By: M.Sc. Tadej Ian, political scientist, social scientist and publicist
The last dimension of the collapse of Europe that we will talk about is the migration policy of the European Union. The EU hosts millions of economic migrants from Africa and Asia, most of whom are of the Islamic faith. In the long term, European societies will be at risk, as these migrations will destabilise them.
The rationale for the admission of huge numbers of migrants from Asia and Africa to the EU, put forward by Brussels technocrats and adopted by many European politicians, is demographic. Due to the decline in the number of native European births (natality), a problem is expected to arise in the future, because there will be too much of an old population in Europe, which the younger Europeans will not be able to provide for and care for. Since the birth rate is very high in Asia and Africa, European decision-makers hypothesised that the solution for Europe in this sense is to import migrants from other continents. In return for a better life, these migrants are supposed to take care of old Europeans, which means paying contributions from which pensions for old Europeans’ will be drawn and provide services that old Europeans will need. It sounds too good to be true. And it is because the hypothesis is completely wrong.
Non-European migration is not a demographic solution
The described hypothesis falls flat because it contains many assumptions that are not true at all. The first problem is that the potential workforce coming to Europe is mostly unskilled. Migrants who come to Europe come from some parts of the world that are so poorly developed compared to Europe that they do not even give newcomers the ability to work in Europe, because life in Europe is so much more complicated or challenging as it is in the mentioned parts of the world, many migrants in Europe will never get a job, even if they wanted one, because they simply do not have enough developed skills. Here, of course, the reason is not race, but the reason is the environment, because the same thing would happen to a European who was taken as a baby to that backward part of the world and would later come to Europe in adulthood.
Another problem is that many newcomers from other continents do not even want a job in Europe. The social support they get in Europe means even wealth in some parts of the world. If a migrant sends a part of it home, this – for European conditions – change can support entire families there very well. Even a bad life in Europe is better than the life of the middle classes in the third world, so migrants who are not looking for a job in Europe do not feel a lack of living standards at all and do not even have the motivation to look for a job.
The third problem is that the hypothesis described in the previous section is based on a high level of European humanity. It should be emphasised that European humanity has developed in the last century. It was made possible by European prosperity. Humanity naturally exists in underdeveloped parts of the world, as people are social beings, but by no means is this level of humanity and reciprocity as high as in Europe. The idea that Asian and African newcomers will take care of elderly Europeans is therefore completely illusory.
The fourth and at the same time the biggest problem is that the hypothesis is based on the theory of multiculturalism, which assumes that the cultural tolerance of Asian and African newcomers to Europe is similar or the same as the cultural tolerance of Europeans. Europeans developed high tolerance not only because of European prosperity, but also because of the experience of the destruction of two world wars in Europe, which completely devastated Europe and took tens of millions of European lives. Asians and Africans do not have this experience. Opposite. They do not understand the reasons for such European migration policies at all. European “generosity” is associated by many with the stupidity and weakness of Europeans, which means that they have no respect for Europeans, as they consider them to be weaklings. Since they come from environments where the system is designed in such a way (as it once was in Europe) that only the strongest survive, their motive is above all to make the most of themselves at the expense of Europeans. In addition, in Europe they maintain their values and way of life, as they were used to at home, which is why more and more Islamic ghettos are emerging in Europe in big cities.
European misunderstanding of Islam
The vast majority of Asian and African migrants arriving in Europe are of the Islamic faith. The European decision-makers who are letting millions of these migrants into Europe do not understand Islam. If they really understood Islam, they would not have let these migrants into Europe in such numbers. History teaches us that Islamic immigrants are relatively peaceful at first and quickly integrate into the environment they move into. They are also ready for partial assimilation. All this changes when their number or the share in relation to the entire population increases. In such a situation, they become massively radicalised and demand the introduction of Islamic laws, i.e., Sharia law.
We invented nationalism in Europe. But this does not exist in the Islamic world. Of course, Muslims also have internal conflicts. But Islam works in such a way that in places where they are in the minority, Muslims always connect with other members of the Islamic religion, regardless of where they come from. Among Muslims, mutual disputes and conflicts can always wait for the times when Islam takes control or establish political authority and Sharia law in a region.
Islamic revolution in Europe?
It is alarming that a part of Muslims in Europe is already becoming radicalised. It can only get worse in the future. The low birth rate of indigenous Europeans, the reason why the EU supports immigration from other continents in the first place, is Europe’s Achilles’ heel in the long term. Muslims immigrating to Europe come from traditional backgrounds where one couple has a large number of children. Islamist leaders in Europe and elsewhere are urging Muslims in Europe to have as many children as possible. Even if the EU stops migration to Europe tomorrow, in 50 years, due to the described trends, the demographic picture in Europe will be completely different than it is today. The percentage of Muslims in Europe will be high. If migration continues to be politically tolerated, it is only a matter of time when, at least in some parts of Europe (probably France and Italy first), Muslims will be in the majority. With such immigration trends as we are witnessing, this can happen in a few decades, but certainly in a century. Otherwise, no one can predict with certainty what will happen then. But given that there will surely be more and more tension between the native population and migrants and given that there is never a shortage of radical Islamists inciting the usually more moderate Islamic majority, we can expect that in some places in Europe there will eventually be civil wars and at least attempted Islamic revolutions.
A reasonable solution to the demographic problem
If all the money that is wasted due to African and Asian migration to Europe were to be used by EU member states to encourage and help young European families and couples, the European birth rate would certainly increase. There would also be nothing wrong with migrations from Asia and Africa if they were small in number and if the European authorities chose who to invite to Europe. If thousands or even tens of thousands of doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. immigrated to Europe instead of millions of unqualified people from the Islamic and rest of the third world, this would definitely be better and sustainable. Highly educated or highly skilled people adapt more easily to new cultural patterns and in smaller numbers would not threaten the majority population either in the short or long term.
