The Blackening of Europe

by Clare Ellis

In the final volume of her monumental trilogy, The Blackening of Europe, Clare Ellis examines the policies and ideologies behind the undermining of ethnic European demographic majority and national sovereignty across Europe, taking aim at the “Eurabia” thesis and exposing how such projects violate numerous international laws that serve to protect the rights of distinct ethnic peoples from genocide.

Europeans, known as Whites, are experiencing population decline. Europeans are already a minority in the world, making up about one billion of the world’s 7.7 billion inhabitants, or less than 13 percent of the total population. Since the 1960s, Europeans have seen a steady decline in births, such that today, they have one of the lowest fertility rates in the world. The total fertility rate (TFR) must be 2.1 for a population to completely replace itself through births. The European Union’s TFR is around 1.6, while the global average is 2.5, with Africa having the highest TFR in the world at 4.7.

Along with the decline in White births, about sixty years ago European elites sanctioned a population-changing practice that has now become quintessential to the cosmopolitan project of the European Union: large-scale non-European immigration. Because of these two trends – decline in fertility rates and the introduction of mass-immigration – the populations of many cities and towns throughout the EU are now majority non-European. Indigenous Europeans are minorities in these areas. If these trends continue, by the end of this century non-White peoples will come to represent the absolute majority population of entire European countries. When this majority-minority shift occurs, there will be an unprecedented transfer of political power from European peoples to non-Europeans, essentially signalling the end of European sovereignty over their ancestral homelands.

Clearly, indigenous Europeans are becoming demographic and political minorities in their homelands. However, this downfall is not just the result of declining fertility rates and large-scale non-European immigration, but also, and very importantly, the result of political ideologies that accompany these two trends. The EU project, including efforts to form a Euro-Mediterranean Union, is a politically constructed cosmopolitan project founded on demographic engineering, anti-nationalism, the erasure of ethno-national identities, the creation of multi-ethnic societies, and the separation of political authority and sovereignty from indigenous Europeans. The EU project, accompanied by neoconservative policies, has opened Europe to large-scale non-European immigration (legal and illegal), widespread socio-political problems associated with violent and nonviolent forms of political Islam, and leftist-Third World alliances that are hostile to European power structures and identities.

The great majority of ethnic Europeans are being drowned by a Europhobic Euro-Arab Dialogue, by leftism, by the rapidly growing demographic of Muslim and non-European immigrants, and also by Zionists and neoconservatives that laud a deracinated, liberal, Judeo-Christian identity for Europeans and label ethno-national European identities and anti-immigration sentiments among Europeans as racist and a new form of Nazism. In sum, while they are still the majority of their national populations, indigenous Europeans and their traditional political and cultural institutions and identities are undergoing processes of erasure – stigmatized, marginalized, deprived, and replaced – by mandated immigrationism, multiculturalism, and other ideological methods of dispossession and forced diversification (cosmopolitanism, cultural Marxism, Islamism etc.) while their resistance is criminalized.

Is the EU cosmopolitan project a form of genocide? What international laws and rights are being violated? Is it creating the conditions for civil war? We provide answers to these questions in this volume. But before we delve in, it is important to summarize what was discussed in Volumes I and II, revisit the Eurabia thesis, and evaluate established neoconservative critiques of the EU project.

In Volume I: Ideologies and International Developments, we began with an examination of the early-20th-century European-integration models of Pan-Europa, the United States of Europe, and Eurafrica and found that these early plans involved: the joint exploitation, by Europe, of the resources and land of the African colonies; a new culturally united Europe led by a spiritual aristocracy (Judaism); and a new European identity stripped of its distinct ethno-national characteristics. Drawing most notably from the influential socialist ideas of Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, we found that at this time the unification of Europe was perceived as the first step toward the eventual unity of humanity under a World Federation in perpetual peace. Fabianism and cultural Marxism furthered this goal. Both these ideologies have been integral to: the progressive transformation of Europe into a denationalized and open European Union (including the promotion of Euro-Mediterranean integration); the creation of the new European and world citizen; and the gradual development of a new world order based on cosmopolitan ideas of perpetual peace, initiated by the wealthy socialist classes, and exacted by changing the system from within by infiltrating educational institutions, government agencies, and political parties.

We then examined other influences that had direct bearing on further European integration and the cosmopolitan project. We found that post-WWII international institutions, namely the Atlantic Charter, the United Nations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, established a new global order and effectively opened European nations to large-scale non-European immigration. Moreover, there were certain developments and conflicts in the Middle East (i.e. the creation of Israel and Pan-Islamism) that provided the geopolitical context for an additional integration model: Eurabia. Of particular concern was the 1970s oil crisis that triggered the formation of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, a cultural, political, and economic cooperative partnership that promoted the importation of Muslim migrants and Islam into Europe. Official documents from the 1980s into the 21st century also demonstrated additional strategies for intra-European, Eurafrican, Euro-Arab, and Euro-Mediterranean political, economic, and cultural integration.

We then scrutinized the four ideologies that have been essential to the creation of the present form of the European Union: cosmopolitanism, social liberalism, neoliberalism, and neoconservatism. Contemporary cosmopolitanism is fixated on transforming the world according to universal socialist ideals and values and is intimately involved with the creation of a new socialist-capitalist class that is dependent on cheap Third World labour. Influential cosmopolitan Jürgen Habermas promotes the idea that mass-immigration will transform European nations into ethnically diverse liberal democracies. He wants to use immigrants and the universal principles of rights to overturn national self-determination and the plurality of sovereign-states and decouple European majority ethnic groups from their ethno-cultural political identities. Furthermore, while Canadian multiculturalist William Kymlicka promotes group rights for ethnic minorities and non-European immigrants, he does not grant the same rights for ethnic Europeans.

Social liberalism has roots in Marx’s theories of historical materialism and the end of capitalism, applies social science methods (social engineering) to make European societies more liberal, and views moral authority and judgments through the lenses of relativism and emotivism. Neoliberalism has an economic basis in deregulation, privatization, and reduced funding for social services. It transfers political power from the political authority of the state to the economy and judiciary; corporations and a small wealthy elite control the economy, and by extension society and local politics. Debt and dependency are incurred because of the interventionist and coercive opening of foreign markets to the capitalist world economy and transnational corporations and the international financial elite gain increasing power over the global economy and over life itself. Neoconservatism is rooted in neoliberal economics, has left-wing origins, has a predominantly Jewish composition, is devoted to the security of Israel at the expense of America, and is based on Democratic Peace Theory and the notion of the ‘end of history’. It advocates pre-emptive war and intervention, and the use of military might to achieve American global leadership, spread American freedom and democracy, and prevent any potential or actual rivals arising as a global superpower to challenge American hegemony.

We now turn to Volume II: Immigration and Islam. We demonstrated that immigration into Europe has been predominately from Muslim countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East since the 1960s. Net migration into the European Union is now around 1.5 million a year and many cities are increasingly non-European in composition. Due to aging populations and below-replacement fertility rates, net migration (which has been increasing since the 1990s) is the main source of population growth for the five key European countries that were profiled: Belgium, the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, and Germany. Between 10 and 20% of the populations of these five nations are now foreign-born. In addition, most residency permits granted to immigrants are for family reasons rather than employment.

With reference to experts and analysts, we then discussed the origin of Islam, the revival of political Islam in the 20th century, militant Islamist movements such as the Taliban, al Qaeda, and ISIS, the differences between violent, non-violent, and participationist Islamists, and Islamist channels of operation in Europe. We addressed Islamist declarations of the demographic conquest and Islamization of Europe, and evaluated the proposition that Islamism represents a Gramscian counter-hegemonic ideology and movement against the power structures of the West.

We also analysed Muslim demographics in the European Union. We found that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe, that around 7% of the EU population is Muslim, that Sharia law is having an increasing impact on the political landscape, and that many of the largest cities have significant Muslim populations (with many areas turned into ‘Sharia-controlled areas’ leading to ‘White flight’ and ‘Jewish flight’). Statistics and demographics in the five key European countries mentioned above also revealed that Muslims have low educational levels, high welfare consumption, high unemployment rates, and high incarceration rates compared to national and other immigrant groups. There are also increasing problems with the radicalisation of Muslims in schools, social media, mosques, and prisons, and significant support for radical Islam in Europe.

We showed, through statistical analysis, that since at least the late 1980s a majority of Europeans have opposed political Islam and Muslim enclaves in Europe as well as large-scale population changes brought about by global mass-immigration. But there has been no effective action taken by political elites. In fact, there has been an increase in immigration and more statements that political Islam belongs in Europe. And what about the 2015/2016 migrant crisis? It revealed not just the open-door policy of EU elites and the flouting of asylum laws, but more importantly, it reflected a mass exodus of young Muslim men who used the Mediterranean Sea and land routes for clandestine entry into Europe. The vast majority (over 90%) of irregular migrants during this time came from Muslim majority countries in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, many of which were safe or safe third countries. Over 60% were not genuine asylum seekers, and some were terrorists.

Despite these facts, elites argued that the migrant crisis could be used to solve economic and demographic (and political) issues in Europe. But a critical evaluation of demographic data (education and employment levels, language abilities, etc.) of recent asylum seekers and first and second generation non-European immigrants cast serious doubt on their claims. As did the actual and estimated costs of the migrant crisis for individual European nations, for the European Union as a whole, and for Europeans as individuals, including social and security costs, such as migrant crime waves, the 2015 New Year’s Eve mass-sexual assaults in Germany and elsewhere, and the hundreds of lives that were lost and the hundreds more that were wounded in the Islamist terrorist attacks in Paris (2015) and Brussels (2016). These incidents, and many others, revealed the failure of costly integration and counter-radicalism strategies and the actual crisis of non-European migration into Europe in general. More importantly, they exposed the disgraceful behaviour of EU bureaucrats and other elites who lied about and denied the ethnic nature and extent of these crimes, blamed the victims, and censored media and police reports for political ends.

And now we turn to Volume III: Critical Views. We begin with a detailed account of the Eurabia thesis, which is foundational to the present form of the European Union. We then turn to a discerning evaluation of Muslim immigration, Islamism, multiculturalism, and left-wing ideologies in the EU as presented by neoconservative authors Bat Ye’or, Melanie Phillips, and Bruce Bawer. We summarize their views and then critique and refute some of their central arguments, including:

• Islamist aggression against Israel and the West is a metaphysical conflict between good and evil

• An Israel-West neoconservative alliance against Islam and Leftism is necessary

• Palestinianism is a Nazi-Jihadi fascist alliance between Europe and the Arab countries

• Europe needs mass-immigration

• Europe should adopt American assimilationism (liberal individualism and monoculturalism)

• Europe must rid itself of ethno-nationalism.

Referring to international laws, rights, and other official documents, we then define some central terms, such as self-determination, discrimination, persecution, genocide, indigenous rights, and the aim and basis of the European Union. In an effort of assessment, we then consult the research of several scholars and experts on demography and ethnicity and apply the aforementioned laws, rights, and legal terms to various aspects of the EU cosmopolitan project.

The central argument is that EU elites, pro-immigrant open-border leftists, Third World oppositionists, anti-European immigrants, Islamists, and neoconservatives (the liberal Right) share a common ground: the negation and undermining of ethnic European demographic majority rule and national homeland sovereignty. These groups knowingly use immigration and the recent flows of irregular migrants into Europe, as well as discriminatory measures, hate propaganda, and exclusionary ideologies that condemn indigenous Europeans who oppose their goals, to elicit regime change in Europe. Such a project dismisses the will of European peoples, renders them political and demographic minorities in their own homelands, increases the likelihood of civil war, and violates numerous international laws that serve to protect the rights of distinct ethnic peoples from any form of genocide.

---

The Blackening of Europe Volume III: Critical Views is fresh off the press from Arktos, currently trending at #1 in the Public Policy Immigration category on Amazon.