The latest statistics of the colonisation of Europe

When contemplating on the New Year’s Eve what was the most important event in Europe last year which will most influence its destiny, the answer comes easy: the ongoing colonisation of Europe with the Third World immigrants. Because demography is destiny, and also in a peacetime, demography wags politics and not vice versa. Moreover, at the start of another year this is an appropriate time to update our information. Therefore the intersection of both colonisation and information update is needed to check the latest statistics regarding the colonisation of Europe.

Regretfully, registration of cultural-ethnic indicators in Western Europe is highly defective. Nowadays, it is very convenient for rulers in the Europe that native populations are denied knowledge of their true state. Around half of Western European states (mostly Romanic ones) do not have cultural-ethnic statistics at all. There is something on citizenship, birth country, or departure country but those are not cultural-ethnic indicators. The other half are mostly Germanic states but their indicators are also deficient. Almost everywhere earlier migrants starting from the 3rd generation are magically claimed as natives. Only two states (where natives have multiple languages) publish decent cultural-ethnic i.e. language indicators: Finland and Switzerland. So one must get along with only two generations of migrants regarded as foreign.
Let’s measure three indicators:

  1. share of native population — it shows an extent of colonisation;
  2. drop of the native share — it shows a speed of colonisation;
  3. net foreign migration as percentage of native population — it shows the intensity of migration.

Also, there is a convenient gauge to compare with: the russification of Latvia during the Soviet occupation. It was large enough and would have driven Latvians to extinction in the long run had it not been for the fall of the USSR. So we can take indicator values of this russification and be able to understand how these become lethal rates for natives.
As per census data, percentage of Latvians fell like this:

So the average drop of the native share was:

YearsAverage yearly drop of the share of native population, %/year
1943—591.14
1959—700.48
1970—790.34
1979—890.16
Average 1943—890.61

As for migration the net migration during Russian occupation was such (excluding deportation of 42,000 in 1949):

To calculate the intensity of migration these numbers must be divided by native population numbers:

YearAverage net migration, yearly % per native population
1948—581.05
1959—691.10
1970—780.82
1979—880.71
Average 1948—880.92

Now, we have calculated all three colonisation indicators. Next, we can calculate the latest Western European data and compare them to lethal values. Before we go country by country, a quick reminder that these are not random states but those which have at least some cultural-ethnic statistics. Regretfully, almost all of them count 3rd generation and earlier migrants as natives.

In a descending order of population, the first is Germany. The percentage of natives (and earlier immigrants) has dropped by almost a percent and approaches three quarters:

  • 2016 — 77.35%;
  • 2017 — 76.44%.

So the drop of the share of native population was 0.91% while the share had been over 80% as recently as in 2012. There was no wave of illegal immigration in 2017 as in 2015 nonetheless the net migration of foreigners was half a million (499,000) i.e. 0.80% of the native population.

In the Netherlands, the percentage of natives (and earlier immigrants) has dropped by half a percent and also approaches three quarters:

  • 2017 — 77.39%;
  • 2018 — 76.88%.

So the drop of the share of native population was 0.51%. The net migration of those born abroad was 91,000 in 2017 i.e. 0.69% of native population.

In Sweden, the percentage of natives (and earlier immigrants) has dropped almost a percent:

  • 2016 — 69.38%;
  • 2017 — 68.45%.

So the drop of the share of native population was 0.93%. There was no wave of illegal immigration in 2017 as in 2015 nonetheless the net migration of foreigners was a hundred thousand (102,000) i.e. 1.47% of native population. A share of the natives is pushed already below 70% and I still remember that it was 75% just ten years ago in 2008. If the present trends will continue, in 2022, Latvia will become more Latvian than Sweden is Swedish.

In Austria, the percentage of natives (and earlier immigrants) also approaches three quarters:

  • 2016 — 77.93%;
  • 2017 — 77.21%.

So the drop of the share of native population was 0.72% and I remember when 3/4 was the percentage of natives in the capital city of Vienna not the whole country. The net migration of foreigners was 50,000 in 2017 i.e. 0.75% of native population.

Switzerland is one of rare Western European states which publishes a population breakdown by languages. But should we count local Germans, Frenchmen, Italians separately from their fellows in neighbouring countries? If yes, then natives are around 60% of population. If not, then around 80%. No, I’ll not separate as they share the same languages and ethnic ranges. By the way, a hundred years ago, the closest Austrian land to Switzerland that is Vorarlberg voted overwhelmingly (>4/5) in a plebiscite to join Switzerland which was denied by the victorious Allies. Alright, as I said, let’s count all speakers of native tongues together:

  • in 2015, 80.14% of population spoke native languages (German, French, Italian, Romansh);
  • in 2016, 79.64%.

So the drop of the share of native population was 0.50%. Regretfully, Swiss Federal Statistical Office doesn’t publish a composition of migrants by language. The closest to that is to take a breakdown by citizenship, then to deduct citizens of neighbouring countries from the total number of foreigners. The residual net migration was 34,000 in 2017 i.e. 0.52% of the natives.

In Denmark, proportion of the native population (and earlier immigrants) is higher than in many other countries:

  • 2017 — 86.76%;
  • 2018 — 86.31%.

So the drop of the share of native population was 0.45%. The net migration of foreigners was 24,000 in 2017 i.e. 0.48% of native population.

Finland has the best cultural-ethnic specifically language statistics in Western Europe. Proportion of natives (Finns, Swedes, Saami) is the highest among countries mentioned here:

  • 2017 — 93.57%;
  • 2018 — 93.23%.

So the drop of the share of native population was 0.34%. The net migration of foreign language speakers was 16,000 in 2017 i.e. 0.31% of native population.

In Norway, the percentage of natives (and earlier immigrants) approaches three quarters like in several other countries:

  • 2017 — 76.91%;
  • 2018 — 76.30%.

So the drop of the share of native population was 0.61%. The net migration of foreigners was 23,000 in 2017 i.e. 0.57% of native population.

Finally, Iceland. A remote island with inclement climate and rough nature, thousands of miles from migration sources. But it is another example how easily political decisions sway migration volume and direction. Israel, Hungary, Australia, Macedonia are examples that unwanted immigration can be ended in short time, if only there is a willpower to do it. But Iceland is an example that aforementioned natural conditions are not an obstacle for the share of native population to drop by two (!) percent a year:

  • 2017 — 81.21%;
  • 2018 — 79.19%.

So the drop of the share of natives was 2.01% and I remember the share was 90% as recently as in 2005. The net migration of foreigners was 8,000 in 2017 i.e. 2.87% of native population. One could object that immigrants to Iceland come mostly not from the Third World but from Eastern Europe: in 2017, the largest net migration was from Poland (40.5% of the total), Lithuania (13.1%), Latvia (6.6%), and Romania (4.6%). Nonetheless, wherever they come from, the country becomes less Icelandic, and I strongly suspect Icelanders wouldn’t like to become the 17th voivodeship of Poland. Also, the law of human nature that newcomers to foreign land behave more aggressively applies to Poles and Balts as well. And, if treasonous politicians keep borders open it’s only a matter of demographically short time when a limited immigration potential of Eastern Europe will be overtaken by four-billion Asia and fast-growing billion-Africa.

Now, we can put together colonisation indicator values and compare them to the Latvian experience. The extent of colonisation is shown, of course, by the proportion of native population:

While Latvia has nominally more immigrants the ideology and behaviour of antagonists of native populations differ. Terror acts and Rotherham-style sex crimes against native girls are non-existent in Latvia. Russian imperialists show their loyalty to the Kremlin by setting their New Year fireworks at midnight Moscow time but they fire them up in the air not along ground or on other people. Also, they don’t burn cars of harass native women during New Year celebrations. And, most importantly, Latvians have higher fertility rates than immigrants.

As for colonisation speed, it is measured by the drop of native population share:

In all countries, the share of natives is dropping faster than in Russian-occupied Latvia in 70’s and 80’s before the national awakening. In all countries except Finland and Denmark — faster than in Latvia in 60’s. In Iceland — even faster than in Stalin times (except wake of WW2). So the question arises what evil power has occupied Western Europe that now eradicates European nations more thoroughly than russificators and Communists?

The final indicator is net migration of foreigners compared to number of natives — it allows us to gauge how lethal migration is:

In 2017, there was not such a wave of illegal immigration as in 2015. Nevertheless, in many countries, the net migration of foreigners exceeds colonisation of Latvia in 80’s before the national awakening. In other countries, the net migration is only slightly less and, as shown before, even lesser net migration is sufficient to replace the native population faster than during the russification of Latvia. The only country where migration doesn’t currently endanger the existence of native people is Finland.

To sum up, there is a saying about how change happens: first, gradually, and then suddenly. The slow ethnic decline that started in Western Europe after the Second World War through the introduction of Third World migrants has accelerated into a rapid descent (and one can take the wave of illegal immigration in 2015 as a symbolic watershed). At present, the replacement of native people goes faster than during Soviet russification of Latvia. This shows that hate, indifference, and cowardice, by the bulk of Western European rulers towards their own people, are comparable to that of the Communists and russificators in Latvia, or even higher.

Along the way of colonisation, Sweden has been driven the furthest and Germany follows not far behind. The best situation for the native population is in Finland but Islamic terror acts and Rotherham-style sex crimes against native girls have started even there. As Finland has excellent language statistics, they show that, when these sex crimes started, non-native population in Oulu reached 4%, including 2.5% of the Third World immigrants and 1.6% of Muslims. These numbers are quite close to the same level at which gang-rapes of native girls started in Rotherham.

If Western Europe continues to proceed on this current path, it will be either conquered and subjected as presciently described by Jean Raspail or more recently by Michel Houellebecq. On the other hand if nationalism as an immune system of nations will be strong enough — a national awakening could then rise up and reverse this path to destruction. History shows though that such a serious demographic change usually is connected with great upheavals like both world wars and the fall of the USSR. One can only guess if the national liberation of Western European nations would come as peacefully as the restoration of Latvian independence did.

Ritvars Eglājs

Geographer, free marketer, Latvian nationalist

Leave a Reply