The Conquest of the West

On Oct. 31, the U.N. Population Fund marks the arrival of the 7 billionth person on Earth and raises the population estimate for the planet at mid-century to 9.3 billion people.

There is a possibility, says the United Nations, that, by century's end, world population may reach 15 billion. What does this mean for Western civilization?

It may not matter, except to identify who inherits the estate. For while world population is exploding, Western peoples are dying. Not a single European nation, except Muslim Albania, has a birth rate that will enable it to replace its present population.

By mid-century, Western man will be down to 12 percent of world population. By century's end, he will be a tiny fraction, roughly equal to the white population of Rhodesia when Robert Mugabe came to power.

The demographic winter of the West has set in.

Between now and 2050, Russia, a nation of roughly 140 million, down from nearly 150 million at the breakup of the Soviet Union, is on schedule to lose an additional 24 million people.

"Hypermortality" is a word demographers use in discussing Russia.

Germany is to lose 8 million of her 82 million people. Ukraine has lost 6 million people since liberation in 1991 and will lose another 10 million by 2050. The population of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, 8 million in 1990, will by mid-century have fallen by 30 percent to 5.7 million.

Britain, however, is to add 12 million. But since emigration from Britain is bleeding the population and the birth rate of her native-born has been below zero population growth for 35 years, the U.N. has to be factoring in immigration from the old colonies in the Caribbean, the Middle East, the sub-Sahara and South Asia.

With the median age of European nations rising toward 50 and above, and a growing share of the population over 65, the continent is going to need millions of young immigrants to maintain the labor force and cope with seniors and elderly in retirement centers, assisted living facilities and nursing homes.

Where will they come from? Continents and countries with population surges and surpluses.

By 2050, Africa's population will double from 1 billion to 2 billion people. Where today the six most populous Islamic nations -- Indonesia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria and Turkey -- have a combined population of 885 million, by 2050 their populations will have increased by 475 million to 1.36 billion. Of the 48 fastest-growing countries in the world, 28 are majority Muslim or have Muslim populations of more than one-third of the national population.

And since it is the Muslim nations of North Africa and the Middle East that are closest to Europe, with easiest access to the continent, Muslims will likely furnish most of the multitudes who are coming.

What will this mean for Europe? Religious and racial conflict.

On Sept. 11, 2001, after the twin towers fell and Germany expressed her anguish and solidarity with America, a strange event occurred. In the Turkish districts of Berlin, bottle rockets were fired all night in celebration.

In the banlieues around Paris and other French cities, Arab riots, assaults on police and mass arson of vehicles regularly occur. This summer in London, the immigrant enclaves exploded and poured out into the city night after night.

Angela Merkel of Germany, seconded by David Cameron of Britain and Nicolas Sarkozy of France, declared multiculturalism had "utterly failed."

What is the future of Europe? What is the future of Western man? Houari Boumedienne, Algerian revolutionary and president of his country, predicted it at the United Nations in 1975.

"One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere of this planet to burst into the Northern one. But not as friends. Because they will come in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women."

Boumedienne's words were spoken just as European and Western birth rates plunged below ZPG.

What, then, is the future?

A Russia with not one-tenth China's population will not hold on to a continental nation twice China's size. Already the Russian Far East is being invaded by Chinese crossing the Amur and Ussuri rivers to work, even as Mexicans cross the Rio Grande to reoccupy lands torn away from their ancestors in 1836 and 1848.

What is the future of the West?

China will retrieve all the lands lost to Russia in the 19th century and slices of Russia that China never owned. Mexicans and Hispanics will dominate from the Floridas to the American Southwest the lands Spain and Mexico lost to the United States in the 19th century.

Africans, whose lands were colonized and exploited by Europeans, and Muslims and Arabs, whose ancestors were turned back at Poitiers and Vienna, will succeed in the final conquest of Europe.

Demography is destiny. Patrick J. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, The Death of the West, The Great Betrayal, A Republic, Not an Empire,Where the Right Went Wrong, and most recently Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your kind words of welcome :-)

You see, I have always had an interest in migration and all the factors (political or otherwise) which influence/shape it.
I would love it if I could contribute a little to the “immigration debates” on Free Republic :-)

P. S.: I hope Brimelow’s writings are not unwelcome on this board, because I’m aware that some of them might be seen as controversial. However, I must admit that I only know the article I quoted, and his book Alien Nation (into which the aforementioned article later evolved).

I’m very sorry about my mistake.

I had to look this site up, and I was puzzled to see that it was a site to which he contributes, but other writers as well, some of whom are anti-Semites.

All I had ever known of his writings were his aforementioned NR article and his book (once, when I worked in a community college, I held a lecture on immigration to America and on the laws which helped to govern it. Thus, I am still very interested in the whole subject matter).

I beg your pardon again, Sir, if I have hurt you or anybody on this board, by referring to Brimelow’s writings. It was supposed to be in nothing but a scholarly, non-ideological fashion.

You havn't offended me. Brimelow has. I know people who have or do write for VDARE. Brimelow lost his moorings on foreign policy. He has is also extremely loyal to Paul Craig Roberts and runs that paranoiac's artics, despite PCR writing that he would welcome a flood of Mexicans if only to silence neoconservatives. And don't get me started on Kevin MacDonald, who confuses modern grievance politics with an evolutionary strategy. You might also be interested in View from the Right, which is also not a welcome source here.
Do you read Gates of Vienna or The Brussels Journal?

Sorry,

i just forgot to mention that I had been aware of Mr. B. being somewhat controversial, when I compiled the lecture I talked about in my previous post.

However, since he had been particularly vilified by John Isbister, a very liberal man, in his book “the Immigration debate”, I thought to myself: “Hmmm...it seems that from Mr. Isbister’s POV practically every non-liberal is a Know-Nothing or a sheet-wearing Kukluxer or worse. So I don’t see any reason to take his comments on Mr. B.s character at face value...” It was just like in the little story of the boy crying wolf :)

I hope that I have been able to rectify this regrettable misunderstanding :)

Yes, I read Brussels Journal and Gates of Vienna regularly, among other blogs and news sources.

Yes, but I really was utterly clueless about Brimelow’s political stances outside of immigration matters.

And about Kevin MacDonald, enough has been said already :(

Furthermore, I find it hard assign the blame (as he does) for the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act to any single person in American politics: it seemed that a majority of American law makers wanted to see it passed, as a kind of “extension” of the Civil Rights Act to the world at large.

Strangely, the Eisenhower “Immigration proposal” (which would have flexibilised, but not abolished, the National Origins Quota system) does not seem to have been considered in earnest - neither in the media nor in Congress. I still sometimes think that it might have made a good compromise between “traditionalists” and “reformers”.

But maybe I’m not more of a conservative than President Eisenhower was :)

Dear Mr. Rmlew,

I also wanted to say a big thank you for your link to Amnation. What a marvellous source of information!

I had nearly forgotten about Lawrence Auster, whose excellent article on immigration post-1965 helped me a lot with my lecture back in the days, and I once even mailed Mr. Wall, discussing with him the very controversial issue of birthright citizenship in the USA and other Western Hemisphere nations.
Outside the Western Hemisphere, interestingly, only Pakistan, Central Africa, Lesotho, Equatorial Guinea, Niger and Gambia have birthright citizenship, although some other countries had it in former times, e.g. Britain, France, India and Ireland.

On the other hand, there are countries like Swaziland, Bhutan and Nepal, which have citizenship laws based upon the principle of “double ius sanguinis”
(this means, to be a citizen of these three countries, both your parents must have been citizens at the time of your birth). This is the other extreme, in terms of citizenship laws :-)

Mr. Wall appears to me as a wonderful and knowledgeable gentleman indeed. It is a pity that I lost sight of him since.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.