Fjordman’s latest essay has been published at FrontPage Mag. Some excerpts are below:
In his 2008 book Et Delt Folk (“A Nation Divided”), The Danish historian and writer Morten Uhrskov Jensen carefully went through publicly available sources. He demonstrated that the opening up of his country for mass immigration was arranged by just part of the population, sometimes in the face of considerable popular opposition.
Roughly speaking, those representing the political and media establishment and the upper classes were in favor of open borders, whereas those from the lower classes were often opposed. This divide is viewed by those from the upper segments of society as caused mainly by racism, prejudice, ignorance and xenophobia.
Since the educated classes enjoyed a virtual hegemony over public debate, they were able to define all opposition as hate and intolerance, exemplified by people such as Pia Kjærsgaard of the Danish People’s Party. The well-to-do themselves rarely lived in areas with many immigrants and could afford to move, at least for a while, if that was needed. They focused on the abstract and allegedly humanitarian aspects of mass migration.
For poorer people, immigration was a concrete issue, as immigrants moved into their neighborhoods and went to school with their children. To put it bluntly, for those with money, globalization initially meant that they could travel on holidays to exotic lands and treat the world as their playground. For those who were less well off, it meant that the entire world suddenly moved into their street and took over their children’s local playground.
When the Titanic during her maiden voyage across the Atlantic Ocean struck an iceberg just before midnight on 14 April 1912, the first people who could see the water pouring in were the third-class passengers who happened to be situated closest to the waterline. Meanwhile, the richest passengers at the top were drinking fine cognac long after the ship had started sinking. They didn’t realize what was going on for quite some time, because they were further removed from the physical problem. The poor passengers still unfortunately suffered the highest fatality rates, because the wealthy benefitted from having privileged access to the lifeboats.
We see the same phenomenon on display today, on a much larger scale. Having Islamophobia in Europe today is just as rational as having icebergophobia on board the Titanic in 1912.
Uhrskov Jensen in 2012 published another book, Indvandringens Pris (“The Price of Immigration”) about how much money non-European mass immigration costs his native Denmark. His conclusion is that this cost is great in terms of welfare payments and rising crime combined with declining efficiency and technological innovation.
He shows through carefully researched statistics that only certain Asian immigrants are able to keep up with northern Europeans in the educational system. A few skilled immigrants from India or elsewhere can compete, but mainly those from East Asia: Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, and to some extent Vietnamese. All other non-Western immigrants show lower levels of skill and competence than Europeans, many of them a lot lower.
Read the rest at FrontPage Mag.
For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.
8 comments:
I wonder whether the political leaders do not in fact want "a major shock to the system." I think of a passage in Dostoevsky's Demons in which a character (I forget his name) expounds to Verkhovensky the socialist plan to seize power. The character explains that the socialists will first turn each social group against each other--father against son, brother against sister, etc.--, reject that there is anything essential to Russia or to being Russian, and then wait for a great social collapse. Divided and fearful, the Russian people, the character hopes, will start "clamoring for an unifying idea" to deliver them from the horror into which they have been thrown. Might some the Western tyrants in their "dangerous stubbornness" be not so much "ideologically blind" but full conscious of what they're engineering?
Not that it matters much what their intentions be. Their empire is defended by illogicalities and equivocations, built upon an imported low-IQ slave class. Whatever their plans, because of its inferior structure their empire will fall.
"...the destiny of men and people has never been written in advance, and nothing is necessarily lost nor gained," as Faye writes.
Anonymous 3:15....I would go a little further with your comment and suggest to you that it was the 'secret societies' that JFK warned about that got him killed.
Eisenhower in his farewell speech warned of letting the military industrial complex being left to its own devices - which had also become increasingly unaccountable since 1947 with the coming into force of the National Security Act and increasingly divorced from government control through being directed by the many 'national security' establishments then being set up, such as the CIA - lest it become completely uncontrollable and a parallel government.
Donald Rumsfeld once posed a question about where so many billions of dollars of taxpayer money had disappeared to over the decades as the GAO had lost track of it. Yet no one has been able to track where all that money, as questioned by Rumsfeld, has gone.
The Bilderberg Group is a notoriously secret organization that lists its yearly visitors as those who are the shakers and movers of the world's business and political establishments, yet no one outside of that group is permitted to be informed of what their yearly meetings are about. And on that note, I guess anyone who has a modicum of common sense to their name will be apprehensive about secret groups involving some very high profile people who are obliged to remain mum on what they meet about. Why all this secrecy?
Similarly, other groups such as The Council on Foreign Relations, also keep zipped lips on what it is that they meet about. Again, why the secrecy?
I don't know about most people, but this kind of thing disturbs me greatly and I firmly that what we are all now witnessing with the steady dismantling of the West's economy is a direct result, or a plan if you wish, of those secret society meetings.
JFK was willing to expose them publicly for what they were and paid with his life. That to me is a prima facie case for why those societies must now be exposed.
Interesting about Dos there .. thanks for that comment.
I was reading Shirer's account of the third reich recently & noted that Hitler made a decision to obtain power legally (set aside for the moment the question of what he'd do with it) and the Nazis then set about establishing a whole alternative society, top to bottom, including a power structure which would be able to assume power in a heartbeat, and start its work the next morning.
One suspects that should a huge collapse transpire, the traditional societal structures will finally be written off altogether and the real players will assume full control.
Using that model, one remembers the use that the Nazis made of the Reichstag fire. They cracked down on the reds, and it was really all over so far as personal freedom went shortly thereafter too. A similar event in the West now, and who would be on the receiving end of such a crackdown?
Anyone speaking the truth.
Anyone read Jim Nelson Black?
Thanks for pointing me to the JFK speech. A president who could not only speak but write well: how revolutionary...
I dug out my copy of Demons this morning and saw that I had transposed the names. Verkhovensky is the socialist, Stavrogin the man to whom he's talking.
If anyone's interested, here's the chapter, though in a different translation than that with which I'm familiar.
I find this paragraph in particular prescient.
"He's got it all down nicely in his notebook," Verkhovensky continued. "He's got spying. He's got each member of society watching the others and obliged to inform. Each belongs to all, and all to each. They're all slaves and equal in their slavery. Slander and murder in extreme cases, but above all--equality. First, the level of education, science, and talents is lowered. A high level of science and talents is accessible only to higher abilities--no need for higher abilities! Higher abilities have always seized power and become despots. Higher abilities cannot fail to become despots and have always corrupted rather than been of use; they are to be banished or executed. Cicero's tongue is cut off, Copernicus's eyes are put out, Shakespeare is stoned--this is Shigalyovism! Slaves must be equal: there has never yet been either freedom or equality without despotism, but within a heard there must be equality, and this is Shigalyovism! Ha, ha, ha, so you find it strange? I'm for Shigalyovism."
One could easily attribute the open borders phenomena to Social Marxists like the Frankfurt Group and their ideological descendents found in various Leftist/Democratic parties throughout the West. Open borders has always been at the top of their agenda. They know it's the only way to destroy Western civilization/capitalism and replace it with a totalitarian system they call Socialism.
When you examine Socialism as implemented in Europe and England, much of it smacks of a in your face totalitarianism that even a Nazi would approve of. Speech code violations abound backed by prison time. People self-censor their speech and print lest they run afoul of the law. Even self-defense(which is a basic human right) is made illegal. Public protests that are un PC/MC are nearly illegal. Surveillance is all pervasive to the extent that it brings to mind Orwell's 1984.
The elites also back open borders for other reasons. Cheap labor for factories and to destroy the White middle-class. They do not want a informed and intelligent demographic segment that can call them on their transgressions and push for reforms. No they want a passive, dumbed down populace like Mexico where the elites are allowed to run roughshod with no repercussions.
I think you might like Jack Vance's works as much as I.
Keep it coming Fjordman. The leftists argue with the fluidity of culture and that opposition is a mark of less eduacation or fear of the unknown.
How can it be unknown when we live in it? And if culture is dynamic, can it not evolve in a bad direction? Bad as in suppressive, non-secular and un-democratic?
I think you made the explanation well, it all boils down to incentives and cost. The elite never saw the cost, they just liked the aura of goodness.
There is a shift though. There are people who ask questions that used to be politically incorrect, even in mainstream-media. I am carefully optimistic. See this
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/Europa-mot-2083-6921236.html
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.