The Leftist-Liberal demographic engineering project of the European Union violates the rights of indigenous European peoples, goes against global trends towards the territorial partition of ethnic groups, and contradicts expert research on conditions that create ethnic and political conflict. The continuous practice of settling large numbers of non-Europeans into regions already inhabited by European indigenous populations but who have very low fertility rates inevitably alters the ethnic compositions of European nation-states, renders Europeans demographic minorities in their own homelands, affects the distribution of political power and the relations between ethnic groups, and causes a variety of other conflicts and problems, including civil war.
Engineering Multi-Ethnic States through Immigration
In this article I will be drawing on the existing research on the factors that have brought about ethnic conflict in history and in recent decades in the Third World to show that the same factors are being reproduced in Europe as our current elites go about engineering European nations into multi-ethnic states through mass immigration.
According to Myron Weiner and Sharon Stanton Russell, demographic research has found that countries with low fertility rates that also experience large-scale international migration tend to suffer from “violent ethnic conflict and political instability,” an erosion of national identity and sovereignty, as well as “radicalism, terrorism, religious fundamentalism, environmental degradation, and economic growth and stagnation.”1 According to Frank Salter, research shows that “ethnic diversity tends to increase social conflict and crime, undermine welfare, exacerbate ethnic inequality, racialize politics and erode civil liberties.”2
According to Tatu Vanhanen, “two thirds of global variation in ethnic conflict was explained by ethnic diversity” and according to Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt “large scale mixing of different ethnicities reduces social stability and risks domestic peace.”3 According to Michael Teitelbaum, “large-scale population movements across borders by refugees or other migrants can affect the cohesion of societies and generate social and political conflict both within and between countries.”4 And according to Monica Toft, multiethnic states are “the most violence prone settlement pattern” of distinct ethnic groups.5
Toft explains that demographic balances are key to ensuring stability and peace in multi-ethnic states but violence and civil war can result from a shift in these ethnic balances. What causes these shifts? “Differential birth/fertility rates and economic immigration,” “deliberate state manipulation,” and “[m]ass migration and resettlement.”6 Toft also describes the five main theories for why conflict and civil war occurs between ethnic groups: “ancient hatreds;” “modernization;” “relative deprivation;” “security dilemma;” and “elite manipulation.”7
In brief, the demographic engineering of sovereign nations with low fertility populations by high fertility in-migration shifts the ethnic composition of said populations (creates multi-ethnic states) and long-standing ethnic rivalries, competition, grievances, and territorial boundaries between immigrants and the native population, as well as hostile political leadership, can make violence between ethnic groups, and between the native population and the political elite, more likely.
In European nations, contentious relations between ethnic minorities and indigenous Europeans are due, in part, to cultural and ethnic differences (i.e. Muslims, Africans, Arabs compared to Christian, secular, atheist, Europeans), past and present grievances (e.g. slavery, colonialism, wars, hegemony), and the rapid growth of distinct non-European immigrant populations. And the tensions between native Europeans and their political elites are based, in part, on hostile demographic policies that alter the ethnic compositions and undermine the distinct ethno-cultural identities, political cultures, and institutions of European peoples and homelands.
Power Transition and the Likelihood of Civil War
According to the logic of “Power Transition Theory,” large-scale non-European immigration in the form of settlement in low-fertility European nation-states leads to a shift in the size of ethnic minority populations (the creation of multiethnic states) creating a “tipping” point whereby ethnic majorities become a demographic minority. According to the democratic principle of majority rule, when an ethnic majority becomes an ethnic minority they lose their legitimacy to govern the state. Just before, during, or after such a power transition occurs, power becomes contested and violence and civil wars are likely to break out, particularly if the migrants do not intend to integrate and/or are engaged in a war of opposition (Third Worldists, Islamists, and cultural Marxists).8
However, alterations to the notion of political community and national identity in Europe through cosmopolitan constitutional citizenship, as well as the replacement of ethno-European political institutions with multicultural organizations that are decidedly non-ethnically European in nature, means that such a power transition can occur earlier because majority rule becomes defined by political qualifications rooted in non-European ethnic identity political groups and pro-immigration Left-Liberal political parties.
In terms of majority rule based on ethnic rather than political groups, according to Tanja Ellingsen “wars are more likely to occur when the largest group is less than 80 percent.”9 In some European nations foreign-born populations already exceed 20 percent of the national population and demographers are predicting that Europeans will become full minorities in the latter half of the 21st century. This means that civil wars in Europe are likely to occur in the near future.
Homeland Territory is a Survival Issue for Ethnic Europeans
|Immigrant riots in Sweden|
An additional “key” reason as to why violence and civil war between ethnic groups occurs is how ethnic groups and the state view territory.10 According to Toft and Dominic Johnson, almost three quarters of all ethnic wars between 1940 and 2000 were “centered on the control of territory.” The ownership and defense of bounded territory and homelands is necessary for sovereign states and is also central to international laws that emerged in the era of decolonization and post WWII ethnic group independence movements that involved “the gradual partitioning of the globe into self-determined territories.” According to evolutionary theory, territoriality or the “partition” of “living space” (a universal behavioural trait) and its defence (a conditional or contingent trait) is prevalent among both humans and the animal kingdom and can ensure relatively peaceful relations between distinct groups. In terms of human territoriality, the material resources of the territory such as “water, food, and shelter,” the “human contents” of the territory such as “the family, relatives, friends, allies, and ethnic group to which one belongs,” and the immaterial or symbolic factor of territory, are “key” to why “territory [is] worth fighting over” for human ethnic groups.11
The symbolic or non-material factor of territoriality is the “shared history” and attachment of ethnic groups to their historic and traditional land, seen as a common home or homeland, which provides “in-group/out-group psychology” and group identity.12 Toft explains that a homeland is “an indivisible attribute of group identity,” it is “inseparable from its past and vital to its continued existence as a distinct group” as it contains the very “fundamentals of culture and identity” that have developed over millennia and cannot be exchanged for another homeland. Homelands are geographically “bounded” and they sustain “cultural boundaries;” such “boundedness” is endangered by the ‘other,’ by ethnically distinct immigrants who threaten the integrity, sovereignty and security, the very survival of distinct ethnic groups in their homelands. As such, Toft clarifies that “Ethnic groups rationally view the right to control their homeland as a survival issue, regardless of a territory’s objective value in terms of natural or man-made resources” and will engage in fighting to protect and preserve control over their symbolic territories and thus secure their collective group identities. Losing control over a homeland means the “dilution of the national group, its loss of power, and consequent diminution of national identity” as well as a loss of control over the distribution of “economic and political resources,” immigration, and the cultural content of the society.13
The deep connection between homeland and the survival of distinct ethnic group identity is a key distinction between ethnic groups and states. According to Toft and Johnson,
[H]omeland territories are imbued with historic significance and their boundedness allows communities of individuals to maintain distinct identities and cultures. These unique properties mean that people and states behave differently in conflicts over homeland territories.14
For states, power and survival are seen in terms of control over material and physical territories and resources, and not in symbolic terms. Although a central duty of the state is the protection and survival of its citizens in the long-term, their focus on their own survival may trump the survival of distinct indigenous groups “who view territory as [indivisible and] inextricably bound up with their identity and thus ultimately with their survival as a group.” This difference in territorial control for survival between states and ethnic groups can result in violent conflicts.15
European nation-states may rationally calculate that their survival, in terms of the preservation and enhancement of economic and political power at the global level, depends on the mass-importation of foreign migrants as a ‘replacement population.’ But mass-immigration of foreign ethnic migrants leading to the creation of multiethnic cosmopolitan states based on multicultural immigrant rights and an ethnically neutral abstract European identity is not conducive to the long-term survival and sovereignty of indigenous Europeans who inhabit the European nation-states as homelands. In other words, nation-state survival at the global level is overriding indigenous European survival at the homeland level.
Pro-immigration European and EU elites are engaged in the promotion of large-scale non-European in-migration, in the decoupling of European ethnic identity from political power, and in propaganda campaigns that aim to belittle European concerns and discredit their distinct identities and sovereignty over their traditional homelands, projects that have defined various Leftist-Socialist EU integration models since the time of Coudenhove-Kalergi, as such, they may be perceived as hostile to European indigenous peoples and thus illegitimate as elected political power. They no longer represent the interests, provide secure homelands, or protect the survival of distinct and indigenous European peoples. In this situation, indigenous ethnic groups may “rationally calculate” to enter into conflicts, including political struggles and violent conflicts leading to civil war with both immigrant-settler ethnic groups and the state.16
Concern, Exposure, and Action is Legitimate
Since WWII indigenous European concern over international migration and cosmopolitanism has been discredited as right-wing extremism, Nazism, and racism. In reality, anti-immigration and anti-cosmopolitan sentiments are a legitimate response of native Europeans who are being displaced of their numerical majority position, replaced by non-European migrant-settlers, and dispossessed of their political power and sovereignty over their homelands by these ideologies and practices. Such a situation has led to the rapid rise of populist and alternative right anti-immigration and anti-Islamist political parties, social and political Identitarian movements, and numerous authors and political figures that expose the agenda of hostile European elites and the threats posed by immigration, Islamism, political correctness, and multiculturalism.
Thilo Sarrazin wrote one of the most widely read and controversial books ever published in Germany, Deutschland Schafft Sich Ab (Germany Abolishes Itself, 2010). In this work he argued that “Islamic immigrants threaten Germany’s freedom and prosperity because they are unwilling to integrate and rely overwhelmingly on welfare benefits.”17 He has also said of Islam:
No other religion in Europe makes so many demands. No immigrant group other than Muslims is so strongly connected with claims on the welfare state and crime. No group emphasizes their differences so strongly in public, especially through women’s clothing. In no other religion is the transition to violence, dictatorship and terrorism so fluid.18
Although condemned by leading elites in Germany, 89 percent of German readers of the Bild newspaper would choose to elect a party headed by Sarrazin.19
In January 2016 the chief of the Swedish army, General Anders Brännström, told his troops to prepare for a war in Europe and defend Sweden against skilled opponents that was expected “within a few years”20 and in February 2016, Norwegian Army Chief Odin Johannessen remarked that Europe “must be prepared to fight, both with words, actions — and if necessary weapons — to preserve the land and the values we have in common” against the threat posed by radical Islam.21 In reaction to the ‘migrant crisis’ in Europe, in April 2016 Swiss People’s Party (SVP) member of parliament Roger Köppel stated that “Europe is about to abolish itself” due to a “megalomaniac” open border policy, and such “overconfidence is at the root of all evil.” He further stated that “The basic problem today is Islam” and that “It is an illusion to believe that politics can cope with this mass migration.”22
While it is true that Europe is overwhelmed with the migrant crisis and increasingly subject to the activities of radical Islamism, the situation in Europe is not just about Islam, the migrant crisis, and the protection of cultural values; it is also about the decades-old deliberate transformation of ethnic European homelands into multi-ethnic cosmopolitan states through the mass-influx of non-Europeans and the hostile alteration of the political identity, institutions, and culture of indigenous Europeans, a situation that is creating the conditions for civil war in Europe.
This is a situation that has been deliberately created by the EU project of Leftist-Liberal and neoconservative elites and is exploited by anti-European alliances between naïve or treasonous Leftist-Socialists, NGOs, and non-European settlers. All of these groups aim to overthrow the existing political institutions and traditions of European nation-states, render Europeans minorities in their own homelands and dispossess them of their territorial and political sovereignty, eventually replacing them demographically. In 2015, Renaud Camus explained that
The Great Replacement is not a concept, it is not a notion, and it is not a theory: it is only the coining of a name for the most important phenomenon to affect Europe in the last fifteen centuries: namely, the replacement of its population and the changing of people.23
This is in direct contradiction to international laws that protect against the destruction, “in whole or in part,” of distinct national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups. What is really at stake is the actual survival of European indigenous peoples as distinct and numerical majority ethnic groups in their own nations and the preservation of the historic European homeland.