The new thousand year Reich

What Hitler and the Nazis tried to achieve through the use of gas chambers and concentration camps Norwegian cultural Marxists are trying to accomplish through intimidation, propaganda and a tsunami of third world immigrants imported to Norway disguised as political asylum seekers. These new fascists don’t wear Nazi uniforms, but swanky suits. They have adopted a false altruistic persona and control the Norwegian department of propaganda also known as the independent Norwegian media. Their ultimate goal is to replace the traditional owners of Norway with a social engineered ‘master race’ made up of descendants from all four corners of the globe. The original Nazis called their breeding program lebensborn; the new Nazis in Norway call theirs the multicultural society which they hope will last for the next thousand years.

These cultural Marxists are engaging in genocide against their own people by deliberately working to wipe out an ethnic national group and in the process erase all traces of its culture. Normal people who aren’t afflicted with mental leprosy are filled with love when they see their offspring, the cultural Marxists only feel hatred and disgust when they see young white ethnic Norwegian children, as to them these children represent an obstacle on the way to their deranged dream of a world without Norwegians. They facilitate the gang rape of young Norwegian girls, assaults on Norwegian children and the terrorizing of the ethnic Norwegian population, as these tactics serve an important purpose in the process of eradicating everything Norwegian.

For these cultural Marxists it makes perfect sense to engage in genocide against Norwegians as they don’t acknowledge that there is such a thing as a distinct Norwegian culture and a Norwegian ethnic group. For them everything in Norway is a result of outside influences. The hatred for their own country is so intense that they even won’t acknowledge the existence of its indigenous people; even the Nazi weren’t that extreme.  Ten thousand years of history and national identity is set to end up on the rubbish tip of history if they get their way.

They exhibit clear traits of psychopathic behaviour in the way which they ruthlessly intimidate, ridicule and crush dissidents, akin to the way Stalin crushed dissidents in the Moscow processes. For these cultural Marxists it’s not enough to get people to forget their roots and heritage, they want people to actively despise their heritage and learn that it’s completely unacceptable to celebrate anything associated with it.

The victims of this venomous campaign of nullifying history are past, present and future generations of Norwegians. The historical revisionism is well underway and the eradication process has been very successful so far. They start the mental indoctrination at an early age so they can easily mould the minds of the young and impressionable. Awareness campaigns to instil proper dosages of white guilt are heavily relied upon. Any critical remarks about the new world order are prosecuted under the pretext of being racial discrimination, the true purpose of the law however is to prevent anyone from criticizing the path staked out by the multicultural fascists.

In the words of professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen;

“The most important challenge now is to deconstruct the majority population and to be so thorough that it can never be referred to as the majority population again”

In Norway these days it’s more taboo to profess love for Norway and Norwegian culture than it is to be openly anti-Semitic. It’s more taboo to love your own country than it is to publicly express hatred for a people that the Nazis actually tried to exterminate. That’s how sick the Norwegian society is at the moment.

The so called Norwegian Anti-Racist Centre have even attempted to document alleged incidents of anti-immigration sentiments and behaviour in the immediate aftermath of the 22/7 attacks in Oslo before it became apparent that it was a Norwegian who carried out the attacks. The idea behind the project is supposed to show how evil and racist ethnic Norwegians are. The anti-racists are so determined in stopping any attempts of Norwegian assertiveness that they can’t even tolerate the tiniest outpouring of spontaneous frustration and angst when a terrorist, which everyone assumed was a Muslim, blew up a building in downtown Oslo killing several people and seriously injuring others. That’s how bad it is in Norway these days and it’s going to get a lot worse. And it’s all thanks to psychopathic Marxists fascists. And the really sad thing is that similar genocides are taking place all over the western world.

Lies, political correctness and the SSB

Also published at Gates of Vienna

The report

I’ve decided to write this article as a response to a recent report published by the Norwegian bureau of Statistics (SSB) in which they present different population scenarios for Norway for the period 2011-2040. In the report three possible estimates are presented, a low estimate, a middle estimate, and a high estimate. The middle estimate, which SSB consider the most accurate, predicts that the immigrant population in Oslo will rise from 170,000 in 2012 to 387,000 by 2040 which will amount to 50 percent of the total population of the city. For the country as a whole the SSB estimates that the immigrant population will rise from 600,000 in 2012 to 1.5 million by 2040 which according to the report will amount to 24 percent of the overall population.

In the report, the term immigrant refers to persons born abroad and children born to immigrant parents, but not children with one immigrant parent and one Norwegian born parent. From the information presented in the report we can deduce that the total population of Norway will rise from 5 million (March 2012) to 6,250,000 in 2040. (1,500,000 * 100 / 24 = 6,250,000). The report also concludes that approximately 70 percent of the immigrant population in 2040 will have a non-EU background.

Like many other Norwegians, I don’t trust the SSB. I believe that it is a heavily politicized organization which acts as a branch of the political elites in Norway. This distrust is not unfounded, as the SSB on numerous occasions have proven to be incorrect in their predictions concerning immigration by presenting estimates that were too low. It therefore goes without saying that I have serious doubts about the accuracy of this report which I intend to examine more closely in the rest of this article. But before I press, I should mention that I’m not a statistician, nor am I a mathematician, which means that I can’t guarantee the numbers I’m about to present are a hundred percent accurate. I would also like to add that I don’t have access to the raw data that the SSB used to compile their report.

Terminology

My primary concern with the report is the methods of classification that were employed. For instance, the author has chosen — or probably more likely, been instructed by the leadership of the SBB — to identify immigrants as persons born abroad and persons born in Norway to two immigrant parents. Everyone else is classified as Norwegians. This is the biggest flaw in the report, and it’s a monumental one as it paints an incorrect picture of the size of the indigenous ethnic Norwegian population and the immigrant population, which should be the main goal of the report. The result of using such parameters is that a person born in Norway to two Pakistani parents is classified as an immigrant, but if this person marries a Pakistani and brings this person back to Norway their children will be classified as Norwegians. I believe that most ethnic Norwegians would chose slightly different parameters for determining who is a Norwegian.

The most obvious way to identify a Norwegian is by ethnicity. Norway has until recently exclusively been inhabited by Caucasians of Germanic stock, which is a white ethnic group. It is wrong to set this historic fact aside just because it is politically expedient to do so. Another important criterion is of course the cultural heritage of Norway. Many of those classified as Norwegians in this report have a completely different cultural heritage and many of them are in fact hostile to traditional Norwegian core values. A result of SSB’s rather imaginative way of classifying individuals is that people who have recently relocated to Norway from cultures that are completely alien to the majority Norwegian population, and who belong to completely different racial groups are considered to be just as Norwegian as the descendants of those whose ancestors have lived in Norway for the last 10,000 years. It may be the politically correct thing to do, but morally it’s incorrect, as it ignores the fact that there actually exists a unique Norwegian culture and a unique Norwegian ethnic group.

The main problem

And this leads us directly to the main problem with this report. The author foresees the immigrant population reaching 50 percent in Oslo by 2040, and for the country as a whole 24 percent. But in my opinion this raises more questions than it answers, because the report doesn’t give us a very clear picture of the cultural and ethnic composition of Norway anno 2040. We know from the report that there will be at least — provided that the report is accurate — 1,050,000 individuals with a non-EU cultural background residing in Norway in 2040 (1,500,000 * 70/100 = 1,050,000). But the actual number is going to be much higher, because of the way immigrants and descendants of immigrants are classified. There will be a large proportion of individuals with a non-Norwegian cultural and ethnic background classified as Norwegians, and thus the projections for Oslo and Norway become rather meaningless, as they don’t really tell us anything about the actual future demographic scenario for the country.

And demographics are important, regardless of what the authorities think. The demographic composition of the city of Oslo plays an integral part in where ethnic Norwegians choose to live, which schools they choose to send their children to, the price of real estate and quality of life. The eastern parts of Oslo have seen a massive exodus of ethnic Norwegians and an equally massive influx of non-Western immigrants. This process is going to pick up speed as the immigrant population rises.

There is also a financial aspect attached to the demographic transformation as non-Western immigrants rely more heavily on welfare payments, and are unfortunately over-represented in crime statistics.

Ethnic Norwegian population

The report also predicts that Norwegians will comprise 76 percent of the total population in Norway in 2040. This amounts to 4,750,000 individuals (6,250,000 * 0.76 = 4,750,000). The impression given here is that ethnic Norwegians will still constitute a solid majority in 2040 considering that they will make up 75 percent of the total population. The problem here is that this figure doesn’t solely encompass 4,750,000 ethnic Norwegians. The real number is going to be a lot more modest, which brings us to the most important section of this article.

I will now attempt to estimate the future number of ethnic Norwegians, given current immigration policies, birth rates and assuming that the political situation remains unchanged. Before I start running through the numbers I would also like to add that the SSB published a report in February 2012 in which they predicted that the population of Norway would pass the six million mark in 2025. I will base my calculations on this figure.

As I mentioned earlier in this article, I’m not a statistician, nor do I have all the available raw data that the SSB had when they made their predictions. But fortunately there are relevant data available that enables us to make a fairly accurate prediction about the future of the ethnic Norwegian population provided, of course, that the current trends remain the same. The numbers that I’m relying on to make my calculations are the total Norwegian population for 1975 which was 4,000,000 (included 50,000-60,000 immigrants) and the birth rates of all women living in Norway from 1976 to 2011.

The data show us that up until 1975 the birth rates in Norway were above 2.1, which were essential in order to maintain population numbers. From 1976 and onwards the birth rates in Norway dropped below 2.1 and became negative, meaning that current population numbers couldn’t be maintained. The data also show us that the average birth rate for women (immigrants included) in Norway between 1976 and 2011 was 1.85.

By extrapolating the data we’re able to fairly accurately predict the size of the ethnic Norwegian population in the coming generations. Other factors will of course also affect the equation, such as delayed demographic reactions, an increase in life expectancy and the percentage of girls born vs. boys, etc., but we’re not going to include those factors here.

Another thing worth keeping in mind is that the birth rates for ethnic Norwegian women are lower than 1.85, as non-Western women living in Norway are driving up the rate by giving birth to more children than the national average. Even so I’ll use 1.85, which means that my predictions are going to be very conservative.

Birth rates and descendants

1.00 = 500 descendants per 500 men/500 women
1.20 = 600 descendants per 500 men/500 women
1.40 = 700 descendants per 500 men/500 women
1.60 = 800 descendants per 500 men/500 women
1.80 = 900 descendants per 500 men/500 women
1.85 = 925 descendants per 500 men/500 women
1.90 = 950 descendants per 500 men/500 women
2.00 = 1000 descendants per 500 men/500 women

Ethnic Norwegian population for the next four generations based on a birth rate of 1.85, a population of 4,000,000 and a generational factor of 25 years

1.85 per 1,000,000 = 925,000 * 4.000000 = 3,700,000 (in 2000)
1.85 per 1,000,000 = 925,000 * 3.700000 = 3,422,500 (in 2025)
1.85 per 1,000,000 = 925,000 * 3.422550 = 3,165,812 (in 2050)
1.85 per 1,000,000 = 925,000 * 3.165812 = 2,928,376 (in 2075)

By using the two most important variables when determining the size of the Norwegian ethnic population, namely birth rates and total population at a specific date and use this as the basis for our predictions we find that the Norwegian ethnic population is declining rapidly. I’m not claiming that the numbers I have come up with are a 100% scientifically correct, as there are numerous other factors that need to be considered when determining exact numbers, but it gives us a pretty accurate picture of the approximate population.

One of the most striking discoveries we make when we extrapolate documented birth rates over the last 25 years and compare those with the recently published SSB report is that there is a huge disparity in the actual number of ethnic Norwegians and the number of individuals that the SSB has chosen to classify as Norwegians. The SSB predicts that there will be 4,750,000 Norwegians by 2040, but by using a mathematical approach we see that the more plausible number is likely to be somewhere between 3.4 and 3.2 million. That is a disparity of more than 1 million, and it is quite alarming. At the same time there is also a huge disparity in the reported number of immigrants predicted to live in Norway in 2040 and the accurate numbers. The report claims that the figure is likely to be 1,500,000, but when we do our calculations we discover that the number is closer to 3,000,000, which is an error margin of 100 percent. Also remember that my calculations are conservative, as I have used a very high birth rate for ethnic Norwegians.

I find it hard to believe that the SSB and the authorities are unaware of this gross inconsistency between the reality and the bogus assertions made in these projections. My guess is that they have deliberately conspired to muddy the waters in an attempt to try and pacify the majority ethnic Norwegian population and to convince them that there simply are no grounds to claim that Norwegians are going to end up as a minority in their own country in the immediate future. But as I have shown in this article, the opposite is true. Ethnic Norwegians will become a minority in their own country somewhere in the next couple of decades if proper and decisive political steps aren’t taken.

Based on the above, I think it is very dishonest and on the border of criminality of the SSB and the political elites in Norway to deliberately try and pull the wool over the eyes of their compatriots on this very important issue.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that I haven’t included factors such as emigration, which will play an important part in the future. It is highly likely that emigration is going to increase for those who have the required skills and financial means to seek greener pastures elsewhere as the reduced quality of life and ethnic and cultural differences become more noticeable in Norway. This factor will speed up the decline of the ethnic Norwegian populations even further.

The report by the SSB should be exposed for what it is, namely a tool for the ruling political elites in Norway to continue their current anti-Norwegian policies, which amounts to a deliberate cultural and ethnic genocide. Even today the tensions are simmering just below the surface. What will happen thirty years from now if the authorities keep insisting on pursuing their multicultural dream is a thought that I would rather not entertain.

Euro-made global tyranny

The most pressing problem facing the world today isn’t global warming, nor is it the financial crisis or the rapidly aging population of Europe. The most urgent problem we are confronted with today is the ideological and demographic transformation that is taking place in the western world. I like to refer to it as a ‘euro-made global tyranny’ as it is the cultural and political elites in Europe that have created an environment where the ideological rape of western values and the demographic assault in the form of non-western immigration can take place with impunity. Over the years a lot of focus has been placed on how the elites have managed to pull off this formidable task, unfortunately similar attention hasn’t been focused on how we can slow down this process, or even better, reverse it.

There are those who insist that nothing can be done to stem the enormous tide of poisonous ideas and the illegal mass dumping of third world population surpluses in the west. And even though I realise that it is almost impossible for ordinary people to influence the political elites, all hope isn’t lost. There are specific measures that ordinary people can take to weaken the grip of the euro-Stalinists which have ceased control in Europe. The most obvious one is trough the ballot box. I don’t buy into the idea that all political parties are the same and that it somehow doesn’t matter who we vote for. I accept that the ideological differences between the established political parties are almost non-existent; at least this is the case for Europe, but there are smaller political parties out there that have a genuine desire to undo what has been forced upon us by the euro-Stalinists.

In order to prove this point we need to take a closer look at two neighbouring countries in the northern part of Europe.

The languages spoken in these two countries are closely related to each other and they are understood by citizens of both nations. The countries are also linked by the largest vehicle and railroad bridge in Europe, which makes travel between them a breeze. I’m mentioning this because it is important to understand that there is extensive contact between the citizens of the two nations and also to show that no major language or cultural barriers exists, which could otherwise help explain the different political paths the two nations have chosen. I am of course referring to Sweden and Denmark.

Multiculturalism has been warmly embraced by the political elites in Sweden and is today an ideology that is exempt criticism. It has even gone so far that it is now frowned upon to extol traditional Swedish ideas and express pride in Swedish heritage. One of the most prominent exponents of this anti-national ideology, Mona Sahlin (funnily enough often referred to as Mona Stalin) even went on record a few years ago and stated that Sweden has no tradition and culture worth preserving. In the same breath she praised the cultures of the non-western immigrants that have taken up residence in her country.

The fact that Sweden is on a fast track to become a nation of ethnic ‘minorities’ is not addressed by the established political parties or deemed important enough to be debated in the left–wing MSM in the country. The reasons why this situation has been allowed to occur in Sweden is because the political hegemony of the left has never been properly challenged. Until recently there weren’t even any credible political parties with diverging views on immigration and multiculturalism in the country.

In Denmark the situation is completely different. The public discourse is rife with anti-immigration and anti-Islamic sentiments. The most prominent political anti-immigration party in Denmark, The Danish People’s Party has managed to introduce some of the toughest immigration and asylum laws in Europe, in stark contrast to Sweden which has some of the most liberal immigration laws in Europe, courtesy of the biggest political party, the Swedish Social Democratic Party. One of the things we can deduce from this information is that the Danish People’s Party and the Social Democratic Party of Sweden are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Let’s take a look at a hypothetical scenario.
 
Imagine that all those Swedes that are opposed to the forced multiculturalism that the social democrats have rammed down their throats decide that in the next parliamentarian election they are going to vote for the Sweden Democrats, a political party which main objective is to significantly reduce immigration to Sweden. Let’s also assume that fifty percent of the overall Swedish population are opposed to the idea of the utopian multi-ethnic Sweden. If such a hypothetical scenario were to occur the political landscape in Sweden would undergo an ideological earthquake of an unprecedented magnitude within a single parliamentarian term.  It would herald a significant shift in official policies on matters concerning political asylum and immigration, which poses the biggest threat to the political stability of the country. This would of course be a dream scenario for anti-immigration proponents, and what is worth keeping in mind here is that it would be achieved solely through the tactical and sensible voting of anti-multiculturalists.

If this scenario were to be imitated throughout Europe, the political landscape would be unrecognisable within a few short years. It would have a huge impact on the political power balance and it would severely weaken the current policy of forced multiculturalism in Europe. And that is exactly why is it important for people to stop voting for established political parties, because nothing is going to change before people do. Voters in Europe have to start supporting political parties that are willing to curb immigration and refuse to give in to the undemocratic demands from Islam. I also believe that it would be very beneficial for all of us if the counter-jihad community along with other organized groups that reject multiculturalism started focusing more on this issue. The message really needs to be driven home until it sticks.

A vote for any of the established political parties is a vote for multiculturalism.

And I don’t believe that it’s unreasonable to ask people who have had enough of the multi-ethnic society to vote for political parties that completely and utterly reject the idea of multiculturalism. It’s time for people to start taking some responsibility and do the right thing. As I’ve mentioned earlier, multiculturalism is the biggest threat in Europe today. All the other problems we’re facing are of secondary importance. It doesn’t matter whether some established political parties have better financial solutions, or whether it is more beneficial in the short term for voters to choose an established party. None of it matters if it means the indigenous population is going to be replaced by immigrants at some stage in the future. And there are two things that need to be stressed here; and that is that there are short term and the long term consequences to any election. The short term benefits obtained by voting for established political parties don’t outweigh the long term negative consequences of doing so. People need to realise that the established pro-multicultural political parties in Europe are evil. They don’t have the best interest of the indigenous Europeans at heart, and they will eventually destroy Europe if the people let them.

Stalin and his henchmen sent political dissidents to the infamous gulags in Siberia to tighten their political iron grip on society during the communist era.  The euro-Stalinists of today are doing the same thing but instead of sending people off to gulag-like penal colonies they are importing millions of illiterates and vile religious fanatics from the third world which creates similar results. It’s a tactic of divide and conquer. They are dividing the indigenous population into two camps and at the same time strengthening their hold on society. Their goals are identical to that of Stalin, to create an atmosphere of fear through political intimidation. These modern Stalins don’t go as far as the old one did when it comes to punishing political dissidents, the euro-Stalinists will settle for massive ridicule campaigns, the loss of profession and career, and in the most severe cases court proceedings and subsequent prison time for those who dare to criticise them, but that could of course change in the future.

Some will probably argue that it is unfair to compare today’s political elites with a mass murderer and fascist like Stalin. I disagree. The outcome of the euro-Stalinist’s policies is on par with that of the old mass psychopathic murderer, as it will result in a massive genocide of the indigenous European ethnic groups and an ideological rape of our culture. The consequence of this deliberate genocide is tens of millions, perhaps even hundreds of millions of indigenous Europeans that will never be born. We can even now see the emerging consequences as the clocks are gradually being rewound to year zero, and the history of Europe is slowly deleted and re-written to accommodate uncivilized third worlders and Islamic conquerors.

Norway, a terra nullius?

The Norwegian bureau of statistics SSB, has chosen March 19, 2012, to mark that the population of Norway is breaking the 5 million barrier. The next milestone according to the same predictions will occur in 2025 when the population is set to reach 6 million, thus surpassing both Finland and Denmark in population size. This dramatic population increase is entirely due to immigration. The birth-rate among women of childbearing age in Norway, a figure which includes both immigrant and Norwegian women, is currently 1.85 and consequently the numbers of ethnic Norwegians are dwindling.

 

The projections made by SSB tell us three things, one that the immigrant population in Norway is increasing at a rapid pace. Two that the ethnic Norwegian population is in a steady decline and last but not least that the authorities don’t see any problems with this scenario. If we extrapolate the numbers from SSB, we’ll discover that at some stage in the future the immigrants will overtake the ethnic Norwegian population, making ethnic Norwegians a minority in their own country.

The possibility that an indigenous ethnic group risk becoming a minority in their own country should be taken seriously and efforts to reverse such an outcome should be undertaken. According to the UN’s declaration of Human Rights, every human being has a right to exists. In other parts of the world indigenous people are given special status and measures to protect them include setting aside huge land areas where non-indigenous people aren’t welcome, special protection under the law and various other types of preferential treatment. Great efforts are made to ensure that their unique culture isn’t threatened. Even the Sami population in northern Norway are bestowed such rights.

If this scenario had taken place in the Amazon or if a rapid increase in the non indigenous population had occurred on Native American land triggering a rapid decline in the indigenous population or constituting a threat to Native American culture there would be a political outcry in Norway. Demands to reverse such a trend would be made, and accusations against the respective governments for attempting to commit genocide on their indigenous populations would be expressed in the most fanatical manner. But sadly when this scenario applies to ethnic Norwegians hardly any eyebrows are raised, at least not among those who have paved the way for this slow-creeping genocide.

This can only mean that the indigenous Norwegian ethnic group isn’t deemed valuable enough to preserve, and that our culture isn’t exotic enough to be considered protecting. It also means that other ethnic groups are deemed superior and far more deserving of the rich and fertile land areas that comprise the kingdom of Norway. This is by definition genocide, and it is a well organized and well planned genocide. And it’s no coincidence that we have finally arrived at this junction. In the last 30-40 years the Norwegian political elites, in cooperation with their international brethrens, have worked actively to secure such an outcome.

They have laid the groundwork for this immigration by allowing people from the third world to settle in Norway under the guise of being persecuted asylum seekers. This tactic has been chosen in an effort to give this illegal mass movement of people more legitimacy and to make it easier to stifle troublesome criticism from the indigenous population. They have also implemented laws that make it almost impossible to deport immigrants from Norway, and to top it all off they have enacted laws which enable anyone with a non-western background who manages to reach Norwegian soil to bring their extended family to the country.

These are the practical measures that have been introduced to facilitate the immigration. The ideological measures aimed at conditioning Norwegians to this demographical tsunami are just as insidious and effective. A governmental report from 1979 specifically mentions the importance of influencing Norwegians through the use of propaganda in schools and through the mass media. This is ample proof that the authorities realized at an early stage that the only way to accomplish their task of transforming Norway into a multiethnic country was by the use of brainwashing techniques. Proof of the Norwegian Medias complicity in this task can be found in a memo published by the biggest labour union for Journalists in Norway in 1997, in which they encourages their members to write positively about immigrants and immigration.

But let’s focus on March 19, 2012. The day will no doubt be celebrated by members of the political elites. It’s quite possible that the prime minister or some other important political dignitary will visit a non-Norwegian family somewhere deep inside one of the many ethnic ghettos in the eastern part of our capital. It’s also quite possible that they will share a cup of coffee with the family members and in the presence of a few handpicked journalists, praise the efforts of the immigrant community and remind Norwegians of the important contributions and sacrifices that this group has made for the country.

Perhaps this official representative will cast a quick glance out the car window of the limousine that is taking him through the immigrant dense eastern part of the city and catch a glimpse of the numerous African drug dealers peddling their illegal goods for everyone to see. Perhaps he’ll even spot members from the many immigrant gangs that have made it a habit to attack lone ethnic Norwegian kids. Maybe he’ll also see ethnic Norwegian girls that have dyed their hair dark in order to avoid being harassed by aggressive immigrant boys, and maybe, just maybe he’ll hear the derogatory word ‘whore’ hurled at these girls as they hurry past clusters of immigrants loitering outside some of the local shopping centres or simply trawling the street looking for someone to harass.

Perhaps it would be a better idea if this political dignitary decided to pay a visit to some of the few remaining ethnic Norwegian families living in the area and listen to their stories and ask them how they feel about the massive influx of immigrants and the effect this has had on their neighbourhoods. The dignitary should pay particular attention to the stories that focus on the thousands of Norwegians who have decided to pack up and leave due the reduced quality of life that this immigration has brought about. But of course this will not happen. The political elites are not interested in such accounts, nor are they interested in giving publicity to views that can be construed as criticism or opposition to the official party line.

The political elites have never been willing to accept any criticism or rethink the consequences of their disastrous immigration policies. And never once have they apologised or expressed views that could be interpreted as regret. The only criticism coming from that direction is aimed at ethnic Norwegians for not being accommodating and tolerant enough towards their new compatriots. The immigration boom that Norway is experiencing at the moment is a result of a grand social engineering project undertaken by the political elites in Norway in true communist style. It is not the result of uncontrollable and random events. And just like in the communists nations of yesteryear the will of the people are categorically ignored and the incompetence and the arrogance of the elites themselves are applauded and praised

And that is why the entire responsibility for this failed multicultural experiment when it eventually collapses should be put squarely on the shoulders of the members of the political elites. They are the ones that have caused the immense problems that have forever damaged our nation. The consequences of their treasonous behaviour is more than 70 dead Norwegians killed by immigrants, hundreds of raped Norwegian girls and women, thousands of victims of violence, thousands of ethnic Norwegians cleansed from their own neighbourhoods and a heavily reduced quality of life for those lucky enough not to have experienced the cultural enriched violence first hand.

If nothing changes and the predictions made by the SSB become a reality and the population reaches 6 million by 2025, Norway will no longer be Norway. In fact it will be meaningless to refer to it as Norway anymore. The Norway that the older generations grew up in will be completely unrecognizable to those born and raised in Norway anno 2025. The term Norwegian will also be meaningless as it will apply to individuals of all races and people hailing from all corners of the globe, and not like the term has been used traditionally, to describe the descendants of a people that have existed in this northern land for nearly ten thousand years.

Maybe sometime in the future Norwegian history books will recount how Norway once was populated by a white people who voluntarily decided to go extinct, and continue to explain what it looked like here when the first explorers arrived in the late 1960’s. This is not as unthinkable as it sounds, considering that the current political leadership treat Norway as a terra nullius.

What are they going to do when multiculturalism collapses?

During a recent debate on multiculturalism and the state of the public discourse in Norway post 22/7, one of the participants, an avid multiculturalist conceded that in order for multiculturalism to work it is essential that all members of society embrace the concept behind this ideology. If they fail to do so the multicultural project will eventually collapse.  More critical and realistic voices would of course point out that multiculturalism in Europe failed a long time ago, an opinion by the way which is shared by the prime minister of England, David Cameron, the chancellor of Germany, Andrea Merkel and the president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy.

However if one is to take the statement made by this person literally the conclusion can only be that multiculturalism has failed in Norway as there is a massive popular opposition to it. And this invariably leads us to the next question, and that is what type of measures are going to be introduced when it become apparent even to the most diehard multiculturalists that their beloved ideology is an utter and complete failure? How do they intend to correct their mistakes and solve the enormous problems brought on by this ideology?

It’s not unreasonable to demand that those responsible for the introduction of multiculturalism explain how they intend to deal with the problems that will arise when it collapses. After all they are the ones who paved the way for multiculturalism in Europe, and thus it’s only fair that they come up with the proper solutions. What specific measures do they propose to rectify the situation, and last but not least if serious social unrest starts spreading within the ethnic and religious enclaves in Europe is there any other effective options available than large scale repatriation of non-westerners?

Those who reject multiculturalism and who are vocal in their opposition to it are constantly hounded for pointing out that warlike scenarios can occur unless real changes to current immigration and asylum policies are made. The idea of mass repatriation is of course a sensitive issue in the west as it conjurers up images of Nazis brutality in WW2, the horrors of the Rwandan genocide and the inhumanity of the Balkan wars, and by equating repatriation with brutal ethnic cleansing the proponents of multiculturalism have effectively succeeded in silencing their detractors from promoting sound alternatives, which is unfortunate because repatriations might be the only answer to Europe’s dire problems.

So what constitutes ethnic cleansing? The term basically encompasses any policies or actions that directly or indirectly result in certain religious or ethnic groups being displaced from a specifically defined area. It doesn’t have to involve barbaric and inhumane methods like those employed by the Nazi’s and the warring factions in Rwanda. It can also be achieved through policies that favour one ethnic group over another.

One could argue that the end of colonialism in Africa led to an ethnic cleansing of westerners as approximately 3.5 million Europeans returned to their ancestral home lands as a direct result of the de-colonization process.  In some cases this was achieved by the use of violent insurgency tactics and in other cases it was achieved by political means. However very few individuals today see this enormous movement of westerners out of Africa as ethnic cleansing and many will even suggest that this was a preferable outcome. Some even so far as to say that Africa belongs to the negroid race and that the white man have no business being there. The same thing happened in the Arab world after the formation of the state of Israel with estimates suggesting that more than 800 000 Jews felt compelled to leave their countries of birth.

One could also argue that there is an ethnic cleansing taking place in southern Africa today. More than 1 million white people left South Africa in the period between 1995 and 2005. In Zimbabwe figures published in 2007 showed that only 22 000 white people remained in the country which is a significant drop from the all time high of 300 000. The ethnic cleansing in Zimbabwe has in the last decades primarily occurred through violence in which white farmers and their families have been systematically targeted and killed in the most horrific ways. One could also argue that this is done to send a message to others white Zimbabweans in order to encourage them to leave the country.


Violence has also played a part in neighbouring South Africa, but there the displacement of whites has to an equal extent been achieved through various political measures. The outcome of these intimidation tactics has been an exodus of whites which can easily be classified as ethnic cleansing. In the end the result is the same regardless of the methods used and regardless of the motivations people have for leaving these countries.

The reaction in the west to this demographic redistribution process, or rather lack of it, has also been very interesting to observe. One would expect that such measures would create an outcry in our part of the world, but that hasn’t been the case. Western multiculturalists have for the most part remained silent, and they haven’t expressed any serious concern for the plight of white South Africans. On the contrary the multiculturalists have been reluctant to even label it as ethnic cleansing.  However they do react strongly whenever someone from the political right starts talking about repatriations of non-westerners as a solution to the demographic cataclysm currently occurring in Europe. What these multiculturalists fail to grasp is that a policy in which large numbers of non-westerners are returned to their homelands might be the only realistic alternative for Europe if the continent is going to survive in its traditional form.

The Norwegian author and blogger, Fjordman was vilified in the MSM for suggesting that Europe needs to start deporting Muslims. The MSM in Norway in particular were quick to equate his ideas with Nazism. They completely rejected the idea that this could be accomplished through peaceful means. As a matter of fact every single European country today engages in deportation of bogus asylum seekers, and no one in their right mind would even consider this to be ethnically cleansing.

Just because people on the left are reluctant to address the massive problems related to multiculturalism doesn’t mean that the problems will go away. The current situation in Europe is extremely volatile and not a single day passes without violent incidents in which ethnicity and cultural differences play a critical part. If things are allowed to continue the way they are these incidents are going to increase in magnitude and we’ll see a rise in ethnic and religious division. In light of this is it really too much to ask that those who created these problems explain how they intend to fix them?  Maybe it’s time for the multiculturalists to take a hard look at themselves and realise that the dream of the multi-ethnic society was just that, a dream and nothing more.

Political correctness; when dogmatism replaces reality

The first thought that should appear in any rational person’s mind upon hearing the term political correctness is that it implies untruthfulness, as opposed to correctness which implies honesty and a sincere desire to uncover the truth. When considering this piece of information it’s rather astonishing to observe how easily political correctness has cemented its position in western societies where the pursuit of truthfulness and integrity has such strong roots. The rapid rise of political correctness should consequently be viewed as a sign of moral decay of western culture, and it should be obvious to all that ideas and policies based upon this ideology are incorrect as they derive from incorrect conclusions.

Political correctness is also a sign of intellectual fascism as it attempts to stifle free and independent thought. In essence political correctness encourages individuals not to think for themselves but rather unquestionably accept political dogmas that haven’t been subjected to any form of critical scrutiny. Political correctness is a form of political censorship as it strongly discourages and punishes the dissemination of political ‘incorrect’ information. It is the complete opposite of correctness which encourages the promulgation of controversial ideas. The urge to control and censor, which is deeply rooted in the political correct doctrine, is the cornerstone of any totalitarian ideology. 

True progress and true thinking can only take place where logic is present, and because this is not the case with political correctness, progress and honesty can never derive from this ideology. Few would argue that it makes sense to manufacture a navigational system that presupposes that the earth is flat; as such a system simply would produce inaccurate coordinates, and this is the case with anything else that is flawed from the onset. Political correctness is, when properly scrutinized, simply state sanctioned lies and anything that comes from it can never be of any value. In court proceedings where the aim is to uncover the truth lying is strictly prohibited. Parties involved in such cases even have to pledge an oath, swearing to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. The same goes for medicine and science. The pursuit of truthfulness is essential in order to achieve any meaningful outcome, but sadly this principle hasn’t been applied to the current political discourse.

The only logical conclusions that can be drawn from all of this is that a society where political correctness has a prominent position is a society with strong autocratic leanings, which again raises another logical question; can true democracy exist alongside political correctness?  

The consequences of not challenging political correctness

Political correctness has paved the way for multiculturalism in the western world. Before the massive influx of foreign peoples could begin the populace had to be conditioned to accept the massive demographic changes that were to take place. This was achieved by filtering the question of multiculturalism through the sieve of political correctness, i.e. to stifle any critical opposition to liberalize existing immigration policies.

According to political correct dogma all cultures are equal in the sense that no single culture can claim moral superiority. It also asserts that any attempts at appraising and grading cultures based on moral criteria are evil, because this would entail evaluating people based on ethnic and cultural traits. Political correctness also maintains that we can draw valuable lessons from any culture. This is of course untrue. Some cultures are simply better than others. Even the UN acknowledges this through its evaluation of cultures and societies in its annual human development index list. Western nations can be found on the upper half of the list and third world and Islamic nations can be found on the bottom half. This is pretty compelling evidence that the western world has managed to create superior societies.

Another fact that corroborates this claim is that so-called asylum seekers always flee to western nations and not to African or Islamic nations, even though these are geographically closer to the places that they originally fled from. The dramatic differences in standards of living, human development and the tendency to solve conflicts by use of peaceful means are further proof that western civilization is morally superior. The fact that non-western immigrants also continue to underachieve even after having spent several decades in the west, with all the opportunities the west has to offer at their disposal, would tend to indicate that cultural and racial differences do exist, even though the political correct elite dismisses such arguments as racial bigotry.

But the transformations that have occurred in the west are not only of a demographic nature. Ideological changes have occurred in tandem with this massive influx of people to the western world. Ideals that were cherished only a few decades ago have been pushed aside and replaced with new ones that comply with the strict tenets of political correctness. Values such as individualism, honour, ambitiousness and the pursuit of excellence which have helped transform the west into the most successful civilization on earth have been discarded and are today looked down upon by the political correct elite. Political correctness has instigated a cultural and intellectual retardation process in the west where the aspiration of mediocrity is now the new ideal.

Political correctness has also resulted in westerners being less inclined to assert traditional western values. It has been stated repeatedly by the supporters of multiculturalism that immigrants will assimilate eventually and accept traditional western values, but how can this be achieved if westerners are afraid to promote these principles? And how can one possibly expect ordinary citizens to promote them when they are constantly equated with racism and bigotry by the cultural and political intelligentsia? The truth is that political correctness encourages westerners to assimilate with the newcomers rather than the other way around.

How can we stop political correctness?

If we draw the logical conclusion that lying is bad and telling the truth is good, the only logical step to follow is to crush political correctness and reject everything it stands for. In order to achieve this goal it’s vital to remove the terminology and ideas that this pernicious ideology embraces. If the dogmas espoused by political correctness are destroyed it will eventually lose its foundations and collapse just like communism fell in the former Soviet Union. It is therefore imperative to encourage people to become political incorrect (i.e. truthful). The use of political incorrect words and phrases are a prerequisite to bring down this ideology. Words and phrases sanctioned by the political correct establishment should be removed and we should revert to using traditional words that predates political correctness.

Political correctness and its adherents should also be ridiculed and exposed for what they really are. Every idea that they promote should be refuted wherever and whenever it takes place no matter how time-consuming it may be. It should also primarily take place where political correctness has a strong following because that’s where the ideological decompression processes need to occur. Defeating political correctness means winning over one soul at the time until the ideology crumbles and it can be consigned to the ideological graveyard once and for all.  

Like anything else in life political correctness has benefited immensely from the flock mentality mindset. People tend to follow instead of challenging and many chose to go against their conscience if it appears to be the easiest way out. Adherents of political correctness can therefore be divided into two categories, those who believe in its doctrines (which would tend to indicate a distorted world view) and those who don’t (people who deliberately lie or accept the lie for various reasons.)
The latter can easily be won over because they tend to follow the prevailing political winds, but the conditions need to be right for this to happen. In a political climate where those who dare to tell the truth are severely punished the act of not telling the truth has become somewhat of a survival strategy. But the more momentum the political correctness decompression process gains the easier it will be to oppose its autocratic dogmas and that is how the battle will be won.

In Norway the public discourse has been severely infected by virulent strain of political correctness. The parameters of accepted speech and thought have been dictated by the left and are strictly adhered to. There is even talk about introducing new guidelines for public speech in order to prevent so-called ‘hateful’ rhetoric. This is of course political correctness on steroids, and if this ideology isn’t halted now it will just keep on gaining momentum and eventually become even more extreme.

The decision to speak up against political correctness will have adverse consequences for those who make the courageous and deliberate decision to take it on. It is also true that life will be a lot easier for those who chose not to do so, but only in the short term. In the long run however it will have severe consequences as the unwillingness to tackle political correctness will more than likely bring on the destruction of western civilization. Bearing this in mind the choice should be simple enough, political correctness has to be stopped and people have to speak out against it. There is simply no time for cowardice. People need to start opposing the high priests of this destructive ideology or have their way of life taken away from them forever.

The Quislings in our midst.

A brief note on political treason in Norway

The period between April 9, 1940 and May 8, 1945 was a dark chapter in Norwegian history. Events in mainland Europe which saw the continent plunged into another bloody war eventually found its way to the sparsely populated northern outpost and started a five year long German occupation. Being invaded by a foreign nation was demoralizing, but what made it even worse was the knowledge that the German military were assisted by Norwegians who were more than happy to collaborate with the enemy and take an active role in disrupting Norwegian resistance efforts. By doing so these collaborators betrayed their country and literally thrust a dagger into the back of their compatriots.

The act of deliberately betraying your own country in order to achieve political or personal goals has been looked down upon by every single civilization on earth, and consequently the act of treason has always been punished with death. And that was the fate that eventually befell Norway’s most infamous traitor in modern history, Vidkun Quisling.

On October 24, 1945 Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonssøn Quisling was executed by a firing squad at Akershus fortress near the harbor in Oslo for crimes committed against the Norwegian nation. So vile was his betrayal that the name Quisling today is recognized all over the world and it has made its way into several dictionaries where it is synonymous with the word traitor.

Sixty six years has passed since Quisling drew his last breath and those who got to witness his betrayal probably didn’t expect to see anyone emulate his behaviour, but sadly there has been a steady stream of individuals who have been more than willing to fill his shoes. And just like under the Quisling regime of WW2 the traitors today are to be found inside the walls of the Norwegian Parliament where they actively work on ways to facilitate the transferral of power from Norwegian hands to autocratic supranational entities. But unlike Quisling these people haven’t seized power in a quick coup d’état. Their deceit has taken a much more leisurely pace, and it has had more severe consequences than Quisling’s treason. The traitors inside the Norwegian Parliament have slowly and meticulously picked away at the very foundation of the nation by gradually relinquishing Norwegian sovereignty and placing the kingdom of Norway under the jurisdiction of international entities such as the EU and the UN. And unlike Quisling who paid the ultimate price for his treason, Norwegian politicians have never had to appear in front of a court and answer for their crimes.

Let’s have a look at the Norwegian constitution and find out what it says about treason;

Chapter 8, section 23 of the general civil penal code of the kingdom of Norway states that:

 “Any person who unlawfully attempts to cause Norway or any part of the realm to be brought under foreign rule or incorporated into another state, or any part of the realm to be detached, or who aids or abets thereto, shall be liable to detention for a term of not less than 8 years or to be imprisoned for a term of not less than eight years and not exceeding 21 years.”

The language used here is very specific and there is no room for interpretation. It makes it very clear that no Norwegian Government or private citizens may engage in activities that will cause any part of the kingdom of Norway to fall into the hands of foreign powers, nor may they engage in activities which will cause Norway to be brought under foreign jurisdiction. Violation of this article is punishable by imprisonment for a period of 8 to 21 years.

In addition to this, article number one of the Norwegian constitution states that:

“The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy.”

The first article of the Norwegian constitution reflects the language used in article 83 of the penal code. It categorically stipulates that the kingdom of Norway is an independent and indivisible realm, meaning that it cannot be surrendered to foreign powers nor can it legally be placed under foreign jurisdiction. Not even the tiniest parcel of Norwegian territory may be surrendered legally. Once again the content of these two articles are self explanatory and there’s no room for interpretation. These articles are an integral part of the Norwegian constitution which is the highest legal authority in the country, meaning that in the event of legal disputes the constitution takes precedence. Quisling disregarded the constitution and payed for it with his life.

But in spite of the clarity of the Norwegian constitution and its severe warnings to those contemplating breaking its laws there has been a significant push made by the political establishment in Norway for quite some time now to join the EU and place Norway under foreign rule. And despite two referendums in which the Norwegian people rejected EU membership the political leadership have continued in their efforts to bring Norway under EU rule. On 24 June 1994, the Norwegian labour Party under the leadership of Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland signed the EEA agreement (European Economic Area agreement) in Corfu, thus submitting Norway and its citizens to the laws of the EU, and in the process relinquishing Norwegian sovereignty to a supranational entity.

“Law regarding the implementation of the main agreement of the European Economic Cooperation into Norwegian jurisdiction (EØS).

§ 1. The conditions in the main agreement of the European Economic Cooperation shall be regarded as Norwegian law, along with the amendments of protocol regarding the adjustment of the agreement of March 17, 1993 concerning the expansion of the EEC agreement dated October 14, 2003 and the EEC expansion agreement for Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. This also includes article 1 to 3 in protocol 25 in regards to coal and steel production.”

According to this agreement Norway is bound by the same laws and regulations as any other EU nation. The only difference is that Norway doesn’t have any political representation in the governing branches of the EU. When opponents point out the unconstitutionality of the EEA agreement its proponents argue that the agreement doesn’t violate the constitution, because the decision to join the EEA was made with a ¾ majority in Parliament. The article which they are alluding to is article 112 of the constitution which states:

“If experience shows that any part of this Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway ought to be amended, the proposal to this effect shall be submitted to the first, second or third Storting after a new General Election and be publicly announced in print.”

However this article doesn’t permit an EEA or  EU membership. It simply stipulates the provisions that has to be met for constitutional amendments to take place. It doesn’t give the Norwegian Government the right to surrender Norwegian sovereignty, which was incorrectly claimed by the Labour Government at the time, and which was the consequence of ratifying the EEA Agreement. And as we have shown earlier in this essay the act of ratifying this agreement was in clear violation of article 83 of the penal code and article 1 of the constitution.

Chapter 8, section 23 of the general civil penal code

“Any person who unlawfully attempts to cause Norway or any part of the realm to be brought under foreign rule or incorporated into another state, or any part of the realm to be detached, or who aids or abets thereto, shall be liable to detention for a term of not less than 8 years or to be imprisoned for a term of not less than eight years and not exceeding 21 years.”

Article number one of the Norwegian constitution

“The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy.”

And if this isn’t clear enough let’s have a look at what Johannes Bratt Andenæs, Professor of jurisprudence have to say regarding the legality of amending and adding new laws into the Norwegian constitution:

“The constitution is the highest Legal authority, not only that in those instances where there’s a conflict of interest it shall be given priority over all other legal authorities, but also that it is the foundation for which the legality of all other legal amendments shall be judged against.  It is the constitution that determines what is required in order to implement a new valid law. One can say that the legislature derives its mandate directly from the constitution.”

The point that Professor Andenæs is making here is that any laws or legal amendments incorporated into the Norwegian constitution are to be deemed illegal if they are in conflict with any of the existing laws or if they are in conflict with the original spirit of the constitution. And there can be no doubt that this is the case with the EEA agreement and several other international agreements which the Norwegian Government has signed and which have been made into Norwegian national law.

The consequences of the Norwegian Government’s decision to unlawfully surrender Norwegian sovereignty are enormous and they have had disastrous consequences for the nation. By joining the EEA and signing the Schengen Agreement and by giving precedent to international EU and UN conventions on refugees, Norway has seen demographic changes that could in the future see ethnic Norwegians become a minority in their own country. Today anyone can, in theory, travel to Norway and seek political asylum and expect to be housed and fed by the Norwegian state. The Schengen Agreement which has removed national border checkpoints in Europe has made it next to impossible to stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering the country.

It is proved without a shadow of doubt that the enormous treason the Norwegian government along with a majority of Norwegian politicians have committed has had severe negative repercussions. Their treason far exceeds that of Vidkun Quisling as it has severely endangered the unique Norwegian ethnic national character. The UN defines the word genocide as any deliberate action or policies which aim to destroy or severely reduce the numbers of an ethnic group which is the consequences of the Norwegian Governments enormous treason against its own people.

No one is above the law and that include the Norwegian Government. The constitution which was drafted in 1814 after Norway had declared independence from Denmark was intended to protect the citizens against exactly the type of abuse that is taking place at the moment, namely politicians abusing their political mandate in order to achieve their own personal goals. The constitution was meant to be an insurance policy against Government abuse. In 1814 Norway had been under foreign rule for more than 400 years and the founding fathers of the nation finally saw an opportunity for Norway to become an independent country. And the constitution reflects this mood.  It was modelled after the American constitution which was well-known in Europe at the time for its progressive and liberal nature, and the Norwegian founding fathers wanted to ensure that similar freedom were given to the citizens of Norway.

Now almost 200 years later Norway is yet again under foreign rule and it’s not as a result of a military invasion, but because our own Government whose members have pledged an oath to uphold the constitution has decided to disregard it. Since the signing of the EEA agreement The Norwegian Government has implemented a staggering 8000 EU laws. They have also made the European Convention on Human rights part of the Norwegian law, along with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Norwegian Government has in direct violation of the constitution incorporated foreign legislation which is a violation of the constitution. The Norwegian Government has failed to use the constitution like the founding fathers had intended it to be used, as a set of rules limiting what they can and what they cannot do. The Norwegian Government has instead altered the constitution to suit its own political needs.  They have politicized it, just like they have politicized almost everything else in the country, and the fact that the courts in Norway haven’t held the Government to account for this massive treason proves that the lines separating the Norwegian courts and the Norwegian Government have been blurred.

And what changes are the Norwegian Government going to implement in the future considering that they have already successfully pulled off a coup d’état and got away with it? There’s a strong political movement in Norway that wants to incorporate the UN’s declaration of Human rights in the Norwegian constitution before its bicentennial in 2014, which is truly frightening when we know that the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) is actively lobbying the UN to recognize criticism of Islam and the prophet Mohammad as a violation of Muslims' human rights. It also raises serious questions concerning our obligations to so-called ‘asylum seekers’.

In order to reinstate the respect that the Norwegian constitution deserves it’s imperative that anyone who has been involved in the process of undermining it be brought before the courts and charged with treason. It’s also imperative that they receive sentences that accurately reflect the gravity of their crimes.  

After the Oslo attacks on July 22, 2011, there has been a significant push made by members of the political left to remove certain words from the public discourse, including the word traitor. The political left believe that in light of the atrocities it’s disrespectful to label someone as such. It may be true that in some instances it is poor taste to do so, but with regards to the Norwegian Government’s attempts to compromise Norwegian independence it’s most definitely not. Treason is a very fitting description for such behaviour. Vidkun Quisling was brought to justice for having cooperated with a hostile foreign power during WW2; my question is when will the traitors in the Norwegian Parliament be brought to justice?