Europe for Africans: Is Robert Mugabe a Hero?

The leader of Afrikan Youth in Norway (yes, we have several state-sponsored organizations for Africans in Norway), the Norwegian-Nigerian (at least that's the official term, he appears to think more as a Nigerian than as a Norwegian) Sam Chimaobi Ahamba suggests that Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is a freedom fighter, and that the Western media focus on him stems from Western (meaning white racist) anger at an African freedom fighter. "Yes, people get beat up and women get raped, but this happens in all countries, not just in Zimbabwe. But only Zimbabwe generates this incredible media attention," says Ahamba.

"I don't agree with the idea that just because I support Mugabe, I have to defend the fact that he has killed a lot of people." No, he supports Mr. Mugabe "from a pan-African principle. He is a leader who really tries to liberate his people from European powers. There must be enough freedom of speech in this country for me to have such a viewpoint," Ahamba states.

According to Sam Chimaobi Ahamba, "Zimbabwe is a country born on the expulsion and disenfranchisement of whites, which could explain all the attention and media coverage" it receives. Its struggle for independence was a "milestone which symbolized that we no longer needed to be afraid of white power and oppression, or be the slaves of a neo-colonialist economy. It was black power – and it was without apology." He claims that democracy in Africa has often been obstructed by "white nations" and that they "see through the West's tactics of humiliating African countries' right to total and absolute independence from the West's imperialist and capitalist stranglehold" on the African continent. "As soon as the West doesn't get things the way it wants, the so-called Third World gets to suffer for this."

In Zimbabwe, "The people had liberated themselves from neo-colonialists, taken back what rightfully belongs to them and appointed a leader." This is why many Africans now cheer for Mugabe. "In a true pan-African spirit we support Mugabe because we see that the West employs all its dirty tricks in order to oust him from the government. This means that they fear the power he has to liberate Zimbabwe from their system, and the example he will thereby set for other African nations."

Mr. Ahamba concludes that "The case of Zimbabwe is important to us because it affects our families, our continent and our destinies as a united people. That people of European origins should deny us Africans a cultural nationalism, a pride and a fighting spirit is not acceptable, just or democratic. It is classic Eurocentrism and bordering on racism to call us racists and supporters of genocide just because we support our own leaders. Africans, whether they are at home on the continent or in the diaspora have a natural enthusiasm for and emotional links to Zimbabwe because it is our home and our struggle against oppression."

I'm sure the irony of pointing out the fact that Mr. Ahamba talks about "fighting for native rights" as an African in Europe is completely lost on him, or that the natives in Norway provide him, in their naivety, with a much better standard of living than he would have had in any African nation. If native Europeans talk about limiting mass immigration (which really is a form of colonization), the same "African diaspora" are always among the first to complain about "racism." They should have the right to expel whites from Africa, and then they should follow them abroad. In other words: Africa for Africans - and Europe for Africans, too.

I would like to ask Mr. Sam Chimaobi Ahamba the following: Since you feel so "oppressed" by evil white people, why did you move to a country and a continent full of them? Isn't it emotionally challenging for you to see so many of them on a daily basis? I'm also curious about this organization Afrikan Youth in Norway, which Ahamba leads. We are usually told that Europeans now come in all shapes and colors, and that equating "European" with "white" is redundant, racist and evil. Yet when I look at photos from this "African" youth organization, I don't see many white South Africans or for that matter Asians from East Africa. They all seem to be black. Does that mean that while "Europeans" come in all colors, "Africans" come in just one? How confusing.

Could I move to Nigeria out of my own free will and set up a European Youth in Nigeria organization sponsored by native taxpayers, in the name of "cultural diversity"? I suspect not. What if I publicly supported brutal attacks and ethnic cleansing of people in Europe who happened to have the same skin color as the majority population in the country I lived in? Could I call this "free speech" and get away with it? Again, I suspect not. Only white people are cowed and self-loathing enough to pay for getting insulted in their own countries.

In fact, we don't have to insult or vilify anybody in order to be attacked, it is enough merely to suggest that we exist and have a right to exist. If we make organizations specifically dedicated to taking care of our interests and promoting our cultural heritage, we will quickly be demonized as "right-wing extremists" or "neo-Nazis" by the left-wing media, and quite possibly face legal prosecution by the authorities. My ancestors have lived in this country since the end of the last Ice Age, yet we have no status as a distinct group. Pakistanis, Somalis and Kurds have the right to preserve their culture in my country, but I don't. Which is another way of saying that native Europeans are second-rate citizens in our own countries, and are intentionally made to be so according to the ruling Multicultural paradigm promoted by the cultural elites on a national level and the European Union and others on a supranational level.

The only ones who are specifically denied displaying any pride in their cultural heritage are people of European origins. That's the whole point of Multiculturalism. You didn't think there was another point, did you? This is how for instance the "conservative" Swedish PM Fredrik Reinfeldt can say in public that the native culture in his country was just barbarism, and that everything that was good was imported from abroad. The Swedish people, just like the Norwegian, the Finnish, the English, the Flemish, the Swiss, the Austrian, the Italian people etc. have been linguistically deconstructed and abolished. Our countries no longer exist as cultural entities, only as empty vessels to be filled with the "human rights" of other peoples.

Native Europeans are being told that we don't have a culture and that we thus "gain" culture when others move to our countries. This is an insult to thousands of years of European history, to the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic legacies and the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage we all share in. The next moment we are told that we do have a culture, but it consists of nothing but a long line of crimes and is thus not worth preserving, anyway.

My nation doesn't have a colonial history. It gained its independence as late as the twentieth century, at which point it was a poor country, yet because I am white, I am held personally responsible for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by every person who happens to have roughly similar skin color throughout recorded history. American novelist Susan Sontag once stated that "The white race is the cancer of human history." I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I'm told that "race" doesn't exist, it's socially constructed. What this means is that people of European origins can be verbally (and sometimes physically) attacked for being white, yet are systematically deprived of any means of defending themselves against these attacks or identifying the cause of them.

I do not hold Abdullah the kebab salesman personally responsible for sacking Constantinople, abducting millions of Europeans to slavery, colonizing the Iberian Peninsula, ruining the Balkans or threatening Vienna several times. I criticize Islam because Muslims have never admitted their past and will continue to commit atrocities as long as the institution of Jihad is alive. I do not believe in collective responsibility, and I do not think a person should be held responsible for actions done by his ancestors centuries ago. On the other hand, if I am to take the blame, personally, for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by any white person in the past, it is only fair that I, personally, should also take credit for their achievements.

It was to an overwhelming degree people of European stock who created the modern world. If I am to be held personally responsible for colonialism or the transatlantic slave trade, I want personal credit for the greatest advances for mankind made by any civilization that has ever existed on this planet. The next time our children are taught to feel bad for something that happened centuries ago, we should inform them that they should take pride in discovering electromagnetism and thus the telegraph, the telephone, radio, TV and the Internet, making chemistry into a scientific discipline (as opposed to alchemy), coining the concept of "gravity" and inventing rockets that could defy the earth's gravity and explore space (Asian rockets used gunpowder and weighed a few kilograms at most), making the first accurate scientific measurements of the speed of light, creating barometers and thermometers, thus establishing meteorology and the only mathematical temperature scales ever made by humans, inventing light bulbs, refrigerators, beer cans, chocolate bars, cars, airplanes and virtually all modern means of transportation, inventing microscopes and founding microbiology and antiseptics in medicine. We did all of these things, and much more. Nobody else did, despite how much they claim otherwise.

If current immigration continues, France will soon become an African Muslim country that just happens to be north of the Mediterranean. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization, shouldn't Europeans have the same right? No Eastern European country has a colonial history and many Western European countries have only marginal ones. The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turks, who have a thousand years of extremely brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are not many Dutch people left in Indonesia, so why should the Dutch be rendered a minority in their major cities by Moroccans and others? And why should Portugal, Spain and Greece, which have suffered from centuries of Islamic colonization, have to accept Muslims into their lands? Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all, yet are still subject to mass immigration. The truth is that immigration policies bear little correlation to past history, population density or size. Ireland, Denmark, Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands have one, and only one, thing in common: The natives are white, and therefore seemingly have no legitimate claim to their own countries.

As I've written in my previous essay Creating a European Indigenous People's Movement, an American friend of mine has proposed that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People's Movement. I hesitated with supporting this at first. However, in more and more European cities, the native population is being pushed out of their own neighborhoods by immigrant gangs. The natives receive little or no aid from their authorities, sometimes blatant hostility, when faced with immigrant violence. In an age where the global population increases with billions of people in a few decades, it is entirely plausible, indeed likely, that the West could soon become demographically overwhelmed. Not few of our intellectuals seem to derive pleasure from this thought.

Bat Ye'or in her book about Eurabia has documented how the European Union is actively allowing Muslims to colonize European countries. The next time EU leaders complain about China's treatment of minorities, I suggest the Chinese answer the following: "Yes, we represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to subduing the indigenous people of Tibet, but you represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to displacing the indigenous peoples of an entire continent." There is no love lost between me and the Chinese Communist Party, an organization responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of its citizens, but even Chinese authorities do not actively seek to displace their own people with violent Muslims. European authorities do.

In decadent societies of the past, the authorities didn't open the gates to hostile nations and ban opposition to this as intolerance and barbarophobia. What we are dealing with in the modern West is not merely decadence; it's one of the greatest betrayals in history. Our so-called leaders pass laws banning the opposition to our dispossession as "racism and hate speech." To native Europeans, when listening to our media and our leaders, it's as if we don't even exist, as if it were normal for them to put the interests of other nations over their own. Despite having "democratic" governments, many Western countries have authorities that are more hostile to their own people than dictators in some developing countries. Why? I can think of several possible reasons, but either way, it's time for that policy to end.

Social Wellfare? # 4

@ Nataraja


1) It is Arundhati Roy (not Singh).  She, too, is a person of great talent who has been led astray by naive-left (Western) ideology.  It will hold back 'development' in India.

2) Too many different subjects at the same time prevent depth and understanding to be reached.

3) Stiglitz is a smart man, but he lost out in a power struggle at the World Bank and has a lot of (personal) axes to grind. 

4) I am glad to read that you disapprove of the persecution (and attempts at prosecution) of Mr van Hecke by the Belgian government.  Numerous Westerners have sacrified in the past to obtain freedom of speech in the West. As you can see, this cultural trait is under constant threat, and is not a permanent acquisition.  It is probably the best indicator that the next century will not be a 'European' one.  

5) I fear that you are temporarily lost to leftist and globalist media hype.  But, I trust that, given time, common sense will assert itself.  Meanwhile, 'development' will have to wait.  

Social weLLfare? # 3



5) Yes, an IT specialist in Bangalore could be on the 'right' side of my "cultural scale". In fact, I know that many are, because I know some of them. And the same applies to the other 3 examples you cited. But - and this is a big BUT - I said "could", not necessarily "are". If they truly "sacrifice" for their own societies, like so many Westerners have done before in Western history for their own, then these non-western societies may some day also be prosperous and relatively 'free'. India is a special case, because I do consider it already largely 'free' (in part thanks to the past British influence, whether the Indians can recognise that or not), but not rich. BUT, if the IT specialist in Bangalore, the Iranian surgeon, the Bangladeshi and the Bahraini, were to start parroting - like you do - leftist nonsense about "unjust and unequal globalisation of economic welfare", then they fall on the wrong side of my cultural scale. Then they would buy into absurd victimisation theories (admittedly theories originating from Western academia) which are the exact opposite of 'development'. And then there would be little hope for the future of India, Bangladesh, Iran, Bahrein, etc... Development has to come from WITHIN. The use of foreign scapegoats is a hindrance, not a help to development. And, even in the wealthy West itself, the same kind of victimisation nonsense is also largely responsible for holding certain sub-cultures back or 'underdeveloped'. You mentioned California. Isn't it remarkable that, within 1 generation of stepping off the boat or the plane so to speak, a number of ethnic groups become among the most succesful (richest) groups in society. At the same time, other sub-groups who have been there for generations linger in squalor and government 'welfare' (assistance). Believe me, Armor is wrong. Democracy (political freedom) and economic success are fundamentally based on 'culture', on cultural behavior PATTERNS, not on race or any other physical phenomena (like climate, or natural resources, etc...). And, perhaps the most important cultural behavior pattern or feature that enables development', is the ability to engage in self-criticism and questioning of own culture.

A question to Marcfrans

MF wrote: "Believe me, Armor is wrong. Democracy (political freedom) and economic success are fundamentally based on 'culture', on cultural behavior PATTERNS, not on race or any other physical phenomena (like climate, or natural resources, etc...). "

Is it not the case that Europeans are more intelligent and less violent than Africans?

Social weLLfare? # 2

@ Nataraja

1) Please, stop the pretense, and try for some honesty.  I am not your "dearest", and even a casual observer knows that I am not in the habit of pointing to "spelling mistakes".  My own posts are littered with such mistakes.  Words like "welfare" and "wellness" can have different meanings, depending on the context, and I honestly thought that you meant to distinguish your word "wellfare" from the commonly-used term "welfare" (which in the American context has a very negative connotation).  That is why I suggested you use "well-fare" instead of welfare.  But, all this is unimportant. And, FYI, I am not a native English writer either.

2) I am glad that you do not want to take money away from anyone.  Allow me to doubt that, if you use an expression like "just and equal globalisation of economic welfare".   I still don't know what you mean by "welfare"? I also wonder what "globalisation of welfare" could possibly mean?  So, I am definitely at a loss to understand why it would be unjust and/or unequal?  I suggest you try to do some explaining, instead of parroting naive-left slogans.

3) Who exactly is "denying succesfull entrepeneurship"?  Frank Van Hecke, Mahinder Singh, Vladimir Putin?....Who? 

Which "regulations" and which "international economic structures"  are you talking about?  You sound like a teenager or an anarchist, or Arundhati Roy (?)

Who is limiting freedom of speech? That is a good one!!  Coming right after your approval of the Belgian government persecuting Van Hecke precisely for 'speech'. By the way, I too am all for "economic development" and certainly for a good "education system". But, unlike you, I know that the latter has little to do with money.  When I was young, there was freedom of political speech in Belgium, but also much less money to spend on education. Today, there is less freedom of speech in Belgium, but certainly more money spent on 'education'.  Apparently, more money can go along with less 'education'.

4)  I agree that "culture" is a "blurry" concept.  It can be interpeted very broadly and also very narrowly.  Culture can be observed in human behavior. In a broad sense, it is going to be observable in patterns of behavior displayed by many individuals.  FYI, culture cannot "sacrifice", only individuals can do that.  Obviously, some individuals are capable of being more 'independent' from their surrounding culture, while undoubtedly partaking in that culture too to some extent.  I would never confuse an individual or a person with a culture, and if you could remain intellectually honest you would know that.  I have had too many arguments with morally-relativistic 'racists' on this blog for you not to know that.  


@ marcfrans

@ marcfrans

I am the firmest believer in the positive effects that could be achieved by allowing the benefits of true democratic values, liberty and justice, education and most of all economic development spread throughout the world, in other words a broad globalization of these. I honestly believe this will influence the occurrence of war, human rights abuses, poverty and hunger positively. Moreover, the institutionalized urge to self-victimizing and the pathological eagerness to migrate to another part of the world in search of luck might slowly but surely diminish too.
I don’t feel much affected by your accusations of being a teenager, an anarchist (even though I must admit I’ve enjoyed reading on anarchism, libertarianism and social ecology) or Arundhati Sing. If there’s one name to mention which I definitely admire and feel influenced by, let it be former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz. In his books (“Making Globalization Work” is excellent, unless you would consider this "leftist nonsense" too) he points out razor sharp how institutes like the World Bank and the World Trade Organization have strangled entrepreneurship in defense of geo-political strategies. These are the international economic structures I am referring to. Isn’t it odd that the head of the World Bank has always been appointed by the US president (no approval of Congress needed)? And isn’t it even more odd that persons with a background in defense like Paul Wolfowitz are assigned to a position which claims to be based on knowledge of economic development?
“Who is limiting freedom of speech”: the big majority of governments in the Arab world are, and many African, Asian and Latin American regimes, which is one of the factors contributing for example to the continuing disastrous backwardness of the Arab Middle East when it comes to the Human Development Index. No coincidence that the few countries opening up slowly (Bahrain is one of them) are the ones immediately improving on educational standards and economic development. So even there Middle Eastern “culture” seems to work just fine as long as the political conditions are changed.

Finally, your odd urge to refer to Mr Frank Van Hecke falls out of the sky to me. And I most certainly did not approve of “the Belgian government persecuting Van Hecke precisely for 'speech'”. I on the contrary always have defended the freedom of expression, as well from the organizations or political actors I fulminate against in my reactions.



"Social weLLfare"?

@ Nataraja

I presume that you wrote "weLLfare" with a double LL to distinguish it from the commonly used term 'welfare' (with 1 L) which connotes government largesse or forced or compulsory income 'redistribution' from tax payers to 'recipients'?  If so, perhaps "well-fare" would be a better way to put it.

Your latest contribution contains dangerous misperceptions.

1) What does "a just and equal globalization of economic well-fare" mean?   It is a nice slogan, but is it rational?  The people in Singapore and Japan are much richer, on average, than the people in say Russia and certainly in Myanmar.  In what rational sense is this "unjust"?  Russia and Myanmar have much greater control over natural wealth (natural resources) than Japan and Singapore do, and yet their peoples are much 'poorer' economically.  Differences in economic well-fare essentially reflect different cultural behavior patterns, i.e. the ways societies are able to organise themselves politically, whether there is genuine 'rule of law' or arbitrary 'rule of (some) men', whether they are able to allow markets to function in order to promote efficiency, etc... Taking money from Singapore and Japan in order to give it to Russia and Myanmar is not going to improve well-fare in the latter, UNLESS cultural behavior patterns change!  All it will do is tax (and thus discourage) the hardworking 'good-cultural-value' people to fund the 'bad-cultural-value' people.  That can only lower global or world-income, and it could just as well be called "unjust" as "just". 

2) Your example of the "brain drain" of young people to the West illustrates my point to some extent.  The wealth in the West did not fall out of the sky!  It is fundamentally based on the gradual acquisition of 'human capital' over centuries, i.e. on cultural behavior patterns which allow for the continual re-generation of income on relatively 'free markets' and under conditions of 'rule of law'.  Every year, GDP gets re-created, and this is not assured in the future, unless cultural behavior patterns can be 'maintained' or do not regress.  This acquisition of human capital has required enormous sacrifice of countless individuals in previous generations.  It was not automatically ordained or given by any 'deity' or whatever.  Thus, a general "brain drain" to the West suggests a lack of willingness to sacrifice for the well-nes of one's own community in the originating countries.  Obviously, I do not mean by "brain drain" the temporary acquisition of skills at universities or companies abroad, but I mean the refusal to go back and to put one's talents at the service of one's own 'poor society'.  It is an example of 'bad' cultural behavior traits, and it is not really different from the misgovernment by powerful 'elites' in poor countries.  They too put themselves 'first' over the well-fare of society.

3) You claim to have met and worked with "high educated people from most continents".  Do they have the same naive notions as you do about "a just and equal globalization of economic well-fare"?  If so, I must doubt the true 'level' of their "education". Education is not necessarily the same thing as understanding!  Because it would mean that they do not understand the real sources of economic well-fare, which are cultural behavior patterns that enable the organisation of societies along free-market and 'democratic' lines.  And that certainly includes a wide-spread adherence of members of the particular society to values that stress hard work, personal sacrifice, including sacrifice for the community, and tolerance for 'other' viewpoints in a wide variety of human domains. Your own advocay for, or at least acceptance of, government persecution of some individuals for opinions or speech (instead of deeds) suggests importation of 'bad values' that only strengthen already existing anti-democratic forces at the highest level of the state. Naive-left Europeans are very naive if they think that economic well-fare can only improve over time. It can regress due to bad cultural developments. A hundred years ago, Argentina was the richest country in the world. If today it is sinking fast again, it has nothing to do with "unjust globalization of economic well-fare"! It has everything to do with contemporary developments in Argentinian culture.

My dearest Marcfrans

How comforting it is to know that I can count on your erudite contributions in highlighting the incidental spelling mistakes that slip in my non-native writings. You are truly a sharp observer and a master of the English language.
Your conclusions about my “naïve views” however I’m not so impressed with.
First of all, no I do not think that a “just and equal globalization of economic welfare” implies anything in the vein of taking away money from anyone. I do not consider this the right scenario on a national level, will never vote for parties that promote this simplistically, and don’t see this as a way to go on an international level either.
What I do consider “unjust” is the denial of access to successful entrepreneurship due to strict regulations imposed by international economic structures, the limitation of freedom of speech to speak out against a corrupt government destroying economic development, the lack of investment in adequate educational systems, and so on.
Your usage of the word “culture” in this discussion is however rather blurry to me (its tempting to call it naive but I give you the benefit of the doubt). Do you mean that certain “cultural patterns” are prone to oppose economic development more than others? I could get along with that for a while, but I can’t really relate to any conclusions pointing out that “western” (at another place on this blog I discuss my problem with movements connecting this to a “racial” category) culture contains some kind of a “sacrifice” (in your words) which other cultures don’t have (can’t have? will never have? should not have? don’t know? don’t like?), which allowed us to accumulate wealth.
Is an IT-specialist in Bangalore on the right side of your “cultural” scale? A kidney surgeon from Iran operating in a hospital in California? A micro-credit provider in Bangladesh? A young female law student in Bahrain? If all of these multiply their presence in their respective countries, wouldn’t the “culture” factor become irrelevant in the analysis?
I fail to see the conclusions you try to make, so as always, feel free to cast your light over me naïve soul dwelling in darkness. And of course, my spelling mistakes.
As ever,

Dear Nataraja

Very few cultures have really "dissappeared" througout history except through war or ethnic genocide.


You're wrong. In North America, most Amerindian cultures did not disappear through war or genocide, at least not principally. They were overwhelmed by European immigration and by the higher birth rates of European settlers. There is also evidence that family formation and birth rates collapsed among some tribes once they became minorities on their own lands.


As a general principle, I feel from a fairly libertarian perspective that nation-state borders should not be turned into rigid cages


Libertarianism is the market economy extended to all facets of human endeavour. A market economy, however, cannot exist without certain cultural conditions.


We see this in our past. For most of human history, we had markets but no market economy. Only a limited range of goods could be traded and such trade normally occurred within a discrete social space -- the marketplace -- where buyers and sellers could carefully supervise their transactions.


As Gregory Clark argues in A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World, the market principle could not spread beyond the marketplace without certain cultural preconditions: a shift from a low-trust society to a high-trust one, a shift from present-oriented indulgence to future-oriented planning and budgeting, and rejection of violence as a routine way to settle personal disputes.


As Clark has shown, this cultural shift coincided in England with a demographic shift, namely the steady population growth of the upper and middle classes at the expense of the lower classes, who generally had below-replacement fertility. Today, most people in England, and elsewhere in Western Europe, have a mental outlook that was confined to a minority of the population as recently as five centuries ago. Human evolution is ongoing, and the rise of market economies was made possible by a recent evolutionary process.


I'm sorry to break the news to you, but this mental outlook is not held by most people on this planet. If you replace yourselves demographically with Third World immigrants, you will no longer have a libertarian society. You will have a low-trust society where everything has to be nailed down and where you must fight (or pay security guards) to defend your property. You will have an authoritarian society -- like most societies on this planet.


I furthermore believe that populations, not nation-states, but anything which classifies a population sharing same values and legal system, harbouring certain foundations of democratic and liberal social order, should have it as an assignment to be able to provide shelter for individuals afflicted by conflict if they need it.


You will be demographically overwhelmed and in the process will lose your shared values and liberal social order.

Dear Maple Syrup

Thanks for the interesting comments, which contain some sharp observations that I always value as a critical reminder to avoid too utopic ideas (I admit my weak sides).
I wonder what to think though of the statement "this mental outlook is not held by most people on this planet". I have personally met and worked with high educated people from most continents, as well in their native lands as diverse as Pakistan, South Africa, India, Morocco, Israel, Jordan, Russia, and a few others. I usually didnt have that much trouble in finding a solid set of shared values and concerns that we thought the world as a whole should head for. A just and equal globalization of economic wellfare is one of them,and this was usually not soo far off from my (and your) ideas of social wellfare (and not having "to pay security guards" etc.). In general, the brain-drain caused by young people migrating to the West was perceived as problematic, and many of them said that it would hopefully one day not be needed to do so. It might be a few decades (and many educational systems) away from a world where this is truly the common shared view, but I still seem to believe in it based on the contacts Ive had. Finally, your statement "You will be demographically overwhelmed and in the process will lose your shared values and liberal social order", I can assure you I will try my very best to not ever let that happen, and I will defend these under all circumstances. Hope that can somewhow unite us under a same stand.

Dear Nataraja

I made the comparison between Korean immigrants and Somali immigrants to show that the social costs of immigration (or 'externalities') vary by ethnic group. In most Western countries, current immigration policy assumes that no such differences exist.


For the record, I oppose any immigration to Norway. My reasons go well beyond economics and are really existential. Norwegians are part of our world's heritage. Their extinction would be a tragic and irreversible loss. And yes, extinction is exactly what will happen if current trends continue.


Let's suppose that the United Nations decides that the Somali people are irredeemably dysfunctional and have forfeited their right to survive. Henceforth, their birth rate will be cut to a level well below replacement. At the same time, their country will be repopulated with Europeans until native Somalis have been reduced to minority status.


Doesn't that sound awful? Even Nazi? Yet that is the prospect that now faces Norway and Norwegians in the not-so-distant future.


Frankly, I feel flabbergasted when I read some of your comments. You believe immigration is necessary because otherwise you may not get your bathroom renovated. Really? Is that so much more important than the survival of your people? Frankly, I would sooner piss in an outdoor privy than sell out my grandchildren's future!

Dear Maple Syrup

A few comments:

There are different reasons why I think migration should be under certain circumstances possible. This goes way beyond the bathroom renovation. As a general principle, I feel from a fairly libertarian perspective that nation-state borders should not be turned into rigid cages that often contain a mixture which is too diverse to unify under an artificial denomination anyhow (I guess you manage pretty well in Norway, but Im Belgian and I dont feel much affiliation within its borders). I furthermore believe that populations, not nation-states, but anything which classifies a population sharing same values and legal system, harbouring certain foundations of democratic and liberal social order, should have it as an assignment to be able to provide shelter for individuals afflicted by conflict if they need it. I would say, for practical reasons, rather in neighbouring countries than travelling half the globe to find this protection. Humanitarian aid, peacebuilding and peacekeeping abroad, in whatever ways and at all levels, I therefore consider an important responsibility of the western world. Not so much for a humanitarian impulse (which I personally believe humanity has, but I dont force this conviction on anyone), but just as much for not having to bring half of Somalia to our streets.
I also think it would be sad that if a certain need exists for my skills and knowledge (lets say, the Norwegian market would have a big need for Dutch speakers tomorrow) elsewhere, I would not be allowed to migrate and build up a career in Norway if I wanted to.
I read useful comments and analysis here from people that have a more advanced knowledge about economy than I do (thank you marcfrans), so Im not preaching this as a general salvation for market needs, but just as a principal, yes, I think it should be possible.
And finally, I think one should relax about big doom-scenarios of native Europeans dissappearing. Demographics are what they are, and surely in some parts of some cities it has gone way too far, but on the overall: if birthrate is being kept at a sufficient level (and governments provide the means for people to do so), I personally believe it will evolve just allright. It wouldnt be the first period in history that witnesses changes and gets over it. Very few cultures have really "dissappeared" througout history except through war or ethnic genocide. I would say: cherish your heritage, protect it and make it dynamic enough for newcomers to digest it. Colours might blend a bit more often, but we will get over that too Im sure.

Economics # 2

@ Nataraja

1) Indeed, you did not recommend immigration as "good" to fill certain jobs, and I did not claim that you did.  What I did do was: first, attacking the notion that immigration is needed to tackle so-called unwanted jobs and, second, recognising that in rare cases immigration can make sense (from the perspective of the home country) when certain very rare skills are not available locally.

2) I would not put great stock in the purported "majority of studies".  Most of them are undertaken on behalf of particular interest groups, or by people with an ideological axe to grind.   Instead, one is beter off by relying on logic and on economic science.  

3) In genuine free markets, prices would be allowed to clear.  On any specific labor market, that means that if the wage rate is allowed to settle at its equilibrium level, there can be no "unwanted jobs".  Thus, at the equilibrium level, sufficient supply of labor will have been attracted onto the market to meet the demand. And, equally, at the equilibrium level, demand will have been suffciently restrained to the level of supply of labor forthcoming at that 'price' or wage rate.  You might say, that is all fine 'in theory'. No, that is not just theory, but corresponds to real forces of supply and demand that are constantly at work on markets IF prices are allowed to perform their equilibrating function.  It is only when they are not, that 'shortages' or surplusses will occur. And "unwanted jobs" are a clear indication of a supply (of local labor) shortage, while SIMULTANEOUSLY long-term unemployment is a clear indication of a supply surplus of local labor relative to demand for labor. The important point is to realise that these shortages and surplusses are ARTIFICIAL and not God-given.  They are artificially created as a result of bad government policies.

4) The very notion that there could be shortages of labor for 'UNskilled jobs' when there are high levels of long-term unemployment, as currently prevails in much of Europe, is ridiculous on its face.   I know, and you know, that there is high unemployment and that many unemployed prefer to go on Government assistance rather than join the labor force at prevailing wage rates.  The 'common sense' response would be for government to stop interfering in the market and (a) to let the wage rate rise to induce labor to come forth and meet the excess 'demand' by employers of those "unwanted jobs", and (b) not to 'compete' with employers by offering generous welfare payments to articially 'unemployed'.   But, of course, this is not what happens.  In the real world, governments tend to do the opposite. They allow immigration, which undercuts the wage rate and makes working less attractive for the unemployed, and they also maintain a comfortable 'safety net' which makes it more attractive to stay 'unemployed'.

5) So, the real queston is, why do governments pursue such bad policies that induce immigraton and that keep unemployment high?  There are multiple answers. But the two main ones are.  (A) First, businesses lobby for more immigrants.  They prefer a (relatively) 'low' wage rate, and will let government (and the tax payers) deal with the (social and financial) costs of both immigration and higer unemployment among the natives/locals.  (B) Second, many politicians do not understand macro economics, but they do seek votes from interest groups, including ethnic immigrant groups.  

labor markets

@ onecent

You are right. The notion that immigration is needed to fill jobs "unwanted" by natives, is economic nonsense. Yet, it is constantly being repeated by economically-illiterate 'journalists' for ideological reasons.  If particular jobs are "unwanted" it is because they are not being properly remunerated, i.e. because the prices (wage rates) on those particular labor markets are 'too low', i.e the domestic labor markets are not allowed to function freely or properly so that the labor market is not 'clearing'.  Usually it is because of government 'interventions'  on the supply side (of labor), i.e. by allowing legal and illegal immigration, and also by offering sufficiently high welfare payments or subsidies to 'native' unskilled labor that then can 'afford' to join the unemployed and live off the tax payers.  In genuinely free markets, there can be no "unwanted jobs", except in very few extreme cases perhaps.  And, of course, an economic argument can be made for immigration in exceptional cases of very 'scarce' and highly-skilled labor. 


@ Onecent and marcfrans

I dont think I concluded anywhere that is recommendable and intrinsically "good" as a standard scenario that certain jobs would have to be filled in by migration. I can only conclude, together with the big majority of European policy studies and economic analysists, that there is a real problem in filling in certain jobs, and this is a trend that has increased over the last 10 years. There might be obvious national differences here, and off course its interesting to draw comparisons with US or Japan for the exercise of it, but fact is: there is a huge problem in getting both skilled craftsmen or unskilled workers for the dirty/dangerous/dull segment of the labour market at a sufficient level. Self-evident there should be efforts to stimulate this, and various government plans in European states do have this as a main goal, but meanhwile, getting your bathroom renovated or finding a take-over for a carpentry factory will likely not be by a native national nowadays in many European countries. Because there aren't any. We all wish there were. But they're not.

Fjordman is mostly right (1)

It was speculated below that Ahamba represents only a small politicized minority of foreigners in Norway. Accepting such speculation is hazardous to your health. I am confident Fjordman did not fabricate either Mr. Ahamba or his opinions. Presumably he can document them. But the idea these are only minority ideas is undocumented, undocumentable, and insignificant. Representativeness is not a function of numbers but of effectiveness. The most outlandish views can become representative of a people or a group if the people or group acquiesces in being represented by those who hold those views. For example, Wahhabists may be a minority of Moslems, but if they are the ones founding mosques, agitating, bringing lawsuits, proselytizing in prisons and fighting wars, they are representative of Moslems and the "silent majority" is of no significance and should not be used as an excuse not to fight the "radical minority" with every available weapon.

The first conclusion I draw from the presumably documentable reality of Ahamba and his views is that Norway has no functioning mechanism for barring the entry of undesirable aliens at its borders (or at its consulates abroad or in its airports). A well-run Norway would not allow any anti-Western, anti-white, and of necessity anti-Norwegian foreigners into the country. Once an anti-etc. agitator has revealed himself, a well-run Norway would deport him. Incidentally, a well-run Norway would deport all foreigners convicted of any crimes, violent or non-violent.

A well-run country of any race or culture will only allow the most minimal immigration of outsiders, and none at all of people who it has reason to believe will not benefit the host people. Otherwise, the immigrants will form a political bloc antagonistic to the interests of the natives, possibly by bulking up a faction in the native political scene. In a numerically-governed democracy, that can be fatal. A tiny minority can leverage its influence into effective political domination, simply by adding its small numbers to a potentially majority coalition in return for gratification of its political demands. We probably see this disastrous development in every country represented on this web site. The U.S.A. may even suffer from this worse than any of the others, with its huge and growing population of Mexicans, to court whom, as Onecent has observed, neither would-be majority party can explicitly and honestly address one of the most vital aspects of national welfare--immigration countrol--in our presidential election debates. That is a massive failure of deliberative democracy that is directly the result of our suicidal liberal immigration policy. We have also read, here most likely, that the Socialists have made progress in the Netherlands by forming coalitions with Moslems, including so-called far-right Moslems.

A well-functioning country would have no political agitation of any kind by foreigners. It is difficult enough to seek justice and order among those who "belong" in a place without adding an entirely different set of antagonisms and demands.

This is where I disagree with Fjordman. He wants indigenous status for the Norwegians. That is a terrible mistake. Once the people of a country agree to be one legal group among others, they have surrendered their national identity and their existence as a people. These things come from within, they precede any legalistic description or definition. They are the essence of a people. To erect over the essence of a people the legal framework of group identity is an abject surrender of freedom, of the free existence of a people, to multiculturalism and left-liberalism, and probably transnationalism, which seek the subordination of a free people to the agents of alien control. It is an admission that there is an earthly authority, even if apparently merely ideological, above and outside your people that gives your people its meaning and determines the course of its existence. No free people can tolerate that.

What you need to do is not to categorize Norwegians as one group among others living within the borders of Norway, but to have a national debate on what proportion, if any, of non-Norwegians is optimal for the well-being of Norway, and how you can get rid of the excess. Feel free to use any categories you like to determine who or what is desirable to add to the Norwegian population. Retroactive conditions on citizenship would not be out of place. In a democracy, you should be able to have that discussion. Getting rid of the excess can best be accomplished by deporting undesirables, removing welfare state incentives for remaining, and actually paying people to leave and not come back. In addition, you should impose the death penalty for serious crimes, but presumably that will not make much difference in overall numbers.

Right on, KO

He wants indigenous status for the Norwegians. That is a terrible mistake. Once the people of a country agree to be one legal group among others, they have surrendered their national identity and their existence as a people.

Absolutely, it just creates an eventual Yugoslavia in Norway.

Isn't the bottomline that at the core of their ideology Democrats/socialists/the Left simply doesn't want national borders Just like the Communists of old in Russia. All ethnic groups were equal and actually non-Russians given a higher status and more perks in the old USSR. Look at how that worked out later.

I've argued this before, the Mexican problem here isn't nearly as perilous to us. Mexicans don't hate us or our values. They aren't bringing religious dogmas such Sharia Law, jihad and dhimmitude with them. This video is chilling, pay attention to the numbers:

Fjordman is mostly right (2)

Fjordman would probably say my suggestions have no possibility of being put into effect, while the legal framework already exists for protecting indigenous peoples like the Norwegians and some progress could be made right away. If he really wants to take that approach, which appears to legitimize the entire anti-Western multicultural left-liberal project, he can work to that end. But I suggest he first inform himself on neopopulism at, which embodies a program to set ideological and partisan categories aside and just use whatever mechanisms are available to ensure rule by the people and rule of law. A consistent neopopulist approach ultimately could result in gaining control of Norway's immigration debacle, even if it would look like using governmental and EU processes which are inimical to the survival and flourishing of the Norwegian people.

playing dumb

Marcfrans: "The notion that immigration is needed to fill jobs "unwanted" by natives, is economic nonsense. Yet, it is constantly being repeated by economically-illiterate 'journalists' for ideological reasons."

The problem is not that journalists are ignorant of economics. Most of them do not believe what they say. Professors of economics are no better than journalists. As a matter of routine, they do very complex economic calculations that most of us would have a hard time understanding... But whenever a journalist asks for their opinion about the effects of immigration on the economy, they start talking nonsense as if they were mentally challenged.


<i>"Especially not when migration is needed to fill in the type of jobs that Europeans are unwilling to invest in or educate people in." </i>


Hum. But, is that a fact?  Where's the hard data? That reasoning has been used by pro mass immigration factions here in the US, but, when independent think tanks here applied the economics, the cost versus the benefits, the projected demographics, the future need for skilled versus unskilled labor, the effect on native wages, etc, that premise didn't hold up very well. In every industry like housing construction or meat packing in the US when unaccountable numbers of Mexicans are unleashed the wages fall for the natives. Those are jobs that natives will take. Immigration in the US and Europe right now has no accountability.  That's not in dispute.


Japan isn't opening itself up to mass immigration. Why's that if it's so necessary for economic survival?  They've concluded something different.


....leading positions in private companies is still by far and large an overwhelming privilege of native Europeans...

That's totally meaningless.  Zimbabwe's white farmers and businessmen would agree. Past a critical point, their fate was sealed. Demographics can't denied. When you change them, there are consequences.  You paint a Europe that will be ghetto-ized and not a very wholesome civil society in the future. That's the point.  


"I don't agree with the idea that just because I support Mugabe, I have to defend the fact that he has killed a lot of people."


Spoken like a true sociopath.


You can't blame white colonialism anymore for the hell hole that is Africa. Too many decades of self-rule have passed and endless aid money down that rat hole have proven that Africans are their own worst enemy. I can't speak for all American conservatives but I feel the consensus is that Africa can't be salvaged. Only the left and their useless NGO's are still engaged in that farce. 


I guess the question is, where are the adults in the media in Norway that ought to be loudly countering this guy?  In the spirit of free speech as an absolute right, Abdullah has the right to spew his garbage, but, the problem is that the natives have no public forum to respond in kind when you don't have an open balanced press or airwaves. That's a big part of the problem in Europe as I see it.  It's why many of us love FOX news here. Conservatives have much more of a presence on the internet than lefties in the US.  They have the MSM on the run too.

Miscere genus

A closer look on demographics shows a very different picture compared to that fjordman and Ahamba wants us to believe. Miscegenation is constantly growing, not only in Europe, but all over the world, even in Zimbabwe. Laws against it prevailed in nazi-Germany, apartheid-South Africa and the U.S-pre1967. Yet, an U.S.-'black'-American is 20% 'white', in average. Even conservative-religious hardliners interpret the Bible as forbidding inter-religious marriage, rather than inter-ethnic marriage. In Brazil, the percentage of 'white' citizens grew faster than the percentage of 'blacks', comparing data from 1835 and 2000 - 42,6% of Brazilians are 'multiracial', to use the common, incorrect, term. Even in Europe, incoming thai, philippine, chinese, african, etc. citizens will merge with 'white' Europeans, even in Norway. The claim of Robert Mugabe (and equally fjordman and Ahamba) is therefore backwarded, out of date, irrelevant, given the fact that there are no African 'nations' within the white man's borderlines, as ethnic violence proved recently in South Africa, triggered by Zimbabwean refugees. That Africans should govern their country without foreign patronization, is their natural right.

Fjordman is wrong

On this specific point, Fjordman is wrong and Nataraja is right. The spokespersons quoted by Fjordman are a small politicized minority. Most Third World immigrants have little in the way of political opinions and the ones they do hold are often contradictory. I have repeatedly encountered immigrants who, in the same conversation, will both praise and condemn Western societies for their greater degree of freedom. In this respect, they are like the rest of us, but only more so.


In any case, political opinions can be changed through reasoned argument. I myself have changed many of my views (albeit with some reluctance and loss of face). Such change is feasible and even common.


Does this mean Third World immigration is nothing to worry about? Hardly. There is another aspect of this immigration that is much, much harder to change than politics or ideology.


By this, I mean behavior, specifically behavioral predispositions: anger thresholds, ideation of violence, attitudes to women, strength of bonding with a mate, willingness to invest in the care of one's children, and so forth. These predispositions are much more deeply rooted and less susceptible to change. They have their origins in cultural conditioning from an early age and in factors that are partly or even largely innate, e.g., differences in IQ and testosterone levels.


When a Somali youth rapes a Norwegian woman, is he making a 'political statement'? No. He's simply enjoying himself. The same goes for violence. Yes, there are people in this world who get an almost orgasmic thrill from violence. That is the way they are, and they are not going to change easily.


Nataraja, let me ask you an honest question. Please give me an honest answer, i.e., the one you believe to be true. Is the social impact of a million Somali immigrants equal to the social impact of a million Korean immigrants?


If your answer is 'yes', you are truly an ideologue. You may be a neoconservative ideologue, but that scarcely makes you better than a Marxist one.

Dear Maple Syrup

Thanks for the question, and dont worry, I always try to answer with what I believe to be true.
No I do not think that the social impact of a million Somali immigrants would ever be equal to the social impact of a million Korean immigrants. Far from. Somalis grow up in a social setting which has been devastated by one of the most violent and bloody civil wars of the last two decades. Inevitably, this has created individuals that have dangerous tolerance levels of interpersonal violence, and have often learned to use it themselves at a young age in order to survive. Koreans (and I presume you are talking about South Korea) did not have this as a social background in the recenrt years, and will therefore without any doubt be more prone to integrate with our norms and social values. Furthermore, the sickening African culture of female genital mutilation and sexual and gender-based violence is very high in Somalia (just for the record: this is far from limited to Somalia, but large regions of this continent have this, and for the islambashers: regardless of religion, christian and indigenous populaions are just as enthousiastic with the rusty knife on their teenage girls. ), so yes, I do think there is a gigantic problem in coping with this when Somalis settle down en masse in Europe. The only way for them and for us to manage a coexistence is to have their new generations growing up on Europe gaining strength and integrity to go against their cultural roots, and a firm helping hand from our laws and regulations cracking down on abuses (like genital operations of young somali girls in their home land) will be highly needed.

I would like to add another reflection for you though Maple Syrup: how would the mass migration of 1 million Korean evangelical christians (Korea is one of the fastest growing Evangelical communities in the world, often funded and supported by right-wing pentecostal megachurches in the US) work if they bring in their black-and-white evangelical mission(whoever does not confess Jesus Lord and Saviour is in the hands of the Devil) into Europe? Helpful for building a Conservative Alliance with their radical stands against working women, gay rights and the public selling alcohol? Same line? Or a conflict of interest? Honest answer please.
Best wishes

Race war

You can easily explain all that saying it's, simply, a racial war against white people. Foreign people are not going to Europe to assimilate and turning themselves in Europeans, but rather for conquest and a sort of revenge of colonialism. It's very interesting to see that web site : you see this double standard where they speak of "black greatness", and define themselves racially, and same time are speaking about "racism". What they call white racism is in fact, white resistance to invasion of their country.
There are laws in history and relationship between peoples and races. These laws are clear : never in a same place two different populations with too much difference (language, race, religion) can live peacefully.

not my point

Thanks for the reaction Mark. I off course agree that Mr Sam has a ridiculous double standard, but my point was rather the question how seriously we should take his views as representative for a community (in this case, the african migrants in Europe), let alone influential in the public sphere. Not to say that colonial history and the different attitudes vis-a-vis local indigenous culture (which were as diverse as the regimes colonizing) should not be taken into account in any debate.

On yoour second remark: no I do not think that continuing migration (if this is even a relevant fear in the new Europe) would "inevitably change" the socio-economic balance so easily. Especially not when migration is needed to fill in the type of jobs that Europeans are unwilling to invest in or educate people in. 


Ethnic double standard

Nataraja, you've missed the main point. Sam Ahamba is running with an ethnic double standard - a blatant one. He says:

"That people of European origins should deny us Africans a cultural nationalism, a pride and a fighting spirit is not acceptable, just or democratic."

Why then should Europeans be denied the same thing?

I'm also unsure why you believe that ethnic Norwegians will always dominate public positions and private companies. If patterns of migration continue, then this will inevitably change.

Dear Fjordman

I always enjoy reading your reflections that show your passionate devotion to the debate on multiculturalism etc., and you sure always provide us with some oneliners that are worth remembering. However I really feel you jump from one conclusion to a new one like a wild horse, which I presume reflects a deep-rooted anxiety rather than a rational analysis of the matter.
Hope you dont mind me adding some thoughts:
First of all, I think it is strange that while Abdullah the kebab-man is not to be held responsible for big patterns in civilizational history, the opinion of one individual in Norway who was shoved a mic under his nose to satisfy media needs, is served on a plate as being representative, and key-reference for your analysis. I personally have met much more interesting, let alone influential, African journalists and academics (of all colours) that are able comment on a figure like Mugabe in a much more nuanced way. And just as a side-note, classifying Mugabe as a "freedom fighter" has been done just as consistently by the European political leaders for many years when he took over power.
Your lamentation about native Europeans being second-class citizens in their own countries sounds pretty crooked and paranoid to me, considering the fact that access to socio-economic wellfare, public functions, and leading positions in private companies is still by far and large an overwhelming privilege of native Europeans, and this is very likely to stay that way and (a discussion in itself off course) to me the one and only real tangible basis of social patterns and relations. Im not saying a sharp debate about for example migration is not needed (which you rightfully point out "en cours de route") , but I just really dont think the fact that a Norvegian/African or Kurdish cultural association receives a handful of money from the state (which is, let's admit it, usually peanuts) to employ one person and organise 5 music festivals a year for the white Norwegians that have travelled abroad, like watching discovery channel, and like to jump on african drumming every once in a while can be called a "threat" to native European culture, as long as the big majority of museums, history books and school curriculums, music and art production, and literature is based on, funded by, and generates income through its reference to that exact native European culture itself.
Furthermore, I am baffled that you dare to refer to the "human rights of other people" in this regards, which I honestly think is one of the great pillars of our European heritage, and which I dont want to compromise for anything at any point (and if Mr Sam would object to the protection of human rights I would fully agree to ship his ass elsewhere). Finally, I (as usual Im afraid) utterly fail to follow your jump from an analysis which first discusses at country level (e.g. an african immigrant to Norway), and then suddenly drags in "islam" as some all-encompassing Trojan horse to pin your conclusion on. Did Mr. Sam refer to Islam when discussing his point? Is it Indonesian, Pakistani, Chinese, Saudi, or Algerian muslims that is threatening Norvegian culture? A mixture of all of them? The womens rights? Norvegian sweet cheese (which I presume to be haram)? Beer? Art? Music?
In a Bat Ye'or-like paranoia-discourse I guess this kind of fine-tuning is unnecessary and even unwanted, but I will always keep on demanding that before being able to draw big conclusions about anything. And I can assure you it keeps me much calmer and less fearfull.
Thanks for a good read, I enjoyed it.