The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Sailer in Taki's: "Le Grand Remplacement"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:

Le Grand Remplacement
by Steve Sailer
February 08, 2017

Nobody seems to know exactly how fast France, the cultural heartland of the West over the past millennium, is being demographically transformed. But I have found a way to estimate the percentage of babies being born in France who are of non-European ancestry.

And the results are astonishing.

Read the whole thing there.

Thanks to Vertumne for helping me finally get confident in the methodology behind this graph of newborns in France at risk of sickle cell anemia:

Click on it to enlarge.

By the way, you can use Google Translate to translate my Taki’s column into French.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Steve,

    Suggest you go ahead and state the main results, which you were able to condense into a tweet before, above the fold. I actually think you may draw just as many readers to the main article by stating them than by hiding then. And for those people receiving a link to your unz post from some of us, it will be a little more self evident on the face why the article is being shared. It’s an eye popping number.

    Read More
    • Agree: NickG
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Okay, you sort of already have hints of it in the graphic, although it was intimidating to me to read, especially on a smart phone.
    , @pyrrhus
    Only 8.9% born in Brittany of such parents, but 73% in Paris.....Africans don't like the country, or Bretagnes don't like them....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/sailer-in-takis-le-grand-remplacement/#comment-1759001
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. King Baeksu says: • Website

    Here’s another line of approach:

    France has 93 “departments.” Last year, No. 93 (Seine-Saint-Denis, in northern Paris) hit 43% Muslim or Arab names for newborns. Île-de-France, which comprises the greater Paris region, has around 12 million people or 18% of the national population. The average for the Paris region seems to be around 27%, although some “departments” may be more densely populated than others.

    I predict a nuclear-armed French Caliphate by 2050. Probably the UK, Germany, Belgium and Sweden will quickly join up as well, given similar demographic trends. Hell, London has a Muslim mayor already!

    I wonder how long it will take them to gang up and wipe the “Zionist entity” off the face of the planet?

    More information here: http://galliawatch.blogspot.co.id/2017/01/muslim-first-names.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    Île-de-France, which comprises the greater Paris region, has around 12 million people or 18% of the national population.
     
    It is probably higher than this, as not all Muslims are given Muslim names. The poll of teenagers Steve mentioned in the article strikes me as the most reliable figure. While not all non-whites in France or Muslim, my impression from being there is they are the very large majority.

    French West Africa is the main source of France's blacks and is very Muslim.

    If you look here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_France#History

    You will see non-European immigration to France has been running steady at 120,000 a year from 2008 to 2016. About 20,000 of that is from the "Americas and Oceana" and likely mostly white, so France has been officially accepting about 105,000 non-white immigrants per year.

    That rate is considerably lower than the United States, and much lower than Canada and Germany. Merkel's Boner, all by itself, was larger than a decade of non-white immigration to France.

    These numbers do not account for the non-whites in France's remaining colonial empire's steady resettlement into France, much like Puerto Ricans and Samoans gradually are resettling into the USA proper.
    , @Anonymous
    I think the Western Europe Caliphate will arrive much quicker than this. It's increasing at an increasing rate. Plus, the more dominant it gets the more the dhimmi will capitulate and convert, even if just culturally. It's not as if Chesterton and Belloc didn't constantly warn everyone what would happen after the forces of darkness tore down Christ and His Church (to borrow from Israel Shamir's article today).
    , @M.G.
    @King Baeksu

    Sorry, missed your link on the first name study! I posted it again. Mea culpa.
    , @BB753
    So far, "French" Muslims are either working class or chronically unemployed. I just don't see them taking over the country in a generation. You don't make up for lack of brains, organisation and skills with raw numbers.. Look at South Africa, Whites would still rule the country today with under 10% of the population if not for the pressure of the"international community" and native white sellouts.
    , @Jack D

    I wonder how long it will take them to gang up and wipe the “Zionist entity” off the face of the planet?
     
    I wouldn't worry too much. Israel has (German) submarines with nuclear missile launch capability (thanks to a French provided reactor at Dimona) as well as underground launchers for ICBMs (thanks, von Braun!). Dialing in Paris, Berlin, London, etc. is only a matter of hitting a few buttons.

    Pakistan of course already has nuclear weapons but has shown no interest in starting a nuclear war with Israel. Most Muslim countries make a show over their concern for the Palestinians (without letting any ever become citizens) when it suits their domestic considerations, but only if they don't really have to pay a price. Saddam Hussein attacked Israel as a desperate Hail Mary (you should excuse the expression) play and he got the gallows so it did not work out well for him. Being nuked by Israel is a pretty hefty price.
    , @Ed
    Once people awaken to the threat and more are awakening to it there will be a backlash. At first it'll be political and if that doesn't work it'll be violent. A recent poll shows that a majority of French want a complete halt to Muslim immigration. So you figure among ethnic French the number is around 75%+.

    Contrary to popular belief younger people in the West are increasingly leaning white in particular the men. The women will follow along as they date, get married etc.

    Europe isn't looking at Sharia but major conflict. I would not be surprised if Nuremberg style laws return in some countries within the next 50 years or so.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Unfortunately, you're right.

    If the French and British are not going to seriously resist, expel, and exclude Muslims, then of course the differential fertility rates and poor assimilation will cause Muslims to become a majority and take control of the government and military. Including, God help us, the nukes.

    The remaining French and British folks should think about selling their nuclear weapons and missiles to Russia -- assuming Russia itself can remain solid majority non-Muslim -- before Muslims reach true critical mass in France and the UK. Because things may change very quickly when they reach that point (soon enough, sadly).

  3. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    No, Steve, the illegal infiltrators are not filling up the ‘jungle’ because of ‘higher pay’ in England, it’s because of a far more generous UK welfare state, and primarily, the pull of the ‘council house’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    the UK govt has been running a stealth amnesty for decades

    so it may be have been at least partly because the UK was the easiest place to get an EU passport

    if so then Brexit should mean the next Calais "jungle" will form wherever is the next easiest place to get EU citizenship

    (or a bit of both as you're right about the welfare aspect - especially housing)
    , @Alden
    Actually, pay scales for all jobs are lower in England than in France, Germany, Austria, Netherlands and many other EU countries.

    The draw is higher and easier welfare along with all sorts of special privileges for non Europeans. England is the only country in Europe that dumped its civil service and private sector merit and qualifications for hiring in favor of affirmative action for anything but a White Briton.

    There is also the refusal of British police to arrest Muslims for rape.
  4. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The EU is, at present, trying its damndest to impose a pattern of mass third world immigration into the former eastern bloc nations.
    We mustn’t forget that the ‘small’ inflows the EU is imposing are in the same ballpark as the ‘small’ initial immigrant flows to France back in the early 60s.
    Look at how that ended up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    These may be useful rhetoric:

    --[Person/Entity] is, at present, trying its damndest to impose a pattern of mass third world immigration into [Place].

    --We mustn’t forget that the ‘small’ inflows [Person/Entity] is imposing are in the same ballpark as the ‘small’ initial immigrant flows to [Place] back in the [Time]. Look at how that ended up.
  5. @Opinionator
    Steve,

    Suggest you go ahead and state the main results, which you were able to condense into a tweet before, above the fold. I actually think you may draw just as many readers to the main article by stating them than by hiding then. And for those people receiving a link to your unz post from some of us, it will be a little more self evident on the face why the article is being shared. It's an eye popping number.

    Okay, you sort of already have hints of it in the graphic, although it was intimidating to me to read, especially on a smart phone.

    Read More
  6. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Of course, France is the linch-pin of the EU, and has traditionally regarded itself as the ‘leading’ European nation. It is also a nuclear power.
    Undoubtedly, France, by this century’s end, will be majority non European by ethnicity, and perhaps majority Muslim by faith.

    Read More
  7. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The ethnic situation in the UK must be very similar, if not worse.

    Enoch Powell predicted, precisely, this magnitude of ethnic replacement at this particular time, way, way back in 1968.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NickG

    the ethnic situation in the UK must be very similar, if not worse.
     
    No, received wisdom was that it's about half as bad. Steve's revelations suggest that it may be considerably less than half as bad. Certainly the UK has an order of magnitude fewer car barbecues.

    The UK is about 5% Muslim and 2% black, according to the ONS - Office for National Statistics- and the UK holds a census every decade. Britain's blacks are mainly Christian - so the overlap will be small - whereas France's blacks are mainly Muslim.

    That said, there has in the last few years been a good deal of secondary immigration of Muslim blacks into the UK from the EU and this is accelerating.

    At least for now there are large parts of England that are still properly English.

    It's down to political will if that remains the case.

    , @Lurker
    Not quite as bad.

    At last count the UK remained @80% white British. Plus another 5% white non-British. Much whiter than France (or the US)

    Of course that's the raw total, it's masking the fact that younger generations are increasingly less white than older ones.
  8. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Of course, the French ‘do not keep ethnic data’ precisely because of Vichy collaboration with the occupying Germans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    The price of World War II apparently includes our eradication.
    , @Anon Person
    So the failure to root out the 5th column in the 1940s helps the invasion today.

    Thank you for illustrating the point so effectively!
  9. whorefinder says: • Website

    OMG Taki’s is an awful website. Everytime I click on one of your links to go to Taki’s it takes 3 times as long to load, half the time my browser crashes, and then I’m constantly getting script errors popping up.

    That alone makes me adverse to going to there, and that’s before we get to Taki being apologist for rapists. Because, you know, he’s his friend. Classy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Because, you know, he’s his friend. Classy.
     
    Not sure someone who chooses to go by the nom de plume "whorefinder" has all that much room to criticise Taki for lack of class. ;-)

    On the topic of the article though, it seems a good indicator on which to base real hope for a Le Pen Presidency in France, if not this time then the next. For my own country, that's the best news possible, as it would at a stroke end all our problems with the EU.
    , @anon
    Agreed. Chrome kept freezing up because of the ads, had to open it in Internet Explorer!
    , @kihowi
    Nobody really cares about rape. You live in a society where rape is perfectly acceptable as long as it's committed by minorities or liberal celebrities. On the other hand, making up rape stories about white men and putting on a show of outrage is a national pastime. It's a scam.
    , @Alfa158
    I can't read Takis on my mobile devices. Thhe site apparently use some sort of extremely intrusive ad program that overwrites the previous page so you can't go back, and also crashes the browser while trying to overwrite the page you are on with pop up ads. My iPad in particular will sometimes crash to blank screen and have to reboot.
    I'm OK reading it on my PC which has Norton web security that automatically blocks malware attacks and keeps the ad from taking control of the browser. I'll have to see if Norton offers an iOS version.
    , @reiner Tor
    When did Taki support a rapist? I haven't heard of the story.
    , @Alden
    You are right. The Taki site is a total mess. That is why I stopped even trying to read it.
  10. Ralph says:

    This column needs to be translated into French.

    Then again, those French who actually care about such matters are already aware of this astounding trend. Hence Le Pen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Shine a Light
    The title of Steve's piece comes from a book by gay French right-winger Renaud Camus. He is running for President in 2017 but doesn't have much of a chance.

    https://www.amazon.fr/Grand-Remplacement-Renaud-Camus/dp/2358690317

    And here is a video on the same subject by the Nouvelle Droite girls band, Les Brigandes

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuoqreGkl7o
  11. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    One of the most remarkable facts about the non European takeover of France, is that mass third world immigration to France was ‘officially stopped’ back in 1974, yet the vast bulk of third immigrants entered after that date.

    EU ‘family reunification’ rules and lefties are to blame.

    Read More
  12. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Recently, Orientals resident in France have protested about the way in which black/Arab gangs target them for robberies, burglaries etc.
    Being of small stature, they are seen as easy marks.

    Read More
  13. Anonym says:

    Great work, Steve!

    In the words of the meme:

    You want a fascist government?
    Because that’s how you get a fascist government.

    Read More
  14. @Anonymous
    The EU is, at present, trying its damndest to impose a pattern of mass third world immigration into the former eastern bloc nations.
    We mustn't forget that the 'small' inflows the EU is imposing are in the same ballpark as the 'small' initial immigrant flows to France back in the early 60s.
    Look at how that ended up.

    These may be useful rhetoric:

    –[Person/Entity] is, at present, trying its damndest to impose a pattern of mass third world immigration into [Place].

    –We mustn’t forget that the ‘small’ inflows [Person/Entity] is imposing are in the same ballpark as the ‘small’ initial immigrant flows to [Place] back in the [Time]. Look at how that ended up.

    Read More
  15. @Anonymous
    Of course, the French 'do not keep ethnic data' precisely because of Vichy collaboration with the occupying Germans.

    The price of World War II apparently includes our eradication.

    Read More
  16. NickG says:

    The transformation of France from cheese eating surrender monkeys to sharia advocates and jihadis.

    Not so much a siege of Paris, rather an occupation. And this is a tad more intractable than the last Bosche one in 1940.

    As I said over at Taki’s comment thread, someone au fait with Froglingo should do the decent thing and translate it for circulation and publication somewhere prominent in the Francosphere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @European-American
    It's not unknown in France. Le Monde even pretended to debunk it in 2014 (that regular "decoding" column is an admirable exercise in defending dominant views...).

    It would be nice if Steve's column further raised awareness in France, and indeed sometimes news reports in the US come back to France. But this would be more likely to occur if it came from the US mainstream media.

    Steve's data is well-known in the marginal but increasingly influential French "fascistsphere". "Fachosphère" is a derogatory term for what might be called the alt-right blogosphere here. It can even apply to conservative thinkers still allowed to speak in mainstream media, like Zemmour, Finkielkraut, even Onfray. But mentioning the "great replacement" is a way to risk no longer welcome in polite society (like Renaud Camus) though it is increasingly breaking through.

    But denial is strong, in several phases: 1) not true, hoax. 2) true but minor. 3) true but nothing new, France always melting pot. 4) true and our country needs this to become better and moral. 5) true and we need this for our economy. 6) true and this is our punishment for colonial history. 7) Racist!!!!!

    http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/reactions/2014/09/12/drepanocytose-la-maladie-genetique-qui-excite-l-extreme-droite_4486737_4355770.html
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/piekhe/de-renaud-camus-a-nadine-morano-petite-trajectoire-du-grand
    http://www.bvoltaire.fr/gabrielrobin/la-france-envahie-un-probleme-demographique,285009

    , @Daniel H
    >>The transformation of France from cheese eating surrender monkeys to sharia advocates and jihadis.

    That slur was invented the cucks over at National Review who have no standing to mock others for faithless treason. Don't use it.

    Furthermore, there was not a power on earth in 1940 who could have stopped the Nazi/Wehrmacht juggernaut, not even the USA military. Except, that is, the Soviet Union, who by dint of desperate courage managed to crush the Nazi/Wehrmacht.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I've got no skin in this game, but the French fought with almost insane bravery in WWI. In WWII, they got hit by Tyson-like punch in the first round and never recovered.

    French soldiers were a terror from ~1700 to 1918.

    Not that any of that matters now. Might as well be talking about the bravery of the men from some Roman province.

    As far as I can tell, white men of Western Europe, the U.S. and the Commonwealth have all become a bunch of surrender monkeys - myself included as I'm not willing to give up my life to fight the good fight a la RAMZPAUL.
  17. NickG says:
    @Anonymous
    The ethnic situation in the UK must be very similar, if not worse.

    Enoch Powell predicted, precisely, this magnitude of ethnic replacement at this particular time, way, way back in 1968.

    the ethnic situation in the UK must be very similar, if not worse.

    No, received wisdom was that it’s about half as bad. Steve’s revelations suggest that it may be considerably less than half as bad. Certainly the UK has an order of magnitude fewer car barbecues.

    The UK is about 5% Muslim and 2% black, according to the ONS – Office for National Statistics- and the UK holds a census every decade. Britain’s blacks are mainly Christian – so the overlap will be small – whereas France’s blacks are mainly Muslim.

    That said, there has in the last few years been a good deal of secondary immigration of Muslim blacks into the UK from the EU and this is accelerating.

    At least for now there are large parts of England that are still properly English.

    It’s down to political will if that remains the case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    The UK collects excellent demographic data compared to the USA because it uses better categories, and of course much better than France does. For instance, the UK can tell you what the share of blacks it has are African v Afro-Caribbean.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Saw some story in the UK press that ~10% of births in England are to Muslims. Also, one-third of children born had at least one parent who was not "English white." Of course, quite a few of those non-English whites could be Polish white or some other EU or Commonwealth white, but still, you have to figure that ~20% to 25% of kids being born in England are at least half non-white.

    Much better demographics than the U.S. but not great. Also, problems with Muslims seem to rise exponentially as their % of the population rises. Say what you will about Mexicans and Central Americans (and I could say plenty), they don't strap bombs to their chests and blow up train stations, nor are they much interested in imposing a brutal religion and culture on the rest of the population.
    , @Simon in London
    I posted the following on Takimag - in short UK is only about 10 years behind France.
    _____________________

    So we're looking (for France) at a majority of births being non-white ca 2025, about 15 years behind the USA, but unlike the USA the majority of those will be Muslim and considerably more hostile to the indigenous culture. With the majority of the population non-white ca 2065 and a non-white voting majority ca 2080, depending on turnout.
    In theory changes in immigration & fertility could alter this, but demographic trends once begun tend to be remarkably stable. Temporary surges or falls in immigration rates & fertility rates are only likely to alter this by a few years.

    In the UK in 2014 65% of births were white British, 10% white non-British (including Irish), and 25% non-white, putting Britain 10 years behind France and 25 years behind the USA.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3265633/Over-babies-born-UK-no-longer-white-British.html
    So if the trajectory is similar, which seems likely, Britain is on course to a non-white majority ca 2075 and a non-white voting majority ca 2090. Somewhat earlier for England than for Britain as a whole.

    I don't think the indigenous French and British deserve to become a minority in their homelands, and I hope immigration and natal policy is changed, but in France it would take a complete immigration cutoff and equalising fertility rates within a few years, and in the UK just slightly longer, so I doubt this is possible. At the point when more children are born who are non-white than white the demographic replacement becomes effectively inevitable. Either the country eventually becomes non-white-majority (as welcomed by the Left), or civil war results in Balkanisation. Repatriation is possible in theory but I think unlikely to be attempted. Ethnic cleansing and civil war is possible in France, will likely result in Balkanisation as in Yugoslavia, though I suppose mass expulsion of French Muslims to Algeria is not completely impossible.

    Whatever happens, the madness of the last few decades has doomed western Europeans to a grim future.

  18. trilobite says:

    there are several problems with your methodology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Name them. Otherwise this is not a constructive comment at all.
  19. Lot says:

    The rate of tests for newborns for sickle cell is not an accurate measure of either the nonwhite population of France, nor of changes to it. I posted a few items in response to someone linking to the same regional map:

    This chart shows cases of sickle cell homozygotes detected along with the gross numbers of tests between 2006 and 2012:

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    And the rate of detection to the rate of tests also steadily declined, confirming my initial reaction that the rapid changes shown on the map are the result of screening a wider and wider group of people. Indeed, looking for the source of the data in the map, I found numerous references to France moving from initially testing only the most suspect populations, to wider testing now, and with a goal in the near future to add sickle cell to the four other genetic diseases France already performs universal newborn testing for.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies and others have taken as gospel on the growth of non-whites in France, then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.

    I can understand why a lot of nationalists online, both on English and French blogs, seized on faulty data here. It is hard to even address demographic changes if you don’t know the most basic statistics.

    I’ll tell you something else, if the young children in sleepy, rural, Languedoc, are really 40% African as the map implied, it is truly all over for the French people.

    Looking online, it does not appear to be that way. Montpellier, with 246,000 people, is the largest city in the region and where you’d assume based on the map that white children would be in especially short supply. That does not seem to be the case:

    Here are a couple pictures of Limoux, a county seat of 9,000 in the region that I picked randomly:

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2010/10/01/201010011515.jpg

    In summary, France’s black population does not seem to be increasingly rapidly, especially with wider and wider testing, we’d see more sickle cell homozygotes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @European-American

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies ... then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     
    Nice point, which I had not encountered before.

    It's frustrating that, because this is a taboo subject, it is not intelligently debated. Your argument makes sense, and is a bit of reassuring rationality in a froth of despairing irrationality from all sides.

    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    You are whistling past the graveyard. If incidence is flat or declining, that could as well reflect less Global Southerners being born in rural areas over the past few generations. Steve's hypothesis based on the testing regulatory criteria and eyewitness accounts rings true.

    I can probably find pictures of Mississippi that would convince you it's as white as Oregon. That's what whites do: flee non-white areas. And when they can't flee, they stop reproducing.

    In one of the more far-sighted acts of policy in modern times, the white South African government dismantled its small nuclear arsenal before handing the State apparatus over to the Zulu. We are on the horns of the same dilemma, just two generations removed.
    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    I have a friend who told me a decade ago that when she lived in Montpelier that non-natives were easily the majority. She said that of Marseilles as well.
    , @bomag

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).
     
    Okay, but I suspect that the bureaucracy started testing more people that weren't screened before. Look again at this rule:

    Only one of the two if the second is not known.

    I bet they started testing everyone who wasn't obviously a two northern European couple, thus those screened reflects the non-white nature of French demographics.
    , @jimmyriddle
    West Africans are more likely carriers than North Africans.

    It could be that the criteria for administering the test have expanded - initially, only West Africans and then all Africans.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    I agree that the "run-up" in testing from 2005 may be an artifact of the data-collection system. But even if one sticks with the 2005 figures, the situation is pretty dire for a nation that used to tell its students : Nos ancetres, les Gaullois. Remember, the testing is of newborns, possibly the most important cohort from a demographic point of view.

    I lived in France (Paris and Toulouse) from 2011-2015 and was back for two weeks in 2016. My impression is that there are lots of Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans in France. Last summer my family were the only white people on the tram to Seine St. Denis, the traditional burial place of French kings. Getting off at the Gare du Nord resembles Lagos. Once one goes north of city hall in the 18th Arrondisement, you wonder what portion of Africa you're in. Portions of Toulouse are "no-go" zones for police. Even in Brittany, we've begun to see Arabic names on the signs of local realtors. My mother-in-law lived through the German occupation and she says that the Germans were less intrusive than the Arabs and Africans. (If she said that publicly, she could be prosecuted for incitement to hate speech).

    France, for those who have never visited it, is a strikingly beautiful country, especially outside of Paris. What a shame to see it turned over to people unworthy of it. It's so-called leaders have a lot to answer for.
    , @candid_observer
    Another sign that the data can't accurately reflect actual demographic changes is precisely what makes the data so eye-popping: the genuinely incredible rise in the numbers. Short of an utterly massive wave of immigration, I don't see how the country wide numbers rise from 25.6% to 38.9% in ten years.

    The numbers are too bad to be true.

    , @res

    we’d see more sickle cell homozygotes
     
    The real wild cards here are the number of mixed children and the relative number of blacks versus lower prevalence non-white populations. Here is the wiki for SCT (i.e. sickle cell trait, the heterozygous version, as opposed to sickle cell disease for homozygous) as background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_trait
    They note that SCT has 25% prevalence in West Africa and another reference says up to 3% SCD in sub-Saharan Africa: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708126/

    Here is the SNPedia page on Sickle Cell: http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Sickle_Cell_Anemia
    but it doesn't actually add much besides showing a 20% prevalence for the SCT allele in the YRI (Yoruba African) population.

    Given the population data, the primary risk population is West African. From the WHO table (see PS) we have Sickle Cell affected conception rates per 1000 at about:
    African 10.7
    Eastern Med 0.8
    European 0.07 (unsure if this includes non-whites)
    SE Asian 0.7

    Given this I think SCD rates are a decent proxy for full African births only (but not for any other non-whites). The question is who is being screened. Are the somewhat higher rates for non-Europeans (e.g. Muslims) causing screening? What about half African births? What about one or more mixed race parents?

    Steve talks about this in his article: "Both parents must come from a region at risk. Only one of the two if the second is not known." But this does seem inconsistent with your (Lot) observations about increasing rate of screening with a flat rate of SCD. One possible explanation is the recent immigrants are primarily non-African but still from an at risk population. Another possible explanation is that increasing awareness and screening means people know when they have SCT and are avoiding pairing up based on that (seems unlikely to me, but American Jews do something like this for other disorders as Steve noted). The key question is: how well do the screening rules align with the screening reality?

    Of course no one is going to make the data to resolve this available. I'm beginning to think the best approach is a Trumpian "publish the scary but arguably wrong information and challenge the other side to rebut it with real data". This worked beautifully with his partially wrong crime stats by race. I think it was also effective with his 3 million illegal voters theme.

    Which I would argue is exactly what Steve has done here.

    With respect to the pictures you show, are there areas with concentrations of immigrants in those regions? Until recently you could probably find similar pictures in Paris as long as you stayed out of the banlieues.

    P.S. Much more on the global epidemiology of hemoglobin disorders: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/6/06-036673/en/
    with population breakdowns at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/6/06-036673-table-T1.html
    , @syonredux
    "A rare 2016 survey of French teens found 25.5 percent identifying as Muslim. "
    , @reiner Tor
    You forget that they test populations where the incidence of SCD is minuscule. Your numbers actually do show an increase in the number of both carriers (almost monotonous increase) and homozygotes, albeit at a slower pace. An explanation could be that the increase is mostly in populations which are less at risk (Arabs or some black groups with less HBS incidence), while the actual SCD cases mostly come from a relatively small group of blacks from highly malaria-infected areas whose number stays stable (or increases only slightly).

    Another explanation might be that some at-risk groups are outmarrying at a rapid pace: those Italians and Greeks who immigrated during the last century. Their birthrates (and actual numbers) might also be collapsing.

    Is there a possibility of prenatal screening, especially in those cases where the first child has already been diagnosed as a carrier? If so, it might provide a further explanation.

    So possibly the increase is mostly from Arabs with little actual disease, while the screening itself might've reduced the incidence.

    By the way the French Wikipedia says the exact same thing (increase in at-risk populations) as Steve's article.
    , @Philippe Lemoine
    This is a good point that I hadn't seen raised before. As I mention in another comment, the same website that first used the figures of sickle-cell anemia testing in that way also published a study recently that uses the proportion of people with muslim names instead, which seems like a much more reliable method if done properly. I haven't tried to replicate their results, so I'm not sure yet whether their conclusions are correct, but the data they use at least should be very useful to determine how the share of muslims has evolved.
  20. nate says:

    But the Muslims in the UK are younger than the general population, very few muslims in the UK over the age of 70 but a very large number under the age of 7, so that 5% number will grow massively in the coming years, and of course I don’t really believe the official UK population numbers

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Travis
    so true...we really should only look at the demographics of the population under 50....women over 45 can no longer reproduce, thus a dead genetically. Few men reproduce after the age of 50..

    In Europe the median age for muslims is 31 while it is 45 for Christians. Muslims have a fertility rate of 3.4 while the rate for Christians is just 1.2. A complete ban on muslim immigration into Europe will not prevent France and Germany from becoming Islamic States by the year 2050.
  21. dearieme says:

    I don’t believe the data. My basis is that vulnerability to sickle cell anaemia is concentrated among subSaharan Africans not North Africans. (I’m no expert: correct me if I’m wrong). If the birth proportions reported were true, and then you added on any reasonable proportion to allow for Arab babes, you’d end up with practically all babes being non-French. No doubt that’ll be true soon enough but I doubt whether it’s true yet.

    On the other hand it’s some years since I was last in France, so my intuition may be obsolete on this one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    This is true but data were for children tested, not children found to be carriers. If Steve's article is correct the French government tests all children with two parents from a wide region including all of Africa, Italy(iirc), and several other places. Since they apparently don't keep track of race/national origin it must be a real pain to identify the ones-to-be-tested.
    , @reiner Tor
    Just read the article thoroughly. The French are testing Arabs regardless of whether actual risks are smaller or larger.
  22. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Even with such dire facts portending a grim future, so many whites are into morgasms or moral orgasms.. like Ashley Judd at the witches march. As a ‘good’ white person, she was having the time of her life virtue-signaling or virtue-squirting. “Oh, I’m so nasty in a good good way, oh me so nasty me so nasty…”

    Boorman saw the future in ZARDOZ.

    West is ultimately a story of failure.

    Overly rationalized and technologized, it lost the connection to the essence. It forgot the lesson of ‘you and the land are one’ in the literal, metaphorical, and metaphysical sense.

    Western folk’s attraction to Afro-virility and Islamo-passion is a way of regaining the life force that has been lost in the West given to dry intellect, ennui, soullessness, consumerism, and sterility.
    Actually, themes of virility and blood do exist in Western sources, but they are no longer to be consulted since they are ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’. So, the virility and vitality must be sought from OTHER cultures. It’s like Cameron has to imagine a warrior race on another planet.
    Problem is Afro-virility and Islamo-passion are not compatible with advanced civilization. One leads to savagery, the other leads to repression.
    In contrast, Western warrior spirit and Christian sanctity did allow the possibility of freedom and progress.

    And Sontag was right about the white race being a cancer though in a different way. It is not a cancer to other races. It has become a cancer unto itself.. though it seems to be spreading to modern societies, esp East Asia that is facing the same fate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @European-American
    > esp East Asia that is facing the same fate.

    Not quite! East Asia faces similar demographic decline and uh, human technological obsolescence? Also, erosion of traditional values occurs, but less so. But most uniquely, it does not have nearly the issue with immigration that the West does. Its societies and cultures are until now far, far more resistant to the wholesale replacement of native populations.

  23. Lot says:
    @King Baeksu
    Here's another line of approach:

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J3SPq9X0N5s/WHVpm8EuOEI/AAAAAAAAQ6M/7db-rfOxfkUViemMdE3eiUAROluzSSuNgCLcB/s1600/Muslim%2Bnames%2Brate%2B2016.jpg

    France has 93 "departments." Last year, No. 93 (Seine-Saint-Denis, in northern Paris) hit 43% Muslim or Arab names for newborns. Île-de-France, which comprises the greater Paris region, has around 12 million people or 18% of the national population. The average for the Paris region seems to be around 27%, although some "departments" may be more densely populated than others.

    I predict a nuclear-armed French Caliphate by 2050. Probably the UK, Germany, Belgium and Sweden will quickly join up as well, given similar demographic trends. Hell, London has a Muslim mayor already!

    I wonder how long it will take them to gang up and wipe the "Zionist entity" off the face of the planet?

    More information here: http://galliawatch.blogspot.co.id/2017/01/muslim-first-names.html

    Île-de-France, which comprises the greater Paris region, has around 12 million people or 18% of the national population.

    It is probably higher than this, as not all Muslims are given Muslim names. The poll of teenagers Steve mentioned in the article strikes me as the most reliable figure. While not all non-whites in France or Muslim, my impression from being there is they are the very large majority.

    French West Africa is the main source of France’s blacks and is very Muslim.

    If you look here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_France#History

    You will see non-European immigration to France has been running steady at 120,000 a year from 2008 to 2016. About 20,000 of that is from the “Americas and Oceana” and likely mostly white, so France has been officially accepting about 105,000 non-white immigrants per year.

    That rate is considerably lower than the United States, and much lower than Canada and Germany. Merkel’s Boner, all by itself, was larger than a decade of non-white immigration to France.

    These numbers do not account for the non-whites in France’s remaining colonial empire’s steady resettlement into France, much like Puerto Ricans and Samoans gradually are resettling into the USA proper.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    If France's immigration rates from Africa are so low, how did the Muslim population increase so much over the past couple of decades?
    , @Jack D
    Lower down in the same article, it states that immigration from the US is 2% so the rest must be from outside the US. Some of that could be Canadian but I assume they would have broken it out if it was significant. So I would not assume the Americas group to be white.

    Regardless of any fresh immigration, France has accumulated a huge # of Muslims and Africans (an overlapping category) who are young and fertile, while at the same time the aging group of French whites have stopped having babies due to high cost of family formation, poor job prospects, etc. The overall French birth rate seems higher than other Euro. countries but the non-white birth rate is masking the decline in white births (since the French refuse to break out the stats). I would suspect that the white rate is below replacement level just like in all the adjoining Euro countries, while the non-white rate is above, so even if another immigrant never sets foot in France the white share of the population will continue to decline.
  24. Lot says:
    @NickG

    the ethnic situation in the UK must be very similar, if not worse.
     
    No, received wisdom was that it's about half as bad. Steve's revelations suggest that it may be considerably less than half as bad. Certainly the UK has an order of magnitude fewer car barbecues.

    The UK is about 5% Muslim and 2% black, according to the ONS - Office for National Statistics- and the UK holds a census every decade. Britain's blacks are mainly Christian - so the overlap will be small - whereas France's blacks are mainly Muslim.

    That said, there has in the last few years been a good deal of secondary immigration of Muslim blacks into the UK from the EU and this is accelerating.

    At least for now there are large parts of England that are still properly English.

    It's down to political will if that remains the case.

    The UK collects excellent demographic data compared to the USA because it uses better categories, and of course much better than France does. For instance, the UK can tell you what the share of blacks it has are African v Afro-Caribbean.

    Read More
  25. @NickG
    The transformation of France from cheese eating surrender monkeys to sharia advocates and jihadis.

    Not so much a siege of Paris, rather an occupation. And this is a tad more intractable than the last Bosche one in 1940.


    As I said over at Taki's comment thread, someone au fait with Froglingo should do the decent thing and translate it for circulation and publication somewhere prominent in the Francosphere.

    It’s not unknown in France. Le Monde even pretended to debunk it in 2014 (that regular “decoding” column is an admirable exercise in defending dominant views…).

    It would be nice if Steve’s column further raised awareness in France, and indeed sometimes news reports in the US come back to France. But this would be more likely to occur if it came from the US mainstream media.

    Steve’s data is well-known in the marginal but increasingly influential French “fascistsphere”. “Fachosphère” is a derogatory term for what might be called the alt-right blogosphere here. It can even apply to conservative thinkers still allowed to speak in mainstream media, like Zemmour, Finkielkraut, even Onfray. But mentioning the “great replacement” is a way to risk no longer welcome in polite society (like Renaud Camus) though it is increasingly breaking through.

    But denial is strong, in several phases: 1) not true, hoax. 2) true but minor. 3) true but nothing new, France always melting pot. 4) true and our country needs this to become better and moral. 5) true and we need this for our economy. 6) true and this is our punishment for colonial history. 7) Racist!!!!!

    http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/reactions/2014/09/12/drepanocytose-la-maladie-genetique-qui-excite-l-extreme-droite_4486737_4355770.html

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/piekhe/de-renaud-camus-a-nadine-morano-petite-trajectoire-du-grand

    http://www.bvoltaire.fr/gabrielrobin/la-france-envahie-un-probleme-demographique,285009

    Read More
  26. @Lot
    The rate of tests for newborns for sickle cell is not an accurate measure of either the nonwhite population of France, nor of changes to it. I posted a few items in response to someone linking to the same regional map:

    This chart shows cases of sickle cell homozygotes detected along with the gross numbers of tests between 2006 and 2012:

    https://identitairepur.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tableau-evolution-drepano-france-2006-2012.jpg

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    And the rate of detection to the rate of tests also steadily declined, confirming my initial reaction that the rapid changes shown on the map are the result of screening a wider and wider group of people. Indeed, looking for the source of the data in the map, I found numerous references to France moving from initially testing only the most suspect populations, to wider testing now, and with a goal in the near future to add sickle cell to the four other genetic diseases France already performs universal newborn testing for.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies and others have taken as gospel on the growth of non-whites in France, then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     

    I can understand why a lot of nationalists online, both on English and French blogs, seized on faulty data here. It is hard to even address demographic changes if you don’t know the most basic statistics.

    I’ll tell you something else, if the young children in sleepy, rural, Languedoc, are really 40% African as the map implied, it is truly all over for the French people.

    Looking online, it does not appear to be that way. Montpellier, with 246,000 people, is the largest city in the region and where you’d assume based on the map that white children would be in especially short supply. That does not seem to be the case:

    http://jonquilles-saintemarie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/517-GNRL-PRIMAIRE02.jpg

    http://s2.dmcdn.net/JuLet/1280×720-HQJ.jpg

    Here are a couple pictures of Limoux, a county seat of 9,000 in the region that I picked randomly:

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2012/09/19/201209191421.jpg

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2010/10/01/201010011515.jpg
     
    In summary, France's black population does not seem to be increasingly rapidly, especially with wider and wider testing, we'd see more sickle cell homozygotes.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies … then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.

    Nice point, which I had not encountered before.

    It’s frustrating that, because this is a taboo subject, it is not intelligently debated. Your argument makes sense, and is a bit of reassuring rationality in a froth of despairing irrationality from all sides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Thanks. The high school survey showing that cohort in France is a quarter Muslim is better evidence and is depressing enough as it is. But the sickle cell map is simply inaccurate. We have pretty good numbers on race for the USA, Canada, Australia, and the U.K. The numbers are very depressing as well as basically accurate.
  27. Lurker says:
    @Anonymous
    The ethnic situation in the UK must be very similar, if not worse.

    Enoch Powell predicted, precisely, this magnitude of ethnic replacement at this particular time, way, way back in 1968.

    Not quite as bad.

    At last count the UK remained @80% white British. Plus another 5% white non-British. Much whiter than France (or the US)

    Of course that’s the raw total, it’s masking the fact that younger generations are increasingly less white than older ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    The UK government (and their devolved parts like Scotland) report on the number of 'ethnic minority' kids in a school. In England and Wales in 2015 30.4% of primary school kids were 'ethnic minority', so we're not far behind France.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33094304

    "In primary schools, 30.4% of pupils are from an ethnic minority, compared with 29.5% the previous year. But there are wide regional variations. In the inner London boroughs, 81% of pupils are from ethnic minorities; while in north-east England, the figure is below 11%.

    And at council level, in Newham 94% of pupils are from ethnic minorities, while in Durham the figure is below 5%. In inner London, the biggest ethnic group in primary school are black pupils, predominantly from an African background, with Asian pupils the second biggest group.

    In secondary schools, about 27% of pupils are ethnic minorities, which the report says represents an increase of about 30% in six years."
     
  28. @Anonymous
    Of course, the French 'do not keep ethnic data' precisely because of Vichy collaboration with the occupying Germans.

    So the failure to root out the 5th column in the 1940s helps the invasion today.

    Thank you for illustrating the point so effectively!

    Read More
  29. Andy says:

    Bear in mind that not all of those immigrants affected by sickle cell would be Muslims – some Africans, like those from Congo are Christian. However, it seems to me the methodology is correct.

    Read More
  30. JerseyGuy says:

    I’d be curious to know what the TFR is for native Europeans in their countries in relation to the TFR of the country overall. Northern European fertility rates have been higher than Southern European rates for awhile now, with the exception of Germany. I suspect that the rates in countries like Sweden and Holland are significantly skewed by higher rates of immigration births. Anyone have any data on this?

    Read More
  31. M.G. says: • Website

    I’m glad to see you bringing this to a wide audience, Steve. As a fifteen-year ex-pat I’ve lived the transformation up close and personal.

    Another way to visualize the data, from this piece (sorry, haven’t updated the map since 2013):

    France sickle-cell map 2013

    Plan your future vacations accordingly!

    There are many creative ways to get around the French government’s black-out on race/ethnie statistics. One is that they don’t count Arabs or Muslims, but they do count mosques (graph, 1965-2014). Here’s the mosque count in map form.

    Also of interest, I recently stumbled upon a study whose authors counted up the number of newborns given Muslim first names (all birth names are recorded by the state) in 2016. As Muslims nearly all refuse to give their kids French names, even after 3 or 4 generations, this is a very clever way to suss out how many of our ‘French’ citizens are in fact Arab or black Muslim. The study is here (in French, sorry), and a map of the results here:

    Muslim baby names by department, France 2016.

    (The number on top is the department number, the number on the bottom is the % Muslim baby names. Seine St Denis, or “93″, is the most Muslim area in France.)

    Like the sickle-cell stats, this is an imperfect measure, and doesn’t give any info about the large and growing Black Christian population, or gypsies, etc, but it is startling nonetheless.

    Much of the French Mediterranean as well as the Paris area are simply on their way to becoming African/Arab colonies. We are truly living history in our time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    The name map implies a lower Muslim population rate than the ~25% survey figure of French teens that Steve mentioned in his post and certainly much lower than the Sickle Cell map.

    Regardless, the trend remains. But I'll ask you what I asked another commentator. France seems to have very low annual immigration numbers from Africa (mostly Muslim) - ~60,000 or .01% of the population. If that's the case, how did the Muslim population increase so much over the past couple of decades?

    , @SPMoore8
    If the map is accurate, then it's a slam dunk: At least 35.7% of French newborns are tested for sickle cell, and the test is applied only if both parents are generally MENA or African. That means 35.7% of French newborns are not of European origin (I assuming the numbers for Sicily, Southern Italy and Greece are small.) This doesn't even count mixed parentage, which I assume is also significant.

    That tells me that non-European births are approaching parity to European births in France.

    We have a similar situation in this country, in that whites became officially the minority of primary school attendees a couple of years ago.

    This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
  32. @Lot
    The rate of tests for newborns for sickle cell is not an accurate measure of either the nonwhite population of France, nor of changes to it. I posted a few items in response to someone linking to the same regional map:

    This chart shows cases of sickle cell homozygotes detected along with the gross numbers of tests between 2006 and 2012:

    https://identitairepur.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tableau-evolution-drepano-france-2006-2012.jpg

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    And the rate of detection to the rate of tests also steadily declined, confirming my initial reaction that the rapid changes shown on the map are the result of screening a wider and wider group of people. Indeed, looking for the source of the data in the map, I found numerous references to France moving from initially testing only the most suspect populations, to wider testing now, and with a goal in the near future to add sickle cell to the four other genetic diseases France already performs universal newborn testing for.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies and others have taken as gospel on the growth of non-whites in France, then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     

    I can understand why a lot of nationalists online, both on English and French blogs, seized on faulty data here. It is hard to even address demographic changes if you don’t know the most basic statistics.

    I’ll tell you something else, if the young children in sleepy, rural, Languedoc, are really 40% African as the map implied, it is truly all over for the French people.

    Looking online, it does not appear to be that way. Montpellier, with 246,000 people, is the largest city in the region and where you’d assume based on the map that white children would be in especially short supply. That does not seem to be the case:

    http://jonquilles-saintemarie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/517-GNRL-PRIMAIRE02.jpg

    http://s2.dmcdn.net/JuLet/1280×720-HQJ.jpg

    Here are a couple pictures of Limoux, a county seat of 9,000 in the region that I picked randomly:

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2012/09/19/201209191421.jpg

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2010/10/01/201010011515.jpg
     
    In summary, France's black population does not seem to be increasingly rapidly, especially with wider and wider testing, we'd see more sickle cell homozygotes.

    You are whistling past the graveyard. If incidence is flat or declining, that could as well reflect less Global Southerners being born in rural areas over the past few generations. Steve’s hypothesis based on the testing regulatory criteria and eyewitness accounts rings true.

    I can probably find pictures of Mississippi that would convince you it’s as white as Oregon. That’s what whites do: flee non-white areas. And when they can’t flee, they stop reproducing.

    In one of the more far-sighted acts of policy in modern times, the white South African government dismantled its small nuclear arsenal before handing the State apparatus over to the Zulu. We are on the horns of the same dilemma, just two generations removed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "before handing the State apparatus over to the Zulu": it wasn't the Zulu they handed it to. It might have been better if they had.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    I was in London in 2016 and considered participating in an anti-Trident demonstrattion for the reason cited in your last paragraph. (I admit that I didn't go but I knew that I was leaving the U.K. by that time.) France and Britain will face the same question as did the South African government within a generation; the U.S. within two or possibly fewer generations. Perhaps nuclear weapons should only be in the hands of stable ethno-states such as Russia and China?
    , @Simon in London
    They gave SA to the Xhosa, not the Zulu.
    , @RadicalCenter
    When we can't or won't flee, the situation calls for having more children, not fewer.

    Like all peoples, we need young people, especially younger men, available in large numbers to fight for our families and our neighborhoods -- then more broadly, to fight for our lands and the freedom, safety, culture and sovereignty of these coming generations of OUR people.

    Nobody white should ever refrain from having children because their area is being overrun by foreigners or because they think they can't afford it.

    As for whites being able to afford family formation, let's get judgmental: millions of the same people who complain that they "can't afford" to have children, or to have more children, are simultaneously spending thousands of dollars per year on luxuries and vices such as cable/satellite television, substances (cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and starbucks), buying new vehicles rather than used (usually with debt), and dining out and vacationing (again often with debt).

    What is more important, getting drunk or high or nicotine-fixed and watching yet more TV, or perpetuating your own family and nation? If they sacrifice those completely unnecessary things, they will often be able to responsibly raise and provide for children.

    I cannot fathom the logic of not having children because foreigners are being allowed into your neighborhood or state in terrible numbers. Try to use lawful political means to reduce or stop the immigration AND do the hard necessary work of having more children.
  33. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @King Baeksu
    Here's another line of approach:

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J3SPq9X0N5s/WHVpm8EuOEI/AAAAAAAAQ6M/7db-rfOxfkUViemMdE3eiUAROluzSSuNgCLcB/s1600/Muslim%2Bnames%2Brate%2B2016.jpg

    France has 93 "departments." Last year, No. 93 (Seine-Saint-Denis, in northern Paris) hit 43% Muslim or Arab names for newborns. Île-de-France, which comprises the greater Paris region, has around 12 million people or 18% of the national population. The average for the Paris region seems to be around 27%, although some "departments" may be more densely populated than others.

    I predict a nuclear-armed French Caliphate by 2050. Probably the UK, Germany, Belgium and Sweden will quickly join up as well, given similar demographic trends. Hell, London has a Muslim mayor already!

    I wonder how long it will take them to gang up and wipe the "Zionist entity" off the face of the planet?

    More information here: http://galliawatch.blogspot.co.id/2017/01/muslim-first-names.html

    I think the Western Europe Caliphate will arrive much quicker than this. It’s increasing at an increasing rate. Plus, the more dominant it gets the more the dhimmi will capitulate and convert, even if just culturally. It’s not as if Chesterton and Belloc didn’t constantly warn everyone what would happen after the forces of darkness tore down Christ and His Church (to borrow from Israel Shamir’s article today).

    Read More
  34. Anybody else notice that the map graphic says it’s from (nationalist website) Francois de Souche? I can’t find the original public health data from the AFDPHE.

    Read More
    • Replies: @M.G.
    The 2015 French sickle-cell testing report is here:

    http://www.afdphe.org/sites/default/files/bilan_afdphe_2015.pdf

    Data is on p. 63.

  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    These days, there seems to be a quintennial pantomime in the French presidential elections in which a Le Pen fille or pere comes within a gnat’s dick of actually winning the contest – or so it seems in the first round, at least – but is ultimately blocked by a ‘united political class’ spoiler candidate in the second round.
    How long will this charade continue?, will the FN eventually breakthrough?, will the FN continue to define French politics?
    Also, it must be added that in the past decades the entire French electoral system has been manipulated with one goal in end – to keep the FN out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    The manipulation of the French electoral system is a major theme of Michael Houellebecq's novel Soumission.
    , @Pericles
    Time to open the Houellebecq again, eh?
  36. @Ralph
    This column needs to be translated into French.

    Then again, those French who actually care about such matters are already aware of this astounding trend. Hence Le Pen.

    The title of Steve’s piece comes from a book by gay French right-winger Renaud Camus. He is running for President in 2017 but doesn’t have much of a chance.

    https://www.amazon.fr/Grand-Remplacement-Renaud-Camus/dp/2358690317

    And here is a video on the same subject by the Nouvelle Droite girls band, Les Brigandes

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Wow.

    Everybody needs to spend time with that quote that opens the video. Jews, the devoutly religious as well as the atheist, have a long history of hubris leading to near extermination. Pharisees stood on the walls of Jerusalem and demanded than God save them - his one great treasure - from the Romans. A segment of Orthodox jews today is equally suicidally insane. They are again doing something way beyond stupid, challenging God to save them.

    This time, the Moslems may succeed in doing what the Romans had no desire to do even after the 3rd Jewish revolt: exterminate all Jews that can be found. If there are no white Gentile nations to ally with Jews, then the Moslems and Chinese both will have a free hand to do with Jews what they wish. Moslems will want to exterminate all who do not submit to Allah and Mohammed. The Chinese will want make Jews a class of rather pampered serfs, whose are allowed wealth only as they serve China and the Chinese.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Shine a Light:

    Thank you for referencing and displaying the French traditionalist/nationalist singing group Les Brigandes. Denizens of this web site should check out their full extensive repertoire (some with English subtitles). This group has important messages which are delivered with thought-provoking French verve and audacity. Check 'em out!

  37. Neutron says:

    This doesn’t seem remotely accurate to me. I have traveled pretty extensively throughout France in recent years and aside from the Paris/Marseille/Nice metro areas I didn’t feel that non-whites exceeded 10-15% anywhere even in larger cities like Lyon/Bordeaux/Toulouse. The vast majority of the small cities/towns are still 95%+ white. These small cities/towns outside of the major metro areas probably still make up more than half of France’s population.

    If I had to estimate I would say that France is roughly 15% non-white and that population is overwhelmingly concentrated in the 5 largest metro areas.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    You didn't see the same France that I saw.
    , @Anon
    We are talking of new births.

    Babies don't walk around.

    Wait 15 yrs
    , @reiner Tor

    France is roughly 15% non-white
     
    But does this contradict the data? France could be 15% nonwhite, with 25% among 20 year olds (25% of teenagers actually Muslim according to a survey), and 40% of newborns.

    You guys don't seem to grasp the dynamics of demographics. The US was still 70+% white when their share of newborns dropped below 50%, and the US low functioning immigrants are much slower breeders (mostly because of a much less generous welfare state), so the replacement in the US is much more driven by immigration than by the differential fertility rates. Whereas France could mostly be just a simple case of a coexistence of a negative growth slow breeder population and an aggressively breeding intruding population, where the quick replacement is simply driven by the high fertility of the intruders and the low fertility (partly depressed by the presence of the immigrants themselves) of the natives.
  38. M.G. says: • Website
    @King Baeksu
    Here's another line of approach:

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J3SPq9X0N5s/WHVpm8EuOEI/AAAAAAAAQ6M/7db-rfOxfkUViemMdE3eiUAROluzSSuNgCLcB/s1600/Muslim%2Bnames%2Brate%2B2016.jpg

    France has 93 "departments." Last year, No. 93 (Seine-Saint-Denis, in northern Paris) hit 43% Muslim or Arab names for newborns. Île-de-France, which comprises the greater Paris region, has around 12 million people or 18% of the national population. The average for the Paris region seems to be around 27%, although some "departments" may be more densely populated than others.

    I predict a nuclear-armed French Caliphate by 2050. Probably the UK, Germany, Belgium and Sweden will quickly join up as well, given similar demographic trends. Hell, London has a Muslim mayor already!

    I wonder how long it will take them to gang up and wipe the "Zionist entity" off the face of the planet?

    More information here: http://galliawatch.blogspot.co.id/2017/01/muslim-first-names.html

    Sorry, missed your link on the first name study! I posted it again. Mea culpa.

    Read More
  39. I have family visiting France now. She just wrote me:

    My friend said that the [ethnic] French are going through a population increase, and that young families are having 3-4 children each.

    I think the demographic issue is very real at the same time some of these demographic doom stats have been completely overblown.

    Anecdotally, the Italians are having fewer kids and even the college educated are having trouble finding any jobs. I suspect they’ve embraced too much economic protections that stifle growth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "Anecdotally, the Italians are having fewer kids and even the college educated are having trouble finding any jobs. I suspect they’ve embraced too much economic protections that stifle growth."

    It's not the economic protections, it's the Euro. The presence of the southern countries in the Eurozone holds the currency at a level low enough for German exporters to thrive, but too high for Italy, Greece and Spain, who traditionally remained competitive by devaluing their currency. It's killing their economies and job prospects for their youth, yet they cling on tight to Euro-nurse. Greece would have been recovering by now if they'd left the Euro in 2015. Instead, they're even deeper in the crap.

    South of Rome (anecdotally, visit last year) they still seem to be having kids and there are very few illegal immigrants in places like Naples, perhaps due to the reputation of the locals. Unfortunately the North is the economic powerhouse of Italy, and (visit year before) it has huge numbers of Africans and a lot of 30-something natives with beautiful clothes but no kids.
    , @(((Owen)))

    t the [ethnic] French are going through a population increase, and that young families are having 3-4
     
    Congrats to your relation's social circle.

    But that's not what's happening. The fertility rate of people in France is 2.0 children per woman per lifetime. Surrounding nations with similar populations like Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and Italy have fertility rates of 1.1-1.5. The native fertility rates are about 1.0 in those countries while African and Maghreb migrants have more.

    And the French seem to have characteristics around the lower side of that. Probably the French fertility rate is around 0.9 or 1.0. The other 1.0 to 1.1 babies per woman are being born to Maghrebi and African women in France that routinely have 3-10 babies each at the expense of French taxpayers.

    That's how you go from 80% French to 20% French population in France in three generations. Once the third world people are in your country and entitled to welfare for life, your only hope is to find a way to control their fertility or expel them and quick.

    America is blessed by heavenly luck once again to be flooded with Mexicans. Back home in their own country Mexicans heroically reduced their fertility from 6.0 to 2.1 in a concerted campaign of education and reform at all levels in one generation. Now Mexico is better educated and industrialized and on the brink of first world status. And people are no longer, on net, migrating north from Mexico. America really has a future in spite of the blunder of opening her borders for cheap labor.

    Europe, filled with Africans and Maghrebis, does not seem to have any future except as a third world hole. Even Brazil will soon be ten times better than France. The acme of civilized creativity and human achievement is walking dead. Not even a decade of Le Pen could change the course of that freight train at this time.
  40. dearieme says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    You are whistling past the graveyard. If incidence is flat or declining, that could as well reflect less Global Southerners being born in rural areas over the past few generations. Steve's hypothesis based on the testing regulatory criteria and eyewitness accounts rings true.

    I can probably find pictures of Mississippi that would convince you it's as white as Oregon. That's what whites do: flee non-white areas. And when they can't flee, they stop reproducing.

    In one of the more far-sighted acts of policy in modern times, the white South African government dismantled its small nuclear arsenal before handing the State apparatus over to the Zulu. We are on the horns of the same dilemma, just two generations removed.

    “before handing the State apparatus over to the Zulu”: it wasn’t the Zulu they handed it to. It might have been better if they had.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    It was an off-the-cuff reference. I thought Zulu was dominant SA tribe?
  41. @Lot

    Île-de-France, which comprises the greater Paris region, has around 12 million people or 18% of the national population.
     
    It is probably higher than this, as not all Muslims are given Muslim names. The poll of teenagers Steve mentioned in the article strikes me as the most reliable figure. While not all non-whites in France or Muslim, my impression from being there is they are the very large majority.

    French West Africa is the main source of France's blacks and is very Muslim.

    If you look here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_France#History

    You will see non-European immigration to France has been running steady at 120,000 a year from 2008 to 2016. About 20,000 of that is from the "Americas and Oceana" and likely mostly white, so France has been officially accepting about 105,000 non-white immigrants per year.

    That rate is considerably lower than the United States, and much lower than Canada and Germany. Merkel's Boner, all by itself, was larger than a decade of non-white immigration to France.

    These numbers do not account for the non-whites in France's remaining colonial empire's steady resettlement into France, much like Puerto Ricans and Samoans gradually are resettling into the USA proper.

    If France’s immigration rates from Africa are so low, how did the Muslim population increase so much over the past couple of decades?

    Read More
    • Replies: @415 reasons
    Descendants of decades ago North African immigrants?
    , @Frau Katze
    I believe the migration began much earlier, the 1950s. I don't know the figures, but I've read about Germany's Turks: they were 1950s, '60's.

    Many came to France to work in industries destined to be off-shored anyway (like textiles). So now their descendants have a high unemployment rate.

    But the birth rate for these early migrants was and remains high (above replacement),
  42. @NickG

    the ethnic situation in the UK must be very similar, if not worse.
     
    No, received wisdom was that it's about half as bad. Steve's revelations suggest that it may be considerably less than half as bad. Certainly the UK has an order of magnitude fewer car barbecues.

    The UK is about 5% Muslim and 2% black, according to the ONS - Office for National Statistics- and the UK holds a census every decade. Britain's blacks are mainly Christian - so the overlap will be small - whereas France's blacks are mainly Muslim.

    That said, there has in the last few years been a good deal of secondary immigration of Muslim blacks into the UK from the EU and this is accelerating.

    At least for now there are large parts of England that are still properly English.

    It's down to political will if that remains the case.

    Saw some story in the UK press that ~10% of births in England are to Muslims. Also, one-third of children born had at least one parent who was not “English white.” Of course, quite a few of those non-English whites could be Polish white or some other EU or Commonwealth white, but still, you have to figure that ~20% to 25% of kids being born in England are at least half non-white.

    Much better demographics than the U.S. but not great. Also, problems with Muslims seem to rise exponentially as their % of the population rises. Say what you will about Mexicans and Central Americans (and I could say plenty), they don’t strap bombs to their chests and blow up train stations, nor are they much interested in imposing a brutal religion and culture on the rest of the population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    agree, would rather have 600,000 hispanics immigrating to America than 100,000 Muslims. Unfortunately we are getting both 600,000 Latinos and 100,000 Muslims per year over the last decade.
    , @syonredux

    Also, problems with Muslims seem to rise exponentially as their % of the population rises. Say what you will about Mexicans and Central Americans (and I could say plenty), they don’t strap bombs to their chests and blow up train stations, nor are they much interested in imposing a brutal religion and culture on the rest of the population.
     
    Muslims vs Mestizo Hispanics: death by fire vs death by mud......
  43. @Lot
    The rate of tests for newborns for sickle cell is not an accurate measure of either the nonwhite population of France, nor of changes to it. I posted a few items in response to someone linking to the same regional map:

    This chart shows cases of sickle cell homozygotes detected along with the gross numbers of tests between 2006 and 2012:

    https://identitairepur.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tableau-evolution-drepano-france-2006-2012.jpg

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    And the rate of detection to the rate of tests also steadily declined, confirming my initial reaction that the rapid changes shown on the map are the result of screening a wider and wider group of people. Indeed, looking for the source of the data in the map, I found numerous references to France moving from initially testing only the most suspect populations, to wider testing now, and with a goal in the near future to add sickle cell to the four other genetic diseases France already performs universal newborn testing for.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies and others have taken as gospel on the growth of non-whites in France, then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     

    I can understand why a lot of nationalists online, both on English and French blogs, seized on faulty data here. It is hard to even address demographic changes if you don’t know the most basic statistics.

    I’ll tell you something else, if the young children in sleepy, rural, Languedoc, are really 40% African as the map implied, it is truly all over for the French people.

    Looking online, it does not appear to be that way. Montpellier, with 246,000 people, is the largest city in the region and where you’d assume based on the map that white children would be in especially short supply. That does not seem to be the case:

    http://jonquilles-saintemarie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/517-GNRL-PRIMAIRE02.jpg

    http://s2.dmcdn.net/JuLet/1280×720-HQJ.jpg

    Here are a couple pictures of Limoux, a county seat of 9,000 in the region that I picked randomly:

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2012/09/19/201209191421.jpg

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2010/10/01/201010011515.jpg
     
    In summary, France's black population does not seem to be increasingly rapidly, especially with wider and wider testing, we'd see more sickle cell homozygotes.

    I have a friend who told me a decade ago that when she lived in Montpelier that non-natives were easily the majority. She said that of Marseilles as well.

    Read More
  44. @M.G.
    I'm glad to see you bringing this to a wide audience, Steve. As a fifteen-year ex-pat I've lived the transformation up close and personal.

    Another way to visualize the data, from this piece (sorry, haven't updated the map since 2013):

    France sickle-cell map 2013

    Plan your future vacations accordingly!

    There are many creative ways to get around the French government's black-out on race/ethnie statistics. One is that they don't count Arabs or Muslims, but they do count mosques (graph, 1965-2014). Here's the mosque count in map form.

    Also of interest, I recently stumbled upon a study whose authors counted up the number of newborns given Muslim first names (all birth names are recorded by the state) in 2016. As Muslims nearly all refuse to give their kids French names, even after 3 or 4 generations, this is a very clever way to suss out how many of our 'French' citizens are in fact Arab or black Muslim. The study is here (in French, sorry), and a map of the results here:

    Muslim baby names by department, France 2016.

    (The number on top is the department number, the number on the bottom is the % Muslim baby names. Seine St Denis, or "93", is the most Muslim area in France.)

    Like the sickle-cell stats, this is an imperfect measure, and doesn't give any info about the large and growing Black Christian population, or gypsies, etc, but it is startling nonetheless.

    Much of the French Mediterranean as well as the Paris area are simply on their way to becoming African/Arab colonies. We are truly living history in our time.

    The name map implies a lower Muslim population rate than the ~25% survey figure of French teens that Steve mentioned in his post and certainly much lower than the Sickle Cell map.

    Regardless, the trend remains. But I’ll ask you what I asked another commentator. France seems to have very low annual immigration numbers from Africa (mostly Muslim) – ~60,000 or .01% of the population. If that’s the case, how did the Muslim population increase so much over the past couple of decades?

    Read More
    • Replies: @M.G.
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The baby name study authors admit they low-balled, using only first names that aren't 'cross-overs'-- that is, which are used by both Muslims and Jews, or Muslims and Christians (for example, 'Lina' or 'Adem'). So this estimate is under-counting by a fair amount. The total they give for France is 18%, as seen in this chart:

    Muslim baby names in France, 1945-2015

    The teen survey showing 25% self-identifying 'Muslim' was taken of 9000 teens in the Bouches-du-Rhône region only, so this isn't a representative national sample--this region includes Marseille, which is very heavily Muslim.

    The sickle-cell map is more 'people of color' than 'Muslim,' plus Sicilians and Greeks, so it's going to look wildly different than either the survey or the baby names study mentioned.

    'How did the Muslim population increase so much over the past couple of decades?'

    It seems the PJ Media article Steve linked to in the Taki piece gives some good numbers. Good old natural increase can do it--all it takes is for one group to have fewer kids per woman (whites) and another to have more (Arabs/Africans) and there you go.
  45. @The Anti-Gnostic
    You are whistling past the graveyard. If incidence is flat or declining, that could as well reflect less Global Southerners being born in rural areas over the past few generations. Steve's hypothesis based on the testing regulatory criteria and eyewitness accounts rings true.

    I can probably find pictures of Mississippi that would convince you it's as white as Oregon. That's what whites do: flee non-white areas. And when they can't flee, they stop reproducing.

    In one of the more far-sighted acts of policy in modern times, the white South African government dismantled its small nuclear arsenal before handing the State apparatus over to the Zulu. We are on the horns of the same dilemma, just two generations removed.

    I was in London in 2016 and considered participating in an anti-Trident demonstrattion for the reason cited in your last paragraph. (I admit that I didn’t go but I knew that I was leaving the U.K. by that time.) France and Britain will face the same question as did the South African government within a generation; the U.S. within two or possibly fewer generations. Perhaps nuclear weapons should only be in the hands of stable ethno-states such as Russia and China?

    Read More
    • Replies: @With the thoughts you'd be thinkin
    Russia isn't a stable ethno-state, it may even be in an even worse position than Western Europe demographically speaking with ethnic Russians having post-Soviet fertillity rates, mass central asian immigration and comparitavely high muslim fertility rates.
    , @OFWHAP
    Russia is hardly a stable ethnostate; it has a significant Muslim minority that is growing while Russians are stagnating or disappearing.
  46. pyrrhus says:
    @Opinionator
    Steve,

    Suggest you go ahead and state the main results, which you were able to condense into a tweet before, above the fold. I actually think you may draw just as many readers to the main article by stating them than by hiding then. And for those people receiving a link to your unz post from some of us, it will be a little more self evident on the face why the article is being shared. It's an eye popping number.

    Only 8.9% born in Brittany of such parents, but 73% in Paris…..Africans don’t like the country, or Bretagnes don’t like them….

    Read More
  47. Randal says:
    @whorefinder
    OMG Taki's is an awful website. Everytime I click on one of your links to go to Taki's it takes 3 times as long to load, half the time my browser crashes, and then I'm constantly getting script errors popping up.

    That alone makes me adverse to going to there, and that's before we get to Taki being apologist for rapists. Because, you know, he's his friend. Classy.

    Because, you know, he’s his friend. Classy.

    Not sure someone who chooses to go by the nom de plume “whorefinder” has all that much room to criticise Taki for lack of class. ;-)

    On the topic of the article though, it seems a good indicator on which to base real hope for a Le Pen Presidency in France, if not this time then the next. For my own country, that’s the best news possible, as it would at a stroke end all our problems with the EU.

    Read More
  48. benjaminl says:

    Off-topic:

    The Trump effect: even neoliberals (1) and GOP politicians (2) are starting to make sense on immigration.

    1. http://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-immigration-trump-2017-2
    2. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/immigration-trump-senate-cotton-234706

    As Bill Clinton’s campaign slogan might be updated here:
    “It’s the interest of the American people [that matters], stupid!”

    Read More
  49. Jake says:

    It is a simple choice for France: either submit to Islamic rule, which will be very kind to black African paganism as well as white atheist/agnostic hedonism (which will mean the slow death of the French language, with Arabic its replacement); or repent for the French revolution, repent for anti-clericalism, rediscover Latin Mass Catholicism and the concept of Christian knighthood, and save France – which will require an expulsion of virtually all Moslems and black Africans who have not converted to Latin Mass Catholicism and total immersion in French Catholic culture.

    Half measures no longer even slow the march to domination by Moslems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy
    In case you hadn't noticed, Catholicism was the response to spiritual needs of feudal Europeans.

    It is an anachronistic cultural artifact now. It has no more chance of regaining its former relevance than it does of sending a man to the moon.

    The history of the 20th century, and now into ours, has been largely guided by the West's search for a new universal moral compass as Christianity became increasingly unable to broadly meet the needs of the West in the modern era.

    , @Jack D
    The replacement of French with Arabic is not happening, nor is it going to happen. After the 1st generation or 2, the Muslims don't even speak Arabic outside of the mosque (if they ever did - a lot of French Muslims are sub-Saharan and speak other native languages). It's entirely possible to replace your population with another while keeping the same language (or something close to it). Haiti expelled all the whites but kept French (or Creole which is ebonics French). This is not to say that there will be any great literature, but the language of the streets will still be French more or less (with a sprinkling of Arabic).
    , @Ed
    I was just thinking the other day if there is one event the West would like a do over, it'd be the French Revolution. It unleashed so many radical ideas all at once that in hindsight haven't been beneficial to the West.
  50. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @whorefinder
    OMG Taki's is an awful website. Everytime I click on one of your links to go to Taki's it takes 3 times as long to load, half the time my browser crashes, and then I'm constantly getting script errors popping up.

    That alone makes me adverse to going to there, and that's before we get to Taki being apologist for rapists. Because, you know, he's his friend. Classy.

    Agreed. Chrome kept freezing up because of the ads, had to open it in Internet Explorer!

    Read More
  51. kihowi says:

    I’ve been predicting that Paris was going to become a sanitized old-europe amusement park for a while. Eventually they’ll realize what’s going on and find a way to push the coloreds out of the few square kilometers around the Eiffel tower in a way that doesn’t feel racist.

    Japanese and Chinese are realizing that their mid-20th-century idea of Paris as a city of romance and hon-hon-hon-cherie is fictional and staying away. I can’t imagine the tourist dollars addicted French just giving up and doing something else.

    It’s going to be absolutely grotesque. Barets and accordions in the center, destruction and savagery all around it.

    Read More
  52. Jake says:
    @Anonymous
    I think the Western Europe Caliphate will arrive much quicker than this. It's increasing at an increasing rate. Plus, the more dominant it gets the more the dhimmi will capitulate and convert, even if just culturally. It's not as if Chesterton and Belloc didn't constantly warn everyone what would happen after the forces of darkness tore down Christ and His Church (to borrow from Israel Shamir's article today).

    Exactly.

    Read More
  53. Jake says:
    @Shine a Light
    The title of Steve's piece comes from a book by gay French right-winger Renaud Camus. He is running for President in 2017 but doesn't have much of a chance.

    https://www.amazon.fr/Grand-Remplacement-Renaud-Camus/dp/2358690317

    And here is a video on the same subject by the Nouvelle Droite girls band, Les Brigandes

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuoqreGkl7o

    Wow.

    Everybody needs to spend time with that quote that opens the video. Jews, the devoutly religious as well as the atheist, have a long history of hubris leading to near extermination. Pharisees stood on the walls of Jerusalem and demanded than God save them – his one great treasure – from the Romans. A segment of Orthodox jews today is equally suicidally insane. They are again doing something way beyond stupid, challenging God to save them.

    This time, the Moslems may succeed in doing what the Romans had no desire to do even after the 3rd Jewish revolt: exterminate all Jews that can be found. If there are no white Gentile nations to ally with Jews, then the Moslems and Chinese both will have a free hand to do with Jews what they wish. Moslems will want to exterminate all who do not submit to Allah and Mohammed. The Chinese will want make Jews a class of rather pampered serfs, whose are allowed wealth only as they serve China and the Chinese.

    Read More
  54. kihowi says:
    @whorefinder
    OMG Taki's is an awful website. Everytime I click on one of your links to go to Taki's it takes 3 times as long to load, half the time my browser crashes, and then I'm constantly getting script errors popping up.

    That alone makes me adverse to going to there, and that's before we get to Taki being apologist for rapists. Because, you know, he's his friend. Classy.

    Nobody really cares about rape. You live in a society where rape is perfectly acceptable as long as it’s committed by minorities or liberal celebrities. On the other hand, making up rape stories about white men and putting on a show of outrage is a national pastime. It’s a scam.

    Read More
  55. King Baeksu says: • Website
    @M.G.
    @King Baeksu

    Sorry, missed your link on the first name study! I posted it again. Mea culpa.

    Pas de problème, mon ami.

    Read More
  56. Alfa158 says:
    @whorefinder
    OMG Taki's is an awful website. Everytime I click on one of your links to go to Taki's it takes 3 times as long to load, half the time my browser crashes, and then I'm constantly getting script errors popping up.

    That alone makes me adverse to going to there, and that's before we get to Taki being apologist for rapists. Because, you know, he's his friend. Classy.

    I can’t read Takis on my mobile devices. Thhe site apparently use some sort of extremely intrusive ad program that overwrites the previous page so you can’t go back, and also crashes the browser while trying to overwrite the page you are on with pop up ads. My iPad in particular will sometimes crash to blank screen and have to reboot.
    I’m OK reading it on my PC which has Norton web security that automatically blocks malware attacks and keeps the ad from taking control of the browser. I’ll have to see if Norton offers an iOS version.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jim jones
    The best adblocker is uBlock Origin
    , @Frau Katze
    To read on an iPad, do NOT pick the "single page" option. This opens a new tab of ads, something I have never seen anywhere else.

    Use iPad Safari's "reader" function. It's been considerably improved in iOS 10.

    It will display both pages without the ad page. It also blocks most ads too.

    You can also email an entire article (great for sending stuff from sites that require a subscription to friends that don't have a subscription),
  57. Glossy says: • Website

    On the topic of wow, just wow:

    The poll of European attitudes towards the group, carried out by ICM for Russian news agency Rossiya Segodnya, revealed that 16% of French citizens have a positive opinion of ISIS. This percentage increases among younger respondents, spiking at 27% for those aged 18-24

    http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795

    Read More
  58. anonguy says:
    @Jake
    It is a simple choice for France: either submit to Islamic rule, which will be very kind to black African paganism as well as white atheist/agnostic hedonism (which will mean the slow death of the French language, with Arabic its replacement); or repent for the French revolution, repent for anti-clericalism, rediscover Latin Mass Catholicism and the concept of Christian knighthood, and save France - which will require an expulsion of virtually all Moslems and black Africans who have not converted to Latin Mass Catholicism and total immersion in French Catholic culture.

    Half measures no longer even slow the march to domination by Moslems.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, Catholicism was the response to spiritual needs of feudal Europeans.

    It is an anachronistic cultural artifact now. It has no more chance of regaining its former relevance than it does of sending a man to the moon.

    The history of the 20th century, and now into ours, has been largely guided by the West’s search for a new universal moral compass as Christianity became increasingly unable to broadly meet the needs of the West in the modern era.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    It has no more chance of regaining its former relevance than it does of sending a man to the moon.
     
    In a billion years on a billion planets the coming of Christ will be conflated with that very event (the opening of the seed of life, Earth) as if the two were one and the same.
  59. Arclight says:

    This likely means declining per capita GDP and a much poorer society than they enjoyed in the second half of the 20th century. Less productive citizenry, a loss of a distinctive culture that attracted enough tourism to account for 9% of GDP. Who wants to visit a mausoleum?

    Read More
  60. BB753 says:
    @King Baeksu
    Here's another line of approach:

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J3SPq9X0N5s/WHVpm8EuOEI/AAAAAAAAQ6M/7db-rfOxfkUViemMdE3eiUAROluzSSuNgCLcB/s1600/Muslim%2Bnames%2Brate%2B2016.jpg

    France has 93 "departments." Last year, No. 93 (Seine-Saint-Denis, in northern Paris) hit 43% Muslim or Arab names for newborns. Île-de-France, which comprises the greater Paris region, has around 12 million people or 18% of the national population. The average for the Paris region seems to be around 27%, although some "departments" may be more densely populated than others.

    I predict a nuclear-armed French Caliphate by 2050. Probably the UK, Germany, Belgium and Sweden will quickly join up as well, given similar demographic trends. Hell, London has a Muslim mayor already!

    I wonder how long it will take them to gang up and wipe the "Zionist entity" off the face of the planet?

    More information here: http://galliawatch.blogspot.co.id/2017/01/muslim-first-names.html

    So far, “French” Muslims are either working class or chronically unemployed. I just don’t see them taking over the country in a generation. You don’t make up for lack of brains, organisation and skills with raw numbers.. Look at South Africa, Whites would still rule the country today with under 10% of the population if not for the pressure of the”international community” and native white sellouts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    Look at South Africa, Whites would still rule the country today with under 10% of the population if not for the pressure of the”international community” and native white sellouts.
     
    yes - but that also applies to France or any other individual European country
    , @NickG

    I just don’t see them taking over the country in a generation. You don’t make up for lack of brains, organisation and skills with raw numbers.. Look at South Africa, Whites would still rule the country today with under 10% of the population if not for the pressure of the”international community” and native white sellouts
     
    .

    That's a bit like saying that the Nazi battleship Turpitz, could have defeated any British battleship if it hadn't had enormous bombs dropped on it by RAF Lancaster bombers. Or your uncle would have been your auntie if he'd had tits and a box.

    The fact is that the Turpitz rusts at the bottom of a Norwegian Fjord. And whites do not rule South Africa, trust me on this, I'm typing this in Pretoria, one mile from the Union Buildings.

  61. bomag says:
    @Lot
    The rate of tests for newborns for sickle cell is not an accurate measure of either the nonwhite population of France, nor of changes to it. I posted a few items in response to someone linking to the same regional map:

    This chart shows cases of sickle cell homozygotes detected along with the gross numbers of tests between 2006 and 2012:

    https://identitairepur.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tableau-evolution-drepano-france-2006-2012.jpg

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    And the rate of detection to the rate of tests also steadily declined, confirming my initial reaction that the rapid changes shown on the map are the result of screening a wider and wider group of people. Indeed, looking for the source of the data in the map, I found numerous references to France moving from initially testing only the most suspect populations, to wider testing now, and with a goal in the near future to add sickle cell to the four other genetic diseases France already performs universal newborn testing for.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies and others have taken as gospel on the growth of non-whites in France, then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     

    I can understand why a lot of nationalists online, both on English and French blogs, seized on faulty data here. It is hard to even address demographic changes if you don’t know the most basic statistics.

    I’ll tell you something else, if the young children in sleepy, rural, Languedoc, are really 40% African as the map implied, it is truly all over for the French people.

    Looking online, it does not appear to be that way. Montpellier, with 246,000 people, is the largest city in the region and where you’d assume based on the map that white children would be in especially short supply. That does not seem to be the case:

    http://jonquilles-saintemarie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/517-GNRL-PRIMAIRE02.jpg

    http://s2.dmcdn.net/JuLet/1280×720-HQJ.jpg

    Here are a couple pictures of Limoux, a county seat of 9,000 in the region that I picked randomly:

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2012/09/19/201209191421.jpg

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2010/10/01/201010011515.jpg
     
    In summary, France's black population does not seem to be increasingly rapidly, especially with wider and wider testing, we'd see more sickle cell homozygotes.

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    Okay, but I suspect that the bureaucracy started testing more people that weren’t screened before. Look again at this rule:

    Only one of the two if the second is not known.

    I bet they started testing everyone who wasn’t obviously a two northern European couple, thus those screened reflects the non-white nature of French demographics.

    Read More
  62. @Lot
    The rate of tests for newborns for sickle cell is not an accurate measure of either the nonwhite population of France, nor of changes to it. I posted a few items in response to someone linking to the same regional map:

    This chart shows cases of sickle cell homozygotes detected along with the gross numbers of tests between 2006 and 2012:

    https://identitairepur.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tableau-evolution-drepano-france-2006-2012.jpg

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    And the rate of detection to the rate of tests also steadily declined, confirming my initial reaction that the rapid changes shown on the map are the result of screening a wider and wider group of people. Indeed, looking for the source of the data in the map, I found numerous references to France moving from initially testing only the most suspect populations, to wider testing now, and with a goal in the near future to add sickle cell to the four other genetic diseases France already performs universal newborn testing for.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies and others have taken as gospel on the growth of non-whites in France, then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     

    I can understand why a lot of nationalists online, both on English and French blogs, seized on faulty data here. It is hard to even address demographic changes if you don’t know the most basic statistics.

    I’ll tell you something else, if the young children in sleepy, rural, Languedoc, are really 40% African as the map implied, it is truly all over for the French people.

    Looking online, it does not appear to be that way. Montpellier, with 246,000 people, is the largest city in the region and where you’d assume based on the map that white children would be in especially short supply. That does not seem to be the case:

    http://jonquilles-saintemarie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/517-GNRL-PRIMAIRE02.jpg

    http://s2.dmcdn.net/JuLet/1280×720-HQJ.jpg

    Here are a couple pictures of Limoux, a county seat of 9,000 in the region that I picked randomly:

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2012/09/19/201209191421.jpg

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2010/10/01/201010011515.jpg
     
    In summary, France's black population does not seem to be increasingly rapidly, especially with wider and wider testing, we'd see more sickle cell homozygotes.

    West Africans are more likely carriers than North Africans.

    It could be that the criteria for administering the test have expanded – initially, only West Africans and then all Africans.

    Read More
  63. M.G. says: • Website
    @Patrick Harris
    Anybody else notice that the map graphic says it's from (nationalist website) Francois de Souche? I can't find the original public health data from the AFDPHE.

    The 2015 French sickle-cell testing report is here:

    http://www.afdphe.org/sites/default/files/bilan_afdphe_2015.pdf

    Data is on p. 63.

    Read More
  64. phil says:

    Ghana is next to the Ivory Coast (Cote d’Ivoire) in West Africa, where French is the main language. There is a girl from Ghana studying French at Williams College in Massachusetts. She hopes that learning French will help her in West Africa and elsewhere in the world. To improve her French she will study abroad for a year in France. She said that she will study in Toulouse. While visiting Williams, I asked her why she plans to study in Toulouse and not Paris. She said, “Paris is not really French anymore.”

    Read More
  65. All I know is whenever I switch on to a sporting event or some cultural event (like Eurovision) and see France is gonna be on, I expect to see an African (or mostly Africans, for group events), and they always meet that expectation.

    France is already the first nonwhite European nation. That’s where civic ‘nationalism’ and Liberté-Egalité-Fraternité gets ya…

    Read More
  66. Jack D says:
    @King Baeksu
    Here's another line of approach:

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J3SPq9X0N5s/WHVpm8EuOEI/AAAAAAAAQ6M/7db-rfOxfkUViemMdE3eiUAROluzSSuNgCLcB/s1600/Muslim%2Bnames%2Brate%2B2016.jpg

    France has 93 "departments." Last year, No. 93 (Seine-Saint-Denis, in northern Paris) hit 43% Muslim or Arab names for newborns. Île-de-France, which comprises the greater Paris region, has around 12 million people or 18% of the national population. The average for the Paris region seems to be around 27%, although some "departments" may be more densely populated than others.

    I predict a nuclear-armed French Caliphate by 2050. Probably the UK, Germany, Belgium and Sweden will quickly join up as well, given similar demographic trends. Hell, London has a Muslim mayor already!

    I wonder how long it will take them to gang up and wipe the "Zionist entity" off the face of the planet?

    More information here: http://galliawatch.blogspot.co.id/2017/01/muslim-first-names.html

    I wonder how long it will take them to gang up and wipe the “Zionist entity” off the face of the planet?

    I wouldn’t worry too much. Israel has (German) submarines with nuclear missile launch capability (thanks to a French provided reactor at Dimona) as well as underground launchers for ICBMs (thanks, von Braun!). Dialing in Paris, Berlin, London, etc. is only a matter of hitting a few buttons.

    Pakistan of course already has nuclear weapons but has shown no interest in starting a nuclear war with Israel. Most Muslim countries make a show over their concern for the Palestinians (without letting any ever become citizens) when it suits their domestic considerations, but only if they don’t really have to pay a price. Saddam Hussein attacked Israel as a desperate Hail Mary (you should excuse the expression) play and he got the gallows so it did not work out well for him. Being nuked by Israel is a pretty hefty price.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I wouldn’t worry too much.
     
    You’re not thinking like a Mohammedan: Paris, London, Berlin are just places created by The Infidel. Provided that “wiping Israel off the map” is tactically doable, sacrificing a bunch of ‘European’ cities occupied by hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of Muslim martyrs, along with their Infidel chattel, would be considered a glorious thing.

    There’s no way Israel has enough nukes to permanently reduce the vast numbers of Muslims existing in MENA, let alone globally. So: Caliphate Europe as a staging ground for a future jihadi nuke attack on Israel? Could happen. Israeli nukes are no deterrent to men who know they’re bound for Paradise (and who are willing to risk Hell to decisively smite an enemy).

    Pakistan of course already has nuclear weapons but has shown no interest in starting a nuclear war with Israel. Most Muslim countries make a show over their concern for the Palestinians (without letting any ever become citizens) when it suits their domestic considerations, but only if they don’t really have to pay a price.
     
    Pakistan and Palestinians don’t factor in this scenario.

    Nuclear Pakistan isn’t in MENA, and thus is a bit removed from anti-Zionist rage—their main concern is ‘rival’ India. And conflating pan-Islamic “concern for the Palestinians” with MENA Muslim hatred towards Israel is silly. Muslims don’t really care about other Muslims. However, a great many Muslims can’t stand to have chauvinist Jews in what Muslims consider sacred Muslim turf, and would love to ‘do something about it,’ even if it means irradiating the land.

    Being nuked by Israel is a pretty hefty price.
     
    Instead of an attack on Israel, what would more likely happen would be a Continent-wide state-sanctioned BDS thrust on steroids. If Asia and the Americas go along, bye-bye Jewish-run Israel—without a nuke detonated. Even if Israeli hawks see the endgame and decide to ‘go Samson,’ the world at large would survive while Israel (and much of the Diaspora) gets wiped out.
  67. 10 years or so ago, my parents asked me if I was interested in traveling to Europe. I said no, Europe wasn’t going anywhere, and I could always walk around pleasant streets and see art and architecture as an old man. I told them I would rather go to the third world while I was young and could better handle the worse infrastructure and general living conditions. So I went to Africa and Asia. I don’t exactly think that was a mistake, but it’s funny to think about that choice now.

    Read More
  68. Ed says:
    @King Baeksu
    Here's another line of approach:

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J3SPq9X0N5s/WHVpm8EuOEI/AAAAAAAAQ6M/7db-rfOxfkUViemMdE3eiUAROluzSSuNgCLcB/s1600/Muslim%2Bnames%2Brate%2B2016.jpg

    France has 93 "departments." Last year, No. 93 (Seine-Saint-Denis, in northern Paris) hit 43% Muslim or Arab names for newborns. Île-de-France, which comprises the greater Paris region, has around 12 million people or 18% of the national population. The average for the Paris region seems to be around 27%, although some "departments" may be more densely populated than others.

    I predict a nuclear-armed French Caliphate by 2050. Probably the UK, Germany, Belgium and Sweden will quickly join up as well, given similar demographic trends. Hell, London has a Muslim mayor already!

    I wonder how long it will take them to gang up and wipe the "Zionist entity" off the face of the planet?

    More information here: http://galliawatch.blogspot.co.id/2017/01/muslim-first-names.html

    Once people awaken to the threat and more are awakening to it there will be a backlash. At first it’ll be political and if that doesn’t work it’ll be violent. A recent poll shows that a majority of French want a complete halt to Muslim immigration. So you figure among ethnic French the number is around 75%+.

    Contrary to popular belief younger people in the West are increasingly leaning white in particular the men. The women will follow along as they date, get married etc.

    Europe isn’t looking at Sharia but major conflict. I would not be surprised if Nuremberg style laws return in some countries within the next 50 years or so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Too late. Even if they never let in another Muslim the handwriting is on the wall. In the US, the current black population of 35,000,000 is mostly descended from fewer than 400,000 slaves landed in the continental US. It's true that the black % fell by almost 1/2 (from almost 20% at the time of the Revolution to less than 10% in 1930) as a result of massive white immigration but there are no big pools of white immigrants left for France (or the US). And the US slave experience shows that once people are here (especially if they are born here) it's almost impossible to send them "back where they came from".
    , @Federalist
    Sad to say but I hope you're right. Considering the alternative, "major conflict" in Europe may be the best that we can hope for.
  69. @Lurker
    Not quite as bad.

    At last count the UK remained @80% white British. Plus another 5% white non-British. Much whiter than France (or the US)

    Of course that's the raw total, it's masking the fact that younger generations are increasingly less white than older ones.

    The UK government (and their devolved parts like Scotland) report on the number of ‘ethnic minority’ kids in a school. In England and Wales in 2015 30.4% of primary school kids were ‘ethnic minority’, so we’re not far behind France.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33094304

    “In primary schools, 30.4% of pupils are from an ethnic minority, compared with 29.5% the previous year. But there are wide regional variations. In the inner London boroughs, 81% of pupils are from ethnic minorities; while in north-east England, the figure is below 11%.

    And at council level, in Newham 94% of pupils are from ethnic minorities, while in Durham the figure is below 5%. In inner London, the biggest ethnic group in primary school are black pupils, predominantly from an African background, with Asian pupils the second biggest group.

    In secondary schools, about 27% of pupils are ethnic minorities, which the report says represents an increase of about 30% in six years.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    There was a sad/ironic incident last year, when "a renowned expert in sanitation and water management in countries including Ethiopia, Senegal, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka" at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Jeroen Ensink, was stabbed to death by a mentally ill Nigerian of 21. It seems to be very easy to get on a plane in Africa and just move to the UK.

    http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-10/jeroen-ensink-widow-why-was-husbands-psychotic-killer-walking-free/
    , @Jack D

    which the report says represents an increase of about 30% in six years
     
    This is the scariest part - they are saying a roughly 5% a year increase. At that rate, the secondary schools will be majority non-white in 10 years. Once a democratic country is majority non-white, scary things start to happen. The whole thing is inconceivable. At the close of WWII, there were only a few thousand non-whites in the entire country. This has all happened in living memory.
    , @Lurker
    It's more confusing than it appears because ONS count Poles, for example, as part of that 5% non-British white population. But DoE appear to count Poles as an ethnic minority in schools.

    So that 30% ethnic minority figure in schools includes non-British whites. It may even include self-identified white Irish.

    The fact that two government bodies count heads in different ways is either a charming idiosyncrasy, idiocy or a cynical measure to disrupt understanding.

  70. @Anonymous Nephew
    The UK government (and their devolved parts like Scotland) report on the number of 'ethnic minority' kids in a school. In England and Wales in 2015 30.4% of primary school kids were 'ethnic minority', so we're not far behind France.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33094304

    "In primary schools, 30.4% of pupils are from an ethnic minority, compared with 29.5% the previous year. But there are wide regional variations. In the inner London boroughs, 81% of pupils are from ethnic minorities; while in north-east England, the figure is below 11%.

    And at council level, in Newham 94% of pupils are from ethnic minorities, while in Durham the figure is below 5%. In inner London, the biggest ethnic group in primary school are black pupils, predominantly from an African background, with Asian pupils the second biggest group.

    In secondary schools, about 27% of pupils are ethnic minorities, which the report says represents an increase of about 30% in six years."
     

    There was a sad/ironic incident last year, when “a renowned expert in sanitation and water management in countries including Ethiopia, Senegal, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka” at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Jeroen Ensink, was stabbed to death by a mentally ill Nigerian of 21. It seems to be very easy to get on a plane in Africa and just move to the UK.

    http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-10/jeroen-ensink-widow-why-was-husbands-psychotic-killer-walking-free/

    Read More
  71. @Lot
    The rate of tests for newborns for sickle cell is not an accurate measure of either the nonwhite population of France, nor of changes to it. I posted a few items in response to someone linking to the same regional map:

    This chart shows cases of sickle cell homozygotes detected along with the gross numbers of tests between 2006 and 2012:

    https://identitairepur.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tableau-evolution-drepano-france-2006-2012.jpg

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    And the rate of detection to the rate of tests also steadily declined, confirming my initial reaction that the rapid changes shown on the map are the result of screening a wider and wider group of people. Indeed, looking for the source of the data in the map, I found numerous references to France moving from initially testing only the most suspect populations, to wider testing now, and with a goal in the near future to add sickle cell to the four other genetic diseases France already performs universal newborn testing for.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies and others have taken as gospel on the growth of non-whites in France, then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     

    I can understand why a lot of nationalists online, both on English and French blogs, seized on faulty data here. It is hard to even address demographic changes if you don’t know the most basic statistics.

    I’ll tell you something else, if the young children in sleepy, rural, Languedoc, are really 40% African as the map implied, it is truly all over for the French people.

    Looking online, it does not appear to be that way. Montpellier, with 246,000 people, is the largest city in the region and where you’d assume based on the map that white children would be in especially short supply. That does not seem to be the case:

    http://jonquilles-saintemarie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/517-GNRL-PRIMAIRE02.jpg

    http://s2.dmcdn.net/JuLet/1280×720-HQJ.jpg

    Here are a couple pictures of Limoux, a county seat of 9,000 in the region that I picked randomly:

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2012/09/19/201209191421.jpg

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2010/10/01/201010011515.jpg
     
    In summary, France's black population does not seem to be increasingly rapidly, especially with wider and wider testing, we'd see more sickle cell homozygotes.

    I agree that the “run-up” in testing from 2005 may be an artifact of the data-collection system. But even if one sticks with the 2005 figures, the situation is pretty dire for a nation that used to tell its students : Nos ancetres, les Gaullois. Remember, the testing is of newborns, possibly the most important cohort from a demographic point of view.

    I lived in France (Paris and Toulouse) from 2011-2015 and was back for two weeks in 2016. My impression is that there are lots of Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans in France. Last summer my family were the only white people on the tram to Seine St. Denis, the traditional burial place of French kings. Getting off at the Gare du Nord resembles Lagos. Once one goes north of city hall in the 18th Arrondisement, you wonder what portion of Africa you’re in. Portions of Toulouse are “no-go” zones for police. Even in Brittany, we’ve begun to see Arabic names on the signs of local realtors. My mother-in-law lived through the German occupation and she says that the Germans were less intrusive than the Arabs and Africans. (If she said that publicly, she could be prosecuted for incitement to hate speech).

    France, for those who have never visited it, is a strikingly beautiful country, especially outside of Paris. What a shame to see it turned over to people unworthy of it. It’s so-called leaders have a lot to answer for.

    Read More
  72. Jack D says:
    @Lot

    Île-de-France, which comprises the greater Paris region, has around 12 million people or 18% of the national population.
     
    It is probably higher than this, as not all Muslims are given Muslim names. The poll of teenagers Steve mentioned in the article strikes me as the most reliable figure. While not all non-whites in France or Muslim, my impression from being there is they are the very large majority.

    French West Africa is the main source of France's blacks and is very Muslim.

    If you look here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_France#History

    You will see non-European immigration to France has been running steady at 120,000 a year from 2008 to 2016. About 20,000 of that is from the "Americas and Oceana" and likely mostly white, so France has been officially accepting about 105,000 non-white immigrants per year.

    That rate is considerably lower than the United States, and much lower than Canada and Germany. Merkel's Boner, all by itself, was larger than a decade of non-white immigration to France.

    These numbers do not account for the non-whites in France's remaining colonial empire's steady resettlement into France, much like Puerto Ricans and Samoans gradually are resettling into the USA proper.

    Lower down in the same article, it states that immigration from the US is 2% so the rest must be from outside the US. Some of that could be Canadian but I assume they would have broken it out if it was significant. So I would not assume the Americas group to be white.

    Regardless of any fresh immigration, France has accumulated a huge # of Muslims and Africans (an overlapping category) who are young and fertile, while at the same time the aging group of French whites have stopped having babies due to high cost of family formation, poor job prospects, etc. The overall French birth rate seems higher than other Euro. countries but the non-white birth rate is masking the decline in white births (since the French refuse to break out the stats). I would suspect that the white rate is below replacement level just like in all the adjoining Euro countries, while the non-white rate is above, so even if another immigrant never sets foot in France the white share of the population will continue to decline.

    Read More
  73. @Lot
    The rate of tests for newborns for sickle cell is not an accurate measure of either the nonwhite population of France, nor of changes to it. I posted a few items in response to someone linking to the same regional map:

    This chart shows cases of sickle cell homozygotes detected along with the gross numbers of tests between 2006 and 2012:

    https://identitairepur.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tableau-evolution-drepano-france-2006-2012.jpg

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    And the rate of detection to the rate of tests also steadily declined, confirming my initial reaction that the rapid changes shown on the map are the result of screening a wider and wider group of people. Indeed, looking for the source of the data in the map, I found numerous references to France moving from initially testing only the most suspect populations, to wider testing now, and with a goal in the near future to add sickle cell to the four other genetic diseases France already performs universal newborn testing for.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies and others have taken as gospel on the growth of non-whites in France, then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     

    I can understand why a lot of nationalists online, both on English and French blogs, seized on faulty data here. It is hard to even address demographic changes if you don’t know the most basic statistics.

    I’ll tell you something else, if the young children in sleepy, rural, Languedoc, are really 40% African as the map implied, it is truly all over for the French people.

    Looking online, it does not appear to be that way. Montpellier, with 246,000 people, is the largest city in the region and where you’d assume based on the map that white children would be in especially short supply. That does not seem to be the case:

    http://jonquilles-saintemarie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/517-GNRL-PRIMAIRE02.jpg

    http://s2.dmcdn.net/JuLet/1280×720-HQJ.jpg

    Here are a couple pictures of Limoux, a county seat of 9,000 in the region that I picked randomly:

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2012/09/19/201209191421.jpg

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2010/10/01/201010011515.jpg
     
    In summary, France's black population does not seem to be increasingly rapidly, especially with wider and wider testing, we'd see more sickle cell homozygotes.

    Another sign that the data can’t accurately reflect actual demographic changes is precisely what makes the data so eye-popping: the genuinely incredible rise in the numbers. Short of an utterly massive wave of immigration, I don’t see how the country wide numbers rise from 25.6% to 38.9% in ten years.

    The numbers are too bad to be true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I don't know about this. Recent immigrants are both demographically concentrated in child bearing (or younger, i.e. soon to be child bearing) years and more fertile than the native French. The real solution to this question is rigorously collected data, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

    P.S. Worth mentioning that the parents don't all have to be immigrants. There are more and more French born to earlier immigrants entering their child bearing years.

    P.P.S. Also worth emphasizing that there are lag times and positive feedback loops in all of this. Anyone with a background in control theory knows what those do to system stability. (e.g. the lags tend to make systems unstable because it is difficult to adjust from observable feedback, visualize adjusting hot/cold in a shower with a long lag between the adjustment and result).
    , @Lot
    That's was my first clue the sickle cell testing rate was useless.
    , @Jack D
    Not necessarily. It could be that ten years ago they were testing 2/3 of the eligible population and now, as a result of greater efforts, they are testing all of them, but that the current % represents the true % of sickle cell carriers. Assuming they are really applying their screens correctly.

    The other possibility is that there is some bureaucratic imperative to test more people so that they are now testing 150% of the eligible population instead of 100% as before. You come into the public health center for your prenatal visit and they ask you the screening questions and you say , uh, yes, I guess so, maybe, I dunno, my grandma was from Italy but I forget where, and they say, OK, that's close enough, I'm checking off sickle cell test. Then they ask you 10 more questions about something else. It's not like people have a lot to lose by adding another screening panel - check one more box on the form. This would align with the fact that they are testing more people but not getting any more positives.

    , @anon

    Short of an utterly massive wave of immigration, I don’t see how the country wide numbers rise from 25.6% to 38.9% in ten years.
     
    easily

    you compare the percentages of the population who are of breeding age and their respective TFRs

    if one group are 20% of the breeding age population but have double the TFR they produce 1/3 of the babies

    8 x 1 = 8
    2 x 2 = 4

    next generation they are 33% of the breeding age population and if the TFR holds up*

    8 x 1 = 8
    4 x 2 = 8

    they produce 50% of the children

    (*it generally doesn't hold up entirely so new immigrants are really just a top up to the original engine - which was importing disproportionately breeding age immigrants)

    (in particular importing disproportionately breeding age immigrants for cheap labor - as poorer people have a different calculus when it comes to cost of having a kid vs their income + welfare)

    , @Broski
    "The numbers are too bad to be true."

    This data is of children. Just as in the United States, where whites are less than half the children but still around 70% of the population, children are a leading indicator. Our hyper-fecund new arrivals have a rapidly accelerating effect on population changes.

    This is why those of us noticers have been so alarmed and, in some quarters, fatalistic.

    I don't foresee a meek global Europa simply fading into the night, though. I foresee violence and a subsequent disaggregation of populations, much as happened with the many millions of Germans who were sent home from Hitler's "lebensraum" after WWII.

    Of course, as evidenced by the swarthiness of Sicilians compared to Milanese, these population changes leave a legacy.
    , @reiner Tor
    It's possible that the numbers are wrong, but they are not nearly impossible.

    Libya's population grew 64% between 1973 and 1984, if you compared it to another, declining population, the relative increase would be even greater.

    Granted, Libyans probably had a higher fertility rate than French Muslims, but the quality of data on overall French Muslim (and French white) fertility rates are not totally reliable either.

    And yes, I was in Paris in 2004, 2007, 2013 and 2014, and over the years the darkening of the population was quite noticeable.
    , @reiner Tor
    Couldn't an annual influx of 100,000 people significantly affect this? It means one million people over ten years. If on average each couple of them has one child over this decade (i.e. on average 5 years within immigrating, a conservative estimate), then that's already 50,000 children per year, 6.25% of live births in Metropolitan France. They are more likely to occur at the end of the period. So if you take an increase of 25.6% to 38.9, at least 6.25, but possibly more, of this increase could easily be ascribed to those new African immigrants you guys just dismissed as insignificant.

    There's another statistic, Wikipedia says that in 2010 27.3% of newborns in Metropolitan France were born to at least one foreign-born parent, of which 23.9% had at least one parent born outside of Europe. People of the overseas territories are not counted! Nor those who were born to Arab or black parents already born in France. There must be at least a 10% share of those.

    So yes, the numbers may be slightly exaggerated, but I fail to see how they are impossible.
  74. @dearieme
    "before handing the State apparatus over to the Zulu": it wasn't the Zulu they handed it to. It might have been better if they had.

    It was an off-the-cuff reference. I thought Zulu was dominant SA tribe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fredrik
    The two first black presidents: Mandela and Mbeki are/were Xhosa. The incumbent Zuma is Zulu.
  75. Dan Hayes says:
    @Shine a Light
    The title of Steve's piece comes from a book by gay French right-winger Renaud Camus. He is running for President in 2017 but doesn't have much of a chance.

    https://www.amazon.fr/Grand-Remplacement-Renaud-Camus/dp/2358690317

    And here is a video on the same subject by the Nouvelle Droite girls band, Les Brigandes

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuoqreGkl7o

    Shine a Light:

    Thank you for referencing and displaying the French traditionalist/nationalist singing group Les Brigandes. Denizens of this web site should check out their full extensive repertoire (some with English subtitles). This group has important messages which are delivered with thought-provoking French verve and audacity. Check ‘em out!

    Read More
  76. @Anonymous
    These days, there seems to be a quintennial pantomime in the French presidential elections in which a Le Pen fille or pere comes within a gnat's dick of actually winning the contest - or so it seems in the first round, at least - but is ultimately blocked by a 'united political class' spoiler candidate in the second round.
    How long will this charade continue?, will the FN eventually breakthrough?, will the FN continue to define French politics?
    Also, it must be added that in the past decades the entire French electoral system has been manipulated with one goal in end - to keep the FN out.

    The manipulation of the French electoral system is a major theme of Michael Houellebecq’s novel Soumission.

    Read More
  77. @Neutron
    This doesn't seem remotely accurate to me. I have traveled pretty extensively throughout France in recent years and aside from the Paris/Marseille/Nice metro areas I didn't feel that non-whites exceeded 10-15% anywhere even in larger cities like Lyon/Bordeaux/Toulouse. The vast majority of the small cities/towns are still 95%+ white. These small cities/towns outside of the major metro areas probably still make up more than half of France's population.

    If I had to estimate I would say that France is roughly 15% non-white and that population is overwhelmingly concentrated in the 5 largest metro areas.

    You didn’t see the same France that I saw.

    Read More
  78. Pericles says:
    @Anonymous
    These days, there seems to be a quintennial pantomime in the French presidential elections in which a Le Pen fille or pere comes within a gnat's dick of actually winning the contest - or so it seems in the first round, at least - but is ultimately blocked by a 'united political class' spoiler candidate in the second round.
    How long will this charade continue?, will the FN eventually breakthrough?, will the FN continue to define French politics?
    Also, it must be added that in the past decades the entire French electoral system has been manipulated with one goal in end - to keep the FN out.

    Time to open the Houellebecq again, eh?

    Read More
  79. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Neutron
    This doesn't seem remotely accurate to me. I have traveled pretty extensively throughout France in recent years and aside from the Paris/Marseille/Nice metro areas I didn't feel that non-whites exceeded 10-15% anywhere even in larger cities like Lyon/Bordeaux/Toulouse. The vast majority of the small cities/towns are still 95%+ white. These small cities/towns outside of the major metro areas probably still make up more than half of France's population.

    If I had to estimate I would say that France is roughly 15% non-white and that population is overwhelmingly concentrated in the 5 largest metro areas.

    We are talking of new births.

    Babies don’t walk around.

    Wait 15 yrs

    Read More
  80. @Massimo Heitor
    I have family visiting France now. She just wrote me:

    My friend said that the [ethnic] French are going through a population increase, and that young families are having 3-4 children each.
     
    I think the demographic issue is very real at the same time some of these demographic doom stats have been completely overblown.

    Anecdotally, the Italians are having fewer kids and even the college educated are having trouble finding any jobs. I suspect they've embraced too much economic protections that stifle growth.

    “Anecdotally, the Italians are having fewer kids and even the college educated are having trouble finding any jobs. I suspect they’ve embraced too much economic protections that stifle growth.”

    It’s not the economic protections, it’s the Euro. The presence of the southern countries in the Eurozone holds the currency at a level low enough for German exporters to thrive, but too high for Italy, Greece and Spain, who traditionally remained competitive by devaluing their currency. It’s killing their economies and job prospects for their youth, yet they cling on tight to Euro-nurse. Greece would have been recovering by now if they’d left the Euro in 2015. Instead, they’re even deeper in the crap.

    South of Rome (anecdotally, visit last year) they still seem to be having kids and there are very few illegal immigrants in places like Naples, perhaps due to the reputation of the locals. Unfortunately the North is the economic powerhouse of Italy, and (visit year before) it has huge numbers of Africans and a lot of 30-something natives with beautiful clothes but no kids.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    You can't eyeball these things. You need statistics.

    Here:

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/567990/birth-rate-in-italy-by-region/

    Aside from the outlier of German speaking Tyrol (a little slice of Austria that ended up in Northern Italy after WWI), there is definitely a gradient from south to north but even in the south the rate is below replacement. For comparison, the US is at around 13 and Niger is around 45 (annual live births per 1,000 people). So maybe in Liguria (the northeast coast around Genoa) the birth rate is only 60% of what is needed for replacement but in Campania (Naples) it is 75%, so it's only better relatively speaking. Their overall average is 1.4 births/ woman, well below the replacement rate of a little over 2. The entire n-s gradient is only a rounding error vs. the sub-Saharan rates - it just means that their pail is leaking at a slightly lower rate but in the long run it's still the same result.
    , @Anon
    Was in Naples in December. Noticably more immigrants over the year before. The usual Africans (who buys the fake bags?) but surprised by the surge in Chinese in both Naples and Rome. Our driver complained bitterly about the unfair business practices of the Chinese in his town near Sorrento. I first visited Italy and France in 1960. I can remember when the worse fear is they would become 'too American' and lose 'their charm'. I never thought I would see their cultures actually destroyed by immigration. But they let it happen. Why?
  81. M.G. says: • Website
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    The name map implies a lower Muslim population rate than the ~25% survey figure of French teens that Steve mentioned in his post and certainly much lower than the Sickle Cell map.

    Regardless, the trend remains. But I'll ask you what I asked another commentator. France seems to have very low annual immigration numbers from Africa (mostly Muslim) - ~60,000 or .01% of the population. If that's the case, how did the Muslim population increase so much over the past couple of decades?

    The baby name study authors admit they low-balled, using only first names that aren’t ‘cross-overs’– that is, which are used by both Muslims and Jews, or Muslims and Christians (for example, ‘Lina’ or ‘Adem’). So this estimate is under-counting by a fair amount. The total they give for France is 18%, as seen in this chart:

    Muslim baby names in France, 1945-2015

    The teen survey showing 25% self-identifying ‘Muslim’ was taken of 9000 teens in the Bouches-du-Rhône region only, so this isn’t a representative national sample–this region includes Marseille, which is very heavily Muslim.

    The sickle-cell map is more ‘people of color’ than ‘Muslim,’ plus Sicilians and Greeks, so it’s going to look wildly different than either the survey or the baby names study mentioned.

    ‘How did the Muslim population increase so much over the past couple of decades?’

    It seems the PJ Media article Steve linked to in the Taki piece gives some good numbers. Good old natural increase can do it–all it takes is for one group to have fewer kids per woman (whites) and another to have more (Arabs/Africans) and there you go.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JerseyGuy
    As I indicated above, I'd be really curious to see the Northern European TFRs broken out by ethnicity. I suspect that the ethinic Swedish and ethnic Dutch fertility rates are significantly lower than the stated TFRs for the entire countries. My understanding is that the Muslim fertility rates have declined in Europe (similar to Hispanics) but they are still much higher than native born Europeans and constantly get a jolt from immigration from abroad.

    Remember, although fertility rates in Muslim world have declined, they are still above replacement, with a few exceptions. That's all that really matters in the end.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Thanks.

    Regarding the growth, I figured that it might be simply different birth rates. Even relatively mild differences - say 1.7 for white French and 2.4 for Muslims - would lead to huge changes over time.

    I suppose the real question is what's the tipping point. At what percentage of the population (or the under-40 population) do Muslims start to push for serious changes in the overall society? What happens if they reach 25% of the overall population and close to 50% of the population in the main cities? At those levels, I find it hard to believe that they just assimilate. Instead, I could easily see a big push for changes in the schools and self-policing of large parts of cities to enforce Muslim norms.

    It doesn't have to be violent - at least not that violent - just a constant political push backed by the threat of street violence to create distinct Muslim schools and neighborhoods, a society within society but a society that's growing and much more willing to enforce their way of life day in and day out on the streets.

    The West hasn't faced anything like this in a very, very long time. Mexicans and Central Americans aren't great but they're nothing compared to Muslims. France may have more whites as a % of the population than the U.S. but I'd rather be here than there.
  82. There’s a couple of other things that I forgot to mention in a previous post. I had a language student in Paris whose sister was studying tropic diseases. She planned to practice right there in Paris. When I went through residency procedures in Paris, the doctors begged people to disclose any illness from which they might be suffering, assuring them that it wouldn’t affect their chances for residency–that’s an indication of the nature of the immigrants that France is now getting.

    Read More
  83. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous Nephew
    The UK government (and their devolved parts like Scotland) report on the number of 'ethnic minority' kids in a school. In England and Wales in 2015 30.4% of primary school kids were 'ethnic minority', so we're not far behind France.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33094304

    "In primary schools, 30.4% of pupils are from an ethnic minority, compared with 29.5% the previous year. But there are wide regional variations. In the inner London boroughs, 81% of pupils are from ethnic minorities; while in north-east England, the figure is below 11%.

    And at council level, in Newham 94% of pupils are from ethnic minorities, while in Durham the figure is below 5%. In inner London, the biggest ethnic group in primary school are black pupils, predominantly from an African background, with Asian pupils the second biggest group.

    In secondary schools, about 27% of pupils are ethnic minorities, which the report says represents an increase of about 30% in six years."
     

    which the report says represents an increase of about 30% in six years

    This is the scariest part – they are saying a roughly 5% a year increase. At that rate, the secondary schools will be majority non-white in 10 years. Once a democratic country is majority non-white, scary things start to happen. The whole thing is inconceivable. At the close of WWII, there were only a few thousand non-whites in the entire country. This has all happened in living memory.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Andrew

    At the close of WWII, there were only a few thousand non-whites in the entire country. This has all happened in living memory.
     
    At the end of the Cold War in 1991 and even at 2000, non-whites were essentially invisblue in most of Western Europe. Mass immigration since 2000 has been horrible.
  84. You are right, places like Boughton on the Water and Shipton under Wychwood are still inhabited by English. OTH London, Birmingham, Manchester and many others are infested with diversity. And don’t believe anything the British Govt. says, they are amongst the world’s best liars.

    Read More
  85. JerseyGuy says:
    @M.G.
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The baby name study authors admit they low-balled, using only first names that aren't 'cross-overs'-- that is, which are used by both Muslims and Jews, or Muslims and Christians (for example, 'Lina' or 'Adem'). So this estimate is under-counting by a fair amount. The total they give for France is 18%, as seen in this chart:

    Muslim baby names in France, 1945-2015

    The teen survey showing 25% self-identifying 'Muslim' was taken of 9000 teens in the Bouches-du-Rhône region only, so this isn't a representative national sample--this region includes Marseille, which is very heavily Muslim.

    The sickle-cell map is more 'people of color' than 'Muslim,' plus Sicilians and Greeks, so it's going to look wildly different than either the survey or the baby names study mentioned.

    'How did the Muslim population increase so much over the past couple of decades?'

    It seems the PJ Media article Steve linked to in the Taki piece gives some good numbers. Good old natural increase can do it--all it takes is for one group to have fewer kids per woman (whites) and another to have more (Arabs/Africans) and there you go.

    As I indicated above, I’d be really curious to see the Northern European TFRs broken out by ethnicity. I suspect that the ethinic Swedish and ethnic Dutch fertility rates are significantly lower than the stated TFRs for the entire countries. My understanding is that the Muslim fertility rates have declined in Europe (similar to Hispanics) but they are still much higher than native born Europeans and constantly get a jolt from immigration from abroad.

    Remember, although fertility rates in Muslim world have declined, they are still above replacement, with a few exceptions. That’s all that really matters in the end.

    Read More
  86. Fredrik says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    It was an off-the-cuff reference. I thought Zulu was dominant SA tribe?

    The two first black presidents: Mandela and Mbeki are/were Xhosa. The incumbent Zuma is Zulu.

    Read More
  87. Jack D says:
    @Ed
    Once people awaken to the threat and more are awakening to it there will be a backlash. At first it'll be political and if that doesn't work it'll be violent. A recent poll shows that a majority of French want a complete halt to Muslim immigration. So you figure among ethnic French the number is around 75%+.

    Contrary to popular belief younger people in the West are increasingly leaning white in particular the men. The women will follow along as they date, get married etc.

    Europe isn't looking at Sharia but major conflict. I would not be surprised if Nuremberg style laws return in some countries within the next 50 years or so.

    Too late. Even if they never let in another Muslim the handwriting is on the wall. In the US, the current black population of 35,000,000 is mostly descended from fewer than 400,000 slaves landed in the continental US. It’s true that the black % fell by almost 1/2 (from almost 20% at the time of the Revolution to less than 10% in 1930) as a result of massive white immigration but there are no big pools of white immigrants left for France (or the US). And the US slave experience shows that once people are here (especially if they are born here) it’s almost impossible to send them “back where they came from”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    It is possible but it's agonizing. After World War II, the Poles and Czechs displaced millions of ethnic Germans from areas that had been German for hundreds of years: Pomerania, Silesia, East and West Prussia and the Sudetenland. Of course, they had to kill more than a few of them to do it. The Algerians also displaced French pied noir from Algeria where they had been from the mid-19th Century. But to repeat these historical examples would require a French ruthlessness that I think is presently lacking. Eventual partition is the more likely solution.
  88. Travis says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Saw some story in the UK press that ~10% of births in England are to Muslims. Also, one-third of children born had at least one parent who was not "English white." Of course, quite a few of those non-English whites could be Polish white or some other EU or Commonwealth white, but still, you have to figure that ~20% to 25% of kids being born in England are at least half non-white.

    Much better demographics than the U.S. but not great. Also, problems with Muslims seem to rise exponentially as their % of the population rises. Say what you will about Mexicans and Central Americans (and I could say plenty), they don't strap bombs to their chests and blow up train stations, nor are they much interested in imposing a brutal religion and culture on the rest of the population.

    agree, would rather have 600,000 hispanics immigrating to America than 100,000 Muslims. Unfortunately we are getting both 600,000 Latinos and 100,000 Muslims per year over the last decade.

    Read More
  89. Jack D says:
    @Jake
    It is a simple choice for France: either submit to Islamic rule, which will be very kind to black African paganism as well as white atheist/agnostic hedonism (which will mean the slow death of the French language, with Arabic its replacement); or repent for the French revolution, repent for anti-clericalism, rediscover Latin Mass Catholicism and the concept of Christian knighthood, and save France - which will require an expulsion of virtually all Moslems and black Africans who have not converted to Latin Mass Catholicism and total immersion in French Catholic culture.

    Half measures no longer even slow the march to domination by Moslems.

    The replacement of French with Arabic is not happening, nor is it going to happen. After the 1st generation or 2, the Muslims don’t even speak Arabic outside of the mosque (if they ever did – a lot of French Muslims are sub-Saharan and speak other native languages). It’s entirely possible to replace your population with another while keeping the same language (or something close to it). Haiti expelled all the whites but kept French (or Creole which is ebonics French). This is not to say that there will be any great literature, but the language of the streets will still be French more or less (with a sprinkling of Arabic).

    Read More
  90. @NickG

    the ethnic situation in the UK must be very similar, if not worse.
     
    No, received wisdom was that it's about half as bad. Steve's revelations suggest that it may be considerably less than half as bad. Certainly the UK has an order of magnitude fewer car barbecues.

    The UK is about 5% Muslim and 2% black, according to the ONS - Office for National Statistics- and the UK holds a census every decade. Britain's blacks are mainly Christian - so the overlap will be small - whereas France's blacks are mainly Muslim.

    That said, there has in the last few years been a good deal of secondary immigration of Muslim blacks into the UK from the EU and this is accelerating.

    At least for now there are large parts of England that are still properly English.

    It's down to political will if that remains the case.

    I posted the following on Takimag – in short UK is only about 10 years behind France.
    _____________________

    So we’re looking (for France) at a majority of births being non-white ca 2025, about 15 years behind the USA, but unlike the USA the majority of those will be Muslim and considerably more hostile to the indigenous culture. With the majority of the population non-white ca 2065 and a non-white voting majority ca 2080, depending on turnout.
    In theory changes in immigration & fertility could alter this, but demographic trends once begun tend to be remarkably stable. Temporary surges or falls in immigration rates & fertility rates are only likely to alter this by a few years.

    In the UK in 2014 65% of births were white British, 10% white non-British (including Irish), and 25% non-white, putting Britain 10 years behind France and 25 years behind the USA.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3265633/Over-babies-born-UK-no-longer-white-British.html

    So if the trajectory is similar, which seems likely, Britain is on course to a non-white majority ca 2075 and a non-white voting majority ca 2090. Somewhat earlier for England than for Britain as a whole.

    I don’t think the indigenous French and British deserve to become a minority in their homelands, and I hope immigration and natal policy is changed, but in France it would take a complete immigration cutoff and equalising fertility rates within a few years, and in the UK just slightly longer, so I doubt this is possible. At the point when more children are born who are non-white than white the demographic replacement becomes effectively inevitable. Either the country eventually becomes non-white-majority (as welcomed by the Left), or civil war results in Balkanisation. Repatriation is possible in theory but I think unlikely to be attempted. Ethnic cleansing and civil war is possible in France, will likely result in Balkanisation as in Yugoslavia, though I suppose mass expulsion of French Muslims to Algeria is not completely impossible.

    Whatever happens, the madness of the last few decades has doomed western Europeans to a grim future.

    Read More
  91. Travis says:
    @nate
    But the Muslims in the UK are younger than the general population, very few muslims in the UK over the age of 70 but a very large number under the age of 7, so that 5% number will grow massively in the coming years, and of course I don't really believe the official UK population numbers

    so true…we really should only look at the demographics of the population under 50….women over 45 can no longer reproduce, thus a dead genetically. Few men reproduce after the age of 50..

    In Europe the median age for muslims is 31 while it is 45 for Christians. Muslims have a fertility rate of 3.4 while the rate for Christians is just 1.2. A complete ban on muslim immigration into Europe will not prevent France and Germany from becoming Islamic States by the year 2050.

    Read More
  92. @M.G.
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The baby name study authors admit they low-balled, using only first names that aren't 'cross-overs'-- that is, which are used by both Muslims and Jews, or Muslims and Christians (for example, 'Lina' or 'Adem'). So this estimate is under-counting by a fair amount. The total they give for France is 18%, as seen in this chart:

    Muslim baby names in France, 1945-2015

    The teen survey showing 25% self-identifying 'Muslim' was taken of 9000 teens in the Bouches-du-Rhône region only, so this isn't a representative national sample--this region includes Marseille, which is very heavily Muslim.

    The sickle-cell map is more 'people of color' than 'Muslim,' plus Sicilians and Greeks, so it's going to look wildly different than either the survey or the baby names study mentioned.

    'How did the Muslim population increase so much over the past couple of decades?'

    It seems the PJ Media article Steve linked to in the Taki piece gives some good numbers. Good old natural increase can do it--all it takes is for one group to have fewer kids per woman (whites) and another to have more (Arabs/Africans) and there you go.

    Thanks.

    Regarding the growth, I figured that it might be simply different birth rates. Even relatively mild differences – say 1.7 for white French and 2.4 for Muslims – would lead to huge changes over time.

    I suppose the real question is what’s the tipping point. At what percentage of the population (or the under-40 population) do Muslims start to push for serious changes in the overall society? What happens if they reach 25% of the overall population and close to 50% of the population in the main cities? At those levels, I find it hard to believe that they just assimilate. Instead, I could easily see a big push for changes in the schools and self-policing of large parts of cities to enforce Muslim norms.

    It doesn’t have to be violent – at least not that violent – just a constant political push backed by the threat of street violence to create distinct Muslim schools and neighborhoods, a society within society but a society that’s growing and much more willing to enforce their way of life day in and day out on the streets.

    The West hasn’t faced anything like this in a very, very long time. Mexicans and Central Americans aren’t great but they’re nothing compared to Muslims. France may have more whites as a % of the population than the U.S. but I’d rather be here than there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    What happens if they reach 25% of the overall population and close to 50% of the population in the main cities?
     
    What will happen is already happening with the yearly mass car burning - they're testing the power of the state. One year they'll overwhelm the police in the big cities and it will be on.

    Soon.

  93. Ed says:
    @Jake
    It is a simple choice for France: either submit to Islamic rule, which will be very kind to black African paganism as well as white atheist/agnostic hedonism (which will mean the slow death of the French language, with Arabic its replacement); or repent for the French revolution, repent for anti-clericalism, rediscover Latin Mass Catholicism and the concept of Christian knighthood, and save France - which will require an expulsion of virtually all Moslems and black Africans who have not converted to Latin Mass Catholicism and total immersion in French Catholic culture.

    Half measures no longer even slow the march to domination by Moslems.

    I was just thinking the other day if there is one event the West would like a do over, it’d be the French Revolution. It unleashed so many radical ideas all at once that in hindsight haven’t been beneficial to the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    What is destroying the West was in place long before 1789.
  94. @The Anti-Gnostic
    You are whistling past the graveyard. If incidence is flat or declining, that could as well reflect less Global Southerners being born in rural areas over the past few generations. Steve's hypothesis based on the testing regulatory criteria and eyewitness accounts rings true.

    I can probably find pictures of Mississippi that would convince you it's as white as Oregon. That's what whites do: flee non-white areas. And when they can't flee, they stop reproducing.

    In one of the more far-sighted acts of policy in modern times, the white South African government dismantled its small nuclear arsenal before handing the State apparatus over to the Zulu. We are on the horns of the same dilemma, just two generations removed.

    They gave SA to the Xhosa, not the Zulu.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NickG

    They gave SA to the Xhosa, not the Zulu
     
    .

    True that Mandela was Xhosa but the current South African state president - Jacob Zuma - is Zulu.

    During the run up to the April 1994 first all race elections, on 28 March 1994, I had a college visiting the centre of Joburg and he was driving up out the ramp of the underground car park of a bank HQ (ABSA Towers) and there was a demonstration by around 20,000 chanting Zulus loyal to Chief 'Gatsha' Mangosuthu Buthelezi's (who not alot of people know, made an appearance in the film Zulu) IFP - Inkatha Freedom Party.

    My colleague noticed were green lights buzzing down the street as he pulled up the ramp onto the street. It turned out this was 7.62x39mm (AK47) tracer, which he was a tad slow catching on to. Around 50 people were killed that day, he reversed back down the ramp sharpish and sat it out in the building.

  95. res says:
    @Lot
    The rate of tests for newborns for sickle cell is not an accurate measure of either the nonwhite population of France, nor of changes to it. I posted a few items in response to someone linking to the same regional map:

    This chart shows cases of sickle cell homozygotes detected along with the gross numbers of tests between 2006 and 2012:

    https://identitairepur.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tableau-evolution-drepano-france-2006-2012.jpg

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    And the rate of detection to the rate of tests also steadily declined, confirming my initial reaction that the rapid changes shown on the map are the result of screening a wider and wider group of people. Indeed, looking for the source of the data in the map, I found numerous references to France moving from initially testing only the most suspect populations, to wider testing now, and with a goal in the near future to add sickle cell to the four other genetic diseases France already performs universal newborn testing for.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies and others have taken as gospel on the growth of non-whites in France, then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     

    I can understand why a lot of nationalists online, both on English and French blogs, seized on faulty data here. It is hard to even address demographic changes if you don’t know the most basic statistics.

    I’ll tell you something else, if the young children in sleepy, rural, Languedoc, are really 40% African as the map implied, it is truly all over for the French people.

    Looking online, it does not appear to be that way. Montpellier, with 246,000 people, is the largest city in the region and where you’d assume based on the map that white children would be in especially short supply. That does not seem to be the case:

    http://jonquilles-saintemarie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/517-GNRL-PRIMAIRE02.jpg

    http://s2.dmcdn.net/JuLet/1280×720-HQJ.jpg

    Here are a couple pictures of Limoux, a county seat of 9,000 in the region that I picked randomly:

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2012/09/19/201209191421.jpg

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2010/10/01/201010011515.jpg
     
    In summary, France's black population does not seem to be increasingly rapidly, especially with wider and wider testing, we'd see more sickle cell homozygotes.

    we’d see more sickle cell homozygotes

    The real wild cards here are the number of mixed children and the relative number of blacks versus lower prevalence non-white populations. Here is the wiki for SCT (i.e. sickle cell trait, the heterozygous version, as opposed to sickle cell disease for homozygous) as background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_trait
    They note that SCT has 25% prevalence in West Africa and another reference says up to 3% SCD in sub-Saharan Africa: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708126/

    Here is the SNPedia page on Sickle Cell: http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Sickle_Cell_Anemia
    but it doesn’t actually add much besides showing a 20% prevalence for the SCT allele in the YRI (Yoruba African) population.

    Given the population data, the primary risk population is West African. From the WHO table (see PS) we have Sickle Cell affected conception rates per 1000 at about:
    African 10.7
    Eastern Med 0.8
    European 0.07 (unsure if this includes non-whites)
    SE Asian 0.7

    Given this I think SCD rates are a decent proxy for full African births only (but not for any other non-whites). The question is who is being screened. Are the somewhat higher rates for non-Europeans (e.g. Muslims) causing screening? What about half African births? What about one or more mixed race parents?

    Steve talks about this in his article: “Both parents must come from a region at risk. Only one of the two if the second is not known.” But this does seem inconsistent with your (Lot) observations about increasing rate of screening with a flat rate of SCD. One possible explanation is the recent immigrants are primarily non-African but still from an at risk population. Another possible explanation is that increasing awareness and screening means people know when they have SCT and are avoiding pairing up based on that (seems unlikely to me, but American Jews do something like this for other disorders as Steve noted). The key question is: how well do the screening rules align with the screening reality?

    Of course no one is going to make the data to resolve this available. I’m beginning to think the best approach is a Trumpian “publish the scary but arguably wrong information and challenge the other side to rebut it with real data”. This worked beautifully with his partially wrong crime stats by race. I think it was also effective with his 3 million illegal voters theme.

    Which I would argue is exactly what Steve has done here.

    With respect to the pictures you show, are there areas with concentrations of immigrants in those regions? Until recently you could probably find similar pictures in Paris as long as you stayed out of the banlieues.

    P.S. Much more on the global epidemiology of hemoglobin disorders: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/6/06-036673/en/
    with population breakdowns at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/6/06-036673-table-T1.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    Of course no one is going to make the data to resolve this available. I’m beginning to think the best approach is a Trumpian “publish the scary but arguably wrong information and challenge the other side to rebut it with real data”. This worked beautifully with his partially wrong crime stats by race. I think it was also effective with his 3 million illegal voters theme.
     
    Sure, it may have worked for Trump, but there are plenty of hatefacts that are perfectly true.

    Plenty of politicians have been damaged by saying things that were not true or not PC. Todd Akin, George Allen, Al Gore. Trump is fairly unique and just barely won his election over a very unpopular Democrat with corruption issues and no charisma. His positions present an attractive model, but we really don't know if his unusual personality helped or hurt him.
  96. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @dearieme
    I don't believe the data. My basis is that vulnerability to sickle cell anaemia is concentrated among subSaharan Africans not North Africans. (I'm no expert: correct me if I'm wrong). If the birth proportions reported were true, and then you added on any reasonable proportion to allow for Arab babes, you'd end up with practically all babes being non-French. No doubt that'll be true soon enough but I doubt whether it's true yet.

    On the other hand it's some years since I was last in France, so my intuition may be obsolete on this one.

    This is true but data were for children tested, not children found to be carriers. If Steve’s article is correct the French government tests all children with two parents from a wide region including all of Africa, Italy(iirc), and several other places. Since they apparently don’t keep track of race/national origin it must be a real pain to identify the ones-to-be-tested.

    Read More
  97. @Anon
    Even with such dire facts portending a grim future, so many whites are into morgasms or moral orgasms.. like Ashley Judd at the witches march. As a 'good' white person, she was having the time of her life virtue-signaling or virtue-squirting. "Oh, I'm so nasty in a good good way, oh me so nasty me so nasty..."

    Boorman saw the future in ZARDOZ.

    West is ultimately a story of failure.

    Overly rationalized and technologized, it lost the connection to the essence. It forgot the lesson of 'you and the land are one' in the literal, metaphorical, and metaphysical sense.

    Western folk's attraction to Afro-virility and Islamo-passion is a way of regaining the life force that has been lost in the West given to dry intellect, ennui, soullessness, consumerism, and sterility.
    Actually, themes of virility and blood do exist in Western sources, but they are no longer to be consulted since they are 'racist' and 'fascist'. So, the virility and vitality must be sought from OTHER cultures. It's like Cameron has to imagine a warrior race on another planet.
    Problem is Afro-virility and Islamo-passion are not compatible with advanced civilization. One leads to savagery, the other leads to repression.
    In contrast, Western warrior spirit and Christian sanctity did allow the possibility of freedom and progress.

    And Sontag was right about the white race being a cancer though in a different way. It is not a cancer to other races. It has become a cancer unto itself.. though it seems to be spreading to modern societies, esp East Asia that is facing the same fate.

    https://youtu.be/UkaJUYp84FQ?t=1h20m33s

    > esp East Asia that is facing the same fate.

    Not quite! East Asia faces similar demographic decline and uh, human technological obsolescence? Also, erosion of traditional values occurs, but less so. But most uniquely, it does not have nearly the issue with immigration that the West does. Its societies and cultures are until now far, far more resistant to the wholesale replacement of native populations.

    Read More
  98. res says:
    @candid_observer
    Another sign that the data can't accurately reflect actual demographic changes is precisely what makes the data so eye-popping: the genuinely incredible rise in the numbers. Short of an utterly massive wave of immigration, I don't see how the country wide numbers rise from 25.6% to 38.9% in ten years.

    The numbers are too bad to be true.

    I don’t know about this. Recent immigrants are both demographically concentrated in child bearing (or younger, i.e. soon to be child bearing) years and more fertile than the native French. The real solution to this question is rigorously collected data, but we all know that isn’t going to happen.

    P.S. Worth mentioning that the parents don’t all have to be immigrants. There are more and more French born to earlier immigrants entering their child bearing years.

    P.P.S. Also worth emphasizing that there are lag times and positive feedback loops in all of this. Anyone with a background in control theory knows what those do to system stability. (e.g. the lags tend to make systems unstable because it is difficult to adjust from observable feedback, visualize adjusting hot/cold in a shower with a long lag between the adjustment and result).

    Read More
  99. Lot says:
    @candid_observer
    Another sign that the data can't accurately reflect actual demographic changes is precisely what makes the data so eye-popping: the genuinely incredible rise in the numbers. Short of an utterly massive wave of immigration, I don't see how the country wide numbers rise from 25.6% to 38.9% in ten years.

    The numbers are too bad to be true.

    That’s was my first clue the sickle cell testing rate was useless.

    Read More
  100. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous Nephew
    "Anecdotally, the Italians are having fewer kids and even the college educated are having trouble finding any jobs. I suspect they’ve embraced too much economic protections that stifle growth."

    It's not the economic protections, it's the Euro. The presence of the southern countries in the Eurozone holds the currency at a level low enough for German exporters to thrive, but too high for Italy, Greece and Spain, who traditionally remained competitive by devaluing their currency. It's killing their economies and job prospects for their youth, yet they cling on tight to Euro-nurse. Greece would have been recovering by now if they'd left the Euro in 2015. Instead, they're even deeper in the crap.

    South of Rome (anecdotally, visit last year) they still seem to be having kids and there are very few illegal immigrants in places like Naples, perhaps due to the reputation of the locals. Unfortunately the North is the economic powerhouse of Italy, and (visit year before) it has huge numbers of Africans and a lot of 30-something natives with beautiful clothes but no kids.

    You can’t eyeball these things. You need statistics.

    Here:

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/567990/birth-rate-in-italy-by-region/

    Aside from the outlier of German speaking Tyrol (a little slice of Austria that ended up in Northern Italy after WWI), there is definitely a gradient from south to north but even in the south the rate is below replacement. For comparison, the US is at around 13 and Niger is around 45 (annual live births per 1,000 people). So maybe in Liguria (the northeast coast around Genoa) the birth rate is only 60% of what is needed for replacement but in Campania (Naples) it is 75%, so it’s only better relatively speaking. Their overall average is 1.4 births/ woman, well below the replacement rate of a little over 2. The entire n-s gradient is only a rounding error vs. the sub-Saharan rates – it just means that their pail is leaking at a slightly lower rate but in the long run it’s still the same result.

    Read More
  101. @Jack D
    Too late. Even if they never let in another Muslim the handwriting is on the wall. In the US, the current black population of 35,000,000 is mostly descended from fewer than 400,000 slaves landed in the continental US. It's true that the black % fell by almost 1/2 (from almost 20% at the time of the Revolution to less than 10% in 1930) as a result of massive white immigration but there are no big pools of white immigrants left for France (or the US). And the US slave experience shows that once people are here (especially if they are born here) it's almost impossible to send them "back where they came from".

    It is possible but it’s agonizing. After World War II, the Poles and Czechs displaced millions of ethnic Germans from areas that had been German for hundreds of years: Pomerania, Silesia, East and West Prussia and the Sudetenland. Of course, they had to kill more than a few of them to do it. The Algerians also displaced French pied noir from Algeria where they had been from the mid-19th Century. But to repeat these historical examples would require a French ruthlessness that I think is presently lacking. Eventual partition is the more likely solution.

    Read More
  102. Andrew says:
    @Jack D

    which the report says represents an increase of about 30% in six years
     
    This is the scariest part - they are saying a roughly 5% a year increase. At that rate, the secondary schools will be majority non-white in 10 years. Once a democratic country is majority non-white, scary things start to happen. The whole thing is inconceivable. At the close of WWII, there were only a few thousand non-whites in the entire country. This has all happened in living memory.

    At the close of WWII, there were only a few thousand non-whites in the entire country. This has all happened in living memory.

    At the end of the Cold War in 1991 and even at 2000, non-whites were essentially invisblue in most of Western Europe. Mass immigration since 2000 has been horrible.

    Read More
  103. Beirut used to be known as the Paris of the Middle East. Perhap I need to visit Paris before it becomes the Beirut of Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    I was just thinking that Lebanon is the perfect parallel of what France will become on its present course. Only difference will be increased tensions because of the racial element and the religious element.

    The biggest problem is that while Islam can somewhat tolerate Christians (no well though, see Egypt), they despise apostates. France will see many eventually convert to one or the other.

    I can see mass conversions to Catholicism because French people love France and will realize Islam destroys it.

    Again, it's been decided. Lebanon will be a good proxy of what France will become.
  104. szopen says:

    Remember – there will be no Apocalypse. No collapse. It’s just corruption will be higher, beaureaucracy will be worse, quality of life, justice, political discourse will go down. No collapse, no tribal society like Afghanistan – think rather Brazil, Turkey, Tunisia. Wealthy elites and upper middle class will live their lives in their own neighbourhoods. They will interact with non-white professionals (and there will be plenty of those too) and will say that no fears of those racists have materialised. In the meantime, the common folk will become poorer, have worse medicare, districts will become more ugly, more dangerous.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    Can't use an Agree so let me just say, "I agree."

    The elites will always be safe. You can already see the disappearing middle class, as people become elites or join the proles.
  105. Jack D says:
    @candid_observer
    Another sign that the data can't accurately reflect actual demographic changes is precisely what makes the data so eye-popping: the genuinely incredible rise in the numbers. Short of an utterly massive wave of immigration, I don't see how the country wide numbers rise from 25.6% to 38.9% in ten years.

    The numbers are too bad to be true.

    Not necessarily. It could be that ten years ago they were testing 2/3 of the eligible population and now, as a result of greater efforts, they are testing all of them, but that the current % represents the true % of sickle cell carriers. Assuming they are really applying their screens correctly.

    The other possibility is that there is some bureaucratic imperative to test more people so that they are now testing 150% of the eligible population instead of 100% as before. You come into the public health center for your prenatal visit and they ask you the screening questions and you say , uh, yes, I guess so, maybe, I dunno, my grandma was from Italy but I forget where, and they say, OK, that’s close enough, I’m checking off sickle cell test. Then they ask you 10 more questions about something else. It’s not like people have a lot to lose by adding another screening panel – check one more box on the form. This would align with the fact that they are testing more people but not getting any more positives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    My point isn't that the numbers aren't accurate as percentages of babies tested--it's that they can't accurately reflect actual demographic changes.

    If they don't reflect the demographics accurately, then we have little idea what the proportion of babies coming from immigrant groups really is now, or how it has grown over the ten years. Everything depends on the exact scope of testing at various times across the years.

  106. Andrew says:

    Everyone who says mass expulsion isn’t possible has forgotten that is exactly what was done after French and Indian War (Acadians), American Revolution (Loyalists), after WWI (Germans, Greeks and Turks) during WWII (Germans, Jews, Poles, Chechens, Crimeans), after WWII (Germans, Poles, Palestinians, Hindus, Punjab Muslims, Mexicans, Greeks), in Morrocco, Algeria and Tunisia at independence (French Pieds Noir), after Turkish invasion of Cyprus (Greeks), and in Croatia and Bosnia in the Yugoslav Civil War (Serbs, Bosnians).

    It can and will happen once any armed conflict occurs between easily identifiable groups living in promiscuously mixed areas. The alternative in such conflicts is genocide (WWII, Rwanda, etc.). One or the other will happen.

    Read More
  107. @Diversity Heretic
    I was in London in 2016 and considered participating in an anti-Trident demonstrattion for the reason cited in your last paragraph. (I admit that I didn't go but I knew that I was leaving the U.K. by that time.) France and Britain will face the same question as did the South African government within a generation; the U.S. within two or possibly fewer generations. Perhaps nuclear weapons should only be in the hands of stable ethno-states such as Russia and China?

    Russia isn’t a stable ethno-state, it may even be in an even worse position than Western Europe demographically speaking with ethnic Russians having post-Soviet fertillity rates, mass central asian immigration and comparitavely high muslim fertility rates.

    Read More
  108. The question is what can France do about this that is acceptable to half-way normal people. I can get people to recognise these facts and indeed recognise them as sad…but then you can see them wondering ‘what is to be done?’

    At which point they go back into denial or take flight into utopian fantasies like how everyone is a blank slate or some other mental crutch.

    Read More
  109. @dearieme
    I don't believe the data. My basis is that vulnerability to sickle cell anaemia is concentrated among subSaharan Africans not North Africans. (I'm no expert: correct me if I'm wrong). If the birth proportions reported were true, and then you added on any reasonable proportion to allow for Arab babes, you'd end up with practically all babes being non-French. No doubt that'll be true soon enough but I doubt whether it's true yet.

    On the other hand it's some years since I was last in France, so my intuition may be obsolete on this one.

    Just read the article thoroughly. The French are testing Arabs regardless of whether actual risks are smaller or larger.

    Read More
  110. @trilobite
    there are several problems with your methodology.

    Name them. Otherwise this is not a constructive comment at all.

    Read More
  111. Francia says:

    The results are extremely disturbing but the method as such is not new. There is an author, Falko Baumgartner, who has been using it since 2012 for determining the share of non-Whites and his work has also been translated into various languages, including French:

    As of 2014 (English): http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/10/the-africanization-of-france-2014.html
    As of 2012 (English): http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2012/11/the-africanization-of-france-2518268.html
    As of 2012 (French): http://www.les4verites.com/societe/lafricanisation-de-la-france
    As of 2012 (German): http://www.pi-news.net/2012/11/die-afrikanisierung-frankreichs/

    By another author:
    As of 2012: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/09/the-africanization-of-france-medical-data-suggests-one-third-french-births-are-non-white/

    Read More
  112. SPMoore8 says:
    @M.G.
    I'm glad to see you bringing this to a wide audience, Steve. As a fifteen-year ex-pat I've lived the transformation up close and personal.

    Another way to visualize the data, from this piece (sorry, haven't updated the map since 2013):

    France sickle-cell map 2013

    Plan your future vacations accordingly!

    There are many creative ways to get around the French government's black-out on race/ethnie statistics. One is that they don't count Arabs or Muslims, but they do count mosques (graph, 1965-2014). Here's the mosque count in map form.

    Also of interest, I recently stumbled upon a study whose authors counted up the number of newborns given Muslim first names (all birth names are recorded by the state) in 2016. As Muslims nearly all refuse to give their kids French names, even after 3 or 4 generations, this is a very clever way to suss out how many of our 'French' citizens are in fact Arab or black Muslim. The study is here (in French, sorry), and a map of the results here:

    Muslim baby names by department, France 2016.

    (The number on top is the department number, the number on the bottom is the % Muslim baby names. Seine St Denis, or "93", is the most Muslim area in France.)

    Like the sickle-cell stats, this is an imperfect measure, and doesn't give any info about the large and growing Black Christian population, or gypsies, etc, but it is startling nonetheless.

    Much of the French Mediterranean as well as the Paris area are simply on their way to becoming African/Arab colonies. We are truly living history in our time.

    If the map is accurate, then it’s a slam dunk: At least 35.7% of French newborns are tested for sickle cell, and the test is applied only if both parents are generally MENA or African. That means 35.7% of French newborns are not of European origin (I assuming the numbers for Sicily, Southern Italy and Greece are small.) This doesn’t even count mixed parentage, which I assume is also significant.

    That tells me that non-European births are approaching parity to European births in France.

    We have a similar situation in this country, in that whites became officially the minority of primary school attendees a couple of years ago.

    This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.

    Read More
  113. @Jack D
    Not necessarily. It could be that ten years ago they were testing 2/3 of the eligible population and now, as a result of greater efforts, they are testing all of them, but that the current % represents the true % of sickle cell carriers. Assuming they are really applying their screens correctly.

    The other possibility is that there is some bureaucratic imperative to test more people so that they are now testing 150% of the eligible population instead of 100% as before. You come into the public health center for your prenatal visit and they ask you the screening questions and you say , uh, yes, I guess so, maybe, I dunno, my grandma was from Italy but I forget where, and they say, OK, that's close enough, I'm checking off sickle cell test. Then they ask you 10 more questions about something else. It's not like people have a lot to lose by adding another screening panel - check one more box on the form. This would align with the fact that they are testing more people but not getting any more positives.

    My point isn’t that the numbers aren’t accurate as percentages of babies tested–it’s that they can’t accurately reflect actual demographic changes.

    If they don’t reflect the demographics accurately, then we have little idea what the proportion of babies coming from immigrant groups really is now, or how it has grown over the ten years. Everything depends on the exact scope of testing at various times across the years.

    Read More
  114. anon says: • Disclaimer

    the usual suspects trying to downplay the deliberate destruction of the european nations

    comparing total population percentages is a sign of someone either being a) stupid or b) acting in bad faith

    it’s a simple rule of thumb – if someone is arguing about this using total percentage instead of *breeding age* percentage then they are either a fool or a liar

    say you have
    - a nation of 60 million
    - 10 million breeding age
    - TFR of 1.5
    - add one million breeding age immigrants with a TFR of 5
    then
    - those immigrants will be < 2% of the total population
    - those immigrants will produce *25%* of the children
    in one generation

    again – anyone who discusses this using total population percentage without reference to breeding age percentage is either a fool or someone who wants the destruction of Europe

    Read More
  115. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @candid_observer
    Another sign that the data can't accurately reflect actual demographic changes is precisely what makes the data so eye-popping: the genuinely incredible rise in the numbers. Short of an utterly massive wave of immigration, I don't see how the country wide numbers rise from 25.6% to 38.9% in ten years.

    The numbers are too bad to be true.

    Short of an utterly massive wave of immigration, I don’t see how the country wide numbers rise from 25.6% to 38.9% in ten years.

    easily

    you compare the percentages of the population who are of breeding age and their respective TFRs

    if one group are 20% of the breeding age population but have double the TFR they produce 1/3 of the babies

    8 x 1 = 8
    2 x 2 = 4

    next generation they are 33% of the breeding age population and if the TFR holds up*

    8 x 1 = 8
    4 x 2 = 8

    they produce 50% of the children

    (*it generally doesn’t hold up entirely so new immigrants are really just a top up to the original engine – which was importing disproportionately breeding age immigrants)

    (in particular importing disproportionately breeding age immigrants for cheap labor – as poorer people have a different calculus when it comes to cost of having a kid vs their income + welfare)

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    But the rise from 25.6% to 38.9% takes place not over a generation (typically 25 years) as in your example, but only over 10 years.

    That's a dramatic difference.
  116. Bill P says:

    I’d be a little suspicious of using medical tests as a tool to tease out numbers like this. The reason being that there’s a profit incentive to test as much as possible, so it’s entirely possible (actually, probable) that a lot of hospitals are testing more than is appropriate. After all, if race doesn’t officially exist in France, on what grounds do bureaucrats challenge hospitals that are testing every kid?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Triumph104
    Exactly. There is also a push from internally conflicted mixed-race people like Dorothy Roberts, white mother/black father, to abolish race-based medicine. SJWs love diversity but refuse to believe that people are different.

    Social justice advocate and law scholar Dorothy Roberts has a precise and powerful message: Race-based medicine is bad medicine. Even today, many doctors still use race as a medical shortcut; they make important decisions about things like pain tolerance based on a patient's skin color instead of medical observation and measurement. In this searing talk, Roberts lays out the lingering traces of race-based medicine — and invites us to be a part of ending it. "It is more urgent than ever to finally abandon this backward legacy," she says, "and to affirm our common humanity by ending the social inequalities that truly divide us."
     
    https://www.ted.com/talks/dorothy_roberts_the_problem_with_race_based_medicine
  117. jim jones says:
    @Alfa158
    I can't read Takis on my mobile devices. Thhe site apparently use some sort of extremely intrusive ad program that overwrites the previous page so you can't go back, and also crashes the browser while trying to overwrite the page you are on with pop up ads. My iPad in particular will sometimes crash to blank screen and have to reboot.
    I'm OK reading it on my PC which has Norton web security that automatically blocks malware attacks and keeps the ad from taking control of the browser. I'll have to see if Norton offers an iOS version.

    The best adblocker is uBlock Origin

    Read More
  118. OFWHAP says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    I was in London in 2016 and considered participating in an anti-Trident demonstrattion for the reason cited in your last paragraph. (I admit that I didn't go but I knew that I was leaving the U.K. by that time.) France and Britain will face the same question as did the South African government within a generation; the U.S. within two or possibly fewer generations. Perhaps nuclear weapons should only be in the hands of stable ethno-states such as Russia and China?

    Russia is hardly a stable ethnostate; it has a significant Muslim minority that is growing while Russians are stagnating or disappearing.

    Read More
  119. colm says:

    It is time to reconsider whether winning the First World War was beneficial for Western civilization. A German Victory in World War I means the colonials would have stayed in their hinterlands since the ports would have been controlled by the colonial powers.

    It is also time to demolish all the monuments dedicated for the defenders of Verdun. They fought for the Africans and the Indochinese without knowing about it.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @syonredux

    It is time to reconsider whether winning the First World War was beneficial for Western civilization. A German Victory in World War I means the colonials would have stayed in their hinterlands since the ports would have been controlled by the colonial powers.
     
    Who knows? Lots of variables in question......
  120. syonredux says:

    After all those preliminaries, here are the unadjusted percentages of newborns targeted for testing in France because both parents come from the Global South:

    2005: 25.6 percent
    2010: 31.5 percent
    2015: 38.9 percent

    And Paris in 2015 was 73.4 percent, up from 54.2 percent just a decade earlier.

    If only we had a Charles Martel…..

    Read More
  121. syonredux says:
    @Lot
    The rate of tests for newborns for sickle cell is not an accurate measure of either the nonwhite population of France, nor of changes to it. I posted a few items in response to someone linking to the same regional map:

    This chart shows cases of sickle cell homozygotes detected along with the gross numbers of tests between 2006 and 2012:

    https://identitairepur.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tableau-evolution-drepano-france-2006-2012.jpg

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    And the rate of detection to the rate of tests also steadily declined, confirming my initial reaction that the rapid changes shown on the map are the result of screening a wider and wider group of people. Indeed, looking for the source of the data in the map, I found numerous references to France moving from initially testing only the most suspect populations, to wider testing now, and with a goal in the near future to add sickle cell to the four other genetic diseases France already performs universal newborn testing for.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies and others have taken as gospel on the growth of non-whites in France, then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     

    I can understand why a lot of nationalists online, both on English and French blogs, seized on faulty data here. It is hard to even address demographic changes if you don’t know the most basic statistics.

    I’ll tell you something else, if the young children in sleepy, rural, Languedoc, are really 40% African as the map implied, it is truly all over for the French people.

    Looking online, it does not appear to be that way. Montpellier, with 246,000 people, is the largest city in the region and where you’d assume based on the map that white children would be in especially short supply. That does not seem to be the case:

    http://jonquilles-saintemarie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/517-GNRL-PRIMAIRE02.jpg

    http://s2.dmcdn.net/JuLet/1280×720-HQJ.jpg

    Here are a couple pictures of Limoux, a county seat of 9,000 in the region that I picked randomly:

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2012/09/19/201209191421.jpg

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2010/10/01/201010011515.jpg
     
    In summary, France's black population does not seem to be increasingly rapidly, especially with wider and wider testing, we'd see more sickle cell homozygotes.

    “A rare 2016 survey of French teens found 25.5 percent identifying as Muslim. “

    Read More
  122. Lot says:

    France may have better hope due to higher levels of nationalism and a tradition of a natalism that has given it a much higher white birth rate than Germany, Italy, Spain, and Russia.

    The birth rate for its main minority, North Africans, is below replacement and only a little higher than the white rate.

    Its left wing parties are also near collapse and it is looking like its presidential election will again be between an increasingly conservative center-right party and a Le Pen.

    The key with natalism is to use the tax system. Whites are the group most likely to have an on the books job and paying income taxes. A much larger per child tax deduction is about as targeted while staying race neutral as you can get to pay bourgeois young white families to have more kids. In this very rich country, a family with three or four kids making $80,000 should not be paying any income tax. Those without kids should be paying more.

    Ryanism is focused on tax cuts for the super rich, who are generally too old to have kids, too rich to be financially constrained in their fertility, and too small in numbers to have any demographic impact. Rich people’s conspicuous consumption also discourages white fertility by making the middle and upper middle class feel poorer.

    We should raise opposition to any tax cut focused on the rich (capital gains, corporate) or that is not natalistic.

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Right now it looks like the next French President is the Tony Blair-like left-wing hyper-globalist Emmanuel Macron.
  123. syonredux says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Saw some story in the UK press that ~10% of births in England are to Muslims. Also, one-third of children born had at least one parent who was not "English white." Of course, quite a few of those non-English whites could be Polish white or some other EU or Commonwealth white, but still, you have to figure that ~20% to 25% of kids being born in England are at least half non-white.

    Much better demographics than the U.S. but not great. Also, problems with Muslims seem to rise exponentially as their % of the population rises. Say what you will about Mexicans and Central Americans (and I could say plenty), they don't strap bombs to their chests and blow up train stations, nor are they much interested in imposing a brutal religion and culture on the rest of the population.

    Also, problems with Muslims seem to rise exponentially as their % of the population rises. Say what you will about Mexicans and Central Americans (and I could say plenty), they don’t strap bombs to their chests and blow up train stations, nor are they much interested in imposing a brutal religion and culture on the rest of the population.

    Muslims vs Mestizo Hispanics: death by fire vs death by mud……

    Read More
  124. snorlax says:
    @Lot
    France may have better hope due to higher levels of nationalism and a tradition of a natalism that has given it a much higher white birth rate than Germany, Italy, Spain, and Russia.

    The birth rate for its main minority, North Africans, is below replacement and only a little higher than the white rate.

    Its left wing parties are also near collapse and it is looking like its presidential election will again be between an increasingly conservative center-right party and a Le Pen.

    The key with natalism is to use the tax system. Whites are the group most likely to have an on the books job and paying income taxes. A much larger per child tax deduction is about as targeted while staying race neutral as you can get to pay bourgeois young white families to have more kids. In this very rich country, a family with three or four kids making $80,000 should not be paying any income tax. Those without kids should be paying more.

    Ryanism is focused on tax cuts for the super rich, who are generally too old to have kids, too rich to be financially constrained in their fertility, and too small in numbers to have any demographic impact. Rich people's conspicuous consumption also discourages white fertility by making the middle and upper middle class feel poorer.

    We should raise opposition to any tax cut focused on the rich (capital gains, corporate) or that is not natalistic.

    Right now it looks like the next French President is the Tony Blair-like left-wing hyper-globalist Emmanuel Macron.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Man From K Street
    A Frenchwoman (educated, professional) of my acquaintance has only just now, at the age of 36, ceased being cynically apolitical, and has jumped aboard the Macron Train with an eye to being on the list of potential deputies to the National Assembly from his new party. I have told her how ostensibly ridiculous it is to expect that this guy (Macron), yet another Enarque raised almost from birth to believe he is entitled to be of the governing class, could possibly be a true reformer, let alone of some already-obsolete Blairite "Third Way" variety, but she gives that Gallic shrug and says it's probably true but the only way to stop the FN. She would have reluctantly supported Fillon (reluctantly because he's one of those catholiques--France has moved past that) but of course he seems to have crashed and burned by giving his wife and kids fake jobs paid out of the public purse.

    She's an unmarried single mother.
  125. Lot says:
    @European-American

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies ... then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     
    Nice point, which I had not encountered before.

    It's frustrating that, because this is a taboo subject, it is not intelligently debated. Your argument makes sense, and is a bit of reassuring rationality in a froth of despairing irrationality from all sides.

    Thanks. The high school survey showing that cohort in France is a quarter Muslim is better evidence and is depressing enough as it is. But the sickle cell map is simply inaccurate. We have pretty good numbers on race for the USA, Canada, Australia, and the U.K. The numbers are very depressing as well as basically accurate.

    Read More
  126. @pyrrhus
    Only 8.9% born in Brittany of such parents, but 73% in Paris.....Africans don't like the country, or Bretagnes don't like them....

    Maybe they don’t like shellfish

    Read More
  127. Well, Charles Martel held it off for a long while.

    However, it does seem that France is fucked. It will descend into Lebanon like violence in the next 15 years, I imagine.

    Read More
  128. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    If France's immigration rates from Africa are so low, how did the Muslim population increase so much over the past couple of decades?

    Descendants of decades ago North African immigrants?

    Read More
  129. @Jack D

    I wonder how long it will take them to gang up and wipe the “Zionist entity” off the face of the planet?
     
    I wouldn't worry too much. Israel has (German) submarines with nuclear missile launch capability (thanks to a French provided reactor at Dimona) as well as underground launchers for ICBMs (thanks, von Braun!). Dialing in Paris, Berlin, London, etc. is only a matter of hitting a few buttons.

    Pakistan of course already has nuclear weapons but has shown no interest in starting a nuclear war with Israel. Most Muslim countries make a show over their concern for the Palestinians (without letting any ever become citizens) when it suits their domestic considerations, but only if they don't really have to pay a price. Saddam Hussein attacked Israel as a desperate Hail Mary (you should excuse the expression) play and he got the gallows so it did not work out well for him. Being nuked by Israel is a pretty hefty price.

    I wouldn’t worry too much.

    You’re not thinking like a Mohammedan: Paris, London, Berlin are just places created by The Infidel. Provided that “wiping Israel off the map” is tactically doable, sacrificing a bunch of ‘European’ cities occupied by hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of Muslim martyrs, along with their Infidel chattel, would be considered a glorious thing.

    There’s no way Israel has enough nukes to permanently reduce the vast numbers of Muslims existing in MENA, let alone globally. So: Caliphate Europe as a staging ground for a future jihadi nuke attack on Israel? Could happen. Israeli nukes are no deterrent to men who know they’re bound for Paradise (and who are willing to risk Hell to decisively smite an enemy).

    Pakistan of course already has nuclear weapons but has shown no interest in starting a nuclear war with Israel. Most Muslim countries make a show over their concern for the Palestinians (without letting any ever become citizens) when it suits their domestic considerations, but only if they don’t really have to pay a price.

    Pakistan and Palestinians don’t factor in this scenario.

    Nuclear Pakistan isn’t in MENA, and thus is a bit removed from anti-Zionist rage—their main concern is ‘rival’ India. And conflating pan-Islamic “concern for the Palestinians” with MENA Muslim hatred towards Israel is silly. Muslims don’t really care about other Muslims. However, a great many Muslims can’t stand to have chauvinist Jews in what Muslims consider sacred Muslim turf, and would love to ‘do something about it,’ even if it means irradiating the land.

    Being nuked by Israel is a pretty hefty price.

    Instead of an attack on Israel, what would more likely happen would be a Continent-wide state-sanctioned BDS thrust on steroids. If Asia and the Americas go along, bye-bye Jewish-run Israel—without a nuke detonated. Even if Israeli hawks see the endgame and decide to ‘go Samson,’ the world at large would survive while Israel (and much of the Diaspora) gets wiped out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The calculus that the Boers made and the calculus that the Israelis would make are completely different. Capetown was not given to the Boers by God 3,000 years ago. And what awaits the Israelis is not just a high crime rate like black ruled S. Africa but literal head choppers. Sure Israel resists BDS and would prefer to remain integrated with the world economy, but if they had to eat sawdust like the N. Koreans in order to prevent being ruled by Muslims, they would do it. There is no amount of sanctions nor anything short of military defeat that would cause them to throw in the towel.
  130. Lot says:

    This poll provides a little bit of cheer.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/08/survey-majority-europeans-want-halt-muslim-migration/

    The trend toward racialized voting seems to be running faster than the trend toward Africanization and Muslimification of the population.

    Read More
  131. The same website that first pointed out that one could use the proportion of newborns tested for sickle-cell anemia also recently published another study which relies on the first names that people were given in each French departments. (Departments are, or at least used to be, the most important administrative units in France.) Those names are recorded at birth in France and we have records going back a century, so presumably the data are really good and the results are similar to what you’d expect based on the sickle-cell anemia testing numbers. I mention this study in this post on my blog: http://necpluribusimpar.net/liens-03022017/. I haven’t looked at the details of the methodology yet or tried to replicate the results, but it strikes me as very sensible based on the short presentation of the study I read.

    Read More
  132. Lot says:

    Europe may racialize its politics faster than the USA, and with a lower share of nonwhites doing the provocations for a few reasons.

    1. Multiparty democracy allows a demographic focused party.

    2. Europeans, even in rich parts like Austria and Holland, are poorer than white Americans (exceptions: Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg, all small countries). They simply cannot afford the massive suburban construction/flight and high incarceration rate USA whites implemented the past 50 years to insulate themselves from nonwhites.

    3. Muslims are the most obnoxious minority in the world and that is mainly what Europe is getting. Their anger and demands are also not mediated and sanitized by a big tent left wing party like the USA.

    Read More
  133. @Lot
    The rate of tests for newborns for sickle cell is not an accurate measure of either the nonwhite population of France, nor of changes to it. I posted a few items in response to someone linking to the same regional map:

    This chart shows cases of sickle cell homozygotes detected along with the gross numbers of tests between 2006 and 2012:

    https://identitairepur.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tableau-evolution-drepano-france-2006-2012.jpg

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    And the rate of detection to the rate of tests also steadily declined, confirming my initial reaction that the rapid changes shown on the map are the result of screening a wider and wider group of people. Indeed, looking for the source of the data in the map, I found numerous references to France moving from initially testing only the most suspect populations, to wider testing now, and with a goal in the near future to add sickle cell to the four other genetic diseases France already performs universal newborn testing for.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies and others have taken as gospel on the growth of non-whites in France, then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     

    I can understand why a lot of nationalists online, both on English and French blogs, seized on faulty data here. It is hard to even address demographic changes if you don’t know the most basic statistics.

    I’ll tell you something else, if the young children in sleepy, rural, Languedoc, are really 40% African as the map implied, it is truly all over for the French people.

    Looking online, it does not appear to be that way. Montpellier, with 246,000 people, is the largest city in the region and where you’d assume based on the map that white children would be in especially short supply. That does not seem to be the case:

    http://jonquilles-saintemarie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/517-GNRL-PRIMAIRE02.jpg

    http://s2.dmcdn.net/JuLet/1280×720-HQJ.jpg

    Here are a couple pictures of Limoux, a county seat of 9,000 in the region that I picked randomly:

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2012/09/19/201209191421.jpg

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2010/10/01/201010011515.jpg
     
    In summary, France's black population does not seem to be increasingly rapidly, especially with wider and wider testing, we'd see more sickle cell homozygotes.

    You forget that they test populations where the incidence of SCD is minuscule. Your numbers actually do show an increase in the number of both carriers (almost monotonous increase) and homozygotes, albeit at a slower pace. An explanation could be that the increase is mostly in populations which are less at risk (Arabs or some black groups with less HBS incidence), while the actual SCD cases mostly come from a relatively small group of blacks from highly malaria-infected areas whose number stays stable (or increases only slightly).

    Another explanation might be that some at-risk groups are outmarrying at a rapid pace: those Italians and Greeks who immigrated during the last century. Their birthrates (and actual numbers) might also be collapsing.

    Is there a possibility of prenatal screening, especially in those cases where the first child has already been diagnosed as a carrier? If so, it might provide a further explanation.

    So possibly the increase is mostly from Arabs with little actual disease, while the screening itself might’ve reduced the incidence.

    By the way the French Wikipedia says the exact same thing (increase in at-risk populations) as Steve’s article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Of course there is an increase in France's nonwhite population. Sickle cell testing rates however are neither a measure of the absolute number or rate of change of this population for the reasons I already noted.
  134. Lot says:
    @reiner Tor
    You forget that they test populations where the incidence of SCD is minuscule. Your numbers actually do show an increase in the number of both carriers (almost monotonous increase) and homozygotes, albeit at a slower pace. An explanation could be that the increase is mostly in populations which are less at risk (Arabs or some black groups with less HBS incidence), while the actual SCD cases mostly come from a relatively small group of blacks from highly malaria-infected areas whose number stays stable (or increases only slightly).

    Another explanation might be that some at-risk groups are outmarrying at a rapid pace: those Italians and Greeks who immigrated during the last century. Their birthrates (and actual numbers) might also be collapsing.

    Is there a possibility of prenatal screening, especially in those cases where the first child has already been diagnosed as a carrier? If so, it might provide a further explanation.

    So possibly the increase is mostly from Arabs with little actual disease, while the screening itself might've reduced the incidence.

    By the way the French Wikipedia says the exact same thing (increase in at-risk populations) as Steve's article.

    Of course there is an increase in France’s nonwhite population. Sickle cell testing rates however are neither a measure of the absolute number or rate of change of this population for the reasons I already noted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    yes it is and for the reasons you ignore every time this comes up

    you have to compare the breeding age population not the total population
  135. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    No, Steve, the illegal infiltrators are not filling up the 'jungle' because of 'higher pay' in England, it's because of a far more generous UK welfare state, and primarily, the pull of the 'council house'.

    the UK govt has been running a stealth amnesty for decades

    so it may be have been at least partly because the UK was the easiest place to get an EU passport

    if so then Brexit should mean the next Calais “jungle” will form wherever is the next easiest place to get EU citizenship

    (or a bit of both as you’re right about the welfare aspect – especially housing)

    Read More
  136. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Lot
    Of course there is an increase in France's nonwhite population. Sickle cell testing rates however are neither a measure of the absolute number or rate of change of this population for the reasons I already noted.

    yes it is and for the reasons you ignore every time this comes up

    you have to compare the breeding age population not the total population

    Read More
  137. jJay says:

    By the way, you can use Google Translate to translate my Taki’s column into French.

    Your sense of humor is arid, Steve.

    Read More
  138. @Lot
    The rate of tests for newborns for sickle cell is not an accurate measure of either the nonwhite population of France, nor of changes to it. I posted a few items in response to someone linking to the same regional map:

    This chart shows cases of sickle cell homozygotes detected along with the gross numbers of tests between 2006 and 2012:

    https://identitairepur.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tableau-evolution-drepano-france-2006-2012.jpg

    As you can see, from 2006 to 2012, the number of people TESTED rose very fast, but the number of actual cases was basically flat. Indeed, the number of sickle cell homozygotes DROPPED between 2007 (326) and 2012 (310).

    And the rate of detection to the rate of tests also steadily declined, confirming my initial reaction that the rapid changes shown on the map are the result of screening a wider and wider group of people. Indeed, looking for the source of the data in the map, I found numerous references to France moving from initially testing only the most suspect populations, to wider testing now, and with a goal in the near future to add sickle cell to the four other genetic diseases France already performs universal newborn testing for.

    If French births to non-whites really were as high as the map implies and others have taken as gospel on the growth of non-whites in France, then not just the testing of sickle cell, but the actual number of cases detected, would also be rapidly increasing.
     

    I can understand why a lot of nationalists online, both on English and French blogs, seized on faulty data here. It is hard to even address demographic changes if you don’t know the most basic statistics.

    I’ll tell you something else, if the young children in sleepy, rural, Languedoc, are really 40% African as the map implied, it is truly all over for the French people.

    Looking online, it does not appear to be that way. Montpellier, with 246,000 people, is the largest city in the region and where you’d assume based on the map that white children would be in especially short supply. That does not seem to be the case:

    http://jonquilles-saintemarie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/517-GNRL-PRIMAIRE02.jpg

    http://s2.dmcdn.net/JuLet/1280×720-HQJ.jpg

    Here are a couple pictures of Limoux, a county seat of 9,000 in the region that I picked randomly:

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2012/09/19/201209191421.jpg

    http://static.ladepeche.fr/content/media/image/zoom/2010/10/01/201010011515.jpg
     
    In summary, France's black population does not seem to be increasingly rapidly, especially with wider and wider testing, we'd see more sickle cell homozygotes.

    This is a good point that I hadn’t seen raised before. As I mention in another comment, the same website that first used the figures of sickle-cell anemia testing in that way also published a study recently that uses the proportion of people with muslim names instead, which seems like a much more reliable method if done properly. I haven’t tried to replicate their results, so I’m not sure yet whether their conclusions are correct, but the data they use at least should be very useful to determine how the share of muslims has evolved.

    Read More
  139. Daniel H says:
    @NickG
    The transformation of France from cheese eating surrender monkeys to sharia advocates and jihadis.

    Not so much a siege of Paris, rather an occupation. And this is a tad more intractable than the last Bosche one in 1940.


    As I said over at Taki's comment thread, someone au fait with Froglingo should do the decent thing and translate it for circulation and publication somewhere prominent in the Francosphere.

    >>The transformation of France from cheese eating surrender monkeys to sharia advocates and jihadis.

    That slur was invented the cucks over at National Review who have no standing to mock others for faithless treason. Don’t use it.

    Furthermore, there was not a power on earth in 1940 who could have stopped the Nazi/Wehrmacht juggernaut, not even the USA military. Except, that is, the Soviet Union, who by dint of desperate courage managed to crush the Nazi/Wehrmacht.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Another factor was that by 1940, France had been bleeding itself in major wars for a century and half. In World War I, France lost almost 1.4 million men killed or missing in action from a population of only 39 million, plus another 4 million wounded. On average, she lost 890 soldiers killed every day from August 1914 to November 1918. Adjusting for population, that would roughly equal America suffering 7,000 soldiers killed daily for more than four years.

    France essentially had already bled itself thoroughly by 1940. Do the Neo-Cons really believe our country would take that level of loss for four years?
    , @reiner Tor
    The French didn't have a large enough country to regroup. In the first weeks they didn't fight any worse than the Soviets, but the latter could afford the horrible losses and reorganize their defenses a thousand miles from their borders, something the French didn't have a chance to do.
    , @Anonymous
    It's from The Simpsons. It's an old trope in the US that predates the neocons.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZUKEVU-TwM

    It's not completely untrue either. In WW2, the French were not known for spirited resistance, not just in Europe against the Germans, but also in the Pacific theater in French Indochina.

    , @NickG

    That slur was invented the cucks over at National Review who have no standing to mock others for faithless treason. Don’t use it.
     
    You can eff right off if you think you are going to command me in what terms I may or may not use.
  140. Jack D says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I wouldn’t worry too much.
     
    You’re not thinking like a Mohammedan: Paris, London, Berlin are just places created by The Infidel. Provided that “wiping Israel off the map” is tactically doable, sacrificing a bunch of ‘European’ cities occupied by hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of Muslim martyrs, along with their Infidel chattel, would be considered a glorious thing.

    There’s no way Israel has enough nukes to permanently reduce the vast numbers of Muslims existing in MENA, let alone globally. So: Caliphate Europe as a staging ground for a future jihadi nuke attack on Israel? Could happen. Israeli nukes are no deterrent to men who know they’re bound for Paradise (and who are willing to risk Hell to decisively smite an enemy).

    Pakistan of course already has nuclear weapons but has shown no interest in starting a nuclear war with Israel. Most Muslim countries make a show over their concern for the Palestinians (without letting any ever become citizens) when it suits their domestic considerations, but only if they don’t really have to pay a price.
     
    Pakistan and Palestinians don’t factor in this scenario.

    Nuclear Pakistan isn’t in MENA, and thus is a bit removed from anti-Zionist rage—their main concern is ‘rival’ India. And conflating pan-Islamic “concern for the Palestinians” with MENA Muslim hatred towards Israel is silly. Muslims don’t really care about other Muslims. However, a great many Muslims can’t stand to have chauvinist Jews in what Muslims consider sacred Muslim turf, and would love to ‘do something about it,’ even if it means irradiating the land.

    Being nuked by Israel is a pretty hefty price.
     
    Instead of an attack on Israel, what would more likely happen would be a Continent-wide state-sanctioned BDS thrust on steroids. If Asia and the Americas go along, bye-bye Jewish-run Israel—without a nuke detonated. Even if Israeli hawks see the endgame and decide to ‘go Samson,’ the world at large would survive while Israel (and much of the Diaspora) gets wiped out.

    The calculus that the Boers made and the calculus that the Israelis would make are completely different. Capetown was not given to the Boers by God 3,000 years ago. And what awaits the Israelis is not just a high crime rate like black ruled S. Africa but literal head choppers. Sure Israel resists BDS and would prefer to remain integrated with the world economy, but if they had to eat sawdust like the N. Koreans in order to prevent being ruled by Muslims, they would do it. There is no amount of sanctions nor anything short of military defeat that would cause them to throw in the towel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The calculus that the Boers made and the calculus that the Israelis would make are completely different.
     
    The Afrikaners should have seen the writing on the wall immediately after WW2 ended. They needed to create a viable zone with a European supermajority (75% +). Once that was done, they should have broken the country up.
    , @syonredux

    but if they had to eat sawdust like the N. Koreans
     
    The North Korean elite aren't eating sawdust. That's only for plebs....
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Cape Town was not given to the Boers by God 3,000 years ago.
     
    If the Israelis are big-picture smart, they will support identitarian nationalism worldwide, not just for themselves.

    Specifically, this means helping to keep (#12) Europe and the Anglosphere as white as possible. Because if the entire developed world, swamped in a Risen Tide of Color, starts a future anti-Zion sawdust siege, the only eventual choices for Israel (viable autarky or not) would be surrender—and if that doesn’t happen quickly enough for the vibrant, less-than-meek inheritors of the earth: military defeat.

    An arsenal of nukes would not forestall the State of Israel’s destruction—literal Angels would have to make an appearance. Is God on Israel’s side?

  141. @snorlax
    Right now it looks like the next French President is the Tony Blair-like left-wing hyper-globalist Emmanuel Macron.

    A Frenchwoman (educated, professional) of my acquaintance has only just now, at the age of 36, ceased being cynically apolitical, and has jumped aboard the Macron Train with an eye to being on the list of potential deputies to the National Assembly from his new party. I have told her how ostensibly ridiculous it is to expect that this guy (Macron), yet another Enarque raised almost from birth to believe he is entitled to be of the governing class, could possibly be a true reformer, let alone of some already-obsolete Blairite “Third Way” variety, but she gives that Gallic shrug and says it’s probably true but the only way to stop the FN. She would have reluctantly supported Fillon (reluctantly because he’s one of those catholiques–France has moved past that) but of course he seems to have crashed and burned by giving his wife and kids fake jobs paid out of the public purse.

    She’s an unmarried single mother.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
    Were I prone to it, your comment would be depressing on so many levels. The lack of concern, or even awareness (possibly) of what's actually happening in her country. Or even if aware, the nonchalant assumption that FN is by far the worse problem. Disconnected at many different levels.

    In my blacker moods, I channel my inner Scipio Aemilianus while contemplating our future:

    From Polybius: "Scipio, when he looked upon the city (of Carthage) as it was utterly perishing and in the last throes of its complete destruction, is said to have shed tears and wept openly for his enemies. After being wrapped in thought for long, and realizing that all cities, nations, and authorities must, like men, meet their doom; that this happened to Ilium, once a prosperous city, to the empires of Assyria, Media, and Persia, the greatest of their time, and to Macedonia itself, the brilliance of which was so recent..."
  142. syonredux says:
    @Jack D
    The calculus that the Boers made and the calculus that the Israelis would make are completely different. Capetown was not given to the Boers by God 3,000 years ago. And what awaits the Israelis is not just a high crime rate like black ruled S. Africa but literal head choppers. Sure Israel resists BDS and would prefer to remain integrated with the world economy, but if they had to eat sawdust like the N. Koreans in order to prevent being ruled by Muslims, they would do it. There is no amount of sanctions nor anything short of military defeat that would cause them to throw in the towel.

    The calculus that the Boers made and the calculus that the Israelis would make are completely different.

    The Afrikaners should have seen the writing on the wall immediately after WW2 ended. They needed to create a viable zone with a European supermajority (75% +). Once that was done, they should have broken the country up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    They should have, but I don't think the great powers would have permitted an ongoing white ethnostate in Africa.
    , @Jack D
    The Afrikaners hated the British and the Jews (not to mention Italian, Greeks, etc. - the kind of white immigrants they still could have attracted after the war) even more than they hated the blacks so they cut off their nose to spite their face and did not allow European immigration. The Afrikaners had imbibed more than a little Nazi ideology. Not to mention that (does this sound familiar) S. African industrialists liked cheap black labor in the mines, and even more blacks kept coming in. Also (does this sound familiar, Israelis) they thought that they could put the blacks on little patches of reservation like the American Indians and keep the bulk of the land for themselves instead of retreating to a defensible heartland. So lots of bad decisions made.

    When white Europeans appeared in S. Africa, it was mostly populated (thinly) by Bushmen (San) who were racially and culturally distinct from the Bantus who now make up the majority of S. African blacks. The Bantus have not been in S. Africa for much longer than the Afrikaners and in many cases a lot less.
  143. syonredux says:
    @Jack D
    The calculus that the Boers made and the calculus that the Israelis would make are completely different. Capetown was not given to the Boers by God 3,000 years ago. And what awaits the Israelis is not just a high crime rate like black ruled S. Africa but literal head choppers. Sure Israel resists BDS and would prefer to remain integrated with the world economy, but if they had to eat sawdust like the N. Koreans in order to prevent being ruled by Muslims, they would do it. There is no amount of sanctions nor anything short of military defeat that would cause them to throw in the towel.

    but if they had to eat sawdust like the N. Koreans

    The North Korean elite aren’t eating sawdust. That’s only for plebs….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    No one in Israel would eat sawdust. They have a highly advanced and productive agricultural sector. For now they import a lot of grain and export high value greenhouse grown goods (tomatoes in winter, flowers, etc.) and citrus but this is only because they are arbitraging their strengths - one ton of tomatoes or oranges buys many tons of corn for animal food. If they had to, they could grow enough calories to feed themselves.
  144. Broski says:
    @candid_observer
    Another sign that the data can't accurately reflect actual demographic changes is precisely what makes the data so eye-popping: the genuinely incredible rise in the numbers. Short of an utterly massive wave of immigration, I don't see how the country wide numbers rise from 25.6% to 38.9% in ten years.

    The numbers are too bad to be true.

    “The numbers are too bad to be true.”

    This data is of children. Just as in the United States, where whites are less than half the children but still around 70% of the population, children are a leading indicator. Our hyper-fecund new arrivals have a rapidly accelerating effect on population changes.

    This is why those of us noticers have been so alarmed and, in some quarters, fatalistic.

    I don’t foresee a meek global Europa simply fading into the night, though. I foresee violence and a subsequent disaggregation of populations, much as happened with the many millions of Germans who were sent home from Hitler’s “lebensraum” after WWII.

    Of course, as evidenced by the swarthiness of Sicilians compared to Milanese, these population changes leave a legacy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    The Arab or African contribution to the typical Sicilian's genes is greatly exaggerated in many people's minds.

    See your point, just want to note that the Arab and African contribution to "European" genes will be VASTLY greater than their contribution to Silician or even Maltese genes if actual white Europeans do not wake up and take lawful defensive measures by drastically changing their immigration and welfare policies soon.
  145. Flip says:
    @syonredux

    The calculus that the Boers made and the calculus that the Israelis would make are completely different.
     
    The Afrikaners should have seen the writing on the wall immediately after WW2 ended. They needed to create a viable zone with a European supermajority (75% +). Once that was done, they should have broken the country up.

    They should have, but I don’t think the great powers would have permitted an ongoing white ethnostate in Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    They should have, but I don’t think the great powers would have permitted an ongoing white ethnostate in Africa.
     
    If they had done it early enough (late '40s), they might have been able to grandfather it in. To smooth over ruffled feathers, though, they needed to be quite generous to the newly-created Black states. Perhaps let them have the gold and diamond mines?
  146. Jack D says:
    @syonredux

    The calculus that the Boers made and the calculus that the Israelis would make are completely different.
     
    The Afrikaners should have seen the writing on the wall immediately after WW2 ended. They needed to create a viable zone with a European supermajority (75% +). Once that was done, they should have broken the country up.

    The Afrikaners hated the British and the Jews (not to mention Italian, Greeks, etc. – the kind of white immigrants they still could have attracted after the war) even more than they hated the blacks so they cut off their nose to spite their face and did not allow European immigration. The Afrikaners had imbibed more than a little Nazi ideology. Not to mention that (does this sound familiar) S. African industrialists liked cheap black labor in the mines, and even more blacks kept coming in. Also (does this sound familiar, Israelis) they thought that they could put the blacks on little patches of reservation like the American Indians and keep the bulk of the land for themselves instead of retreating to a defensible heartland. So lots of bad decisions made.

    When white Europeans appeared in S. Africa, it was mostly populated (thinly) by Bushmen (San) who were racially and culturally distinct from the Bantus who now make up the majority of S. African blacks. The Bantus have not been in S. Africa for much longer than the Afrikaners and in many cases a lot less.

    Read More
    • Agree: snorlax
    • Replies: @syonredux
    The old joke went that Apartheid meant capitalism for the English and the Jews, socialism for the Afrikaners, and fascism for the Blacks.

    Not to mention that (does this sound familiar) S. African industrialists liked cheap black labor in the mines, and even more blacks kept coming in
     
    There lies the rub. They could have created a European enclave, but that would have meant turning off the cheap labor spigot...

    And, yes, the parallel to Anglo-America and the current Mestizo invasion is apt.

    R.I.P Anglo-America, death due to cheap grapes.......
    , @anon

    The Afrikaners hated the British and the Jews...
     
    Can't you people stop LYING for five minutes.

    The Afrikaners were allied with Israel - that's where south Africa's nukes went - you know the ones you want to drop on France.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Jack D:

    The Boers had every reason to hate the British after suffering concentration camp
    privations (actual genocide), etc. The British element also cut off their nose to spite their face by oftentimes shedding crocodile tears for "downtrodden" blacks.
    , @Cagey Beast
    Afrikaner resentment and dislike of the British was hardly based on nothing. Take the early life experience of South Africa's last Governor-General as an example:

    The Anglo Boer War (Second Boer War) broke out when he was 5 years old. During the war his mother and the children were interned at the Winburg concentration camp. Of the three boys only two survived the concentration camp.
    ....
    When Swart was 7 years old he went to the government school in Winburg. He later went to a C.N.O. school, which is a school set up by the Afrikaners in response to Lord Milner's anglicisation policy at the government sponsored schools.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Robberts_Swart
    , @snorlax
    Agreed; the Afrikaners should've adopted a more "colorblind" system like Rhodesia and the Portuguese colonies,* where Talented Tenthers and/or favored ethnicities like "coloreds" and the Zulu (and certainly Indians and East Asians) could enjoy equal status. The Euro and American center-right would've been willing to keep protecting them a lot longer if they'd done that. (Conversely, if Israel didn't have non-Jewish citizens, they'd likely have fallen victim to the Eye of Sauron around the same time as ZA).

    Another huge (and completely indefensible) mistake the Afrikaners made was abolishing the monarchy, which was pointlessly sticking their thumb in the eyes of their erstwhile closest friends, the domestic and overseas Queen-and-Country English, at the very moment they most needed their support.

    *Which they also should've put more effort into propping up.
  147. Jack D says:
    @syonredux

    but if they had to eat sawdust like the N. Koreans
     
    The North Korean elite aren't eating sawdust. That's only for plebs....

    No one in Israel would eat sawdust. They have a highly advanced and productive agricultural sector. For now they import a lot of grain and export high value greenhouse grown goods (tomatoes in winter, flowers, etc.) and citrus but this is only because they are arbitraging their strengths – one ton of tomatoes or oranges buys many tons of corn for animal food. If they had to, they could grow enough calories to feed themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    No one in Israel would eat sawdust.
     
    Didn't think that they would. I was just noting that the North Korean elite do not share in the privations that afflict the common citizenry.
    , @RadicalCenter
    It won't be a productive ag sector if Israel's territory is nuked. They have no territory to fall back on for growing crops or just for living in a less-irradiated area. Terrifying scenario that I can't wish on anyone.
  148. syonredux says:
    @Jack D
    No one in Israel would eat sawdust. They have a highly advanced and productive agricultural sector. For now they import a lot of grain and export high value greenhouse grown goods (tomatoes in winter, flowers, etc.) and citrus but this is only because they are arbitraging their strengths - one ton of tomatoes or oranges buys many tons of corn for animal food. If they had to, they could grow enough calories to feed themselves.

    No one in Israel would eat sawdust.

    Didn’t think that they would. I was just noting that the North Korean elite do not share in the privations that afflict the common citizenry.

    Read More
  149. @King Baeksu
    Here's another line of approach:

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J3SPq9X0N5s/WHVpm8EuOEI/AAAAAAAAQ6M/7db-rfOxfkUViemMdE3eiUAROluzSSuNgCLcB/s1600/Muslim%2Bnames%2Brate%2B2016.jpg

    France has 93 "departments." Last year, No. 93 (Seine-Saint-Denis, in northern Paris) hit 43% Muslim or Arab names for newborns. Île-de-France, which comprises the greater Paris region, has around 12 million people or 18% of the national population. The average for the Paris region seems to be around 27%, although some "departments" may be more densely populated than others.

    I predict a nuclear-armed French Caliphate by 2050. Probably the UK, Germany, Belgium and Sweden will quickly join up as well, given similar demographic trends. Hell, London has a Muslim mayor already!

    I wonder how long it will take them to gang up and wipe the "Zionist entity" off the face of the planet?

    More information here: http://galliawatch.blogspot.co.id/2017/01/muslim-first-names.html

    Unfortunately, you’re right.

    If the French and British are not going to seriously resist, expel, and exclude Muslims, then of course the differential fertility rates and poor assimilation will cause Muslims to become a majority and take control of the government and military. Including, God help us, the nukes.

    The remaining French and British folks should think about selling their nuclear weapons and missiles to Russia — assuming Russia itself can remain solid majority non-Muslim — before Muslims reach true critical mass in France and the UK. Because things may change very quickly when they reach that point (soon enough, sadly).

    Read More
  150. syonredux says:
    @Jack D
    The Afrikaners hated the British and the Jews (not to mention Italian, Greeks, etc. - the kind of white immigrants they still could have attracted after the war) even more than they hated the blacks so they cut off their nose to spite their face and did not allow European immigration. The Afrikaners had imbibed more than a little Nazi ideology. Not to mention that (does this sound familiar) S. African industrialists liked cheap black labor in the mines, and even more blacks kept coming in. Also (does this sound familiar, Israelis) they thought that they could put the blacks on little patches of reservation like the American Indians and keep the bulk of the land for themselves instead of retreating to a defensible heartland. So lots of bad decisions made.

    When white Europeans appeared in S. Africa, it was mostly populated (thinly) by Bushmen (San) who were racially and culturally distinct from the Bantus who now make up the majority of S. African blacks. The Bantus have not been in S. Africa for much longer than the Afrikaners and in many cases a lot less.

    The old joke went that Apartheid meant capitalism for the English and the Jews, socialism for the Afrikaners, and fascism for the Blacks.

    Not to mention that (does this sound familiar) S. African industrialists liked cheap black labor in the mines, and even more blacks kept coming in

    There lies the rub. They could have created a European enclave, but that would have meant turning off the cheap labor spigot…

    And, yes, the parallel to Anglo-America and the current Mestizo invasion is apt.

    R.I.P Anglo-America, death due to cheap grapes…….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    And the antebellum Slave Power as well.
    , @iffen
    R.I.P Anglo-America, death due to cheap grapes…….

    The Wrath of Picked Grapes
  151. Neoconned says:

    Steve — I’m in nursing school and so I took anatomy/phys relatively recently. 2015 I think it was. I recall from class and I chatted with my former teacher today about this — that sickle cell is an EQUATORIAL ailment — and not a race-based ailment.

    Hispanics, South Asians, Indonesians, Arabs/ME’ers and “Mediterranean Europeans” such as Greeks/Italians/French/Spaniards/etc. can also get sickle cell. It is NOT solely an African or black ailment so this is probably not a very good metric to determine the non-Franco birth rate in France.

    http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Anemia/Sickle-Cell-Trait.aspx

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Right, but most immigration to France from, say, Sicily was several generations ago and have been highly assimilated through intermarriage. That's why I discussed the mechanics of who qualifies closely.

    If both parents were from Sicily the baby would be tested.

    If one parent was from Sicily the baby would not be tested.

    What was unclear was that if say both parents had one grandparent from Sicily. It sounds like they wouldn't be tested, but maybe they would be.

    , @anon
    not the point

    the point is who they test for it
    , @res
    Your nursing school did you a disservice. The African rates for SCD are 10x (!) or more those other groups per WHO data at http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/6/06-036673-table-T1.html
  152. syonredux says:
    @Flip
    They should have, but I don't think the great powers would have permitted an ongoing white ethnostate in Africa.

    They should have, but I don’t think the great powers would have permitted an ongoing white ethnostate in Africa.

    If they had done it early enough (late ’40s), they might have been able to grandfather it in. To smooth over ruffled feathers, though, they needed to be quite generous to the newly-created Black states. Perhaps let them have the gold and diamond mines?

    Read More
  153. @Neutron
    This doesn't seem remotely accurate to me. I have traveled pretty extensively throughout France in recent years and aside from the Paris/Marseille/Nice metro areas I didn't feel that non-whites exceeded 10-15% anywhere even in larger cities like Lyon/Bordeaux/Toulouse. The vast majority of the small cities/towns are still 95%+ white. These small cities/towns outside of the major metro areas probably still make up more than half of France's population.

    If I had to estimate I would say that France is roughly 15% non-white and that population is overwhelmingly concentrated in the 5 largest metro areas.

    France is roughly 15% non-white

    But does this contradict the data? France could be 15% nonwhite, with 25% among 20 year olds (25% of teenagers actually Muslim according to a survey), and 40% of newborns.

    You guys don’t seem to grasp the dynamics of demographics. The US was still 70+% white when their share of newborns dropped below 50%, and the US low functioning immigrants are much slower breeders (mostly because of a much less generous welfare state), so the replacement in the US is much more driven by immigration than by the differential fertility rates. Whereas France could mostly be just a simple case of a coexistence of a negative growth slow breeder population and an aggressively breeding intruding population, where the quick replacement is simply driven by the high fertility of the intruders and the low fertility (partly depressed by the presence of the immigrants themselves) of the natives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neutron
    Obviously I can't say for certain but I didn't see any evidence for such a high proportion of teenagers or infants being non-European. Most of the Muslims in France arrived during the 60's and 70's so there is a full age distribution there. I also didn't think they were very religious for the most part and I honestly doubt that their birth rates vastly exceed the French norm. There were definitely large pockets of unassimilated Muslims with bad cultural habits but most were confined to the Paris region and the southern coastal cities.

    Remember also a huge portion of France's population lives in small cities and towns and you can literally go days in a city like Pua (85,000) without seeing more than a few non white people.
  154. @Ed
    Once people awaken to the threat and more are awakening to it there will be a backlash. At first it'll be political and if that doesn't work it'll be violent. A recent poll shows that a majority of French want a complete halt to Muslim immigration. So you figure among ethnic French the number is around 75%+.

    Contrary to popular belief younger people in the West are increasingly leaning white in particular the men. The women will follow along as they date, get married etc.

    Europe isn't looking at Sharia but major conflict. I would not be surprised if Nuremberg style laws return in some countries within the next 50 years or so.

    Sad to say but I hope you’re right. Considering the alternative, “major conflict” in Europe may be the best that we can hope for.

    Read More
  155. @whorefinder
    OMG Taki's is an awful website. Everytime I click on one of your links to go to Taki's it takes 3 times as long to load, half the time my browser crashes, and then I'm constantly getting script errors popping up.

    That alone makes me adverse to going to there, and that's before we get to Taki being apologist for rapists. Because, you know, he's his friend. Classy.

    When did Taki support a rapist? I haven’t heard of the story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    He's wrote an editorial in Taki's Mag saying that rapist Roman Polanski shouldn't be prosecuted because he raped a long time ago and rapist Roman's "paid his price."

    Yeah, being a rich world-famous director lauded around the world is such a terrible price for raping a 13-year-old girl.
  156. Given the proven economic benefits of such vibrant diversity, as well as France’s AAA-rated Magic Dirt, how is it possible that France has >10% unemployment?

    Read More
  157. @Neoconned
    Steve -- I'm in nursing school and so I took anatomy/phys relatively recently. 2015 I think it was. I recall from class and I chatted with my former teacher today about this -- that sickle cell is an EQUATORIAL ailment -- and not a race-based ailment.

    Hispanics, South Asians, Indonesians, Arabs/ME'ers and "Mediterranean Europeans" such as Greeks/Italians/French/Spaniards/etc. can also get sickle cell. It is NOT solely an African or black ailment so this is probably not a very good metric to determine the non-Franco birth rate in France.

    http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Anemia/Sickle-Cell-Trait.aspx

    Right, but most immigration to France from, say, Sicily was several generations ago and have been highly assimilated through intermarriage. That’s why I discussed the mechanics of who qualifies closely.

    If both parents were from Sicily the baby would be tested.

    If one parent was from Sicily the baby would not be tested.

    What was unclear was that if say both parents had one grandparent from Sicily. It sounds like they wouldn’t be tested, but maybe they would be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The French received - and assimilated - an awful lot of Corsican blood, but I don't think Corsica is on the sickle cell list.
    Doubtless there was a steady stream of Sicilian immigration into France but somehow I doubt if it was ever highly significant. Italian emigrants to France originated all over the peninsula - possibly northern Italians prevailed.
  158. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Neoconned
    Steve -- I'm in nursing school and so I took anatomy/phys relatively recently. 2015 I think it was. I recall from class and I chatted with my former teacher today about this -- that sickle cell is an EQUATORIAL ailment -- and not a race-based ailment.

    Hispanics, South Asians, Indonesians, Arabs/ME'ers and "Mediterranean Europeans" such as Greeks/Italians/French/Spaniards/etc. can also get sickle cell. It is NOT solely an African or black ailment so this is probably not a very good metric to determine the non-Franco birth rate in France.

    http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Anemia/Sickle-Cell-Trait.aspx

    not the point

    the point is who they test for it

    Read More
  159. @The Anti-Gnostic
    You are whistling past the graveyard. If incidence is flat or declining, that could as well reflect less Global Southerners being born in rural areas over the past few generations. Steve's hypothesis based on the testing regulatory criteria and eyewitness accounts rings true.

    I can probably find pictures of Mississippi that would convince you it's as white as Oregon. That's what whites do: flee non-white areas. And when they can't flee, they stop reproducing.

    In one of the more far-sighted acts of policy in modern times, the white South African government dismantled its small nuclear arsenal before handing the State apparatus over to the Zulu. We are on the horns of the same dilemma, just two generations removed.

    When we can’t or won’t flee, the situation calls for having more children, not fewer.

    Like all peoples, we need young people, especially younger men, available in large numbers to fight for our families and our neighborhoods — then more broadly, to fight for our lands and the freedom, safety, culture and sovereignty of these coming generations of OUR people.

    Nobody white should ever refrain from having children because their area is being overrun by foreigners or because they think they can’t afford it.

    As for whites being able to afford family formation, let’s get judgmental: millions of the same people who complain that they “can’t afford” to have children, or to have more children, are simultaneously spending thousands of dollars per year on luxuries and vices such as cable/satellite television, substances (cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and starbucks), buying new vehicles rather than used (usually with debt), and dining out and vacationing (again often with debt).

    What is more important, getting drunk or high or nicotine-fixed and watching yet more TV, or perpetuating your own family and nation? If they sacrifice those completely unnecessary things, they will often be able to responsibly raise and provide for children.

    I cannot fathom the logic of not having children because foreigners are being allowed into your neighborhood or state in terrible numbers. Try to use lawful political means to reduce or stop the immigration AND do the hard necessary work of having more children.

    Read More
  160. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jack D
    The Afrikaners hated the British and the Jews (not to mention Italian, Greeks, etc. - the kind of white immigrants they still could have attracted after the war) even more than they hated the blacks so they cut off their nose to spite their face and did not allow European immigration. The Afrikaners had imbibed more than a little Nazi ideology. Not to mention that (does this sound familiar) S. African industrialists liked cheap black labor in the mines, and even more blacks kept coming in. Also (does this sound familiar, Israelis) they thought that they could put the blacks on little patches of reservation like the American Indians and keep the bulk of the land for themselves instead of retreating to a defensible heartland. So lots of bad decisions made.

    When white Europeans appeared in S. Africa, it was mostly populated (thinly) by Bushmen (San) who were racially and culturally distinct from the Bantus who now make up the majority of S. African blacks. The Bantus have not been in S. Africa for much longer than the Afrikaners and in many cases a lot less.

    The Afrikaners hated the British and the Jews…

    Can’t you people stop LYING for five minutes.

    The Afrikaners were allied with Israel – that’s where south Africa’s nukes went – you know the ones you want to drop on France.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    If it was not for Israel the South Africa project would get cancelled much sooner.
    , @Jack D
    I'm talking about a much earlier period - 30's and 40's.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner_nationalism#Broederbond
  161. Neutron says:
    @reiner Tor

    France is roughly 15% non-white
     
    But does this contradict the data? France could be 15% nonwhite, with 25% among 20 year olds (25% of teenagers actually Muslim according to a survey), and 40% of newborns.

    You guys don't seem to grasp the dynamics of demographics. The US was still 70+% white when their share of newborns dropped below 50%, and the US low functioning immigrants are much slower breeders (mostly because of a much less generous welfare state), so the replacement in the US is much more driven by immigration than by the differential fertility rates. Whereas France could mostly be just a simple case of a coexistence of a negative growth slow breeder population and an aggressively breeding intruding population, where the quick replacement is simply driven by the high fertility of the intruders and the low fertility (partly depressed by the presence of the immigrants themselves) of the natives.

    Obviously I can’t say for certain but I didn’t see any evidence for such a high proportion of teenagers or infants being non-European. Most of the Muslims in France arrived during the 60′s and 70′s so there is a full age distribution there. I also didn’t think they were very religious for the most part and I honestly doubt that their birth rates vastly exceed the French norm. There were definitely large pockets of unassimilated Muslims with bad cultural habits but most were confined to the Paris region and the southern coastal cities.

    Remember also a huge portion of France’s population lives in small cities and towns and you can literally go days in a city like Pua (85,000) without seeing more than a few non white people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    Obviously I can’t say for certain but I didn’t see any evidence for such a high proportion of teenagers or infants being non-European.
     
    you wouldn't see it because the evidence is in the schools in the blue collar areas.

    example

    say
    50 million total population
    10 million breeding age (of which 0ne million immigrants)

    so
    - 2% of total population
    - 10% of breeding population
    with the same TFR they'd produce 10% of the children

    if you add a TFR twice the native rate then those 2% produce *33%* of the children

    we are heading towards the bloodiest civil war in history because of people lying about this
  162. snorlax says:

    Semi-OT: George Borjas points out that under existing law(!) the US is supposed to deny entry to immigrants “liable to become a public charge,” and to deport them if they do become a public charge: https://gborjas.org/2017/02/01/who-is-a-public-charge/

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Superb link, thank you!

    President Trump should exercise his "public charge" authority and discretion, and make it a signature issue.

    Deporting non-citizens who are collecting taxpayer-funded benefits and not working is both good policy and (outside California and NYC) good politics. It would have at least a small positive effect on our federal budget.

    It would also have a bigger positive effect on state budgets in California, Texas, and New York.

    Equally important, deporting aliens who are "public charges" or likely to become so, would gradually have a positive effect on our national demographics, adherence to our traditional culture & common language, and our society's levels of social cohesiveness, loyalty, and trust.

  163. Dan Hayes says:
    @Jack D
    The Afrikaners hated the British and the Jews (not to mention Italian, Greeks, etc. - the kind of white immigrants they still could have attracted after the war) even more than they hated the blacks so they cut off their nose to spite their face and did not allow European immigration. The Afrikaners had imbibed more than a little Nazi ideology. Not to mention that (does this sound familiar) S. African industrialists liked cheap black labor in the mines, and even more blacks kept coming in. Also (does this sound familiar, Israelis) they thought that they could put the blacks on little patches of reservation like the American Indians and keep the bulk of the land for themselves instead of retreating to a defensible heartland. So lots of bad decisions made.

    When white Europeans appeared in S. Africa, it was mostly populated (thinly) by Bushmen (San) who were racially and culturally distinct from the Bantus who now make up the majority of S. African blacks. The Bantus have not been in S. Africa for much longer than the Afrikaners and in many cases a lot less.

    Jack D:

    The Boers had every reason to hate the British after suffering concentration camp
    privations (actual genocide), etc. The British element also cut off their nose to spite their face by oftentimes shedding crocodile tears for “downtrodden” blacks.

    Read More
  164. @Broski
    "The numbers are too bad to be true."

    This data is of children. Just as in the United States, where whites are less than half the children but still around 70% of the population, children are a leading indicator. Our hyper-fecund new arrivals have a rapidly accelerating effect on population changes.

    This is why those of us noticers have been so alarmed and, in some quarters, fatalistic.

    I don't foresee a meek global Europa simply fading into the night, though. I foresee violence and a subsequent disaggregation of populations, much as happened with the many millions of Germans who were sent home from Hitler's "lebensraum" after WWII.

    Of course, as evidenced by the swarthiness of Sicilians compared to Milanese, these population changes leave a legacy.

    The Arab or African contribution to the typical Sicilian’s genes is greatly exaggerated in many people’s minds.

    See your point, just want to note that the Arab and African contribution to “European” genes will be VASTLY greater than their contribution to Silician or even Maltese genes if actual white Europeans do not wake up and take lawful defensive measures by drastically changing their immigration and welfare policies soon.

    Read More
  165. @Jack D
    No one in Israel would eat sawdust. They have a highly advanced and productive agricultural sector. For now they import a lot of grain and export high value greenhouse grown goods (tomatoes in winter, flowers, etc.) and citrus but this is only because they are arbitraging their strengths - one ton of tomatoes or oranges buys many tons of corn for animal food. If they had to, they could grow enough calories to feed themselves.

    It won’t be a productive ag sector if Israel’s territory is nuked. They have no territory to fall back on for growing crops or just for living in a less-irradiated area. Terrifying scenario that I can’t wish on anyone.

    Read More
  166. @Daniel H
    >>The transformation of France from cheese eating surrender monkeys to sharia advocates and jihadis.

    That slur was invented the cucks over at National Review who have no standing to mock others for faithless treason. Don't use it.

    Furthermore, there was not a power on earth in 1940 who could have stopped the Nazi/Wehrmacht juggernaut, not even the USA military. Except, that is, the Soviet Union, who by dint of desperate courage managed to crush the Nazi/Wehrmacht.

    Another factor was that by 1940, France had been bleeding itself in major wars for a century and half. In World War I, France lost almost 1.4 million men killed or missing in action from a population of only 39 million, plus another 4 million wounded. On average, she lost 890 soldiers killed every day from August 1914 to November 1918. Adjusting for population, that would roughly equal America suffering 7,000 soldiers killed daily for more than four years.

    France essentially had already bled itself thoroughly by 1940. Do the Neo-Cons really believe our country would take that level of loss for four years?

    Read More
  167. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @Jack D
    The Afrikaners hated the British and the Jews (not to mention Italian, Greeks, etc. - the kind of white immigrants they still could have attracted after the war) even more than they hated the blacks so they cut off their nose to spite their face and did not allow European immigration. The Afrikaners had imbibed more than a little Nazi ideology. Not to mention that (does this sound familiar) S. African industrialists liked cheap black labor in the mines, and even more blacks kept coming in. Also (does this sound familiar, Israelis) they thought that they could put the blacks on little patches of reservation like the American Indians and keep the bulk of the land for themselves instead of retreating to a defensible heartland. So lots of bad decisions made.

    When white Europeans appeared in S. Africa, it was mostly populated (thinly) by Bushmen (San) who were racially and culturally distinct from the Bantus who now make up the majority of S. African blacks. The Bantus have not been in S. Africa for much longer than the Afrikaners and in many cases a lot less.

    Afrikaner resentment and dislike of the British was hardly based on nothing. Take the early life experience of South Africa’s last Governor-General as an example:

    The Anglo Boer War (Second Boer War) broke out when he was 5 years old. During the war his mother and the children were interned at the Winburg concentration camp. Of the three boys only two survived the concentration camp.
    ….
    When Swart was 7 years old he went to the government school in Winburg. He later went to a C.N.O. school, which is a school set up by the Afrikaners in response to Lord Milner’s anglicisation policy at the government sponsored schools.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Robberts_Swart

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Skimming through your comments, you argue that we should rationally react to current circumstances instead of adopting a worldview that views everything through [an ideologically-distorted] lense of what the Nazis did 70 years ago. I agree!

    Likewise, the Afrikaners would've been a lot better off if they'd been willing to let the bygones from 70 years previous be bygones. It's a stupid reason have to cut off their nose to spite their face. The world at the turn of the century was a brutal place, and European developments in the near future would make the Boer War look like the invasion of Grenada.

    In any event, my impression is that Afrikaner resentment against the English wasn't so much about the Boer Wars, but instead was along the lines of the Québécois backlash to the trend of English displacing French on their restaurant menus and street signs (not so much that they're still furious over the forced expulsion of the Acadians).

    In actuality, I believe the Boer Wars were for domestic consumption quasi-fictionally retconned into heroic victories, the way the War of 1812 is taught in Canadian schools or the Sino-Japanese War in Chinese. The stuff about how the Boers were horribly victimized by the British, who "invented concentration camps," was a theme old South Africa created in their propaganda for foreign consumption.

    It's like how the Armenian Genocide was suddenly discovered in the early 90's, when Armenia was being criticized for ethnic cleansing in the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Or the Mufti of Jerusalem was found to have been part of Hitler's inner circle sometime around 1967. Or the liquidation of the kulaks became the Ukrainian Genocide around the same time as the Armenian Genocide was unearthed. And so on.

    Now, all of these have a great deal of truth to them and are in service of causes I'm fairly sympathetic to (at least relative to the opposing causes), but they are also propaganda versions of history created by governments decades after the fact for primarily foreign consumption. Goebbels often said that propaganda ought to consist only of (carefully-selected) factual truths; the New York Times subscribes to that philosophy also.
  168. @candid_observer
    Another sign that the data can't accurately reflect actual demographic changes is precisely what makes the data so eye-popping: the genuinely incredible rise in the numbers. Short of an utterly massive wave of immigration, I don't see how the country wide numbers rise from 25.6% to 38.9% in ten years.

    The numbers are too bad to be true.

    It’s possible that the numbers are wrong, but they are not nearly impossible.

    Libya’s population grew 64% between 1973 and 1984, if you compared it to another, declining population, the relative increase would be even greater.

    Granted, Libyans probably had a higher fertility rate than French Muslims, but the quality of data on overall French Muslim (and French white) fertility rates are not totally reliable either.

    And yes, I was in Paris in 2004, 2007, 2013 and 2014, and over the years the darkening of the population was quite noticeable.

    Read More
  169. @NickG
    The transformation of France from cheese eating surrender monkeys to sharia advocates and jihadis.

    Not so much a siege of Paris, rather an occupation. And this is a tad more intractable than the last Bosche one in 1940.


    As I said over at Taki's comment thread, someone au fait with Froglingo should do the decent thing and translate it for circulation and publication somewhere prominent in the Francosphere.

    I’ve got no skin in this game, but the French fought with almost insane bravery in WWI. In WWII, they got hit by Tyson-like punch in the first round and never recovered.

    French soldiers were a terror from ~1700 to 1918.

    Not that any of that matters now. Might as well be talking about the bravery of the men from some Roman province.

    As far as I can tell, white men of Western Europe, the U.S. and the Commonwealth have all become a bunch of surrender monkeys – myself included as I’m not willing to give up my life to fight the good fight a la RAMZPAUL.

    Read More
  170. @snorlax
    Semi-OT: George Borjas points out that under existing law(!) the US is supposed to deny entry to immigrants "liable to become a public charge," and to deport them if they do become a public charge: https://gborjas.org/2017/02/01/who-is-a-public-charge/

    Superb link, thank you!

    President Trump should exercise his “public charge” authority and discretion, and make it a signature issue.

    Deporting non-citizens who are collecting taxpayer-funded benefits and not working is both good policy and (outside California and NYC) good politics. It would have at least a small positive effect on our federal budget.

    It would also have a bigger positive effect on state budgets in California, Texas, and New York.

    Equally important, deporting aliens who are “public charges” or likely to become so, would gradually have a positive effect on our national demographics, adherence to our traditional culture & common language, and our society’s levels of social cohesiveness, loyalty, and trust.

    Read More
  171. snorlax says:
    @Jack D
    The Afrikaners hated the British and the Jews (not to mention Italian, Greeks, etc. - the kind of white immigrants they still could have attracted after the war) even more than they hated the blacks so they cut off their nose to spite their face and did not allow European immigration. The Afrikaners had imbibed more than a little Nazi ideology. Not to mention that (does this sound familiar) S. African industrialists liked cheap black labor in the mines, and even more blacks kept coming in. Also (does this sound familiar, Israelis) they thought that they could put the blacks on little patches of reservation like the American Indians and keep the bulk of the land for themselves instead of retreating to a defensible heartland. So lots of bad decisions made.

    When white Europeans appeared in S. Africa, it was mostly populated (thinly) by Bushmen (San) who were racially and culturally distinct from the Bantus who now make up the majority of S. African blacks. The Bantus have not been in S. Africa for much longer than the Afrikaners and in many cases a lot less.

    Agreed; the Afrikaners should’ve adopted a more “colorblind” system like Rhodesia and the Portuguese colonies,* where Talented Tenthers and/or favored ethnicities like “coloreds” and the Zulu (and certainly Indians and East Asians) could enjoy equal status. The Euro and American center-right would’ve been willing to keep protecting them a lot longer if they’d done that. (Conversely, if Israel didn’t have non-Jewish citizens, they’d likely have fallen victim to the Eye of Sauron around the same time as ZA).

    Another huge (and completely indefensible) mistake the Afrikaners made was abolishing the monarchy, which was pointlessly sticking their thumb in the eyes of their erstwhile closest friends, the domestic and overseas Queen-and-Country English, at the very moment they most needed their support.

    *Which they also should’ve put more effort into propping up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    The British sold out the Rhodesians and Whites in the rest of East Africa with Macmillan's "Winds of Change" announcement from head office. The City of London made the call and that was that. Whether South Africa was a Republic or Dominion wouldn't have made a bit of difference.

    The Rhodesians sent pilots to defend the Mother Country during the Battle of Britain but that couldn't buy them much goodwill when serious money was involved a few decades later.
  172. utu says:
    @anon

    The Afrikaners hated the British and the Jews...
     
    Can't you people stop LYING for five minutes.

    The Afrikaners were allied with Israel - that's where south Africa's nukes went - you know the ones you want to drop on France.

    If it was not for Israel the South Africa project would get cancelled much sooner.

    Read More
  173. Barnard says:

    OT: In a conversation with Charles Murray at AEI, Bill Kristol comes out and admits he wants the white working class replaced with Mexicans. Thinks what is happening now is no different than early 20th Century wave of immigration.

    Read More
  174. Flip says:
    @syonredux
    The old joke went that Apartheid meant capitalism for the English and the Jews, socialism for the Afrikaners, and fascism for the Blacks.

    Not to mention that (does this sound familiar) S. African industrialists liked cheap black labor in the mines, and even more blacks kept coming in
     
    There lies the rub. They could have created a European enclave, but that would have meant turning off the cheap labor spigot...

    And, yes, the parallel to Anglo-America and the current Mestizo invasion is apt.

    R.I.P Anglo-America, death due to cheap grapes.......

    And the antebellum Slave Power as well.

    Read More
  175. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Neutron
    Obviously I can't say for certain but I didn't see any evidence for such a high proportion of teenagers or infants being non-European. Most of the Muslims in France arrived during the 60's and 70's so there is a full age distribution there. I also didn't think they were very religious for the most part and I honestly doubt that their birth rates vastly exceed the French norm. There were definitely large pockets of unassimilated Muslims with bad cultural habits but most were confined to the Paris region and the southern coastal cities.

    Remember also a huge portion of France's population lives in small cities and towns and you can literally go days in a city like Pua (85,000) without seeing more than a few non white people.

    Obviously I can’t say for certain but I didn’t see any evidence for such a high proportion of teenagers or infants being non-European.

    you wouldn’t see it because the evidence is in the schools in the blue collar areas.

    example

    say
    50 million total population
    10 million breeding age (of which 0ne million immigrants)

    so
    - 2% of total population
    - 10% of breeding population
    with the same TFR they’d produce 10% of the children

    if you add a TFR twice the native rate then those 2% produce *33%* of the children

    we are heading towards the bloodiest civil war in history because of people lying about this

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    if you add a TFR twice the native rate then those 2% produce *33%* of the children
     
    rushed it in anger, those 2% total (but 10% of breeding age) with twice the TFR would produce 18% of the children

    it's 20% of breeding age population with 2x TFR that would produce 33% of the children
  176. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Speaking of “Le Grand Remplacement”…

    Bill Kristol: ‘Lazy, Spoiled’ White Working Class Should Be Replaced by Immigrants

    https://www.amren.com/news/2017/02/bill-kristol-lazy-spoiled-white-working-class-replaced-immigrants/

    It came from a talk yesterday at AEI with Charles Murray. Lot of iSteveish themes in there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    "Dr Kristol" wants his currents batch of patients to die off so he can get new ones. The neocons, neoliberals and other globalists have to be driven off into permanent obscurity. The Kristol method is lethal.
  177. @Barnard
    OT: In a conversation with Charles Murray at AEI, Bill Kristol comes out and admits he wants the white working class replaced with Mexicans. Thinks what is happening now is no different than early 20th Century wave of immigration.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs0h9ieLPyw

    At what time in the video?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Barnard
    The specific comment starts at 54:16.
    , @okie
    Two things
    1 Kristol really believes that cuz, he makes a comment about that idea destroying whatever is left of his career, and
    2. before his comment, around the 50 minute mark Murray answers with the same question with a modified limited hangout, that he went into the election thinking open borders was good, but came out thinking only high skill immigration is good.
  178. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon

    Obviously I can’t say for certain but I didn’t see any evidence for such a high proportion of teenagers or infants being non-European.
     
    you wouldn't see it because the evidence is in the schools in the blue collar areas.

    example

    say
    50 million total population
    10 million breeding age (of which 0ne million immigrants)

    so
    - 2% of total population
    - 10% of breeding population
    with the same TFR they'd produce 10% of the children

    if you add a TFR twice the native rate then those 2% produce *33%* of the children

    we are heading towards the bloodiest civil war in history because of people lying about this

    if you add a TFR twice the native rate then those 2% produce *33%* of the children

    rushed it in anger, those 2% total (but 10% of breeding age) with twice the TFR would produce 18% of the children

    it’s 20% of breeding age population with 2x TFR that would produce 33% of the children

    Read More
  179. syonredux says:
    @colm
    It is time to reconsider whether winning the First World War was beneficial for Western civilization. A German Victory in World War I means the colonials would have stayed in their hinterlands since the ports would have been controlled by the colonial powers.

    It is also time to demolish all the monuments dedicated for the defenders of Verdun. They fought for the Africans and the Indochinese without knowing about it.

    It is time to reconsider whether winning the First World War was beneficial for Western civilization. A German Victory in World War I means the colonials would have stayed in their hinterlands since the ports would have been controlled by the colonial powers.

    Who knows? Lots of variables in question……

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    I've thought it myself. WW I was the beginning of the end for the West.

    But is it worth spending time on (can't reverse it now)?
  180. Ivy says:

    O/T but semi-related:
    Recall the Salon des Refusés art show in 1863 as a transitional event in the art world. That reflected new ideas compared to the rigid Academy of Fine Arts salon structure, and was initially resisted mightily by entrenched powers.

    A rough analogy in the current political world is Trump’s election, also resisted by various powers. Trump’s end-run around conventional media by use of social media has been a shock to many. Is his use of Twitter, for example, a type of Déjeuner sur l’herbe presentation moment? Manet’s painting showed what the audience saw with their own eyes although the Academy had been telling them that the older accepted style was essentially the only one that mattered.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_des_Refus%C3%A9s

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9jeuner_sur_l%27herbe

    Read More
  181. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @snorlax
    Agreed; the Afrikaners should've adopted a more "colorblind" system like Rhodesia and the Portuguese colonies,* where Talented Tenthers and/or favored ethnicities like "coloreds" and the Zulu (and certainly Indians and East Asians) could enjoy equal status. The Euro and American center-right would've been willing to keep protecting them a lot longer if they'd done that. (Conversely, if Israel didn't have non-Jewish citizens, they'd likely have fallen victim to the Eye of Sauron around the same time as ZA).

    Another huge (and completely indefensible) mistake the Afrikaners made was abolishing the monarchy, which was pointlessly sticking their thumb in the eyes of their erstwhile closest friends, the domestic and overseas Queen-and-Country English, at the very moment they most needed their support.

    *Which they also should've put more effort into propping up.

    The British sold out the Rhodesians and Whites in the rest of East Africa with Macmillan’s “Winds of Change” announcement from head office. The City of London made the call and that was that. Whether South Africa was a Republic or Dominion wouldn’t have made a bit of difference.

    The Rhodesians sent pilots to defend the Mother Country during the Battle of Britain but that couldn’t buy them much goodwill when serious money was involved a few decades later.

    Read More
  182. This is why the French are so desperate to have an EU and an expanded EU, including Eastern Europe. It is a desire, perhaps subconscious, to show a lesser percentages of Muslims. 30% of France, yes that is terrible, destructive, impossible but 10% of Europe is manageable. The collapse of the EU will cause an existential crisis in France.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Perhaps, but why aren't the French - who basically own the EU - showing a tougher, harder line on the current invader crisis troubling Europe?
  183. Jack D says:
    @anon

    The Afrikaners hated the British and the Jews...
     
    Can't you people stop LYING for five minutes.

    The Afrikaners were allied with Israel - that's where south Africa's nukes went - you know the ones you want to drop on France.

    I’m talking about a much earlier period – 30′s and 40′s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner_nationalism#Broederbond

    Read More
  184. @Jack D
    The calculus that the Boers made and the calculus that the Israelis would make are completely different. Capetown was not given to the Boers by God 3,000 years ago. And what awaits the Israelis is not just a high crime rate like black ruled S. Africa but literal head choppers. Sure Israel resists BDS and would prefer to remain integrated with the world economy, but if they had to eat sawdust like the N. Koreans in order to prevent being ruled by Muslims, they would do it. There is no amount of sanctions nor anything short of military defeat that would cause them to throw in the towel.

    Cape Town was not given to the Boers by God 3,000 years ago.

    If the Israelis are big-picture smart, they will support identitarian nationalism worldwide, not just for themselves.

    Specifically, this means helping to keep (#12) Europe and the Anglosphere as white as possible. Because if the entire developed world, swamped in a Risen Tide of Color, starts a future anti-Zion sawdust siege, the only eventual choices for Israel (viable autarky or not) would be surrender—and if that doesn’t happen quickly enough for the vibrant, less-than-meek inheritors of the earth: military defeat.

    An arsenal of nukes would not forestall the State of Israel’s destruction—literal Angels would have to make an appearance. Is God on Israel’s side?

    Read More
  185. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @Anon
    Speaking of "Le Grand Remplacement"...

    Bill Kristol: ‘Lazy, Spoiled’ White Working Class Should Be Replaced by Immigrants
    https://www.amren.com/news/2017/02/bill-kristol-lazy-spoiled-white-working-class-replaced-immigrants/

    It came from a talk yesterday at AEI with Charles Murray. Lot of iSteveish themes in there.

    “Dr Kristol” wants his currents batch of patients to die off so he can get new ones. The neocons, neoliberals and other globalists have to be driven off into permanent obscurity. The Kristol method is lethal.

    Read More
  186. Olorin says:
    @Ed
    I was just thinking the other day if there is one event the West would like a do over, it'd be the French Revolution. It unleashed so many radical ideas all at once that in hindsight haven't been beneficial to the West.

    What is destroying the West was in place long before 1789.

    Read More
  187. snorlax says:
    @Cagey Beast
    Afrikaner resentment and dislike of the British was hardly based on nothing. Take the early life experience of South Africa's last Governor-General as an example:

    The Anglo Boer War (Second Boer War) broke out when he was 5 years old. During the war his mother and the children were interned at the Winburg concentration camp. Of the three boys only two survived the concentration camp.
    ....
    When Swart was 7 years old he went to the government school in Winburg. He later went to a C.N.O. school, which is a school set up by the Afrikaners in response to Lord Milner's anglicisation policy at the government sponsored schools.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Robberts_Swart

    Skimming through your comments, you argue that we should rationally react to current circumstances instead of adopting a worldview that views everything through [an ideologically-distorted] lense of what the Nazis did 70 years ago. I agree!

    Likewise, the Afrikaners would’ve been a lot better off if they’d been willing to let the bygones from 70 years previous be bygones. It’s a stupid reason have to cut off their nose to spite their face. The world at the turn of the century was a brutal place, and European developments in the near future would make the Boer War look like the invasion of Grenada.

    In any event, my impression is that Afrikaner resentment against the English wasn’t so much about the Boer Wars, but instead was along the lines of the Québécois backlash to the trend of English displacing French on their restaurant menus and street signs (not so much that they’re still furious over the forced expulsion of the Acadians).

    In actuality, I believe the Boer Wars were for domestic consumption quasi-fictionally retconned into heroic victories, the way the War of 1812 is taught in Canadian schools or the Sino-Japanese War in Chinese. The stuff about how the Boers were horribly victimized by the British, who “invented concentration camps,” was a theme old South Africa created in their propaganda for foreign consumption.

    It’s like how the Armenian Genocide was suddenly discovered in the early 90′s, when Armenia was being criticized for ethnic cleansing in the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Or the Mufti of Jerusalem was found to have been part of Hitler’s inner circle sometime around 1967. Or the liquidation of the kulaks became the Ukrainian Genocide around the same time as the Armenian Genocide was unearthed. And so on.

    Now, all of these have a great deal of truth to them and are in service of causes I’m fairly sympathetic to (at least relative to the opposing causes), but they are also propaganda versions of history created by governments decades after the fact for primarily foreign consumption. Goebbels often said that propaganda ought to consist only of (carefully-selected) factual truths; the New York Times subscribes to that philosophy also.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I'm certain the Afrikaners lost nothing by leaving the Commonwealth and becoming a republic. I made an earlier comment on this, in between my last one and your reply:
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/sailer-in-takis-le-grand-remplacement/#comment-1759814

    Are you British yourself?
  188. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Thanks.

    Regarding the growth, I figured that it might be simply different birth rates. Even relatively mild differences - say 1.7 for white French and 2.4 for Muslims - would lead to huge changes over time.

    I suppose the real question is what's the tipping point. At what percentage of the population (or the under-40 population) do Muslims start to push for serious changes in the overall society? What happens if they reach 25% of the overall population and close to 50% of the population in the main cities? At those levels, I find it hard to believe that they just assimilate. Instead, I could easily see a big push for changes in the schools and self-policing of large parts of cities to enforce Muslim norms.

    It doesn't have to be violent - at least not that violent - just a constant political push backed by the threat of street violence to create distinct Muslim schools and neighborhoods, a society within society but a society that's growing and much more willing to enforce their way of life day in and day out on the streets.

    The West hasn't faced anything like this in a very, very long time. Mexicans and Central Americans aren't great but they're nothing compared to Muslims. France may have more whites as a % of the population than the U.S. but I'd rather be here than there.

    What happens if they reach 25% of the overall population and close to 50% of the population in the main cities?

    What will happen is already happening with the yearly mass car burning – they’re testing the power of the state. One year they’ll overwhelm the police in the big cities and it will be on.

    Soon.

    Read More
  189. ussr andy says:

    The South Africa stuff is fascinating. Do write more!
    I always felt (don’t know if justifiably) that there is some connection between it and the USSR. The way they were brought down by the same dark forces, even though one was a right-wing ethnostate and the other an authoritarian lefty technocracy.
    I think Afrikaners must have an intuitive feeling for what the the 90′s in Russia were like like no one else (and v/v.)
    And today the same dark forces want to engineer the South African scenario in Israel.

    Read More
  190. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @snorlax
    Skimming through your comments, you argue that we should rationally react to current circumstances instead of adopting a worldview that views everything through [an ideologically-distorted] lense of what the Nazis did 70 years ago. I agree!

    Likewise, the Afrikaners would've been a lot better off if they'd been willing to let the bygones from 70 years previous be bygones. It's a stupid reason have to cut off their nose to spite their face. The world at the turn of the century was a brutal place, and European developments in the near future would make the Boer War look like the invasion of Grenada.

    In any event, my impression is that Afrikaner resentment against the English wasn't so much about the Boer Wars, but instead was along the lines of the Québécois backlash to the trend of English displacing French on their restaurant menus and street signs (not so much that they're still furious over the forced expulsion of the Acadians).

    In actuality, I believe the Boer Wars were for domestic consumption quasi-fictionally retconned into heroic victories, the way the War of 1812 is taught in Canadian schools or the Sino-Japanese War in Chinese. The stuff about how the Boers were horribly victimized by the British, who "invented concentration camps," was a theme old South Africa created in their propaganda for foreign consumption.

    It's like how the Armenian Genocide was suddenly discovered in the early 90's, when Armenia was being criticized for ethnic cleansing in the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Or the Mufti of Jerusalem was found to have been part of Hitler's inner circle sometime around 1967. Or the liquidation of the kulaks became the Ukrainian Genocide around the same time as the Armenian Genocide was unearthed. And so on.

    Now, all of these have a great deal of truth to them and are in service of causes I'm fairly sympathetic to (at least relative to the opposing causes), but they are also propaganda versions of history created by governments decades after the fact for primarily foreign consumption. Goebbels often said that propaganda ought to consist only of (carefully-selected) factual truths; the New York Times subscribes to that philosophy also.

    I’m certain the Afrikaners lost nothing by leaving the Commonwealth and becoming a republic. I made an earlier comment on this, in between my last one and your reply:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/sailer-in-takis-le-grand-remplacement/#comment-1759814

    Are you British yourself?

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    WRT your previous reply (which I hadn't seen when writing my last one): Many (most, in fact) British people did have quite a bit of affection for old South Africa, remembering their shared sacrifice in both World Wars. Even as late as 1971 South Africa got a sympathetic portrayal in the Bond film Diamonds are Forever (don't watch it; it's the nadir of the series).

    That said, the fact is that the Afrikaners needed the British (including the ~40% of South African whites who were British) far more than the British needed the Afrikaners, which was not at all. Cucky Tories like MacMillan had no qualms about hanging the Afrikaners out to dry for (even perceived) domestic political advantage, because there wasn't any downside.

    On the other hand, the Afrikaners could not afford to both be diplomatically and economically isolated and still maintain the standard of living they were accustomed to. And, even post-"Winds," Britain was the closest thing to a friend they had among countries of any significance.

    Regardless of what MacMillan said, monarchy-loving Tories were the constituency most sympathetic to them in Britain. "Anti-racist" types hated the monarchy. Abolishing the monarchy accomplished nothing more than to insult their friends (including previously patriotic if not Nationalist-voting English-speakers, who increasingly became outright fifth columnists).

    Even had they eventually been kicked out of the Commonwealth Rhodesia-style, they would have retained a lot of sympathy that they lost in real life. MacMillan wasn't going to be PM forever; eventually there would be a Thatcher, who was willing to stick her neck out for them, but—only so far.

    The HW Bush administration took a rather MacMillan-like position on Israel. But Israel didn't respond by coming up with ways to offend the GOP base—stop approving visas to see the Church of the Nativity, cancel their orders from Boeing and General Dynamics in favor of Dassault and BAE. That obviously would've been a pointless and self-destructive way to play into the hands of their enemies.

    If the King insults you, you swallow your pride, grovel, and kiss his feet. You do this even though he killed all your uncles and cousins. That's just how the world works. The King can take away all your lands and titles, put your head on the chopping block, and you can't do jack shit. He's the King, and your job is to be the royal spittoon-bearer, and you love it because it's only at his pleasure you're not living amongst the shit-covered peasants who surround you.

    Metaphor over; to answer your question, I'm not British, but I am New English, if that counts for anything. :)
  191. okie says:
    @Steve Sailer
    At what time in the video?

    Two things
    1 Kristol really believes that cuz, he makes a comment about that idea destroying whatever is left of his career, and
    2. before his comment, around the 50 minute mark Murray answers with the same question with a modified limited hangout, that he went into the election thinking open borders was good, but came out thinking only high skill immigration is good.

    Read More
  192. @Bill P
    I'd be a little suspicious of using medical tests as a tool to tease out numbers like this. The reason being that there's a profit incentive to test as much as possible, so it's entirely possible (actually, probable) that a lot of hospitals are testing more than is appropriate. After all, if race doesn't officially exist in France, on what grounds do bureaucrats challenge hospitals that are testing every kid?

    Exactly. There is also a push from internally conflicted mixed-race people like Dorothy Roberts, white mother/black father, to abolish race-based medicine. SJWs love diversity but refuse to believe that people are different.

    Social justice advocate and law scholar Dorothy Roberts has a precise and powerful message: Race-based medicine is bad medicine. Even today, many doctors still use race as a medical shortcut; they make important decisions about things like pain tolerance based on a patient’s skin color instead of medical observation and measurement. In this searing talk, Roberts lays out the lingering traces of race-based medicine — and invites us to be a part of ending it. “It is more urgent than ever to finally abandon this backward legacy,” she says, “and to affirm our common humanity by ending the social inequalities that truly divide us.”

    https://www.ted.com/talks/dorothy_roberts_the_problem_with_race_based_medicine

    Read More
  193. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous Nephew
    "Anecdotally, the Italians are having fewer kids and even the college educated are having trouble finding any jobs. I suspect they’ve embraced too much economic protections that stifle growth."

    It's not the economic protections, it's the Euro. The presence of the southern countries in the Eurozone holds the currency at a level low enough for German exporters to thrive, but too high for Italy, Greece and Spain, who traditionally remained competitive by devaluing their currency. It's killing their economies and job prospects for their youth, yet they cling on tight to Euro-nurse. Greece would have been recovering by now if they'd left the Euro in 2015. Instead, they're even deeper in the crap.

    South of Rome (anecdotally, visit last year) they still seem to be having kids and there are very few illegal immigrants in places like Naples, perhaps due to the reputation of the locals. Unfortunately the North is the economic powerhouse of Italy, and (visit year before) it has huge numbers of Africans and a lot of 30-something natives with beautiful clothes but no kids.

    Was in Naples in December. Noticably more immigrants over the year before. The usual Africans (who buys the fake bags?) but surprised by the surge in Chinese in both Naples and Rome. Our driver complained bitterly about the unfair business practices of the Chinese in his town near Sorrento. I first visited Italy and France in 1960. I can remember when the worse fear is they would become ‘too American’ and lose ‘their charm’. I never thought I would see their cultures actually destroyed by immigration. But they let it happen. Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    The banking mafia want open borders and they are bribing the political-media class to betray their country - just read Clinton's private speeches groveling to the banks.

    The betrayal is so huge the average non-sociopathic person can't imagine it. They see it and think it must be some kind of mistake but it's not.
    , @Lurker
    How many of us 'let this happen'? When were we given a choice, when were we not demonised for wanting a choice?
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    Naples is the major European port for Chinese imports to Europe, and by all accounts 0nly about half of what comes in is ever seen by Customs (the Camorra control the ports). Untaxed Chinese textiles then go to the Chinese-owned fashion producers further north, a lot of Chinese up there.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-chinese-clash-idUSKCN0ZH5XS

    "Violent clashes broke out this week between police and the Chinese community in a suburb of Prato, near Florence, in central Italy, home to one of the largest concentrations of Chinese-run industry in Europe. Tensions had been rising in the town, Italy's textile capital, where people began emigrating from China in the mid-1990s. Some 50,000 Chinese work in the area, making clothes and handbags with the prized "Made in Italy" label. Many of the area's textile businesses depend on the labor of illegal immigrants, ignoring safety rules and evading taxes. The area is also the focus of an investigation into alleged illicit transfers of some 4.5 billion euros ($5.01 billion) to China from Italy between 2006 and 2010. The trouble in Prato began on Wednesday, when state health officials, who stepped up checks after seven people died in a fire at a garment workshop in 2013, went to inspect a factory."

     

    However, the Chinese are hedging their bets - they have IIRC bought control of the Greek port of Pireus, even nearer to the Suez Canal than Naples, though with probably worse railway and road connections.
  194. Yak-15 says:
    @Abelard Lindsey
    Beirut used to be known as the Paris of the Middle East. Perhap I need to visit Paris before it becomes the Beirut of Europe.

    I was just thinking that Lebanon is the perfect parallel of what France will become on its present course. Only difference will be increased tensions because of the racial element and the religious element.

    The biggest problem is that while Islam can somewhat tolerate Christians (no well though, see Egypt), they despise apostates. France will see many eventually convert to one or the other.

    I can see mass conversions to Catholicism because French people love France and will realize Islam destroys it.

    Again, it’s been decided. Lebanon will be a good proxy of what France will become.

    Read More
  195. @Daniel H
    >>The transformation of France from cheese eating surrender monkeys to sharia advocates and jihadis.

    That slur was invented the cucks over at National Review who have no standing to mock others for faithless treason. Don't use it.

    Furthermore, there was not a power on earth in 1940 who could have stopped the Nazi/Wehrmacht juggernaut, not even the USA military. Except, that is, the Soviet Union, who by dint of desperate courage managed to crush the Nazi/Wehrmacht.

    The French didn’t have a large enough country to regroup. In the first weeks they didn’t fight any worse than the Soviets, but the latter could afford the horrible losses and reorganize their defenses a thousand miles from their borders, something the French didn’t have a chance to do.

    Read More
  196. res says:
    @Neoconned
    Steve -- I'm in nursing school and so I took anatomy/phys relatively recently. 2015 I think it was. I recall from class and I chatted with my former teacher today about this -- that sickle cell is an EQUATORIAL ailment -- and not a race-based ailment.

    Hispanics, South Asians, Indonesians, Arabs/ME'ers and "Mediterranean Europeans" such as Greeks/Italians/French/Spaniards/etc. can also get sickle cell. It is NOT solely an African or black ailment so this is probably not a very good metric to determine the non-Franco birth rate in France.

    http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Anemia/Sickle-Cell-Trait.aspx

    Your nursing school did you a disservice. The African rates for SCD are 10x (!) or more those other groups per WHO data at http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/6/06-036673-table-T1.html

    Read More
  197. The figures are inflated by the fact that many hospitals, especially in Paris region, admit to simply giving all babies the test. Some doctors also give anyone vaguely Med-looking – or with Italian surnames – the test.

    For France, I prefer to rely on the stats collected for babies according to where parents were born. 20% are to parents where one or both of them were born outside the country, including European countries. If we factor in the French-born non-white parents, non-Euro births are realistically around 25%. Still pretty lousy, but not approaching 50% for some time.

    If you are still not convinced, realise that if we take the sickle-cell stats as the absolute truth, this would give euro births of around 460k. France has a white population of around 55 million which has been at around 1.8 TFR for the last few generations due to natalist policies (my French aunt has 6 children in Bordeaux region). Even taking into account mixing, I would stake my fortune on the fact that white births are at least 550k out of the approx annual 775k births. I should also point out that mixing can in real life be better than it looks on paper. My French cousin married a half-Malagasy girl, their children look 100% Euro. A number of foreigners will be genetically absorbed easily without trace.

    Read More
  198. @Massimo Heitor
    I have family visiting France now. She just wrote me:

    My friend said that the [ethnic] French are going through a population increase, and that young families are having 3-4 children each.
     
    I think the demographic issue is very real at the same time some of these demographic doom stats have been completely overblown.

    Anecdotally, the Italians are having fewer kids and even the college educated are having trouble finding any jobs. I suspect they've embraced too much economic protections that stifle growth.

    t the [ethnic] French are going through a population increase, and that young families are having 3-4

    Congrats to your relation’s social circle.

    But that’s not what’s happening. The fertility rate of people in France is 2.0 children per woman per lifetime. Surrounding nations with similar populations like Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and Italy have fertility rates of 1.1-1.5. The native fertility rates are about 1.0 in those countries while African and Maghreb migrants have more.

    And the French seem to have characteristics around the lower side of that. Probably the French fertility rate is around 0.9 or 1.0. The other 1.0 to 1.1 babies per woman are being born to Maghrebi and African women in France that routinely have 3-10 babies each at the expense of French taxpayers.

    That’s how you go from 80% French to 20% French population in France in three generations. Once the third world people are in your country and entitled to welfare for life, your only hope is to find a way to control their fertility or expel them and quick.

    America is blessed by heavenly luck once again to be flooded with Mexicans. Back home in their own country Mexicans heroically reduced their fertility from 6.0 to 2.1 in a concerted campaign of education and reform at all levels in one generation. Now Mexico is better educated and industrialized and on the brink of first world status. And people are no longer, on net, migrating north from Mexico. America really has a future in spite of the blunder of opening her borders for cheap labor.

    Europe, filled with Africans and Maghrebis, does not seem to have any future except as a third world hole. Even Brazil will soon be ten times better than France. The acme of civilized creativity and human achievement is walking dead. Not even a decade of Le Pen could change the course of that freight train at this time.

    Read More
  199. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Good post. But you may be interested in knowing that malaria was quite common in the US until the late 1800s. Nearly half the US was a malaria endemic region. Scientists around that time figured out how malaria was contracted by mosquito bites, and the US began an aggressive effort to wipe it out. Interesting, one of the big names in medicine from back in the day, Albert Freeman Africanus King (despite the name, actually a white guy), proposed to drape a giant net the height of the Washington monument over Washington DC to block out mosquitoes. Back then, common sense won the day more often, and thankfully that dream was never realized.

    Anyway… getting back to malaria, by the 1930s, the threat of malaria in the US was dramatically reduced from pesticides like DDT, draining swamplands, and so forth. My grandmother actually contracted malaria around this time as a little girl, as it was still prevalent in a few parts of the US. But by the 50s, the US had basically won the war against malaria, and kept it away.

    A good example of the America that used to exist. Today, such a thing could never happen. Pesticides would be restricted, the EPA and various environmental groups would prevent swamps from being drained. And the fact that it was poor white folks in the US who suffered the most would mean it would get little sympathy from the powers that be.

    Read More
  200. @anon

    Short of an utterly massive wave of immigration, I don’t see how the country wide numbers rise from 25.6% to 38.9% in ten years.
     
    easily

    you compare the percentages of the population who are of breeding age and their respective TFRs

    if one group are 20% of the breeding age population but have double the TFR they produce 1/3 of the babies

    8 x 1 = 8
    2 x 2 = 4

    next generation they are 33% of the breeding age population and if the TFR holds up*

    8 x 1 = 8
    4 x 2 = 8

    they produce 50% of the children

    (*it generally doesn't hold up entirely so new immigrants are really just a top up to the original engine - which was importing disproportionately breeding age immigrants)

    (in particular importing disproportionately breeding age immigrants for cheap labor - as poorer people have a different calculus when it comes to cost of having a kid vs their income + welfare)

    But the rise from 25.6% to 38.9% takes place not over a generation (typically 25 years) as in your example, but only over 10 years.

    That’s a dramatic difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    assuming a TFR of 2x the natives then it takes c. 16% of the breeding age population to produce 26% of births

    that 26% in the next generation (all else being equal) would produce 41% of the children

    so yes, 26% to 39% seems too much in 10 years if the TFR ratio was only 2x and if there was no extra breeding age immigration on top

    leaving aside if the program wasn't rolled out over time so the number tested increased that way what changes would be needed to get closer?

    i don't know France's breeding age population but just as a test say a pop of 50 million has ten million of breeding age so 100,000 would be 1%

    then immigration of 100,000 people a year of breeding age adds 1% a year to their share of the breeding age population (nb this is only 0.2% of total population a year) which over ten years would mean their share of the breeding age population goes from
    - 16% at the beginning
    - c. 24% at the end
    i.e. more or less halving the time to get to 41% of children produced

    it only takes tiny tweaks to the TFR ratio or small amounts of extra immigration (if it's breeding age immigration) to get from 26% to 39% in ten years

  201. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Was in Naples in December. Noticably more immigrants over the year before. The usual Africans (who buys the fake bags?) but surprised by the surge in Chinese in both Naples and Rome. Our driver complained bitterly about the unfair business practices of the Chinese in his town near Sorrento. I first visited Italy and France in 1960. I can remember when the worse fear is they would become 'too American' and lose 'their charm'. I never thought I would see their cultures actually destroyed by immigration. But they let it happen. Why?

    The banking mafia want open borders and they are bribing the political-media class to betray their country – just read Clinton’s private speeches groveling to the banks.

    The betrayal is so huge the average non-sociopathic person can’t imagine it. They see it and think it must be some kind of mistake but it’s not.

    Read More
  202. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @candid_observer
    But the rise from 25.6% to 38.9% takes place not over a generation (typically 25 years) as in your example, but only over 10 years.

    That's a dramatic difference.

    assuming a TFR of 2x the natives then it takes c. 16% of the breeding age population to produce 26% of births

    that 26% in the next generation (all else being equal) would produce 41% of the children

    so yes, 26% to 39% seems too much in 10 years if the TFR ratio was only 2x and if there was no extra breeding age immigration on top

    leaving aside if the program wasn’t rolled out over time so the number tested increased that way what changes would be needed to get closer?

    i don’t know France’s breeding age population but just as a test say a pop of 50 million has ten million of breeding age so 100,000 would be 1%

    then immigration of 100,000 people a year of breeding age adds 1% a year to their share of the breeding age population (nb this is only 0.2% of total population a year) which over ten years would mean their share of the breeding age population goes from
    - 16% at the beginning
    - c. 24% at the end
    i.e. more or less halving the time to get to 41% of children produced

    it only takes tiny tweaks to the TFR ratio or small amounts of extra immigration (if it’s breeding age immigration) to get from 26% to 39% in ten years

    Read More
  203. whorefinder says: • Website
    @reiner Tor
    When did Taki support a rapist? I haven't heard of the story.

    He’s wrote an editorial in Taki’s Mag saying that rapist Roman Polanski shouldn’t be prosecuted because he raped a long time ago and rapist Roman’s “paid his price.”

    Yeah, being a rich world-famous director lauded around the world is such a terrible price for raping a 13-year-old girl.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
    I think directors have an even bigger Diva complex than Hollywood stars. If someone told me that the incidence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder among directors was 100%, I'd disagree and say it was higher than that.
  204. snorlax says:
    @Cagey Beast
    I'm certain the Afrikaners lost nothing by leaving the Commonwealth and becoming a republic. I made an earlier comment on this, in between my last one and your reply:
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/sailer-in-takis-le-grand-remplacement/#comment-1759814

    Are you British yourself?

    WRT your previous reply (which I hadn’t seen when writing my last one): Many (most, in fact) British people did have quite a bit of affection for old South Africa, remembering their shared sacrifice in both World Wars. Even as late as 1971 South Africa got a sympathetic portrayal in the Bond film Diamonds are Forever (don’t watch it; it’s the nadir of the series).

    That said, the fact is that the Afrikaners needed the British (including the ~40% of South African whites who were British) far more than the British needed the Afrikaners, which was not at all. Cucky Tories like MacMillan had no qualms about hanging the Afrikaners out to dry for (even perceived) domestic political advantage, because there wasn’t any downside.

    On the other hand, the Afrikaners could not afford to both be diplomatically and economically isolated and still maintain the standard of living they were accustomed to. And, even post-”Winds,” Britain was the closest thing to a friend they had among countries of any significance.

    Regardless of what MacMillan said, monarchy-loving Tories were the constituency most sympathetic to them in Britain. “Anti-racist” types hated the monarchy. Abolishing the monarchy accomplished nothing more than to insult their friends (including previously patriotic if not Nationalist-voting English-speakers, who increasingly became outright fifth columnists).

    Even had they eventually been kicked out of the Commonwealth Rhodesia-style, they would have retained a lot of sympathy that they lost in real life. MacMillan wasn’t going to be PM forever; eventually there would be a Thatcher, who was willing to stick her neck out for them, but—only so far.

    The HW Bush administration took a rather MacMillan-like position on Israel. But Israel didn’t respond by coming up with ways to offend the GOP base—stop approving visas to see the Church of the Nativity, cancel their orders from Boeing and General Dynamics in favor of Dassault and BAE. That obviously would’ve been a pointless and self-destructive way to play into the hands of their enemies.

    If the King insults you, you swallow your pride, grovel, and kiss his feet. You do this even though he killed all your uncles and cousins. That’s just how the world works. The King can take away all your lands and titles, put your head on the chopping block, and you can’t do jack shit. He’s the King, and your job is to be the royal spittoon-bearer, and you love it because it’s only at his pleasure you’re not living amongst the shit-covered peasants who surround you.

    Metaphor over; to answer your question, I’m not British, but I am New English, if that counts for anything. :)

    Read More
  205. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    If France's immigration rates from Africa are so low, how did the Muslim population increase so much over the past couple of decades?

    I believe the migration began much earlier, the 1950s. I don’t know the figures, but I’ve read about Germany’s Turks: they were 1950s, ’60′s.

    Many came to France to work in industries destined to be off-shored anyway (like textiles). So now their descendants have a high unemployment rate.

    But the birth rate for these early migrants was and remains high (above replacement),

    Read More
  206. Lot says:
    @res

    we’d see more sickle cell homozygotes
     
    The real wild cards here are the number of mixed children and the relative number of blacks versus lower prevalence non-white populations. Here is the wiki for SCT (i.e. sickle cell trait, the heterozygous version, as opposed to sickle cell disease for homozygous) as background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_trait
    They note that SCT has 25% prevalence in West Africa and another reference says up to 3% SCD in sub-Saharan Africa: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708126/

    Here is the SNPedia page on Sickle Cell: http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Sickle_Cell_Anemia
    but it doesn't actually add much besides showing a 20% prevalence for the SCT allele in the YRI (Yoruba African) population.

    Given the population data, the primary risk population is West African. From the WHO table (see PS) we have Sickle Cell affected conception rates per 1000 at about:
    African 10.7
    Eastern Med 0.8
    European 0.07 (unsure if this includes non-whites)
    SE Asian 0.7

    Given this I think SCD rates are a decent proxy for full African births only (but not for any other non-whites). The question is who is being screened. Are the somewhat higher rates for non-Europeans (e.g. Muslims) causing screening? What about half African births? What about one or more mixed race parents?

    Steve talks about this in his article: "Both parents must come from a region at risk. Only one of the two if the second is not known." But this does seem inconsistent with your (Lot) observations about increasing rate of screening with a flat rate of SCD. One possible explanation is the recent immigrants are primarily non-African but still from an at risk population. Another possible explanation is that increasing awareness and screening means people know when they have SCT and are avoiding pairing up based on that (seems unlikely to me, but American Jews do something like this for other disorders as Steve noted). The key question is: how well do the screening rules align with the screening reality?

    Of course no one is going to make the data to resolve this available. I'm beginning to think the best approach is a Trumpian "publish the scary but arguably wrong information and challenge the other side to rebut it with real data". This worked beautifully with his partially wrong crime stats by race. I think it was also effective with his 3 million illegal voters theme.

    Which I would argue is exactly what Steve has done here.

    With respect to the pictures you show, are there areas with concentrations of immigrants in those regions? Until recently you could probably find similar pictures in Paris as long as you stayed out of the banlieues.

    P.S. Much more on the global epidemiology of hemoglobin disorders: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/6/06-036673/en/
    with population breakdowns at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/6/06-036673-table-T1.html

    Of course no one is going to make the data to resolve this available. I’m beginning to think the best approach is a Trumpian “publish the scary but arguably wrong information and challenge the other side to rebut it with real data”. This worked beautifully with his partially wrong crime stats by race. I think it was also effective with his 3 million illegal voters theme.

    Sure, it may have worked for Trump, but there are plenty of hatefacts that are perfectly true.

    Plenty of politicians have been damaged by saying things that were not true or not PC. Todd Akin, George Allen, Al Gore. Trump is fairly unique and just barely won his election over a very unpopular Democrat with corruption issues and no charisma. His positions present an attractive model, but we really don’t know if his unusual personality helped or hurt him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Since Trump won and he's incredibly popular, we can assume his unusual personality helped him do that.
    As bad as Hillary was as a candidate, no other Republican would have been able to beat her. Nevertrumpers were enraged because they thought it was their turn to put a neo-cuck in the White House. The truth is only Trump could have pulled it off, and stop the Democratic monopoly on power.
    , @res
    Agreed it could be a risky strategy. I'm just beyond fed up with how ineffective my preferred approach of using fact based argument is. Usually by people just ignoring my arguments.

    Speaking of which, any response to the more substantive points in my earlier comment? I think your argument was worth making to test Steve's assumptions and conclusion, but believe it has some serious weaknesses as I tried to discuss.

    I would also like to reemphasize something I consider key in these PC days. Absence of a desire to obtain hard evidence that would resolve an argument is an excellent indicator someone (to be clear, I am not referring to Lot here) does not really believe what they are saying.
  207. @Alfa158
    I can't read Takis on my mobile devices. Thhe site apparently use some sort of extremely intrusive ad program that overwrites the previous page so you can't go back, and also crashes the browser while trying to overwrite the page you are on with pop up ads. My iPad in particular will sometimes crash to blank screen and have to reboot.
    I'm OK reading it on my PC which has Norton web security that automatically blocks malware attacks and keeps the ad from taking control of the browser. I'll have to see if Norton offers an iOS version.

    To read on an iPad, do NOT pick the “single page” option. This opens a new tab of ads, something I have never seen anywhere else.

    Use iPad Safari’s “reader” function. It’s been considerably improved in iOS 10.

    It will display both pages without the ad page. It also blocks most ads too.

    You can also email an entire article (great for sending stuff from sites that require a subscription to friends that don’t have a subscription),

    Read More
  208. @szopen
    Remember - there will be no Apocalypse. No collapse. It's just corruption will be higher, beaureaucracy will be worse, quality of life, justice, political discourse will go down. No collapse, no tribal society like Afghanistan - think rather Brazil, Turkey, Tunisia. Wealthy elites and upper middle class will live their lives in their own neighbourhoods. They will interact with non-white professionals (and there will be plenty of those too) and will say that no fears of those racists have materialised. In the meantime, the common folk will become poorer, have worse medicare, districts will become more ugly, more dangerous.

    Can’t use an Agree so let me just say, “I agree.”

    The elites will always be safe. You can already see the disappearing middle class, as people become elites or join the proles.

    Read More
  209. @Olorin
    What is destroying the West was in place long before 1789.

    OK, since when? And what was it?

    Read More
  210. @syonredux

    It is time to reconsider whether winning the First World War was beneficial for Western civilization. A German Victory in World War I means the colonials would have stayed in their hinterlands since the ports would have been controlled by the colonial powers.
     
    Who knows? Lots of variables in question......

    I’ve thought it myself. WW I was the beginning of the end for the West.

    But is it worth spending time on (can’t reverse it now)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Frau Katze:

    Yes, it is worthwhile spending time so that we won't redo/remake the same mistakes of the past!
    , @Captain Tripps
    No. Its crying over spilled milk. Can't "unkill" all the dead and the associated potential human capital, plus all the downstream effects. Its worth spending time on in the sense of "future generations, let this be a warning to you", but that's about it. Unless some paradigm-shattering heretofore hidden fact suddenly emerges, like Kaiser Bill was actually a French doppelganger sent back in time to prevent Imperial Germany from winning the war.

    Maybe in an alternate universe somewhere, the Great Powers worked out a compromise and the Guns of August never happened. But sadly, our universe was not so fortunate.
    , @colm
    It is. For example, undid all treaty Woodrow Wilson created.

    And return everyone who had at least one of their grandparents who were not in Europe in 1914 back to where they belong.
  211. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Daniel H
    >>The transformation of France from cheese eating surrender monkeys to sharia advocates and jihadis.

    That slur was invented the cucks over at National Review who have no standing to mock others for faithless treason. Don't use it.

    Furthermore, there was not a power on earth in 1940 who could have stopped the Nazi/Wehrmacht juggernaut, not even the USA military. Except, that is, the Soviet Union, who by dint of desperate courage managed to crush the Nazi/Wehrmacht.

    It’s from The Simpsons. It’s an old trope in the US that predates the neocons.

    It’s not completely untrue either. In WW2, the French were not known for spirited resistance, not just in Europe against the Germans, but also in the Pacific theater in French Indochina.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    In WW2 in 1940 in Belgium and at Dunkerque (where they covered the flight of the BEF), the French army didn't fight the least bit worse than the BEF, and in 1944-45 they also fought OK compared to the Americans or the British, especially considering that in 1944-45 they were considerably worse equipped. They simply didn't have an ocean (like the Americans), the English Channel (like the British), or the vast steppes (like the Soviets) to protect them or give them a second chance. It's obvious that neither the US (had it been smaller and with a land border with Germany) nor the UK (had it been neighbors with Germany), nor the USSR (had it been smaller) could've withstood the Wehrmacht in 1940-41.

    I don't even understand your reference to Indochina, since nobody even attacked the French there. They were pressured by their German occupiers to let Japan build bases there. I'd wager any government under foreign occupation would've done that. After late 1941 they also lost any connection to the area.

    , @anon

    It’s not completely untrue either. In WW2, the French were not known for spirited resistance...
     
    Yeah but does the same apply to Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia, early Barbarossa etc?

    German tactics and strategy were superior in the first years of the war so everyone got their butt kicked.

    Only those protected by water or winter survived to improve their game so I think the anti-French thing is overdone - if their generals hadn't sent their forces into Belgium the German outflanking move through the Ardennes wouldn't have been so dramatic.

    Even if it was true they're in for such a crap time in the next ten years i don't think they need any extra kicking.
    , @NickG
    Yup, also retconned by Allied propaganda is the fact that France became an Axis power after June 1940.

    They bombed Malta and Gibraltar, collaborated with the Japs in Indochina, opposed Allied landings in Morcocco - operation Torch and Madagascar operation Ironclad. There were French SS formations ....And much more besides.

  212. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Quebec is not a good example:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX4zI8aioq4

    Montreal was an English built and dominated city until relatively recently. There wasn’t so much a backlash against an English trend as a takeover by French Quebeckers of largely English built and dominated Montreal

    Read More
  213. Lurker says:
    @Anon
    Was in Naples in December. Noticably more immigrants over the year before. The usual Africans (who buys the fake bags?) but surprised by the surge in Chinese in both Naples and Rome. Our driver complained bitterly about the unfair business practices of the Chinese in his town near Sorrento. I first visited Italy and France in 1960. I can remember when the worse fear is they would become 'too American' and lose 'their charm'. I never thought I would see their cultures actually destroyed by immigration. But they let it happen. Why?

    How many of us ‘let this happen’? When were we given a choice, when were we not demonised for wanting a choice?

    Read More
  214. Dan Hayes says:
    @Frau Katze
    I've thought it myself. WW I was the beginning of the end for the West.

    But is it worth spending time on (can't reverse it now)?

    Frau Katze:

    Yes, it is worthwhile spending time so that we won’t redo/remake the same mistakes of the past!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    True, but doubters always will say, "Now is different."

    I'm not suggesting we don't study history. But even here, there's a right/left division.

    The left wants to see evil everywhere. They emphasize the most negative parts, claiming that our civilization is uniquely evil.

    I've found that older books, written before this outlook became predominant, are often better.

    Needless to say, places like NYT always pick for review leftist books.

    And universities are presumably picking the same. (I majored in Math/Physics, so I'm not familiar with politics invading the classroom.)
  215. @Anonymous
    It's from The Simpsons. It's an old trope in the US that predates the neocons.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZUKEVU-TwM

    It's not completely untrue either. In WW2, the French were not known for spirited resistance, not just in Europe against the Germans, but also in the Pacific theater in French Indochina.

    In WW2 in 1940 in Belgium and at Dunkerque (where they covered the flight of the BEF), the French army didn’t fight the least bit worse than the BEF, and in 1944-45 they also fought OK compared to the Americans or the British, especially considering that in 1944-45 they were considerably worse equipped. They simply didn’t have an ocean (like the Americans), the English Channel (like the British), or the vast steppes (like the Soviets) to protect them or give them a second chance. It’s obvious that neither the US (had it been smaller and with a land border with Germany) nor the UK (had it been neighbors with Germany), nor the USSR (had it been smaller) could’ve withstood the Wehrmacht in 1940-41.

    I don’t even understand your reference to Indochina, since nobody even attacked the French there. They were pressured by their German occupiers to let Japan build bases there. I’d wager any government under foreign occupation would’ve done that. After late 1941 they also lost any connection to the area.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker

    and in 1944-45 they also fought OK compared to the Americans or the British, especially considering that in 1944-45 they were considerably worse equipped.
     
    I'm not sure thats true? The ground forces 1944 were pretty much armed and organised as US units though with some French/British weapons & uniforms. And the air forces were largely British equipped.
  216. Lurker says:
    @Anonymous Nephew
    The UK government (and their devolved parts like Scotland) report on the number of 'ethnic minority' kids in a school. In England and Wales in 2015 30.4% of primary school kids were 'ethnic minority', so we're not far behind France.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33094304

    "In primary schools, 30.4% of pupils are from an ethnic minority, compared with 29.5% the previous year. But there are wide regional variations. In the inner London boroughs, 81% of pupils are from ethnic minorities; while in north-east England, the figure is below 11%.

    And at council level, in Newham 94% of pupils are from ethnic minorities, while in Durham the figure is below 5%. In inner London, the biggest ethnic group in primary school are black pupils, predominantly from an African background, with Asian pupils the second biggest group.

    In secondary schools, about 27% of pupils are ethnic minorities, which the report says represents an increase of about 30% in six years."
     

    It’s more confusing than it appears because ONS count Poles, for example, as part of that 5% non-British white population. But DoE appear to count Poles as an ethnic minority in schools.

    So that 30% ethnic minority figure in schools includes non-British whites. It may even include self-identified white Irish.

    The fact that two government bodies count heads in different ways is either a charming idiosyncrasy, idiocy or a cynical measure to disrupt understanding.

    Read More
  217. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    Right, but most immigration to France from, say, Sicily was several generations ago and have been highly assimilated through intermarriage. That's why I discussed the mechanics of who qualifies closely.

    If both parents were from Sicily the baby would be tested.

    If one parent was from Sicily the baby would not be tested.

    What was unclear was that if say both parents had one grandparent from Sicily. It sounds like they wouldn't be tested, but maybe they would be.

    The French received – and assimilated – an awful lot of Corsican blood, but I don’t think Corsica is on the sickle cell list.
    Doubtless there was a steady stream of Sicilian immigration into France but somehow I doubt if it was ever highly significant. Italian emigrants to France originated all over the peninsula – possibly northern Italians prevailed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I looked up model Carla Bruni, the wife of former president Nicolas Sarkozy. She was born in Turin in the far northwest of Italy as were her mother and the two men alleged to be her father.
    , @Steve Sailer
    I looked up model Carla Bruni, the wife of former president Nicolas Sarkozy. She was born in Turin in the far northwest of Italy as were her mother and the two men alleged to be her father. Cities that host the Winter Olympics usually don't have a lot of falciparum malaria.
  218. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @cwhatfuture
    This is why the French are so desperate to have an EU and an expanded EU, including Eastern Europe. It is a desire, perhaps subconscious, to show a lesser percentages of Muslims. 30% of France, yes that is terrible, destructive, impossible but 10% of Europe is manageable. The collapse of the EU will cause an existential crisis in France.

    Perhaps, but why aren’t the French – who basically own the EU – showing a tougher, harder line on the current invader crisis troubling Europe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    the banking mafia want open borders - see Clinton's speeches to the banks leaked by wikileaks - the politicians are bought
  219. @Dan Hayes
    Frau Katze:

    Yes, it is worthwhile spending time so that we won't redo/remake the same mistakes of the past!

    True, but doubters always will say, “Now is different.”

    I’m not suggesting we don’t study history. But even here, there’s a right/left division.

    The left wants to see evil everywhere. They emphasize the most negative parts, claiming that our civilization is uniquely evil.

    I’ve found that older books, written before this outlook became predominant, are often better.

    Needless to say, places like NYT always pick for review leftist books.

    And universities are presumably picking the same. (I majored in Math/Physics, so I’m not familiar with politics invading the classroom.)

    Read More
  220. a reader says:

    For instance, 945 cars were torched on New Year’s Eve in France.

    in 2005: 45,588 cars were burned,
    – 2006 : 44,157
    – 2007: 46,814
    – 2008: 40,496
    – 2009: 40,000+

    Le Monde (4th paragraph)

    10,000 cars here, 10,000 cars there, pretty soon you’re talking real numbers!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    How many of these are Gallic Lightning insurance fraud?
  221. @Anonymous
    The French received - and assimilated - an awful lot of Corsican blood, but I don't think Corsica is on the sickle cell list.
    Doubtless there was a steady stream of Sicilian immigration into France but somehow I doubt if it was ever highly significant. Italian emigrants to France originated all over the peninsula - possibly northern Italians prevailed.

    I looked up model Carla Bruni, the wife of former president Nicolas Sarkozy. She was born in Turin in the far northwest of Italy as were her mother and the two men alleged to be her father.

    Read More
  222. @Anonymous
    The French received - and assimilated - an awful lot of Corsican blood, but I don't think Corsica is on the sickle cell list.
    Doubtless there was a steady stream of Sicilian immigration into France but somehow I doubt if it was ever highly significant. Italian emigrants to France originated all over the peninsula - possibly northern Italians prevailed.

    I looked up model Carla Bruni, the wife of former president Nicolas Sarkozy. She was born in Turin in the far northwest of Italy as were her mother and the two men alleged to be her father. Cities that host the Winter Olympics usually don’t have a lot of falciparum malaria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    North west Italy/South east France.

    The regions really blur into one and until recently were bitterly disputed.
  223. @a reader
    For instance, 945 cars were torched on New Year’s Eve in France.

    in 2005: 45,588 cars were burned,
    - 2006 : 44,157
    - 2007: 46,814
    - 2008: 40,496
    - 2009: 40,000+

    Le Monde (4th paragraph)

    10,000 cars here, 10,000 cars there, pretty soon you're talking real numbers!

    How many of these are Gallic Lightning insurance fraud?

    Read More
  224. @candid_observer
    Another sign that the data can't accurately reflect actual demographic changes is precisely what makes the data so eye-popping: the genuinely incredible rise in the numbers. Short of an utterly massive wave of immigration, I don't see how the country wide numbers rise from 25.6% to 38.9% in ten years.

    The numbers are too bad to be true.

    Couldn’t an annual influx of 100,000 people significantly affect this? It means one million people over ten years. If on average each couple of them has one child over this decade (i.e. on average 5 years within immigrating, a conservative estimate), then that’s already 50,000 children per year, 6.25% of live births in Metropolitan France. They are more likely to occur at the end of the period. So if you take an increase of 25.6% to 38.9, at least 6.25, but possibly more, of this increase could easily be ascribed to those new African immigrants you guys just dismissed as insignificant.

    There’s another statistic, Wikipedia says that in 2010 27.3% of newborns in Metropolitan France were born to at least one foreign-born parent, of which 23.9% had at least one parent born outside of Europe. People of the overseas territories are not counted! Nor those who were born to Arab or black parents already born in France. There must be at least a 10% share of those.

    So yes, the numbers may be slightly exaggerated, but I fail to see how they are impossible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Again, according to the same Wikipedia page, between 2006 and 2008, 16% of newborns had at least one Maghrebi grandparent, and 12% (there could be some overlap, if I understand correctly) at least one non-European grandparent from outside the Maghreb.

    Again, roughly in the same ballpark as the sickle cell estimate.

    However, since 2004, there have only been 70,000 African immigrants (not counting those from the overseas territories or African Latin Americans etc., who may or may not be few), so I overestimated that number in my previous comment.

    , @anon

    Couldn’t an annual influx of 100,000 people significantly affect this?
     
    That is actually the main driver imo.

    What happens is new immigrants often have a much higher TFR than 2x and are at peak breeding age when they arrive so they have lots of kids in the first ten years or so.

    the TFR declines with later generations

    it happens at blinding speed but it's mostly hidden in the blue collar areas - until the day it's not

  225. @reiner Tor
    Couldn't an annual influx of 100,000 people significantly affect this? It means one million people over ten years. If on average each couple of them has one child over this decade (i.e. on average 5 years within immigrating, a conservative estimate), then that's already 50,000 children per year, 6.25% of live births in Metropolitan France. They are more likely to occur at the end of the period. So if you take an increase of 25.6% to 38.9, at least 6.25, but possibly more, of this increase could easily be ascribed to those new African immigrants you guys just dismissed as insignificant.

    There's another statistic, Wikipedia says that in 2010 27.3% of newborns in Metropolitan France were born to at least one foreign-born parent, of which 23.9% had at least one parent born outside of Europe. People of the overseas territories are not counted! Nor those who were born to Arab or black parents already born in France. There must be at least a 10% share of those.

    So yes, the numbers may be slightly exaggerated, but I fail to see how they are impossible.

    Again, according to the same Wikipedia page, between 2006 and 2008, 16% of newborns had at least one Maghrebi grandparent, and 12% (there could be some overlap, if I understand correctly) at least one non-European grandparent from outside the Maghreb.

    Again, roughly in the same ballpark as the sickle cell estimate.

    However, since 2004, there have only been 70,000 African immigrants (not counting those from the overseas territories or African Latin Americans etc., who may or may not be few), so I overestimated that number in my previous comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    since 2004, there have only been 70,000 African immigrants (not counting those from the overseas territories or African Latin Americans etc., who may or may not be few)
     
    I meant 70,000 African migrants (including Maghrebis) annually.
  226. Lurker says:
    @reiner Tor
    In WW2 in 1940 in Belgium and at Dunkerque (where they covered the flight of the BEF), the French army didn't fight the least bit worse than the BEF, and in 1944-45 they also fought OK compared to the Americans or the British, especially considering that in 1944-45 they were considerably worse equipped. They simply didn't have an ocean (like the Americans), the English Channel (like the British), or the vast steppes (like the Soviets) to protect them or give them a second chance. It's obvious that neither the US (had it been smaller and with a land border with Germany) nor the UK (had it been neighbors with Germany), nor the USSR (had it been smaller) could've withstood the Wehrmacht in 1940-41.

    I don't even understand your reference to Indochina, since nobody even attacked the French there. They were pressured by their German occupiers to let Japan build bases there. I'd wager any government under foreign occupation would've done that. After late 1941 they also lost any connection to the area.

    and in 1944-45 they also fought OK compared to the Americans or the British, especially considering that in 1944-45 they were considerably worse equipped.

    I’m not sure thats true? The ground forces 1944 were pretty much armed and organised as US units though with some French/British weapons & uniforms. And the air forces were largely British equipped.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think they were used like the worse equipped parts of the US armed forces. It's obvious neither the British nor the Americans had any incentive to equip them as well as their own units.

    In any event, during the Battle of France, the French lost 90,000 dead in six weeks (though some of it was overseas troops), given their population of 42,000,000 compared to the 131,000,000 population of the US, it's comparable to the whole of US losses in WW2 (adjusted for population size, just slightly larger), and then they lost a further 100,000+ (it's an exaggeration, though, because of the preponderance of overseas troops) in 1944-45.

    The "surrender monkeys" stereotype is based on the fact that France was smaller than the US or the USSR and had no English Channel nor an ocean to protect them from the Germans.

    It's the Germans who were really good (and a bit lucky, too), not the French that bad or cowardly.
  227. @Lurker

    and in 1944-45 they also fought OK compared to the Americans or the British, especially considering that in 1944-45 they were considerably worse equipped.
     
    I'm not sure thats true? The ground forces 1944 were pretty much armed and organised as US units though with some French/British weapons & uniforms. And the air forces were largely British equipped.

    I think they were used like the worse equipped parts of the US armed forces. It’s obvious neither the British nor the Americans had any incentive to equip them as well as their own units.

    In any event, during the Battle of France, the French lost 90,000 dead in six weeks (though some of it was overseas troops), given their population of 42,000,000 compared to the 131,000,000 population of the US, it’s comparable to the whole of US losses in WW2 (adjusted for population size, just slightly larger), and then they lost a further 100,000+ (it’s an exaggeration, though, because of the preponderance of overseas troops) in 1944-45.

    The “surrender monkeys” stereotype is based on the fact that France was smaller than the US or the USSR and had no English Channel nor an ocean to protect them from the Germans.

    It’s the Germans who were really good (and a bit lucky, too), not the French that bad or cowardly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Captain Tripps

    It’s the Germans who were really good (and a bit lucky, too), not the French that bad or cowardly.
     
    A great point. The common misconception of "surrendering French" is largely due to the quick defeat in 1940. But that was as much a political failure as a military one. From Charlemagne all the way through 1870, the French were the Gold Standard for land armies in Western Europe; occasionally another European power would go through a phase of greatness (i.e., Gustavus Adolphus, Friedrich der Grosse), but the French were used as the the yardstick for military proficiency. Even after the humiliation of 1870-71, they clearly redeemed themselves in 1914-1918.

    Starting in 1870, the Germans got better in learning from their past mistakes and overtook them.
  228. @reiner Tor
    Again, according to the same Wikipedia page, between 2006 and 2008, 16% of newborns had at least one Maghrebi grandparent, and 12% (there could be some overlap, if I understand correctly) at least one non-European grandparent from outside the Maghreb.

    Again, roughly in the same ballpark as the sickle cell estimate.

    However, since 2004, there have only been 70,000 African immigrants (not counting those from the overseas territories or African Latin Americans etc., who may or may not be few), so I overestimated that number in my previous comment.

    since 2004, there have only been 70,000 African immigrants (not counting those from the overseas territories or African Latin Americans etc., who may or may not be few)

    I meant 70,000 African migrants (including Maghrebis) annually.

    Read More
  229. BB753 says:
    @Lot

    Of course no one is going to make the data to resolve this available. I’m beginning to think the best approach is a Trumpian “publish the scary but arguably wrong information and challenge the other side to rebut it with real data”. This worked beautifully with his partially wrong crime stats by race. I think it was also effective with his 3 million illegal voters theme.
     
    Sure, it may have worked for Trump, but there are plenty of hatefacts that are perfectly true.

    Plenty of politicians have been damaged by saying things that were not true or not PC. Todd Akin, George Allen, Al Gore. Trump is fairly unique and just barely won his election over a very unpopular Democrat with corruption issues and no charisma. His positions present an attractive model, but we really don't know if his unusual personality helped or hurt him.

    Since Trump won and he’s incredibly popular, we can assume his unusual personality helped him do that.
    As bad as Hillary was as a candidate, no other Republican would have been able to beat her. Nevertrumpers were enraged because they thought it was their turn to put a neo-cuck in the White House. The truth is only Trump could have pulled it off, and stop the Democratic monopoly on power.

    Read More
  230. @anonguy
    In case you hadn't noticed, Catholicism was the response to spiritual needs of feudal Europeans.

    It is an anachronistic cultural artifact now. It has no more chance of regaining its former relevance than it does of sending a man to the moon.

    The history of the 20th century, and now into ours, has been largely guided by the West's search for a new universal moral compass as Christianity became increasingly unable to broadly meet the needs of the West in the modern era.

    It has no more chance of regaining its former relevance than it does of sending a man to the moon.

    In a billion years on a billion planets the coming of Christ will be conflated with that very event (the opening of the seed of life, Earth) as if the two were one and the same.

    Read More
  231. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    I looked up model Carla Bruni, the wife of former president Nicolas Sarkozy. She was born in Turin in the far northwest of Italy as were her mother and the two men alleged to be her father. Cities that host the Winter Olympics usually don't have a lot of falciparum malaria.

    North west Italy/South east France.

    The regions really blur into one and until recently were bitterly disputed.

    Read More
  232. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The god-awful situation in France is entirely a disaster of their own – or at least successive French political classes – making.
    For once, outsiders, occupiers, rivals etc – particularly the despised rosbifs – just simply cannot be blamed.

    For this reason sympathy – rather than harsh criticism and censure – is misplaced.

    As I’ve said before, the best that can happen is that the former eastern bloc nations take France as a warning, a moral lesson in real time history, and reject the damndest efforts of the Economist magazine and the EU Commission in forcing their motherlands to adopt the same course as the French.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    the best that can happen is that the former eastern bloc nations take France as a warning, a moral lesson in real time history
     
    No, the best would be for them to expel the Arabs and blacks and help with similar efforts in Germany, Sweden, the UK and other countries.

    In Hungary one of the leading conservative magazines wrote a couple years ago that it's a fantasy to think that after there will be a Western European Caliphate, the upper middle class Hungarian burghers will still be reading their Márai novels while sipping their red wines in their peaceful homes on the Buda hillsides. It's probably just a fantasy, not going to happen.

    I don't like the French, but it's stupid to feel anything but sadness at their collapse, and the best outcome for any other peoples of European descent would be a reinvigorated France kept French.
  233. NickG says:
    @Simon in London
    They gave SA to the Xhosa, not the Zulu.

    They gave SA to the Xhosa, not the Zulu

    .

    True that Mandela was Xhosa but the current South African state president – Jacob Zuma – is Zulu.

    During the run up to the April 1994 first all race elections, on 28 March 1994, I had a college visiting the centre of Joburg and he was driving up out the ramp of the underground car park of a bank HQ (ABSA Towers) and there was a demonstration by around 20,000 chanting Zulus loyal to Chief ‘Gatsha’ Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s (who not alot of people know, made an appearance in the film Zulu) IFP – Inkatha Freedom Party.

    My colleague noticed were green lights buzzing down the street as he pulled up the ramp onto the street. It turned out this was 7.62x39mm (AK47) tracer, which he was a tad slow catching on to. Around 50 people were killed that day, he reversed back down the ramp sharpish and sat it out in the building.

    Read More
  234. Another general consideration is that between 1999 and 2005, the number of Maghrebis in France increased by 17.5%, in just six years. Though immigrant numbers weren’t given, extrapolating that means a doubling in maybe 25 years. That’s the headline number, not the number of newborns (which is a leading indicator and thus could increase more quickly). As I wrote, some of the increase must be due to immigrants, who in turn are almost all of childbearing age, so quickly could contribute on the share of births front.

    While the sickle cell testing number seems to be faster, so might overstate the point, an explanation could be if white birthrates are decreasing at the same time. If Maghrebis have a population explosion with an ever larger number of newborns, while white birth rates collapse, that could increase the relative birthrates even higher.

    So the more I look into this, the less sense the pink pill arguments seem to make. They are just wrong.

    Read More
  235. @Anonymous
    The god-awful situation in France is entirely a disaster of their own - or at least successive French political classes - making.
    For once, outsiders, occupiers, rivals etc - particularly the despised rosbifs - just simply cannot be blamed.

    For this reason sympathy - rather than harsh criticism and censure - is misplaced.

    As I've said before, the best that can happen is that the former eastern bloc nations take France as a warning, a moral lesson in real time history, and reject the damndest efforts of the Economist magazine and the EU Commission in forcing their motherlands to adopt the same course as the French.

    the best that can happen is that the former eastern bloc nations take France as a warning, a moral lesson in real time history

    No, the best would be for them to expel the Arabs and blacks and help with similar efforts in Germany, Sweden, the UK and other countries.

    In Hungary one of the leading conservative magazines wrote a couple years ago that it’s a fantasy to think that after there will be a Western European Caliphate, the upper middle class Hungarian burghers will still be reading their Márai novels while sipping their red wines in their peaceful homes on the Buda hillsides. It’s probably just a fantasy, not going to happen.

    I don’t like the French, but it’s stupid to feel anything but sadness at their collapse, and the best outcome for any other peoples of European descent would be a reinvigorated France kept French.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Sorry, but nature - and indeed the whole course of human history - are harsh, pitiless, indifferent and merciless taskmasters.

    The only upshot is that 'you are on your own' - which can be read that one is ultimately the maker of one's own fate, for better or worse.
    , @Gabriel M
    Spot on.
  236. iffen says:
    @syonredux
    The old joke went that Apartheid meant capitalism for the English and the Jews, socialism for the Afrikaners, and fascism for the Blacks.

    Not to mention that (does this sound familiar) S. African industrialists liked cheap black labor in the mines, and even more blacks kept coming in
     
    There lies the rub. They could have created a European enclave, but that would have meant turning off the cheap labor spigot...

    And, yes, the parallel to Anglo-America and the current Mestizo invasion is apt.

    R.I.P Anglo-America, death due to cheap grapes.......

    R.I.P Anglo-America, death due to cheap grapes…….

    The Wrath of Picked Grapes

    Read More
  237. @The Man From K Street
    A Frenchwoman (educated, professional) of my acquaintance has only just now, at the age of 36, ceased being cynically apolitical, and has jumped aboard the Macron Train with an eye to being on the list of potential deputies to the National Assembly from his new party. I have told her how ostensibly ridiculous it is to expect that this guy (Macron), yet another Enarque raised almost from birth to believe he is entitled to be of the governing class, could possibly be a true reformer, let alone of some already-obsolete Blairite "Third Way" variety, but she gives that Gallic shrug and says it's probably true but the only way to stop the FN. She would have reluctantly supported Fillon (reluctantly because he's one of those catholiques--France has moved past that) but of course he seems to have crashed and burned by giving his wife and kids fake jobs paid out of the public purse.

    She's an unmarried single mother.

    Were I prone to it, your comment would be depressing on so many levels. The lack of concern, or even awareness (possibly) of what’s actually happening in her country. Or even if aware, the nonchalant assumption that FN is by far the worse problem. Disconnected at many different levels.

    In my blacker moods, I channel my inner Scipio Aemilianus while contemplating our future:

    From Polybius: “Scipio, when he looked upon the city (of Carthage) as it was utterly perishing and in the last throes of its complete destruction, is said to have shed tears and wept openly for his enemies. After being wrapped in thought for long, and realizing that all cities, nations, and authorities must, like men, meet their doom; that this happened to Ilium, once a prosperous city, to the empires of Assyria, Media, and Persia, the greatest of their time, and to Macedonia itself, the brilliance of which was so recent…”

    Read More
  238. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @reiner Tor

    the best that can happen is that the former eastern bloc nations take France as a warning, a moral lesson in real time history
     
    No, the best would be for them to expel the Arabs and blacks and help with similar efforts in Germany, Sweden, the UK and other countries.

    In Hungary one of the leading conservative magazines wrote a couple years ago that it's a fantasy to think that after there will be a Western European Caliphate, the upper middle class Hungarian burghers will still be reading their Márai novels while sipping their red wines in their peaceful homes on the Buda hillsides. It's probably just a fantasy, not going to happen.

    I don't like the French, but it's stupid to feel anything but sadness at their collapse, and the best outcome for any other peoples of European descent would be a reinvigorated France kept French.

    Sorry, but nature – and indeed the whole course of human history – are harsh, pitiless, indifferent and merciless taskmasters.

    The only upshot is that ‘you are on your own’ – which can be read that one is ultimately the maker of one’s own fate, for better or worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    My first moral precept, after that pompous little lecture is ' Thou shalt reject The Economist and all its works'.
    , @anon
    the whole course of human history is the history of groups

    so you're wrong
    , @reiner Tor

    Sorry, but nature – and indeed the whole course of human history – are harsh, pitiless, indifferent and merciless taskmasters.
     
    I'm not nature, so I'm not pitiless or indifferent. But there are selfish reasons, too.

    The problem is that the eastern countries will then be unable to stand on their own between Eurabia and Russia. I'm known to be largely pro-Russian in these corners, but I have little desire to be swallowed by them. Even if I preferred that outcome to being swallowed by the caliphate (or the constant wars fought among the possibly emerging many warlords and their militias), I'd still hope against hope that there's still a better solution.
  239. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Sorry, but nature - and indeed the whole course of human history - are harsh, pitiless, indifferent and merciless taskmasters.

    The only upshot is that 'you are on your own' - which can be read that one is ultimately the maker of one's own fate, for better or worse.

    My first moral precept, after that pompous little lecture is ‘ Thou shalt reject The Economist and all its works’.

    Read More
  240. @Frau Katze
    I've thought it myself. WW I was the beginning of the end for the West.

    But is it worth spending time on (can't reverse it now)?

    No. Its crying over spilled milk. Can’t “unkill” all the dead and the associated potential human capital, plus all the downstream effects. Its worth spending time on in the sense of “future generations, let this be a warning to you”, but that’s about it. Unless some paradigm-shattering heretofore hidden fact suddenly emerges, like Kaiser Bill was actually a French doppelganger sent back in time to prevent Imperial Germany from winning the war.

    Maybe in an alternate universe somewhere, the Great Powers worked out a compromise and the Guns of August never happened. But sadly, our universe was not so fortunate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    Counter-factual history has made for few interesting novels, but it soon bogs down if you try in non-fiction.

    Most of my answer to Dan Hayes wasn't about counter-factuals. Or were you replying to another comment?

    Maybe on a desktop I would know which comment you meant, but not an iPad.

    I pretty much agree with you. We need to teach history so we don't repeat it (I'm not even sure if that works because there are so many variables).
    , @colm
    It is not. It shows the folly of some 'heroic' actions which are not that beneficial in the end.

    It shows that rather than Europeans fight against each other, they have to abandon their national pretensions and fight the big enemy from south and east of Europe.

    Also it shows that Britain should NEVER f'k with Europe, ever again.
  241. @whorefinder
    He's wrote an editorial in Taki's Mag saying that rapist Roman Polanski shouldn't be prosecuted because he raped a long time ago and rapist Roman's "paid his price."

    Yeah, being a rich world-famous director lauded around the world is such a terrible price for raping a 13-year-old girl.

    I think directors have an even bigger Diva complex than Hollywood stars. If someone told me that the incidence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder among directors was 100%, I’d disagree and say it was higher than that.

    Read More
  242. @reiner Tor
    I think they were used like the worse equipped parts of the US armed forces. It's obvious neither the British nor the Americans had any incentive to equip them as well as their own units.

    In any event, during the Battle of France, the French lost 90,000 dead in six weeks (though some of it was overseas troops), given their population of 42,000,000 compared to the 131,000,000 population of the US, it's comparable to the whole of US losses in WW2 (adjusted for population size, just slightly larger), and then they lost a further 100,000+ (it's an exaggeration, though, because of the preponderance of overseas troops) in 1944-45.

    The "surrender monkeys" stereotype is based on the fact that France was smaller than the US or the USSR and had no English Channel nor an ocean to protect them from the Germans.

    It's the Germans who were really good (and a bit lucky, too), not the French that bad or cowardly.

    It’s the Germans who were really good (and a bit lucky, too), not the French that bad or cowardly.

    A great point. The common misconception of “surrendering French” is largely due to the quick defeat in 1940. But that was as much a political failure as a military one. From Charlemagne all the way through 1870, the French were the Gold Standard for land armies in Western Europe; occasionally another European power would go through a phase of greatness (i.e., Gustavus Adolphus, Friedrich der Grosse), but the French were used as the the yardstick for military proficiency. Even after the humiliation of 1870-71, they clearly redeemed themselves in 1914-1918.

    Starting in 1870, the Germans got better in learning from their past mistakes and overtook them.

    Read More
  243. res says:
    @Lot

    Of course no one is going to make the data to resolve this available. I’m beginning to think the best approach is a Trumpian “publish the scary but arguably wrong information and challenge the other side to rebut it with real data”. This worked beautifully with his partially wrong crime stats by race. I think it was also effective with his 3 million illegal voters theme.
     
    Sure, it may have worked for Trump, but there are plenty of hatefacts that are perfectly true.

    Plenty of politicians have been damaged by saying things that were not true or not PC. Todd Akin, George Allen, Al Gore. Trump is fairly unique and just barely won his election over a very unpopular Democrat with corruption issues and no charisma. His positions present an attractive model, but we really don't know if his unusual personality helped or hurt him.

    Agreed it could be a risky strategy. I’m just beyond fed up with how ineffective my preferred approach of using fact based argument is. Usually by people just ignoring my arguments.

    Speaking of which, any response to the more substantive points in my earlier comment? I think your argument was worth making to test Steve’s assumptions and conclusion, but believe it has some serious weaknesses as I tried to discuss.

    I would also like to reemphasize something I consider key in these PC days. Absence of a desire to obtain hard evidence that would resolve an argument is an excellent indicator someone (to be clear, I am not referring to Lot here) does not really believe what they are saying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    I’m just beyond fed up with how ineffective my preferred approach of using fact based argument is. Usually by people just ignoring my arguments.
     
    A lot of the people you'll be arguing with on these subjects will be arguing in bad faith and can't be convinced.

    Focus your arguments on convincing the audience.
    , @reiner Tor
    I think Lot's points are a lot weaker than he believes.

    As I wrote, there are 70,000 immigrants a year from Africa (including the Maghreb) since 2004, which doesn't seem like a huge number for a country of 66 million, but they are probably mostly of breeding age, so I proposed on average they will produce one child per woman (i.e. 35,000 children) over the next five years they spend in France. (In other words, those who arrived first had two children until 2015, the 2005 arrivals only 1.8, etc. until the 2015 arrivals haven't yet reproduced at all in 2015.) This means 7,000 children per year for each yearly batch of immigrants, which for ten batches and so 70,000 babies is already 9% of live births in France.

    You can see that - unless my assumptions about the immigrants being mostly of breeding age are dead wrong - by 2015 the new (since 2004) arrivals will number only 700,000 or a bit more than 1% of the population, but will have accounted for 70,000 live births, 9% of all births in France. Now I think my assumptions are actually conservative given that fertility rates for women born in Africa are closer to 3.0.

    So the new immigrants probably accounted for maybe 10% of the increase between 2005 and 2015. The higher fertility of the earlier immigrants could easily have accounted for the rest of the increase, while white birthrates are probably dropping as a result of the economic crisis.

    That's the kind of back of the envelope calculation that I think shows how realistic the numbers are. So I tend to believe my lying eyes about the incredible darkening of Ile de France (a fifth of the population and possibly majority nonwhite already, and not just Paris, but whole townships around it), and I tend to extrapolate that the rest might be perhaps a generation or two behind the capital.

    Of course, these estimates could be off a little for a number of reasons, but they aren't off by orders of magnitude. French newborns will be majority nonwhite in the very near future, if not in 2025 (as these numbers suggest) than by 2035, but not much later.

  244. DWB says: • Website

    News today in Le Parisien (link: http://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75007/paris-la-tour-eiffel-bientot-bunkerisee-derriere-un-mur-de-verre-09-02-2017-6667416.php) that the city of Paris will be constructing a 20 million euro glass barrier around the Eiffel Tower to combat the threat of terrorism.

    It is just one more small blow in the death by a thousand pin pricks that people in the “free” world have to put up with.

    At what point do people Howard Beal and say, “I am a human being, god damn it, and my life has value?”

    http://sjrefugee.blogspot.com/2017/02/a-million-little-pinpricks.html

    Because our rules refuse to put in place sensible barriers to try to reduce the ability of people who woud blow up our landmarks, those of us who, unlike foreigners whom we let in at our pleasure, have a right to be here, stand behind physical barricades until a soldier lets us in.

    When the final prick comes, will we even notice?

    Read More
  245. Gabriel M says:
    @reiner Tor

    the best that can happen is that the former eastern bloc nations take France as a warning, a moral lesson in real time history
     
    No, the best would be for them to expel the Arabs and blacks and help with similar efforts in Germany, Sweden, the UK and other countries.

    In Hungary one of the leading conservative magazines wrote a couple years ago that it's a fantasy to think that after there will be a Western European Caliphate, the upper middle class Hungarian burghers will still be reading their Márai novels while sipping their red wines in their peaceful homes on the Buda hillsides. It's probably just a fantasy, not going to happen.

    I don't like the French, but it's stupid to feel anything but sadness at their collapse, and the best outcome for any other peoples of European descent would be a reinvigorated France kept French.

    Spot on.

    Read More
  246. Recently saw The Day of The Jackal from 1974 – check out the crowd on the streets of Paris. Sure it’s set in the early 60′s not ’74 but those street crowd shots look real as hell . This is as much an abuse of the native French population by their elite political establishment as anything before 1789 .

    Read More
  247. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @BB753
    So far, "French" Muslims are either working class or chronically unemployed. I just don't see them taking over the country in a generation. You don't make up for lack of brains, organisation and skills with raw numbers.. Look at South Africa, Whites would still rule the country today with under 10% of the population if not for the pressure of the"international community" and native white sellouts.

    Look at South Africa, Whites would still rule the country today with under 10% of the population if not for the pressure of the”international community” and native white sellouts.

    yes – but that also applies to France or any other individual European country

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Circumstances change. There's change in the air. In a generation, the "International community" might have changed completely. Would you have predicted Putin, Trump, Orban, Duterte, etc, 30 years ago?
  248. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    It's from The Simpsons. It's an old trope in the US that predates the neocons.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZUKEVU-TwM

    It's not completely untrue either. In WW2, the French were not known for spirited resistance, not just in Europe against the Germans, but also in the Pacific theater in French Indochina.

    It’s not completely untrue either. In WW2, the French were not known for spirited resistance…

    Yeah but does the same apply to Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia, early Barbarossa etc?

    German tactics and strategy were superior in the first years of the war so everyone got their butt kicked.

    Only those protected by water or winter survived to improve their game so I think the anti-French thing is overdone – if their generals hadn’t sent their forces into Belgium the German outflanking move through the Ardennes wouldn’t have been so dramatic.

    Even if it was true they’re in for such a crap time in the next ten years i don’t think they need any extra kicking.

    Read More
  249. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Perhaps, but why aren't the French - who basically own the EU - showing a tougher, harder line on the current invader crisis troubling Europe?

    the banking mafia want open borders – see Clinton’s speeches to the banks leaked by wikileaks – the politicians are bought

    Read More
  250. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @reiner Tor
    Couldn't an annual influx of 100,000 people significantly affect this? It means one million people over ten years. If on average each couple of them has one child over this decade (i.e. on average 5 years within immigrating, a conservative estimate), then that's already 50,000 children per year, 6.25% of live births in Metropolitan France. They are more likely to occur at the end of the period. So if you take an increase of 25.6% to 38.9, at least 6.25, but possibly more, of this increase could easily be ascribed to those new African immigrants you guys just dismissed as insignificant.

    There's another statistic, Wikipedia says that in 2010 27.3% of newborns in Metropolitan France were born to at least one foreign-born parent, of which 23.9% had at least one parent born outside of Europe. People of the overseas territories are not counted! Nor those who were born to Arab or black parents already born in France. There must be at least a 10% share of those.

    So yes, the numbers may be slightly exaggerated, but I fail to see how they are impossible.

    Couldn’t an annual influx of 100,000 people significantly affect this?

    That is actually the main driver imo.

    What happens is new immigrants often have a much higher TFR than 2x and are at peak breeding age when they arrive so they have lots of kids in the first ten years or so.

    the TFR declines with later generations

    it happens at blinding speed but it’s mostly hidden in the blue collar areas – until the day it’s not

    Read More
  251. @Captain Tripps
    No. Its crying over spilled milk. Can't "unkill" all the dead and the associated potential human capital, plus all the downstream effects. Its worth spending time on in the sense of "future generations, let this be a warning to you", but that's about it. Unless some paradigm-shattering heretofore hidden fact suddenly emerges, like Kaiser Bill was actually a French doppelganger sent back in time to prevent Imperial Germany from winning the war.

    Maybe in an alternate universe somewhere, the Great Powers worked out a compromise and the Guns of August never happened. But sadly, our universe was not so fortunate.

    Counter-factual history has made for few interesting novels, but it soon bogs down if you try in non-fiction.

    Most of my answer to Dan Hayes wasn’t about counter-factuals. Or were you replying to another comment?

    Maybe on a desktop I would know which comment you meant, but not an iPad.

    I pretty much agree with you. We need to teach history so we don’t repeat it (I’m not even sure if that works because there are so many variables).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
    Frau K,

    Most of my answer to Dan Hayes wasn’t about counter-factuals. Or were you replying to another comment?
     
    Nah; I was simply replying to and agreeing with your rhetorical question to Dan Hayes:

    "But is it worth spending time on (can’t reverse it now)?"
  252. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Sorry, but nature - and indeed the whole course of human history - are harsh, pitiless, indifferent and merciless taskmasters.

    The only upshot is that 'you are on your own' - which can be read that one is ultimately the maker of one's own fate, for better or worse.

    the whole course of human history is the history of groups

    so you’re wrong

    Read More
  253. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @res
    Agreed it could be a risky strategy. I'm just beyond fed up with how ineffective my preferred approach of using fact based argument is. Usually by people just ignoring my arguments.

    Speaking of which, any response to the more substantive points in my earlier comment? I think your argument was worth making to test Steve's assumptions and conclusion, but believe it has some serious weaknesses as I tried to discuss.

    I would also like to reemphasize something I consider key in these PC days. Absence of a desire to obtain hard evidence that would resolve an argument is an excellent indicator someone (to be clear, I am not referring to Lot here) does not really believe what they are saying.

    I’m just beyond fed up with how ineffective my preferred approach of using fact based argument is. Usually by people just ignoring my arguments.

    A lot of the people you’ll be arguing with on these subjects will be arguing in bad faith and can’t be convinced.

    Focus your arguments on convincing the audience.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for the feedback and sage advice. I find it challenging to do that online because I can't read what the audience is thinking much of the time. With group conversations in person it's easy to look around and gauge responses to both sets of arguments. Part of my problem is I have some difficulty pitching my arguments to be both intellectually and emotionally convincing without better knowledge of and feedback from my audience.

    Any additional advice appreciated. (how's that for alliteration? ; )