8. april 2013


Information of USA


 It’s the Demography, Stupid

 The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.


Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There’ll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands–probably–just as in Istanbul there’s still a building called St. Sophia’s Cathedral. But it’s not a cathedral; it’s merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West. One obstacle to doing that is that, in the typical election campaign in your advanced industrial democracy, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society–government health care, government day care (which Canada’s thinking of introducing), govern ment paternity leave (which Britain’s just introduced). We’ve prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity–“Go forth and multiply,” because if you don’t you won’t be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare.

Americans sometimes don’t understand how far gone most of the rest of the developed world is down this path: In the Canadian and most Continental cabinets, the defense ministry is somewhere an ambitious politician passes through on his way up to important jobs like the health department. I don’t think Don Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health and Human Services.

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths–or, at any rate, virtues–and that’s why they’re proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam.

Speaking of which, if we are at war–and half the American people and significantly higher percentages in Britain, Canada and Europe don’t accept that proposition–then what exactly is the war about?

We know it’s not really a “war on terror.” Nor is it, at heart, a war against Islam, or even “radical Islam.” The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us.
There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it’s easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in “Palestine,” Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally.

Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it’s not what this thing’s about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It’s not the HIV that kills you, it’s the pneumonia you get when your body’s too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose–as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly. Which the smarter Islamists have figured out.

They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there’s an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.

That’s what the war’s about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder”–as can be seen throughout much of “the Western world” right now.

The progressive agenda–lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism–is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn’t involve knowing anything about other cultures–the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It’s fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don’t want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society.

It’s a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.Then September 11 happened. And bizarrely the reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, the prince of Wales did, the prime minister of the United Kingdom did, the prime minister of Canada did . . . The premier of Ontario didn’t, and so 20 Muslim community leaders had a big summit to denounce him for failing to visit a mosque. I don’t know why he didn’t. Maybe there was a big backlog, it was mosque drive time, prime ministers in gridlock up and down the freeway trying to get to the Sword of the Infidel-Slayer Mosque on Elm Street. But for whatever reason he couldn’t fit it into his hectic schedule. Ontario’s citizenship minister did show up at a mosque, but the imams took that as a great insult, like the Queen sending Fergie to open the Commonwealth Games. So the premier of Ontario had to hold a big meeting with the aggrieved imams to apologize for not going to a mosque and, as the Toronto Star’s reported it, “to provide them with reassurance that the provincial government does not see them as the enemy.”

Anyway, the get-me-to-the-mosque-on-time fever died down, but it set the tone for our general approach to these atrocities. The old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between the traffic light changing in New York and the first honk from a car behind. The new definition is the gap between a terrorist bombing and the press release from an Islamic lobby group warning of a backlash against Muslims. In most circumstances, it would be considered appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual “hate crime” by scaremongering about a purely hypothetical one. Needless to say, there is no campaign of Islamophobic hate crimes. If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes. A commenter on Tim Blair’s Web site in Australia summed it up in a note-perfect parody of a Guardian headline: “Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow Morning’s Terrorist Attack.” Those community leaders have the measure of us.

Radical Islam is what multiculturalism has been waiting for all along. In “The Survival of Culture,” I quoted the eminent British barrister Helena Kennedy, Queen’s Counsel. Shortly after September 11, Baroness Kennedy argued on a BBC show that it was too easy to disparage “Islamic fundamentalists.” “We as Western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves,” she complained. “We don’t look at our own fundamentalisms.”

Well, said the interviewer, what exactly would those Western liberal fundamentalisms be? “One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I’m not sure that’s true.”

Hmm. Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism. So you’re nice to gays and the Inuit? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of fellows like that, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti masochists. In other words, just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda.

For example, one day in 2004, a couple of Canadians returned home, to Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto. They were the son and widow of a fellow called Ahmed Said Khadr, who back on the Pakistani-Afghan frontier was known as “al-Kanadi.” Why? Because he was the highest-ranking Canadian in al Qaeda–plenty of other Canucks in al Qaeda, but he was the Numero Uno. In fact, one could argue that the Khadr family is Canada’s principal contribution to the war on terror. Granted they’re on the wrong side (if you’ll forgive my being judgmental) but no one can argue that they aren’t in the thick of things. One of Mr. Khadr’s sons was captured in Afghanistan after killing a U.S. Special Forces medic. Another was captured and held at Guantanamo. A third blew himself up while killing a Canadian soldier in Kabul. Pa Khadr himself died in an al Qaeda shootout with Pakistani forces in early 2004. And they say we Canadians aren’t doing our bit in this war!

In the course of the fatal shootout of al-Kanadi, his youngest son was paralyzed. And, not unreasonably, Junior didn’t fancy a prison hospital in Peshawar. So Mrs. Khadr and her boy returned to Toronto so he could enjoy the benefits of Ontario government health care. “I’m Canadian, and I’m not begging for my rights,” declared the widow Khadr. “I’m demanding my rights.”

As they always say, treason’s hard to prove in court, but given the circumstances of Mr. Khadr’s death it seems clear that not only was he providing “aid and comfort to the Queen’s enemies” but that he was, in fact, the Queen’s enemy. The Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal 22nd Regiment and other Canucks have been participating in Afghanistan, on one side of the conflict, and the Khadr family had been over there participating on the other side. Nonetheless, the prime minister of Canada thought Boy Khadr’s claims on the public health system was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his own deep personal commitment to “diversity.” Asked about the Khadrs’ return to Toronto, he said, “I believe that once you are a Canadian citizen, you have the right to your own views and to disagree.”

That’s the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: You can choose which side of the war you want to fight on. When the draft card arrives, just tick “home team” or “enemy,” according to taste. The Canadian prime minister is a typical late-stage Western politician: He could have said, well, these are contemptible people and I know many of us are disgusted at the idea of our tax dollars being used to provide health care for a man whose Canadian citizenship is no more than a flag of convenience, but unfortunately that’s the law and, while we can try to tighten it, it looks like this lowlife’s got away with it. Instead, his reflex instinct was to proclaim this as a wholehearted demonstration of the virtues of the multicultural state. Like many enlightened Western leaders, the Canadian prime minister will be congratulating himself on his boundless tolerance even as the forces of intolerance consume him.

That, by the way, is the one point of similarity between the jihad and conventional terrorist movements like the IRA or ETA. Terror groups persist because of a lack of confidence on the part of their targets: The IRA, for example, calculated correctly that the British had the capability to smash them totally but not the will. So they knew that while they could never win militarily, they also could never be defeated. The Islamists have figured similarly. The only difference is that most terrorist wars are highly localized. We now have the first truly global terrorist insurgency because the Islamists view the whole world the way the IRA view the bogs of Fermanagh: They want it, and they’ve calculated that our entire civilization lacks the will to see them off.

We spend a lot of time at The New Criterion attacking the elites, and we’re right to do so. The commanding heights of the culture have behaved disgracefully for the last several decades. But if it were just a problem with the elites, it wouldn’t be that serious: The mob could rise up and hang ’em from lampposts–a scenario that’s not unlikely in certain Continental countries. But the problem now goes way beyond the ruling establishment. The annexation by government of most of the key responsibilities of life–child-raising, taking care of your elderly parents–has profoundly changed the relationship between the citizen and the state. At some point–I would say socialized health care is a good marker–you cross a line, and it’s very hard then to persuade a citizenry enjoying that much government largesse to cross back. In National Review recently, I took issue with that line Gerald Ford always uses to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” Actually, you run into trouble long before that point: A government big enough to give you everything you want still isn’t big enough to get you to give anything back. That’s what the French and German political classes are discovering.

Go back to that list of local conflicts I mentioned. The jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you’re not shy about taking on the Israelis, the Russians, the Indians and the Nigerians, why wouldn’t you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Danes and New Zealanders? So the jihadists are for the most part doing no more than giving us a prod in the rear as we sleepwalk to the cliff. When I say “sleepwalk,” it’s not because we’re a blasé culture. On the contrary, one of the clearest signs of our decline is the way we expend so much energy worrying about the wrong things. If you’ve read Jared Diamond’s bestselling book “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” you’ll know it goes into a lot of detail about Easter Island going belly up because they chopped down all their trees. Apparently that’s why they’re not a G-8 member or on the U.N. Security Council. Same with the Greenlanders and the Mayans and Diamond’s other curious choices of “societies.” Indeed, as the author sees it, pretty much every society collapses because it chops down its trees.

Poor old Diamond can’t see the forest because of his obsession with the trees. (Russia’s collapsing even as it’s undergoing reforestation.) One way “societies choose to fail or succeed” is by choosing what to worry about. The Western world has delivered more wealth and more comfort to more of its citizens than any other civilization in history, and in return we’ve developed a great cult of worrying. You know the classics of the genre: In 1968, in his bestselling book “The Population Bomb,” the eminent scientist Paul Ehrlich declared: “In the 1970s the world will undergo famines–hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” In 1972, in their landmark study “The Limits to Growth,” the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993.

None of these things happened. In fact, quite the opposite is happening. We’re pretty much awash in resources, but we’re running out of people–the one truly indispensable resource, without which none of the others matter. Russia’s the most obvious example: it’s the largest country on earth, it’s full of natural resources, and yet it’s dying–its population is falling calamitously.The default mode of our elites is that anything that happens–from terrorism to tsunamis–can be understood only as deriving from the perniciousness of Western civilization. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, “Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.”

And even though none of the prognostications of the eco-doom blockbusters of the 1970s came to pass, all that means is that 30 years on, the end of the world has to be rescheduled. The amended estimated time of arrival is now 2032. That’s to say, in 2002, the United Nations Global Environmental Outlook predicted “the destruction of 70 percent of the natural world in thirty years, mass extinction of species. . . . More than half the world will be afflicted by water shortages, with 95 percent of people in the Middle East with severe problems . . . 25 percent of all species of mammals and 10 percent of birds will be extinct . . .”

Etc., etc., for 450 pages. Or to cut to the chase, as the Guardian headlined it, “Unless We Change Our Ways, The World Faces Disaster.”

Well, here’s my prediction for 2032: unless we change our ways the world faces a future . . . where the environment will look pretty darn good. If you’re a tree or a rock, you’ll be living in clover. It’s the Italians and the Swedes who’ll be facing extinction and the loss of their natural habitat.

There will be no environmental doomsday. Oil, carbon dioxide emissions, deforestation: none of these things is worth worrying about. What’s worrying is that we spend so much time worrying about things that aren’t worth worrying about that we don’t worry about the things we should be worrying about. For 30 years, we’ve had endless wake-up calls for things that aren’t worth waking up for. But for the very real, remorseless shifts in our society–the ones truly jeopardizing our future–we’re sound asleep.
The world is changing dramatically right now, and hysterical experts twitter about a hypothetical decrease in the Antarctic krill that might conceivably possibly happen so far down the road there are unlikely to be any Italian or Japanese enviro-worriers left alive to be devastated by it.

In a globalized economy, the environmentalists want us to worry about First World capitalism imposing its ways on bucolic, pastoral, primitive Third World backwaters. Yet, insofar as “globalization” is a threat, the real danger is precisely the opposite–that the peculiarities of the backwaters can leap instantly to the First World. Pigs are valued assets and sleep in the living room in rural China–and next thing you know an unknown respiratory disease is killing people in Toronto, just because someone got on a plane. That’s the way to look at Islamism: We fret about McDonald’s and Disney, but the big globalization success story is the way the Saudis have taken what was 80 years ago a severe but obscure and unimportant strain of Islam practiced by Bedouins of no fixed abode and successfully exported it to the heart of Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Manchester, Buffalo…

What’s the better bet? A globalization that exports cheeseburgers and pop songs or a globalization that exports the fiercest aspects of its culture? When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it’s hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they’re running out a lot faster than the oil is. “Replacement” fertility rate–i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller–is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common? Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you’ll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada’s fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That’s to say, Spain’s population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy’s population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria’s by 36%, Estonia’s by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans–and mostly red-state Americans.

As fertility shrivels, societies get older–and Japan and much of Europe are set to get older than any functioning societies have ever been. And we know what comes after old age. These countries are going out of business–unless they can find the will to change their ways. Is that likely? I don’t think so. If you look at European election results–most recently in Germany–it’s hard not to conclude that, while voters are unhappy with their political establishments, they’re unhappy mainly because they resent being asked to reconsider their government benefits and, no matter how unaffordable they may be a generation down the road, they have no intention of seriously reconsidering them. The Scottish executiverecently backed down from a proposal to raise the retirement age of Scottish public workers. It’s presently 60, which is nice but unaffordable. But the reaction of the average Scots worker is that that’s somebody else’s problem. The average German worker now puts in 22% fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable will propose closing the gap in any meaningful way.

This isn’t a deep-rooted cultural difference between the Old World and the New. It dates back all the way to, oh, the 1970s. If one wanted to allocate blame, one could argue that it’s a product of the U.S. military presence, the American security guarantee that liberated European budgets: instead of having to spend money on guns, they could concentrate on butter, and buttering up the voters. If Washington’s problem with Europe is that these are not serious allies, well, whose fault is that? Who, in the years after the Second World War, created NATO as a postmodern military alliance? The “free world,” as the Americans called it, was a free ride for everyone else. And having been absolved from the primal responsibilities of nationhood, it’s hardly surprising that European nations have little wish to reshoulder them. In essence, the lavish levels of public health care on the Continent are subsidized by the American taxpayer. And this long-term softening of large sections of the West makes them ill-suited to resisting a primal force like Islam.

There is no “population bomb.” There never was. Birthrates are declining all over the world–eventually every couple on the planet may decide to opt for the Western yuppie model of one designer baby at the age of 39. But demographics is a game of last man standing. The groups that succumb to demographic apathy last will have a huge advantage. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk should have understood that their so-called population explosion was really a massive population adjustment. Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for under 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30% of the world’s population to just over 20%, the Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%.

Nineteen seventy doesn’t seem that long ago. If you’re the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair’s less groovy, but the landscape of your life–the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge–isn’t significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified.

And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.

And by 2020?

So the world’s people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less “Western.” Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)–or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.

Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.

What will Europe be like at the end of this process? Who knows? On the one hand, there’s something to be said for the notion that America will find an Islamified Europe more straightforward to deal with than M. Chirac, Herr Schroeder & Co. On the other hand, given Europe’s track record, getting there could be very bloody. But either way this is the real battlefield. The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they’re flying planes into buildings for they’re likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock ’em over?
The latter half of the decline and fall of great civilizations follows a familiar pattern: affluence, softness, decadence, extinction. You don’t notice yourself slipping through those stages because usually there’s a seductive pol on hand to provide the age with a sly, self-deluding slogan–like Bill Clinton’s “It’s about the future of all our children.” We on the right spent the 1990s gleefully mocking Mr. Clinton’s tedious invocation, drizzled like syrup over everything from the Kosovo war to highway appropriations. But most of the rest of the West can’t even steal his lame bromides: A society that has no children has no future.

Permanence is the illusion of every age. In 1913, no one thought the Russian, Austrian, German and Turkish empires would be gone within half a decade. Seventy years on, all those fellows who dismissed Reagan as an “amiable dunce” (in Clark Clifford’s phrase) assured us the Soviet Union was likewise here to stay. The CIA analysts’ position was that East Germany was the ninth biggest economic power in the world. In 1987 there was no rash of experts predicting the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself.

Yet, even by the minimal standards of these wretched precedents, so-called post-Christian civilizations–as a prominent EU official described his continent to me–are more prone than traditional societies to mistake the present tense for a permanent feature. Religious cultures have a much greater sense of both past and future, as we did a century ago, when we spoke of death as joining “the great majority” in “the unseen world.” But if secularism’s starting point is that this is all there is, it’s no surprise that, consciously or not, they invest the here and now with far greater powers of endurance than it’s ever had. The idea that progressive Euro-welfarism is the permanent resting place of human development was always foolish; we now know that it’s suicidally so.

To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted. The CIA is predicting the EU will collapse by 2020. Given that the CIA’s got pretty much everything wrong for half a century, that would suggest the EU is a shoo-in to be the colossus of the new millennium. But even a flop spook is right twice a generation. If anything, the date of EU collapse is rather a cautious estimate. It seems more likely that within the next couple of European election cycles, the internal contradictions of the EU will manifest themselves in the usual way, and that by 2010 we’ll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on American network news every night. Even if they avoid that, the idea of a childless Europe ever rivaling America militarily or economically is laughable. Sometime this century there will be 500 million Americans, and what’s left in Europe will either be very old or very Muslim. Japan faces the same problem: Its
population is already in absolute decline, the first gentle slope of a death spiral it will be unlikely ever to climb out of. Will Japan be an economic powerhouse if it’s populated by Koreans and Filipinos? Very possibly. Will Germany if it’s populated by Algerians? That’s a trickier proposition.

Best-case scenario? The Continent winds up as Vienna with Swedish tax rates.

Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner–and we’re already seeing a drift in that direction.

In July 2003, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Tony Blair remarked: “As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?”

Excellent question. Britannia will never again wield the unrivalled power she enjoyed at her imperial apogee, but the Britannic inheritance endures, to one degree or another, in many of the key regional players in the world today–Australia, India, South Africa–and in dozens of island statelets from the Caribbean to the Pacific. If China ever takes its place as an advanced nation, it will be because the People’s Republic learns more from British Hong Kong than Hong Kong learns from the Little Red Book. And of course the dominant power of our time derives its political character from 18th-century British subjects who took English ideas a little further than
the mother country was willing to go.

A decade and a half after victory in the Cold War and end-of-history triumphalism, the “what do you leave behind?” question is more urgent than most of us expected. “The West,” as a concept, is dead, and the West, as a matter of demographic fact, is dying.

What will London–or Paris, or Amsterdam–be like in the mid-’30s? If European politicians make no serious attempt this decade to wean the populace off their unsustainable 35-hour weeks, retirement at 60, etc., then to keep the present level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035. As things stand, Muslims are already the primary source of population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?

This ought to be the left’s issue. I’m a conservative–I’m not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I’m with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? Who, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West’s collapsed birthrates? Even if one were to take the optimistic view that Europe will be able to resist the creeping imposition of Sharia currently engulfing Nigeria, it remains the case that the Muslim world is not notable for setting much store by “a woman’s right to choose,” in any sense.
I watched that big abortion rally in Washington in 2004, where Ashley Judd and Gloria Steinem were cheered by women waving “Keep your Bush off my bush” placards, and I thought it was the equivalent of a White Russian tea party in 1917. By prioritizing a “woman’s right to choose,” Western women are delivering their societies into the hands of fellows far more patriarchal than a 1950s sitcom dad. If any of those women marching for their “reproductive rights” still have babies, they might like to ponder demographic realities: A little girl born today will be unlikely, at the age of 40, to be free to prance around demonstrations in Eurabian Paris or Amsterdam chanting “Hands off my bush!”

Just before the 2004 election, that eminent political analyst Cameron Diaz appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show to explain what was at stake:

“Women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. . . . If you think that rape should be legal, then don’t vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body,” she advised Oprah’s viewers, “then you should vote.”

Poor Cameron. A couple of weeks later, the scary people won. She lost all rights to her body. Unlike Alec Baldwin, she couldn’t even move to France. Her body was grounded in Terminal D.

But, after framing the 2004 presidential election as a referendum on the right to rape, Miss Diaz might be interested to know that men enjoy that right under many Islamic legal codes around the world. In his book “The Empty Cradle,” Philip Longman asks: “So where will the children of the future come from? Increasingly they will come from people who are at odds with the modern world. Such a trend, if sustained, could drive human culture off its current market-driven, individualistic, modernist course, gradually creating an anti-market culture dominated by fundamentalism–a new Dark Ages.”

Bottom line for Cameron Diaz: There are worse things than John Ashcroft out there.

Mr. Longman’s point is well taken. The refined antennae of Western liberals mean that whenever one raises the question of whether there will be any Italians living in the geographical zone marked as Italy a generation or three hence, they cry, “Racism!” To fret about what proportion of the population is “white” is grotesque and inappropriate. But it’s not about race, it’s about culture. If 100% of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy, it doesn’t matter whether 70% of them are “white” or only 5% are. But if one part of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy and the other doesn’t, then it becomes a matter of great importance whether the part that does is 90% of the population or only 60%, 50%, 45%.

Since the president unveiled the so-called Bush Doctrine–the plan to promote liberty throughout the Arab world–innumerable “progressives” have routinely asserted that there’s no evidence Muslims want liberty and, indeed, that Islam is incompatible with democracy. If that’s true, it’s a problem not for the Middle East today but for Europe the day after tomorrow. According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah–in the United Kingdom. If a population “at odds with the modern world” is the fastest-breeding group on the planet–if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions–how safe a bet is the survival of the “modern world”?

Not good.

“What do you leave behind?” asked Tony Blair. There will only be very few and very old ethnic Germans and French and Italians by the midpoint of this century. What will they leave behind? Territories that happen to bear their names and keep up some of the old buildings? Or will the dying European races understand that the only legacy that matters is whether the peoples who will live in those lands after them are reconciled to pluralist, liberal democracy? It’s the demography, stupid. And, if they can’t muster the will to change course, then “What do you leave behind?” is the only question that matters.

Mr. Steyn is a syndicated columnist and theater critic for The New Criterion, in whose January issue this article appears.


After America, bestseller

Steyn’s 2011 must-read was a Top Five Washington Post bestseller, a Top Four New York Times bestseller, a Top Four Amazon bestseller, a Top Three Globe & Mail bestseller in Canada, and a Number One bestseller at Amazon Canada. And now it’s out in paperback, with a brand new introduction and more timely than ever in the wake of the US elections.

Stikord herfra

17. december 2012

Europas sidste dage


Schriftsteller Henryk Broder: “Wir erleben die lezten Tage Europas”

Amerikansk videnskabsmand og offentlig intellektuel med indgående kendskab til Europa sagde det samme med bog for treethalvt år siden: https://danmark.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/europas-sidste-dage-the-last-days-of-europe/


Da europæerne ikke sætter sig op mod magthaverne, men lader det køre, er der ikke noget at gøre.

2. april 2011


19. oktober 2010: Københavns Lufthavnspoliti skønner, at manglende kontrol betyder, at der døgnet rundt rejser 300 til 400 illegalt ind i landet.

Vi skrev den 19. oktober 2010: Mellem 110.000 og 140.000 østerlændinge og mellemøstlige tager over broen fra Sverige pr. år (300-400 om dagen refererede DRTTV dengang Politiet for at have oplyst), fordi de kan uden mindste kontrol og sikkert også et kæmpeantal oveni tager færgerne Göteborg-Frederikshavn og Helsingborg-Helsingør, fordi de forræderiske danske politikere lader det ske. Vi skrev: At de ikke brækker sig af skam. Nu forstås måske hvorfor kriminaliteten blandt unge indvandrere og deres børn skulle falde i følge Rockwoolfonden (= regeringens tænketank) og hvorfor hjemmerøverier i følge nyansat journalist angiveligt skulle udføres fortrinsvis af danskerne (Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten den 30. januar 2010)

Der sker ikke noget. Vi kan ikke omgå Schengen, selvom

der var kæmpedemonstrationer med præcis argumentet,

at de ville vælte ind, før Schengen ratificeredes for snart

16 år siden.

Vi må gå ud fra at politikerne ønsker denne illegale indvandring og hvad dermed følger. Herved kan vi få nogle flere hjemmerøverier og andet godt. Antallet af hjemmerøverer svigtede også lidt i 2010, med mindre de er blevet lagt i en anden gerningskategori (set før i anden statistisk sammenhæng). Antallet af denne hidtil meget udanske forbrydelse faldt fra 364 i 2009 til 289 i 2010. Det kan også bero på tilfældigheder, hvis det er et enkelt år.

Der pågyndes her i foråret en billig flyrute Gdansk-Århus til kr. 133 pr. enkelttur. Nu har vi så byggeprojekter i byen for 28 mia. kr., og i forvejen en gæld på 5-6 mia. kr., så der var forsøgsvis besparelser på gadebelysningen i sommeren 2010 foruden selvfølgelig nedskæringer hele vejen rundt blandt de svageste, især. [Vi har overvejet lidt hvorledes en kommune afvikler en gæld, når skatterne ikke kan hæves og skattegrundlaget smuldrer. Donationer?]

Uanset bliver det spændende at se, hvem der får mest ud af den manglende gadebelysning; der slukkes også gadelys i Silkeborg og i flere andre jyske byer – lidt svarende til forholdene i den vist hedengangne gamle østblok, apropos. Også flere sydøsteuropæere får nu direkte adgang til at rejse til landet og ud igen uden kontrol efter EU’s bestemmelser herunder Schengen-aftalen. 8. november 2010: Trods bekymringer i flere medlemslande godkender EU en ny visumaftale, som sikrer albanere og bosniere visumfri indrejse i EU. Og så skal vi oveni have nogle flere nord- eller måske nærmere syd- og mellemafrikanere, som vi selv jager herop fra bl.a. Libyen. Det kører simpelthen som i olie.

Mon Jericos Mure holder meget længere – det kan jeg med god grund tvivle på.

9. november 2010


EU er gået amok



“EU åbner grænserne for Balkanlande

Offentliggjort 08.11.10 kl. 13:50

Trods bekymringer i flere medlemslande godkender EU en ny visumaftale, som sikrer albanere og bosniere visumfri indrejse i EU.

EU’s medlemslande har godkendt en ny visumaftale med Albanien og Bosnien-Hercegovina. Dermed kan borgerne fra de to balkanlande allerede fra midten af december rejse ind i Schengen-området uden krav om visum…”

9. februar 2010

Her er dagens Danmark – The day of Denmark

Tiden er kendetegnet ved form uden indhold

The time is characterized by form without contents

Link: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Shown as clear as the day in 2007 (click at the arrow above)

21. november 2009


Protestbevægelsen har fået ret i sine centrale afsløringer om befolkningsstatistikken, fremmeudgifterne og kriminalitetens beskrivelse – uden at det indrømmes i andet end småbidder langt væk fra TV-skærmen :

Først var det en lektor i demografi (befolkningsstatistik) Hans Oluf Hansen i Berlingske Tidende den 20. august 2005, så Rockwool Fonden den 25. november 2006, så Velfærdskommissionen i referat i Børsen den 1. december 2005, og også en tidligere embedsmand, der var kommet i Folketinget, sneg sig ind og som skiltede med brudstykker af nogle kritiske kendsgerninger den 2. oktober 2006 i fire store aviser, kendsgerninger som IoD havde bragt ud til offentligheden samlet og dækkende 15 år tidligere. Hans chef Bertel Haarder sendte den nyindvalgtes politikers overvejelser i syltekrukke.

Information om Danmark så det som sin pligt uanset prisen fra starten i 1991 at vise mere ærligt, hvorledes tingene hænger sammen, og hvorfra magten reelt udøves i håb om, at de, der var holdt op med at stole på politikerne, der i øvrigt ikke har ret meget magt, ville tage bladet fra munden. Vi var selvfølgelig stærkt inspireret af de utallige bedrag knyttende sig til masseindvandringen og bedragene om EU. IoD skrev på visitkortet:

“IoD indsamler og viderebringer den politisk ukorrekte information. Mental-robotterne vil ikke kende den, fordi sandheden truer det cyberspace eller glansbillede, som autoriteterne fodrer dem med dagligt.”

Masseindvandringen: Hvordan kom de første

Projekt Europa lagt i stram tidstabel: Eurabia på faste gænger

IoD rettede især energien mod mulige pionerer for sandheden, fordi de rå statements var og skulle være politikernes. Det viste sig imidlertid, at danskerne i almindelighed var næsten ligeglade med deres lands skæbne, eller de gad/gider i hvert fald ikke bruge energi på at tilegne sig reel information, så de kunne/kan svare sikkert igen på løgnene.

Selvom dette netop var det eneste, der skulle til for, at løgnene ikke kunne viderebringes.

Det blev i stedet dansk nykultur at undvige enhver selvstændig vurdering af og stillingtagen til snart sagt alt (marionetter er vi blevet). D. v. s. hundrede procent accept af den politisk korrekte indstilling, aktivt eller stiltiende.

Der var så en hel del, der gerne ville underholdes eller bekræftes præcis som de blogbesøgende i 2009. Disse typer havde vi dengang rendende privat til kaffe og småkager i slutningen af 1980-erne. I dem var ikke noget arbejde, der kunne bringe sagerne videre. IoD valgte allerede fra midten af 1990erne ikke at bruge energi på de passive.

IoD ville have vore landsmænd til at holde op med at tie og gemme sig, og ville have dem op af lænestolene, hvor de alt for længe havde/har siddet for mageligt. Helt centralt tog IoD fra midten af 1990-erne flere problemstillinger op, end de indtil da eksisterende organisationer “i branchen” havde gjort.

At de overbeviste kulturradikalister og internationalister, som eliten og dens håndgangne består af, eventuelt skulle komme på bedre tanker, kan du lade helt ude af betragtning. Der skal voldsomt negative personlige erfaringer af multikulturel karakter til, og selv i sådanne tilfælde, er det vores erfaring, at ideologien, der grundlaget for hele deres tilværelse, ikke forkastes. I alle tilfælde ville tidsfaktoren være så altdominerende, at det meste ville være spildt i alle tilfælde. Hele deres liv bygger på en løgn og omfatter alt.

Alt peger på folk ikke tager sig sammen denne gang. Uden en folkelig front mod det værste, der starter med løgnene, kommer vi ingen vegne. Landet vil så gå tabt, inden dine små børn bliver voksne, hvis det fortsætter cirka som nu. Dette er ikke noget man kan stole på eller lade være at stole på; det er såmænd ren matematik. Danskerne og andre europæiske nationers folk skal turde at ofre lidt af deres sikkerhed, ellers kommer der ingen mærkbare ændringer i den lagte dødssejler-kurs, vurderer vi herfra.

Det var blevet tydeligt for mange, også uden for de mere eller mindre hemmelige selskaber, at det ikke kun var bedrageri og løgne om indvandringen, om arbejdsløsheden og løgne om EU fra danske politikere, medierne, fagbevægelsen, arbejdsgiverforeningerne, skoler, institutioner og f. eks. indvandrer-industrien. Næsten alle de centrale afsløringer om indvandringen kom fra nogle ganske få i “branchen”- cirka 5000 støttede med få midler og meget arbejde.

De blev officielt beskyldt for og kaldt stort set alt nedsættende, udelukkende for at lukke munden på dem, når de fortalte sandheden, der i hvert fald er det modsatte af løgn. De blev overfaldet på gaden, og når de gik til møder, modtog mordtrusler pr. telefon og fik også jævnligt trusselsbreve pr. brev, senere pr. email. De få, der havde meldt sig uden videre, var frygtløse og velorienterede individer, der ikke lod sig skræmme til at indstille kampen p.g.a. ubegavede trusler. En trussel er overflødig, hvis man ikke ændrer sit handlingsmønster. Præcis som under sidste krig.

Smædekampagnerne i gammelmarxistisk stil kørte for fuld gas. IoD tilstræbte at holde sig væk fra den gængse politik, når det ikke netop drejede sig om disse for os eksistens-spørgsmål, i hvert fald for vore børn og deres efterkommere.

Hvordan begyndte det?

Lidt om baggrunden:

Vi fortalte sandheden – det modsatte af løgn, som propaganda-medierne bringer – om bl.a. indvandringen fra Bosnien-Herzegovina 1991-1993 efter det internationale samfunds skæbnesvangre indblanding i konflikten. Vi fortsatte i 1999 med at fortælle sandheden om det, der foregik og foregår i Kosovo.

IOD startede som en protestbevægelse i begyndelsen af 1990-erne. Vi uddelte 110.000 løbesedler til alle brevsprækker i de mere end 100 områder, hvor der blev taget en flygtningeby i brug til midlertidig indhusning af de nye indvandrere, hvoraf 9 udaf 10 i dag er flyttet i dansk lejlighed eller tvangsauktionet bolig pr. diskriminerende særlov. Fra begyndelsen af 1990-erne var vi også begyndt at efterforske svaret på spørgsmålet: Hvorfor blev Danmark og Europa gjort til indvandreområder, når enhver ærlig efterhånden kunne se, at konsekvensen måtte blive nationernes opløsning efter en krig, der blev mere og mere uundgåelig?

Samtidig lagde vi mærke til at flere andre vigtige emner ikke blev behandlet troværdigt. Arbejdsløsheden, kriminaliteten, statsgælden, de europæiske integrationsbestræbelser. Der var intet reelt indhold i ret mange af nyhederne på skærmen og for såvidt ej heller i dagbladene. Det var mest form, stemning suppleret med bekræftelses-interviev – på bekostning af kendsgerninger og indhold.

Der var sket noget andet også: Noget med skolebørnene og de unge. Kundskabstilegnelsen var tilsyneladende blevet skubbet i baggrunden. Historien (f.eks.) havde man intet kendskab til. Af gode grunde, der blev ikke længere undervist i faget historie. Der var alle mulige andre problemer i samme forbindelse. Læse og skrive kunne op imod halvdelen af eleverne heller ikke efter 9-10 års skolegang.

Men det var ikke det eneste…. Hvilke kendetegn har den demokratiske styreform fået, den styreform som vi stort set alle i princippet priser. Velstanden blev udskiftet med tildelt velfærd. De formelle magthavere og de materielle ressourcer skabt af flittige og dygtige europæere blev én front i konflikten, der opstod.

En uddannelseseksplosion i Nordeuropa førte op imod halvdelen af en ungdomsårgang i 1990-erne paradoksalt nok til en studieforberedende uddannelse med endestation i den bureaukratiske sektor, en anden front. Kampen om kundskaberne eller kampen mod kundskaberne…?

En del af disse unge syntes at tro de kom op i universet – op til sandheden eller hvad overtroen ellers byder på – ved at gå på universitetet. Der skabtes de gangbare ideologier, som havde de reelle magthavernes bevågenhed og samtidig gav kandidaterne de eftertragtede kvalifikationer, først og fremmest. Alt var nyt og smart, alt var brugbart, hvis det vel at mærke passede ind i den lagte ideologibaserede plan.

Sandheden er (det,) hvad du tror på(?) (bogmanuskript)

For eksempel nationaløkonomitermerne blev efter Den anden Verdenskrig ikke forstået af ret mange mennesker. Ordene var sort snak, dyre begreber, som kun nogle få forstod efter lang tids studium. Det gav den ønskede rollefordeling. Det var der en helt oplagt, ganske selvindlysende årsag til. Der skete noget med individerne, bl.a. via opdragelsen og den usande TV- og mediekultur, og socialismen markedsførtes på ny i 1960-erne og 1970-erne, da børnene født under eller lige efter krigen var vokset til.

Nu fik Europa det skidt efter Europa-opbygningen og Den anden Verdenskrig og opgangen i 1950-erne og 1960-erne. Der er en verden uden for Europa, der kastede det formelle koloniherredømme af sig og stillede krav om en tilværelse. Aktiviteten var nu truet i et Europa – langt mere end det berettedes i medierne – et Europa, hvor alt havde været muligt. Dynamikken forsvandt tilsyneladende med ansvaret, og statsgælden voksede påny som i 1920-erne og 1930-erne. Der kunne tales om statsgælden igen som et problem, men ikke seriøst i det brede forum og slet ikke blandt tidens dagsordensættere af den politiske korrekthed.

Pludselig var statsgælden væk 31. marts 2006 – det var løgn

Ikke ganske uvæsentligt supplement fra en lokalradio 9 år tidligere

Sandheden er måske det, man kan få folk til at tro.

Der var lagt planer for et helt nyt Europa, et integreret Europa, en forbundsstat eller et statsforbund. Her kunne ansvarforflygtigelsen måske fortsætte. Vi valgte at redegøre for den del af historien, der angår de forældede økonomibetragtningers tilblivelse – fordi ét af de stærkeste instrumenter i udviklingen ligger her – og den menneskelige ulykke, der skal findes i, at alt for mange individer synes at gå til grunde umiddelbart fra starten af deres skoletid.

Europa må kæmpe for sin arv

Børnene og de unge er helt uden skyld, det skal understreges.

Der førtes en anden krig end den fysiske under Den anden Verdenskrig, en finansiel krig. Et grundigt gennemprøvet tysk eksperimental-psykologisk projekt fra 1800-tallet erobrede opdragelses- og undervisningssystemet i U.S.A. før 2. Verdenskrig. Efter 2. Verdenskrig gjaldt det Europa. Der var lagt en plan for Europa, en for verden, længe forinden du blev født. Den Nye Verdens Orden eller Abernes Planet kan slutmålet kaldes alt efter smag.

Folkeskolen er brudt sammen

Folkeskolerne islamiseringsanstalter

Information om Danmark er således en kreds af danskere, der gør en indsats for at afsløre væsentlige løgne om forholdene i Danmark og Europa. Fra officielt hold lyves dag ud og dag ind. Billedet, der tegnes af virkeligheden derfra, og som demokratisk indstillede borgere skal tage bestik af, bliver mere og mere falsk.

Danmark et foregangsland, hævder en af dem vi stolede på – efter 8 årig ‘gloværdig karriere’ på de bonede gulve


22. oktober 2009

Europas selvmord, 1. del – artikel af mexicansk-libanesiske forfatter Eduardo Farah

Europas selvmord, 1. del

Af Eduardo Farah

Februar 1989

[med vore ajourføringer for de seneste 20 år]

Er Europa ved at begå selvmord? Det mener forfatteren. Han er dansk gift mexicaner af kristen libanesisk familie. Han har været politisk fange på Cuba og er varm tilhænger af asylprincippet. Men han mener, at asylreglerne misbruges groft i Europa for øjeblikket [vort: i 1989 og misbruget fortsætter], og prisen herfor betales af de alvorligt nødlidende i den 3. verden, som berøves ressourcer gennem det, der sker. Han har udgivet en bog herom, som er oversat til dansk: “Økologisk Ideologi” (forlaget Stavnsager, 1987).

Europa som tomrum

En fysisk lov siger, at tomrum altid blive udfyldt.

Det gælder også for befolkningsmæssige tomrum. En tilsvarende biologisk lov siger, at enhver art til stadighed søger mod de bedste muligheder for artens overlevelse og ekspansion.

I Vesteuropa findes i dag en veludbygget infrastruktur, der resultatet af 3 tusinde års hårdt arbejde og genialitet. Der findes vejsystemer, kanaler, kommunikationsnet af alle arter, huse, byer, rent vand, kloaksystemer, skoler på alle niveayer, hospitaler og masser af føde. Men hvert år er skoler nødt til at lukke, fordi der ikke er tilstrækkelig mange børn. Samtidig udvides omsorgssystemet for de gamle, som forholdsmæsssigt er blevet en langt større befolkningsgruppe. Huse og hjem, byer og hele infrastrukturen er der imidlertid stadig; og når befolkningstallet daler, står alt dette uudnyttet hen. Der opstår et vakuum.

I Vesteuropa findes verdens bedste og mest udbredte velfærdssystem. Dette er udviklet så vidt, at den egentlige fattigdom er udryddet. Hvadenten man har arbejde eller ej, vil der være sikret en sådan indkomst, at en familie vil kunne leve et rimeligt liv. Vesteuopas naboer mod øst har ikke store muligheder for at emigrere dertil (1989), selv om de måtte have lyst til det. Anderledes ser det imidlertid ud imod syd og sydøst, hvor de islamiske naboer både er meget fattigere og har et voldsomt voksende indbyggertal. I Nordafrika og Mellemøsten må indbyggerne er kende, at deres lande reelt er overbefolkede, samt jorden er mere eller mindre nedbrudt og ufrugtbar.

Jeg har undersøgt befolkningsudviklingen. Denne undersøgelse synes at vise, at i år 1900 blev der for hvert barn født i Vesteuropa også født et barn i de islamiske lande. I dag bliver der derimod for hvert barn født i Vesteuropa født 10 i vore islamiske nabolande. Om 25-30 år vil forholdet være 1:20. I begyndelsen af det næste århundrede vil befolkningstallet i Nordafrika og Mellemøsten overstige Europa – og det vil vel at mærke være en befolkning, som er langt yngre end Europas. Europa vil derfor i forhold til disse områder komme til at virke som et dragende tomrum.

I dag (1989) er fødselsraten i alle europæiske lande på nær Irland for lille til at sikre befolkningstallet. Hver kvinde får i gennemsnit kun mellem 1,3 og 1,9 børn [2009: Tyskland, Italien og Spanien: 1-1,2 børn], hvor der skal ca. 2,1 til at fastholde befolkningstallet. Det betyder, at hver generation vil blive mellem ca. 10% og 40% mindre end den foregående.

Denne proces kan illustreres med tal fra dansk statistik, som viser den aktuelle virkelighed. Det gennemsnitlige fødselstal pr. kvinde er nemlig her nede på 1,5, hvilket betyder, at hver ny generation vil være 30% mindre end den foregående.

[Dette 1,5 var gennemsnittet for alle kvinder, samme gennemsnit i dag hævet til 1,78 udelukkende som følge af indvandringen i den mellemliggende 20 årsperiode. Danske kvinder føder omkring 1,2 barn i gennemsnit i 2009]

I 1960erne havde Vesteuropa brug for arbejdskraft, så man indbød eller accepterede omkring 1 million arbejderere fra islamiske lande som arbejdskraft. Det var hovedsaglig unge mænd, der pludselig kom til at opleve en dramatisk stigning i levestandard. Selv sammenlignet med en velstående person i deres egne landsbyer i hjemlandet. De underrettede deres slægtninge og venner for at få dem til at følge efter, hvilket de gjorde i stort tal.

I de vesteuropæiske lande er der lovgivning, der tillader familiesammenføring, indvandring og modtagelse af flygtninge. Disse love er blevet udnyttet både legalt og illegalt så vidt, at det nu kan skønnes, at sådanne indvandrere i Vesteuropa i dag andrager mere end 12 mio. (i 1989, i 2013 ca. 40 mill.) hovedsaglig yngre mennesker med familier på 4-6 børn  Det svarer til 3,5 % af det samlede folketal (i 1989) , men til en langt større andel af børnene. [Antallet i 2009 skønnes kvalificeret at ligge på 30-50 mio., og det svarer til ca 12-15% af folketallet i Vesteuropa.]
2. del af Europas Selvmord

5. marts 2009


Filed under: Arabization, Balkan, CO2, Crimes, Culture, Danmark, Demographics, Dhimmi, Dhimmitude, Economics, Education, Environment, Eurabia, Euro-Arabic Axis, Europa, Europe, European Integration, Fertility, Finanskrise, folkeskolen, Free Speech, global opvarmning, Globalopvarmning, History, Holland, Immigrants, Immigration, Islam, Jihad, Justice, Klima, Kosovo, Naturalisation, Naturalization, Norge, Oil, propaganda, Science, Serbia, skoler, Statistics, Sverige, Sweden, Terror, USA, Værdikrise, War, Welfare — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Therese @ 10:30

Arrogant uvidenhed – kaldes den

menneskelige egenskab, tilstand eller

attitude, der blokerer sammen med



Det er ikke så svært at forstå eller blive bragt til at forstå, hvorfor situationen med bandekrig i og omkring København hele tiden skærpes, og hvorfor hele udviklingsmønstret tydeligt ser ud til at kunne føre mod krigstilstand overalt i landet.

Det forudsætter kun at ‘de store spørgsmålstegn’ åbner ørene og lukker munden: Andre var langt klogere end I var allerede i slutningen 1980erne, og de kunne derfor på grundlag af viden og indhøstede erfaringer andre steder fra med sikkerhed forudsige, hvorledes det ville gå, når indvandringen fortsatte til Danmark.

Der var ikke strålende karrierer, der stillede sig hindrende i vejen for sandheden blandt de forudseende. I troede I gjorde en forskel. Ja, troede…

At krigen starter blandt dem, der har pengene at købe våben og transportmidler for, skal man ikke undre sig over. Det var de narkohandlende bander.

Nu er det forhåbentlig ved at være slut med de beroligende historier til os intetanende og måske også slut med de overlegne til tider overbærende og samtidig arrogante smil fra eliten til undersåtterne foran skærmene.

Se, det var ikke pøblen der valgte at orientere danskerne i tide (for 20 år siden), selvom I beskyldte dem for alt undtaget pædofili og landsforræderi, men det er pøblen der tager over på gadeplan fra nu af. Præcis, som man ikke gad høre. Og når man ikke vil høre, så må man føle. En livsvisdom der stadig gælder ganske uantastet af diverse sindssyge vedtagelser og ditto undladelser i FT.

Længere er den ikke.


8. januar 2009

Hvad du skal vide om Islam



Islam er en retsreligion, der

sætter Koranen over dansk lov.

Koranen står over staten.

Islam bygger på tanken om, at al autoritet er hos Allah. Allah er almægtig, allestedsnærværende – og har også den øverste autoritet i jordiske anliggender. Muslimen skal altså ikke – som efter den kristne trosopfattelse – give Kejseren hvad Kejserens er, og Gud, hvad Guds er:

Livets inderste quint-essens, der som sjæl føler sig indespærret i det menneskelige legeme og stedse stræber efter at vende tilbage den (Gud), der udsendte den, sagde Leonardo Da’Vinci, som det sidste den 2. maj 1519. Dette skal du forstå, menneske, thi dette er naturens inderste hemmelighed. Leonardo er ét de få universalgenier verden har set. Han udforskede alt omkring sig på mest banebrydende, mest udførlige og gennemgribende måde og skabte utallige enestående kunstværker, der vil blive elsket til evig tid, såfremt de består. Leonardo Da’Vinci var naturligvis af denne verden, men han vidste han hørte til andetsteds.

 Vi holdt op med at sammenblande religion og samfundsindretning allerede i 1500-tallet.

Ja, det holdt hårdt. Vi kom desværre også med i 30-årskrigen. Det var magten omkring den katolske kirke, der kæmpedes imod.

Den Danske Grundlov, som desværre overtrædes af politikerne dagligt, er i virkeligheden borgernes eneste beskyttelse mod magtmisbrug fra magthaverne.

 – 90% mener, at det er bedst på længere sigt at tilstræbe, at flygtningene kan komme tilbage til deres eget land (Gallup, Berlingeren 14/2 1993)

 – 72 % mener, at Danmark skal fastholde en særlig dansk kultur og ikke i fremtiden skal være multietnisk (Gallup, Berlingeren 8/1 1995)

 – 65% mener, at det vil være til skade for verden, hvis Islam bliver væsentlig mere udbredt. (Gallup, Berlingske Tidende 10/4-88)

 I Indonesien har muslimer afbrændt 500 kirker på 10 år, ifølge  TV 2 den 30/11-98.

I Sudan indfanger muslimerne små pigebørn, mishandler dem og sælger dem som slaver. Libanon var et blomstrende land, indtil muslimerne fik magten. Magten havde de, da de nåede 30%.

 Når vi danskere ikke går så meget i kirke, er det fordi vi ikke behøver det. Vores tro er et privat forhold mellem Gud og den enkelte. Det skal staten og politikerne ikke blande sig i. Derimod er vi som kristne enkeltmennesker sat i valg mellem godt og ondt.

Godt og ondt i Islam er på mange punkter det stik modsatte af vores.

Næsten alt i vores liv er bestemt af de værdier og koder, der ligger i Kristendommen. Tag De Ti Bud: Du må ikke lyve. Du må ikke stjæle. Din næste betyder din nærmeste.

F.eks. gælder dette ikke for en muslim i forhold til os vantro.

 Den danske Folkekirke er folkets kirke. Staten skal ikke blande sig i forkyndelsen. Men Den danske Folkekirke er som sådan understøttet af staten. Andre trossamfund støttes ikke af staten. 90% i Danmark er medlemmer af Folkekirken. Og vor Konge eller Dronning skal være kristen. 


Som ild og vand:


 Essensen bag når en moderat muslim forgæves skal forsøge at tale en dansker ned:

 I er ikke religiøse, siger muslimen, for I går ikke i kirke. I giver ikke religionsfrihed, for så kunne jeg, som er muslim, få min vilje. Så I er racister, siger muslimen, når han ikke kan få sin vilje. Min vilje er Allahs vilje, og den vil I modsætte jer, fordi I ikke er troende. Særlov, særlov og særret og særret, indtil der er to slags lov og ret i landet, en for muslimerne og en for danskerne. Til allersidst: en lov for muslimer. Det muslimske fællesskab bygger alene på religiøs tro.

Al muslimsk viden står i Koranen.


Essensen bag en almindelig dansker, der aldrig bringes til at forstå en muslim:


 Vi går ikke så meget i kirke, men det fordi vi ikke behøver det, og vi har heller ikke fået pålagt af vores Gud at gøre det. Vi ved godt at alt i os, ethvert ja, ethvert nej til hvad som helst udspringer af kristendommen og vesteuropæisk 1000 årig kultur. Som kristne er vi hver af os sat af Gud i valget mellem godt og ondt. Vor næste er vor nærmeste. Det ser mest ud som om vore ledere vil have at vor næste er de mest fremmede.

Allerede i 1500-tallet fandt vi ud af at adskille Guds og Kejseren Rige – med Martin Luther og Reformationen. Uden denne adskillelse gør de gestlige og verdensfrelserne sig til noget overjordisk, men da de ikke er det, og så bliver der hver gang krig. Vi vil fred her til lands. Det danske fællesskab bygger på fælles værdier og arven fra vore forældre og bedsteforældre o.s.v.

Al dansk viden bygger på friheden, som er en europæisk opfindelse, nysgerrigheden, erfaringen, historien og traditionen.

I øvrigt mener jeg, at straffeloven bør revideres, således at hjælp og støtte til masseindvandring kan straffes på linie med hjælp og støtte til fremmede magter. (“Landsforræderi”). 


De tager vores historie, vores sprog og vores nation – vort liv:


 Danskerne er ved at blive historieløse. Børnene lærer ikke historie mere i skolen. Det er sket helt på beregning. Magthaverne kan så lettere få krammet på os.

Et folk uden viden om dets nationale historien er slet ikke noget folk, men en flok.

 Al vor viden og kunnen bygger på friheden, som er en europæisk opfindelse, på erfaringen og traditionen. Alt dette sammen med sproget og kristendommens værdier er smeltet sammen gennem en 1000 årig udvikling.

 Når børnene og de voksne gøres historieløse og sproget ødelægges, mister de let hele deres identitet. Men det er også meningen. Så opstår det berømte tomrum i de berørte mennesker, og så kan alt være lige godt og dermed ligemeget. Så føler mennesket sig ene og forladt.

 Derefter kan der plantes alt mulig tilfældigt og fremmed i det tomme menneske for hvem alt er ligegyldigt, for hvem alt har samme værdi. Multikultur og multietnik er eksempler på sådan vås. Ingen homogen nationalstat kan stå model til en sådan cocktail. Det har vist sig overalt, hvor det er blevet forsøgt. Præcis som med marxismen, som kaldes internationalisme, der også var noget vås opfundet til formålet – at gøre menneskene til undersåtter.

 En postmodernist afskaffer også virkeligheden og erstatter med multikulti-ideologi og falsk føleri – udstillingshumanitet.

 I virkeligheden er det opløsningen af nationalstaterne magthaverne vil frem til. De bruger blot indvandringen og ødelæggelsen af vore kulturværdier som midler dertil.

For en retsreligion som Islam eller Muhamedanismen er denne forudsætning simpelthen startsignalet til dens folkevandringer. Så sent som i slutningen af 1600-tallet forsøgte de at tage dele af Europa med militær.

Dengang var der også krig på Balkan.

 Nu er der lagt en anden mere effektiv strategi: Indvandring, børnefødsler og racismebeskyldninger, når de ikke kan få deres vilje i vores land, “som de sølle stakler de er”.

De er asylanter, når de skal ind. Men de vil ikke hjem igen. Kunne man forestille sig, at vore værdier netop har frembragt et – trods alt og sålænge det varer – meget mere tilfredsstillende samfund, end det de kunne skabe på retsreligionen Islam.

Når islamit eller muhamedaner taler om fred og demokrati skal du huske, at det var der et par andre magthavere i historien (f.eks. Cæsar, Filip II, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler), der også gjorde, selvom det betød det stik modsatte. Frihed taler en muhamedaner næsten aldrig om…..af gode grunde.  





11. oktober 2008

De skal arve Danmark aar 2012

Efter planlægning af terror rettet mod Danmark i Bosniens hovedstad Sarajevo blev Basi Abu-Lifa dømt til 7 års fængsel i Danmark i 2005. Han har dansk og jordansk statsborgerskab.

Det var i oktober 2005, at PET slog til og anholdt en række personer, der blev kædet sammen med sagen fra Sarajevo om et planlagt terrorangreb.

Da terrorsagen fra Glostrup første gang var for retten herhjemme, blev tre af fire tiltalte frifundet. Kun den 19-årige Abu-Lifa blev fundet skyldig i at planlægge terror og straffet med syv års fængsel.

Sidenhen blev to andre dømt for planlægning af terror, Abdulkadir Cesur med dansk og tyrkisk statsborgerskab og Mirsad Bektasevich med svensk og bosnisk statsborgerskab.

Den fjerde EH : Rigsadvokaten besluttede, at sagen mod 19-årige EH skulle gå om ved Østre Landsret, fordi der er fundet nye og stærkere beviser. Men også i anden runde blev han frifundet. Han blev senere tilbudt 1,1 millioner kroner i erstatning, men har krævet, at retten skal afgøre beløbets størrelse.

Der var 20 kilo dødbringende sprængstof i sagen fra Sarajevo, men dommeren i Glostrup fandt, at det forhold det jordanske statsborgerskab var blevet tildelt ham automatisk, samt at han kom fra en velintegreret familie med 10 søskende, der alle havde taget videregående uddannelser, betød at han ikke skulle have frataget det danske statsborgerskab. Desuden havde anklageren glemt at fremføre i anklageskriftet, at Basi Abu-Lifa krævedes udvist af Danmark.

Videregående uddannede og deres familier nyder i Danmark tilsyneladende samme overret, som de her i Sovjetunionen, der havde familie, som havde deltaget i oktober revolutionen 1917.

Vi mener ikke noget foregår betryggende, når fremmede behandles for deres planlagte eller udførte kriminelle gerninger i Danmark.

Terrorister stammer netop fra velbjærgede familier, der intet mangler, har det vist sig gang på gang. Vi mener lidelserne, som terroristerne påfører uskyldige for at få indført deres diktatur her, er præcis de samme uanset famliernes uddannelser.

Terroren rammer helt tilfældige – som i London den 7. juli 2005 – og den kan lige så godt ramme dommeren eller dennes familie.


Vi må afgjort gå ud fra, at sagen appelleres af anklagemyndigheden.  


Older Posts »

The Silver is the New Black Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.