Empirical Data vs. Ideological Theory

Also published at Gates of Vienna

No one has the ability to look into the future, and hence no one can accurately predict what it has in store for us. All we can do is to look at present and historic trends and draw upon lessons from the past. When we add all these factors together and look at them in a truthful manner, we gain a fairly good idea of what to expect. When undertaking research projects, which in a way is almost like gazing into the future, there is only one method that we can rely upon, and that is a strict scientific approach which focuses solely on well-established ethical principles and whose ultimate goal is to uncover the truth unaffected by any other considerations.

Unfortunately, there are some who choose to employ unethical research methods in which ideological considerations are permitted to influence the outcome. Needless to say, this is a futile method which can only produce incorrect conclusions. The consequences of relying upon incorrect findings will in most fields of expertise result in undesired outcomes. In medicine, for instance, the act of prescribing incorrect medication or employing incorrect surgical methods can lead to devastating consequences and, in worst case scenarios, death. In engineering, erroneous calculations can result in serious accidents and potential catastrophic structural and mechanical failures.

The only way of judging any research is to subject it to critical analysis, which of course is an integral part of science. This means that anyone attempting to predict possible future scenarios will have to subject his or her thesis to critical scrutiny in order to determine its probability. It goes without saying that the more known factors the researchers can rely upon, the more accurate their conclusions are likely to be. The odds of reaching a meaningful outcome are a lot higher if the known factors comprise 90 percent and the unknowns 10 percent. And this is why it is essential to amass as much knowledge as possible before attempting to present a meaningful conclusion.

We have witnessed enormous technological advances in the last hundred years that can be directly attributed to science. However, despite the enormous technological progresses of the 20th century, there is still a strong reluctance within certain political strata to embrace scientific research methods on various topics. This is especially apparent in Norway at the moment, where supposedly prominent intellectuals are busy ridiculing individuals who are using strict scientific approaches to predict future demographic, financial and societal changes. This aversion to embracing honest research is disappointing, because the willingness to use such methods should be promoted regardless of its findings. The pursuit of truth is a noble goal.

When examining this unnatural aversion to honest research it becomes evident that there are powerful individuals who don’t want any critical light to be shed on sensitive topics such as Multiculturalism and Islam. This unwillingness to permit proper scrutiny on these subjects tells us a great deal. It tells us that these individuals are aware that an honest examination will arrive at conclusions that are at odds with their own ideology, and which could lead to a drastic shift in the ideological climate. There can therefore be no doubt that the desire to suppress honest research is deeply rooted in their ideology.

Let’s go through some of the known facts concerning these topics, and then have a look at the likely effects they will have on my native Norway and Europe as a whole.

It is an undeniable fact that the non-native Norwegian population has grown from 0 to 12 percent in just over 40 years. It’s also an undeniable fact that the ethnic Norwegian population is declining due to low birth-rates. The only conclusions that can be drawn from this knowledge is that if these trends are allowed to continue, ethnic Norwegians will at some stage in the future become ethnic minorities in their own country. This scenario also applies to many other Western European nations.

We also know that non-Western immigration is costing the Norwegian taxpayers billions of kroner each year. The SSB (the bureau of statistics) admitted recently for the first time that if current trends persist, by the year 2020 the Government’s expenses will exceed its revenues. The SSB also concluded that the entire oil fortune (the pension fund) will be gone by 2040 if drastic measures aren’t implemented. In other words, if current immigration and entitlements trends continue, Norway will eventually face bankruptcy. This is also a scenario that many other European nations are facing. One could in fact argue that Multiculturalism has contributed greatly to the current financial crisis which is slowly dragging the continent into the abyss.

It is also an irrefutable fact that non-Western immigration in Europe is a result of liberal asylum and family-reunification laws. The UDI (The Norwegian Department of Immigration) admitted in the mid 2000s that a mere 5 percent of individuals who apply for political asylum in Norway are in fact genuine refugees, which means that the Norwegian authorities are silently condoning illegal immigration under the guise of political asylum. If they wanted to, the Norwegian authorities could, without breaking any international conventions, reject the remaining 5 percent, as Norway isn’t the first safe port-of-call for these refugees. Genuine refugees have to apply for political asylum at their first safe destination.

It is also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that non-Western immigrants are over-represented in crime statistics, and that they in most cases chose to target indigenous Europeans. It’s also a known fact that there has been an astronomical increase in violent crimes in Europe in recent decades, and that this is largely due to immigration.

It has also been definitively established that ethnic tensions are prevalent in multicultural societies. In Oslo, which is the city with the highest immigrant population in Norway, white flight is a very real problem. Ethnic Norwegians leave areas where there is a high influx of non-Western immigrants. The main reasons for this indigenous exodus are insurmountable cultural differences and the desire to live in areas where there is a large population of ethnic Norwegians. There are countless of examples of ethnic Norwegian kids being targeted and physically assaulted by immigrant kids because of their ethnicity. This trend unfortunately also occurs in dozens of other European cities, many of which are a lot worse off than Oslo.

Concerning the religious problems facing Europe, or more truthfully the Islamic problem Europe is facing, it’s important to remember that Islam’s ultimate goal is to conquer wherever it goes and subject everyone it encounters to Islamic law (the Sharia). This is mandated by the Koran, and Muslims are expected to carry out this command. This is not necessarily the goal of every single Muslim, but it is important to keep in mind that even they have chosen to embrace an ideology which despises Western values and which at best can only be described as totalitarian.

Another known fact is that Muslims are gaining strength and becoming more influential in Europe. It’s also worth noting that a large portion of European-based Muslims are strong supporters of the introduction of Sharia, and that there is an abundance of evidence proving that they are more than willing to put brute force behind their demands. In the past few decades we’ve witnessed a growing trend of intimidation, both physically and mentally, of individuals who speak out against Islam. People have been killed in Europe for having ‘insulted’ Islam and offended honour of the Prophet Mohammed. Many people in Europe today live with 24/7 personal protection because of a very real fear of violent reprisals from Muslims.

There is also a concerted and well orchestrated campaign led by Muslims to pressure Europe into adopting Islamic customs and traditions. The Islamic nations of the world are hard at work encouraging the Western world through the workings of the OIC to give in to the ever-increasing demands of Islam. They want Europe to adopt legislation that makes it a criminal offence to insult Islam, and they want the universal declaration of Human rights to be subordinate to the Islamic Sharia. This should be a source of grave concern for the elites in Europe, as the OIC is the collective voice of every single Islamic nation in the world. This is what Muslims want, and they are putting their trust in the OIC to see the job through.

It’s also a known fact that since its inception Islam has been a conquering and marauding force with millions of lives on its conscience. We would do well to remember that Islam has made numerous violent incursions into Europe during its bloody 1400-year history. Those who try to trivialize this or sugar-coat Islam’s past are ignorant or simply lying. When we start looking at the teachings of the Koran, we begin to understand the reasons behind Islam’s many attacks on Europe and other continents in the past. Islam’s relentless effort to gain influence in Europe is part of an ongoing campaign which stretches back more than a millennium.

These are just a few of the factors which outline the numerous problems caused by Multiculturalism and Islam in Europe. Notice also that these factors are not subjective arguments concocted by opponents of Multiculturalism, are verifiable and irrefutable facts.

Yet despise this overwhelming amount of empirical data that completely rejects the sustainability of the utopian multicultural society, despite the unwillingness of Islam to embrace Western values, there are those who have decided to ignore the obvious conclusions and instead ridicule anyone who dares to look at these conclusions in an honest manner, and who warns of the potentially devastating consequences of not paying attention to the empirical data at our disposal.

Because when we analyse these factors in an honest manner, it’s impossible not to notice that we’re heading for disaster. There is no logical way of claiming that the consequences of today’s trends are going to have a positive effect on Europe, nor is there any empirical evidence which would suggest that current trends are somehow going to magically correct themselves. It is actually possible to condense the known factors and put it into a mathematical equation:

Increasing unwanted negative behaviour * Reluctance to intervene * Time = Disaster

Some people deliberately close their eyes to reality and refuse to look at trends in a truthful manner. But their arguments simply don’t stand up to critical scrutiny, as the empirical data completely reject their conclusions. When pushed on these issues the only thing they are capable of is presenting non-empirical arguments which have no basis in reality. They must be pushed repeatedly on these issues until they finally start to see the light.

They are being dishonest when they claim that Norwegians will never become a minority in Norway. The empirical data clearly shows us that this is the case if current trends persist. They are being dishonest when they claim that Islam doesn’t want to rule in Europe. Historical facts and empirical data clearly show us that it does. They are being dishonest when they tell us that Multiculturalism is financially sustainable. The empirical data shows us that it definitely is not.

The truth of the matter is that when we take all the information we have at our disposal and employ scientific research methods in order to examine it properly, it is very clear that we are heading down a path towards turmoil and civil unrest. This knowledge should be treated in the most urgent manner, and it shouldn’t be ridiculed or subjected to any form of censorship. The logical conclusions of this analysis should be listened to, and proper measures should be taken to avert the impending cataclysm.

It’s imperative that the elites in Europe start treating empirical data more seriously and take a good look at their continent’s history. This is essential in order to better understand its future. Only by looking at historical events, examining current trends, studying the Koran and listening to what representatives of Islam are telling us can we avoid being incorporated into the Islamic world.

We have to be alert, and we have to be willing to stand up for our way of life and our freedoms. It’s not necessary to look into a crystal ball to see what the future holds. All we need to do is to take an honest and truthful look around us and the options will start to become very clear.

When core values are challenged and start to shatter

Many things have been said and written about the 22/7 attacks in Norway. The list of social commentators who have accused others of having contributed ideologically to the attacks is extensive. Sadly these purveyors of sanctimonious leftist disingenuousness have failed to draw any meaningful lessons from this horrendous event, which is a real pity as there are valuable lessons to be drawn. Instead of demonizing the right, they would be well advised to do some much needed soul-searching and reflect upon whether there is anything in their own ideology that could have contributed to foment a climate in which such an attack could take place. There is no doubt that the attacks of July 22 have highlighted the left’s ideologically distorted view of reality and that it has confirmed that pure evil exists and that it cannot be tamed or harnessed no matter how much the left would like us to believe otherwise

Hopefully the Norwegian authorities will take this to heart, although it must be very hard for them as it goes against the very core of their ideology, which affirms that evil is a result of environmental factors such as oppression, hatred and unkindness. The Norwegian authorities’ belief in this thesis is so strong that they have mandated that everything in Norway is to be subjected to this established truth. Everything from our penal system which focuses exclusively on rehabilitation rather than punishment, to our immigration policies which aims to westernize third world asylum seekers by way of showering them with compassion and by investing astronomical sums of money in order to lift them up to a decent living standard and to transform them into Norwegians.

Likewise, the authorities refuse to properly punish criminals who commit the most heinous crimes believing that empathy and respect will encourage them into becoming law-abiding and caring citizens. This altruistic mindset has also permeated our foreign policies resulting in Norwegian diplomats initiating talks with terrorist organization such as Hamas believing that the organization’s readiness to engage in terror stems from a perceived oppression perpetrated by the Israeli state. In Norway the authorities believe that Hamas will lay down their arms and become productive peaceful citizens as soon as this perceived oppression is brought to an end.

There is something very disturbing and explicitly effeminate behind such a mentality. The desire to change and mould people are almost exclusively found in women, which is why so many imprisoned mass murderers, paedophiles and rapist regularly receive love-letters and marriage proposals from women on the outside who are convinced that they can save them from themselves. One possible explanation for Norway’s hasty political shift to the far left of the political spectrum in recent years can be explained by the enormous influx of women into the higher echelon of political life or alternatively that their male counterparts have been emasculated and subdued by a heavily feminised society.

The cultural and political elites in Norway were stunned when Behring Breivik went on his deadly rampage last July and now they act like a bewildered rich kid who has been brutally assaulted and had his money taken away by a poor kid he thought was a friend. The authorities can’t for the life of them comprehend why someone they treated with such benevolence and reverence would wish to inflict such terrible harm upon them and they probably never will.  But at least some people on the left have started to see the light. People who would automatically call for treatment and rehabilitation of criminals pre 22/7 now talk candidly about the insufficiency of the Norwegian penal codes which will only hand down a 21 year prison sentence to someone who has slaughtered 77 people. Maybe they are beginning to realize that in a just and fair society the act of killing an innocent person should always be treated in the strictest manner possible regardless whether it happens in a terrorist attack or not, and regardless of the number of victims. Maybe it has finally started to dawn upon them that rehabilitation isn’t necessarily a punishment fit for the crime.

The Norwegian wannabe Jihadist was given every opportunity to become a law-abiding and productive citizen. He was given a good elementary education and he was given the opportunity to attend university virtually free of charge. He was given free healthcare and was protected by a large safety net in the form of very generous welfare system that would scoop him up if he was somehow unable to secure a job or generate a steady income. The authorities in Norway went to great lengths to coax him and others like him to do something meaningful with their lives, but still he chose to turn upon them and perpetrated an almost unspeakable act. Now the authorities are scratching their heads unable to grasp that someone from their own flock could treat them with such utter contempt and sheer brutality.

Perhaps it would have been easier for them to accept the gravity of it all if Breivik hadn’t blown up the government building in Oslo and had he only killed a handful of people on Utoya Island instead of the 69 that he executed there in cold blood. And maybe it would have been easier for them if he had expressed some remorse for his actions instead of bragging about it. If that had been the case then maybe just maybe they would have handed him the standard 10-14 year rehabilitation sentence to be served in a nice cushy Norwegian prison and let him return to society afterwards as a free man. The fact that he decided to deal such a decisive blow to the official policy of multiculturalism must have been very hard for them to swallow considering that multiculturalism is the Holy Grail of the political left in Norway and nothing absolutely nothing can be allowed to harm or jeopardize its position.

But then again who knows, maybe this incident will prompt the Norwegian authorities to finally re-evaluate their views on the need to confront evil and deal with it in an appropriate manner, but then again maybe not. Maybe they will continue down the same path and keep on ignoring reality and continue to gaze out at the world through the prism of their political correct and warped ideology,

ABB, terrorist extraordinaire?

After having followed the first couple of weeks of the trial of terrorist and mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik through the eyes of the Norwegian media the impression I’m left with is that Breivik is the epitome of evil and that his murderous actions in July last year are almost unparalleled in modern history when it comes to sheer horror and calculated evil. Some people in Norway even seem to think that Breivik’s malice is on par with that of Hitler and Stalin. In their defence it can be said that very few people will dispute that Breivik is an evil psychopath, but there are simply no grounds for claiming that Breivik is any more evil or any more horrible than any other individual who decide to actively hunt down and kill innocent people, either by blowing them up or by killing them in a hail of bullets. What the vast majority in Norway fail to grasp is that Anders Behring Breivik is a very normal and very archetypical terrorist, nothing more and nothing less. The only thing that distinguishes Breivik from other terrorist is:

The fact that he managed to kill so many people

The fact that he didn’t sacrifice his own life during the mission

The fact that he wasn’t killed during the shooting spree

The fact that he wasn’t killed on capture

The fact that he is now able to explain and justify his actions in great detail in a trial that is being followed closely all over the world

Breivik’s lack of remorse and the fact that he is able to describe his actions in a surprisingly lucid and chilling manner doesn’t make his actions any more horrible or evil. The brutal killing of innocent civilians is horrifying regardless whether it is premeditated or not. If Mohammad Atta or any of the other 9/11 hijackers by some miraculously circumstance had been captured alive they would have exhibited a similar fanaticism and a similar disregard for human life. Their hatred would’ve burned just as brightly as Breivik’s. The same could also be said for the London bombers and every other jihadist who think nothing of killing innocent people as a means to achieve a ‘holy’ goal.

This terrorist attack has also given the rest of the world a bird’s eye view of the official Norwegian consensus society in all its glory. And it is highly likely that people who have caught a glimpse of it are scratching their heads and wondering what the heck they have just seen, or rather what they haven’t seen. Legitimate questions have been raised about Breivik’s mental health since the attacks, whether he suffers from some form of psychosis or other psychiatric illness, but no one have so far found it necessary to questioned the mental health of all those thousands of individuals who seem incapable of exhibiting any outrage at all. It’s not unreasonable to suspect that a psychiatrist would express concern if the first reaction of the next of kin of a murder victim was to stress the importance of showing the rest of the world how much love they were capable of exhibiting or started to sing in public to prove to the murderer that he/she hadn’t managed to extinguish the flame inside their heart.

There’s no escaping it, this bizarre reaction does raise some rather eerie questions, such as are these individual suffering from some form of a psychosis or have they simply just been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the Norwegian consensus apparatus that they are incapable of displaying anything else than the preordained and sanctioned emotions authorized by the authorities? There is undeniably something very North Korea like over these public displays of ‘unity’ and ‘solidarity’ which are mainly staged for the benefit of the international media. The mantra from the official Norway has always been that ‘we are going to show the rest of the world ....”

Those in Norway who don’t feel the need to take part in these rather uncomfortable manifestations of uncanny awkwardness and who oppose the underlying message behind, which is pro-multiculturalism and pro-Islam have been told over and over again that they are desperately clinging onto the past and holding onto ideas that simply don’t exist anymore. But what they themselves fail to realize is that their displays are also a desperate attempt to cling onto ideals and norms that are no longer found in Norway. The organizers are desperately trying to convince themselves and the rest of the world that Norway is still the same society that it was in the 1960’s and 70’s when people could walk around freely without having to fear being robbed, being physically assaulted and when women could walk around freely without having to fear being dragged into dark alleyways and being raped by third world immigrants which unfortunately happens quite frequently in Norway today.   

There is something very desperate and distressing about these staged manifestations. They are creepy because they are  fake and dishonest and they paint a false picture of Norway and ordinary Norwegians. Their fantasy simply doesn’t correspond with reality. Norway is a much less safe society than the one that they are trying to project onto the world. There is something very disingenuous about it all. Why not just drop the facade and admit that Norway is no longer the innocent little naive country that it once was? Anders Behring Breivik didn’t just appear out of nowhere, nor was he the one that catapulted Norway into the new ‘dangerous’ real world. We were already there a long before he detonated his lethal bomb in Oslo and executed his vicious killing spree on Utoya, and no silly sing-along or drivel about turning the other cheek and showing the world how much love we carry inside us is going to change that fact. Norway was attacked by a terrorist and that’s it, nothing more, nothing less. Norwegians should accept it and learn to deal with it.

A crash course in Counterjihadism for the political Left in Norway

Also published at Gates of Vienna

The trial of the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik is scheduled to start in Oslo early next week. In the lead-up to the trial there has been lots of talk from various left-wing public figures and left-wing organizations about the need to expose the anti-Islamic ideology which they erroneously claim influenced Anders Behring Breivik into carrying out his sick attacks.

They couldn’t be further from the truth, because the anti-Islamic ideology is opposed to everything that Anders Behring Breivik did on that horrible day. Anders Behring Breivik’s warped mind is much more in tune with those of radical Muslims and violent jihadists who don’t see anything wrong with killing innocent civilians in their struggle to achieve the global fascist regime that the Koran mandates. One of the most prominent tenets in the Counterjihad doctrine is that it under no circumstance condones terror as a means to achieve an end. As a matter of fact the Counterjihad community came about as a direct result of the violent and fascist behaviour of various Islamic radicals and Islamic regimes.

The insidious and highly dishonest assertion that the Counterjihad community is partially to blame for this attack is without any merit whatsoever. Most importantly, it’s a completely irrational claim. The anti-Islamic movement embraces traditional Western libertarian values which are part and parcel of its philosophy, values which Breivik through his evil deeds and his twisted manifesto has shown that he wholeheartedly abhors. The violence and utter rejection of basic democratic principles displayed by radical Muslims is the entire reason why a Counterjihad movement exists. If Islam had been a democratic religion, there would be no Counterjihad movement.

Those who identify with the movement realize that Islam constitutes a serious threat to our way of life, a conclusion that even the most avid leftists should be able to reach if they were more honest with themselves. The Counterjihad movement came about because it wants to protect the rights and liberties that we in the West take for granted. The movement utterly rejects the idea that a political ideology disguised as a religion should be allowed to use violence and intimidation to impose its world view on others.

Bearing this in mind, it’s rather puzzling that the Left in Norway find the ideology of the Counterjihad community so despicable and hateful, and one can of course only speculate why they are so vociferous in their criticism of it.

Perhaps it’s because Counterjihadists are staunch supporters of such ‘despicable’ things as freedom of religion and freedom of speech? Or is the fact that the Counterjihad movement believes in the rule of law, and that they reject religious and political persecution in any way shape or form?

Or is perhaps the fact that the Counterjihad movement rejects all forms of physical abuse against women and children, and completely opposes forced marriages and honour killings, which by the way are rife wherever Islam is in charge?

Or maybe it’s because the Counterjihad movement completely reject any acts of terror and the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians?

Or is it because Counterjihadists embrace the notion that everyone is born free and should be allowed to live their lives as they please within the boundaries of the law without government interference or having government-sanctioned ‘political opinions’ rammed down their throats?

It is hard to find any other reasons for this bizarre animosity from the Left, because this is the ideology behind the Counterjihad movement, which in reality upholds classical Western libertarian values, and as mentioned earlier in this essay, represents values that are diametrically at odds with those of Anders Behring Breivik.

Perhaps we need to take a closer look at the ideology behind the political Left in Norway to get a clearer picture of the situation.

The prevalent ideology of the Left in Norway is ‘democratic’ socialism, which of course is the misnomer of the century. This undemocratic philosophy is a slightly diluted form of standard classical socialism. It is important that people realize that it is an offshoot of mainstream communism, an evil ideology which is responsible for almost 200 million lives and unprecedented human-rights violations all over the globe. The communist ideology is a hardcore fascist system, a trait which it shares with Islam. It completely rejects the notion that humans are individuals who have certain inalienable rights that can’t be taken away from them. It is also important to realize that socialism was the main ideology behind the dictatorship in the Soviet Union and it was the ideology chosen by the fascists in Nazi Germany, admittedly in a slightly different form, but with the same fascist traits.

Yes, there are diametrical differences between the Counterjihad movement and the political Left in Norway, no one is denying that. Let’s touch upon some of those differences here.

The political Left in Norway are supporters of a strong and all-encompassing political regime, namely their own. They support the idea of outlawing political views that go against their ideology, including criminalising criticism of Islam, multiculturalism, feminism and alternative lifestyles such as homosexuality. They embrace the use of awareness campaigns that promote their own political agenda and mock those of their opponents. They embrace the idea of state financial support for the national media, which in an ideal society should be completely independent and shouldn’t have any ties whatsoever to the authorities. They also wholeheartedly support any measures that increase their stranglehold on society, and which they use to the fullest.

It is surreal to hear members of the AUF, who are hardcore leftists, criticizing Counterjihadists for having ‘ideologically’ contributed to the 22/7 attacks when they themselves over the last thirty years have unquestioningly given moral support, and recently — through their mother organization, the Norwegian Labour Party — given substantial financial aid to Palestinian terrorists groups such as Hamas, whose stated goal is to wipe the state of Israel off the map, and who actively encourage Muslims all over the world to kill Jews.

But then again maybe it isn’t that hard to comprehend, bearing in mind that the political Left in Norway are known all over the world for their overtly anti-Jewish sentiments.

It is strange to listen to people from the Left in Norway, many of whom are diehard anti-Semites, i.e. people who despise people for no other reason than their ethnicity, criticise individuals, in this case anti-Islamists, who speak out against a religion that rejects the notion of civil liberties, encourages the killing of Jews and Christians, and mandates the introduction of global fascism.

Maybe it’s more appropriate to expose the ideology behind the political Left in Norway instead and challenge the political direction that they have staked out for the people of Norway, especially since many Norwegians are deeply opposed to their political agenda.

Maybe the trial of the sick beast from Oslo is what is needed to shed some light on these matters and set the record straight. If that were to happen then at least one good thing will come about as a result of this deeply tragic event. The accusations from the Left shouldn’t be allowed to remain unchallenged, because they are incorrect and their rhetoric reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

Relax, when we do it, it’s ok

A new word has made its way into the public discourse in Norway, and that word is ‘ytringsansvar’, literally meaning ‘expression responsibility’. The English word that would most accurately describe it is probably decorum.  The idea behind this new word is that people have a responsibility to express themselves in a non-hateful and non-offensive manner. The failure to show enough ‘ytringsansvar’ or decorum has repercussions in that a moral responsibility for the consequences that ensue are placed upon the transgressors, regardless of whether incitement to violence has taken place or not.

The political left in Norway which introduced the word shortly after the terror attacks on 22/7 felt that ‘hateful’ rhetoric had contributed, at least on an ideological level, to the atrocities and therefore advocated that such speech should be toned down from then on, hence the introduction of the word ‘ytringsansvar’. No legal changes were proposed, but the left in Norway have actively encouraged people to restrain themselves whenever debating ‘sensitive’ issues since. In effect what the left are doing is encouraging Norwegians to engage in self censorship; or more correctly they are encouraging those who don’t share their views on multiculturalism, Islam and immigration to shut up.

In Norway certain political opinions have already been banned. Individuals who express views that run contrary to those that the left have deemed acceptable on matters such as immigration, religion or homosexuals risk being prosecuted for hate speech, which basically means that the left in Norway has managed to outlaw opinions that they find unpalatable. There is of course a word which accurately describes such behaviour and that word is fascism. The act of banning political opinions that one doesn’t agree with and to curtail someone’s right to express themselves freely can only be labelled as fascism. The truth is that the political left in Norway are guilty of employing fascist methods in order to silence individuals with opposing views and it is quite surprising that no one in the MSM is writing about it.

The idea that a political faction should be given the task of deciding what constitutes acceptable speech and what doesn’t is preposterous and it violates the most fundamental democratic principles. The right to express oneself freely is an inalienable right which should be protected and guaranteed by a nations constitution, and no politicians should have the authority to dilute or revoke such an intrinsic right. In the USA freedom of speech is enshrined in the American constitution and it cannot be revoked by elected representatives. This used to be the case for Norway too until the left decided to make unconstitutional amendments in order to bring the constitution more in line with their own political agenda. It is important that people realize that the so-called hate speech laws wasn’t introduced out of concern for immigrants, Muslims and homosexuals, they were introduced in order to stifle opposition to the policies of the left. It’s a lot harder to oppose something if doing so can result in a prison sentence.

A couple of months after the 22/7 terror attacks a member of the AUF who was on Utøya when Breivik went berserk wrote an op-ed in Dagbladet in which he urged the leadership of the various political parties to come together and agree on the parameters of ‘acceptable speech’. One can only assume that this person believed that his presence on the island that day gave him the right to restrict freedom of speech in Norway, which is an incredible arrogant attitude.  It is highly unlikely that he intended to outlaw opinions that praised multiculturalism and Islam, which he himself is a supporter of. It is much more likely that he intended to restrict opinions that he himself found unacceptable.

The massacre on Utøya was horrible and no one on the political right in Norway contests this fact. However it is very disturbing to observe how the left is scrupulously exploiting this tragedy in order to consolidate their power and to discredit their opponents. It is completely unacceptable that they use this tragedy to introduce more limitations on free speech. Tragedies like the one that took place on Utøya occur on an almost weekly basis in other countries, and there are absolutely no grounds for claiming that the massacre on Utøya was worse or somehow more morally reprehensible than that of other terrorist attacks. Spilt Norwegian blood is no worse than spilt Israeli or Iraqi blood and the political left in Norway should take that to heart and stop elevating this incident into an almost religious like event.

There should be very few limitations placed upon freedom of speech. The courts should only consider those cases that clearly incites to violence, defamation cases and copyright violations. Political speech concerning religious matters, ethnicity and alternative lifestyles don’t belong in a court of law unless they advocate violence. The courts and the authorities have no business censoring political views. Such restrictions may be part and parcel in a dictatorship, but they have no place in modern western democracies.  

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.