26
feb
Seneste opdatering: 26/2-14 kl. 1223
1 kommentar - Tryk for at kommentere!

In the spring of 2013, the journalist Simen Sætre published a highly uneven Norwegian-language biography of me, one that I did not ask to be written.

Mr. Sætre published a new afterword to the pocket edition of his book. In it he stated that my texts “were never meant seriously.” He further proceeded to explain my thought processes by comparing me to the person portrayed in the text The Portrait of the Antisemite, written in 1945 by Jean-Paul Sartre. He insinuates a psychological explanation and indicates that am mainly writing in order to struggle with my inner demons. Sætre explicitly asserts that my texts are not fact-based or rooted in reality.

I’ll respond with some facts, starting with a few simple but significant numbers.

By mid-2013, Bangladesh was estimated to have nearly 164 million inhabitants. Assuming a population growth rate of 1.59%, this equals an addition of about 2.6 million people every year. Another overwhelmingly Muslim country, Pakistan, was estimated to harbor 193 million people. With a population growth rate of 1,52%, that makes for 2.9 million more Pakistanis annually. Combining the two countries, Bangladesh and Pakistan grow by approximately 5.5 million people every year. That’s the annual population growth of just two Muslim countries.

Norway in early 2014 had a population of just over 5 million people. This already includes a significant number of recent immigrants. When I was a boy, there were roughly 4 million inhabitants of Norway. Some of the newcomers are Swedes or Poles, but many of the recent immigrants come from the Islamic world, Africa and other parts of the global South.

This essentially means that the population growth of just two Muslim countries is in principle enough to overwhelm a small Scandinavian country such as Norway in just a single year. Those are simple facts. If current policies and trends continue, the natives will be turned into a minority in their own country in Norway, Sweden and several other Western European states within this century. Whether this happens in 2040 or 2060, it is simply a matter of time.

Combining all of the Scandinavian and Nordic countries — Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland —by mid-2013 these had a total population of less than 26 million people. Again, this already includes quite a few recent immigrants who didn’t live in these countries 40 years earlier.

Egypt is the most populous country in the Arabic-speaking world. In 1882, it had 6.7 million inhabitants. This is just a little bit more than the population today of countries such as Norway, Denmark or Finland, and less than that of Sweden. In 1947, the year my father was born, the population of Egypt was 19 million people. In 1986 it was 48 million; in 1996, 59 million. The country harbored 85 million people in 2013, and probably 86 million or more in 2014.

Egypt’s population grew by over 26 million people from the middle of the 1990s until 2014. This means that the population growth in a single Arab country in just one generation is greater than the total population of all of the Nordic countries put together. Forecasters predict that Egypt could have as many as 137 million people in 2050, up from less than 7 million in 1882.

I’ve lived and studied in Egypt. Most of the country is sparsely populated desert. There could soon be 100 million people crammed into the Nile valley and surrounding areas. Egypt was a major source of grain in the Roman Empire, yet today it can barely feed itself. Despite this, the population continues to boom, fueling growing political instability.

It’s true that birth rates fluctuate. Even in some Muslim countries they are lower now than they were a few decades ago. Yet they are still higher than in virtually all European nations. This is not just true of the Middle East or the Islamic world.

As I wrote in one of my essays for FrontPage Magazine, the continent of Africa today houses a population larger than that of the continent of Europe. This has not happened for thousands of years. Even now, African and Muslim illegal immigrants are fleeing from their own failed societies to get into Europe, sometimes risking their lives by literally swimming to European shores.

A report from 2013 predicted that sub-Saharan Africa will record the largest population growth between now and 2050. According to the Population Reference Bureau, the world’s poorest region will more than double in population, from 1.1 billion to 2.4 billion. The current population of the European Union is about 500 million people. It is estimated that Africa’s population will grow by at least twice that much, in just two generations. Where are these people supposed to live? Will they have water, food and work at home? If not, where will they go next?

Western governments and human rights organizations seem to treat the huge influx of illegal immigrants as some kind of natural disaster, something that will pass. It isn’t, and it won’t. It’s an ongoing process, which keeps getting worse and worse. Europe’s misfortune is that it is situated right at the doorstep of the world’s most dysfunctional continent — Africa — and the world’s most dysfunctional cultural sphere, the Islamic world.

The Nazis wanted more Lebensraum for Germans. This was seen as evil, and other Europeans fought to stop them. Why are today’s Europeans supposed to meekly accept more Lebensraum for Pakistanis, Egyptians, Nigerians or Bangladeshis in Europe? Despite their flaws, the Germans have at the very least shown themselves capable of maintaining a science-based industrial economy. That’s not equally true of Nigerians and Bangladeshis.

We Europeans do not have an obligation to destroy ourselves. Africans, Muslims and others are adults and should be able to fix their own problems. Moreover, Europe and the wider Western world simply don’t have the strength to fix all of the problems of Africa, the Islamic countries and the rest of the developing world, even if we wanted to. We constitute a rapidly shrinking part of the world’s population and economy. Moreover, we have plenty of unemployment, debt and other problems of our own to deal with.

It’s nice to be kind and humanitarian, but the enormous waves of migration we are currently facing are unprecedented in recorded human history. At some point, the issue will no longer be about our humanitarian ideals or feeling good about ourselves. It will be about a fundamental question: Do we want something recognizable as European civilization to exist and flourish a century from now? If so, then the Utopian and dangerously naïve ideal of open borders simply cannot be sustained for much longer.

We don’t know exactly what the population was in the entire Roman Empire in the first century of our era. However, estimates typically range between 50 million and 80 million people, perhaps a little bit more, perhaps a little bit less. By comparison, it was estimated by 2013 that the global population grew by around 75 million people annually. This means that the world’s total population is now growing by roughly another Roman Empire, every single year. Most of this rapid growth is concentrated in dysfunctional and technologically backward societies.

Oslo is the modest-sized capital city of a small country straddling the Arctic Circle, a nation that gained partial independence in 1814 and full independence in 1905. At that point, it held no colonies of any kind.

In March 2011, individuals representing over one hundred different nationalities gathered in front of the Royal Palace in Oslo, accompanied by Crown Prince Haakon Magnus, to celebrate the “diversity” of the kingdom. People from 215 different nations have become “Norwegians” in the space of a few decades. “Norway needed this,” commented the Iranian-born Fery Nourkami on that occasion.

So why didn’t Iran, Nigeria or Pakistan “need” this, too? For some reason, only Europeans are supposed to be displaced in their own homelands, and celebrate this process.

It’s unclear how the different nationalities were counted in this case. Some distinct ethnic groups, for instance Kurds, don’t have their own country. There are therefore more nations in the world than states. However, the United Nations (UN) in 2014 had 193 member states. In other words, a small Scandinavian country such as Norway harbors more nationalities than there are members states in the UN.

Cynics might call this colonization. It’s interesting to notice that the very same groups who denounce earlier European colonization of other parts of the world applaud when the entire non-European world colonizes Europe today.

It is well documented that this Third World mass immigration is also extremely costly, despite the claims that it is good for the economy. This implies that native Europeans are forced to fund their own colonization. Meanwhile, they increasingly feel like strangers in their own cities and are having their cultural heritage gradually dismantled. This process is currently happening simultaneously from England to Greece and from France to Finland.

My viewpoint is very simple: I desire a normalization of Europe. We should not colonize other countries, and they should not colonize us. Anyone holding this eminently sensible position now risks being branded an “extremist.”

But which is more extreme? Is it supporting policies that are gradually displace the native peoples across an entire continent — Europe — or is it opposing these policies?

Throughout 2013, the name “Mohammad” (using various spellings) was the most popular name for newborn boys. Not in Karachi, Pakistan or in Mogadishu, Somalia — but in Oslo, Norway. This has been the situation for years. Native Norwegians are quietly moving out of areas of their capital city where they no longer feel at home in their own country. There are reports of Islamic sharia patrols operating in the streets of inner city Oslo. Frustrated policemen indicate that they have “lost the city.” Meanwhile, journalists like Simen Sætre mock those who claim that there is some kind of Islamization underway.

Sætre is roughly the same age as I am, and grew up in the same country. He has also visited the Middle East several times. Apparently, what he learned from this was that the didn’t like the local traffic. I didn’t always like the traffic there, either, but that wasn’t the primary thing I learned from staying in the region.

Ironically, he admits that he had some negative experiences with aggressive local Muslims and their prejudice against non-Muslims. However, he chose to suppress his inner Islamophobe. Why did he do that?

In his book Sætre presents me as a “riddle” that he spends several hundred pages unlocking, using various psychological theories. He fails miserably because his basic premise is flawed.

I spent several years in the Middle East, and was able to study Islamic culture both in theory and in practice. I was shocked when I understood the nature of the clannish aggressiveness and cultural repression that we’re foolishly mass-importing. After coming to this realization , I was determined to fight against Islamic expansionism.

I have now provided a simple explanation in a couple of sentences of what Sætre failed to explain in a couple of hundred pages. My reaction was perfectly logical.

It might be relevant to ask why I chose writing as a way of fighting. A different person might have gone into politics instead. The answer is that I chose to write because this fits my personality profile. I judged that this is the field where I have my greatest talent, and could therefore make the greatest difference.

I’ve never harbored any political ambitions and know I am not suited for that task. About the closest I’ve come to a political career in my adult life was to be a supporting member of Amnesty International. Their work against torture of prisoners is laudable. However, I quit because I judged that too often Amnesty is just another left-wing organization that unquestioningly supports open borders and mass immigration to the West.

Yet in the end, I simply reacted to what I had seen first-hand. The riddle here is not to discover why I reacted to a very real problem. The riddle is why so many other people don’t do so.

Simen Sætre flaunts the fact that he is a father of minor children. So why is he not more concerned about the rising ethnic tensions that we are now importing every single day, and which his own children will inherit? Worst case scenario: we are creating ethnic conflicts that could take generations, even centuries, to resolve. Doesn’t that worry him even a little bit?

Sætre normally writes for the weekly Morgenbladet. This is not one of the largest papers even in Norway. That is, he writes for a small newspaper in a small country. He’s not important. Nor does he strike me as a particularly evil person. However, he represents a far larger group of people throughout the Western world who are disproportionately represented in our media. He may not be personally influential, but his mindset is.

People warned against the negative consequences of mass immigration as far back as in the 1960s and 1970s. I was born in 1975 and was a child in the ’80s. I didn’t get the right to vote until the mid-1990s. Many crucial decisions had been made years earlier. Nevertheless, I fully acknowledge that I was somewhat naïve in the 1990s. I’m not proud of it, but I admit it.

However, there is a limit to how naïve you are allowed to be. At what point do problems become so large and evident that you can no longer credibly say that you “didn’t know”? I suspect we are rapidly approaching that point right now, if we haven’t passed it already.

Roughly 1500 years ago, Europe was undergoing a process that has been dubbed the Migration Period. This was a time of upheaval associated with the fall of the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, the migration waves were then much more limited than they are now, and often involved internal migration within Europe. Pakistanis did not move to England in the sixth century, nor Nigerians to France.

Today we have intercontinental air travel, the Internet and satellite TV. People can travel across the planet within hours, and live there mentally as if they never left home.

In both speed and sheer numbers, the current waves of migration are totally unprecedented in recorded human history. They easily exceed those we associate with the fall of the Roman Empire. Illegal immigrants enter by the tens of thousands. Meanwhile, the response of Western authorities is to ease border controls. With the Schengen Agreement, the EU all but abolished internal border control across much of the European continent at a time when people-smuggling has become one of the world’s largest industries. This is suicidal.

When our governments and mass media know fully well how many negative side effects there are to the current immigration, they should no longer be able to promote the same policies with a straight face. Yet far too often they do precisely that.

We’ve already seen major riots involving immigrants in Western Europe. Not just in Paris, France or in London, England, but in 2013 also in Sweden. Marseilles, France’s second largest city, is increasingly becoming an Arab and African city. Street crime there is so bad that even Socialists from an immigrant background want the army to be set in to tackle gang warfare and restore order; the local police lost effective control long ago.

If this is the situation today, what will it be like 20 to 40 years from now if we continue further down the same path? The sensible thing to do would be to halt mass immigration and attempt to fix the problems we have now, instead of adding more problems. Yet Western authorities don’t do that. Despite mounting evidence of how harmful it is, they continue promoting an open border policy as before. At most they make cosmetic changes to appease increasingly frustrated citizens, but rarely do anything substantial. This is no longer acceptable or excusable.

The Titanic hit an iceberg and sank in 1912. This tragedy has often been used as to illustrate what is happening to Western civilization. Europe plunged into a devastating war merely two years after the Titanic went down. It would be tempting to compare present-day Europe to the Titanic, but even this would not be accurate. Those in control of the Titanic tried to steer away from the iceberg as soon as they spotted it. It was too late; they hit it and sank, anyway. Yet at the very least they made an attempt to change course, once they realized that disaster was imminent.

Those ruling Europe and the Western world today simply go full speed ahead, straight for the iceberg. Any objections are shouted down with accusations of ignorance, bigotry and icebergophobia.

We now need a change of course, not merely a change of rhetoric. If that doesn’t happen, it is unclear how much of European civilization will still exist by the end of this century.

Samposteret med Gates of Vienna, se  illustrationer og flere detaljer på linket.

Annoncer fra Danske Partner-Ads:


Donér engangsbeløb?Kan du forpligte dig til fast betaling?