For the first time in recorded history, the continent of Africa now has a larger population than the continent of Europe. What’s more, the already unsustainable African population is set to double in the coming two generations.
Of course, if he had been keeping up with the UN, he could have learned that the continent of Africa was actually set to quadruple its population by 2100. And of course, the population just keeps quadrupling after that date too, so its not like that's the worst part of the news. But at least he has a dim inkling that the population of Africa is getting too high, and that African immigration to Europe isn't going to work out very well. I wonder how he'd feel if he knew how truly bleak the situation was?
Meanwhile, the few people of European descent still left in Africa — mainly white South Africans — are being systematically wiped out in the most brutal manner possible. Africans wipe out the few Europeans in Africa, and then promptly follow them to Europe. Africa for Africans, and Europe for Africans, too.
It's good of him to point out the awful torture rape murders going on in South Africa, it's something I wrote about years ago, but of course it didn't do any good then either. The problem is there's no double standard here like Fjordman makes there out to be. Liberals have nothing against whites immigrating to Africa if they please, they are for open borders everywhere, it's just that rich, safe people have no reason to emigrate to poor, unsafe lands so such emigration never happens. What liberals were opposed to wasn't whites immigrating to Africa, but imposing dictatorial rule over majority-black natives. If they had wanted to serve under the likes of King Ugabugoo or whoever, donned a loincloth and pierced their noses with random needles, that would've been fine. It's just colonialism that was the problem. As such, there's no double standard, because no one is calling for Africa to colonize Europe. They just want to move there and abide by the already established laws and norms. And if they happen to change those laws over time, well that's just how democracy works, no sin there. They didn't come as conquerors or dictators, but simply as fellow citizens with the civil right to vote just like anyone else.
This is why liberals always win in the arena of ideas. Their opponents aren't logical enough to even make their points correctly. All Fjordman has to argue is that white nations are better than black nations and therefore turning Europe into Africa is a bad idea, and he wins hands down. However, he can't say that because that would be racist, so instead he makes this silly appeal to fairness and claims liberals have a double standard -- when in fact they don't, and they are being fair, so his argument makes no sense and just comes off as juvenile and shallow.
One of them is the notion that rich countries have a duty to take in all people from other nations that are suffering, either from natural disasters, political repression or overpopulation. According to him, it cannot be considered moral of the cultural, political and religious elites of these countries to allow their populations to grow unrestrained and then push their excess population onto other countries.
However, a liberal does not believe in overpopulation until the whole globe is overpopulated. Since we should have open borders anyway, there's no such thing as overpopulation until the whole world is starving, not just tiny corners of it where local famines could easily be solved by humane immigration policies. And since no one else on Earth is reproducing at above replacement birth rates, the whole world is virtually empty, or soon will be, which means it needs these fecund Africans to come in and replace us all. Since liberals believe in human equality, that everyone is born a blank slate at birth and is exactly as gifted and good as everyone else at birth, it doesn't matter in the least to them who is doing the reproducing, so long as someone is doing it. Delegating all the breeding to Africa while the rest of us die off, therefore, is as sound an idea as any other. But talking about overpopulation as a reason why the world can't accept African immigrants is hopeless -- there is no overpopulation outside of Africa when there are parallel articles being written just days before showing that Japan is slated to perish into extinction from cripplingly low birth rates in the near future. The fact that Africa is kind enough to be quadrupling its birth rates so it can provide new workers for the outside world is a great and noble deed for everyone else. They can come into Europe with its 1.0 birth rates, Russia with its 1.0 birth rates, China, Korea, Japan, everywhere on Earth needs more Africans, because they all have 1.0 birth rates. Africans are God's gift to the world, they aren't overpopulation, they're the one and only solution to underpopulation which is currently sweeping the globe.
Unless and until you say blacks are worse than the people they are replacing, there is no logical reply to liberalism. Overpopulation just does not fit the facts.
The point raised by Professor Sigurd Skirbekk is sound and worth repeating: If it was very, very evil by Germans to promote lebensraum in Europe in the 1940s, why is Europe supposed to meekly accept being a laboratory for African, Pakistani or Arab lebensraum today?
Here again Fjordman attempts to create a double standard where there is none. Nazi Germany wanted to create lebensraum by conquest and genocide. They were going to liquidate the populations of Eastern Europe and Russia and only then plant their own seeds of good German folk who would go forth and multiply in the new virgin soil. Their justification for this was that Germans were better than the Slavs they would be replacing, so God/Nature/Fate/Evolution was on their side. Unfortunately, this overweening confidence in their own greatness came tumbling down at Stalingrad, though not after trying their best by killing over 20 million citizens of the Soviet Union and sending Russia into a permanent population tailspin it has never recovered from since. Africans and their liberal allies are not proposing anything similar to this plan. Without any conquest, without any genocide, they plan to peacefully immigrate into a nation and peacefully integrate into the native communities. They just want some of the economic goodies that the modern world produces, and have nothing against their neighbors who produce all that wonderful wealth for them. Modern immigrants are not arguing for more lebensraum, they're arguing for higher taxes, so the whole comparison just falls apart. Now, if you wanted to argue against immigrants coming into nations and taking more in benefits than they are contributing in taxes, that would be logical -- but who needs logic when you can just make bad analogies to Hitler and call it a day?
I’m not thrilled about the Golden Dawn, but I’m not thrilled about Communists, either. Communists have been responsible for about 100 million deaths in the last century. Clearly, they represent a dangerous totalitarian threat. It rings hollow when the authorities target the Golden Dawn, but give a virtually free rein to radical left-wing and Marxist groups who are at least as violent.Here too is another useless double standard. Golden Dawn is a party that seems to seek a violent overthrow of the status quo, an overthrow of the democratic regime and its bedrock principles of human rights and equality for all. Now, many Golden Dawn members say they do not embrace violence, but this doesn't seem to be trickling down to their party membership, which is murdering non-Greeks in the streets for simply the crime of being non-Greek. Furthermore, how much trust can you put in a party that says it's for non-violence but adopts as its symbol a freaking swastika, thus endorsing the most violently anti-democratic and racist nation in human history? Left-wing violence is an entirely different breed. They are targeting only racists, and only because they are evil. They are not targeting innocent civilians but only people with ideologically toxic beliefs, Nazis, skinheads, fascists, etc, bent on terrorizing and exterminating the innocent. They are a noble group of heroes who protect the innocent and with vigilante justice condemn the guilty. Most importantly of all, their violence does not seek the overthrow of the state, but is in fact done in the service of the state, and it does not threaten the state's fundamental principles of human rights and equality, but is in fact violence done in order to protect those very rights. For the state to crack down on both sides equally is absurd. One type of violence is probably a good thing, whereas the other is an existential threat to the state's very existence.
Rather than this garbled and illogical article by Fjordman, I think the first bit of wisdom in this post comes from the comments section, by name of 'Lotos':