If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.
Migration Madness
by Fjordman
In 2010, Kingsley Okoro left his native Nigeria in West Africa and traveled across the Sahara. With the aid of people smugglers, he crossed the Mediterranean in a rubber dinghy in search of a better life in Europe. Five years later, his dream of a better life in Denmark did not come true. Now, he has a new dream: To return to Nigeria and be reunited with his five-year-old son, whom he left behind. “Life in Denmark has given me mixed feelings. Denmark itself is not the problem. People are very friendly. The problem is that I am not able to adapt to the system,” the bottle collector Okoro says. “I did not know it was this hard to get want you wanted in Europe. I thought it would take a couple of months, then I would get a house and a car. But it takes time.”[1]
Maybe it comes as a surprise to some Africans, but not all Europeans have a car and a house, either. Those that do usually work far longer than a couple of months to earn it. A long time ago, Europe was a civilization of ancient nations that produced the likes of Isaac Newton, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonardo da Vinci, Ludwig van Beethoven and Louis Pasteur. These days, Europe seems to be a place where Nigerians, Somalis, Congolese, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis travel to get free stuff handed to them from the natives.
On October 6, 2015, thousands of people marched in Copenhagen to demand that Denmark be more open to migrants. Carrying torches, demonstrators shouted slogans like: “Say it loud and clear, refugees are welcome here.” A cheer went up as thousands entered the public square outside of Parliament.
At the same time, some of these “refugees” were complaining about the level of service they were being provided by the taxpayers in Finland. The asylum seekers mainly seem to be young Muslim men coming from such vibrant places as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. One of them was filmed stating that “We want our money” and that the UN must help them in getting what they want.[2] Some of the migrants complain that the food they get served for free is suitable only for animals, that the country is too cold, too boring or that there are too many trees.
In Sweden, the authorities resort to increasingly desperate options to accommodate the vast numbers of migrants, including sports centers and campsites. One of the bureaucrats in charge of dismantling the Swedish nation is Anders Danielsson. He was head of the Swedish Security Service (Säpo) from 2007 to 2012 and is currently Director General of the Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket). By October 2015, more than one thousand asylum seekers were arriving daily in Sweden.[3] Danielsson is organizing the reception of so many asylum seekers that they may soon turn his own people into a minority in Sweden. Mr. Danielsson is so proud of contributing to this that he compares himself to Winston Churchill. Churchill fought against an invasion of his country; he did not facilitate it. The Swedish Migration Agency decided that every single person from Syria should get permanent residency immediately. They informed the government about their decision, Danielsson comments. He says in plain words that they “must ignore the consequences” of their own decisions.[4]
The neighbors of the many asylum centers, however, have to live with the consequences of this immigration on a daily basis. So must the Swedish nation, forever. How many war criminals or potential terrorists enter the country amidst this massive influx of migrants? Does anybody know? In 2016 the Swedish government intends to force all Swedish municipalities to accept migrants, even though there is a chronic shortage of housing.
In October 2015, police officers in Gothenburg (Göteborg), Sweden’s second-largest city, warned that criminal ethnic gangs have taken control of entire neighborhoods in the city’s suburbs.[5] Fear and public gang shootings have become part of everyday life in Sweden. Many witnesses no longer dare speak to the police. Criminals threaten teachers and municipal employees. Gothenburg was once famous for housing the headquarters of the car manufacturer Volvo. These days, it is one of the European cities that has sent the most Jihadists to fight for the Islamic State in the Middle East. In one Gothenburg school, Angeredsgymnasiet, the headmaster warns that sympathies for the brutal mass murderers of the Islamic State is something they encounter among their pupils “on a daily basis.”[6] Meanwhile, many more asylum seekers from the Islamic world enter every day.
Germany is experiencing an unprecedented inflow of asylum seekers. The total number of asylum seekers to Germany in 2015 could be as high as 1.5 million people.[7] Since the authorities and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have virtually abdicated and left the country’s borders more or less open, the influx will not doubt continue next year as well. Once they have a foothold, many of the migrants will continue to bring relatives from their original home countries to Europe. A couple of million migrants could thus soon turn into 10, 15 or even 20 million people coming from all over the Islamic world and Africa.
The understaffed police have repeatedly had to stop violent conflicts between Kurdish and Turkish Muslims in German cities. Sometimes asylum seekers harass Christians or Jews. Other times, Muslim men harass women either at reception centers or in the local community.[8] Mass brawls have broken out between Afghan Muslims and Syrian Muslims over something as trivial as who should visit the bathroom first. How can anybody believe that such primitive honor cultures can be absorbed into a European culture that is radically different? It is rather an exhausted and demoralized Europe that risks being reduced to an appendix of the Middle East.
Notes:
For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.
“We … must strive to this end that as many foreigners as possible be brought to Germany. If they are in Germany, we must fight for their right to vote. Once we have achieved this, then we have the segment of voters we need to change this republic.”
Daniel Cohn-Bendit
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/6352-eu-nation-breaking
His last name should be spelled BANDIT, not BENDIT, because that’s what he is, a BANDIT.
Good one. I remember my history teacher in high school was showing some kind of fondness for him. Maybe that was a particular case of hybristophilia.
For me originally, I thought it was a bumbling, sort of maybe following a plan with good intentions with no thought of unintended consequences.
After that press conference “video” and her answer to the question of how ordinary Germans were to cope with immigration? “It was to go to church and contemplate the paintings”.
First I thought she had gone senile, then I realized some inter connection, from winning a prize in 2010 from “European Society Couldenhove-Kalergi”
http://tinyurl.com/ppzq9jf
of which the “patron saint’s” Couldenhove-Kalergi philosophy of mixed human breeding to create hybrid vigour.
From his book “Practical Idealism”
from wikipedia
http://tinyurl.com/nbfy6xh
Then there is
http://www.paneuropa.org
Once you read some of that, you can start to hear what I thought was benign but really are cancerous phrases in many of those inculcated European leaders and followers.
How could I think of people’s leaders having such an ill will to their own people.?
For the purposes of such a philosophy, is the answer.
Has that philosopy gained enough power to enforce the rest of the unwitting people.
The power is enough now so they are running over the rest of the people in such a rough shod way, and to get to a point where it becomes more difficult if not impossible to turn back. Just look how it worked in Britain in the quote and link below to the Evening Standard.
At the moment modern birth control may temporarily stop some of the consequences with this animalistic experiment of forced mating.
The problem of the number of immigrants will remain, and families reunification will swell the numbers, as new wives from the “old country” will be found and legalized in the new European home.
The ramifications of this philosophy and even more importantly how it is being rammed through that it may even be seen, that some of these key instigators are prepared to possibly to sacrifice their own lives (although they have armed body guards and gated communities) in the backlash of repercussions, with their cold bloodily sacrifice of their own people.
That seems to be the legacy they want to leave. A phoenix of new individual diversity, with that cancerous virus ideology that will become even more of a night-mare.
These leaders are like mad unhygienic Doctors with no scuples, as they inject, cut and hew, at their mostly unaware patients and totally ignore or even acknowledge bacteria, virus’s , , septicemia, cross infections, parasites etc.
The original article in the Evenings Standard by Andrew Neather, speech writer of Tony Blair, where he first popped up on 23rd October 2009.
http://tinyurl.com/p7szxcf
Yes deliberately following a plan.
Yes. See “EU Nation-Breaking” at LibertyGB
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/6352-eu-nation-breaking
That is just excellent, simpleton.
Your opening paragraph expresses the thoughts of all reasonable Western people of good will.
It is premised on the assumption that all of us might have had at one time, namely, that any politician who arose from among us was (1) a kinsman who would (2) protect and enhance the nation as their predecessors had and entertain (3) no fanciful protocols that would embarrass a first-year university scholar of gender studies.
The idea that our politicians are decent, familiar people who do not act to destroy their own nations, and that they are people and who do not conduct dishonorable, secret, murderous military and diplomatic campaigns in distant lands, dies slowly.
These things are literally inconceivable given the above-described assumptions. But our assumptions are very wrong.
The reality is the exact opposite . . . describable by one word — malevolence.
Yes, bought up with a trusting heart and a belief of inherent good.
Still to be careful knowing there are bad things in this world. I have long since distrusted media and their interpretations of events as the practicability drawn from going to work was such a contrast. That contrast makes one realize that others are marching to a totally different beat.
Another benefit I had was having very aged grandparents and my parents were relatively old when they started a family, so some first hand family stories go back to the 19th century. Makes very interesting experiences when matching history as written to a first hand consideration of what was happening, so easy to see some revisionist history more easily exposed, and now with google you can find the clues given to you directly, that were masked over., and now I can confirm.
Your 3 points do hit the nail on the head.
Who wants to live life knowing of that malevolence, and seeing it contaminate people your family, friends, work mates, and neighbours.
How to counter it ?
Part of it is to gain knowledge. A question is when is it correct, and can you gain too much. Is it shallow or too deep? too narrow and specific or too broad? a big picture or the small focused picture. Then can you not see the forest for the trees.
People like Winston Churchill for all his foibles and errors, (easily forgiven), was able to sift all his vast knowledge and experience and keep to the focus of winning.
Through all this you have to gain a credibility, and so to keep a strength and sanity to be able to see the Malevolence or the plan with good intentions (the unintended pathway to hell) that often draws in;- “the end justifies the means”
War is a malevolence, but all things are turned on its head, as conscience, ethics, honour may have to reconstructed as winner takes all; for the loser it is death.
A sort of, “we look in to the abyss as the abyss looks into us”. I almost feel that when I am learning more of the malevolence, and that is one of the reasons many of us do not want to believe it.
I can understand some what the many levels that Churchill must have felt in “worry and mental overstrain” (not clinical depression), as he would have had his moments considering there were 3 years of defeats and how to keep giving a lead in his speeches.
That malevolence in the ‘pan, Europe, society, union’, goals and plana, that is to educate the people and just taken on faith, but not to be discussed, examined and debated in full and openly.
Thank you Col. Bunny
Thank you Michael Copeland and I read your link
Thank you RonaldB and read your link too.
All in all a lot to cogitate over, and for me that takes time to take it all in and then to give it justice in reply.
RonaldB
That is all cultural reference points was pushed in the education plus church system more than 80 years ago from the top down, but you also had to lead the grass roots so you also had to be a good example.
Sure there were hypocrites, that tried it on for power, but if if exposed then you were a bounder, a cad, a disgrace, or even called a coward. Even if money had bought you a higher position. Expectations were high on both sides.
Now not only has the “voter” been bought, but he quietly knows it, and so has no great expectation of his leaders, just more. So long as it keeps flowing and he gets enough, that is what he reckons to be his fair share, as another piece is thrown his way. How can we really figure what is ok when government are such a large part of economies.
Really these days how can we gauge our future leaders through the mists of the media and sound bites, which are not really analysed or radiate out again with even more spin.
Our minds are losing the ability to think through things.
For example I used to keep a small note book in my head for telephone numbers, but now I would not even know any new number as it is all logged in, automatically captured and regurgitated on a name or photo.
Same goes for arithmetic with calculators so the feel for the numbers in your mind is gone.
Media use these numbers but often in their story line is the emotional individual example, then mixed with statistics, surveys and polls that can be used for any purpose.
I still believe it is the culture/education effect more than the genetics.
There was a great loss of genetics as in WW1 as there was a very high percentage of commissioned officers were killed alongside the sergeants and corporals. Not quite to the same extent in WW2 but still when you look at losses in the airforces that would bring it up intellectually as well. So a high death rate of the “flower of youth” often amongst the best and brightest, with valour and daring ado amongst them all.
Possibly the effects of birth control as the richer class produced even fewer children, so over all a smaller gene pool.
But the real point, is that at a critical level?
There has always been some of the young from a different class that pick even better from another class.
Genetics concepts are mixed with class and elite and the only point of it to me is the culture they are born into which may inculcate them from birth with education and expectation. Perhaps that education and expectation has changed? All leveled by the socialist system perhaps.
Or is it the rags to riches in 3 generations and so easily riches to rags, well basics these days. That circle is ok, even though enough of our own do not want to endeavour to climb up again.
To put many more immigrants/refugee into the social system where it is received as a jizya, and taxes if to be paid would be evaded where ever possible or only some zakat to their religious ideology. Our economies are fragile enough, and it seems more than a straw on the camel’s back being dumped on it.
Your display of the relevant philosophy justifying the planned genocide in Europe is fascinating, erudite, and compelling. But, I don’t think it complete.
The underlying assumption is that the racial and genetic stock of the elite leaders right now has been unchanged for the past few hundred years, and that they have been swayed by philosophical perspectives.
My opinion is that the genetic stock of Europeans, including and especially the elite, has deteriorated dramatically, such that the leadership is no longer capable of taking a stand. The philosophy of the natural vigor of the savage
https://gatesofvienna.net/2015/09/globalisation-as-war-against-man-part-1/
combined with what seems an easy pathway to power is necessary but not sufficient to explain the stampede of the elite leaders to flush their countries and identities down the tubes.
Briefly, the ongoing process of natural selection is necessary to maintain a specialized population. If the selection pressures end, the population will deteriorate on its own, even without the corrupting influence of inferior stock. I will assume that the specialized components of European civilization include not only intelligence, but individual character, honesty, work ethic, and the public virtues of wisdom, courage, valor and honor.
Modern socialism has taken away virtually all selection pressures from populations. One could argue that socialism has reversed selection pressure by transferring earned resources from productive people to non-productive people, thus putting a penalty on those very traits necessary for a productive, vibrant, intelligent and effective people.
There is no reason to think that the last century of socialism hasn’t had a dramatic effect in degrading the population, especially the privileged leaders, who used to have to display their prowess at making war and governing with authority in peace. Those unsuccessful at either tended to lose their heads…literally.
I’m trying to frame what I see as the root of the problem. Obviously, if I’m on the right track, the solution will take more than simply restoring the system of feudalism. But, it is necessary to debate the cause of the problem, and its underlying mechanics, before getting into realistic solutions.
Also an excellent observation, RonaldB.
I don’t see it as a problem of natural selection losing its invigorating power but rather that socialism was instantly enormously appealing to humans who liked the idea that some other thing, the bourgeoisie or capitalists or “my boss,” was the cause of their less than ideal lives.
Making a reasonable judgment about one’s society and its economic realities, and honestly facing one’s own responsibility for life’s difficulties, are, respectively, difficult and unpleasant requirements. Socialism lifted that burden from people wonderfully and generations that followed fell in love with the idea that it was moral to take money from productive people so that one’s life could be more comfortable and secure — and that one’s sexual and moral choices could even more be insulated from the consequences of old. Bastardy as a new sacrament.
Is it remarkable in any way that would-be leaders who would offer themselves to those with such values, and who would actually be elected by such voters, would be toads?
That transformation could take place in one generation, long before any new genetic wavelets might wash over the land.
But this is not in any way a detraction from your overall assessment.
….After that press conference “video” and her* answer to the question of how ordinary Germans were to cope….
her* = Merkel
All thanks to Fjordman for this and all of his articles.
Thanks again to Baron and Dymphna as I appreciate your writings.
You have different styles of writings, and differing topics, that bring a completeness in understanding these times.