The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Frost Archive
A Faustian Bargain?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Parsi wedding, 1905 (Wikicommons)
Parsi wedding, 1905 (Wikicommons)

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Now it’s time, for all Parsis to pray.

To Dadaji and fervently say;

“On our knees, to THEE we implore,

Please do not wipe us off the floor”

The Parsis are dying out. This people of western India, originally from Iran and famous for their role in trade, science, and industry, may disappear by mid-century, having already fallen from 114,890 in 1941 to 69,001 in 2011. Deaths outnumber births by a ratio of almost three to one.

What has caused this calamity? War? Disease? Natural disaster?

None of the above. There just aren’t enough babies. By 1980-82 the Parsi fertility rate had slumped to 1.12 children per woman—a seemingly rock-bottom figure. By 2001 it was 0.89. Today, very few women are of reproductive age. Only one family out of nine has a child below the age of 10 (D’Silva, 2013).

Things have not always been so. Parsi fertility fell below the level of two children per woman only in the 1960s. At the time, the decline seemed normal: with modernization, more children live to adulthood, so fewer need to be born. Yet the fertility rate continued to fall and fall. Clearly, there were other reasons for the decline.

One reason is a steady ratcheting upward of what it means to be “ready for marriage.” For today’s Parsi, you’re “ready” when you have a university degree, hold a good, stable job, and can buy a home of your own. That means being in your 30s, when fertility is already declining. Another reason is that 30% of the community never marries (Brara, 2013). Some men complain it’s impossible to jump through all the hoops that marriage seems to dictate. Parsi women are described as having unrealistic expectations and being too high-maintenance, with the result that a growing number of Parsi men marry outside their community. Others just prefer the single lifestyle.

Behind these specific reasons lie a broader reason: Westernization. More than a century ago, the Parsis enthusiastically adopted Western values: emancipation of the individual, submission to the expectations of the market economy and, conversely, a gradual loss of collective goals and priorities. This was the road to wealth, and that part of the bargain has been honored. The Parsis did become much wealthier, but at a price—the gradual disintegration of the family and other traditional supports for group survival. The “bargain” looks more and more Faustian.

The Parsis are not alone

Other peoples have gone down the same road. The first were those of Northwest Europe, who seem to have a longstanding tendency toward greater individualism and weaker kinship (Hartman, 2004; Macfarlane, 1978; Seccombe, 1992). They were thus better positioned to free themselves from the constraints of kinship and organize their social and economic relations differently, along the lines of what would become the market economy. With the end of the Dark Ages, Northwest Europeans began to follow this trajectory of cultural evolution, advancing farther and farther in the direction of liberalism, mercantilism, and personal autonomy. The benefits were impressive—in a few centuries, they went from being semi-barbarians on the fringes of civilization to becoming lords of the earth. And this huge increase in geopolitical power was matched by huge increases in wealth and scientific knowledge. The benefits were so impressive that few people thought about the costs, or the final end point—complete social atomization.

Other peoples looked on, with admiration. Westernization seemed to be the secret to success. In the 19th century, Ashkenazi Jews embraced it with the fervor of the newly converted, using Yiddishkeit as a vehicle to spread the ideals of the Enlightenment—progress, freedom, and personal autonomy. The Japanese converted during the Meiji Restoration, turned away during the 1930s, and finished the job under American tutelage. In Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution began as an effort of accelerated Westernization, which later reversed course under the pressures of autarky and fear of the West. In the 1990s, with the end of communism, the West once more became the model to be followed.

Today, non-Orthodox American Jews have a fertility rate of only 1.3 children per woman. Similar baby busts have played out elsewhere, especially where collectivism has rapidly given way to individualism: Japan, Russia, Spain, Germany, Italy … Modern Western culture is toxic for family formation in most societies, but its effects seem to be more toxic in some than in others.

Sad but inevitable, you say? Only if you think Western modernity is inevitable. In recent years, both Israel and Russia have dramatically reversed their fertility declines, while continuing to be modern societies (Goldman, 2013; Karlin, 2014). Cash inducements have been one factor. But the really key changes lie in the realm of culture and ideology, particularly in the effort to strike a new balance between the individual and the collectivity. And by the collectivity, I don’t mean the artificial structures of State, ideology, and corporate loyalty. I mean the natural ones of family, kith and kin, and ethny. This will be the basis for postmodern traditionalism, including that part of the world where Western modernity began.

Is there hope for the Parsis?

But what about the Parsis? For now, the priority is to buy time. The Indian government, to its credit, has embarked on an ambitious project to raise Parsi fertility through in vitro fertilization and through incentives for people to marry earlier. In the words of the minister for minority affairs, K. Rahman Khan: “This is a small step to pay our debt to the Parsi community for their contribution to the country. We cannot afford to lose this community” (D’Silva, 2013).

Reversing the fertility decline will be like steering the Titanic away from the iceberg. There is a lot of momentum behind the current downward trend. Moreover, any successful reversal will require not only financial incentives but also changes to the broader cultural and ideological environment, which lies mostly outside India and is centered in the Western world. Russia and Israel are large enough to sustain their own cultures, but this is not the case with the Parsis. Unless they want to be like the Amish or the Hassidic Jews, by blocking out modern Western culture as much as possible, they will have to find some other way.

If there is one.

References

Brara, S. (2013). While there’s still time, The Hindu, October 17 http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/while-theres-still-time/article5240683.ece

D’Silva, J. (2013). Can India save its Parsi community with assisted reproduction? BMJ, 347:f7530 http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7530.full?ijkey=vwHjjYILTGR9EDf&keytype=ref

Goldman, D.P. (2013). Israel’s demographic miracle, InFocus Quarterly, 7 (spring)http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4058/israel-demographic-miracle

Hartman, M.S. (2004). The Household and the Making of History. A Subversive View of the Western Past, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=Ynta0T8XCXgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=%22household+and+the+making+of+history%22&ots=RKOGFT0iX3&sig=yJCKWta8-HpHsyfn1eLaCmbe26A

Karlin, A. (2014). The “normalization” of Russia’s demographics, The Unz Review, November 25 http://www.unz.com/akarlin/normalization-of-russias-demographics/

Macfarlane, A. (1978). The Origins of English Individualism: The Family, Property and Social Transition, Oxford: Blackwell

Parsinustan-ne Kahanis. (Stories from Parsi homeland) https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fzoroastriansnet.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F11%2Fvignettes-from-parsi-history-prospect-what-if.doc&ei=Dm_KVLCiLpKvyQSY7oGYCg&usg=AFQjCNEep6ipJOFicQXSgHBu7hdb6cz0QA

Seccombe, W. (1992). A Millennium of Family Change. Feudalism to Capitalism in Northwestern Europe, London: Verso. http://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=MiTxtZI-pzUC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&ots=E-rMsM8u-P&sig=ifA6uDqYFLomOGQwyBfNfrDKTpw#v=onepage&q&f=false

 
Hide 148 CommentsLeave a Comment
148 Comments to "A Faustian Bargain?"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. We already have a more elegant explanation for fertility declines that fits the data more closely: Caldwell’s cost of kids model. Caldwell points out that all fertility declines have coincided with the onset of mass education, which massively raises the cost of kids to the parent. Before it, wealth flows from kids to parents–kids do not quite deliver a market-beating return but it’s not much worse. Combined with the other reasons to have kids families might aim for 7 or 8 or 10. Post education wealth flows the other way.

    This ‘cost of kids’ model also fits nicely with loads of other evidence we have. For example when kibbutz broke up, Israelis from them had on average substantially fewer kids because the cost of raising them was higher. Another example is cheap immigrant labour, which by lowerng the cost of childcare raises native fertility.

    Would post a round up of the literature but I’m on my phone. If you click on my name you’ll be linked to my twitter account where you will find links to some of the key papers.

    • Replies: @Grumpy
  2. zev says:

    A minority of Israeli Jews are Ashkenazim. Is there any data to suggest that secular Ashkenazi fertility in Israel is higher than elsewhere?

  3. JayMan says: • Website

    The problem of low and sub-replacement fertility is hardly just a NW Euro one. Indeed, every high-IQ group of people on Earth (collectively) have sub-replacement fertility (by collectively, I mean certain subsets within some groups, like Mormons and Amish in the U.S. or Orthodox Jews in Israel have much higher fertility rates).

    But, the problem is actually least acute in NW Europe. Southern and Eastern Europeans (and East Asians) have significantly lower fertility rates.

    See:

    Another Tale of Two Maps | JayMan’s Blog

    That said, fertility across these countries appear to be linked to subjective well being:

    A Tale of Three Maps | JayMan’s Blog

    Fertility and Happiness: A Global Perspective | JayMan’s Blog

    Sub-replacement fertility, in and of itself, is hardly a problem for immediate concern for most groups. The Parsis stand alone as a group for which sub-replacement fertility is a matter of critical importance. The NW Euro countries, with fertility rates only barely below replacement, have plenty of time to address the issue in one manner or another. The East Asian nations – being so crowded – might stand to gain in the long run from a period of population decline. And Eastern Europe demonstrates the conclusion of the process: rebounding fertility both as natural selection works its magic and as effective cost of living declines.

    The occurrence of sub-replacement fertility is perhaps an example of adaptations misfiring in a new environment. People act as if there was a quantity-quality trade off when in fact there is none in today’s world:

    Quality vs Quantity | West Hunter

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Sean
  4. Alexander says:

    I think you seem to be mistaking strictly Orthodox Haredi Jews who tend to block out modern culture/technology with that of Hasidic Judaism, the later seem more pragmatic when it comes to both modern culture/technology than the former even if they both dress alike.

    But In many ways the future of Parsis seems more or less like the Jews but only on a much more smaller scale. The growing division for parsis is and will be more and more in the future between the non-religious secular cultural Zoroastrian types on one hand, and that of the more religious Zoroastrian types. And just like judaism and islam which both has scriptural validation to be fruitful when it comes to having children, and so the same rule applies to Zoroastrian texts. And Like Hasidic Judaism, which is a movement that is half way between MORE strict Orthodox Judaism and more mysticAL kabbalah, the Parsis also have a mystical sect called Ilm-e-Khshnoom that formed during british-india that is in-between Orthodox Zoroastrianism and more Hinduism-like metaphysics. Just like Hasidic Judaism is some-what popular with some younger secular jews, the same is happening with Ilm-e-Khshnoom in india among newer generation of parsis.

    One more thing, There are middle-eastern Zoroastrians and Persian new converts that moved into india that have become part of the Parsis community, and as a whole Parsis have become more welcoming of taking in children and non-Zoroastrian indian spouses of mixed marriages than say comparing to the past. Other than that I think it would do the Parsis community alot of good to finally make an exodus out of the strange westernized mumbai that they are living in right now, and go back and resettle in place like diu, surat and other parts of Gujarat. The Parsis need to reconnect once again to their Gujarati side of their ancestry, because lets face it its this side of their cultural background and even genes that gave them success and strength in the past. The Parsis industrial and mercantile traits are no doubt still ongoing part of their Gujarati heritage, if just compare the successful Gujarati community to that of the Parsis you will understand.

    • Replies: @Jimi
  5. Ben,

    I don’t see your explanation as an alternate one. In modern Western society, children are increasingly seen as autonomous entities who should keep any money they earn and who have no obligations to their parents. They are free to marry whomever they wish and adopt whatever lifestyle they wish. Many prospective parents therefore wonder: “Well, then, what’s the point in having children?”

    This being said, I’m not convinced that wealth flows from kids to parents in traditional societies. This is probably true only in traditional Western societies. When I turned 18, I had to start paying room and board to my mother, and that had long been the rule in English Canadian households. It’s only been since the 1990s that most parents allow their grown-up “kids” to live at home without paying rent.

    Interestingly, non-Westerners are flabbergasted when I tell them that I had to start paying room and board at the age of 18. In most cultures, parents subsidize their kids and continue to subsidize them well into adulthood.

    Zev,

    According to the data I’ve seen, fertility rates have equalized between Ashkenazim and non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel. Secular Israeli Jews have fertility rates of around 2.1 (I’m going by memory here).

    “But, the problem is actually least acute in NW Europe”

    Jayman,

    Yes, I was trying to make that point toward the end of my post. Fertility rates are very low in southern Europe and eastern Europe, with the exception of Russia and Belarus. This is a case where the exception proves the rule, since those two countries have made a conscious decision to exit the Western cultural system.

    “The Parsis stand alone as a group for which sub-replacement fertility is a matter of critical importance.”

    I would argue that it’s critical for southern Europe (Spain, Italy, Greece), since they border other countries where fertility is much higher. All three countries are at risk of rapid population change. One could argue that it’s also critical for American Jews. Over the next decade, we’ll see fewer and fewer Jewish Americans in public life, entertainment, and academia.

  6. Sean says:

    The Emperor Augustus brought in a law that marrying-age celibates and young widows who wouldn’t marry were debarred from receiving inheritances. Parsi women do not have an economic or social incentive to get married. I am sceptical about the effect of ideology on individuals, but wanting to fit into the group is a powerful motive, and in theory there could be an effective social movement for replacement fertility though susceptibility to peer pressure (for good or ill) seems to be caused by certain gene variants. Some people have suggested that the Western marriage pattern 0f many people remaining unmarried was ideal for development because population booms didn’t eat up the surplus wealth as fast as it was produced.

    There may well be something genetic specific to falling fertility in the upper classes that attenuates the desire to reproduce. Fisher said the brightest men want want to be affluent, and to tend marry heiresses (who necessarily have inherited tendencies to low fertility). He suggested classical Rome etcetera as examples, and “proposed a universal sociological law asserting that advanced civilizations are characterized by dysgenic fertility, and that this leads to genetic deterioration and ultimately to the decay of civilization.” See here. Lynn says Fisher’s hypothesis is unlikely to be true, because fertility is too important to have significant heritability. I wonder; it has been my observation that even within families there seem to be big differences that correlate with temperament.

  7. bossel says:
    @Peter Frost

    I’m not convinced that wealth flows from kids to parents in traditional societies. This is probably true only in traditional Western societies.

    Actually, from what I’ve seen in China this is very much true here (& according to what Chinese told me also traditional). Children were (& still are in many cases) essentially seen as a kind of pension fund. & the return is usually much higher than the original investment.
    The situation may change when Chinese society as a whole gets wealthier.

    In most cultures, parents subsidize their kids and continue to subsidize them well into adulthood.

    Pretty normal in Germany, too.

    • Replies: @skep
  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s really basic economics:

    The Iron Law of Wages states that in a labor market wages will fall to the cost of labor’s subsistence. The problem is that the definition of “subsistence” has changed due to the advent of birth control and feminism. “Subsistence” used to, by implication, include reproduction — so your labor costs simply could not decrease below what it cost to obtain a fertile female and keep her happy with her circumstances. With feminism and birth control, the demand for fertile women has gone up — not as reproducers, but as employees. This at the same time land prices, hence home prices, have gone through the roof. This guts a fundamental factor of human happiness for all but those rich enough, or sexist enough (say, Islamics, Orthodox Jews, Mexicans, Hindus and some evangelicals) to be able to afford to keep a woman at home and raise the children.

    The iron law of wages is now destroying the population.

    Oh, and don’t give me this “demographic transition” garbage. The population of the US has not decreased, nor that of any of the other countries supposedly undergoing the “demographic transition”. The “demographic transition” is nothing but the replacement of some population by others — red in tooth and claw.

  9. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Note that the modern critique of the Iron Law of Wages ignores that the ground truth of the so-called “demographic transition” is nothing more than replacement of the earlier developing populations by the later developing populations. This is because — in the context of the open borders/global labor arbitrage theocracy combined with birth control technology — the definition of “subsistence wages” no longer includes the high cost of child rearing in more developed nations. The demographic collapse of earlier developing populations is not having the upward pressure on wages among those populations that modern economists predict.

    Modern economic theory is genocide. And yes, I do mean deliberate. This is due to high IQ niche invasion by people with historic animus toward native intelligentsia.

  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Ricardo – the economist who wrote about the Iron Law of Wages – invoked the distinction between “natural price” and “market price” of labor primarily to argue that a continually expanding economy could continually drive the market demand for labor high enough that the market price would sustainably exceed the natural price. Moreover he invokes decadence among laborers as driving the perceived subsistence price higher and higher.

    This demoralization of labor continues today in the form of comments that today’s middle class lives like the kings of old. The reality is that men must compete for reproduction among a mating market driven by fertile women, and that in societies that place value on women, mating market demands by fertile women (primarily childless fertile women) is the foundation of the Iron Law of Wages in the modern society. Add females to the labor market with demands for equal wages, as well as birth control, and you have an explosive brew.

    There is a positive correlation between a man’s wealth and his fertility even in developed countries — it’s just that the threshold where that positive correlation starts is far above the middle class level it was during the 1950’s — that decade hated by Hollywood almost as much as the Nazis the fathers of those middle class families fought in WW II.

  11. Dutch Boy says:

    Religious peoples have above replacement level fertility, non-religious have below replacement level fertility. There is something about a commitment to a supernatural order that encourages fertility, while a commitment to secularism discourages same. “Praise God from Whom all blessings flow” and children are such a blessing.

    • Replies: @rod1963
  12. Numinous says:
    @Peter Frost

    Interestingly, non-Westerners are flabbergasted when I tell them that I had to start paying room and board at the age of 18. In most cultures, parents subsidize their kids and continue to subsidize them well into adulthood.

    There is an implicit quid pro quo involved in this deal in non-Western societies. The children are expected to take care of their parents (and grandparents, should they have such longevity) until the end of their lives. The wider society does not provide any kind of “social security” to people in their old age; children are expected to take up that burden. In addition, children (even as young adults) do not make big life decisions without taking their parents’ advice (in some cases command). This includes the choice of marriage partner and choice of occupation (in business families, it is obligatory for at least one of the scions to run the business.) Therefore, the subsidization you talk about comes with many strings attached, unlike in Western societies.

    But I am sure you know all this. It’s possible the people you talked to had the best of both worlds; full financial support from doting parents well into their adulthood plus the personal freedoms they gained by moving to the West. Also, they must come from upper middle class backgrounds; poor peoples’ kids in non-Western societies are often put to work to help support their families by their early teens.

    • Replies: @unpc downunder
  13. Numinous says:

    For Parsis to survive long term while maintaining both cultural AND racial purity is going to be well nigh impossible, even if fertility rates increase. Endogamy and the arranged marriage system have been stubbornly persistent in India, but both are on the wane, at least in the urban areas where people of different castes and religions have bee mixing at a previously unprecedented scale. So I guess Parsis will have to come to terms with inter-faith marriage the way Catholics and Protestants have in the US; by letting the couples choose what faith to follow, and adopting non-Parsis into the fold. Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism has died out as a result of mixed marriages in the US (though both are suffering through lack of interest in faith altogether, which is a different subject.)

    • Replies: @Alexander
  14. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Female education and economic development are like antibiotics against human reproduction. But the fact that you’re successfully committing genocide against a huge portion of humanity blinds you to the fact that you’re also selecting for strains of humanity that will find ways of more efficiently turning wealth into an exponential growth of their babies. That optimum appears to involve lowering the age of female puberty and increasing the rate of de facto transfer payments to support their offspring. The idea that “property rights” or some such are the answer must take into account the political dynamics of the recent election as a warning: Liberal democracy has a very strong tendency to serve the most reproductive.

    A female that pumps out 1 child a year from age 8 until age 38 has a 30 to 1 gain over those 38 years. That means an effective doubling time of under 4 years. Many of us may live to see this new breed of human become a dominant demography.

    The “demographic transition” fantasy is like the fantasy that we can over-use antibiotics without developing resistant strains of highly virulent bacteria.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  15. Alexander says:
    @Numinous

    there has never been a problem of keeping cultural purity for Parsis, many of them willing to throw away both iranian and indian culture traits for very strong westernization in a heart-beat, but racial and religious purity was something their community got strongly behind. The problem of racial purity in many of the parsis mindset until very recently was that they strongly believed that they were 100% persian without much or very little indian blood, which is why intermarriage with local population during british-india/after independence was looked down upon. Ofcourse now Its widely known for many of them that something like half of their founding mother where local indians that come into the community at the very beginning.

    in the future the Parsis will come to terms and have at some level already with inter-faith marriage, but they will not follow the ways the Catholics and Protestants have done it in the US. rather the will practice Endogamy, arranged marriage along with freedom of faith and adopting non-Parsis into the fold. India is different from state or west in many ways. And also don’t see practices like Endogamy and arranged marriage dying, rather they are making a slow come back even in parts of asia like japan and korea.

    • Replies: @Jimi
  16. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @JayMan

    Sub-replacement fertility, in and of itself, is hardly a problem for immediate concern for most groups.

    Not true if you consider the current social and political context.

    Travel and migration are much easier and quicker today. They’re also promoted as moral and economic imperatives. Sub-replacement fertility is used to justify migration. Furthermore, non-discrimination, inclusion, and integration are promoted as moral imperatives.

    In this context, sub-replacement fertility is very much a problem of immediate concern for most groups, including those in crowded countries.

  17. But In many ways the future of Parsis seems more or less like the Jews but only on a much more smaller scale.

    The word “scale” is crucial. There is a broad range of subcultures within the Jewish community because it is sufficiently large. So if one subculture commits demographic suicide, it doesn’t take the entire community down with it. In the case of the Parsis, there’s no real subculture with a viable game plan for demographic survival.

    Sean,

    Fertility does have some heritability. We saw this with the Ile-aux-Coudres study:

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.ca/2011/10/bringing-reproductive-maturity-into.html

    Conceivably, our current low fertility environment may be selecting for individuals with high fertility. I suspect most of this selection is favoring culturally acquired high fertility, but I wouldn’t rule out selection for individuals who naturally have higher fertility.

    Anon,

    Yes, demographic transition theory is garbage. But it seemed to make sense initially. It looked like developed countries would bottom out at 2.1 children per woman. Deviations from that target were thought to be temporary and due to transient factors. It now seems that social atomization leads to permanently below-replacement fertility, particularly in societies that were until recently very collectivistic.

    Religious peoples have above replacement level fertility, non-religious have below replacement level fertility. There is something about a commitment to a supernatural order that encourages fertility, while a commitment to secularism discourages same.

    Dutch boy,

    The U.S. “Bible Belt” has very low fertility:

    Looking at the United States overall, there are three main areas of low fertility among whites; the biggest is the South East or the “Bible Belt.” In Wikipedia it states “The Bible Belt is an informal term for a region in the southeastern and south-central United States in which socially conservative evangelical Protestantism is a significant part of the culture and Christian church attendance across the denominations is generally higher than the nation’s average.” That being said the proportion of white children in the Bible Belt living in Source Fertility Census Tracts is very low; usually less than one percent while the national average is five percent.

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/10/the-importance-of-high-fertility/

    The only religious groups with above-replacement fertility are those that can block out modern Western culture. This is the case with the Amish, the Hutterites, and various Orthodox Jewish sects. It’s also the case with the Mormons, who have been able to create a viable alternative subculture. But religion, in itself, is not a relevant factor.

    There is an implicit quid pro quo involved in this deal in non-Western societies. The children are expected to take care of their parents (and grandparents, should they have such longevity) until the end of their lives.

    Numinous, Bessel,

    Yes, when parents retire and especially when they become invalids, wealth is transferred from the children back to their parents. This is less onerous than it may seem in a traditional society because the ratio of living children to living elderly parents is normally high. This is much more onerous for children in Western societies for two reasons: (1) elderly parents may live for decades after retirement and (2) there are fewer children to shoulder the burden of caring for them.

    It’s possible the people you talked to had the best of both worlds; full financial support from doting parents well into their adulthood plus the personal freedoms they gained by moving to the West. Also, they must come from upper middle class backgrounds

    No, none of them were really middle class, and some were rather poor. When I was a student in Russia, I saw many cases of impoverished babushkas using their limited savings to help out their children even though these “children” were adults in their 20s and 30s with a higher level of income.

    For Parsis to survive long term while maintaining both cultural AND racial purity is going to be well nigh impossible, even if fertility rates increase.

    Intermarriage would do more harm than good. For one thing, most Indian cultures are patriarchal, so if the groom is non-Parsi intermarriage means a net loss and not a net gain. For another thing, the Parsi gene pool is now so small that even modest levels of intermarriage would obliterate it.

    Culture can be preserved in books or on videotape. A gene pool can be preserved only in living human beings, and there is still much we don’t know about the Parsi gene pool. In fact, we know very little. I would like to see the Parsis remain Parsi.

    Its widely known for many of them that something like half of their founding mother where local indians that come into the community at the very beginning.

    Alexander,

    Yes, but that doesn’t exclude significant gene-culture co-evolution over the past thousand years. The Ashkenazim are perhaps 40% European but that doesn’t make their gene pool less unique.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
  18. Fake Name says:

    How interesting. The genetic endowments that enable a race to rise above the rest result in that race declining to pass along its genes.

    Something is amiss in Darwinville.

  19. Irony
    “So it was that the self-proclaimed vagabond and literary gadfly set out on July 15, 1895 to pay his debts; but what he really gave the world was a saga, a romance and a human adventure. Ironically, it was poverty that took him to India and it was poverty-stricken India that made him solvent again–an observation he might have made himself were he not so close to the facts of the matter.”

    http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3610

    en.wikiquote.org/wiki/India
    Mark Twain, Following the Equator (1897), Ch. XLIII. So far as I am … On the face of India are the tender expressions which carry the mark of the Creator’s hand.
    India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe’s languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all.
    Will Durant, The Case for India (1931).
    We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made.
    Albert Einstein, Vedic Revelations – Page 8.

    Thanks India!

    • Replies: @Jim
  20. @Peter Frost

    “Yes, I was trying to make that point toward the end of my post. Fertility rates are very low in southern Europe and eastern Europe, with the exception of Russia and Belarus. This is a case where the exception proves the rule, since those two countries have made a conscious decision to exit the Western cultural system.”

    Checking the CIA factbook, here are some total fertility rates:

    Belarus: 1.47
    Russia: 1.61
    European Union: 1.60
    Sweden: 1.88
    Norway: 1.86
    Denmark: 1.73

    You can’t go more “northwest European” than Scandinavia and they aren’t experiencing the worst collapse of fertility.

    One should beware the propaganda from Putinists who will pull tricks on the numbers to make Russia’s “traditionalism” look better on paper. For example, Russia’s new births per capita compared to the whole population are high compared to Western countries but a large part of that is that Russia’s death rates especially for men have been extremely high for decades so there are much fewer people in the old age group that’s no longer having children. Yet you hear this presented as evidence that Russia’s “traditionalist model” is a success.

    It looks like the only proven way to preserve relatively high birth rates on a country level is the Scandinavian model where free education, child care and support for working mothers effectively subsidizes having children and even that still leaves fertility below replacement. On a local level religious movements like the Amish and Orthodox Jews can maintain very high fertility but they can only do it by separating from the world – most of these groups will eventually run into some limit (their religions tend to be based on perfecting their customs for one particular lifestyle and farming Amish will be limited by land availability).

    Discussions about fertility and politics tend to be silly because demographics are profoundly influenced by events from 20-35 years ago since that’s when the main baby producing demographic was born and there are trends made by politics from that era. In Russia’s case, the last big age group born in the USSR is now in the baby making age; they were followed by an era of both extremely high death rates and extremely low birth rates that affected Russia more than other ex-USSR states and now we’re bound to see an echo of that past regardless of that the politicians are doing.

    • Replies: @skep
  21. @Peter Frost

    Greg Cochran puts Ashkenazim at 50% European:

    From the history we know, they look to be a mix of merchants, artisans, and POWs from Israel (the fathers) and local Italian girls, about 2000 years ago. … Their mtDNA is unambiguously Italian. … There was little inward gene flow when they lived in Germany and Eastern Europe. Yet they seem paler than you would expect as a 50-50 mix of Italians and Middle Easterners. First thing is that the Middle East isn’t what it used to be – more South Arabian and African ancestry. Second, there may well have been significant selection for those traits, just as there seems to have been in the general European population.

    Non-Orthodox Jewish-Americans’ intermarriage rate is reducing their population far faster than their low fertility rate.
    - 1.3 children per woman reduces the next generation to 62% of the size of the last generation (1.3 / 2.1 replacement rate = 62%).
    - Their 71% intermarriage rate reduces the next generation to 29% of the size of the last generation.

    Multiplied together, the next generation of non-Orthodox Jewish-Americans should be expected to be 18% the size of the last generation (.62 * .29 = .18).

    • Replies: @Dahlia
    , @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  22. rod1963 says:
    @Dutch Boy

    Contemporary Western Culture is the culprit. It’s just a highly corrosive stew of various notions imposed on people over the last 200 years(especially in the last 120). For starters it substitutes the state and it’s organs for the family to a large degree(rearing children and taking care of the elderly); it’s church/faith is capitalism and scientism; happiness in modernity means being a well fed and entertained consumer. Language became corrupted with propaganda from the state and corporations(Bernays); success in modernity often means nothing more than having a bunch of toys and a large house, then you die. Community gets replaced by atomized individuals and high tech devices which exacerbates this problem like nothing else. Now we have people alone and oblivious in a crowd and children being developmentally damaged by excessive and early exposure to computers.

    It’s a Procrustean bed writ large.

    It is no wonder that those who lay in it slowly perish.

    That said, many have noticed and wrote about the pernicious affects of modern Western culture on humans including more mainstream authors/critics like Carroll Quigley, Dorothy Sayers, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Lewis Mumford, J.T. Gatto, Neil Postman, etc.

    As Quigley pointed out in his last lecture is that the West has failed in providing a environment that satisfies the needs of the individual the way traditional cultures have in the past. It also has confused what people need with their wants. Wants that often were injected into them by Madison Avenue or the government. Now people think they need a Ipod or new car as much as they do to breathe and eat. In short it messes people up real bad.

    As for modern day Christianity, much of it is infested with modernity – it’s obsession with the prosperity Gospel and merging with other toxic contemporary notions(personal improvement ala: Tony Robbins) has rendered much of it no better than sterile feel good nostrums promoted by the likes of Hagee and Osteen that make you feel like you’re in a motivation seminar.

    The fix as Mr. Foster points out is to reject Western Culture and people have for some time. People recognize it as the “rat race” , “the grind” and a dozen other labels and don’t like it, they know something is very badly amiss with it even though they can’t really explain it. And now they drop out or go “off the grid” to escape it.

    • Replies: @Melendwyr
  23. Rapidly changing fertility rates around the world is a fascinating and incredibly important news story and I suggest readers follow this link over to the internet site gap minder here. http://www.gapminder.org/

    The bubble graphs moving through time showing population growth changes in various countries are powerful tools for wrapping ones mind around what is really happening.

    Warning
    Plan to spend hours here because it is fun.

  24. Grumpy says:
    @Ben Southwood

    ” Another example is cheap immigrant labour, which by lowerng the cost of childcare raises native fertility.”

    Immigration drives up the cost of housing and reduces wages. How are those a boon to native fertility? Cheaper childcare can’t possibly offset the damage.

    • Replies: @Ben Southwood
  25. How interesting. The genetic endowments that enable a race to rise above the rest result in that race declining to pass along its genes.

    This happens all the time. Something that is advantageous over the short term may be very disadvantageous over the long term. Natural selection doesn’t have foresight.

    You can’t go more “northwest European” than Scandinavia and they aren’t experiencing the worst collapse of fertility.

    Yes, that’s the hypothesis I’m developing: Northwest Europeans seem to be coping better with the effects of social atomization. Of course, that doesn’t mean there are no negative effects.

    One should beware the propaganda from Putinists who will pull tricks on the numbers to make Russia’s “traditionalism” look better on paper. For example, Russia’s new births per capita compared to the whole population are high compared to Western countries but a large part of that is that Russia’s death rates especially for men have been extremely high for decades

    I was not talking about birth rates. I was talking about fertility rates (which are adjusted for the age composition of the population). Also, your fertility rate figures for Russia and Belarus are out of date. See the more recent figures provided by Anatoly:

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/normalization-of-russias-demographics/

    One doesn’t have to be a Putinist to believe that Putin is doing more for the Russian family than Yeltsin did. Does anyone on this planet believe the reverse?

    Southfarthing,

    I stand corrected. I didn’t touch the issue of intermarriage because it can work both ways. If the children identify as Jewish, intermarriage is a net plus. If not, it’s a net minus.

    Rod,

    I’m not sure C.S. Lewis is a good reference for this topic. He had a live-in relationship with a much older woman and never had children of his own.

    • Replies: @Bill P
  26. @Grumpy

    Immigration has ambiguous effects on housing as it reduces the cost of construction. It has ambiguous effects on real wages because it reduces production costs and migrants only compete with a small fraction of natives for jobs. What’s more, they deepen the division of labour increasing productivity. This is fairly widely supported by all the peer reviewed econ literature.

    And in any case I can prove my original point: https://twitter.com/bswud/status/530717080396763136 (there are replications in other countries as well).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  27. This is fairly widely supported by all the peer reviewed econ literature.

    I’m familiar with the literature, and this is news to me. There is a consensus that immigrants compete with natives for most of the jobs available. Keep in mind that the manufacturing sector has been largely outsourced to China, Mexico, and other low-wage countries. Most of the new jobs being created are non-unionized positions in services and construction, where immigrant competition is intense.

    The twitter reference is only for those women who can afford to hire nannies/domestic servants for their kids. You’re talking about the top 10% of the population, and yes those people do benefit from immigration.

  28. Dahlia says:
    @Southfarthing

    Non-Orthodox Jewish-Americans’ intermarriage rate is reducing their population far faster than their low fertility rate.
    - 1.3 children per woman reduces the next generation to 62% of the size of the last generation (1.3 / 2.1 replacement rate = 62%).
    - Their 71% intermarriage rate reduces the next generation to 29% of the size of the last generation.
    Multiplied together, the next generation of non-Orthodox Jewish-Americans should be expected to be 18% the size of the last generation (.62 * .29 = .18).

    ———

    That is astonishing! Do you suppose this explains the collapse of Jewish genius in this generation that Ron Unz noted in his Ivy League article about Asian quotas?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  29. Bill P says:
    @Peter Frost

    Yes, that’s the hypothesis I’m developing: Northwest Europeans seem to be coping better with the effects of social atomization. Of course, that doesn’t mean there are no negative effects.

    It’s probably because what atomizes others doesn’t do so to NW Europeans. For an extreme example, look at the crime stats in liberal American states. These states tend to have the highest disparities between white and minority crime. Whites apparently thrive in liberal environments, and tend to develop communities despite values that seem hostile to families.

    However, this depends on a great deal of homogeneity. Inject a very different culture into the mix, and things start to fall apart very quickly for one reason or another.

    One thing that might confuse the issue somewhat is that so-called “conservative” states like Montana and North Dakota are in practice far more liberal than NYC. You can’t accurately conflate conservative and liberal with republican and democrat — you have to take the lifestyle into account. In Montana, people have a live and let live attitude. It is strikingly different from major cities in that one has a lot more freedom to live, do and speak as one pleases.

    So in order to understand atomization, one has to draw a distinction between enforced “Western” values and letting nature take its course. In Seattle, a place I recently left, there is a totalitarian leftism that is quite oppressive. In small city/rural Washington state (my new home) things are quite different, and I notice that Laura Wood identifies Clark County Washington as the most fertile white locale in the US. It doesn’t surprise me, because Washington state is very ethnic NW European going by its white population. Left to their own devices, the people here have no trouble forming families and working together to get by, even if they are relatively poor (as many are in Clark County).

    In Seattle, on the other hand, there are fewer children as a proportion of the population than any other major city besides San Francisco despite a high median income and lots of young adults. How could this be? I think it’s because, in practice, Seattle is a far more authoritarian place than Clark County, and this depresses fertility.

    Oh, and by the way, Scandinavians do not emphasize individualism to the same extent Anglo Americans do. This charging the kids rent thing is a postwar Anglo American phenomenon that developed when wages were at their historic peak, education was cheap and real estate depressed.

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @Anonymous
  30. Jim says:
    @rustbeltreader

    Hindu mathematics and astronomy of the first millennium is very heavily derived from Greek sources such as Ptolemy.

    • Replies: @David
  31. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Southfarthing

    Note that the secular Jewish population gets replenished to a certain extent by the high fertility Orthodox Jewish population. It’s not uncommon for Jews from large Orthodox families to become secular as adults. This mitigates the effects of fertility decline and intermarriage.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    , @j
  32. fnn says:
    @Bill P

    In Montana, people have a live and let live attitude. It is strikingly different from major cities in that one has a lot more freedom to live, do and speak as one pleases.

    Well, that may be changing:

    http://flatheadbeacon.com/2014/11/18/whitefish-residents-appeal-city-council-anti-hate-law/

    • Replies: @Bill P
  33. kim says:

    Culture can be preserved in books or on videotape. A gene pool can be preserved only in living human beings, and there is still much we don’t know about the Parsi gene pool. In fact, we know very little. I would like to see the Parsis remain Parsi.

    Intermarriage is inevitable. In India, you have thousands of tiny communities, castes, sub-castes who never intermarry. Even certain castes have very different genetics. Like the Chitpavans

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitpavan

    who have light skin and occasionally hazel, green eyes. I’m the product of a recent inter-caste marriage between a Chitpavan and another caste and both ‘sides’ look very different: tall vs short, hazel-eyed vs black eyes, fair skin vs brown skin, but I look more ‘Indian’. People of ‘lighter’ castes can be pretty racist about maintaining their non-Indian looks. But there is an overlap in phenotypes.
    This is because intermarriage and admixture have happened for a long time. It’s not like the US where there is a great divide between whites and blacks.

    It’s really not possible for Indians of different communities to maintain their genetic identity. It’s not even about Aryan vs Dravidian or north vs south indian. Many communities immigrated to India : Cochin Jews, Armenians, Syrian Jews , Iranis, Afghans or the Anglo Indians etc. There’s no way out for them- they can’t go ‘back’ and they’ll eventually become more Indian through intermarriage.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @singh.jatt
  34. Bill P says:
    @fnn

    They managed to round up “two dozen” people – probably the sum total of “naked rabbi” Allen Secher’s congregation – to demand a law that the town can’t enforce without getting sued for violating Spencer’s right to free speech.

    This will blow over, and life will go on as usual in Montana. But I kind of wish I’d been there. Would have been fun to watch the clown show in Whitefish city hall.

  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @kim

    India itself is a distinct culture and civilization. Some degree of panmixia is going to prevail within a specific civilization.

    The issue now is that there is a push towards a more global, unitary civilization. Since civilization entails some degree of panmixia within it, a global unitary civilization will entail it as well on a more global scale. As there are variations among different populations in fertility rates, this will have certain demographic consequences. Furthermore, this is amplified by the fact that those pushing for a more global, unitary civilization exploit these variations to advance a more global unitary civilization i.e. low fertility rates are used to justify migration, etc.

    • Replies: @kim
  36. David says:
    @Jim

    I don’t think Indian mathematics was influenced by Greek thought. Arabic mathematics was heavily influenced by Ptolemy, whose book we call the Almagest, a mash up of the Arabic definite article and the Greek for “big,” because it was The Big Book to the Arabs.

    • Replies: @Jim
  37. sprfls says:
    @Peter Frost

    When I turned 18, I had to start paying room and board to my mother, and that had long been the rule in English Canadian households. It’s only been since the 1990s that most parents allow their grown-up “kids” to live at home without paying rent.

    Sorry, I find that extremely strange and off-putting. There exists some sweet spot between clannishness and individualism and I believe NW Euros have gone too far in the the latter direction. Asking one’s kids to pay rent in the house they grew up in is one small sign of that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Major Problem
  38. kim says:
    @Anonymous

    I can understand wanting the Italians to remain Italian, Vietnamese to remain Vietnamese and so on. But there’s a point at which it becomes impractical.

    There are innumerable castes, sub-castes in India. Intermarriage works something like this, in order of preference:
    -between the same sub-caste , eg Chitpavan Brahmins
    -between the same caste eg Chitpavan Brahmin and Gaud Brahmin
    -same caste, different region eg Gujarati Brahmin and Marathi Brahmin
    -same caste, north vs south india eg Gujarati Brahmin and Tamil Brahmin
    -different caste blah blah bah
    etc etc

    I guess eventually, the differences between sub-castes , castes will break down through intermarriage. Then it’ll just be north ,south and north-east indian phenotypes.

    Intermarriage is an inevitable consequence of greater ‘national’ feelings and breakdown of ‘regional’ feelings.

  39. Ron Unz says:
    @Dahlia

    Actually, I think the figure regarding the non-Orthodox Jewish intermarriage rate has been disputed and may be too high. However, the 1.3 child fertility rate sounds about right, and indeed I had cited it as probably one of the main contributing factors to the sharp decline of Jewish academic achievement in my original article:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/#fn69

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Southfarthing
  40. SFG says:
    @Ron Unz

    So all Hitler had to do was go 180 degrees from his original plan–remove all barriers to assimilation, and wait?

    • Replies: @j
    , @Anonymous
  41. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill P

    Cities are population sinks and tend to have lower fertility rates than surrounding rural areas. Cities also don’t have very high median or average incomes if urban real estate prices are considered. People who have trouble affording real estate are going to have trouble forming families. It has nothing to do with “authoritarianism”.

    • Replies: @Bill P
  42. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ben Southwood

    Real estate prices are driven by site or land values, not construction costs.

  43. Bill P says:
    @Anonymous

    Cities are population sinks and tend to have lower fertility rates than surrounding rural areas. Cities also don’t have very high median or average incomes if urban real estate prices are considered. People who have trouble affording real estate are going to have trouble forming families. It has nothing to do with “authoritarianism”.

    -anonymous

    That hasn’t always been the case, especially in NW Europe. Amsterdam was once known as the “City of Children,” and 20th century American cities were bursting at the seams with children only 50 years ago.

    And yes, real estate matters — a lot. But the absurd prices in cities are an artificial means to keep certain people (you know who) in their place, which is ultimately an authoritarian practice. When people are constrained by expense and fees, is it somehow a lesser form of control? And the rules – the endless rules – that apply to parents and children in cities and affect nearly every facet of life only increase trouble and expense. Maybe you don’t call this authoritarian, but it’s extremely stifling for young families. Freedom to live as one pleases is far more constrained than in other locales.

    Finally, the police presence in American cities gives one the impression of living under military occupation. I’ve never seen anything like it anywhere else on earth, and I’ve been to a lot of places. I don’t really have a personal problem with cops, but I just don’t feel comfortable in that kind of society. Quite frankly, it’s intimidating, and I think that’s the point.

    So yes, I say American cities are highly authoritarian, and this contributes to lower fertility by making life difficult and precarious for young people at peak fertility. Seems Lee Kwan Yew’s model – so beloved by West Coast progressives (really, they openly endorse Singapore as a model to follow) – is a demographic failure.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  44. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @sprfls

    It’s less strange if you consider that real estate prices weren’t so high in the past as they are now. The material barriers to economic independence were much lower.

  45. Bill,

    It’s partly because the average White American is better at creating a new web of social relationships from scratch, whereas people in other cultures depend more on pre-formed kin relationships. This view is mainstream anthropology, and not controversial. But I can’t help wondering whether there are also underlying differences in psychological makeup. Take the high suicide rate among native peoples. The proximate cause seems to be (a) being alone and (b) feeling socially useless. Those two factors can cause suicidal ideation in any human, but the likelihood seems to be much greater for native Indians and Inuit. They seem to cope less easily with social atomization.

    It’s really not possible for Indians of different communities to maintain their genetic identity.

    Kim,

    Initially, the argument was that the Parsis should accept intermarriage because it would increase their numbers. This is doubtful, since intermarriage tends to work against minority communities. Now, the argument seems to be that the Parsis should accept their impending extinction because it’s going to happen anyway. And that’s that. This argument has a number of interesting variations: “You can’t fight progress!” “Like it or lump it!” and “Shut up and get used to it!”

    That line of reasoning bothers me. In reality, things “happen” because of human actions and human decisions. We’re not talking about the weather. The Parsis have existed for well over a thousand years, often in much worse circumstances. They succeeded because they saw themselves as actors on the scene of history, and not as passive spectators.

    Intermarriage is an inevitable consequence of greater ‘national’ feelings and breakdown of ‘regional’ feelings.

    The nationalist movements of the last two centuries created a dynamic that has led to the current vogue of globalism. By creating larger geographic units, so the argument went, we will achieve economies of scale and enjoy greater affluence and greater geopolitical power. In reality, the economies of scale have proved to be illusory. Are Europeans better off today than before the European Union? Yes, we’ve created militarily more powerful countries, but in doing so we’ve increased the deadliness of warfare, while creating elites that are even farther removed from the people. Is this progress?

    The dissolution of cultures and peoples is inevitable only if you subscribe to the dominant ideology. But an ideology is not inevitable. It is a product of conscious human choices.

  46. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    “Female education and economic development are like antibiotics against human reproduction.”

    It also seems that feminists spend a lot of time trying to get women to think of themselves (collectively) more as “a people” rather than “a gender.” Their language and rhetoric suggests this. They want to make womanhood the primary source of women’s identity, and, as a result, have all other sources of collective identity fall by the wayside. And what’s more important for a “nation of women” (in the eyes of feminists) than it’s physical well being? And that physical well being is jeopardized every time a woman gives birth. Many women in the West have come to see childbirth as a threat to “their people.”

  47. […] Mangan Peter Frost writes about the Parsis, and how their birthrate is so low that they are in danger literally of going extinct. Frost […]

  48. Jim says:
    @David

    I recall reading in Heath that the principal Hindu astronomy text was largely a translation of Ptolemy.

    • Replies: @David
  49. @Peter Frost

    I agree with much of what you write, but not with this one:

    Yes, we’ve created militarily more powerful countries, but

    Unfortunately, there is no but. If ‘we’ hadn’t created them (remember that some countries refused to go along – the Habsburgs wanted to keep their non-German lands, so they didn’t unite Germany, the Bavarians wanted to keep their independence, etc.), others would have (yes, those Hohenzollerns etc.), and in the end those who refused to do so were swamped by those who did so. Napoleon managed to conquer Europe because there was no unified Germany, nor Italy. I’m afraid nation-states were inevitable.

    I’m very much against the EU, mostly because it facilitates immigration from outside Europe through institutions like the Strasbourg Court (which always rules against anti-immigration measures) and many others. I wouldn’t care that much if it was only intra-European migration.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  50. I read about the Parsis several times before. I never knew about their predicament. This is so sad.

  51. @reiner Tor

    Incidentally, multiethnic empires tend to be less efficient militarily than nation-states. I find Azar Gat’s theory (actually it’s not his, since he mostly just slightly modifies already existing theories, but I read it in his book) on the nation-states quite convincing.

    So I think nation-states are more natural than other political organizations. Militaries need ethnical homogeneity, and they also need higher numbers, so as a rule of thumb countries should grow to include the whole of one ethnic group but not more.

    This only applies to where nations or nation-like ethnic groups exist. In tribal or caste societies (Middle East, India, etc.) that’s impossible.

    • Replies: @Numinous
  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill P

    I think it’s generally been the case everywhere. Cities have lower fertility rates than surrounding rural areas.

    I’m not sure what you mean by 20th century American cities “bursting at the seams with children” 50 years ago. The postwar American baby boom was accompanied by explosive growth and development of the suburbs.

    I’m also not sure what you mean by the prices in urban real estate being “artificial”. Urban real estate is generally more expensive than non-urban real estate. There’s less supply of space and greater demand in cities, hence higher prices. Crowded areas like cities are naturally going to have more rules governing social activity than sparsely populated ones.

    I’m not exactly sure what you’re disagreeing with if your point is that cities are more expensive and have more rules and that these things suppress fertility.

    • Replies: @Bill P
  53. Bill P says:
    @Peter Frost

    Bill,

    It’s partly because the average White American is better at creating a new web of social relationships from scratch, whereas people in other cultures depend more on pre-formed kin relationships. This view is mainstream anthropology, and not controversial.

    Really? I’m so glad Unz hired you here, since I’m learning new things every week that I wish I’d known years ago. Now you give an anthropological explanation for the “invisible white privilege knapsack” so often used to impugn us.

    But I can’t help wondering whether there are also underlying differences in psychological makeup. Take the high suicide rate among native peoples. The proximate cause seems to be (a) being alone and (b) feeling socially useless. Those two factors can cause suicidal ideation in any human, but the likelihood seems to be much greater for native Indians and Inuit. They seem to cope less easily with social atomization.

    I think it is probably a psychological characteristic. I’ve read Francis Parkman’s accounts of the Iroquois and their religion. Apparently, they practiced a sort of animism that had an element of an external voice that guided them throughout life, although Parkman dismissed it as the result of people driven mad by a spirit quest. It was known as a manitou, and was typically a totem of an animal kept in a little bag hung around the neck.

    Now, I’m not a professional, trained psychologist, but in my experience the people I’ve known personally who committed suicide (three off the top of my head), all perceived some external voice or entity telling them to off themselves.

    Perhaps, and this is merely speculation on my part, whites are better at suppressing that voice than Indians. Maybe they can use their rational minds to quiet it. Maybe it’s less likely to come out in them. I don’t know, but if you are commanded by some spirit telling you that it’s time to die, and hearing it as an external voice, it may be harder to argue with than an internal compulsion, or “ideation.” If you think about contemporary society and the impressive power of denial people have, it appears that we have an incredibly powerful capacity to deny what we see with “logos,” or the word. So maybe it is really an objective logos – an external voice – that compels people to end their lives in times of stress and isolation.

    Now, as for the comparison you made earlier concerning affective empathy and lactose tolerance, something similar may be going on here. If lactose tolerance can be extended to adulthood due to genetic changes, then perhaps hearing external voices can be suppressed after childhood by some genetic means, but that doesn’t happen in Indians for whatever reason.

    I say this because the only time in my life that ever heard an external voice speaking to me “out of the ether” as it were, was when I was a very small child. As much as I’d like to have that experience again, it just hasn’t happened. And maybe it’s for the best, because the people I’ve known who did experience it have generally killed themselves.

    • Replies: @Jim
  54. Bill P says:
    @Anonymous

    I’m not exactly sure what you’re disagreeing with if your point is that cities are more expensive and have more rules and that these things suppress fertility.

    -anonymous

    Well, yeah, that’s my point. So why did you disagree with me in the first place again? Was it over the word “authoritarian?” You see, people are strongly influenced by cultural concepts. Much of what passes for “liberal” today is in fact authoritarian by the standard definition of the word, but people can’t see it because they assign non-leftist concepts to the authoritarian category due to cultural conditioning.

  55. Jimi says:
    @Alexander

    There is a significant number of Parsis still living in Gujarat and from my observation they have more children (1-3 per family). The stereotype in India is that 1/3 of Parsis never marry, 1/3 marry outside the religion and 1/3 are gay. Hence the demographic decline.

    You seem to know a lot about the sect. My grandfathers house is in what used to be a Parsi neighborhood in Surat. Our house was originally built by a Parsi family.

  56. @Ron Unz

    I haven’t seen rigorous arguments against the Jewish intermarriage rate.

    The findings are robust in that they’re consistent with the steady rise of Jewish intermarriage rates across decades, the steady decline in Jewish religious identification, and the general liberalization of marriage attitudes starting in the 1960s and 70s.

    The entire reason Jews were able to stay a distinct group for 2000 years was their religion. Diminish the importance of religion and religious social events, and people naturally start to pair up instead based on class and a more relaxed propinquity effect (who you bump into in the world).

    The chart is here (source) showing Jewish intermarriage rates steadily rising since the 70s. (They’re showing 58%, since their concern is all U.S. Jews, whereas we’re using 71% for the non-Orthodox, since we don’t care about Jews in funny hats who are like the Amish.)

    The findings are consistent with the world around us. Some of the most famous Jews today:

    Jon Stewart: Married a Catholic.
    Kevin Rose:  Married a Christian.
    Mark Cuban: Married a Christian.
    Mark Zuckerberg: Married an Asian.
    Larry Page: Half-Jewish, married a Christian.
    Dustin Moskovitz: Married a Turk.
    Larry Ellison: Married a Christian.
    Steve Ballmer: Half-Jewish, married a Christian.
    Ben Horowitz: Married an African-American.
    Steven Spielberg: Married a Kate Capshaw.
    Jared Kushner:  Married Ivanka Trump.
    Wesley Clark: Half-Jewish.
    Neil Gaiman: Married a Christian
    David Cameron: 3/32 Jewish.
    Boris Johnson: 1/8 Jewish.

    Jennifer Connelly: Half-Jewish, married Paul Bettany.
    Gwenyth Paltrow: Half-Jewish, married Chris Martin.
    Natalie Portman: Married Benjamin Millepied.
    Rachel Weisz: Married Daniel Craig.
    Scarlett Johansson: Half-Jewish, married Ryan Reynolds, then Romain Dauriac.
    Mila Kunis: Married Ashton Kutcher.
    Rachel Bilson: Half-Jewish, has a kid with Hayden Christensen.
    Dianna Agron: Half-Jewish.
    Allison Brie: Half-Jewish.
    Winona Ryder: Half-Jewish.
    Yasmine Bleeth: Half-Jewish.
    Lily Collins: 1/8 Jewish.
    Rosie Huntington-Whiteley: 37.5% Jewish.
    Helena Bonham Carter: 37.5% Jewish.
    Alicia Silverstone: 1/2 Jewish.
    Olivia Newton-John: 37.5% Jewish.
    Jessica Biel: 1/8 Jewish.
    Olivia Wilde: Distant Jewish.
    Neve Campbell: Distant Jewish.
    Jessica Alba: Distant Jewish.

    Harrison Ford: Half-Jewish, married Calista Flockhart.
    Armie Hammer: 1/2 Jewish, married a Christian.
    Daniel Day-Lewis: Half-Jewish, married a half-Jew-raised-Christian, neither are religious.
    Paul Newman: Half-Jewish, married a Christian.
    Sacha Baron Cohen: Married Isla Fisher.
    Liev Schreiber: Half-Jewish, married Naomi Watts.
    Michael Douglas: Half-Jewish, married Catherine Zeta-Jones.
    Jake Gyllenhaal: Half-Jewish.
    Chris Pine: 1/4 Jewish.
    Noah Wyle: 1/2 Jewish.
    Ed Skrein (Game of Thrones): 1/2 Jewish.
    Adam Levine: 3/4 Jewish, married Behati Prinsloo.
    Sylvester Stallone: 1/4 Jewish.
    Daniel Radcliffe: 1/2 Jewish.
    Mark-Paul Gosselaar: 1/4 Jewish.
    River Phoenix: 1/2 Jewish.
    Sean Austin: 1/2 Jewish.
    Ansel Elgort: 1/2 Jewish.
    Lewis C.K.: 1/8 Jewish.
    Topher Grace: 1/8 Jewish.
    Will Wheaton: 1/8 Jewish.
    Cary Elwes: 1/8 Jewish.
    Robert Downey Jr: 1/8 Jewish.
    Lars Ulrich: 1/4 Jewish.
    Yul Brynner: 1/4 Jewish.
    David Beckham: 1/4 Jewish by ancestry, 1/2 Jewish by identity.
    Tom Hanks’ children: 1/8 Jewish.

    Sources: ethnicelebs.com/tag/jewish/

    Even if the Jewish intermarriage rate were lower for some reason, there’s a lot of evidence that it’s one of the largest trends in the Jewish-American population.

  57. Jimi says:
    @Alexander

    There is a strong orthodox core of the Parsi community and they control the community’s religious and social institutions (which have large financial endowments). This core turns away Parsis of mixed marriages and generally favor keeping a “purer” but smaller community.

  58. Karl says:

    “ashkenazi” “sfardi”

    these categories are obsolete in Israel. The words still exist in discourse; but they influence very few decisions.

    If you’re not going to make a decision – don’t ask the question. Lest you become as like the “social science” professors.

  59. David says:
    @Jim

    I don’t suppose you could go to the trouble of looking up what you’re telling hundreds of people. Why don’t you cite an actual bit of text?

  60. @Anonymous

    Note that the secular Jewish population gets replenished to a certain extent by the high fertility Orthodox Jewish population. It’s not uncommon for Jews from large Orthodox families to become secular as adults. This mitigates the effects of fertility decline and intermarriage.

    Orthodox Jews are only a small portion of the Jewish population… 10% according to the 2013 Pew survey. So that’s a good point about the Orthodox boiling off into the secular community, but it’s necessarily a small trend relative to the non-Orthodox (90% of Jews) intermarrying at 71%.

  61. @sprfls

    I don’t think an anecdote can be used as evidence of a regional population practice. I’m of sufficient NW European descent to have blonde hair, but I never paid rent to my parents. Who’s the exception–me or Dr. Frost? Is there a study on this?

    • Replies: @JayMan
  62. Numinous says:
    @reiner Tor

    Incidentally, multiethnic empires tend to be less efficient militarily than nation-states.
    …….
    This only applies to where nations or nation-like ethnic groups exist. In tribal or caste societies (Middle East, India, etc.) that’s impossible.

    I think this is a misreading of history. I won’t comment on the Middle East, but in India there was a permanent professional caste of warriors (Kshatriyas) who were duty bound to fight and defend the “country” (which included all the castes.) Unless I am mistaken, you envision an “every-caste-for-themselves” society where castes were constantly fighting with each other. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This system actually worked perfectly fine for a very long time. It was even able to intimidate Alexander and his army to stop their quest for worldwide conquest and turn back. For a historical analogy, the Indian system was very similar to the Spartan one, which likewise survived for close to a millenium.

    The weakness of “India” was not inter-caste squabbles (as long as each caste accepted its privileges and limitations, and the world didn’t change environmentally or materially, this was an extremely stable system.) The problem was that Indians thought of the subcontinent as pretty much the entire world, and didn’t care for anything outside. The subcontinent was divided into many countries, much like in Christendom, and who kept fighting each other. When external invaders (Muslims, British) came to India, they were able to play off rulers against one another. The Indian rulers had neither the vision nor the wisdom to understand the outside world, and that led to their downfall.

    So the things you say about militaries, like requiring ethnic homogeneity, very much apply to India. But that’s not enough. A powerful and visionary state is absolutely necessary. Fukuyama has recently written extensively about this, and I find his reasoning very sound.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  63. j says: • Website

    Dahlia, Do you understand the implication of 0.18 ? Some 200,000 Jews remained in Hungary after WWII. The last census counted 10,000. In two generations, the community decreased from 200,000 to 10,000, and this represents a replacement rate of 0.23 which is 30% higher than your estimated 0.18. The Galut is liquidating itself.

    • Replies: @Dahlia
    , @reiner Tor
  64. Numinous says:
    @Peter Frost

    It’s partly because the average White American is better at creating a new web of social relationships from scratch, whereas people in other cultures depend more on pre-formed kin relationships. This view is mainstream anthropology, and not controversial.

    Could this view be mainstream simply because anthropologists have a much larger sample set of “white Americans building social relationships from scratch” as compared to ” building social relationships from scratch”? If people spend their lives in or around where they were born, they will have no opportunity or need to form social relationships from scratch, will they? By default, their networks will revolve around kin. In the past few centuries, white people, especially from Western Europe, have been continuously spreading far from their original villages and homelands. Other cultures, much less so; in some cases, not at all. But increased movement from rural to urban areas in developing countries, and from one country to another (immigration) does force people to build networks from scratch. has this been studies adequately, and there enough of a sample size to compare with white Americans?

  65. j says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Doubtful. Orthodox Jews are say 10% of the general Jewish population, they are too few to replenish anything.

  66. Harold says:
    @Peter Frost

    Exactly, there’s nothing inevitable about it. If you read some earlier racialist writers they were sure it was inevitable that the “superior” European and Asian races would completely displace the “inferior” races like Africans. This was not really that long ago. Not only was it not inevitabe, the current trend is more in the opposite direction.

  67. Jim says:

    So Peter, would you say that modernity is an evolutionary deathtrap?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  68. Jim says:
    @Bill P

    I recall reading once about the following practice in some Amerindian hunter-gatherer groups. Typically at some point an old individual in the group would announce to the others that the time had come for them. They would visit their friends and kin to for a final farewell and then leave the group to go out to die in the wilderness.

    Such groups moved frequently and it was difficult for the elderly to keep up and they could no longer contribute much to the band. Perhaps they heard a voice telling them that the end had come.

  69. in my experience the people I’ve known personally who committed suicide (three off the top of my head), all perceived some external voice or entity telling them to off themselves.

    This is the part I find strange. Whenever I’ve talked with young natives who have thought about suicide, they don’t mention anything weird like inner voices. They just don’t feel like living anymore. This is something I hope to write more about if I can find more information.

    I’m afraid nation-states were inevitable.

    That word again. It’s possible to protect one’s country through collective security. That was the purpose of NATO (it no longer is). If “defence” were the only reason, why do I hear American conservatives clamoring for an even bigger U.S. (with half a billion people). Exactly whom does the U.S. government need to protect itself from? Space aliens?

    I’m of sufficient NW European descent to have blonde hair, but I never paid rent to my parents. Who’s the exception–me or Dr. Frost? Is there a study on this?

    You seem to think I’m positing a direct link between genes and behavior for everything. I’m simply saying that Northwest Europeans tend to have a weaker sense of kinship. That’s already a few steps away from the genetic cause. Charging room and board to your children is several steps farther away. This was a common practice among English Canadians until the 1990s. It ended because of the worsening job market for young adults and a growing culture of entitlement.

    If people spend their lives in or around where they were born, they will have no opportunity or need to form social relationships from scratch, will they?

    We see the same pattern when these people move to new places. They prefer to live near close kin and to a large extent they replicate similar patterns of social interaction.

    Yes, in time (usually after two to three generations), many choose to imitate the individualism and social atomization of Western culture. But assimilation to Western norms tends to produce more negative effects than what we see in Western populations. The mainstream view is to attribute these negative effects to “racism” or “lack of integration.” In reality, there isn’t that much to integrate into. Modern Western societies now have a very high level of social atomization.

    So Peter, would you say that modernity is an evolutionary deathtrap?

    Western modernity has become toxic to most humans, although to varying extents. We need a better understanding of our human nature and the relationship between self and society. This will come about. History is a process where the dominant ideology, the thesis, generates an anti-thesis that gradually gains strength and will eventually replace it.

    • Replies: @Major Problem
    , @reiner Tor
  70. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG

    Not necessarily, because differential fertility rates and gene flow have to be taken into account.

    W.D. Hamilton believed that the increase in the Ashkenazi population played a role in Nazi Germany’s actions:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6876/full/416017a.html

    Hamilton is an unabashed, no-fig-leaf naturist. He believes that genetics, not nurture, accounts for a large and important range of human behaviour — from racism and xenophobia to differences in intellectual abilities between men and women — and that only by admitting and understanding this, only by casting aside hypocrisy on the matter, can fundamental human problems be tackled. As an example, he argues that a basic cause (emphatically not a justification) of racism — and, particularly, of ethnically motivated genocide — is a differential birth rate between groups. And, yes, he does extend this to the Nazi extermination of Jews.

    From Hamilton’s Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Volume 2, p. 280:

    Increase of Ashkenazi Jews in eastern Europe in the span of the nineteenth century is said to have been almost fourfold (S. Jones, In the Blood: God, Genes and Destiny (HarperCollins, London, 1996)). This implies a doubling about every generation. Very surprisingly this fact seems almost never to be discussed as part causative background to the holocaust, an omission that continues even when claims of group competition are the focus

  71. Dahlia says:
    @j

    I do. The observation about genius wasn’t meant to be deaf to the serious implications, but to point out a an alleged real world observation that, whatever these numbers are exactly, can readily be seen and shows they’re not hokum.
    On a lighter note, when this was brought up before (probably upon the initial publication of Ron’s article, but not with *those* basement numbers), I joked that Jeff Goldblum, a Boomer, seemed to be the last of the Jewish Hotties.
    Later, I came across a lighthearted discussion where Jewish men were lamenting their demise as the the nerd in movies and shows and said Asians were now cast for those roles. One lamented that the last real Jewish nerd in a movie was “Ghostbusters” in the 80s.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
  72. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim

    Civilization has fundamental structural problems with it that simply cannot be overcome. To wit: Any time you let cities grow up from the countryside’s agricultural production, you create an elite that will defect against the rest of the population. The inevitable result is horizontal transmission with virulence emerging among some urban elite populations, hence self-destruction of civilization.

    Modernity introduces the technological amplification of mass media—primarily broadcast television—of traditional urban survival strategies which have resulted in an over-control of the Baby Boom’s fertility. This over control of Boomer fertility combined synergistically with profound advances in transportation technology supporting neutralization via immigration and unprecedented political influence in the wake of WW II.

    Urban elites used to profiting from harvesting rural females for sale back in cities have, by motion picture technology, received so much power that they have managed to not only “over-harvest” so to speak women for lives as urban concubines—they have made it impossible to replace those women by raising the cost of reproduction to the point that even in the richest countries women cannot have replacement children because their sociobiological environment stigmatizes the men with whom they might raise children as unworthy of reproduction. “The Alpha of State” has become the Head of Household, leaving vast populations sterilized.

    Outside of manifestly patriarchal cultures like Orthodox Judaism, Islam, some African tribes, etc., the ethnies escaping this are seen by their women as not submitting to “The Alpha of State”—usually by being an immigrant to a foreign land and defecting, with the associated payoffs, from the culture to which they have immigrated.

  73. Sean says:

    Ben, you brought forward no evidence for the premise your reasoning turns on: “Combined with the other reasons to have kids families might aim for 7 or 8 or 10”. While there have been Europeans who averaged that size of family, they were in an explicitly pr0-natalist cultures very different from the one we live in today. The very wealthiest modern Western parents in mainstream culture don’t have anything like that number of children, as far as I can see they don’t want to and there is no reason to assume those of more modest means do either. Kibbutz had collective child rearing practices that were very unusual and are said to have ran afoul of the Westermarck effect. Alternative explanations for those brought up in a Kibbutz having low fertility could include the aforementioned child care, and the socialistic ethos.

    If migrants only compete with a small fraction of natives for jobs then migrants are mainly in competition with more recent migrants, and rationally immigrants ought to be the ones most opposed to further immigration. But immigrants are not the main opponents of more immigration. Obviously immigrants are not playing the individual rational choice game beloved of economists.
    As for competing, businesses are in competition with each other to lower costs. Canada has just introduced a system where foreigner with a job offer from a Canadian employer gets to immigrate. The Canadian immigration minister says immigrants are younger that native Canadians and more likely to have advanced degrees So the employer has a choice between recruiting a qualified person from abroad, and paying the cost of training a native for the job.

    The real gain in productivity is caused by the worker simply catching a plane from his dysfunctional homeland to a rich county, because in doing so he automatically becomes ten times more productive, due to the characteristics of the rich country, which the immigrant has not contributed to, but the natives have. So that is a magic gain and the immigrant is the one who gets the free lunch. The immigrants are the beneficiaries of immigration, the losers include the countries they come from (Prof. Jhagdish Bagwati suggested a tax on migrants to compensate their home countries). Economists’ pro-migration conclusions follow from their theoretical approach, because they operate on a global utility perspective in which it is invalid to see a country’s indigenous population as suffering net losses from immigration.

    Peter, Israel is difficult to make meaningful comparisons to. It is a recent and thoroughly ideological project, has heavily subsidised settlements on conquered land, and a downplayed amount of emigration to the West. As for the American out marriage stats, those figures are probably bespoke and for community purposes, for there are well funded organisations to encourage fecund endogamy with no personal costs levied on those involved; one former member was put in charge of US diplomacy in the Middle East, forsooth . (Southfarthing, Catholic stepfather of Dennis Ross deserves an mention? Cochran thinks there is no evidence of special Jewish intellectual activity in the ancient world, yet there are references from 100 BC to their universal education.)

    My impression is that Northern countries have in recent history usually had a relatively high birth-rate, with Ireland’s about the highest AOTBE. Richard Lynn brought out an interesting book many years ago in which he talked about the correlation between various indicators of anxiety such as low birth-rate, high alcohol consumption, high rates of suicide, and dynamic economic growth. (Korea currently fits that pattern well, including its very high suicide rate.) Austria and Switzerland were the highest anxiety countries in Europe. According to Lynn a high birth-rate correlated with indicators of low anxiety, such as high calorie intake and prevalence of schizophrenia. Ireland was the lowest in on the anxiety index I think. I doubt Catholicism was a specific factor as it has long since lost its grip in Ireland without the collapse in the birth-rate that happened in Spain and north Italy.

    Anyway, for all the high-ish birth-rate in North West Europe I think it is wrong to believe that it is better off than Greece ect. I am very dubious of the supposed indigenous fertility trumpeted for Danish women. What is certain is Denmark (and Ireland) admits more immigrants now than ever before, and most are male. Migrants may enter Europe through the south, but they often heading for SE England. Most of these southern countries are small and popular dissent can be bought off. In my opinion the most likely country for a west European Russia-type reaction would be Italy, which is an outlier in many ways and big enough. But Germany is standing behind the system, and Germany is very strong.

    Raising the birth-rate is a long term strategy with immediate costs. Immigration gives a quick pay off for business, and crucially it lets governments run a longer more intense boom without inflation. Of course immigration also deepens the bust and brings lower living standards but that is in the longer term. (see Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism in the 21st Century by Paul Collier).

    • Replies: @Numinous
  74. Sean says:

    “Western modernity has become toxic to most humans, although to varying extents. We need a better understanding of our human nature and the relationship between self and society. This will come about. History is a process where the dominant ideology, the thesis, generates an anti-thesis that gradually gains strength and will eventually replace it”.

    Wikipedia: Dewey begins his argument by distinguishing between the “state,” represented by elected lawmakers, and the “public,” the diffuse, often incoherent body of citizens who elect the state. The public is called into being when ordinary citizens experience the negative externalities (or consequences) of exchanges beyond their control (such as market or governmental activities). A public then is made up of citizens whose common interest is focused on alleviating these negative externalities through legislation; in fact, Dewey argues that a public does not actually exist until a negative externality calls it into being. Dewey asserts that this occurs when people perceive how consequences of indirect actions affect them collectively: “Indirect, extensive, enduring and serious consequences of conjoint and interacting behavior call a public into existence having a common interest in controlling these consequences”. Hence, a public only develops when it has a reason and comes together around an issue of substantial or serious significance

    “The new public which is generated remains long inchoate, unorganized, because it cannot use the inherited political agencies. The latter, if elaborate and well instituted, obstruct the organization of the new public. They prevent that development of new forms of the state which might grown up rapidly were social life more fluid, less precipitated into set political and legal moulds … The public which generated political forms is passing away, but the power and lust of possession remains in the hands of the officers and agencies which the dying public instituted. That is why the change of the form of states is so often effected only by revolution…”(Dewey, 1927)

  75. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Peter, what is your view of the “North American Union” “conspiracy” as a Canadian?

    It’s derided as a “conspiracy theory” but something like it does seem to be a long-term goal of the elites. Here’s a recent mainstream media article promoting a North American passport:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/26/opinion/martinez-kurtz-phelan-north-american-passport/

    Part of the promotion of Mexican immigration and immigration more generally seems to be to create conditions more amenable to the establishment of something like a North American Union.

  76. @Peter Frost

    I wrote:
    I’m of sufficient NW European descent to have blonde hair, but I never paid rent to my parents. Who’s the exception–me or Dr. Frost? Is there a study on this?

    You wrote:
    You seem to think I’m positing a direct link between genes and behavior for everything. I’m simply saying that Northwest Europeans tend to have a weaker sense of kinship. That’s already a few steps away from the genetic cause. Charging room and board to your children is several steps farther away. This was a common practice among English Canadians until the 1990s. It ended because of the worsening job market for young adults and a growing culture of entitlement.

    I was responding to @sprfls, who wrote, in response to your anecdote:
    Sorry, I find that extremely strange and off-putting. There exists some sweet spot between clannishness and individualism and I believe NW Euros have gone too far in the the latter direction. Asking one’s kids to pay rent in the house they grew up in is one small sign of that.

    Perhaps my intent was not clear, but I meant to let @sprfls know that not all “NW Euros” charge their children rent; in fact, when I read your anecdote, my visceral response was, “now that is cold, because I couldn’t conceive of parents requiring such a thing. But I don’t know if my response is typical or not. Apparently, the life experiences of a Californian of mixed Germanic-and-assorted background are not fungible with those of a Canadian of English background, although they are both “NW Euros.” That’s why I asked if there was a study. Anecdotes have their place in humanizing data, as you know, but they are often irrelevant or misleading.

    Having participated in ISAF FETs, FHETs and FSTs, non-European kinship relationships are of especial interest to me. I’m currently engaged in discussions on the validity and success of such teams, and whether or not, due to multiple incidents of ambushes and hostile fire taken by them, they not only violated then-in-effect American combat exclusion laws, but may have been counter-productive. A deep knowledge of differences in kinship and gender relationships among various peoples is not merely of academic interest; it is of life-or-death importance at the sand-in-your-pants level, too.

    We’ve been reading through this webside, trying to determine if it is serious and useful. Some of its contributors are (Ron Unz, yes; Razib Khan, yes; Steve Sailer, yes; Fred Reed, LOLwhut; you, yes; others…jury still out or no). Thanks for your efforts to make clear your findings in your field of expertise.

  77. Numinous says:
    @Sean

    The immigrants are the beneficiaries of immigration, the losers include the countries they come from

    I agree with the first part of your statement, but I have never found the second part convincing. How does the mere presence of these people in their home countries help those countries? People stuck in a dysfunctional system don’t hunker down and become productive. They either switch off and do the bare minimum to help themselves and their families, or they try to escape.

    (Prof. Jhagdish Bagwati suggested a tax on migrants to compensate their home countries).

    This is likely to be counterproductive. The remittances sent home by the immigrants likely exceeds whatever tax rates can be feasibly set (even assuming everyone faithfully pays those taxes.) Also, remittances and private investments do some real good, whereas taxes paid to dysfunctional governments are mostly going to go into the pockets of corrupt officials.

  78. Perhaps my intent was not clear, but I meant to let @sprfls know that not all “NW Euros” charge their children rent; [...] That’s why I asked if there was a study.

    Fair enough. I did a Google Scholar search and found two American studies that attest to the practice of parents charging their grown children room and board:

    Aquilino, W.S. and K.R. Supple (1991). Parent-Child Relations and Parent’s Satisfaction with Living Arrangements When Adult Children Live at Home, Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 13-27

    Ward, R.A. and G. Spitze. (1996). Gender Differences in Parent-Child Coresidence Experiences, Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 718-725

    We’ve been reading through this webside, trying to determine if it is serious and useful. Some of its contributors are (Ron Unz, yes; Razib Khan, yes; Steve Sailer, yes; Fred Reed, LOLwhut; you, yes; others…jury still out or no).

    I’m sure we’re all useful for something. My wife thinks I’m useful for driving her to Real Canadian Superstore.

    • Replies: @Major Problem
    , @Jim
    , @Jim
  79. Peter, what is your view of the “North American Union” “conspiracy” as a Canadian?

    The word “conspiracy” seems ill suited for something that was done in the open by large numbers of people. NAFTA was a product of the “New Right” under Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Brian Mulroney in Canada. The idea was that free trade would enable businesses to outmanoeuvre the efforts of government and trade unions to distort the free market.

    The same rationale is being used to justify globalization. If workers are spoiled rotten in one place, businesses can outsource their work to a place where workers earn barely enough to live on. By the same logic, businesses can use globalization to circumvent environmental and labor standards.

    This argument still appeals to many people on the political right. Median wages have hardly risen since the 1970s, yet I routinely hear “conservatives” talk about how spoiled rotten we are. Working people suck, and they deserve to be thrown into competition with the Third World.

    What planet do “conservatives” live on?

    • Replies: @Seneca
  80. @Dahlia

    I joked that Jeff Goldblum, a Boomer, seemed to be the last of the Jewish Hotties.

    Joseph Gordon-Levitt seems to be the current leading fully Jewish male attractive media figure. (Many women liked his Sesame Street appearance, for example.) He recently married Tasha McCauley, a robotics company founder. She has an Irish or Scottish surname, but looks likely to have Jewish ancestry.

    If we count half-Jewish male attractive media figures, then Harrison Ford was surely the lead, and now the leads would probably be Ansel Elgort, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Armie Hammer.

    Jonah Hill is a current Jewish nerd actor, as seen in Moneyball. But you’re right that Egon in Ghostbusters would be hard to pass as a nerd par excellence.

    • Replies: @Dahlia
  81. Dahlia says:
    @Southfarthing

    I’m not into pop culture other than music anymore so I don’t see all, but I hear things.
    Goldblum and even Egon: Gordon just isn’t those guys. (I looked up Jonah. Definitely NOT the type I admire).
    The part Jewish guys you mentioned are nice, but the goodlooking Jewish brainiacs, in film or otherwise, sometimes a little spastic… Where are they?!?!?!?
    Well, we still have Ron ;)

    • Replies: @j
    , @Bill P
  82. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Southfarthing

    Assuming that all of the children of the intermarried are lost to Judaism is an error. Even the most stringent Orthodox rabbinical authorities accept the children of Jewish mothers and non-Jewish fathers as Jews without the need for conversion. Among Reform and Reconstructionist Jews, patrilineal Jews are also accepted as Jews under certain circumstances. There are quite a lot of half-Jews who are raised to identify as Jewish more than they identify as anything else. But ethnic survival doesn’t matter much to all of us by any means. I’m a purebred Ashkenazi, and I wouldn’t be much troubled if we were to dissolve into the non-Jewish gene pools in Western counries. On the other hand, if you believe that intelligence is genetically mediated, it would be a waste for us to dissolve into a Middle Eastern Arab and sub-Saharan genetic milieu. That is what will probably happen in Israel with the large Yemeni Jewish (admixed with South Arabs) and Ethiopian Jewish populations.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
  83. j says: • Website
    @Dahlia

    It is a pity that we shall have no more Egons and no more Freddy Mercurys as their peoples disappear into the nothing. WASPs and Japanese-Americans are also on the same track. It is a general trend and people are unaware how fast this process works.

    • Replies: @Dahlia
  84. Bill P says:
    @Dahlia

    The part Jewish guys you mentioned are nice, but the goodlooking Jewish brainiacs, in film or otherwise, sometimes a little spastic… Where are they?!?!?!?
    Well, we still have Ron ;)

    Dahlia, I’ll try to be polite in my objections to this kind of post:

    When you are coquettish with a site’s owner, it can be frustrating, demoralizing and threatening to the average guys who read the site, because we rationally fear that you’ll end up with more influence due to your sexual advantage.

    Please, I beg you to try to refrain from doing so in the future. At least publicly.

    • Replies: @Dahlia
  85. Dahlia says:
    @j

    Yes, Freddie Mercury to return it back to the Parsis…
    BTW, I looked up Egon… He died last year.

  86. Sean says:

    “How does the mere presence of these people in their home countries help those countries? ”

    Those who emigrate are the economically active and enterprising. Even if you do not accept that those qualities are hereditary and the emigrants represent the irreplaceable loss of a developing nation’s genetic seed corn, the most aspirational people are lost. But don’t listen to me, it is Paul Collier (who rejects HBD) that says immigration is going to make the gap between rich and poor countries widen. Immigration has accelerating momentum because diaspora communities lower the cost of immigrating so that eventually all but paupers in the poor countries will be able to afford to get to the West, migration will accelerate beyond all imagining, see Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism in the 21st Century by Collier .

    Because of the growing diaspora communities integration and assimilation will slow and as immigrant social capital can’t be touched the indigenous social capital will have to be increasingly targeted to break them up and allow immigration, The hunkering down, in the negative sense of giving up competing, will be done by the indigenous. That is already well underway in Britain where immigrant children who don’t speak English at home have better school performance that the bottom half of the indigenous working class.

    THE government tried to please employers by sharply increasing the number of foreign workers allowed in temporarily. That was the only way to fill low- and semi-skilled jobs that Canadians did not want, says Dan Kelly, head of the association that represents Canada’s small businesses; applicants for permanent residence were too well educated. But there were complaints. Rather than discriminating against immigrants, employers went out of their way to hire them at lower cost. A bank laid off 60 information-technology workers and contracted the work to a supplier, who applied to bring in foreign workers to replace them.”

    I certainly agree there are dysfunctional governments, and not only in poor countries.

  87. Sean says:
    @JayMan

    Jay seems unaware that until last year there was official authorisation to use forced abortions for literally a million family planning police who prowled China looking for pregnant women. And unaware that Eamonn Fingleton contends that Japan deliberately lowered it’s birth-rate. South Korea did as well.

    “The problem of low and sub-replacement fertility is hardly just a NW Euro one. Indeed, every high-IQ group of people on Earth (collectively) have sub-replacement fertility ”

    Jay seems to be saying low birth-rates are a HBD-irrelevant side effect of affluence under modern cultural influence, and nothing much to do with the West-European particularities of HBD.

    • Replies: @JayMan
  88. @Numinous

    I don’t know if the lessons from Alexander’s time are relevant here. Alexander’s Greeks were operating thousands of miles from their bases, which meant that for example manpower losses could not be replenished, we don’t even know exactly the force ratios (the only missing variables are Alexander’s troop strength numbers and those of his opponents).

    India was still conquered many times over by outside forces. Of course there could be many reasons for that, but don’t forget that the caste system is not just vertical, it’s also horizontal. Normally Brahmins from different provinces didn’t consider each other as spouses, only Brahmins from the same jati and same province married.

    However, it doesn’t really matter, there’s no way India could be a normal nation-state.

    • Replies: @singh.jatt
  89. @j

    I cannot claim to be an expert of Hungarian Jewry, but I think this is clearly wrong. First, in Hungary most Jews tell census counters they are “Hungarian” (for “nationality”, i.e. ethnicity), and they tell “Christian” or especially “nonreligious” (for “religion”). In other words, there’s a lot of crypsis going on here. Even the Hungarian Jewish leaders constantly plead not to take the census numbers seriously, because, after the holocaust, it’s understandable that most Hungarian Jews don’t want to openly identify as such. Usually the number of Hungarian Jewry is estimated at around 80-100,000, sometimes more. (The Hungarian far right in the 1990s usually put their numbers at a few hundred thousands, a clearly inflated number.)

    You must also keep in line that the 200,000 Jews you mention didn’t all stay in Hungary. After 1945 there was a huge wave of emigration, where tens of thousands (probably well over 50,000) Jews left the country. (For example Zionist recruitment only stopped sometime around 1948 or even 1949, as far as I know.) After the revolution in 1956 also at least 200,000 people left Hungary, many of them from Budapest, and probably a lot of them were Jewish. Then again, after 1989 many Jews left for Israel (mostly because Israel was already a first world country at the time and Hungary seemed to be descending from the second to the third world), so it’s clear that emigration was chiefly responsible for most of the decrease from 200,000.

    I think the replacement rate of 0.23 is clearly too low, even though obviously Hungarian Jewish fertility rate is below replacement (as is the fertility for the rest of the population in Hungary, with the exception of Gypsies).

    • Replies: @j
  90. @Peter Frost

    It’s possible to protect one’s country through collective security.

    It’s not nearly as efficient as having a nation-state. The First German Empire fell because it was easy to play the small states against each other, or at least many of the smaller states simply opted out of collective defense, even fighting for their rights to stay out of any military engagements they themselves didn’t want to participate in. Also those small armies couldn’t cooperate easily, so even combined they were weaker than their unified French opponent.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  91. […] highly-recommended recent blog posts on a critical issue: The demographic calamity of modernity. One by Peter Frost, the other by One Irradiated Watson. (It’s a perennial topic, for obvious […]

  92. Eamonn Fingleton contends that Japan deliberately lowered it’s birth-rate.

    Sean,

    Fingleton was referring to Japan’s legalization of abortion in 1948, which made access to abortion much easier than in any other Western or Westernized country. But Taiwan didn’t legalize abortion until 1985, and in that year its fertility rate was already 1.88 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Taiwan#Fertility_rate.5B18.5D.5B19.5D). I don’t doubt that abortion helps to accelerate the fertility decline, and this effect seems to be stronger in some populations than in others. In the case of East Asia, however, there would still be very low fertility with or without abortion.

    It’s not nearly as efficient as having a nation-state.

    Reiner,

    You’re confusing “nation-state” with “big state.” The Second World War was essentially won by the Soviet Union, the British Empire, and the United States. Only the U.S. was arguably a nation state, the other two were large multiethnic dominions. WWII, like WWI and the Napoleonic wars, is also a strong argument for collective security. No single state could have won any of those global conflicts.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  93. j says: • Website
    @reiner Tor

    @reiner thor

    In a recent public debate in Hungary, an academic voiced the fear that Ukrainian Jews were flooding and colonizing Hungarian NorthEast. It is an accepted “fact” in Hungary that there are hundred thousand if not two hundred thousand Jews living (hidden) in Hungary. The Jewish community goes with that concept because it increases it influence and subsidy, and also because it is unconceivable that some 150,000 Jews have disappeared since 1946 – without pogroms, without expulsions, without violence. On the contrary, Jews were prominent in the Communist regime and even today they are significative in literature (Kertesz) and so. So the hard fact that only 10,000 person declared themselves Jewish in the last census seems absurd, irreal, wrong, unacceptable.

    Your argument of intensive emigration is baseless. Hungarian Jews were well integrated into Hungarian society (which is NOT antisemitic), fully assimilated and patriotic. Israeli Statistical Annuaries register immigrants from Hungary, and since 1945 the total is under 20,000. May be about the same number went to the USA, Australia, Canada. The 1956 wave of emigration contained a few thousand Jews, as shown in HIAS list of beneficiaries in Vienna 1957. The extraordinary saliency of many individual Jews and the intense preoccupation of the world with us, causes the (wrong) impression that there are masses of Jews everywhere.

    Unfortunately, there are not. And Dahlia’s numbers explain why they are not, not in Hungary, not in Slovakia, not in Ukraine and barely in Russia. And in the future, not in the USA.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  94. Ken Smith says: • Website

    The comment above about birth rates in Scandinavia reminds me of a video I saw last year. It is titled in English “Do It For Denmark” and notes that Danish couples have 46% more sex while on vacation and 10% of all Danish babies are conceived while the parents are on vacation. The video was produced by a travel agency with the explanation that more babies today means more business in the future.

    It’s in Danish with English sub-titles.

    I’m an American, but have lived mostly in Mexico for the past seven years. I have also spent a total of two years in northern Denmark (Jutland). Not a scientific observation at all, but there is a stark difference in the number of babies I see in the two countries. On my daily walks in the small Mexican town where I live, I will always see several girls in their late teens with a newborn or infant. In Denmark, I would see far fewer babies and almost always the mother was in her late 20s or mid-30s.

    Another observation about Mexico: It is quite common that the grandmother comes from a family of six to ten children, but she has had only two or three children. And, the teen-aged mother will be two or three inches taller than her mother, probably indicating better better nutrition and medical care.

  95. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor

    On the other hand, it seems that precisely the “efficiency” of the nation-state in marshaling human resources into the metropole and centralized national industries and public organizations undermines the demographic foundation upon which those human resources are based. Its efficiency eats into the seed-corn so to speak.

    • Replies: @unpc downunder
  96. Sean says:

    As Daniel Dennett says ” A reliable way to distinguish causes from effects is that causes happen earlier”

    Not to be dogmatic as there may be multiple factors. I have been reading you about the West European marriage pattern, and I thought maybe West Europe was specially prone to low birthrates because of its particular HBD characteristics. Like the low demographic pressure that is supposed to aid economic take off, and might be a reason for countries aiming for economic velocity to lower the birth rate.

    Iran’s Demographic Death Grip As I read it, Iran’s birthrate began falling in 1960 it went up between 1970 and 1980 them fell. In 1989, after the Iran Iraq war ended the Iranian government introduced a birth control program and there was no recovery in the birthrate as had happened previously: it just kept falling .

    So where is the causality here? I can’t prove there would have been a recovery in the birth rates in Iran (and Taiwan ect) without the birth control programs the governments in those countries instituted. But I cam prove one thing; those regimes stayed in power. The Arab Spring, which was actually predicted by many social scientists on the basis of the youth bulge (hordes of dissatisfied young men) shows that it requires a Demographic Death Grip to prevent a revolution.

    If Iran is really heading for demographic disaster them it has to use its army as soon as practicable (ie as soon as it gets a nuke retaliation capability). That is what commentator David Goldman, of US-based think tank the Middle East Forum, says. The hereditary head of hysterically overestimatedUS strategic threat analysis, Daniel, (son of Richard), Pipes wants to attack Iran right now.

    Germany could have won in 1941 if Hitler had not ordered a halt on the drive to Moscow, according to experts R.D. Hooker and RHS Stolfi. German forces arrived in Smolensk (on the land bridge to Moscow) so quickly that they captured the Communist Party headquarters intact , with the complete party records and archives (Davies, Europe: A History. p. 1013). Then they y they stopped for… a well over a month, because Hitler (alone) thought it was a good idea. And when they got going, despite primitive roads, they destroyed every army the Russians threw at them, but were stopped by freak weather.

    Willetts explains the “deep features” that have distinguished England, and its overseas offshoots, from the rest of the world.

    “The Pinch” by David Willetts

    To Willetts, the key to Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism is the nuclear family structure. “When it comes to families, England was the first nuclear power,” England has been “not just different from Papua New Guinea or Pakistan; it is also quite different from France and Italy and most of Continental Europe,” except for Holland and Denmark

    Denmark is different to Sweden, where economic elites have a lot of freedom. A single share in a Swedish company can give you 1000 votes.

  97. @Peter Frost

    Thanks for finding those two studies. I realize your time is both valuable and limited, and I appreciate that you took the trouble to find them. I shall read them with interest. (^_^)

  98. In a Westernized cultural environment, East Asian fertility falls to somewhere between 1 and 1.5 children per woman. We see this in the PRC, in Taiwan, in Singapore, in South Korea, in Japan, and in Americans of East Asian origin. This is suggestive of a general behavioral response. It’s fun to speculate but I don’t want to go any farther at this point.

    You may be referring to Seccombe, who argued that Northwest Europeans have a longstanding tendency to adjust their mean age of marriage up and down according to the availability of resources. Again, this might be due to a relatively high sense of individualism, i.e., a greater willingness to postpone family formation and live as an individual for part of one’s life.

    Frankly, I don’t think Germany could have ever conquered the Soviet Union, even in the best of circumstances. Once the effect of surprise had worn off, the tide of war would have steadily turned in the Soviet Union’s favor. Even if Hitler had captured Moscow, such a “victory” wouldn’t have made much difference. Napoleon captured Moscow, and where did that get him? It’s significant perhaps that Imperial Germany never tried to drive deep into Russia in WWI; the Germans simply contented themselves with a defense line running from Riga to Odessa.

    • Replies: @Sean
  99. […] Parsis are going extinct due to modernism. Related: The price of […]

  100. @j

    In a recent public debate in Hungary, an academic voiced the fear that Ukrainian Jews were flooding and colonizing Hungarian NorthEast.

    Could you provide some links, or at least the name of the academic? (Obviously Hungarian language links are also OK for me.) I highly doubt such a statement could be made in public in Hungary without causing a huge uproar. Some far right politicians have made such noises in the 1990s, but it’s become rare even for them (Jobbik is much less Jew-obsessed than MIÉP, the far right party in the 1990s), and I’d think most academics wouldn’t express such views openly even if they held them.

    This source puts the number of survivors in Hungary (pre-1938/post-1945 borders) between 180,000 and 225,000, with the survivors in Budapest being 144,000 according to the lower estimate. However, here (on page 9) you can see the number of Jews (people with Israelite religion only) on January 1, 1949, and it’s only 101,259, so over 40,000 are already missing by 1949. Do you think low fertility could explain that out of 144,000 holocaust survivors in Budapest only 101,000 remained by 1949?

    Upd.: Unfortunately, my second link doesn’t work.

    http://konyvtar.ksh.hu/neda#

    You need to choose “A zsidó népesség száma településenként 1840-1941″ under “Hosszú idősoros nemzetiségi adatok”. It contains the data for 1949 (as opposed to its title which only promises up to 1941) on page 9.

    • Replies: @j
  101. Seneca says:
    @Peter Frost

    Peter you are way wrong on this issue….about NAFTA being a product of Reagan

    Bill Clinton, a new Democrat, in 1992 campaigned for and signed NAFTA into law. He also was the president who allowed China into the World Trade Organization (his wife Hillary was on the Board of Directors of Walmart)

    When Clinton ran for election in 1992 NAFTA was very controversial here in the USA. And in fact Ross Perot a third party candidate gained a sizable number of votes making it an issue. Mr. Perot a billionaire became famous in the USA for describing NAFTA as potentially creating “a giant sucking sound” as USA jobs fled south if passed and signed into law by either Clinton or Bush senior.

    Bush senior who was the Republican candidate was also in favor of NAFTA, but his support was much more muted and less enthusiastic for NAFTA during the the three way presidential debate (I remember because I watched the debate and it was an important issue for me). My impression was that Bush senior realized the damage it would do to the middle class, and despite his loyalty to the elite did not have much stomach for it. That’s at least how I read the debate.

    Clinton, on the other hand, was very vocal in his support of NAFTA during the presidential debates.

    Clinton claimed that NAFTA was going to create all sorts of new “high tech” jobs once we got rid of of the low tech manufacturing jobs by shipping them to Mexico. I guess we are still waiting for that to happen.

    A friend of mine lost his job a month after Clinton was elected, because his job was moved to a factory in Mexico. My friend said that the timing was such, that the company new that when Clinton was elected NAFTA was a slam dunk.

    Clinton, a new Democrat, betrayed the American people, but what do you expect from a man who accepted illegal campaign contributions from Chinese nationals to finance his election campaign (eventually gave some of the the money back when caught), pardoned Marc Rich, never had sex with that women Monica Lewinsky, and became multi millionaire as a corporate speaker after leaving office (giving speeches at $250,00.00 a pop).

    The Republicans as you noted are just as bad or worse on this issue. Both parties sold the American public and middle class out on this issue

    Interestingly, Ross Perot and Sir James Goldsmith (who wrote a book called The Trap about the danger of free trade) were the only billionaires that I know of who openly and aggressively spoke out against NAFTA and allowing China into the WTO.

  102. Peter you are way wrong on this issue….about NAFTA being a product of Reagan

    I agree that the Democrats were no better on this issue, but the proposal for NAFTA began with Reagan and his advisors:

    The North American Free Trade Agreement: Ronald Reagan’s Vision Realized

    [...] Ronald Reagan first proposed a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico in his 1980 presidential campaign. Since that time, The Heritage Foundation is proud of the role it has played in articulating President Reagan’s vision of free trade in Latin America and around the world.

    [...] In June 1986, then-Heritage analyst Edward L. Hudgins wrote “A U.S. Strategy to Solve Mexico’s Debt Crisis.” In that Backgrounder, Hudgins urged the Reagan Administration to “explore further special free trade and investment arrangements” with Mexico. Said Hudgins: “The possibility of a complete free trade and investment zone [between the U.S. and Mexico] should be explored. Ultimately, a complete Free Trade Area between the U.S. and Mexico should be sought, similar to the U.S.-Canada pact [then] being negotiated.”

    Four years later, Heritage analyst Michael Wilson argued in an Executive Memorandum entitled “Bush and Salinas Should Launch Free Trade Talks Between the U.S. and Mexico”: “What were once distant neighbors now appear to be developing into economic and geopolitical partners. George Bush should strengthen this cooperative relationship not only by supporting Salinas’s economic reforms, but by moving quickly to negotiate a free trade agreement with Mexico.”

    [...] The approval of the NAFTA not only represents a victory for the U.S. economy and the American people, it also deals a blow to organized labor and other protectionist forces. The agreement reaffirms the American commitment to competition and free enterprise that other nations emulate.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1993/11/em371-the-north-american-free-trade-agreement

    • Replies: @Sean
  103. j says: • Website
    @reiner Tor

    @reiner Tor

    The Rubicon article is excellent and very relevant to our discussion. We agree about the starting population of about 200,000 immediately after WWII. We also agree about the current population which is between the 10,000 declared Jews in the census and the World Jewish Population annuary’s 48,600 (2010). May I infer that the 38,600 “hidden” Jews have only a very weak connection to the Jewish community? Most probably they are not known as “Jews” and they dont count themselves as Jews. Will you agree with me that they rightfully belong to Dahlia’s 71% mixed marriage/assimilated individuals that each generation are lost to the Jewish ethnia? Of course we agree.

    Now the only difference remaining is how many Jews left Hungary and when. In my comment above I estimated that 50,000 emigrated, which is surprisingly near the 40,000 missing in the years after the war. Those returning from Auschwitz and Bergen Belsen, and from the forced labour brigades, were in very sick and in poor physical and mental condition, and mortality was extremely high.

    Basically we both see the same picture and agree that the generally mentioned figures of 80,000 to a million Jews in Hungary are figments of the imagination. For once, Jews and antisemites agree, both see living Jews where there none.

    I heard the academic talking about the Jewish colonization danger in the NorthEast, and yourself admit that it was common talk in the nineteen nineties. The event I mention took place circa Shimon Peres’s unfortunate visit to Hungary and I have no other source than my memory.

    If you want to estimate the number of Jews in Hungary, you can visit the one or two Jewish elementary schools, the number of Jewish births registered in the community, the number of Jews praying in the synagogues on Yom Kippur. Discount the paincloth policemen guarding the place and German tourists.

  104. Jim says:
    @Peter Frost

    Peter – I certainly find your writing to be quite interesting.

  105. Jim says:
    @Peter Frost

    I am also of NW European descent and I found the idea of charging room and board to adult children living with their parents to be quite normal. Once a non-disabled child completes his or her education in those cultures they are generally expected to make their own way in the world with at most minor support from theor parents.

    Of course in the present economic circumstances it has become harder for the fledglings to spread their wings and fly so we are currently seeing an extrordinary number of young adults continuing to live with their parents. No doubt this decreases the birth rate.

  106. Sean says:
    @Peter Frost

    Fertility seems to be still falling in Europe. I have read that northern Italy is the lowest fertility region, which is part of why I think Italy is where things could change.

    We know the Germans could smash formidable forces in WW2 as they did in fact crush France and Britain. Napoleon failed because he left the Russian army intact. The aim of Von Bock, as he wrote in his diary, was not to ‘capture Moscow’, but to destroy the enemy’s army. By attacking Moscow, which Stalin’s regime would have to defend, the Germans would have brought to battle the bulk of the Soviet army. Soviet leaders’ (like Khrushchev) fear of post WW2 Germany was the main reason for the Cold War. Now Germany is steamrollering Europe with the EC. Germany is the problem and always has been; it is just too powerful.

    Free trade agreements are based on the idea that allthough some lose there is enough of a net gain for everyone to be happy. Which might be all right if the gains were actually used to equitably compensate the losers, but they aren’t

  107. […] This Peter Frost column on the Parsis is getting some attention on the fringe. Fertility rates are a bit of a hobby-horse issue on the fringe, but for good reason. In every branch of natural science, reproduction rates are a key measure of health. A species with a declining fertility rate is assumed to be under stress or its environment is under stress. In fact, it is usually the key metric waved around by the greens when demanding some new rule on humans. […]

  108. Sean says:
    @Peter Frost

    Heritage analyst Michael Wilson argued in an Executive Memorandum [that] The agreement reaffirms the American commitment to competition and free enterprise that other nations emulate.

    Hayek explicitly said the Pinochet regime was an example to the world.

    There is now an ongoing thread disputing the number of holocaust survivors. Every single topic is being brought back to more or less the same subject in the comments. It is damaging the posts’ credibility and will drive high quality readers away. The offending commenters, not all on the same side, have been asked to desist repeatedly; they are not going to stop using this as a forum for their arguments, and need to be banned.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Southfarthing
  109. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Which thread are you referring to?

  110. skep says:
    @bossel

    Quite right; a Moroccan friend of mine told me the same thing; I think it is the same in subsaharian Africa where children are supposed to provide subsidize to their parents in their old days. Moreover, children are seen as the future of the tribe, and if a man refuse to marry and get children, he can be considered as unreliable for the tribe and left out the rule.
    For the French-speaking ones, look at this analysis of the consequences of the CharlieHebdo mania (which is turning in implementing a state dictature), and this is still in the topic:
    ” En plus de cela, pour nombre d’Africains, l’Europe est devenue une terre à prendre : ses habitants ne croient plus en Dieu, ses femmes à la vertu volage ne font plus d’enfants, les homosexuels s’y marient et la féminisation y a dévirilisé ses mâles. Paradoxe cruel, ceux qui, depuis des décennies, ont permis cette révolution en tournant systématiquement en dérision les valeurs fondatrices et le socle social (famille, travail, discipline, ordre, effort, armée, police etc.) ont été odieusement assassinés par les enfants de ceux auxquels ils ont si largement ouvert les portes…”

    http://bernardlugan.blogspot.fr/2015/01/lafrique-nest-pas-charlie.html

  111. skep says:
    @Jaakko Raipala

    A main topic in my point of view is the increase of working women in the last 30 years in western countries. Not only for ideological reasons, as @anonymous pertinently noticed, but for living ones. The drop of wages in comparison with the cost of the life lead many women to have to get a job simultaneously with their partner: less time to breed children, probably a wane of fertility induced by stress and exhaustion, and a vicious circle in household budget, as women getting jobs -or just looking for- increasing the available labor force i.e. the bet for job /demand, decrease the wage level, increasing the necessity for both in the household to work. The best way could be just to increase the wages in order that a minimum wage is a living wage for a four persons family: it was the case still in the late 70′s. But it’s incompatible with the short term interests of the markets. Such a solution would solve a significant part of the unemployment, and in the same way would drop its social and financial costs, as the social costs of let-alone children because both parents working; once more a question of socialization of labor costs by financially interested corporates and their elected whores.

  112. @Anonymous

    “Assuming that all of the children of the intermarried are lost to Judaism is an error…”

    Yes, the religion will persist, but ethnically they’ve joined the White-American melting pot, just as did Irish- and German- Americans. Europeans invented the modern world, so I don’t see a problem with a melting pot between high IQ ancestries.

    J said:

    It is a pity that we shall have no more Egons and no more Freddy Mercurys as their peoples disappear into the nothing.

    It’s not really disappearing into nothing. Spending too much time in this corner of the web gives us biases. Jews are practicing assortative mating based on class and profession. The children of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner will do fine and will be a valuable contribution to the world. There are plenty of Egons in Gentile history as well, like Steve Wozniak and Nikola Tesla.

    BTW, I seem to have been mistaken when I suggested above that Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s wife might be Jewish. Her family seem to be just raven-haired NW Euros. So I’m adding him to the list of well-known public figures with Jewish ancestry who intermarry or are the result of intermarriage.

    (BTW, Dahlia’s 71% was quoting my comment above.)

    • Replies: @The Undiscovered Jew
  113. […] trait that depends on a social organization which is enforced by the modern state. Peter Frost wrote a great post on how the Parsis are going extinct, mostly through a lack of tribalism. Well states have been […]

  114. @Sean

    The thread on this page discussing the rate of decrease of the Jewish-Hungarian community seems to have been professional, without bias, and relevant to Mr. Frost’s argument.

    BTW, Wikipedia’s History of the Jews in Hungary seems to address this issue:

    Today, the population of Jews living in Hungary is around 120,000[2][3] with 110,000[7] mostly concentrated in Budapest,[7] although 2011 census data show only 10,965 (0.11%) self-identified religious Jews, of whom 10,553 (96.2%) declared themselves as ethnic Hungarian.[5]

    BTW, this prominent Jewish-Hungarian, István Szabó, looks so Eastern European, I have to wonder if Gregory Cochran’s statement is an incomplete picture when he says there “was little inward gene flow when they lived in Germany and Eastern Europe.” Judit Polgár likewise has an Eastern European look.

    • Replies: @Sean
  115. Sean says:
    @Southfarthing

    Whatever the motives, it is subtly hijacking the comments to start, respond, or offer rejoinders to a discussion on the perceived vs actual size of the Jewish-Hungarian community before and after WW2. And how Jewish someone looks is not ‘BTW’ it’s OT. I don’t recall Peter asking for such comments; if memory serves he pleaded for an end to a topic which quickly leaves the orbit of the post’s subject. The subject is:-

    But the really key changes lie in the realm of culture and ideology, particularly in the effort to strike a new balance between the individual and the collectivity. And by the collectivity, I don’t mean the artificial structures of State, ideology, and corporate loyalty. I mean the natural ones of family, kith and kin, and ethny. This will be the basis for postmodern traditionalism, including that part of the world where Western modernity began.

    The post mentioned Israel and Russia (neither are part of the world where Western modernity began) as having a pronatalist culture. Maybe Western intellectuals are hostile to Israel because it is seen as a Western country that rejects the ethno- masochistic Faustian game in which the strong, such as the West bank settlers with big families, are always at fault, and the weak are the morally upright (“‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone”).

    There does seem to be similar hostility to Russia; the Western intelligentsia are incensed ; see Putin must be stopped. And sometimes only guns can stop guns by the same author as Germany’s anti-Islamic movement Pegida is a vampire we must slay. The rhetoric is revealing, especially as the supposedly immortal evil of Pegida’s marches has been outnumbered by counter protests from the same community.

  116. Sean,

    I should assume responsibility because I approved the comments in question. It was a sub-thread that was initially on-topic (low fertility among secular Jews) and that steadily veered off-topic (underreporting of the Jewish population in Hungary after WWII). I remember deleting one comment, but I let the other ones pass.

  117. Sean says:

    You let them have enough rope that everyone can now see why they (or one person ‘arguing’ with themself under different identities) need to be banned.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  118. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Which comments in this thread do you think should have been banned? I’ve been following this thread and there don’t seem to have been any comments that were so controversial or off-topic that they should have been banned. You yourself seem to frequently veer off-topic and start bringing up WWII for example.

    • Replies: @Sean
  119. […] trait that depends on a social organization which is enforced by the modern state. Peter Frost wrote a great post on how the Parsis are going extinct, mostly through a lack of tribalism. Well states have been […]

  120. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    I have already said; and that argument taking the turn it did should not surprise as it is a Holocaust denier hobby horse. Trying to allow free debate just won’t work, because there is no penalty and Peter will find his time progressively eaten up moderating if he lets people repeatedly submit this stuff without penalty, thereby fine tuning their comments so they can stay just inside what he will tolerate.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  121. @Sean

    Holocaust denier hobby horse

    Nobody was talking about the size of the Jewish community in Hungary before the holocaust, without which there’s no room for holocaust denialism. I think the discussion was quite on topic: we discussed that even though after the holocaust there were still roughly 200,000 Jews left in Hungary, as of the last census in 2010, only slightly over 10,000 people proclaimed themselves to be of the Jewish faith, over 90% of whom declared themselves to be of Hungarian nationality (ethnicity). Once the number of emigration is established, and the present number is verified (I mentioned widespread crypsis), we can estimate whether the Hungarian Jewish community was disappearing at the rate of the Parsi. And it seems they might be disappearing even faster than the Parsi.

    BTW if you check this thread, you will find that I am far from being a holocaust denialist. Commenter ‘j’ will defend himself, but I’d find it quite a bit strange if he were a holocaust denier.

    I’m sorry if I occasionally veer off topic, ww2 is a topic where it’s difficult for me to keep out of, since I’ve read maybe a couple hundred books on it, and it’s probably the single event in human history which fascinates me most. For example I’ve watched the movie “Der Untergang” at least half a dozen times, even though I rarely watch movies at all.

  122. @Peter Frost

    Most of the fighting for the British Empire was mostly done by troops from the British Isles (including dominion troops). Correct me if I’m wrong (as a Canadian you might know more about it than I do) but at the time there wasn’t even a separate Canadian nationality, any British national moving into Canada automatically became a Canadian, so essentially British nationhood still encompassed at least the settler colonies of the Empire, which is quite a bit. The USSR was multiethnic, but it still had a dominant ethnicity (Russians), actually the Great Patriotic War was a huge boost to Russian dominance and Russian patriotism and even nationalism within the country. I read somewhere that roughly 70% of the fighting troops were of Russian ethnicity, and that for example Central Asians were not very much trusted and instead mostly sent to work battalions (although they were overrepresented among cavalry divisions, too). Soviet propaganda mostly utilized Russian history (and not the civil war, as would have been more logical ideologically), like Napoleon’s 1812 campaign or the Battle of the Ice.

    So I would argue that all parties were more or less nation-states, even if they all had at least some colonies which were also utilized to some extent. But in each of these cases the heavy lifting was done by troops of the core ethnicity.

    It must be noted that it might not be a total coincidence that the US ended up on the side of the UK in both world wars (allegedly Bismarck called the fact that both the US and UK were English-speaking the “most important fact of the 20th century”), so some kind of vague Anglo-Saxon solidarity might have been at play here, too. Maybe it made it easier for groups pushing for war within the US to do that, and made it harder for isolationist groups to resist.

    Another point is that even though Germany was smaller than any of its three opponents, it managed to cause huge trouble to them, and probably would have defeated at least the British Empire and the USSR one on one. The reason was at least partly that it was more nationalistic and more of a proper nation-state.

    Even the present ‘globalist empire’ of EUSA relies for military power mostly on the US, which is arguably still more or less a nation-state, and probably a majority of its soldiers are still from the core ethnicity (patriotic whites, probably even Anglo-Saxons are overrepresented). Time will tell how easily military power will be sustained without a majority core ethnicity.

    • Replies: @Sean
  123. In 1949 Chairman Mao created “Hero Mothers”, women who gave birth to 4 or more offspring. Special recognition and favors. Han Chinese only. The population of China went from 540 million to 940 million in 30 years. Mao died.
    1 child family followed.
    robertmagill.wordpress.com
    (archives)

  124. Sean says:
    @reiner Tor

    Commenters’ true motives (which they may be unaware of themselves) are no defence to bringing up or talking about a matter that can only attract the drive by commenters who prowl looking for anything that lets them in. The result is a slew of comments that taint the post, and take up valuable time . All this was explained when similar problems with comments happened on previous posts, and by submitting a comment you agreed to Peter’s stated policy. If the regular commenters can’t be trusted to keep off that subject, and every single post gets into the same area what is the point of having posts, let alone allowing comments? We are going to lose both if this keeps up. The comments are to be about the post and the post mentioned Israel and Russia dramatically reversing their fertility declines.

    Britain and France’s creation of colonies and resultant multi-ethnic dimension was largely fuelled by fear of Germany’s burgeoning size and power, and the desire to match its increase in future . Many Indian troops served on the Western front and Curzon actually claimed it was the Indian troops that held the Germans advance. (The French decided to raise moral by making up letters purporting to be by Senegalese troops about their sexual encounters with French women and printing them in the soldiers newspapers!)

    In France after WW1, which was the second of two devastating wars with Germany, Raymond Poincaré launched a series of measure to raise the birth-rate including day-care nurseries for children of working mothers . They also encouraged immigration from Italy Spain and Portugal. In WW2, some of the toughest resistance the Germans encountered in France was from Senegalese troops

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  125. JayMan says: • Website
    @Major Problem

    I don’t think an anecdote can be used as evidence of a regional population practice. I’m of sufficient NW European descent to have blonde hair, but I never paid rent to my parents. Who’s the exception–me or Dr. Frost? Is there a study on this?

    NW Euros aren’t the only, or even primary ones to have blond hair:

    • Replies: @Sean
  126. Vae Soli says:

    Faustian, indeed. But should the Parsis be “saved” from their plight? Ethnographically speaking, it’s always a bad thing when a people with a defined cultural identity (their religious practices, their language, art, letters, etc.) die out.

    On the other hand, isn’t humanity at a point where low fertility rates, at a global level, should be considered a good thing?

    Much of the discussion on fertility rates today, particularly among the more developed economies, has this tone of “The barbarians are having more children than we the civilized. What will the world come to with so many barbarians?”

    Instead, the discussion should center on natural resources. Westernization and its accompanying market economy, based on consumption, has one major flaw: it counts on permanent growth while ignoring the reality of finite resources. The mantra from many supporters of market economies has often been “Malthus was wrong, technology always saves the day.” We’ll see if this continues to be the case, though it doesn’t look likely. I wouldn’t dare make a time prediction, but it seems clear that permanent economic growth at a global level can’t be sustained, particularly if more and more countries continue to become “westernized.”

    From an evolutionary point of view, of course, our main purpose in life is to procreate. We are human. Morally, no one should be forced to give up the experience of being a parent. But are we reaching a point where that choice will be made for us?

    Questions we should probably be asking ourselves: Should human civilization survive? If so, what is a sustainable global population, given the expected level of resources that such a population feels entitled to consume? How long should overall global fertility rates be maintained at a lower level than the current one in order to achieve that stable global-population total? Should humanity even be worrying about this? Perhaps the natural course of our evolution is to always reach unsustainable levels of population, be adjusted by pestilence and wars, then gradually grow again and repeat the cycle. In the process, Parsis will come and go, as will many others who once enriched the brotherhood of man.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  127. JayMan says: • Website
    @Sean

    Jay seems unaware that until last year there was official authorisation to use forced abortions for literally a million family planning police who prowled China looking for pregnant women. And unaware that Eamonn Fingleton contends that Japan deliberately lowered it’s birth-rate. South Korea did as well.

    And the relevance of that to anything I said?

    Jay seems to be saying low birth-rates are a HBD-irrelevant side effect of affluence under modern cultural influence, and nothing much to do with the West-European particularities of HBD.

    You got that wrong.

    • Replies: @Sean
  128. Sean says:
    @JayMan

    Yes Jayman, Scandinavians have migrated a long way since the ice age (when they were not living in Scandinavia because the latitudes above the north European plain were under a half a kilometre of ice), Europeans have a diversity of hair colours, but other peoples who evolved while living at the same latitude have uniformity of hair colour. Lastly, women spend a fortune getting their hair artificially coloured so as to turn heads.

  129. @Sean

    The comments are to be about the post

    Like a small endogamous diaspora group and its particular gene pool disappearing during the past century through assimilation, intermarriage and low fertility rates? We did that.

    Back to WW2, whatever you write, the fact remains that huge multiethnic empires were usually defeated by nation states, unless they were substantially outnumbered. Soldier on soldier, nation states were more effective than multiethnic empires.

    Unless substantially outnumbered by a coalition of opponents, the first few large nation states (or proto-nation states) already usually defeated all non-nation state opponents. As a result, populations in sub-nation states (like Hannover or Tuscany) responded by accepting the ideology of national unifications. Stronger sub-nation states that were willing to conquer the smaller and weaker ones and unify their respective countries (Prussia and Piedmont) were thus better able to mobilize their resources than their multi-ethnic opponents (the Habsburgs in both cases), and the sub-nation states (like the Kingdom of Bavaria or the Kingdom of Naples) didn’t manage to mobilize their populations in their defense against co-ethnics and also couldn’t form effective alliances against them. It is also important that these sub-nation states were previously quite ineffectual against the attack of a strong, nationalistic and centralized nation state (Republican and then Imperial France). In other words, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to think that sub-nation states could have created an effective alliance with effective militaries against either foreign nation states or stronger sub-nation states of the same ethnicity which tried to unify other such states (like Prussia). Truth is, they tried to do that and failed on both accounts.

    Don’t believe that Bavaria joined Prussia because the Bavarian rulers were fond of Prussians. It was not even true of the average Bavarians. But enough Bavarians were in the grip of German nationalism that Bavaria couldn’t even count on all of its population in the war against Prussia. Austria of course couldn’t count on most of its population even though it tried hard: the commander of the Austrian troops at Königrätz was a Habsburg loyalist ethnic Hungarian (who had fought against the Hungarian revolutionary army in 1849), I cannot imagine a better sign that in the Habsburgs state all nationalities had a chance of advancement. This wasn’t enough to placate any of the different ethnic minorities or pluralities, and by the time the Habsburg Monarchy (in the form of the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy) collapsed, there was not a single ethnic group whose majority wasn’t happy that it was finally gone, even Hungarians (who in retrospect often think they had it pretty fine during at least the last half century Habsburg rule with the Dual Monarchy) or Croatians (less so, but some Croatians told my father once in the 1970s how much better the Monarchy had been than Yugoslavia) or German Austrians (who already in the 1870s were undecided whether they would have been better off by joining greater Germany).

    So my verdict is the same: neither multiethnic empires nor small states were able to withstand serious military confrontations. Probably the sweet spot is to have a coalition of nation states, that way capturing the benefits from both the nationalistic fervor of soldiers (and of the home front) and the numbers necessary to win a war.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Southfarthing
  130. JayMan says: • Website
    @Peter Frost

    When I turned 18, I had to start paying room and board to my mother, and that had long been the rule in English Canadian households. It’s only been since the 1990s that most parents allow their grown-up “kids” to live at home without paying rent.

    Interestingly, non-Westerners are flabbergasted when I tell them that I had to start paying room and board at the age of 18. In most cultures, parents subsidize their kids and continue to subsidize them well into adulthood.

    Here you go:

  131. Sean says:
    @JayMan

    Jay, you brought up China and as I read it you were saying high IQ countries have a low birthrate, so I said China’s birthrate is low but isn’t the same as the Western model because the birthrate is being deliberately lowered in China by the most extreme compulsion including very late abortions. I’m sorry if I misunderstood and that isn’t what you were saying. I’ll let these do most of the talking as to the point I was trying to make:-

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/a-faustian-bargain/#comment-867937

    http://www.economist.com/news/china/21638131-enforcers-chinas-one-child-policy-are-trying-new-gentler-approach-enforcing-smile

    The Parsis may be Iranian but they are not typical Iranians in my opinion; they’re knowledge workers with higher IQ .

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/01/irans-demographic-death-grip-std-epidemic-and-plummeting-birthrate/

    Iran’s leaders have deliberately lowered the birthrate, why, well probably for the same reason the Chinese have.

  132. Sean says:
    @reiner Tor

    Switzerland had the most effective army in human history, and it has always been both a small state and multi nationality. It is per capita the richest country in the world, by the way.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  133. @Vae Soli

    It’s a great idea to save the world from overpopulation by making the Parsi extinct. Actually, no, it isn’t.

  134. @reiner Tor

    Yes. But the U.S. counts in many ways as multi-ethnic in WW1 and WW2. Those wars helped the U.S. successfully melt together multiple European ethnicities.

    Americans from outside Britain anglicizing their names was a fast way to start to assimilate.

    China will dominate the future because they have the most high-IQ people who can be convinced to be one nation, one people.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  135. @Numinous

    The majority of adult offspring that live with their parents neither live off them or support them. As a university student living at home I contributed to food and bills, occasionally worked for free in the family business did odd jobs around the house. However, I didn’t pay board because I was merely taking up a room that would otherwise be empty anyway.

    That tends to be the dominant type of arrangement among the lower middle class in most developed countries, although things are probably different among families with very low or high incomes.

  136. @Anonymous

    An example of a country that is very over-centralised is England. Most of the economic and government activity now revolves around London, yet real estate prices in London are too high for most of the people that work there. Meanwhile there are large number of people trapped in northern cities where there few jobs, but alot of people who are unwilling to move because they can get free government housing.

    If another city was made the capital and more infrastructure was spread around the country, as in Germany, that would ease the pressure on house prices and create more job opportunities.

  137. @Sean

    Switzerland had the most effective army in human history

    What do you base that assertion on? As far as I know, the Swiss cantons had separate militaries until maybe the 19th century, and those militaries have always been mono-ethnic, most of them consisting exclusively of German* speaking soldiers. Actually, the Italian canton and most of the French cantons were simply conquered by the German speaking cantons, and Calvinist Geneva (which never had a strong military) asked for protection from Calvinist Bern in I think the 16th century.

    Switzerland is still one of the most parochial countries in the world, with relatively little nationalism**, and a lot of dislike between different cantons, with their particular dialects. What Swiss nationalism there is in Switzerland, is much stronger in the German* speaking cantons than in other cantons. There is also French nationalism in the French speaking cantons. I know very little of Ticino, the Italian speaking canton, but I heard that Geneva was swarming with French flags at the time of the 1998 and 2006 World Cup finals, probably locals get more excited about the French national soccer team than about the Swiss one.

    Switzerland can actually be considered a holdout premodern small state (or rather, a conglomerate of such premodern small states), and it has a lot to do with greater power politics in the 19th and 20th centuries and with their mountains, which made it both difficult and undesirable for wannabe conquerors to conquer.

    Let’s not start the totally unrelated topic of economic development here.

    *I mean the local dialects. Swiss German dialects are not mutually intelligible with High German. There is a Swiss German dialect (that of Wallis/Valais) which is usually not even intelligible to speakers of other Swiss German dialects, at least that’s what the Swiss told me.

    **However, although Swiss nationalism started out at much lower levels than for example German nationalism, however, it’s not artificially suppressed, and even the press and media are less anti-nationalistic than in other parts in Europe, so I think Swiss nationalism might not be less strong these days than elsewhere in Europe. But it just means that nationalism is much weaker now across Europe than it used to be, and not that Swiss nationalism is particularly strong.

  138. @Southfarthing

    In WW1 the US didn’t have to do a lot of fighting at all, and only against a tired and starved out enemy with broken morale.

    By WW2, mass immigration had been halted for over a quarter century, which meant that almost all American soldiers were born in the US, went to English language schools where they were indoctrinated with some forms of American nationalism, at any rate almost all of them grew up speaking English at least outside the home. And the most serious outliers (Japanese Americans and African Americans) were put into separate units.

    So while it’s true they weren’t exactly mono-ethnic, they still had a dominant core ethnicity to which most minority citizens either assimilated or were in the process of assimilating, and even the not yet assimilated ones’ aspiration was assimilation. (This statement is probably true of WW1 as well.) I would say that the USSR or Imperial Russia were more multi-ethnic than the US at the time.

  139. @Southfarthing

    Southfarthing,

    Because of intermarriage a majority of self-identifying Jewish college students now have at least one gentile parent. This is an undercount of partial Jews because halfies don’t always identify as Jewish, and therefore wouldn’t turn up in religious surveys of college students. Meaning Jewish Ivy League students with two Jewish parents are only 10-15% of the student body.

    http://www.hillel.org/about/news-views/news-views—blog/news-and-views/2004/01/21/jewish-students-involved-connections-vary

    The NJPS data reveal that the college-age Jewish population is almost evenly split between those who have two Jewish parents (48 percent) and those who have only one Jewish parent (45 percent). Students with two Jewish parents tend to be more religiously observant and Jewishly connected than those with only one Jewish parent. For example, 80 percent of those with two Jewish parents felt very positive about being Jewish compared to 65 percent among those with one Jewish parent. Both groups demonstrated an interest in Jewish studies, with 43 percent of those with two Jewish parents and 24 percent of those with one Jewish parent taking at least one Jewish studies course during their time in college.

  140. Back to WW2, whatever you write, the fact remains that huge multiethnic empires were usually defeated by nation states, unless they were substantially outnumbered. Soldier on soldier, nation states were more effective than multiethnic empires.

    Multiethnic empires have records at least as durable as nation states, provided the empire consists mostly of ethnicities within the same continental racial bloc.

    Examples of long lasting Pan-European empires:

    Western Roman Empire – lasted 500 years. Overrun by an adhoc multiethnic coalition of German barbarian tribes.

    Eastern Empire – survived the Western Empire by 1000 years and might still exist in some form if the Crusades hadn’t been botched at key moments. Was defeated by a mixed alliance of Muslims led by Central Asian Muslims.

    Holy Roman Empire – existed for 1000 years before its Napoleon dissolved. It was replaced with the Austrian Empire, which still encompassed many territories of the former Holy Roman Empire. Austria ultimately lost its place as the leading German state to the more ethnically homogenous Prussia. However, Austria had to be militarily softened up decades earlier by Bonaparte before Prussia could knock them out for good.

    An example of shorter lived pan-European empires that endured for a few centuries are the four Hellenic empires left in the wake of Alexander.

    Pre-Islamic Egypt and Persia, Carthage, Imperial China and the Ottoman Empire are examples of non-Western Empires.

    @Peter Frost,

    Napoleon’s military objectives in 1812 were very different from Nazi Germany’s. Napoleon’s plan was to defeat the Tsar’s army and force him to rejoin France’s continental blockade of Britain. He had no intention of occupying swathes of Russia and repopulating them with French colonists. In fact France wasn’t expecting the decisive battle to be fought deep in Russian territory.

    Hitler on the other hand wanted to not only annex the East but enslave/exterminate/deport the majority of Russian and Ukranian Slavs.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  141. Melendwyr says: • Website
    @rod1963

    That said, many have noticed and wrote about the pernicious affects of modern Western culture on humans including more mainstream authors/critics like Carroll Quigley, Dorothy Sayers, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Lewis Mumford, J.T. Gatto, Neil Postman, etc.

    How many children did those people have, eh?

    C.S. Lewis had none. Sayers had one (illegitimately). Judging by some quick searches on Chesterton, none there either.

    Remarkable, isn’t it, how often critics of modern Western culture seem to fall into precisely what they’re supposedly condemning.

  142. @The Undiscovered Jew

    Again, I’m referring to Azar Gat’s books, mostly his Nations.

    Multiethnic empires always had mono-ethnic cores. The Romans were genius in assimilating other ethnicities, initially only very similar once (Italic-speakers and Etruscans), later others. Seneca was something like a regent, and he hailed from a Hispanic noble family. They were ruthlessly crushing anyone willing to rebel (to the point of outright genocide), but were willing to accept anyone willing to assimilate. By the 3rd century all non-slaves were given Roman citizenship (this was just a logical conclusion of a process already in full swing already in the Republican period before the Punic wars), and at least in the Western provinces there was a kind of unified Roman ethnicity, to which almost the whole population in most provinces assimilated.

    The Eastern Empire also had its core ethnicity, Greek. As far as I know Greek had already been more or less the official language in the Eastern provinces in the early Imperial period, and after the permanent partition the Eastern Empire became essentially a Greek empire. The provinces it lost most easily were inhabited by non-Greeks (Aramaic and Coptic speakers, and later also immigrating or invading Slavs), and the Greek provinces even reconstituted themselves after the empire fell during the fourth crusade.

    The Holy Roman Empire was not really multiethnic. It was a German empire which also ruled Northern Italy and for a short period parts of Burgundy, and also had the Czech Kingdom as a constituent (autonomous) part of it, but its rule over Northern Italy was never very stable or permanent, and the Czech Kingdom was a semi-independent vassal state from the get-go. The empire obviously had an ethnic core, from which all of the emperors and most of the ruling elite and military came.

    The Habsburg Empire was multiethnic. Yet even here, there were core ethnicities, whose loyalty was higher than the rest. (But even their loyalty was often dubious, which caused tremendous problems.) Its Hungarian half had a Hungarian core ethnicity (which rose up against the Habsburgs whenever it felt that its interests were not sufficiently taken care of in Vienna, and with the exception of 17 short years between 1849 and 1867 Hungary wasn’t even officially part of Austria), and the rest of the empire had Germans as the core ethnicity. Militarily these two ethnicities were the most important throughout its existence (with the German Austrians being the more important and more loyal of the two), but Austria was never famous for its military, essentially the Austrian military never distinguished itself. It only won when fighting against inferior opponents, but probably lost more wars than it won. Austria grew by marriages and kept what it had by clever alliances and due to its sheer size, but was rarely more than a second-rate military power. As opposed to Prussia which would have ceased to exist if it couldn’t muster the loyalty of the majority of its subjects, being so much smaller.

    four Hellenic empires

    They were usually ruled by a small Greek elite, from which most of the armed forces were recruited. In Egypt the Ptolemaic rulers usually didn’t recruit Coptic natives into their army, and when they did, a rebellion quickly ensued by those very troops. But the armies were mostly Greek in all of these empires. They were multiethnic in the sense that the core ethnicities ruled over much larger populations, often playing them out against each other. These empires were never very stable exactly because they could only rely on such a small portion of their population. They were lucky that until the Romans entered the Eastern Mediterranean there was no other viable conqueror.

    Pre-Islamic Egypt

    It was part of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. You mean pre-Hellenic Egypt? That was a mono-ethnic state.

    Persia

    Persia had a core ethnicity, from which it drew its elite military troops. The rest of the army wasn’t worth too much, they were used as cannon fodder, but didn’t fight too well and weren’t motivated at all.

    Carthage

    Again, had a core ethnicity, and it had its problems when fighting the Romans exactly because it couldn’t count on the loyalty of its population.

    Imperial China

    How multiethnic was that? It was similar to the Romans in that it managed to assimilate its population into a Chinese Han ethnicity.

    Ottoman Empire

    It drew most of its military power from a core ethnicity. (The Janissaries were just a small part of the army. They were very useful for the Ottoman rulers against their own elite, though.)

  143. @kim

    Don’t bring your nonsense of pratilom here where you want high caste girls with black male shudras.

    We kill over it everyday. Punjab Zindabad

  144. @reiner Tor

    Who conquered us many times over?

    Your people are commiting suicide, and the only way to win is by going back to worshipping Devi Danu.

    Guess what, she’s a Persian woman who mated with a Ksytria.

    Ironic, well your beautiful women will be safe with us. ;)

    & we’ll have the largest economy as we historically have.

    Treachery undid India, but w.e we’re around with our original culture. you germanics raped your own mother..

    Parsis don’t accept converts because that was their promise. Some people have principles, unlike Anglos. .

    Please tell me what Jewish idea to follow next.
    How many women did you sell to the jew cousins Arabs?

    What do you feel knowing, your Anglo empire has primarily been used for Islamic demographic expansion.

    & all u got for it was a 2gb ram dual cor iphone. xD

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS