Skip to comments.The Conquest of the West
Posted on 10/31/2011 7:58:56 PM PDT by rmlew
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?
Pat is right about this.
It’s a shame that not a single Republican running for President is calling for a reduction in immigration.
As for Europe; it seems almost hopeless.
and if Islam tries to take over the world the population will drop to 3 or 4 billion
Mark Steyn has been beating this drum for years. It may yet turn out true, but I do gently submit that arguments that begin “If current trends continue” generally end up admitting later that they didn’t.
Sin has consequence.
The reason America needs 50 million illegals isn’t because we “just aren’t having enough babies”...
The ugly brutal truth is, we have purposefully exterminated 50 million unborn American babies.
While it is true that God uses the enemies of a people to judge His people, it is most often simple cause and effect rather than supernatural effects.
If we had not aborted 50 million since 1973, or before, by now, half of those would be married and having their own children and America would have 150 million more people.
Abortion is also the problem in Europe and Russia.
Abortion, not “having fewer babies”.
We should not sanitize the problem.
We can stop it at any time and in 20 years completely reverse it.
We have enough wealth to do what the other nations cannot.
If we choose to do so.
If we choose to do so.
You are so right, I have been following somewhat the aftermath of the event in Oslo Norway on july 22
that man, Brevik tried to wake up the goverment about all the muslims emigrating to Norway and that they were in fact taking over instead of mixing into the local culture and that multicultureism wasen’t working, and what he has achived is the opposite, now anybody talking against mass emigration and multiculturism is beeig demonized, seems like most of the eurozone leaders missed the point altogether
We have no need for the immigrants. Immigrants lower native fertility. Also, the 1965 immigration act preceded abortion.
Short of forcing “the right people” to have babies, there really is no solution to this. The best we can do is to make sure we correctly culture our immigrants and their offspring.
That still wont solve the problem of low birthrate by the “right people”.
When did did all of Europe act like Ghetto inhabitants
Having been born in Europe some seventythree years ago, I most say they were not this way then, I guess it happened a litle at the time and they never notised it, a little like placing a frog in cold water and then slowely heating it up, the frog will happily stay there until it is cooked, I’m sure glad I left in 1954, problem is it is happening here to now, and the mainstream are not seeing it, hope more will before it is to late, next year is crucial for our survival as a free people.
I hear ya. Still don't know what to do about birthrate. It seems to be something to do with the increase in standard of living. I think the only "westerners" who are increasing in number are religious/evangelicals. I dont really see how government can help there. There needs to be a spiritual re-awakening in the West. And I say that as something of an athiest!
I definitely agree with you on the need for a spiritual re-awakening in the Western world, and, of course, for better role-models in entertainment and the media, just as Mr. rmlew has been proposing.
But for the financial part, I remember three proposals of an author named Brimelow, which he made in 1992 in a National Review article titled “Time to rethink immigration?”. He opined:
a) what about adjusting the federal income-tax code for inflation? In 1950, this provision exempted $ 7,800 in 1992 dollars, although by that time it had shrunken to no more than $ 2,100 in 1992 dollars.
b) the so-called “marriage penalty”, which burdened married couples with more tax, should be done away with (Note: this has been achieved in the last few years, IIRC).
c) do away with the public school cartel, in order to reduce the costs of giving childeren a good education.
Wouldn’t this help families with a good education and work ethic to have larger families, and thus rear more children, who would then in turn grow up to become good, law-abiding and productive American citizens?
Nice first post, and nice profile page.
Welcome to FreeRepublic.
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).
VDARE.com is not welcome on FR.
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.
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.