Europe is dying. It has cast off the possibility of recovery and awaits the inevitable.
“Where are all the children ”, asked the Washington Post this week in a report from Greece on its post-financial crisis. The Greek economy no longer falls on Europe as a danger to the euro, but the country is starting to struggle with the next phase: demographic suicide as it faces the smallest post-war generation in Greece.
The European Statistical Office estimates that the Greek population of 10.7 million will decrease by 32 percent. “By 2080 the population of the country could fall to 7.2 million”. In 2017 in Italy, 458,151 new children were registered. That is over 15 thousand less than in 2016. Over a period of 3 years (from 2014 to 2017), births decreased by about 45 thousand, while they were almost 120 thousand less than 2008.
A report by the Schuman Foundation, named for one of the founding fathers of the European Union, gets its report out with an eloquent title: “Europe 2050, demographic suicide”.
A “deafening silence” envelops the demographic suicide of the continent. Nobody cites these alarming numbers, especially in Brussels, where technology, sustainable development or energy transition are the preferred topics of talk.
The population of Africa will probably increase by one billion and 300 million, 130 million in North Africa alone. In other words, the Schuman says, the migratory pressure on Europe will be greater than ever. “This will be an implosion (in Europe) and a explosion (outside the EU)”. Everything proceeds as if this “demographic tsunami” is less important than the so-called digital wave.
It is a taboo: “If one percent of the increase in the African population settles in France within the next 35 years, this would be equivalent to 13 million new inhabitants by 2050”. Remember how shaky the European Union became in 2015 when a million refugees settled there.
“Europe is dying”, Rod Dreher wrote last week in the American Conservative: “It is true that fertility rates are declining worldwide, even in countries that are more religious. But Europe got there first, and has cast off the possibility of recovery. I love Europe desperately, and grieve to see this happening”.
To return to the “silence” mentioned in the Schuman report, perhaps this conclusion of his is why we Europeans are not talking about it. Because it’s too big and too terrible to even imagine it. Instead, we prepare ourselves for the inevitable.
Europe is over. Its future will be a mix of Eurabia and a geriatric ward.
Feel free to quote me.
It is also easy to verify every single item, although as we speak, algorithms are being diverted by the FANGs to obscure your search results.
Let me provide some more food for thought.
In 2011, shortly before he met his cruel death, Gadaffi addressed the nations of Europe:
“Now you people in NATO listen to me. You are bombing the wall that stopped African migration into Europe, This wall stopped the terrorists from Al Qaida. This wall was Libya, you are destroying it you fools. For the many thousands of migrants from Africa, for your support of Al Qaida, you will burn in hell, this is how it will be.”
The fool actually was Gadaffi. His misreading of the tea leaves became his undoing. The EU was keen in fact on increasing Arab migration, a policy it had actively pursued since the 1970s. Obama with Hillary’s State Department were keen to destabilize the Middle East, increase migration of future democratic constituents into the US, infuse Europe with a strengthening Islamic populace and lobby, promote the Arab cause, weaken the Israeli hand in its conflicts and ultimately, allow the US to intervene against the Jewish State under the doctrine of R2P.
The European Arab Dialogue, a EU organization operating in tandem with the Arab League, had been preparing for unfettered migration of Arabs into Europe since the mid-1970s. Gadaffi never got the message and was given the axe, literally.
Gadaffi should have taken heed to Boumedien’s prophecy, the strongman Chairman of the Revolutionary Council of Algeria who more than 30 years earlier had provided the blueprint:
“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory,” Houari Boumediene at the United Nation in 1974.
I hope you will not mind if I extract your information for others. I would like to attribute it appropriately. Would “Hugo Schmidt-Fischer” be appropriate?
@ Hugo Schmidt-Fischer:
Just wondering whether you have special knowledge or is all this material in the public record and we have just failed to put it together.
In any case the detail contained in your responses astounds me. I was aware of a few of the factoids, but not the broad picture. I was particularly taken back by your frank statement of Obama’s intentions regarding Israel. I presumed as much about his animus towards Israel from his willingness to strengthen Iran, but I have never read anywhere that it was his singular goal to destroy Israel by weakening European support. How clever to manipulate the world to destroy the Jews!
jlevyellow Said:
In 2001 the UN, through Mr. Joseph Chamie, Director, Population Division, United Nations, New York 10017, USA, authored the treatise “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?” That was only meant as a rhetoric question.
The UN calculated the US would need 592 million immigrants over the next 50 years to keep an optimal ‘Potential Support Ratio’ – PSR. For Europe, the UN arrived at a number of 1.35 billion new immigrants required to maintain the ‘PSR’. Japan will require 523 million. God save us all.
In 2010 the European Commission obliged with the solemnly named “Study on the Feasibility of Establishing a Mechanism for the Relocation of Beneficiaries of International Protection”.
The 2010 EU study recognizes there is an ‘uneven distribution of asylum burdens’ and gives thought to ”Member States which currently receive relatively few refugees, subsidiary protection beneficiaries and asylum seekers, and which in theory could become countries of reception in any future relocation mechanism.”
Not to be left behind, the EU commissioned study of 2010, almost two decades ago old by now, calculates the capacity to absorb immigrants for each and every EU-27 country. In total, the EU finds, the capacity is to absorb 3,833,794,735, people. You heard it right, the EU proposes it is ‘feasible’ to receive 3.8 billion immigrants into Europe.
International institutions were not going to let such a lofty solution in evident search of a problem go to waste.
Around 2008, NGOs in Europe and the US, with healthy funding of their host governments, commenced on a series of training sessions conducted from Cairo to Tunis and in Washington to Frankfurt. Aspiring activists of developing nations, most usually from Arab countries, were invited, sponsored, lectured in nurturing freedom and democratic discourse, and equipped with cash, support and all sorts of materiél suitable for the overthrow of governments.
A cursory overview of NGOs like the Hanns Seidel Stiftung in Germany or the Alliance of Youth Movements in the US from this period will relate a wealth of activities promoting dissidents, unrest and color revolutions.
Inevitably, this meddling in Middle Eastern foreign affairs would lead to a flood of refugees. But this was not seen as a problem. On the contrary, by that time, i.e. 2012, Europe as we have seen above, was well prepared to absorb these migrants.
In 2011 – 2012 after 3 – 4 years of dedicated NGO work and foreign policy interventions, ‘spring revolutions’ started sprouting up in the Middle East. These brought new streams of migrants to the newly forming ‘House of Europe’.
About this time, in 2012, maverick commentator, Avi Lipkin, reported to have picked up radio newscasts in Arabic, purporting to commitments Obama had promised Arab leaders, he would flood OECD countries with 50 million migrants, and change the course of their politics. In Obama’s and Arab thinking, this ultimately would lead to a weakening of Israel’s support in Europe, which in their view was a desirable outcome as they hoped to further its destruction.
As difficult it sounds to suggest the refugee wave is an actively promoted enterprise, it is hard to argue with predictions in 2012 that bore out persistently since.
@ Hugo Schmidt-Fischer:
Your erudite presentation skirts motivation. Who were these people who agreed to the destruction of European civilization and what were their motivations aside from fear of another oil embargo? Why in particular did they agree to the strengthening of Arab and Islamic culture? Why wouldn’t they allow the integration process to proceed without strengthening ties of their new immigrants to their former countries of origin? Why accept a long term commitment to oppose Israel, perhaps forever? Too many unstated concepts and motivations!
jlevyellow Said:
Already at its early inception – if we ignore the colonial down-windings of Pakistanis flowing to the UK or « pieds-noirs » to France – the first major government engineered migratory wave into post War Europe, was built on a lie.
The initial Recruitment Accord “Anwerbeabkommen” between Germany and Turkey was executed in 1961. After fact, the Turks falsely claim credit for rebuilding Germany after the Second World War and fueling the famous German Economic Miracle. But that miracle was long past 15 years after the War.
In reality, the US had to exert enormous pressure to bear on West-Germany to adopt the Recruitment Agreement, so as to placate Turkey, a new and important NATO member, suffering from large numbers of unemployed peasants.
Germany’s Minister for Labor Affairs, Theodor Blank, rejected these initiatives of the US and Turkey. Germany still had unemployed citizens in its structurally weak regions. But the dossier was coopted out of his hands into the Foreign Ministry and Germany acceded to the agreement.
Beginning with 150 Turkish workers recruited in 1961, initially to be rotated back home every two years. Today, more than 60 years later, Germany has about 7 million Turkish permanent residents, in a country of 82 million inhabitants.
If that first major wave of migrants was unintentional, the next waves were all too well conceived. We should be indebted to Bat Ye’or’s seminal work documenting EU (precursor bodies) and Arab League conventions and official protocols from the 1970s to 1990s.
The European Arab Dialogue in short EAD, had been initiated after the Arab Israeli Yom Kippur War of 1973 by nine European countries and the Arab League. The main objective was to create a stable, long-term relationship that would ‘protect’ Europe from future energy shortages. In return, Europe committed to break with US policies on certain matters, promote anti-Israeli policies, and in particular, favor Arab migration into Europe.
Thus on June 7 – 8, 1975, 200 parliamentarians of the general assembly of the European Community’s Parliamentary Association for Euro Arab Cooperation in Strasbourg, PAEAC, called to create a more hospitable environment for Arab works in the EC, and expand their presence there.
Subsequently, on June 10 – 14, 1975, European Economic Community and Arab representatives met in Cairo. In their joint EAD memorandum, the issue of employment access for Arab workers in Europe was brought up.
In Luxembourg in May 18 – 20, 1976 again, and in February 1997 in Tunis and in October in Brussels, the EAD reaffirmed its support of Arab migration into Europe.
Consequently, on April 23rd, 1977, Prime Minister Jacques Chirac’s government issued a decree allowing the reunion of families in France, thereby conferring permanent residence on Arab immigrants. Other EC members followed suit.
In March 28 – 30, 1977, a Euro Arab Seminar took place in Venice, under auspices of the European Community and the Arab League. It called for attracting Arab specialists and cultural agents for the dissemination of Arab culture in Europe, and to facilitate and significantly increase the presence of Arab lecturers at Universities, schools, cultural centers, linguistic academies and religious institutions.
The Hamburg Symposium of April 11 – 15, 1983, sponsored by the European Community and the Arab League worked out the cultural framework to project an attractive and positive presentation of Islamic culture. This was agreed to include the cooperation of the media broadcasting networks which in Europe are state owned, and were instructed to prepare appropriate programming.
In 1995 the Barcelona Declaration of the EC aimed at Arab nations at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of 27 – 28 November 1995, proclaimed “to undertake to adopt measures to facilitate human exchanges… and…recognize that current population trends represent a priority challenge…and acknowledge the importance of the role played by migration.”
If some people took this to be meaningless boilerplate, they were caught sleeping at their watch.
No one is speaking openly about governmental encouragement of immigration. Even more so no one is asking why decent people do not wish to raise ordinary families. Families used to supply safety, purpose for living, opportunities for children, satisfaction for parents and grandparents, the feeling of belonging, assistance of many sorts for parents and children alike, and companionship.
I have some possible explanations for the failure of family:
1) We no longer have to raise families in order to survive. Less work for mother and father.
2) The original and authentic happinesses provided by families are inadequate and have been supplanted by ‘superior’ stimulation
3) As in the “Prisoners’ Dilemma” trust is not the best option in marriage because of its low probability of being reciprocated. Marriage has become a more risky venture. Some would say that the risks have become clearer, but were always present.
4) Law inserts inequalities into marriage conflicts making the institution less self-correcting.
5) Perhaps the most likely factor in ruining the institution of family is chemical poisoning with xenoestrogens – both for males and females. The cost for correcting our overexposure to these hormone modifying chemicals would be staggering, so their amelioration cannot be broached in any serious way no matter how clear the research.
This list is incomplete, but gives a flavor of how we affect ourselves and suffer the consequences because we override the exquisitely sensitive mechanisms that provided our stability in simpler times. The distortions happen because we and our environment are too complex to correct with our primitive understandings, inadequate funds, and limited tools.
To facilitate the perceived ‘need’ for fresh inhabitants, The UN General Assembly instituted the first High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development (HLD) on 14–15 September 2006, spearheaded by Kofi Annan who founded the Global Migration Group (GMG) as the main inter-agency coordination mechanism on migration. This led to the first meeting of the Global Forum on Migration and Development, – GFMD.
GFMD on 9 – 11 July, 2007 undertook to offer:
“the opportunity to governments to come together- with other stakeholders as appropriate – to identify practical and feasible ways to strengthen the mutually beneficial relationship between migration and development”.
There have been annual meetings of the UN sponsored GFMD every year hence.
Today, the Global Forum on Migration and Development is headquartered with the International Organization of Employers (IOE) in Geneva, an organization that evidently has every incentive to import cheap labor into the European Union.
IOE’s mandate is expressed in its Constitution, “to provide a forum to States as well as international and other organizations for the exchange of views and experiences, and the promotion of co-operation and coordination of efforts on international migration issues…” (Art. 1(1)(e)) and working in partnership with governments, intergovernmental and nongovernmental entities, including migrant organizations, (NGOs).
Not to be outdone by the UN, in 2010, the European Commission’s Directorate-General Home Affairs published their own study demonstrating the ‘feasibility’ of accepting 3,8 migrants to Europe alone. Germany, for example, should harbor 274 million inhabitants, up from 82 million today.
Sparsely populated countries, must be re-populated more vigorously. Sweden, for example having barely 10 million on 450 square kilometers, should host a population of 440 million, France should hold 486 million, and the UK could hold 184 million. Already densely populated countries such as The Netherlands get off easy. Holland is expected to slide up to 25 million, up from currently 16 million.
Seizing on these opportunities, the World Economic Forum established, the Global Agenda Council on Migration in 2011, arguing for “The Business Case for Migration in 2013.”
Fools claim that Voelkerwanderungen, vast Human Migrations, are natural phenomena, autonomous and unstoppable events. They say the Barbarian Invasions of Hunnic, Slavic and Germanic peoples that brought down the Roman Empire were the fate of destiny. Such epochal events erupt accidentally, and there is nothing you can do about it. Moreover, any evidence of well-organized plans for a modern repopulation of Europe is wrongly rebuffed. But in truth, the UN and the EU have engineered this mass movement of peoples.
The “European Migrant Crisis of 2015” only recently burst into public awareness. The wave of invasion was difficult to ignore anymore as one million migrants allegedly, crossed the Mediterranean applying for refugee status, with most ending up in Germany.
Officials in Berlin though, were quick to characterize the 2015 tsunami as a transient flash in the pan in a country of over 80 million citizens.
Not true. For many years, Germany has been planning to absorb 181 million African and Middle Eastern migrants. These migrants were scheduled to arrive of the next 50 years. Italy was assigned to absorb 113 million, France 89 million, the UK 59 million, over a 50 year period..
It’s all written in the UN Report, Replacement Migration of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, 2001, ISBN 92-1-151362-6. Read it. It’s interesting.
This migration is the product of a long term process planned for decades that will transform Europe beyond recognition creating a new Third World Continent in the end. Clandestinely, the European Union has laid the groundwork to bring in hundreds of millions of migrants into Europe.
Starting in the mid-1970s, European Community institutions were vigorously preparing for a sea wave of Arab migrants into Europe. They had been working quietly and diligently throughout, together with representatives of the Arab League.
The European Community’s preparations and commitments to the Arab League were recorded in a long series of protocols accompanied by public European Community statements.
Such as, the EC’s Parliamentary Association’s declaration of 1975, the EC’s memorandum of Cairo of 1975, the EC’s General Committee’s meeting in Luxembourg in 1976, the subsequent meetings in Tunis of 1977, and Brussels in 1977 and Damascus in 1978, the EC sponsored Hamburg Symposium of 1983 and EC’s Barcelona Declaration in 1995. The EC’s commitments were synchronized with United Nations efforts.
All of Europe, including Russia is scheduled to receive 1,35 billion migrants over the next 50 years, or 27 million required migrants per year, necessary to keep the economic system going.
For the US, the required number of migrants needed to maintain the economic status quo for the next 50 years, was forecast by the UN at 592 million. Germany was projected a ‘need’ to accept 181 million new immigrants in order to maintain stable population ratio’s. Only.
Menotti is right. One reason for Eurabia ,” I suspect, is that European businesses cannot find enough “native” workers to staff their businesses, and so believe that importing workers from abroad will solve this labor shortage. Of course, imported workers from Africa and Asia new willing to work for much lower salaries, including “off the books.” “native” European labor Unions have in any cases priced “indigenous” European workers out of the labor market, since they have won contracts and benefits that Employers cannot afford to pay without loss of profits.
The U.S. industrialists have “solved” this problem by taking their factories “off shore” to the “developing nations, and even taking non-factory jobs , such as “customer service” off-shore, employing foreign workers who can’t speak fluent English, and who speak over static-filled phone lines, to “service their customers (????). But European industrialists decided either that this would be too unpopular at home, or they didn’t trust “third world” governments to protect their ownership rights (American corporations, for some reason, do trust them), so they decided to import their labor force from Africa, the Middle East and Asia to Europe. They may also hope that this mass migration will relieve demographic pressures in the “third world” and prevent revolutions and extremist takeovers there. But it is a very short-sighted, self-destructive policy. The muslim immigrants will inevitably take over these countries, and impose Islam and Muslim cultural norms on them.