotans of Somali origin, we will briefly focus on the potential (often evident) impact of foreign cultures in Western countries.

First of all, I firmly believe it is fair to observe that any ethnic group (no matter its race, its religion, its gross domestic product per capita) is made of good guys and brutal villains, honest people and dangerous criminals, hard workers and merciless profiteers, rich families and poor tramps.
Yet, it cannot be denied that all men and women have always been heavily shaped by the social and political context in which they grew up. For instance, while thinking back to some ancient civilizations, we may understand the reasons behind human sacrifices, which nowadays would be considered heinous acts by every penal code all over the world.
Likewise, we may even understand the reasons behind today's suicide terror attacks, which can be the result of depraved educational content, brainwashing techniques or strong desire to "be rewarded with 72 wives in paradise".

Thus, if we discuss the issue of immigration in the most general terms, without focusing on any specific race or geographical region, there are some facts which, in this writer's opinion, should not be ignored:
👉 unfortunately, even wealthy countries have a lot of poor citizens and, although some of these persons are certainly responsible for their own fate, a good administration should try to improve their quality of life before getting involved in international charity, as well as conscientious parents would do whatever possible to solve the problems of a child who is lagging behind his peers, before assisting other people in need of help
👉 far too often solidarity and inclusion appear to be synonyms of open borders, with no regard to the possible escalation of social tensions and to the negative impact on the psychological stress of the immigrants themselves, who might feel safer (especially if they have just fled from a war-torn country), but might also be disturbed by the obvious disparity between their miserable conditions and the riches around them
👉 immigration should be a controlled process and alien citizens should be accepted (or, more properly, should be welcomed) when and only when there is a two-way relationship, i.e., when an asylum seeker can earn a decent salary in exchange for a service to the local population
👉 immigrants, like all people in the world, cannot live without food and housing, so that they fall easy prey to criminal activities, human tafficking, sex trade, terrorist organizations and so on, if they lack the money they need for essentials of living
👉 in other words, open borders are a godsend for people who need manpower (or, maybe, slaves) for robberies, murders, prostitution rings, drug dealing, terrorist attacks or, simply, underpaid jobs

Nor should we forget the expected reward for liberal parties and progressive politicians, because of the power of their propaganda machines and the media hype, which can enchant millions of people in the name of the noblest ideals (e.g., diversity, inclusion, solidarity), even if the real goal is a new voting bloc. As already happened in several European countries and as we have been witnessing for quite a time in the US, the radical left is mesmerized by the dream of the votes that, sooner or later, will be cast by today's illegal aliens.

Indeed, a higher number of votes is the only purpose of several political movements.
Where ideological beliefs come into play, no one cares for the future of a Country, which has been the leader of the free world and in the front line in the war on terror for many decades. If it were drawn down to the level of Afghanistan or Iran, Sudan or Venezuela, lots of progressive firebrands would certainly be more than happy.
Frankly speaking, right now the situation is not dramatic, yet, since the number of lunatics is still relatively low at the national level, BUT the flags of terrorrist organizations that have been flown in places like New York City are NOT a positive sign...

Mind you, when I mention Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, Venezuela or any other state, I am NOT implying that the average skill, wit and intellect of their citizens are lower than what we usually see in rich countries. I rather mean that many of them (or, perhaps, most of them) make use of their skill, wit and intellect with the aim of violating basic human rights and/or cracking down on minorities and/or enforcing corruption and/or promoting terrorist activities and/or fighting civil wars and/or supporting human trafficking and/or financing drug smuggling.

Given this hellish context, there's no wonder that some people (or, quite frequently, many people) are willing to leave their homeland and move to a country, where they hope to find peace, prosperity and rule of law. In consequence, what should reasonably happen in the end?
We might expect to come across communities of immigrants who make any possible effort (and are given a chance to make any possible effort) to integrate successfully into the way of life of their new country and abide by its laws, in order to enjoy AND MAINTAIN its peace and prosperity.
YET, for some diabolical reason, what actually happens is exactly the opposite. There's a sort of Afghanistanization and/or Iranization and/or Sudanization and/or Venezuelization process, as proven by the mass demonstrations in favor of poor criminals and/or poor drug traffickers and/or poor terroristswith the obvious support of liberal news networks, progressive lawmakers and eccentric judges.
For certain, in the recent past, it would have been almost impossible to find rabid crowds which "desecrate the American flag" in the US or a Californian mayor who claims that "part" of him "would be Hamas", while nowadays it's quite normalas well as it's been quite normal for a long time to bump into individuals of this kind in countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan or Venezuela... not to talk about Lebanon or Pakistan!

No doubt, there are laws which practically make it clear that "flag burning is protected speech", illegal aliens cannot be deported or arrested (even if they have a history of violence), drug traffickers cannot be killed and terrorists are a protected species. Then, it is easy to find judges who endeavor to exploit any loophole in the law and interpret bills in the most convenient way in order to help progressive criminals, illegal aliens, drug traffickers and terrorists.

That said, if a law is crazy, in this writer's view it should be changed or corrected. HOWEVER, this is virtually impossible in countries, where a critical mass of citizens has already been Afghanistanized and/or Iranized and/or Sudanized and/or Venezuelized.

And while we are here, it is worth noting that an Iranian court has recently ordered "the United States and affiliated officials and entities to pay more than $22 billion in material, moral, and punitive damages" owing to the alleged support given to "rioters during the unrest of 2022".
At this stage, it would not be surprising at all if an American judge (may be in the State of New York or the District of Columbia) issued a similar rulingof course, in full accordance with the fundamental principles of the United Nations and in the name of the inalienable rights of terrorist organizations!!!
[cf. https://en.irna.ir/news/86013239/Iranian-court-orders-US-to-pay-over-22-billion-in-damages-for... if available!!!
NOTE: the Islamic Republic of Iran has already been fully Iranized and internet services might be off!!!]

Inevitably, there are high chances that any attempt to undermine the inalienable rights of terrorist organizations is driven by "racially motivated violence", as happened in Nigeria a couple of weeks ago according to a most attentive political analyst. In fact, just after US strikes against Islamic State militants in Nigeria, it was claimed that the real purpose of the American leadership had been to "engage in violence in a Brown country in order to flex their power".
Next, of course, there was a problem concerned with the number of the (alleged?!?) victims:
"BBC did a whole investigation as to whether or not the numbers being spread by Republicans are even true. Has it been 100,000 people? Has it been 6,000 people? Are they conflating different kinds of numbers?"
Sure enough, if no more than a few thousand persons have been slaughtered so far, the (alleged?!?) terrorists are nothing but a jolly group of good Samaritans!!!

Let's now go back to the the specific case of the Somali community in Minnesota.
If we browse through the website of the Council for Minnesotans of African Heritage, we discover an interesting "Statement on Bill for Somali Youth and Workforce Development", which was "Last Modified" on March 21, 2018. In this document, we can read something which is really enlightening:
"The most recent data has the Somali community experiencing a poverty rate of 58%, with 40% of the community unemployed or not in the workforce."

Given these indisputable facts (well known since 2018), someone might have optimistically hoped that careful, sensible leaders would focus on spending resources to improve the dire conditions of those 58 percent and 40 percent, maybe with the help of Federal funds.

Instead, it all went the other way round.
First, there was an explosion of pandementia, which destroyed small businesses and spread more poverty with the aim of saving the human race, even though high density cities in other parts of the world (e.g., Cairo, Delhi, Jakarta) did not suffer too much despite an inevitable lack of social distancing and a low percentage of jabbed people.
Second, the apparatchiks in Saint Paul and Washington D.C. were not happy enoughneither with the destruction of small businesses nor with the percentages of poor and unemployed people. They wanted a much higher level of poverty, unemployment, social tension and, hence, a much larger number of people inclined to engage in illegal activities. So, a wild immigration policy was scientifically implemented between 2021 and 2024 with obvious results. As stated in a report issued by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, "94% of Minnesota's net population growth between 2020 and 2024 was attributable to international immigration"!

It is legitimate to doubt that this 94% has been a beautiful gift for the above mentioned 58% and 40%, BUT... who knows?!? Life is often full of unpredictable events and experiences!
Indeed, according to the same report, "immigration is an essential ingredient of Minnesota’s long-term economic success. New Americans contribute to the economy as entrepreneurs, consumers, taxpayers, and workers, often filling high-demand roles that businesses struggle to staff".
Meanwhile, however, it is also possible to find articles which claim that
➤ "About 54 percent of Somali-headed households in Minnesota receive food stamps"
➤ "Nearly every Somali household with children (89 percent) receives some form of welfare".
➤ "37.5 percent of adult Somali immigrants in Minnesota live below the Census Bureau’s official poverty line, compared to just 6.9 percent of adult natives"and apparently the percentage jumps to an impressive 66.1%, when adults "In or Near Poverty" are considered

These figures necessarily imply that "immigration" can hardly be considered "an essential ingredient of Minnesota’s long-term economic success"
Alternatively, they MIGHT imply that "immigration" really is a great asset for Minnesota, BUT with the notable exception of the Somali community, as recently suggested by some critics!!!

Despite the creative imagination of the liberal elite, the average fate of immigrants is highly dependent on their background. So, in this respect, the recent history of Somalia may ring alarm bells, since we are talking of a Country where
➤ a Communist state was established in 1969, which was overly reliant on foreign aid, waged a war on Ethiopia in 1977 and, before collapsing in 1991, got involved in a civil war that started in the late Eighties
➤ fighting among rival factions is still going on after nearly forty years of massacres, distruction and terrorist attacks
➤ a coalition of United Nations peacekeepers (1993-1995) miserably failed to solve the problem, probably because no one wanted to take the risk of killing innocent civilians, who (quite often) might have been alleged civilians and, in any case, after being treated with kid gloves by the international forces, were slaughtered in great numbers by their fellow Somalis when the UN-sponsored military intervention came to an end, since fierce battles continued to rage from the north to the south of the Country
➤ further political developments set the stage for new conflicts in 2001, when the so-called Transitional National Government was challenged by the self-proclaimed Somali Reconciliation and Restoration Council, whose forces also succeeded in conquering Mogadishu seaport and a couple of towns (one near the border with Ethiopia, with the help of the Ethiopian Army, the other near the border with Kenya) between 2001 and 2003
➤ a wannabe Transitional Federal Government (which actually controlled only part of the nation) was established in 2004, while the Islamic Courts Union was becoming a stronger and stronger political force, closely connected with armed militias such as al-Shabaab, Jabhatul Islamiya, Hizbul Islam and so on
➤ in 2009, at the end of a three-year conflict with Ethiopia, which had unsuccessfully tried to prevent Islamist/terrorist groups from ruling Somalia, a newly formed coalition government introduced Sharia as the basis for the nation's legal system
➤ military operations have been going on for the last fifteen years (including the Las Anod conflict, which is still in progress in the north of the country), piracy has become a common practice and, even now, the Somalis can enjoy the active presence of al-Shabaab, especially in the southern regions

If this brief summary is of some interest, it might be worth spending a little more time on Sharia and terrorist activities.

To start with, some readers will certainly be impressed by the fact that the Islamic law was implemented in 2009 with a unanimous vote of the Parliament. It appears that this passionate support to the initiative was also due to the involvement of "powerful Islamic powers", which had "given a strong backing to the vote and called upon all insurgents to stop the fighting against the government".
Needless to say, the "fighting" did continue and is still continuing!
As if it were not enough, al-Shabaab "had already implemented sharia in areas under its control". In consequence, that unanimous vote can be interpreted either as a unanimous surrender to the terrorist group or as a unanimous desire to introduce the Islamic law in Somaliaor both.
Undeniably, the message seems to be clear. Since lawmakers all over the world reflect the society they represent, it should be obvious that average Somalis are likely to dream of a social system which is governed in accordance with the principles and rules established by Sharia. Therefore, it cannot be surprising if Sharia also has some appeal among the Somali community in Minnesota, as recently exposed in a short documentary video.

Although Islamic law can be applied in many different ways (as shown, e.g., by Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, whose legal systems are based on Sharia, but the end results are not exactly the same), there is a real risk that many immigrants feel morally and practically obliged to abide by the local law if and only if it is consistent with their religious beliefs, as surely happened in Somalia in 2009.
Definitely, it's a fact that both America and Europe are already home to hidden Sharia courts, which come together with families who scrupulously follow the traditional custom of arranged marriages and honor killings, as reported by news networks.
When people of a different culture reach a critical number in a pre-existing social network, radical changes (sometimes quite dangerous) should be expected. A typical example was given by the mayor of a city in Michigan last September. When a local Christian minister complained about a street sign, intended as a tribute to a man who had praised Hamas, Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah, the mayor couldn't be more explicit and his words couldn't be more accurate to shed light on a well-known current trend:
"You’re an Islamophobe. And although you live here, I want you to know as mayor you are not welcome here. The day you move out of the city will be the day I launch a parade celebrating the fact that you moved out of the city."
In a sense, it was like going back to the time of Cyril of Alexandria and Isabel of Castile, when the Jews were expelled from Alexandria and Spain!!!

Of course, liberal firebrands and progressive activists have the right to insist that freedom of speech is a fundamental principle of a democratic society, but eventually it may happen that the (sometimes supposed) democratic system works in a strange way: the friends of those firebrands and those activists are granted the freedom to say what they want (as was the case of the mayor in Michigan), while people who have differents views should get out of the way, as was the case of the Christian minister!
Sadly, this is just a small part of the story. Sooner or later, an overwhelming love for foreign cultures and a strong will to live in harmony with their values could be rewarded with the same delights of the lands where it all began: for example, the civil war, the craft of piracy and the terrorist activity which make a significant contribution to everyday life in Somalia.

Indeed, even liberal news outlets seem to acknowledge that the local population is not living a life a bliss in the Horn of Africa, since "Somalia retains its reputation as one of the world's most dangerous destinations". More specifically, "Al Shabab militants continue to operate across Somalia, including in Mogadishu, where the group carried out several deadly attacks in early 2025".

In addition, last month a local network talked about "a strategic town in southern Somalia" conquered by the "Al-Qaeda-linked militant group Al-Shabaab", which had succeeded in dealing "a significant blow to the govenrmnet's military campaign against the insurgents", by "cutting a vital supply route linking the capital, Mogadishu, to central Somalia".
Notably, if we keep reading the article, we learn an interesting detail: "The capture follows days of reports that militants were advancing on nearby villages. Despite these warnings, government forces appeared to make little effort to halt the advance."
What does it mean?
Was someone in the government an accomplice of the terrorists?
Or had the insurgents infiltrated into the "government forces"?!?
After all, as well as the entire Parliament was happy to cooperate with the (alleged?!?) "opposition" in 2009, it would be pretty natural to find out that "powerful Islamic powers" are able to influence the "government forces" in today's Somalia.

Strangely enough, there's a chance that embarrassing truths are revealed even in an article where it is pointed out that Somalis "have forged livelihoods and created a thriving community in Minnesota".
Here follows a list of attention-grabbing remarks in that article, which was published on February 27, 2018 and recently modified (December 4, 2025):
➤ "From 2007 to 2008, approximately twenty young Somali men left Minnesota and returned to Somalia. The reasons they left remain unclear (many think it was to fight against Ethiopian troops), but the young men were recruited to join Al-Shabaab."
➤ "Recruitment has been an ongoing tragedy for many Somalis in Minnesota as they have struggled with the loss of sons, nephews, and friends while the FBI has investigated the situation."
➤ "In 2016, nine young Somali American men pleaded guilty to or were convicted of conspiracy to fight for the terrorist group ISIS in Syria."
➤ "The majority of Somalis advocate for Islam as a religion of peace" ("The majority", probably NOT the whole community!!!)

Thus, it doesn't seem too awkward to think that a lot of US dollars might have been sponsoring and fostering the activities of al-Shabaab terrorists and/or Somali pirates.

In the meantime, more and more Western people seem to believe that democracy means submission to the rules and ideals of Third World culturesand quite often they also tend to side with criminals, drug traffickers, terrorists and similar individuals, especially if these lawbreakers live or used to live in underdeveloped regions.
In the name of compassion, empathy, humanity and tolerance, it's become commonplace to put foreign interests before national interests, most of the times without trying to adequately aid the fellow citizens who are in need of help. There's no way of thinking that the living conditions of many poor people should be improved even in wealthy country and that no significant progress can be achieved by embracing the traditional values of countries devastated by civil wars and/or drug cartels and/or terrorist militias and/or other forms of organized crime.

The most progressive part of the planet absolutely refuses to believe that poor countries should make an effort to adopt the rules of rich countries, if they really want to improve their own living conditions, while rich countries can only become poorer and poorer, if they are willing to accept the rules, the traditions, the habits of underdeveloped nations.
Moreover, rich countries should never forget that underdeveloped nations does not always mean weak countries, since it may well happen that most of the citizens live in dire poverty, while huge amounts of resources are being put into military equipment and terrorist activity.

For some reasons (especially the civil war and the surge of terrorist activity in the Nineties) Somalia is mentioned more than once in
Jihad Al-Kuffar and, in view of the topics discussed here, I would like to quote a passage taken from Chapter 12.
According to the story, a Belgian peace activist was talking to an Italian fellow anarchist. Both of them were in Gothenburg, Sweden, to take part in mass demonstrations during a European Union Summit. Clearly, according to right thinking people, the protesters were, by definition, peaceful, democratic and well-mannered. Yet, Gothenburg became the scene of violent and destructive riots.

It all happened in June 2001 and, as reported by Reuters news agency, "Up to 25,000 activists from dozens of anti-EU, anti-U.S. and anti-globalization groups gathered during a European Union summit, outnumbering police by up to 25 to one".

The motivations of those groups are self-evident:
"The predominantly youthful anti-capitalist marches were and are an anticipation of much bigger, more powerful workers' actions and even revolts. This is a direct result of the neo-liberal policies pursued by governments all over the globe in the last decade."

Ironically, the funny part of the story is that the "revolts" they are talking about are obviously planned and encouraged with the noble aim of making a better world. HOWEVER, the improvised architects of these revolutionary waves are and/or have been enthusiastic followers of the charlatans who built the Cuban paradise or shaped the North-Korean way of life or succeeded in giving evidence of the outstanding difference between the "anti-capitalist" economic woes of the German Democratic Republic and the "neo-liberal policies" of the Federal Republic of Germany, when the iron curtain was still in place!!!

On the other hand, it's hardly possible to find anything serious and logical, when a system is infected by ideological bias. Not for nothing were the Gothenburg riots also motivated by "anti-U.S." feelings, as well as mass demonstrations and violence systematically erupt whenever the American or the Israeli armies come into play. Instead, nothing happens when Ethiopia or France or Sudan or Syria or Turkey are embroiled in a conflict!
Paradoxically, even the Russians are not the target of mass protests, although left-wing torchbearers and rabble-rousers seem to be the most excited anti-Putin militants at the present moment!!!
Similarly, those human rights zealots, after launching an all out war against Israel, which was trying to get rid of terrorists, are dead silent while the Iranian ayatollahs are getting rid of their own citiziensand, unavoidably, the mainstream media are on the same wavelength!

Coming back to the quote from
Jihad Al-Kuffar, here follow some inspiring words of the Belgian guy:

Our main goal is to uproot liberal democracies. They've got to be crushed. We cannot be slaves to their hypocrisy. In this unjust society, too many people talk about freedom and refuse to understand that international relations continue to violate elementary democratic norms. Let me explain what I mean. After being elected, Western leaders manage an awful lot of money that might be useful to poor nations. And the criminal instincts of these leaders rise to the surface every day. I can easily prove that Western policy is in sharp contrast to true justice. There's something evil, something diabolically evil, in its perverse nature. Don't you believe me? Take some time to reflect on the United States. Try to imagine that its administration must discuss the use of funds. Are some billions of dollars to be spent on armaments or aid programs in favor of Third World countries? Assuming that the Americans are able to elect decent people, can we accept that United States lawmakers are allowed to do what they want? The answer is no. Since the Yankees don't even represent one-twentieth of the world's population, the remaining 95 percent must have the right to decide whether the Americans can produce more weapons or must rather make a deed of gift to the Third World. If the system were fair, Western heads of state should take their decisions together with the leaders of developing countries, where five billion people live and may have different views. As long as a few crooks are allowed to make strategic choices, it's like living in the jungle. Instead, we've got to establish an international cooperative with a simple rule: one government, one vote. This is democracy, one vote for the United States, one vote for Somalia.

It goes without saying that things in life are always changing. Therefore, what appeared to be reasonable in 2001 (when the alleged episode took place) could be utterly laughable for the next generations. To put it straight, it might be out of place to raise this issue in the near future: indeed, US votes and Somali votes at the UN General Assembly could well be exactly the same, as suggested by the current trend.
No doubt, what to expect is clear: we just need to have a look at the governors who have been freely elected in several states (e.g., California, Illinois, Minnesota) and at the mayors who have been freely elected in several cities (e.g., Chicago, New York, Seattle).

Make no mistakes! There is a natural order to everything in this world. To cite an instance, if a referendum were held today, the majority of the people who live in Tibet would most likely vote in favor of maintaining the status quo: owing to the large number of Chinese settlers, it's easy to guess that Tibet would continue to be a region of the People's Republic of China at the end of a regular, fair and free voting process!
By the same token, Lebanon, which used to be a kind of Switzerland of the Middle East, has become today's Lebanon after the invasion (or, if you prefer, after the immigration) of Palestinians and Syrians in the Seventies.

However, as already stated above, it is probably too early to talk about an Afghanistanization or Iranization or Sudanization or Venezuelization of the United States. In all likelihood, some governors and some mayors are only due to a Britainization process, since London has already had mayors like Ken Livingstone and Sadiq Khanand it's quite probable that, in truth, "there are pockets of London and pockets of Britain where Sharia law is being practiced"!!!

As I've just said, the practice of Sharia law in Britain, to the best of my knowledge, is "quite probable", BUT there is one thing which is absolutely certain: the UK can brag about a Prime Minister who
➤ has been doing his best to save the lives of poor terrorists by limiting the number of arms export licences to Israel
➤ is the head of a Government, which has awarded an OBE to a former "BBC boss", who was "chief content officer" when a documentary "narrated by the son of a Hamas leader" was broadcast (without disclosing information about the narrator's father) and was subsequently "removed" by the broadcaster "as an available option online"
➤ has been "delighted" by the "arrival" of an individual
👉 inclined to share "extremist and violent rhetoric aimed at 'Zionists' and white people in general"
👉 ready to claim that "the police do not have rights and «we should kill them all»"!!!

As usual, however, there's a rationale behind this. We're not in the times when the patriotic song Rule, Britannia was written and set to music. The average people who live in Western countries are much different, either because they come from different parts of the world or because they have been fascinated by different cultures. Hence, the British Prime Minister and his Party must come to terms with today's developments, if they do not want to run the risk of falling out with a large number of their voters!!!



Last updated on January 27, 2026