The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Children's Crusade Arrives Safely
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Here’s the top-center photograph of NYTimes.com:

Screenshot 2015-09-05 19.51.16

An innocent Syrian child is finally safe in Mother Merkel’s arms

Yeah, I know; but how many other NYT readers do you think will get the photo editor’s joke?

From the New York Times:

As Germany Welcomes Migrants, Some Wonder How to Make Acceptance Last
By MELISSA EDDY SEPT. 5, 2015

BERLIN — .. While the prospect of accepting an expected 800,000 new residents this year offers Germany an opportunity to rejuvenate its aging demographics and ensure its economic prosperity, it also challenges a prevailing cultural consensus of what it means to be German.

“The refugees are synonymous with formidable change,” Thomas de Maizière, Germany’s interior minister, said recently in an interview with the German weekly Die Zeit. “We must get used to the thought that our country is changing.”

That change is at the doorstep. When thousands of migrants were allowed to leave Hungary late Friday and were put on buses to the Austrian border, many were brandishing posters of Chancellor Angela Merkel. In their days of near internment in the inhospitable Hungarian capital, some of the exhausted and desperate travelers broke into chants of “Germany, Germany” and “Merkel, Merkel,” demanding to be allowed to continue their journey west. …

Among the strongest voices urging tolerance toward immigrants have been the German news media, from the mass-circulation Bild to the public television stations. Experts point to the news media’s positive stance as crucial in helping the public shift its perception of more foreigners coming to the country.

Recalling Nazi racial laws that singled out the Germanic, or Aryan, people as superior to other ethnicities, leading to the Holocaust and the atrocities of World War II, President Joachim Gauck recently urged Germans to embrace the diversity that has since grown up around them.

Until “even more people can part with the image of a nation that is very homogeneous and in which nearly all people speak German as their mother tongue, are fair-skinned and largely Christian,” he said, their perception of German society will not reflect the reality of who lives here.

“In reality, life as we live it here is already far more diverse,” Mr. Gauck said. “In our heads we know this, but the spirit sometimes lags behind. We as a nation must redefine ourselves, as a collective of different people, but who all accept common values.”

Many, including Ms. Merkel, have compared the challenge facing Germany to the historic decisions after the breach of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, when the leaders of West Germany swiftly enacted measures aimed at ensuring the peaceful merger of what for decades had been two separate states.

Even as the country prepares to mark a quarter-century of German reunification this fall, a spate of violent anti-immigrant protests in the eastern state of Saxony has led to accusations that differences between the two regions still exist, revealing just how difficult it can be even for two peoples who share a language and heritage to feel as one.

 
• Tags: Merkel Youth 
Hide 220 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. 800,000 new residents this year offers Germany an opportunity to rejuvenate its aging demographics and ensure its economic prosperity

    800, 000 master craftsman engineers to slot right into the German guild system straight outta Mosul!

    What a boon.

    Why stop at 800,000, surely they want more than that?

    Is this the same Melissa Eddy?

    • Replies: @Hubbub
    ...and it will no longer be a German Germany, but another Islamic state. It's amazing that these do-gooders don't realize that it takes more than "bodies' to keep a nation intact and functioning well. Is a Syrian Muslim the same as a German German? Can one really replace the other to the optimum degree? Hardly. Such childish innocence is hard to fathom. Mahmoud and Mathias are not the same in body or in spirit. One cannot replace the other.
  2. Until “even more people can part with the image of a nation that is very homogeneous and in which nearly all people speak German as their mother tongue, are fair-skinned and largely Christian,” he said, their perception of German society will not reflect the reality of who lives here.

    Mr. Gauck is confusing nations and countries. Nations survive. Countries that aren’t nations do not.

  3. One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany’s fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population — sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C — is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I’m skeptical, but it’s possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn’t want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don’t fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can’t make women have children.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany’s fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population — sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C — is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    No they won't. Germany is already overpopulated. They already lost 1/3 of their territory in World War II, one of the causes of which was a fear that that bigger Germany was not sufficient to support its population in times of scarcity.
    , @Priss Factor
    "Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off."

    You dammy, pulling it off would be the true disaster as German identity and genetics will be messed up forever.
    , @Whiskey
    You can if every man approaches Tom Brady levels of Alpha. Admittedly not very realistic but what women demand.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can’t make women have children.
     
    One doesn't "make" women make children, one inspires them to. That's what the church is for.

    The mosque is even more effective, but that doesn't help your children.
    , @GW

    Can’t make women have children.
     
    Sure you can. Restrict college and most occupations to men only. Take away women's sufferage. Outlaw abortion and birth control.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I’m skeptical, but it’s possible.

     

    Muslim immigrants to Syria have had 1,381 years to assimilate, how has that going along?

    Siege of Damascus (634)
    , @International Jew
    So what would be so bad about having just 65 million people in Germany? Finland is doing pretty well on a tenth of that, Iceland on a hundredth! (Meanwhile Bangla Desh has three or four times as many people...)

    Germany doesn't need to field a hundred army divisions to invade Russia any more.

    It's true that for a while there'll be some adjustment issues connected to having a high median age. But even so, I'll bet most German oldsters would prefer to have fellow German oldsters, their old friends, for neighbors, than a lot of vibrant Arabs waking them up at dawn with the Muezeen's call to prayer, slaughtering goats, burning cars, demanding "civil rights", beating up their immodestly dressed granddaughters when they come to visit, competing for hospital resources...

    I don't buy any of that "demographic death spiral" nonsense either. I've studied demographics and never heard anything like that -- because it makes no sense whatsoever. A population can take off anytime young people start breeding. You only need a dozen couples or so (depending on how averse you are to cousin marriages). 70,000 German Jews grew to nine million between about 1200 and 1939.

    , @Fun with aluminum
    You write: "if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess", and I have seen variants on this sentiment countless times.

    It makes no sense. The population of a state can grow or it can decline; there is no particular "right size". For reference: In 1900, when Germany was dominant in almost every field of cultural endeavor, it had a population of 56M, compared to 85M today. If they were to protect their borders, then a polity that is recognizably German would persist through this century with a population in 2100 perhaps similar to that of 1900. Alternatively, the population of ethnic Germans can decline inexorably, but they can import millions of culturally alien Muslims simply to top up the number of people with German Republic citizenship documents at the magical 85 million number. In this scenario, there will be no recognizably German polity in 2100. Scenario two has really no advantage to the German nation, and is not inevitable. Preventing it merely requires an assertion of national identity and self-respect.
    , @Anon
    I disagree about the Southwest. If you mean by alarming that there are too many Latinos in the Southwest then that is one argument but the idea that assimilation isn't happening is wrong. Half of the Latinos of the current generation coming of age are going to marry whites generally in the lower half socio-economically. If that isn't assimilation on a large scale then I don't know what is.
    , @ben tillman

    Well, if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.
     
    That makes no sense. Import them for what reason?

    Can’t make women have children.
     
    Of course, you can. It's called rape. And you're proposing the same thing (in principle) for an entire nation.
    , @Clyde
    Maybe the Germans can establish friendship clubs in every city where the swarthy young Muslim arrivals can bond with the 40% of German women with advanced degrees who remain childless.
    , @Anonymous
    Yes, birth-rates in Europe are dire. There's no getting away from that.

    BUT

    The EU, at this very moment - and for the last 40 years actually, and certainly indefinitely into the future, simply CANNOT generate enough jobs for those infants once the grow up to be adults. Youth unemployment in the EU is ridiculously high.
    This is due to shitheads running EU economic policy.
    The EU is a horrid, horrid arrogant, pompous 'superior' dictatorship. This will not change.
    , @Anonymous
    1% ? Per year ? From countries with the lowest iq ?

    The immigrants will live in cities. Several German cities develop into Baltimore and Chicago: white flight.
    , @Gerry T. Neal
    Low fertility is not a reason to import large numbers of immigrants but rather a reason not to do so. When you import large numbers of immigrants during a period of extended low fertility, you are in effect running a policy of population replacement. A policy of population replacement at some point becomes a policy of national suicide. It is difficult to say where exactly that point is. It would also be difficult to say at what point the process of replacing failed body parts with artificial equivalents ceases to be life-saving and kills the individual replacing him with what it is in effect a robot. Such a point exists, however, in both cases, and the moral, responsible, and sane way of looking at it is that we should not try to get as close to that point as possible but rather leave a healthy distance between ourselves and it. http://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.com/2011/02/suicide-cult.html
    , @Hippopotamusdrome

    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany’s fertility is below replacement ... if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will

     

    German population density is 609. Syria is 266. According to you, countries need to be full, so Germany should send refugees to Syria so they go from 266 to 609.

    Also the following underpopulated countries should recieve German refugees:

    Germany – 609
    Syria ——– 266
    Jordan —– 167
    Turkey —- 237
    France —- 289
    Poland —- 328
    Spain —— 210

    P.S. bring back the Comstock laws.

    , @Threecranes
    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." and with the 80 million you cite you're batting .666.

    According to Wiki: "the 1939 census now also included the areas of Austria, Sudetenland and Memelland."

    Maybe Germany would agree to your 80 million if you will allow them to reoccupy their former borders.
    , @Anonymous
    One percent? Germany has had a mass immigration program since the 1960s.
  4. Antifas: Winning hearts and minds

    • Replies: @Bettega
    It's curious because German antifas hate Germany ("Bomber Harris, Do it Again" is one of their favourite slogans, refering to the firebombing of Dresden) and yet they sell mass immigration arguing that it will be good for Germany.

    Either they hate Germany and want mass immigration to end the work Bomber Harris began, or they see mass immigration as something genuinely good, and their whole "Antideutsche" antics were just for show.
  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany’s fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population — sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C — is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    No they won’t. Germany is already overpopulated. They already lost 1/3 of their territory in World War II, one of the causes of which was a fear that that bigger Germany was not sufficient to support its population in times of scarcity.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I'm not sure if Germany is overpopulated, although, when I inspect it on a map I can't figure how they got 80 MM into Montana.

    The whole idea of Lebensraum was based on the notion that Germany had to be self sufficient, well, that's unrealistic for virtually any European nation today.

    Germans are clearly very efficient in handling their territory, as are the Dutch, to name two. Both have done a better job of handling their space than say New Jersey.

  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Among the strongest voices urging tolerance toward immigrants have been the German news media, from the mass-circulation Bild to the public television stations. Experts point to the news media’s positive stance as crucial in helping the public shift its perception of more foreigners coming to the country.

    Who runs the media in Germany?

    • Replies: @Mr ED.
    Germans.
    , @Mr ED.
    Germans.
  7. The Middle East should be called MEDDLE EAST.

    Leave them alone, and this wouldn’t be happening, at least on the scale that it is.

    But only Putin has the guts to say this. Merkel is too afraid of US and Neocons.

  8. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:
    @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    “Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.”

    You dammy, pulling it off would be the true disaster as German identity and genetics will be messed up forever.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I'm OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.

    It's not the end of the world. I'm sure the genetic structure of Germans today bears scant resemblance to the Goths who were in the Crimea 1,500 years ago.

  9. “Can’t make women have children.”

    Yes you can. End feminism.

    Also, I’d rather have a Japan-like Europe with lower population, than an Arab Europe full of vitality. But that’s just me.

  10. UK trying to discourage human trafficking is warning against dangerous journey. Germany? Come one come all to the midnite ball. The Gemans are going to build 30K new housing units. Everybody coming is going to college on German tab. If Greeks leave EU it’s no wonder why. Everybody the press quotes has brother in some other place who sent for them. The criminal smugglars are making out like bandits and that’s because they are. The kids are pawns for some sick political smoke and mirrors racket.

  11. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    You can if every man approaches Tom Brady levels of Alpha. Admittedly not very realistic but what women demand.

  12. Who cares if the population is decreasing? Populations can’t increase forever. Can Japan and Britain have an ever increasing population? Sooner or later there will be too many people.

    Why do we want assimilation?

    • Replies: @unit472
    Ttjy said:

    "Who cares if the population is decreasing? Populations can’t increase forever. Can Japan and Britain have an ever increasing population? Sooner or later there will be too many people..."

    The United States had 180 million people in 1960. The quality of life was much better. A young couple could buy a new 3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath house in Palo Alto or Marin County for $35,000. In the D.C. suburbs of Fairfax or Montgomery County $25,000 would get you a new home. My dad paid $47,000 for his house in Georgetown. My mom and stepfather in San Francisco ( who was building those homes in Palo Alto and Marin) paid $68,000 in 1965 for their Victorian in ( lower) Pacific Heights. Today those suburban homes would cost close to a $1 million and I don't even want to think about what the San Francisco and Georgetown homes would cost except to say I couldn't afford them.

    There was the new Beltway around Washington. It wasn't choked with traffic. The Golden Gate and Bay Bridges in San Francisco were the same. People did not have to commute 25-50 miles to an find an affordable home.

    Only a fool would imagine the quality of life in America has improved by the addition of 140 million additional people. The infrastructure can't keep up with rapid population growth in existing cities because you can't add new highways, runways, sewers or mass transit systems without incurring huge costs for land acquisition and disruption to existing neighborhoods.

    Germany ( and eastern Europe) are already facing some real constraints on energy supplies. It is simply not possible for Germany to meet its power generation and environmental goals if it has to provide electricity and gas supplies to large numbers of asylum seekers, refugees, migrants or whatever you wish to call them. That hijab clad Muslim women typically do not work but do breed makes this new population even more of a burden than,e.g., Latino or Asian immigrants to the US. That Germany is already on the hook for hundreds of billions of Euros for bailouts to Greece, Portugal and Spain makes it delusional to imagine it can take on an enormous influx of even temporary new residents.

  13. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can’t make women have children.

    One doesn’t “make” women make children, one inspires them to. That’s what the church is for.

    The mosque is even more effective, but that doesn’t help your children.

    • Agree: backup
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    One doesn’t “make” women make children, one inspires them to. That’s what the church is for.

    How does the church inspire women to have children?
    , @H2
    It also helps to not have the media and intellectuals equate motherhood with slavery.
  14. @Reg Cæsar

    But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can’t make women have children.
     
    One doesn't "make" women make children, one inspires them to. That's what the church is for.

    The mosque is even more effective, but that doesn't help your children.

    One doesn’t “make” women make children, one inspires them to. That’s what the church is for.

    How does the church inspire women to have children?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It probably can't at this point. Because of science, secularism, and material progress, Westerners today simply don't and can't believe in Christianity like their ancestors used to. Only isolated groups such as the Amish probably approach it. You would need a major religious revival, or some major disruption like the Dark Ages, or a new religion or revelation to resurrect the sort of belief that once prevailed among Westerners.
  15. @Anonymous
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany’s fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population — sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C — is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    No they won't. Germany is already overpopulated. They already lost 1/3 of their territory in World War II, one of the causes of which was a fear that that bigger Germany was not sufficient to support its population in times of scarcity.

    I’m not sure if Germany is overpopulated, although, when I inspect it on a map I can’t figure how they got 80 MM into Montana.

    The whole idea of Lebensraum was based on the notion that Germany had to be self sufficient, well, that’s unrealistic for virtually any European nation today.

    Germans are clearly very efficient in handling their territory, as are the Dutch, to name two. Both have done a better job of handling their space than say New Jersey.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The whole idea of Lebensraum was based on the notion that Germany had to be self sufficient, well, that’s unrealistic for virtually any European nation today.

    Yet surely it is better to be more self sufficient, than less so. And importing millions of foreigners is likely to make Germany less so. Self sufficiency is a reasonable aspiration in this dangerous world. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good. Do we throw in the towel on establishing the rule of law, just because we cannot completely eliminate crime?

  16. @Priss Factor
    "Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off."

    You dammy, pulling it off would be the true disaster as German identity and genetics will be messed up forever.

    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I’m OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.

    It’s not the end of the world. I’m sure the genetic structure of Germans today bears scant resemblance to the Goths who were in the Crimea 1,500 years ago.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I’m OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, they change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.

    Hardly. These countries would benefit from lower population density. There is a ton of unemployment in Europe and the United States already. Productivity gains and automation continue apace. We don't need more people.

    Japan is not generating replacement populations and isn't changing its identity and genetics as a result.

    , @Priss Factor
    "I assume you mean to call me a dummy"

    No, a dammy is someone who isn't dumb talking dumb.

    "we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer."

    Ehhhh? China has had one-child policy, but it was not to make China un-Chinese. It was to handle the population problem.

    So what if the German population shrinks? Germany with 80 million, Germany with 50 million is Germany, Germany with 30 million is Germany.
    Germany lost 10 million in WWII, but it still remained German. Russia lost 20 million but still remained Russian.
    Who says reduction in population MUST MEAN the nation must be flooded with foreigners? Where do you get such logic?

    "I’m sure the genetic structure of Germans today bears scant resemblance to the Goths who were in the Crimea 1,500 years ago."

    I'll bet there are lots of similarities. Based on how Germanic barbarians were described by the ancients like Tacitus and Medivalists like Ibn Fadlan, I'd say Germans today are remarkably like Germans of the past. Of course, there were migrations and mixings.

    At any rate, given the globalized nature of the world where millions can move so fast all across the world, border control is more important than ever.
    Precisely because globalism facilitates such ease of movement, nations must be all the more vigilant in checking who comes in and out. Otherwise, nations will be lost. Especially rich ones.

    It's funny that a dammy like you is pontificating here. This is a HBD site. You seem to go for culture, i.e. anyone can culturally become German.

    Now, I got nothing against Syrians and others(though Negroes is another business altogether). But Germany didn't mess up the Middle East. Why must they pay the price?

    And the idea that these newcomers are gonna add to the German economy... it's based on the crackpot egalitarian notion(that even Libs don't really believe) that all peoples are equal in talent.

    Syrians aren't the worst in the world, but they aren't the best material either.

    Also, why should anyone assimilate into a nation without self-confidence?
    Germans are saying anyone is German, German identity doesn't matter, German borders don't matter, and etc. What is there to assimilate too? Holocaust guilt as the cornerstone of German identity? And if Germans couldn't say NO to the current migrants, what about future migrants? And since the 'new Germans' made of recent migrants came to Germany illegally, they wouldn't have any right to deny the entry of future migrants.

    This is all crazy.
    , @ben tillman

    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I’m OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.
     
    Why?

    Really, this is ridiculous. In the US, where White women still have two babies each, the government is still swamping White Americans with foreigners.

    In Germany, it may make sense to reduce density by reducing the population. But even if women were still having 2+ children each, there would be no reason to think that they would not be swamped by immigrants.
    , @iSteveFan

    I’m OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.
     
    You write that as if it is inevitable that any nation that fails to continue to grow, or to maintain their current 2015 level population is destined to be overrun. Why is this so? Is this going to happen to Japan or South Korea? Is this going to happen to China?

    Now I have no doubt that the world is a nasty place, and nations from time to time are overrun by armed invasions. But I have no idea why it is inevitable for an unarmed group of people to be able to overrun militarily superior nations, with economies and technological prowess orders of magnitudes higher.

    I think the people of Europe and the US should be asking what Madeleine Albright asked 16 plus years ago, "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it? "
    , @German_reader
    Goths have nothing to do with Germany, there is no link between the Goths (who were Eastern Germanics strongly influenced by steppe cultures) and what eventually became Germany from the 10th century onwards. German nationalists beginning in the 15th century claimed all the Germanic peoples in antiquity as their own, and the Nazis were enthusiasts for the Goths (they called Sevastopol Theoderichhafen), but that's merely myth-making. So your example is pretty meaningless.
    And no, Germany hasn't been that successful at assimilating Turks and other Muslim immigrants. Things are not as bad as in Britain or France, but in retrospect allowing mass immigration by Turks and other Muslims was a serious mistake. It's naive to exspect that things will turn out fine with the current influx...but then Germans are hardly known for their good judgement.
  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SPMoore8
    I'm not sure if Germany is overpopulated, although, when I inspect it on a map I can't figure how they got 80 MM into Montana.

    The whole idea of Lebensraum was based on the notion that Germany had to be self sufficient, well, that's unrealistic for virtually any European nation today.

    Germans are clearly very efficient in handling their territory, as are the Dutch, to name two. Both have done a better job of handling their space than say New Jersey.

    The whole idea of Lebensraum was based on the notion that Germany had to be self sufficient, well, that’s unrealistic for virtually any European nation today.

    Yet surely it is better to be more self sufficient, than less so. And importing millions of foreigners is likely to make Germany less so. Self sufficiency is a reasonable aspiration in this dangerous world. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good. Do we throw in the towel on establishing the rule of law, just because we cannot completely eliminate crime?

  18. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    Can’t make women have children.

    Sure you can. Restrict college and most occupations to men only. Take away women’s sufferage. Outlaw abortion and birth control.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That would require taking over the government and implementing authoritarian government, in which case you could just refuse to take the refugees.
    , @Anon
    Christ this blog's commenter pool is filled with weirdos.
    , @Jaakko Raipala
    If you take away the choice from women and give it to men the birth rate will collapse to even lower. Men are much less likely to desire children than women in just about all societies and the birth rate collapse has largely happened because men can now get the sex that they want without having to support children that they don't want.

    Liberal countries like Scandinavia where women have more political influence are also more pro-natalist in actual policies as women tend to vote for parties that spend on things like daycare, health care and actually just giving free stuff for families with newborns and these countries also tend to have higher birth rates than more conservative countries like Germany. The Soviet Union had the highest birth rates of white societies right up to the end because they took away most of the financial burden from having children through socialized housing. The easiest way to completely kill your birth rate would be to expect the man of every family to handle all the costs of supporting children in a Western real estate market (which is often a "worst of both worlds" mix of a free market and politically corrupted central planning).

    One of the strangest myths in the comments of this site is the idea that birth rates have collapsed solely because of women not wanting children instead of mainly because of men not wanting children. Do you really think there's some huge number of men out there who would be eager to support a wife and children entirely on their own income but who are missing that life of their dreams because there's no matching women for them? It's the other way around.
  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SPMoore8
    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I'm OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.

    It's not the end of the world. I'm sure the genetic structure of Germans today bears scant resemblance to the Goths who were in the Crimea 1,500 years ago.

    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I’m OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, they change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.

    Hardly. These countries would benefit from lower population density. There is a ton of unemployment in Europe and the United States already. Productivity gains and automation continue apace. We don’t need more people.

    Japan is not generating replacement populations and isn’t changing its identity and genetics as a result.

  20. @Reg Cæsar

    But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can’t make women have children.
     
    One doesn't "make" women make children, one inspires them to. That's what the church is for.

    The mosque is even more effective, but that doesn't help your children.

    It also helps to not have the media and intellectuals equate motherhood with slavery.

  21. @GW

    Can’t make women have children.
     
    Sure you can. Restrict college and most occupations to men only. Take away women's sufferage. Outlaw abortion and birth control.

    That would require taking over the government and implementing authoritarian government, in which case you could just refuse to take the refugees.

  22. One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany’s fertility is below replacement …

    Yes, move people from low pop density to high pop density.

    Germany – 609
    Syria ——– 266
    Jordan —– 167
    Turkey —- 237
    France —- 289
    Poland —- 328
    Spain —— 210

  23. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I’m skeptical, but it’s possible.

    Muslim immigrants to Syria have had 1,381 years to assimilate, how has that going along?

    Siege of Damascus (634)

    • Replies: @george
    "Muslim immigrants to Syria have had 1,381 years to assimilate, how has that going along? "

    Fine until NATO started and fueled a civil war.

    If East Germany stayed independent they would not have to accept immigrants just like Poland does not. If they stayed communist immigrants would not go there like N Korea.
  24. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    So what would be so bad about having just 65 million people in Germany? Finland is doing pretty well on a tenth of that, Iceland on a hundredth! (Meanwhile Bangla Desh has three or four times as many people…)

    Germany doesn’t need to field a hundred army divisions to invade Russia any more.

    It’s true that for a while there’ll be some adjustment issues connected to having a high median age. But even so, I’ll bet most German oldsters would prefer to have fellow German oldsters, their old friends, for neighbors, than a lot of vibrant Arabs waking them up at dawn with the Muezeen’s call to prayer, slaughtering goats, burning cars, demanding “civil rights”, beating up their immodestly dressed granddaughters when they come to visit, competing for hospital resources…

    I don’t buy any of that “demographic death spiral” nonsense either. I’ve studied demographics and never heard anything like that — because it makes no sense whatsoever. A population can take off anytime young people start breeding. You only need a dozen couples or so (depending on how averse you are to cousin marriages). 70,000 German Jews grew to nine million between about 1200 and 1939.

    • Replies: @rustbeltreader
    This one is directed to the sports people: You are destroying a perfectly good figure of speech: "Getting the monkey off one’s back" does not mean breaking a losing streak. It refers only to ending a dependency. That’s all. The monkey represents a strong yen. A loosing streak does not compare even remotely. Not in a literary sense and not in real life.
    http://sense.net//~blaine/funstuff/carlin.html

    Germany is hosting a record setting monkey see monkey do contest. Everybody is going to learn German and go to university. German government is going to have habitat for humanity program and build 30K new houses for upwardly mobile migrants who will buy new German cars. It's cash for clunkers writ large without the need to junk cars because they are junking the trains.
    , @iSteveFan

    I don’t buy any of that “demographic death spiral” nonsense either. I’ve studied demographics and never heard anything like that — because it makes no sense whatsoever.
     
    Correct, it is more BS that the open borders crowd throws out there to obfuscate the issue. I recall when the used to say, and some still do, that we needed immigrants to pay for our social safety nets since our aging populations now have lower ratios of workers to retirees. Of course they used this excuse to bring in tons of people who are net tax consumers, so they've only exacerbated the stress on the social safety net. Now it seems they are just saying you need immigrants so your population doesn't decrease, as though absolute numbers of people will make all well.

    As for the death spiral, nations have taken hits to their populations throughout history, yet have recovered. It doesn't take much to turn the demographic trend around. Just look at the post WW2 Baby Boom in the USA. All it took was ideal living conditions which occurred after WW2 when the USA was enjoying great prosperity relative to the rest of the world, and it was still protected by the Immigration Act of 1924, which prevented the flooding of the nation by third world hordes. The natives evidently found family formation affordable and went at it. Of course it helped that the culture being promoted by the media was conducive and not destructive.
    , @Anon 2
    Nine million? Nonsense. In the early 1930s Germany's Jewish
    population was only 525,000 (0.75%). In Austria - about 200,000.
    You're confusing Germany with Poland where the Jewish
    population was about 3.2 million (almost 10%). Poland was
    the center of Jewish life for centuries as the Jews were expelled
    from everywhere else in Europe, including Germany, but the
    Polish-Lithuanian Republic in contrast invited the Jewish
    refugees to settle in Poland, starting in the 1200s. Look it
    up in Wikipedia.

    There were very few Jews in prewar Germany, and even fewer
    in France, Britain or Italy, which doesn't help to answer the
    question why the plan for the Final Solution originated in
    Germany.
    , @Expletive Deleted
    " Bangla Desh has three or four times as many people…"
    And guess what, its border with India is 2000 miles of double barb wire coil/razor tape fence, permanently manned by troops including Ghorkas.
  25. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade

    Crazy stuff, European are trying to get to Jerusalem some 900 years ago because Jesus..

    The “Abrahamic” religions ruined the minds and lives of awful a lot of people.

    • Replies: @dab
    If you read on, I think you will find Europeans did in fact get to Jerusalem and established a kingdom there that lasted for a century. This century's respite was exactly what Europe needed to catch its breath and avoid complete subjugation under Islam. If Europe had not been Christian, it would just have become Muslim, and everyone would still be stuck in the Iron Age.
    Later, it is true, Jerusalem fell, even Constantinople, but Europe survived. At least until now.
  26. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    You write: “if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess”, and I have seen variants on this sentiment countless times.

    It makes no sense. The population of a state can grow or it can decline; there is no particular “right size”. For reference: In 1900, when Germany was dominant in almost every field of cultural endeavor, it had a population of 56M, compared to 85M today. If they were to protect their borders, then a polity that is recognizably German would persist through this century with a population in 2100 perhaps similar to that of 1900. Alternatively, the population of ethnic Germans can decline inexorably, but they can import millions of culturally alien Muslims simply to top up the number of people with German Republic citizenship documents at the magical 85 million number. In this scenario, there will be no recognizably German polity in 2100. Scenario two has really no advantage to the German nation, and is not inevitable. Preventing it merely requires an assertion of national identity and self-respect.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Nice comment.

    You might also note that in 1900, when you say that Germany was 56M compared with 85 M today (and 56M sounds high to me, but anyways), it had significantly more territory than it does now.
    , @Anon 2
    Germany dominant in 1900? You must be joking. France was the
    center of culture on the European continent for centuries, since
    at least Louis XIV. Berlin was still a backwater in the 19th century.
    Britain was ahead of everyone in industrial development, and
    although Germany was beginning to catch up, esp. in the armaments
    and chemical industry, it had a backward region - namely Prussia -
    that had to be brought up to speed, just like today's eastern
    Germany is underdeveloped and underpopulated. The only
    area where Germany was strong in 1900 was science, esp. physics
    and chemistry.
  27. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    I disagree about the Southwest. If you mean by alarming that there are too many Latinos in the Southwest then that is one argument but the idea that assimilation isn’t happening is wrong. Half of the Latinos of the current generation coming of age are going to marry whites generally in the lower half socio-economically. If that isn’t assimilation on a large scale then I don’t know what is.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    If the Latinos in the Southwest are assimilating, and speaking English, then it's much less of a problem as far as I am concerned. Yes, I understand that many people are concerned with genetic heritage issues, but I am not particularly concerned with that.
  28. @GW

    Can’t make women have children.
     
    Sure you can. Restrict college and most occupations to men only. Take away women's sufferage. Outlaw abortion and birth control.

    Christ this blog’s commenter pool is filled with weirdos.

    • Replies: @Mr ED.
    Yes. This proposal makes integrating 800,000 Syrians look like a piece of cake.
    , @LKM
    A more realistic strategy might include the removal of all state subsidies/student loan programs to non-STEM subjects in universities. This would disproportionately affect women. Will parents still want their daughters enrolling in Genderqueer Critical Theory when they're paying full price? That might happen in the US, but maybe not in countries with higher taxes that make saving for college harder.

    These women would then have to enroll in some post-secondary education/training, be it community college or the trades. Either way, they spend much less of their prime reproductive years accruing debt and being indoctrinated by progressives and they get out in the real world much faster.

    A side benefit of this is that is will vastly reduce the market for progressive professors/sessional instructors.
  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    One doesn’t “make” women make children, one inspires them to. That’s what the church is for.

    How does the church inspire women to have children?

    It probably can’t at this point. Because of science, secularism, and material progress, Westerners today simply don’t and can’t believe in Christianity like their ancestors used to. Only isolated groups such as the Amish probably approach it. You would need a major religious revival, or some major disruption like the Dark Ages, or a new religion or revelation to resurrect the sort of belief that once prevailed among Westerners.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I think you make a good point here, concerning the decline in faith. Faith used to carry with it certain basic ideas: that our lives had a purpose, that our collective existence had a purpose, that there was a future point we were aiming at, that we should grow, expand, and master, that we should be selfless in promoting that agenda, that we would be judged for how we lived our lives, and so on.

    Nowadays I frequently hear, from both sides of the spectrum, that the human race has permanently damaged the planet, that life is ultimately not worth living, that the goal of life is merely an existence with no pain and no want, that there is no ultimate reason either for an individual's life or a nation's life, that judgment does not exist, that how we live our lives does not matter, and anyone who says that is brainwashed by the plutocracy, and that robots will inherit the earth, and that's there's nothing worth dying for.

    A civilization like that isn't going to last. It's not my fault.
    , @Romanian
    Well, having large families doesn't really have to be connected to religion or to lack of reproductive rights. I'm sure there are plenty of Mormons with large families who are agnostics, atheists, deists or whatever. It's all about the culture. If having a large family is seen as enjoyable, a marker of status and a guarantee of an "echo throughout infinity", then people will have large families if they can afford them. If the family is seen as a burden or as a status marker for uneducated social inferiors, then people will not have children at all, or will have the minimum to satisfy parental expectations of familial continuity.

    It also matters if the people most likely to want large families instead have to channel their desire for posterity into spending on a "rat race" of expensive schools and such for the credentials of their child. In this case, people will rather have one child whom they can offer every possible advantage, instead of multiple children in a more socially egalitarian meritocracy.

    I see it in my c0untry as well - high schools and kindergartens with fancy names and huge tuitions promising parents that their child will belong to a certain peer group and will be better positioned for foreign University admittance and education. This costs a lot, which is no barrier to the uber rich, but is a barrier to middle class people with high ambition looking to purchase some certainty for their only offspring. So, instead of 2-3 kids educated on the public dime, they'd rather have one whom they offer the best of the best, even at the cost of indebtedness normally seen for purchasing a home, not an education. Until now, the rich and the poor were educated in the same schools, and separation between the smart and the dumb took place before high school, also maintaining a more socially heterogeneous group. So children would grow up with friends, rivals and what have you from all walks of life, and possibly retain those friends and at least an understanding of the intrinsic similarities between people of different social classes. That's why our rich (thieving or not) are more likely to be coarse and down to Earth, not "let them eat cake" types.
  30. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:
    @SPMoore8
    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I'm OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.

    It's not the end of the world. I'm sure the genetic structure of Germans today bears scant resemblance to the Goths who were in the Crimea 1,500 years ago.

    “I assume you mean to call me a dummy”

    No, a dammy is someone who isn’t dumb talking dumb.

    “we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.”

    Ehhhh? China has had one-child policy, but it was not to make China un-Chinese. It was to handle the population problem.

    So what if the German population shrinks? Germany with 80 million, Germany with 50 million is Germany, Germany with 30 million is Germany.
    Germany lost 10 million in WWII, but it still remained German. Russia lost 20 million but still remained Russian.
    Who says reduction in population MUST MEAN the nation must be flooded with foreigners? Where do you get such logic?

    “I’m sure the genetic structure of Germans today bears scant resemblance to the Goths who were in the Crimea 1,500 years ago.”

    I’ll bet there are lots of similarities. Based on how Germanic barbarians were described by the ancients like Tacitus and Medivalists like Ibn Fadlan, I’d say Germans today are remarkably like Germans of the past. Of course, there were migrations and mixings.

    At any rate, given the globalized nature of the world where millions can move so fast all across the world, border control is more important than ever.
    Precisely because globalism facilitates such ease of movement, nations must be all the more vigilant in checking who comes in and out. Otherwise, nations will be lost. Especially rich ones.

    It’s funny that a dammy like you is pontificating here. This is a HBD site. You seem to go for culture, i.e. anyone can culturally become German.

    Now, I got nothing against Syrians and others(though Negroes is another business altogether). But Germany didn’t mess up the Middle East. Why must they pay the price?

    And the idea that these newcomers are gonna add to the German economy… it’s based on the crackpot egalitarian notion(that even Libs don’t really believe) that all peoples are equal in talent.

    Syrians aren’t the worst in the world, but they aren’t the best material either.

    Also, why should anyone assimilate into a nation without self-confidence?
    Germans are saying anyone is German, German identity doesn’t matter, German borders don’t matter, and etc. What is there to assimilate too? Holocaust guilt as the cornerstone of German identity? And if Germans couldn’t say NO to the current migrants, what about future migrants? And since the ‘new Germans’ made of recent migrants came to Germany illegally, they wouldn’t have any right to deny the entry of future migrants.

    This is all crazy.

    • Replies: @rustbeltreader
    German Dept. of Money From Thin Air is using phone tax revenue to finance new houses and will see gains when soaring Syrian mortgages start boom.
    , @Ed
    The 800k refugees mostly Syrian aren't the problem. The next million or so from Syria won't be the real problem. The real problem will come when there's a civil war in Nigeria or Congo and millions hoof it to Libya onto boats to Italy then on to Germany.

    How will the West respond then? Can't turn them away because now you've set a precedent. If you let in Arab Muslims certainly you can let in African Christians.
  31. @Fun with aluminum
    You write: "if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess", and I have seen variants on this sentiment countless times.

    It makes no sense. The population of a state can grow or it can decline; there is no particular "right size". For reference: In 1900, when Germany was dominant in almost every field of cultural endeavor, it had a population of 56M, compared to 85M today. If they were to protect their borders, then a polity that is recognizably German would persist through this century with a population in 2100 perhaps similar to that of 1900. Alternatively, the population of ethnic Germans can decline inexorably, but they can import millions of culturally alien Muslims simply to top up the number of people with German Republic citizenship documents at the magical 85 million number. In this scenario, there will be no recognizably German polity in 2100. Scenario two has really no advantage to the German nation, and is not inevitable. Preventing it merely requires an assertion of national identity and self-respect.

    Nice comment.

    You might also note that in 1900, when you say that Germany was 56M compared with 85 M today (and 56M sounds high to me, but anyways), it had significantly more territory than it does now.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    56 Million was correct at 1900, but it was almost 80 MM in 1939, and that's the number I had in mind. The current German population is 80.3 MM, about 750,000 more than it was in 1939.

    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).
    I've never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.
  32. What’s the big deal about Germans? They’re an overly serious, boring, stuck up people who’ve take sex tourism to next level. Who cares?

  33. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:

    Maybe this is what Europe should do.

    They should carve out a special piece of territory called REFUGEEVILLE.

    If there are desperate refugees, they will be allowed into Refugeeville and provided with shelter and basic needs. But once the crisis in their home country is over, they must return.

    When I look at the Syrian refugee crisis, I don’t oppose the world lending a helping hand. But knowing what I know from such things, the refugees often stay and don’t leave. Refugees become immigrants and then citizens. This keeps up, the native populations will lose their lands.

    But if the West is willing to deal with the refugee problem in good earnest, create a closed off land called REFUGEEVILLE and put all the refugees there and let them stay only until the crisis boils over. Then, make sure they return.

    Permanent refugees are not refugees. They are invaders.

  34. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34148891

    UN that did nothing to stop the destruction of Liyba and Syria is now telling EU to take in all the refugees.

  35. @International Jew
    So what would be so bad about having just 65 million people in Germany? Finland is doing pretty well on a tenth of that, Iceland on a hundredth! (Meanwhile Bangla Desh has three or four times as many people...)

    Germany doesn't need to field a hundred army divisions to invade Russia any more.

    It's true that for a while there'll be some adjustment issues connected to having a high median age. But even so, I'll bet most German oldsters would prefer to have fellow German oldsters, their old friends, for neighbors, than a lot of vibrant Arabs waking them up at dawn with the Muezeen's call to prayer, slaughtering goats, burning cars, demanding "civil rights", beating up their immodestly dressed granddaughters when they come to visit, competing for hospital resources...

    I don't buy any of that "demographic death spiral" nonsense either. I've studied demographics and never heard anything like that -- because it makes no sense whatsoever. A population can take off anytime young people start breeding. You only need a dozen couples or so (depending on how averse you are to cousin marriages). 70,000 German Jews grew to nine million between about 1200 and 1939.

    This one is directed to the sports people: You are destroying a perfectly good figure of speech: “Getting the monkey off one’s back” does not mean breaking a losing streak. It refers only to ending a dependency. That’s all. The monkey represents a strong yen. A loosing streak does not compare even remotely. Not in a literary sense and not in real life.
    http://sense.net//~blaine/funstuff/carlin.html

    Germany is hosting a record setting monkey see monkey do contest. Everybody is going to learn German and go to university. German government is going to have habitat for humanity program and build 30K new houses for upwardly mobile migrants who will buy new German cars. It’s cash for clunkers writ large without the need to junk cars because they are junking the trains.

  36. http://news.yahoo.com/merkel-no-legal-limit-asylum-seekers-germany-090608192.html

    Jeb speaks good Spanish. Maybe Merkel should learn Arabic. She seems to be the new president of Syria.

    Ez az a videó ami nem fogja bejárni a nyugati sajtót, hogy milyen kegyetlenül bánnak a magyar rendőrök a szegény menekültekkel

    Posted by Glós Tamás on Friday, September 4, 2015

    Uhh, the babies want Mama Merkel the Miracle Worker. No water for them. They want milk!

    Mr. Reagan, you shouldn’t have asked Mr. Gorbachev to tear down this Wall.

    At least Eastern Europe would have been better off behind the Iron Curtain.

  37. @Anon
    I disagree about the Southwest. If you mean by alarming that there are too many Latinos in the Southwest then that is one argument but the idea that assimilation isn't happening is wrong. Half of the Latinos of the current generation coming of age are going to marry whites generally in the lower half socio-economically. If that isn't assimilation on a large scale then I don't know what is.

    If the Latinos in the Southwest are assimilating, and speaking English, then it’s much less of a problem as far as I am concerned. Yes, I understand that many people are concerned with genetic heritage issues, but I am not particularly concerned with that.

  38. @Priss Factor
    "I assume you mean to call me a dummy"

    No, a dammy is someone who isn't dumb talking dumb.

    "we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer."

    Ehhhh? China has had one-child policy, but it was not to make China un-Chinese. It was to handle the population problem.

    So what if the German population shrinks? Germany with 80 million, Germany with 50 million is Germany, Germany with 30 million is Germany.
    Germany lost 10 million in WWII, but it still remained German. Russia lost 20 million but still remained Russian.
    Who says reduction in population MUST MEAN the nation must be flooded with foreigners? Where do you get such logic?

    "I’m sure the genetic structure of Germans today bears scant resemblance to the Goths who were in the Crimea 1,500 years ago."

    I'll bet there are lots of similarities. Based on how Germanic barbarians were described by the ancients like Tacitus and Medivalists like Ibn Fadlan, I'd say Germans today are remarkably like Germans of the past. Of course, there were migrations and mixings.

    At any rate, given the globalized nature of the world where millions can move so fast all across the world, border control is more important than ever.
    Precisely because globalism facilitates such ease of movement, nations must be all the more vigilant in checking who comes in and out. Otherwise, nations will be lost. Especially rich ones.

    It's funny that a dammy like you is pontificating here. This is a HBD site. You seem to go for culture, i.e. anyone can culturally become German.

    Now, I got nothing against Syrians and others(though Negroes is another business altogether). But Germany didn't mess up the Middle East. Why must they pay the price?

    And the idea that these newcomers are gonna add to the German economy... it's based on the crackpot egalitarian notion(that even Libs don't really believe) that all peoples are equal in talent.

    Syrians aren't the worst in the world, but they aren't the best material either.

    Also, why should anyone assimilate into a nation without self-confidence?
    Germans are saying anyone is German, German identity doesn't matter, German borders don't matter, and etc. What is there to assimilate too? Holocaust guilt as the cornerstone of German identity? And if Germans couldn't say NO to the current migrants, what about future migrants? And since the 'new Germans' made of recent migrants came to Germany illegally, they wouldn't have any right to deny the entry of future migrants.

    This is all crazy.

    German Dept. of Money From Thin Air is using phone tax revenue to finance new houses and will see gains when soaring Syrian mortgages start boom.

  39. @Anonymous
    Nice comment.

    You might also note that in 1900, when you say that Germany was 56M compared with 85 M today (and 56M sounds high to me, but anyways), it had significantly more territory than it does now.

    56 Million was correct at 1900, but it was almost 80 MM in 1939, and that’s the number I had in mind. The current German population is 80.3 MM, about 750,000 more than it was in 1939.

    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).
    I’ve never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.

    • Replies: @BurplesonAFB
    Why do you want millions of Syrians in Germany?

    I can only assume some sort of personal animus on your part.

    These people will not assist demographics, they will be net takers for generations.
    , @ben tillman

    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).

    I’ve never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.
     
    It's a constant refrain. You need to get out a bit more.

    But why does it matter?
    , @Anonymous
    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).

    I’ve never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.


    What are housing prices like in the UK?

    Why is Israel promoting jewish colonization of the West Bank?
    , @Anonymous
    If you bloody lived here - London and south east England - then you would know all about how overpopulation feels.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    I’ve never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.

     



    Belgium
    ...
    Belgium is one of the most urbanized and densely inhabited countries in the world with about 97 percent of the 10 million inhabitants living in cities in 2000.
    ...
    The central and northern parts of the country are covered by a dense network of medium-size and small cities
    ...
    less then 3 percent of the population is involved in agriculture

     

    , @Expletive Deleted
    England proper overtook the Benelux countries in the density stakes a couple of years ago. Over 1000/sq.m. and climbing.
    I don't hear any "refugees" clamouring for the right to start a new life in the Wester Ross, Machynlleth or South Armagh.
    I'd have more respect for them if they were, but it's That London and the megalopolis of the North&Midlands former industrial area or bust, as far as they're concerned. Which is why the likes of Nicola Sturgeon (Scotland's mini-Merkel) can proffer blithe assurances of acceptance on the nation's behalf.
    She kens fine they'll turn up, take one look, and run away screaming through the blizzards and bogs.
  40. @SPMoore8
    56 Million was correct at 1900, but it was almost 80 MM in 1939, and that's the number I had in mind. The current German population is 80.3 MM, about 750,000 more than it was in 1939.

    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).
    I've never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.

    Why do you want millions of Syrians in Germany?

    I can only assume some sort of personal animus on your part.

    These people will not assist demographics, they will be net takers for generations.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    On the contrary, I have very significant German heritage and I am proud of it. However, I am an American, and Germany's gonna do what it's gonna to do. All I can do is wish them good luck. I'm not sure that the (screened) refugees going to Germany are going to be a net benefit or not. But we'll find out. If they do it the way the French did it, then they're committing suicide. If they manage to assimilate them, then Germany will be fine. But it's not like Angela Merkel is the Fuehrerin. If the German people don't like it, then they have to do something about it.
  41. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Yes, I understand that many people are concerned with genetic heritage issues, but I am not particularly concerned with that.”

    That’s a respectable position to have, I imagine a lot of the saints in the books were like that, but it’s only a respectable position if it’s also understood that it’s respectable, even commendable, for other people to be quite concerned.

    There are those who can dream dreams and those who can see visions, but there are also those who have to keep things going in the mundane here and now.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    There are those who can dream dreams and those who can see visions, but there are also those who have to keep things going in the mundane here and now.

    Please explain.
    , @SPMoore8
    I have no problem with someone arguing an HBD POV, or for arguing for the superiority of the European peoples, and so on. The fact that I have no problem with it doesn't mean I think that point of view can prevail with declining birth rates.
  42. If you’re a northern European country with a falling population, you can do much, much worse than Syria. Heck, a lot of them have blue eyes and light hair, so you’re not even diluting that much.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes, but something about *demanding* someone else's country somehow offends my sense of morality greatly.
    , @dab
    You are still getting jihadists in battallion strength. So if your jihadists have a higher average IQ (if that is what you are saying) I doubt this will really be to your benefit.
  43. @Bud
    Antifas: Winning hearts and minds

    It’s curious because German antifas hate Germany (“Bomber Harris, Do it Again” is one of their favourite slogans, refering to the firebombing of Dresden) and yet they sell mass immigration arguing that it will be good for Germany.

    Either they hate Germany and want mass immigration to end the work Bomber Harris began, or they see mass immigration as something genuinely good, and their whole “Antideutsche” antics were just for show.

    • Replies: @Bud
    Antifas are mostly a bunch of confused college kids who hate their parents, thus authority. It would serve them right to live in a majority Muslim country.
  44. @GW

    Can’t make women have children.
     
    Sure you can. Restrict college and most occupations to men only. Take away women's sufferage. Outlaw abortion and birth control.

    If you take away the choice from women and give it to men the birth rate will collapse to even lower. Men are much less likely to desire children than women in just about all societies and the birth rate collapse has largely happened because men can now get the sex that they want without having to support children that they don’t want.

    Liberal countries like Scandinavia where women have more political influence are also more pro-natalist in actual policies as women tend to vote for parties that spend on things like daycare, health care and actually just giving free stuff for families with newborns and these countries also tend to have higher birth rates than more conservative countries like Germany. The Soviet Union had the highest birth rates of white societies right up to the end because they took away most of the financial burden from having children through socialized housing. The easiest way to completely kill your birth rate would be to expect the man of every family to handle all the costs of supporting children in a Western real estate market (which is often a “worst of both worlds” mix of a free market and politically corrupted central planning).

    One of the strangest myths in the comments of this site is the idea that birth rates have collapsed solely because of women not wanting children instead of mainly because of men not wanting children. Do you really think there’s some huge number of men out there who would be eager to support a wife and children entirely on their own income but who are missing that life of their dreams because there’s no matching women for them? It’s the other way around.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Disagree: Ozymandias
    • Replies: @GW
    My original comment was made slightly in jest, but your response was so ridiculous it needed a response.

    The truth of Western modernity is that women have been persuaded to pursue careers, education, individual lifestyles, etc. and have been discouraged from marriage/children. And yes, women do tend to want children more then men. This is natural. That's why it bears more fruit (literally) for society to incentivize the sex that naturally desires to have children to actually have more children. Also if women's goals were primarily outwardly focused (toward a family) instead of inwardly focused (being independent and modern), this would raise the price of sex for men, harnassing their strong desire for sex toward marriage.

    Notice that I didn't bring up taking away social programs, that seems to have been your own feminist assumption. But what is a bigger social program for a woman than a successful husband? The Scandinavian model of giving women a year off from their corporate jobs for maternity leave is actually anti-woman. In a traditiona system homemakers get the entirety of their lives away from a corporate job. No need for daycare either.

    As far as economics go, your point is moot. The question isn't how can birth rates be increased while keeping the same standard of living, the question is how birth rates can be increased. Plus tax incentives and other government subsidies to encourage families can both incentivize men to marry/beget and allow married adults a standard a living they would receive as singles.

  45. @anonymous
    "Yes, I understand that many people are concerned with genetic heritage issues, but I am not particularly concerned with that."

    That's a respectable position to have, I imagine a lot of the saints in the books were like that, but it's only a respectable position if it's also understood that it's respectable, even commendable, for other people to be quite concerned.

    There are those who can dream dreams and those who can see visions, but there are also those who have to keep things going in the mundane here and now.

    There are those who can dream dreams and those who can see visions, but there are also those who have to keep things going in the mundane here and now.

    Please explain.

  46. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    Well, if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    That makes no sense. Import them for what reason?

    Can’t make women have children.

    Of course, you can. It’s called rape. And you’re proposing the same thing (in principle) for an entire nation.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I am not "proposing" anything, I am simply trying to present a best case for why the Germans are doing what they are doing. Perhaps it's lipstick on a pig, but we won't know until we see how it plays out. Meanwhile, I have nothing to do with what Germany is doing, I'm just trying to suggest that they aren't committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We'll find out.
  47. @BurplesonAFB
    Why do you want millions of Syrians in Germany?

    I can only assume some sort of personal animus on your part.

    These people will not assist demographics, they will be net takers for generations.

    On the contrary, I have very significant German heritage and I am proud of it. However, I am an American, and Germany’s gonna do what it’s gonna to do. All I can do is wish them good luck. I’m not sure that the (screened) refugees going to Germany are going to be a net benefit or not. But we’ll find out. If they do it the way the French did it, then they’re committing suicide. If they manage to assimilate them, then Germany will be fine. But it’s not like Angela Merkel is the Fuehrerin. If the German people don’t like it, then they have to do something about it.

    • Replies: @PistolPete
    That's a pretty tall order to wait and find out about. National Suicide or a slightly assimilated underclass. What a choice!!


    I can't believe I'm witnessing the end of Europe. The Europeans don´t even seem upset about it, unless the media doing an amazing job of hiding it.
    , @Sunbeam
    On the contrary, I have very significant German heritage and I am proud of it. However, I am an American, and Germany’s gonna do what it’s gonna to do.

    Look you seem like you are a fan of what Germany is doing and think it is a good thing.

    This isn't really intended to be a direct attack on you, but you seem a lot more like a German than an American in the way you think. Do you think other Americans feel ties and loyalty to you?

    So go to where your kinship and loyalty lies. If you want to be a suicide queen, do it over there. You'll have lots of company.
  48. @SPMoore8
    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I'm OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.

    It's not the end of the world. I'm sure the genetic structure of Germans today bears scant resemblance to the Goths who were in the Crimea 1,500 years ago.

    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I’m OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.

    Why?

    Really, this is ridiculous. In the US, where White women still have two babies each, the government is still swamping White Americans with foreigners.

    In Germany, it may make sense to reduce density by reducing the population. But even if women were still having 2+ children each, there would be no reason to think that they would not be swamped by immigrants.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8

    But even if women were still having 2+ children each, there would be no reason to think that they would not be swamped by immigrants.
     
    They would still be swamped with immigrants but they would be refusing to take them; that is my guess, IF and only IF they did not have a declining population. That's my rationale for what they are doing.

    Keep in mind that Germany has chosen very deliberately to allow 1% of their population in immigrants this year. There must be a reason why they are doing it. And I don't think it's because of "Holocaust Guilt" or anything like that.
    , @5371
    [the US, where White women still have two babies each]

    Only 1.75, and that includes Arab etc. women.
  49. @Anonymous
    Among the strongest voices urging tolerance toward immigrants have been the German news media, from the mass-circulation Bild to the public television stations. Experts point to the news media’s positive stance as crucial in helping the public shift its perception of more foreigners coming to the country.

    Who runs the media in Germany?

    Germans.

  50. @Anonymous
    Among the strongest voices urging tolerance toward immigrants have been the German news media, from the mass-circulation Bild to the public television stations. Experts point to the news media’s positive stance as crucial in helping the public shift its perception of more foreigners coming to the country.

    Who runs the media in Germany?

    Germans.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Germans.

    What sort of Germans?

  51. @anonymous
    "Yes, I understand that many people are concerned with genetic heritage issues, but I am not particularly concerned with that."

    That's a respectable position to have, I imagine a lot of the saints in the books were like that, but it's only a respectable position if it's also understood that it's respectable, even commendable, for other people to be quite concerned.

    There are those who can dream dreams and those who can see visions, but there are also those who have to keep things going in the mundane here and now.

    I have no problem with someone arguing an HBD POV, or for arguing for the superiority of the European peoples, and so on. The fact that I have no problem with it doesn’t mean I think that point of view can prevail with declining birth rates.

  52. @ben tillman

    Well, if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.
     
    That makes no sense. Import them for what reason?

    Can’t make women have children.
     
    Of course, you can. It's called rape. And you're proposing the same thing (in principle) for an entire nation.

    I am not “proposing” anything, I am simply trying to present a best case for why the Germans are doing what they are doing. Perhaps it’s lipstick on a pig, but we won’t know until we see how it plays out. Meanwhile, I have nothing to do with what Germany is doing, I’m just trying to suggest that they aren’t committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We’ll find out.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    I am not “proposing” anything, I am simply trying to present a best case for why the Germans are doing what they are doing.
     
    You didn't present any case. You think a country needs to be full. There is only one reason a large population is preferable to a small one: to prevent invasion. But you are suggesting invasion as the solution, not the problem!


    Perhaps it’s lipstick on a pig, but we won’t know until we see how it plays out. Meanwhile, I have nothing to do with what Germany is doing, I’m just trying to suggest that they aren’t committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We’ll find out.
     
    Germany isn't doing anything. Its rulers are.
    , @Anonymous
    Meanwhile, I have nothing to do with what Germany is doing, I’m just trying to suggest that they aren’t committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We’ll find out.

    That doesn't sound like a risk worth taking.
    , @anon

    I’m just trying to suggest that they aren’t committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We’ll find out.
     
    Actually, we probably won't. There's basically zero chance that they're going to assimilate during our lifetimes. Will they in the future? Probably not, but I guess anything's possible.

    We can say that things are going to be pretty bad for a lot of people until they do, though. So, basically, the question is whether Germany ought to do something that will assuredly cause problems in the present, and might very well cause catastrophic problems for future generations, just because, you never know, it might turn out to be totally OK.

    And for what? To help a few refugees? So they can feel better about themselves? Are they planning on taking in every group of refugees from this day forward? I don't foresee a time in the future when there will ever be a shortage of people fleeing from some kind of crisis or another who would rather be in Europe. If the Germans decide that they really need bunches more Muslims, they can always let them in later. It's not like they're going anywhere. But once they're in, it's going to be a lot more difficult to get them out if they decide they've made a huge mistake.

    How anyone could consider this a responsible thing to do is beyond me.

  53. @Anon
    Christ this blog's commenter pool is filled with weirdos.

    Yes. This proposal makes integrating 800,000 Syrians look like a piece of cake.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Yes. This proposal makes integrating 800,000 Syrians look like a piece of cake."

    Personally, I think integration is worse than segregation.

    Integration will mean just about anyone can become German. And that will mean more to come.

    Also, the whole idea of 'refugee' is to seek refuge temporarily. If the idea is to allow these people to settle permanently, it is invasion pure and simple.

    They crashed into Germany and demand to stay.

    How can any nation survive a policy like that? And once word gets out that Germany is open to all, it is finished as who wouldn't want to go to Germany?
    , @GW
    Obvious Title IX supporter.
  54. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can’t make women have children.

    Germans and other Europeans used to have high birth rates, now they’re low. This is not some inevitable fate or irreversible trend. Making babies isn’t rocket science, it’s a social issue that can be addressed with basic cultural will power.

    If German/Western schools taught children that their biological ethnicity was worth keeping and stressed the value of having larger families, it would happen. Instead, our schools have moved mountain and ocean to reduce white racism and tell whites that their biology is no more special than a random stranger, which reduces fertility.

    When schools bent over backwards to reduce teen pregnancy, it worked. It’s not some impossible task. These changes are well within the control of today’s society and standard social engineering practices.

    The media and academics are bending over backwards to push mass immigration specifically into white nations against overwhelming popular sentiment. If they put that effort into protecting German ethnicity, it would happen. Persuading that group to change might be hard, but if the NYT pushed Germans to raise their birth rates with the passion that they are instead telling them to accept death, that would happen.

    Camp of the Saints predicted this back in 1973, but most normal people never saw this coming. This entire premise of mass immigration and quick demographic replacement were completely unheard of until recently.

    If you took the normal European citizens who are watching this demographic replacement in horror and gave them a ten or twenty year offer to either increase birth rates in their extended families and communities or accept cultural death and replacement, they would increase their birth rates. The mass immigration cabal doesn’t want to give them that chance.

    • Agree: Romanian
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Germans and other Europeans used to have high birth rates, now they’re low. This is not some inevitable fate or irreversible trend. Making babies isn’t rocket science, it’s a social issue that can be addressed with basic cultural will power.

    "If German/Western schools taught children that their biological ethnicity was worth keeping and stressed the value of having larger families, it would happen. Instead, our schools have moved mountain and ocean to reduce white racism and tell whites that their biology is no more special than a random stranger, which reduces fertility."

    I completely agree with you. When I was growing up we were taught that the world faced a very serious over-population problem. I would imagine that this contributed to some extent to a decrease in birth rate.
  55. @ben tillman

    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I’m OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.
     
    Why?

    Really, this is ridiculous. In the US, where White women still have two babies each, the government is still swamping White Americans with foreigners.

    In Germany, it may make sense to reduce density by reducing the population. But even if women were still having 2+ children each, there would be no reason to think that they would not be swamped by immigrants.

    But even if women were still having 2+ children each, there would be no reason to think that they would not be swamped by immigrants.

    They would still be swamped with immigrants but they would be refusing to take them; that is my guess, IF and only IF they did not have a declining population. That’s my rationale for what they are doing.

    Keep in mind that Germany has chosen very deliberately to allow 1% of their population in immigrants this year. There must be a reason why they are doing it. And I don’t think it’s because of “Holocaust Guilt” or anything like that.

    • Replies: @Richard

    Keep in mind that Germany has chosen very deliberately to allow 1% of their population in immigrants this year. There must be a reason why they are doing it. And I don’t think it’s because of “Holocaust Guilt” or anything like that.
     
    Is Germany's leadership telling the public the reason why? Furthermore, is the public involved in this reasoning through public debates and open analysis?
    , @Massimo Heitor

    Keep in mind that Germany has chosen very deliberately to allow 1% of their population in immigrants this year. There must be a reason why they are doing it. And I don’t think it’s because of “Holocaust Guilt” or anything like that.
     
    I'm sure the elite politicians and academic have their motivations, but they sure aren't explaining them, and we can only speculate. Merkel is no dummy. In 2010, she gave an infamous widely discussed speech declaring that:

    "And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other... has failed, utterly failed."

     

    Maybe that was nothing more than political pandering, but it seemed quite genuine. Now, she is obviously far more pro welcoming non European Muslim immigrants, and we can only speculate as to why.

    My fear is that it's just pressure from the open border elites or basic political pandering or the fact that the non-natives now control or are expected to control much of the vote and the native people officially have had their own political representation extinguished.

    There is a small chance the European elites have a better strategy in mind. If there is a Arab demographic takeover of Germany, maybe that justifies some kind of leadership takeover of the middle east and a transition away from democracy and universal suffrage? Combining universal suffrage and this style of true unstoppable open borders spells overt oppression for ethnic Germans who will always be outvoted by demographically larger rival ethnic groups.

    The native German people absolutely don't want this. There are a few Germans who love it, but the broader German people would have overwhelmingly voted this away if they were ever given a choice. The open border crowd wasn't interested in giving the natives a say in the matter.

    I'm stunned by how fast this is happening and how the German people really weren't given a choice, and how they weren't given a warning, as in, "Get your birth rates up or politicians will flip your entire country inside out for political favor". They were told, "hey don't think about this, look the other way. Oh, too late, we've secretly organized this permanent complete overthrow of your society."
  56. @SPMoore8

    But even if women were still having 2+ children each, there would be no reason to think that they would not be swamped by immigrants.
     
    They would still be swamped with immigrants but they would be refusing to take them; that is my guess, IF and only IF they did not have a declining population. That's my rationale for what they are doing.

    Keep in mind that Germany has chosen very deliberately to allow 1% of their population in immigrants this year. There must be a reason why they are doing it. And I don't think it's because of "Holocaust Guilt" or anything like that.

    Keep in mind that Germany has chosen very deliberately to allow 1% of their population in immigrants this year. There must be a reason why they are doing it. And I don’t think it’s because of “Holocaust Guilt” or anything like that.

    Is Germany’s leadership telling the public the reason why? Furthermore, is the public involved in this reasoning through public debates and open analysis?

  57. @SPMoore8
    56 Million was correct at 1900, but it was almost 80 MM in 1939, and that's the number I had in mind. The current German population is 80.3 MM, about 750,000 more than it was in 1939.

    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).
    I've never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.

    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).

    I’ve never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.

    It’s a constant refrain. You need to get out a bit more.

    But why does it matter?

  58. Jean-Claude Lenoir of Salam, a migrant charity, said: “It’s a good thing that the Jules Ferry day centre has opened, it shows the state has recognised that these migrants exist. But it’s not enough.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/06/at-night-its-like-a-horror-movie-inside-calaiss-official-shanty-town

    It’s not enough and it never will be. The strange part is how states spend billions and everything gets worse. US spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan and now everything is getting worse there and here. Spend more on space and your dollar will go farther.

  59. @International Jew
    So what would be so bad about having just 65 million people in Germany? Finland is doing pretty well on a tenth of that, Iceland on a hundredth! (Meanwhile Bangla Desh has three or four times as many people...)

    Germany doesn't need to field a hundred army divisions to invade Russia any more.

    It's true that for a while there'll be some adjustment issues connected to having a high median age. But even so, I'll bet most German oldsters would prefer to have fellow German oldsters, their old friends, for neighbors, than a lot of vibrant Arabs waking them up at dawn with the Muezeen's call to prayer, slaughtering goats, burning cars, demanding "civil rights", beating up their immodestly dressed granddaughters when they come to visit, competing for hospital resources...

    I don't buy any of that "demographic death spiral" nonsense either. I've studied demographics and never heard anything like that -- because it makes no sense whatsoever. A population can take off anytime young people start breeding. You only need a dozen couples or so (depending on how averse you are to cousin marriages). 70,000 German Jews grew to nine million between about 1200 and 1939.

    I don’t buy any of that “demographic death spiral” nonsense either. I’ve studied demographics and never heard anything like that — because it makes no sense whatsoever.

    Correct, it is more BS that the open borders crowd throws out there to obfuscate the issue. I recall when the used to say, and some still do, that we needed immigrants to pay for our social safety nets since our aging populations now have lower ratios of workers to retirees. Of course they used this excuse to bring in tons of people who are net tax consumers, so they’ve only exacerbated the stress on the social safety net. Now it seems they are just saying you need immigrants so your population doesn’t decrease, as though absolute numbers of people will make all well.

    As for the death spiral, nations have taken hits to their populations throughout history, yet have recovered. It doesn’t take much to turn the demographic trend around. Just look at the post WW2 Baby Boom in the USA. All it took was ideal living conditions which occurred after WW2 when the USA was enjoying great prosperity relative to the rest of the world, and it was still protected by the Immigration Act of 1924, which prevented the flooding of the nation by third world hordes. The natives evidently found family formation affordable and went at it. Of course it helped that the culture being promoted by the media was conducive and not destructive.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    As for the death spiral, nations have taken hits to their populations throughout history, yet have recovered. It doesn’t take much to turn the demographic trend around. Just look at the post WW2 Baby Boom in the USA.
     
    Or look at post-Plague Europe. The survivors enjoyed a substantial increase in the standard of living.

    Yes, the men at the Alamo could have used some reinforcements (they had a genuine labor shortage!), but who wants to invade Germany now other than the spawn of the Third World?
  60. @SPMoore8
    I am not "proposing" anything, I am simply trying to present a best case for why the Germans are doing what they are doing. Perhaps it's lipstick on a pig, but we won't know until we see how it plays out. Meanwhile, I have nothing to do with what Germany is doing, I'm just trying to suggest that they aren't committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We'll find out.

    I am not “proposing” anything, I am simply trying to present a best case for why the Germans are doing what they are doing.

    You didn’t present any case. You think a country needs to be full. There is only one reason a large population is preferable to a small one: to prevent invasion. But you are suggesting invasion as the solution, not the problem!

    Perhaps it’s lipstick on a pig, but we won’t know until we see how it plays out. Meanwhile, I have nothing to do with what Germany is doing, I’m just trying to suggest that they aren’t committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We’ll find out.

    Germany isn’t doing anything. Its rulers are.

    • Replies: @bossel

    There is only one reason a large population is preferable to a small one: to prevent invasion.
     
    Actually, the German economy is already complaining about a lack of people. This will only grow in the future, even though they already imported quite a number of workers from other European countries.
    German (future) pensioners fear for their pensions, since the German system relies on the workforce (well, their tax) to support the pensions. Hence, if the workforce shrinks, the pension level is in danger.

    If the Syrian refugees can be integrated as was done with the Turks, it won't be much of a problem. A problem may arise because this could set a precedent. In other crises in the future refugees may feel that Germany is the easiest option. German politicians already say that the current situation is special, but will future refugees hear that message (& believe it)?

    Germany isn’t doing anything. Its rulers are.
     
    You are not really well-informed, are you? There are lots of Germany who actually welcome the refugees. Many people volunteer to help or donate. The anti-immigration protesters are a small minority. At the moment most Germans still think that Syrian refugees should be let in. This will probably change if the wave doesn't stop, though.
    , @International Jew

    There is only one reason a large population is preferable to a small one: to prevent invasion. But you are suggesting invasion as the solution, not the problem!
     
    Nice.
  61. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SPMoore8
    56 Million was correct at 1900, but it was almost 80 MM in 1939, and that's the number I had in mind. The current German population is 80.3 MM, about 750,000 more than it was in 1939.

    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).
    I've never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.

    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).

    I’ve never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.

    What are housing prices like in the UK?

    Why is Israel promoting jewish colonization of the West Bank?

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Much of the UK land area is hills/mountains in Scotland and Wales. The English flat areas are much denser in population. The UK is currently in a housing bubble.

    The West Bank and Golan Heights, are the high ground. The aquifers are also there. Tel Aviv housing is an overheated market.
  62. @SPMoore8
    I am not "proposing" anything, I am simply trying to present a best case for why the Germans are doing what they are doing. Perhaps it's lipstick on a pig, but we won't know until we see how it plays out. Meanwhile, I have nothing to do with what Germany is doing, I'm just trying to suggest that they aren't committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We'll find out.

    Meanwhile, I have nothing to do with what Germany is doing, I’m just trying to suggest that they aren’t committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We’ll find out.

    That doesn’t sound like a risk worth taking.

  63. @Mr ED.
    Germans.

    Germans.

    What sort of Germans?

    • Replies: @Mr Ed.
    I am not sure what you mean. The largest media group in Germany Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck which publishes Die Welt is owned by Stefan von Holtzbrinck and his wife. The Axel Spinger group which publishes Bild was started by an average guy in Hamburg and is owned by his son. Other than being super rich they seem like ordinary Germans.
    , @Mr Ed.
    I am not sure what you mean. The largest media group in Germany Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck which publishes Die Welt is owned by Stefan von Holtzbrinck and his wife. The Axel Spinger group which publishes Bild was started by an average guy in Hamburg and is owned by his son. Other than being super rich they seem like ordinary Germans.
  64. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:
    @Mr ED.
    Yes. This proposal makes integrating 800,000 Syrians look like a piece of cake.

    “Yes. This proposal makes integrating 800,000 Syrians look like a piece of cake.”

    Personally, I think integration is worse than segregation.

    Integration will mean just about anyone can become German. And that will mean more to come.

    Also, the whole idea of ‘refugee’ is to seek refuge temporarily. If the idea is to allow these people to settle permanently, it is invasion pure and simple.

    They crashed into Germany and demand to stay.

    How can any nation survive a policy like that? And once word gets out that Germany is open to all, it is finished as who wouldn’t want to go to Germany?

  65. @iSteveFan

    I don’t buy any of that “demographic death spiral” nonsense either. I’ve studied demographics and never heard anything like that — because it makes no sense whatsoever.
     
    Correct, it is more BS that the open borders crowd throws out there to obfuscate the issue. I recall when the used to say, and some still do, that we needed immigrants to pay for our social safety nets since our aging populations now have lower ratios of workers to retirees. Of course they used this excuse to bring in tons of people who are net tax consumers, so they've only exacerbated the stress on the social safety net. Now it seems they are just saying you need immigrants so your population doesn't decrease, as though absolute numbers of people will make all well.

    As for the death spiral, nations have taken hits to their populations throughout history, yet have recovered. It doesn't take much to turn the demographic trend around. Just look at the post WW2 Baby Boom in the USA. All it took was ideal living conditions which occurred after WW2 when the USA was enjoying great prosperity relative to the rest of the world, and it was still protected by the Immigration Act of 1924, which prevented the flooding of the nation by third world hordes. The natives evidently found family formation affordable and went at it. Of course it helped that the culture being promoted by the media was conducive and not destructive.

    As for the death spiral, nations have taken hits to their populations throughout history, yet have recovered. It doesn’t take much to turn the demographic trend around. Just look at the post WW2 Baby Boom in the USA.

    Or look at post-Plague Europe. The survivors enjoyed a substantial increase in the standard of living.

    Yes, the men at the Alamo could have used some reinforcements (they had a genuine labor shortage!), but who wants to invade Germany now other than the spawn of the Third World?

  66. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    Maybe the Germans can establish friendship clubs in every city where the swarthy young Muslim arrivals can bond with the 40% of German women with advanced degrees who remain childless.

  67. @Jaakko Raipala
    If you take away the choice from women and give it to men the birth rate will collapse to even lower. Men are much less likely to desire children than women in just about all societies and the birth rate collapse has largely happened because men can now get the sex that they want without having to support children that they don't want.

    Liberal countries like Scandinavia where women have more political influence are also more pro-natalist in actual policies as women tend to vote for parties that spend on things like daycare, health care and actually just giving free stuff for families with newborns and these countries also tend to have higher birth rates than more conservative countries like Germany. The Soviet Union had the highest birth rates of white societies right up to the end because they took away most of the financial burden from having children through socialized housing. The easiest way to completely kill your birth rate would be to expect the man of every family to handle all the costs of supporting children in a Western real estate market (which is often a "worst of both worlds" mix of a free market and politically corrupted central planning).

    One of the strangest myths in the comments of this site is the idea that birth rates have collapsed solely because of women not wanting children instead of mainly because of men not wanting children. Do you really think there's some huge number of men out there who would be eager to support a wife and children entirely on their own income but who are missing that life of their dreams because there's no matching women for them? It's the other way around.

    My original comment was made slightly in jest, but your response was so ridiculous it needed a response.

    The truth of Western modernity is that women have been persuaded to pursue careers, education, individual lifestyles, etc. and have been discouraged from marriage/children. And yes, women do tend to want children more then men. This is natural. That’s why it bears more fruit (literally) for society to incentivize the sex that naturally desires to have children to actually have more children. Also if women’s goals were primarily outwardly focused (toward a family) instead of inwardly focused (being independent and modern), this would raise the price of sex for men, harnassing their strong desire for sex toward marriage.

    Notice that I didn’t bring up taking away social programs, that seems to have been your own feminist assumption. But what is a bigger social program for a woman than a successful husband? The Scandinavian model of giving women a year off from their corporate jobs for maternity leave is actually anti-woman. In a traditiona system homemakers get the entirety of their lives away from a corporate job. No need for daycare either.

    As far as economics go, your point is moot. The question isn’t how can birth rates be increased while keeping the same standard of living, the question is how birth rates can be increased. Plus tax incentives and other government subsidies to encourage families can both incentivize men to marry/beget and allow married adults a standard a living they would receive as singles.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    The Scandinavian model of giving women a year off from their corporate jobs for maternity leave is actually anti-woman. In a traditional system homemakers get the entirety of their lives away from a corporate job. No need for daycare either.
     
    No kidding. This propaganda campaign to convince women they need careers is another testament to the almost limitless power of the mass communications media.

    Careers suck.

    They are a means, not an end. Men have careers because they produce money, status, and access to women.

    , @Jaakko Raipala
    I'm not a feminist or an anti-feminist, I am just interested in what works and what doesn't and the national differences in Europe tend to suggest that conservative policies and attitudes lead to failure in birth rates while more liberal attitudes lead to higher birth rates nation-wide. I am most definitely an anti-communist and I still pointed out that communist societies could maintain high birth rates.

    Again, the fall in birth rates has nothing to do with women working outside of child care because women always worked and this "traditionalist" vision where "traditional" women spent all their time taking care of children was never a reality. Here's what an actually traditional society looked like for average people:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Raatajat_rahanalaiset.JPG

    Men worked, women worked, children already worked when they were in what we'd now consider preschool age. Without contraception poor families had 8 children and a couple of them would most likely die before adulthood, often because families were too busy working to watch the children. An individual child with a modern mother with a job gets more hours of motherly care than a child in a pre-modern traditional society.

    Wealthy people would, of course, consider it a sign of status if the wife didn't have to do any work - but then, it would be an even bigger sign of status if the man of the house didn't have to do any work. The wealthy had nannies do most of their child care for all of history and it's not because aristocratic women would have been somehow indoctrinated into hating child care. Daycare and other Social Democrat type policies are basically about giving the average Swede a version of the things that the gentry always enjoyed.

    The big transition for women was that mass production killed the necessity of a lot of the tasks given to women in a traditional society. Back in the agrarian days, villages would for example not have chain clothing stores with huge selections of stuff made in China. The women would make the clothing and spend much of their time passing on the needed skills and knowledge to the next generation. Today there's little point for every woman to learn those crafts or spend hours and hours of every day making clothing so women tend to seek education and work elsewhere. Human behavior adapts when incentives change. Nothing surprising.
  68. @SPMoore8
    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I'm OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.

    It's not the end of the world. I'm sure the genetic structure of Germans today bears scant resemblance to the Goths who were in the Crimea 1,500 years ago.

    I’m OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.

    You write that as if it is inevitable that any nation that fails to continue to grow, or to maintain their current 2015 level population is destined to be overrun. Why is this so? Is this going to happen to Japan or South Korea? Is this going to happen to China?

    Now I have no doubt that the world is a nasty place, and nations from time to time are overrun by armed invasions. But I have no idea why it is inevitable for an unarmed group of people to be able to overrun militarily superior nations, with economies and technological prowess orders of magnitudes higher.

    I think the people of Europe and the US should be asking what Madeleine Albright asked 16 plus years ago, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it? “

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Japan is a long ways off geographically from a high-fertility Third World nation. South Korea is next door to one, but its their cousins.

    I doubt a mass migration to China could get across the Himalayas or the Taklimakan desert.

    Australia sits across from 200 million Indonesian Muslims.

    There's a subway under the Bosporous.

    ---

    The undeveloped Gandhi was able to defeat the British Empire, by hitting its weak point. That weak point was the idea that Britain was a civilizing force against barbarians. Gandhi was able to make the British look like barbarians.

    If I was guessing, I think a similar Third World figure could do the same to China, if they hit the Chinese weak point: Greed and Anti-Americanism.
  69. @Mr ED.
    Yes. This proposal makes integrating 800,000 Syrians look like a piece of cake.

    Obvious Title IX supporter.

    • Replies: @Mr Ed.
    Yes actually but I wasn't making a moral judgement about which would be better. I was simply remarking on how difficult to would be to achieve your proposal. It's strange that on a thread where people are arguing refugees can't be accommodated because they won't accept the cultural values of Europe you are proposing the radical dismemberment of basic European values.
  70. @Priss Factor
    "I assume you mean to call me a dummy"

    No, a dammy is someone who isn't dumb talking dumb.

    "we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer."

    Ehhhh? China has had one-child policy, but it was not to make China un-Chinese. It was to handle the population problem.

    So what if the German population shrinks? Germany with 80 million, Germany with 50 million is Germany, Germany with 30 million is Germany.
    Germany lost 10 million in WWII, but it still remained German. Russia lost 20 million but still remained Russian.
    Who says reduction in population MUST MEAN the nation must be flooded with foreigners? Where do you get such logic?

    "I’m sure the genetic structure of Germans today bears scant resemblance to the Goths who were in the Crimea 1,500 years ago."

    I'll bet there are lots of similarities. Based on how Germanic barbarians were described by the ancients like Tacitus and Medivalists like Ibn Fadlan, I'd say Germans today are remarkably like Germans of the past. Of course, there were migrations and mixings.

    At any rate, given the globalized nature of the world where millions can move so fast all across the world, border control is more important than ever.
    Precisely because globalism facilitates such ease of movement, nations must be all the more vigilant in checking who comes in and out. Otherwise, nations will be lost. Especially rich ones.

    It's funny that a dammy like you is pontificating here. This is a HBD site. You seem to go for culture, i.e. anyone can culturally become German.

    Now, I got nothing against Syrians and others(though Negroes is another business altogether). But Germany didn't mess up the Middle East. Why must they pay the price?

    And the idea that these newcomers are gonna add to the German economy... it's based on the crackpot egalitarian notion(that even Libs don't really believe) that all peoples are equal in talent.

    Syrians aren't the worst in the world, but they aren't the best material either.

    Also, why should anyone assimilate into a nation without self-confidence?
    Germans are saying anyone is German, German identity doesn't matter, German borders don't matter, and etc. What is there to assimilate too? Holocaust guilt as the cornerstone of German identity? And if Germans couldn't say NO to the current migrants, what about future migrants? And since the 'new Germans' made of recent migrants came to Germany illegally, they wouldn't have any right to deny the entry of future migrants.

    This is all crazy.

    The 800k refugees mostly Syrian aren’t the problem. The next million or so from Syria won’t be the real problem. The real problem will come when there’s a civil war in Nigeria or Congo and millions hoof it to Libya onto boats to Italy then on to Germany.

    How will the West respond then? Can’t turn them away because now you’ve set a precedent. If you let in Arab Muslims certainly you can let in African Christians.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "The 800k refugees mostly Syrian aren’t the problem. The next million or so from Syria won’t be the real problem."

    I agree that Syrians are among the better refugees.

    But they are still too many. Also, look at them. They are different genetically. They will lead to darkening of the German race.

    And given Germany's problem with Turks, I don't think this will end well.

    Of course, Germany has 900,000 blacks already.

    If the only way Germans can gain moral credit is by abolishing themselves, it is truly a sad thing indeed.

    At least, how about dividing Germany in half again. One half remains all German, the other half can go for multi-culti garbage.

  71. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:

    As horrible as the current crisis is, this is only the beginning.

    If word gets out that Europe has no will to defend itself, the levee is gonna totally go and massive flood will be unrelenting.

    Germany should be setting the example of European will and power, but it is doing the very opposite. By telling the world, ‘ve vill take all of you’, Germany turned neighboring nations into invasion territories as well. To get the Germany as their Land of Milk and Honey, all the ‘migrants’ must trample through all the neighboring nations.

    During WWII, Germany led in invading other peoples.

    Now they lead in making all of Europe be invaded.

    Germany not only violates itself but neighboring nations through which the invasion must happen. It has made all of Europe the Lebensraum target of foreigners.

    Merkel is a totally disgusting creature who should be tried.

    It is Lebensgone now.

  72. @ben tillman

    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I’m OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.
     
    Why?

    Really, this is ridiculous. In the US, where White women still have two babies each, the government is still swamping White Americans with foreigners.

    In Germany, it may make sense to reduce density by reducing the population. But even if women were still having 2+ children each, there would be no reason to think that they would not be swamped by immigrants.

    [the US, where White women still have two babies each]

    Only 1.75, and that includes Arab etc. women.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    [the US, where White women still have two babies each]

    Only 1.75, and that includes Arab etc. women.
     
    No, that's wrong. But that's close to the number of White babies that White women have, since 10% are mixed-race.
  73. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:
    @Ed
    The 800k refugees mostly Syrian aren't the problem. The next million or so from Syria won't be the real problem. The real problem will come when there's a civil war in Nigeria or Congo and millions hoof it to Libya onto boats to Italy then on to Germany.

    How will the West respond then? Can't turn them away because now you've set a precedent. If you let in Arab Muslims certainly you can let in African Christians.

    “The 800k refugees mostly Syrian aren’t the problem. The next million or so from Syria won’t be the real problem.”

    I agree that Syrians are among the better refugees.

    But they are still too many. Also, look at them. They are different genetically. They will lead to darkening of the German race.

    And given Germany’s problem with Turks, I don’t think this will end well.

    Of course, Germany has 900,000 blacks already.

    If the only way Germans can gain moral credit is by abolishing themselves, it is truly a sad thing indeed.

    At least, how about dividing Germany in half again. One half remains all German, the other half can go for multi-culti garbage.

    • Replies: @bossel

    They will lead to darkening of the German race.
     
    Ooh, what a horrible idea! Phhh...
    What German race, actually? There is nothing like that. The original German population was already a mixture: Slavs, Germans & Celts. & the last 40 to 50 years have seen quite some influx from other populations.

    And given Germany’s problem with Turks
     
    Not a big problem. There are just a few hot spots like Berlin-Neukölln or some area in Duisburg (compared to French Banlieues that's nothing, anyway), else Germans & Turks get along quite well.
  74. @Hippopotamusdrome


    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I’m skeptical, but it’s possible.

     

    Muslim immigrants to Syria have had 1,381 years to assimilate, how has that going along?

    Siege of Damascus (634)

    “Muslim immigrants to Syria have had 1,381 years to assimilate, how has that going along? ”

    Fine until NATO started and fueled a civil war.

    If East Germany stayed independent they would not have to accept immigrants just like Poland does not. If they stayed communist immigrants would not go there like N Korea.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    Muslim immigrants to Syria have had 1,381 years to assimilate, how has that going along?


    Fine until NATO started and fueled a civil war.

     


     
    Scooby-Doo villian: I would have gotten away with having a mufti-ethnic state if it hadn't been for you meddling foreign powers exploiting ethnic fault-lines to incite a civil war.
    , @Anon 2
    Poland has already accepted over 400,000 Ukrainian
    refugees. Technically, the vast majority have short-term
    work permits which apparently can be renewed indefinitely
    or are illegals. In any case, they have no intention of
    returning to Ukraine, and, based on their Facebook
    comments and anecdotal evidence, they seem to love it
    in Poland. Most send money to their relatives in Ukraine,
    and go back for visits, but typically learn Polish very
    quickly and some even study at Poland's universities.

    Pick-up artists like Roosh V who tried Ukraine but moved
    permanently to Poland as Ukraine became unsafe now have
    a choice in Poland between Polish girls or Ukrainian
    girls. Like a kid in a candy store. And the country is still
    99.9% white and Christian. Poland is now probably the
    largest white country in the world. Ukraine and Russia
    are multiracial.

  75. @Anonymous
    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).

    I’ve never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.


    What are housing prices like in the UK?

    Why is Israel promoting jewish colonization of the West Bank?

    Much of the UK land area is hills/mountains in Scotland and Wales. The English flat areas are much denser in population. The UK is currently in a housing bubble.

    The West Bank and Golan Heights, are the high ground. The aquifers are also there. Tel Aviv housing is an overheated market.

  76. @SPMoore8
    On the contrary, I have very significant German heritage and I am proud of it. However, I am an American, and Germany's gonna do what it's gonna to do. All I can do is wish them good luck. I'm not sure that the (screened) refugees going to Germany are going to be a net benefit or not. But we'll find out. If they do it the way the French did it, then they're committing suicide. If they manage to assimilate them, then Germany will be fine. But it's not like Angela Merkel is the Fuehrerin. If the German people don't like it, then they have to do something about it.

    That’s a pretty tall order to wait and find out about. National Suicide or a slightly assimilated underclass. What a choice!!

    I can’t believe I’m witnessing the end of Europe. The Europeans don´t even seem upset about it, unless the media doing an amazing job of hiding it.

    • Replies: @anon

    The Europeans don´t even seem upset about it, unless the media doing an amazing job of hiding it.
     
    Oh, I don't know. The media seems happy to report on "anti-immigrant riots". They like talking about people being opposed to immigration as long as they can portray the sentiment as stupid, violent and dangerous.
  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Massimo Heitor

    But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can’t make women have children.
     
    Germans and other Europeans used to have high birth rates, now they're low. This is not some inevitable fate or irreversible trend. Making babies isn't rocket science, it's a social issue that can be addressed with basic cultural will power.

    If German/Western schools taught children that their biological ethnicity was worth keeping and stressed the value of having larger families, it would happen. Instead, our schools have moved mountain and ocean to reduce white racism and tell whites that their biology is no more special than a random stranger, which reduces fertility.

    When schools bent over backwards to reduce teen pregnancy, it worked. It's not some impossible task. These changes are well within the control of today's society and standard social engineering practices.

    The media and academics are bending over backwards to push mass immigration specifically into white nations against overwhelming popular sentiment. If they put that effort into protecting German ethnicity, it would happen. Persuading that group to change might be hard, but if the NYT pushed Germans to raise their birth rates with the passion that they are instead telling them to accept death, that would happen.

    Camp of the Saints predicted this back in 1973, but most normal people never saw this coming. This entire premise of mass immigration and quick demographic replacement were completely unheard of until recently.

    If you took the normal European citizens who are watching this demographic replacement in horror and gave them a ten or twenty year offer to either increase birth rates in their extended families and communities or accept cultural death and replacement, they would increase their birth rates. The mass immigration cabal doesn't want to give them that chance.

    “Germans and other Europeans used to have high birth rates, now they’re low. This is not some inevitable fate or irreversible trend. Making babies isn’t rocket science, it’s a social issue that can be addressed with basic cultural will power.

    “If German/Western schools taught children that their biological ethnicity was worth keeping and stressed the value of having larger families, it would happen. Instead, our schools have moved mountain and ocean to reduce white racism and tell whites that their biology is no more special than a random stranger, which reduces fertility.”

    I completely agree with you. When I was growing up we were taught that the world faced a very serious over-population problem. I would imagine that this contributed to some extent to a decrease in birth rate.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "When I was growing up we were taught that the world faced a very serious over-population problem."

    We were told that we had to save the world by having less children. And now that we're having less children, we're told that we need to be replaced because we're not having enough children.

    Would be interesting to go back and review where all the population reduction messages were coming from. Not that it really matters, it's all bullshit anyway. If nations can only survive by having an ever increasing population, then the inevitable end will be an overpopulated planet that has destroyed its environmental support system and succumbs to famine and plague. The pyramid scheme is not a viable model, never has been.
  78. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    You all know what happened to the real ‘children’s crusade’, don’t you?

    Being unable to perform miracles and ‘tramp across the sea’, some ‘friendly’ Levantine ship owners offered them ‘free passage’ across the Mediterranean, as an apparent ‘act of kindness’.
    Only that they promptly delivered the kids to Arab slave marts.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Being unable to perform miracles and ‘tramp across the sea’, some ‘friendly’ Levantine ship owners offered them ‘free passage’ across the Mediterranean, as an apparent ‘act of kindness’.
    Only that they promptly delivered the kids to Arab slave marts.


    Our ancient friends. Did this feed into the Barbary slave trade or the other ones...

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13798-slave-trade

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe#Jewish_Merchants

    Records of long-distance Jewish slave merchants date at least as far back as 492, when Pope Gelasius permitted Jews to import non-Christian slaves into Italy, at the request of a Jewish friend from Telesina. [26] [27] [28] By the turn of the seventh century, Jews had become the chief slave traders in Italy, and were active in Gaelic territories. ... By the 800s and 900s, Jewish merchants, sometimes called Radhanites, were a major force in the slave trade continent-wide. [9] [30] [31]
  79. @Anonymous
    Germans.

    What sort of Germans?

    I am not sure what you mean. The largest media group in Germany Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck which publishes Die Welt is owned by Stefan von Holtzbrinck and his wife. The Axel Spinger group which publishes Bild was started by an average guy in Hamburg and is owned by his son. Other than being super rich they seem like ordinary Germans.

  80. @Anonymous
    Germans.

    What sort of Germans?

    I am not sure what you mean. The largest media group in Germany Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck which publishes Die Welt is owned by Stefan von Holtzbrinck and his wife. The Axel Spinger group which publishes Bild was started by an average guy in Hamburg and is owned by his son. Other than being super rich they seem like ordinary Germans.

  81. Fine until NATO started and fueled a civil war.

    That’s BS. What about the Gulf Arabs and Israel? Are they compelled to take in refugees too?

  82. @iSteveFan

    I’m OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.
     
    You write that as if it is inevitable that any nation that fails to continue to grow, or to maintain their current 2015 level population is destined to be overrun. Why is this so? Is this going to happen to Japan or South Korea? Is this going to happen to China?

    Now I have no doubt that the world is a nasty place, and nations from time to time are overrun by armed invasions. But I have no idea why it is inevitable for an unarmed group of people to be able to overrun militarily superior nations, with economies and technological prowess orders of magnitudes higher.

    I think the people of Europe and the US should be asking what Madeleine Albright asked 16 plus years ago, "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it? "

    Japan is a long ways off geographically from a high-fertility Third World nation. South Korea is next door to one, but its their cousins.

    I doubt a mass migration to China could get across the Himalayas or the Taklimakan desert.

    Australia sits across from 200 million Indonesian Muslims.

    There’s a subway under the Bosporous.

    The undeveloped Gandhi was able to defeat the British Empire, by hitting its weak point. That weak point was the idea that Britain was a civilizing force against barbarians. Gandhi was able to make the British look like barbarians.

    If I was guessing, I think a similar Third World figure could do the same to China, if they hit the Chinese weak point: Greed and Anti-Americanism.

    • Replies: @Rich
    It's a common fiction that the Brits pulled out of the sub-Continent because they didn't want to look like barbarians. After WWII, the mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy and the threat of the Indian National Army left the Brits with no choice but to withdraw, they simply didn't have the manpower or the stomach, for a fight. Atlee gave credit to Gandhi in order to save face for the Brits. Churchill's foolish guarantee to Poland led to the destruction of the British Empire and Poland was lost anyway. Britain, with America's and Russia's help defeated Germany, but lost itself.
    , @Ed
    Except China would deal with a Ghandi in a much more lethal fashion than Britain. Britain's "weak point" has always been it's fastedious adherence to the rule of law & popular sentiment. That's not much of an issue in China thus I doubt your scenario ever becomes a reality.
  83. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    Yes, birth-rates in Europe are dire. There’s no getting away from that.

    BUT

    The EU, at this very moment – and for the last 40 years actually, and certainly indefinitely into the future, simply CANNOT generate enough jobs for those infants once the grow up to be adults. Youth unemployment in the EU is ridiculously high.
    This is due to shitheads running EU economic policy.
    The EU is a horrid, horrid arrogant, pompous ‘superior’ dictatorship. This will not change.

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    Yes, birth-rates in Europe are dire. There’s no getting away from that.
     
    Birth rates can be changed with basic cultural will power. If society came together and agreed that raising native European fertility was important, that would happen. With mixed societies it's harder to unmix or selectively boost fertility, but it's possible.

    I met a typical western woman who said all throughout her teens and twenties every parent and teacher was telling her, "Don't get pregnant! Don't get pregnant!". When she was childless in her early thirties, her family went into the reverse panic and started telling her, "Get pregnant! Get pregnant! Try and get the whole proper husband and marriage thing but if that doesn't work out, then just get pregnant by accident."

    My point is that that messaging actually works. As a single man, I can't effect cultural change. I tell my cousins to have more kids and they think I am a socially awkward and crazy. But if the broader culture adopts larger family sizes as a value, it would happen.

    When I was in school, teachers and parents were constantly telling us "don't have kids, don't have kids." We were warned about over population and the massive responsibility of parent hood.
  84. @GW
    Obvious Title IX supporter.

    Yes actually but I wasn’t making a moral judgement about which would be better. I was simply remarking on how difficult to would be to achieve your proposal. It’s strange that on a thread where people are arguing refugees can’t be accommodated because they won’t accept the cultural values of Europe you are proposing the radical dismemberment of basic European values.

  85. @GW
    My original comment was made slightly in jest, but your response was so ridiculous it needed a response.

    The truth of Western modernity is that women have been persuaded to pursue careers, education, individual lifestyles, etc. and have been discouraged from marriage/children. And yes, women do tend to want children more then men. This is natural. That's why it bears more fruit (literally) for society to incentivize the sex that naturally desires to have children to actually have more children. Also if women's goals were primarily outwardly focused (toward a family) instead of inwardly focused (being independent and modern), this would raise the price of sex for men, harnassing their strong desire for sex toward marriage.

    Notice that I didn't bring up taking away social programs, that seems to have been your own feminist assumption. But what is a bigger social program for a woman than a successful husband? The Scandinavian model of giving women a year off from their corporate jobs for maternity leave is actually anti-woman. In a traditiona system homemakers get the entirety of their lives away from a corporate job. No need for daycare either.

    As far as economics go, your point is moot. The question isn't how can birth rates be increased while keeping the same standard of living, the question is how birth rates can be increased. Plus tax incentives and other government subsidies to encourage families can both incentivize men to marry/beget and allow married adults a standard a living they would receive as singles.

    The Scandinavian model of giving women a year off from their corporate jobs for maternity leave is actually anti-woman. In a traditional system homemakers get the entirety of their lives away from a corporate job. No need for daycare either.

    No kidding. This propaganda campaign to convince women they need careers is another testament to the almost limitless power of the mass communications media.

    Careers suck.

    They are a means, not an end. Men have careers because they produce money, status, and access to women.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Real incomes in the US have been flat for a long time. A second earner in the household is an easy way around. No propaganda required, just keeping up with the Joneses.
  86. @SPMoore8
    56 Million was correct at 1900, but it was almost 80 MM in 1939, and that's the number I had in mind. The current German population is 80.3 MM, about 750,000 more than it was in 1939.

    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).
    I've never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.

    If you bloody lived here – London and south east England – then you would know all about how overpopulation feels.

  87. @5371
    [the US, where White women still have two babies each]

    Only 1.75, and that includes Arab etc. women.

    [the US, where White women still have two babies each]

    Only 1.75, and that includes Arab etc. women.

    No, that’s wrong. But that’s close to the number of White babies that White women have, since 10% are mixed-race.

    • Replies: @5371
    It's not wrong. See 2013 TFRs on page 31 of

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_01.pdf

    2014 TFRs are not out yet, but birth rates are, so we can tell they will be almost the same.
  88. @Earl Lemongrab
    If you're a northern European country with a falling population, you can do much, much worse than Syria. Heck, a lot of them have blue eyes and light hair, so you're not even diluting that much.

    Yes, but something about *demanding* someone else’s country somehow offends my sense of morality greatly.

  89. ““Yes, I understand that many people are concerned with genetic heritage issues, but I am not particularly concerned with that.”

    That’s a respectable position to have,”

    No, it’s not. It’s time to say that it isn’t. Not at all. Anymore than saying that China should swamp the Tibetans demographically is ‘respectable’. It’s doubly not respectable when it is presented, as it is by so many including SPMoore, as ‘inevitable’.

  90. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @SPMoore8
    I am not "proposing" anything, I am simply trying to present a best case for why the Germans are doing what they are doing. Perhaps it's lipstick on a pig, but we won't know until we see how it plays out. Meanwhile, I have nothing to do with what Germany is doing, I'm just trying to suggest that they aren't committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We'll find out.

    I’m just trying to suggest that they aren’t committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We’ll find out.

    Actually, we probably won’t. There’s basically zero chance that they’re going to assimilate during our lifetimes. Will they in the future? Probably not, but I guess anything’s possible.

    We can say that things are going to be pretty bad for a lot of people until they do, though. So, basically, the question is whether Germany ought to do something that will assuredly cause problems in the present, and might very well cause catastrophic problems for future generations, just because, you never know, it might turn out to be totally OK.

    And for what? To help a few refugees? So they can feel better about themselves? Are they planning on taking in every group of refugees from this day forward? I don’t foresee a time in the future when there will ever be a shortage of people fleeing from some kind of crisis or another who would rather be in Europe. If the Germans decide that they really need bunches more Muslims, they can always let them in later. It’s not like they’re going anywhere. But once they’re in, it’s going to be a lot more difficult to get them out if they decide they’ve made a huge mistake.

    How anyone could consider this a responsible thing to do is beyond me.

    • Replies: @Marat
    The alternative would be the US (primarily) to stop meddling in the Middle East, Egypt, Libya, Somalia, etc. That can't even be contemplated let alone discussed.
  91. before the migration explosion this year there were approximately 8 million people in Germany within the age of 20-30 years. which is the main age to find a spouse, marry, have children. 4 million men, 4 million women. Now there will 1 million newcomers this year alone. The vast majority of them are men between 20 and 30 years. Lets say 800.000 of them are males of this age. Then the new partner market is 4 million women and 4.8 million men. Of course the newcomers will have not a very high status in the partner market, as most of them are middle easterners who (in contrast to subsaharan Africans) are not much liked by german women and also they have no money, but still this will have an impact on the partner market. Bad news for young males in Germany, but a glorious situation for young women. I can understand every women who cheers “refugees welcome”

    • Replies: @anon
    African men tend to be well liked by European women but that doesn't mean some guy who washed ashore will be able to find a native woman. In the UK where there are many African migrants who have white girlfriends, it's because Polish/Baltic women migrate to the UK in higher numbers than their male counterparts.

    Germany probably gets more Polish/Baltic migrants than even the UK so I predict similar outcomes with a lot of births by Polish/Baltic mothers attributable to Africans.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    Upper middle class German men and women already tend to avoid each other in my experience. I know a surprisingly large number of German men who are married to Americans. Germany may be the only country in the world that considers American women more nurturing and feminine than their native females. At least anecdotally, most of the Germans I know are married to non-Germans, even if the spouses tend to be other Europeans, not Africans or Arabs. The same is more and more true in Italy - upper class men often marry foreigners. The main point - most of the sex imbalance problems caused by immigration will be borne by lower class German males who don't have the educational or professional opportunities to participate in the pan-European dating pool. Most of the girls who will get raped and/or killed by frustrated immigrants will also be from lower class German families that can't afford to move to better neighborhoods.
    , @Wilkey
    You've just explained almost perfectly the demographic effect of this invasion. People really don't understand numbers when it comes to their effect on population. They see 800,000 migrants and think it's only 1% of the population. But it's a far larger share of the breeding age population. And then you have to take into account that these young men will soon be applying to bring in their wives/girlfriends/arranged marriage partners. And then they will breed at a rate far higher than native German breeding rates, and they will have children who will start breeding sooner and faster than the native Germans.

    800,000 "refugee" men will very quickly turn into 800,000 refugee couples, and within 2 generations their demographic effect on the German population will be far greater than 1%. That's how a nation can get swamped by what seems, at first, to be a fairly small number of people.
  92. White man’s burden or boogie?

  93. @ben tillman

    The Scandinavian model of giving women a year off from their corporate jobs for maternity leave is actually anti-woman. In a traditional system homemakers get the entirety of their lives away from a corporate job. No need for daycare either.
     
    No kidding. This propaganda campaign to convince women they need careers is another testament to the almost limitless power of the mass communications media.

    Careers suck.

    They are a means, not an end. Men have careers because they produce money, status, and access to women.

    Real incomes in the US have been flat for a long time. A second earner in the household is an easy way around. No propaganda required, just keeping up with the Joneses.

    • Replies: @AnAnon
    more like, as Sailer has noted before, keeping away from the Jamals.
  94. @ben tillman

    [the US, where White women still have two babies each]

    Only 1.75, and that includes Arab etc. women.
     
    No, that's wrong. But that's close to the number of White babies that White women have, since 10% are mixed-race.

    It’s not wrong. See 2013 TFRs on page 31 of

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_01.pdf

    2014 TFRs are not out yet, but birth rates are, so we can tell they will be almost the same.

  95. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @PistolPete
    That's a pretty tall order to wait and find out about. National Suicide or a slightly assimilated underclass. What a choice!!


    I can't believe I'm witnessing the end of Europe. The Europeans don´t even seem upset about it, unless the media doing an amazing job of hiding it.

    The Europeans don´t even seem upset about it, unless the media doing an amazing job of hiding it.

    Oh, I don’t know. The media seems happy to report on “anti-immigrant riots”. They like talking about people being opposed to immigration as long as they can portray the sentiment as stupid, violent and dangerous.

  96. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:

    All these leaders need to represent their own constituents.

    What is Merkel doing leading the Arabs? What is Bush doing leading the Mexicans?

    Even Erdogan got into this mess by playing the role of Neo-Ottoman leader of the Muslim world.
    He should just mind the Turks.
    And Gaddafi got himself into a trap by posing as leader of Africa when he should have just minded affairs in Libya.

    Mao used to play the role of the leader of the Third World.
    It turned out to be a total wash.

    Wow, the brothas sho dig Mao! I’m sure the Syrians are into Chairman Merkel Thought.

    Moscow represented and funded Marxists everywhere. Total drain on resources.

    All leaders need to just mind their own people.

    Where is Bismarck?

  97. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    You all know what happened to the real 'children's crusade', don't you?

    Being unable to perform miracles and 'tramp across the sea', some 'friendly' Levantine ship owners offered them 'free passage' across the Mediterranean, as an apparent 'act of kindness'.
    Only that they promptly delivered the kids to Arab slave marts.

    Being unable to perform miracles and ‘tramp across the sea’, some ‘friendly’ Levantine ship owners offered them ‘free passage’ across the Mediterranean, as an apparent ‘act of kindness’.
    Only that they promptly delivered the kids to Arab slave marts.

    Our ancient friends. Did this feed into the Barbary slave trade or the other ones…

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13798-slave-trade

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe#Jewish_Merchants

    Records of long-distance Jewish slave merchants date at least as far back as 492, when Pope Gelasius permitted Jews to import non-Christian slaves into Italy, at the request of a Jewish friend from Telesina. [26] [27] [28] By the turn of the seventh century, Jews had become the chief slave traders in Italy, and were active in Gaelic territories. … By the 800s and 900s, Jewish merchants, sometimes called Radhanites, were a major force in the slave trade continent-wide. [9] [30] [31]

  98. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    1% ? Per year ? From countries with the lowest iq ?

    The immigrants will live in cities. Several German cities develop into Baltimore and Chicago: white flight.

  99. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    Low fertility is not a reason to import large numbers of immigrants but rather a reason not to do so. When you import large numbers of immigrants during a period of extended low fertility, you are in effect running a policy of population replacement. A policy of population replacement at some point becomes a policy of national suicide. It is difficult to say where exactly that point is. It would also be difficult to say at what point the process of replacing failed body parts with artificial equivalents ceases to be life-saving and kills the individual replacing him with what it is in effect a robot. Such a point exists, however, in both cases, and the moral, responsible, and sane way of looking at it is that we should not try to get as close to that point as possible but rather leave a healthy distance between ourselves and it. http://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.com/2011/02/suicide-cult.html

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    Low fertility is not a reason to import large numbers of immigrants but rather a reason not to do so.
     
    Yes, from the perspective of the native Germans that have their own sovereignty, low fertility rate is a reason to halt immigration and fix their birth rate issue.

    From the perspective of the open borders cabal, absolutely everything is a justification for mass immigration.

    Immigration is the magic cure all that lowers crime and improves the economy. And when the banlieue immigrant areas are crime ridden economic disasters, the problem is that the natives not smiling widely enough, and the solution is even more immigration.


    A policy of population replacement at some point becomes a policy of national suicide.
     
    Suicide implies that this was chosen and the native people actually got to have a say in this, which I don't think was the case.
    , @ben tillman

    Low fertility is not a reason to import large numbers of immigrants but rather a reason not to do so. When you import large numbers of immigrants during a period of extended low fertility, you are in effect running a policy of population replacement. A policy of population replacement at some point becomes a policy of national suicide.
     
    Genocide, not suicide. The peoples in question aren't making these decisions.
  100. @george
    "Muslim immigrants to Syria have had 1,381 years to assimilate, how has that going along? "

    Fine until NATO started and fueled a civil war.

    If East Germany stayed independent they would not have to accept immigrants just like Poland does not. If they stayed communist immigrants would not go there like N Korea.

    Muslim immigrants to Syria have had 1,381 years to assimilate, how has that going along?

    Fine until NATO started and fueled a civil war.

    Scooby-Doo villian: I would have gotten away with having a mufti-ethnic state if it hadn’t been for you meddling foreign powers exploiting ethnic fault-lines to incite a civil war.

  101. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Erik Sieven
    before the migration explosion this year there were approximately 8 million people in Germany within the age of 20-30 years. which is the main age to find a spouse, marry, have children. 4 million men, 4 million women. Now there will 1 million newcomers this year alone. The vast majority of them are men between 20 and 30 years. Lets say 800.000 of them are males of this age. Then the new partner market is 4 million women and 4.8 million men. Of course the newcomers will have not a very high status in the partner market, as most of them are middle easterners who (in contrast to subsaharan Africans) are not much liked by german women and also they have no money, but still this will have an impact on the partner market. Bad news for young males in Germany, but a glorious situation for young women. I can understand every women who cheers "refugees welcome"

    African men tend to be well liked by European women but that doesn’t mean some guy who washed ashore will be able to find a native woman. In the UK where there are many African migrants who have white girlfriends, it’s because Polish/Baltic women migrate to the UK in higher numbers than their male counterparts.

    Germany probably gets more Polish/Baltic migrants than even the UK so I predict similar outcomes with a lot of births by Polish/Baltic mothers attributable to Africans.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    English women like them too.
    , @Anon 2
    I've heard German men complain about German women who'd rather have several kids with African men than German men
  102. @SPMoore8
    56 Million was correct at 1900, but it was almost 80 MM in 1939, and that's the number I had in mind. The current German population is 80.3 MM, about 750,000 more than it was in 1939.

    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).
    I've never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.

    I’ve never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.

    Belgium

    Belgium is one of the most urbanized and densely inhabited countries in the world with about 97 percent of the 10 million inhabitants living in cities in 2000.

    The central and northern parts of the country are covered by a dense network of medium-size and small cities

    less then 3 percent of the population is involved in agriculture

  103. @International Jew
    So what would be so bad about having just 65 million people in Germany? Finland is doing pretty well on a tenth of that, Iceland on a hundredth! (Meanwhile Bangla Desh has three or four times as many people...)

    Germany doesn't need to field a hundred army divisions to invade Russia any more.

    It's true that for a while there'll be some adjustment issues connected to having a high median age. But even so, I'll bet most German oldsters would prefer to have fellow German oldsters, their old friends, for neighbors, than a lot of vibrant Arabs waking them up at dawn with the Muezeen's call to prayer, slaughtering goats, burning cars, demanding "civil rights", beating up their immodestly dressed granddaughters when they come to visit, competing for hospital resources...

    I don't buy any of that "demographic death spiral" nonsense either. I've studied demographics and never heard anything like that -- because it makes no sense whatsoever. A population can take off anytime young people start breeding. You only need a dozen couples or so (depending on how averse you are to cousin marriages). 70,000 German Jews grew to nine million between about 1200 and 1939.

    Nine million? Nonsense. In the early 1930s Germany’s Jewish
    population was only 525,000 (0.75%). In Austria – about 200,000.
    You’re confusing Germany with Poland where the Jewish
    population was about 3.2 million (almost 10%). Poland was
    the center of Jewish life for centuries as the Jews were expelled
    from everywhere else in Europe, including Germany, but the
    Polish-Lithuanian Republic in contrast invited the Jewish
    refugees to settle in Poland, starting in the 1200s. Look it
    up in Wikipedia.

    There were very few Jews in prewar Germany, and even fewer
    in France, Britain or Italy, which doesn’t help to answer the
    question why the plan for the Final Solution originated in
    Germany.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    The idea and planning for the Final Solution originated only after Germany had acquired millions of unwanted Jews through conquering Poland and the western regions of the Soviet Union. The Nazis never planned to murder all the German Jews, they would have been perfectly happy to steal all their assets and let them emigrate. And, in fact, most German Jews did emigrate before the war started. Unfortunately many never got further than the Netherlands or France.
    , @ben tillman

    Nine million? Nonsense. In the early 1930s Germany’s Jewish
    population was only 525,000 (0.75%).
     
    I understand that "Ashkenazi" means "German", and surely he was talking about the growth in the population of Ashkenazi Jews, most of whom lived east of Germany.
  104. Just to be clear, no one is more in favor of immigration than German business interests. An example of how they think was in Die Zeit this week:

    “The conditions for (immigration of refugees) to succeed actually appear excellent: Companies in Germany are complaining about a lack of skilled workers, business associations are calling for more immigration, even the labor unions are on board. After all, forecasts show that without immigration 14 million workers will disappear by 2050, simply based on demographics. That is why, despite the horrific attacks on refugee hostels, there is wide spread hope, even euphoric expectations: the young refugees could help to fix our demographic problem and finance our pensions.”

    I think there is also an unspoken sentiment in Germany that Syrians are higher quality immigrants than macho North Africans or illiterate Anatolian Turks. A sentiment I would tend to agree with. Letting in Syrians to drown the Turks is sort of like the US policy of drowning blacks in a sea of Latinos.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome

    Companies in Germany are complaining about a lack of skilled workers, business associations are calling for more immigration

     

    Immigrants are "skilled workers", LOL.

    the young refugees could help to fix our demographic problem

     

    Concern about overpopulation in the 60s - 70s, including calls for coercive measures (liberals support of China's one-child being an example) completely disappeared suddenly without explanation or apology. It's like party-line on fascism pre-Ribbontrop, post-Ribbontrop, Barbossa flip-flopping.

    Maybe they should just come out and say that Catholic anti-birth-control stance was right. Their motto should be "Let not one square yard of Nature reclaim part of any city!"

  105. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany’s fertility is below replacement … if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will

    German population density is 609. Syria is 266. According to you, countries need to be full, so Germany should send refugees to Syria so they go from 266 to 609.

    Also the following underpopulated countries should recieve German refugees:

    Germany – 609
    Syria ——– 266
    Jordan —– 167
    Turkey —- 237
    France —- 289
    Poland —- 328
    Spain —— 210

    P.S. bring back the Comstock laws.

  106. @Erik Sieven
    before the migration explosion this year there were approximately 8 million people in Germany within the age of 20-30 years. which is the main age to find a spouse, marry, have children. 4 million men, 4 million women. Now there will 1 million newcomers this year alone. The vast majority of them are men between 20 and 30 years. Lets say 800.000 of them are males of this age. Then the new partner market is 4 million women and 4.8 million men. Of course the newcomers will have not a very high status in the partner market, as most of them are middle easterners who (in contrast to subsaharan Africans) are not much liked by german women and also they have no money, but still this will have an impact on the partner market. Bad news for young males in Germany, but a glorious situation for young women. I can understand every women who cheers "refugees welcome"

    Upper middle class German men and women already tend to avoid each other in my experience. I know a surprisingly large number of German men who are married to Americans. Germany may be the only country in the world that considers American women more nurturing and feminine than their native females. At least anecdotally, most of the Germans I know are married to non-Germans, even if the spouses tend to be other Europeans, not Africans or Arabs. The same is more and more true in Italy – upper class men often marry foreigners. The main point – most of the sex imbalance problems caused by immigration will be borne by lower class German males who don’t have the educational or professional opportunities to participate in the pan-European dating pool. Most of the girls who will get raped and/or killed by frustrated immigrants will also be from lower class German families that can’t afford to move to better neighborhoods.

  107. @Fun with aluminum
    You write: "if the Germans aren’t going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess", and I have seen variants on this sentiment countless times.

    It makes no sense. The population of a state can grow or it can decline; there is no particular "right size". For reference: In 1900, when Germany was dominant in almost every field of cultural endeavor, it had a population of 56M, compared to 85M today. If they were to protect their borders, then a polity that is recognizably German would persist through this century with a population in 2100 perhaps similar to that of 1900. Alternatively, the population of ethnic Germans can decline inexorably, but they can import millions of culturally alien Muslims simply to top up the number of people with German Republic citizenship documents at the magical 85 million number. In this scenario, there will be no recognizably German polity in 2100. Scenario two has really no advantage to the German nation, and is not inevitable. Preventing it merely requires an assertion of national identity and self-respect.

    Germany dominant in 1900? You must be joking. France was the
    center of culture on the European continent for centuries, since
    at least Louis XIV. Berlin was still a backwater in the 19th century.
    Britain was ahead of everyone in industrial development, and
    although Germany was beginning to catch up, esp. in the armaments
    and chemical industry, it had a backward region – namely Prussia –
    that had to be brought up to speed, just like today’s eastern
    Germany is underdeveloped and underpopulated. The only
    area where Germany was strong in 1900 was science, esp. physics
    and chemistry.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome

    Germany dominant in 1900? You must be joking.

     

    They did defeat France in 1871.

    Franco-Prussian War
    ... 19 July 1870 – 10 May 1871 ...
    The German coalition mobilised its troops much more quickly than the French and rapidly invaded northeastern France. The German forces were superior in numbers, had better training and leadership and made more effective use of modern technology, particularly railroads and artillery.
    ...
    A series of swift Prussian and German victories in eastern France, culminating at the Battle of Sedan and the Siege of Metz saw the French army decisively defeated
    ...
    Rather than advancing in a column or line formation, Prussian infantry moved in small groups that were harder to target by artillery or French defensive fire.[21] The sheer number of soldiers available made encirclement en masse and destruction of French formations relatively easy.
    ...
    by the famous Krupp 6-pounder (3 kg) steel breech-loading cannons being issued to Prussian artillery batteries.[24] Firing a contact-detonated shell, the Krupp gun had a longer range and a higher rate of fire than the French bronze muzzle loading cannon, which relied on faulty time fuses.
    ...
    The Prussian army was controlled by the General Staff, under Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke. The Prussian army was unique in Europe for having the only such organisation in existence, whose purpose in peacetime was to prepare the overall war strategy, and in wartime to direct operational movement and organise logistics and communications.
    ...
    Moltke embraced new technology, particularly the railroad and telegraph, to coordinate and accelerate mobilisation of large forces.

     

  108. @Anon 2
    Nine million? Nonsense. In the early 1930s Germany's Jewish
    population was only 525,000 (0.75%). In Austria - about 200,000.
    You're confusing Germany with Poland where the Jewish
    population was about 3.2 million (almost 10%). Poland was
    the center of Jewish life for centuries as the Jews were expelled
    from everywhere else in Europe, including Germany, but the
    Polish-Lithuanian Republic in contrast invited the Jewish
    refugees to settle in Poland, starting in the 1200s. Look it
    up in Wikipedia.

    There were very few Jews in prewar Germany, and even fewer
    in France, Britain or Italy, which doesn't help to answer the
    question why the plan for the Final Solution originated in
    Germany.

    The idea and planning for the Final Solution originated only after Germany had acquired millions of unwanted Jews through conquering Poland and the western regions of the Soviet Union. The Nazis never planned to murder all the German Jews, they would have been perfectly happy to steal all their assets and let them emigrate. And, in fact, most German Jews did emigrate before the war started. Unfortunately many never got further than the Netherlands or France.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Hitler was a product of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
  109. Female leaders – wonderful!
    Doin it fo da kidz while destroyin da race.

  110. So how does it make the hbders here feel that German women, who have some of the highest iqs in the world among white women, prefer African males, who have an iq of 30 points below them?

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    It is utterly unsurprising. Women everywhere have a taste for male violence and a dangerous African thug beats a beta male White guy every time. That's just how women are. Like water being wet.

    Women despise male intelligence as it is associated with lower dominance unless mediated by Alpha behavior.
    , @Anonymous
    So how does it make the hbders here feel that German women, who have some of the highest iqs in the world among white women, prefer African males, who have an iq of 30 points below them?

    If all your premises are true, that's an interesting question.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    I live over here, and I have yet to meet an attractive, intelligent German woman who sleeps with African men. Most of the German women who shack up with Africans are either poorly educated and working class (i.e. IQs maybe 10-15 points higher than their African mates, if that), fairly unattractive far left types, often with drug problems, or women over 40 who have moved on to the "sex tourism" phase of their lives, and aren't planning to breed. Germans are secretly very class conscious and upper class Germans do not sleep with blacks, anymore than upper class American whites. An African man looking for a high status white woman will do best in England, but he has to be able to talk like Idris Elba.
    , @ben tillman

    So how does it make the hbders here feel that German women, who have some of the highest iqs in the world among white women, prefer African males, who have an iq of 30 points below them?
     
    They don't.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    t German women, who have some of the highest iqs in the world among white women, prefer African males, who have an iq of 30 points below them?
     
    Heidi Klum and Leni Riefenstahl hardly represent "German women".
  111. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Steve,
    The real question is this:

    Just like Syria, Egypt experienced a demographic explosion in the later 20th century. Unlike Syria, however,when talking about Egypt we are talking about truly big numbers, approaching 80 million and rising all the time. Here we have a similar young, frustrated, population turning to islamism out of anger and disappointment. Here also we have an on going civil war between secular forces and islamism.
    Now, radicalised Egyptians can see the present ridiculous situation in Germany, and they will think to themselves – ‘let’s start a real hot war, a massive insurrection against Morsi’.
    ‘We might not win, but we’ve got a chance, and besides if we don’t win, we get the ultimate consolation prize, relocation in Germany, and all the goodies that go with it’.

    The present, ridiculous EU enforced 1951 Convention simply just cannot continue. To coin a phrase it is ‘bollocks on stilts’.

  112. @anon
    African men tend to be well liked by European women but that doesn't mean some guy who washed ashore will be able to find a native woman. In the UK where there are many African migrants who have white girlfriends, it's because Polish/Baltic women migrate to the UK in higher numbers than their male counterparts.

    Germany probably gets more Polish/Baltic migrants than even the UK so I predict similar outcomes with a lot of births by Polish/Baltic mothers attributable to Africans.

    English women like them too.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    So do American women. I've heard a number of them say that the world needs more dark-skinned babies.

    Of course, men of African descent are heavily promoted to Western women in the public programming (media, academia, advertising) and women are as susceptible to marketing as everyone else. It is hard to say how "natural" this preference is.
  113. @International Jew
    So what would be so bad about having just 65 million people in Germany? Finland is doing pretty well on a tenth of that, Iceland on a hundredth! (Meanwhile Bangla Desh has three or four times as many people...)

    Germany doesn't need to field a hundred army divisions to invade Russia any more.

    It's true that for a while there'll be some adjustment issues connected to having a high median age. But even so, I'll bet most German oldsters would prefer to have fellow German oldsters, their old friends, for neighbors, than a lot of vibrant Arabs waking them up at dawn with the Muezeen's call to prayer, slaughtering goats, burning cars, demanding "civil rights", beating up their immodestly dressed granddaughters when they come to visit, competing for hospital resources...

    I don't buy any of that "demographic death spiral" nonsense either. I've studied demographics and never heard anything like that -- because it makes no sense whatsoever. A population can take off anytime young people start breeding. You only need a dozen couples or so (depending on how averse you are to cousin marriages). 70,000 German Jews grew to nine million between about 1200 and 1939.

    ” Bangla Desh has three or four times as many people…”
    And guess what, its border with India is 2000 miles of double barb wire coil/razor tape fence, permanently manned by troops including Ghorkas.

  114. @ben tillman

    I am not “proposing” anything, I am simply trying to present a best case for why the Germans are doing what they are doing.
     
    You didn't present any case. You think a country needs to be full. There is only one reason a large population is preferable to a small one: to prevent invasion. But you are suggesting invasion as the solution, not the problem!


    Perhaps it’s lipstick on a pig, but we won’t know until we see how it plays out. Meanwhile, I have nothing to do with what Germany is doing, I’m just trying to suggest that they aren’t committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We’ll find out.
     
    Germany isn't doing anything. Its rulers are.

    There is only one reason a large population is preferable to a small one: to prevent invasion.

    Actually, the German economy is already complaining about a lack of people. This will only grow in the future, even though they already imported quite a number of workers from other European countries.
    German (future) pensioners fear for their pensions, since the German system relies on the workforce (well, their tax) to support the pensions. Hence, if the workforce shrinks, the pension level is in danger.

    If the Syrian refugees can be integrated as was done with the Turks, it won’t be much of a problem. A problem may arise because this could set a precedent. In other crises in the future refugees may feel that Germany is the easiest option. German politicians already say that the current situation is special, but will future refugees hear that message (& believe it)?

    Germany isn’t doing anything. Its rulers are.

    You are not really well-informed, are you? There are lots of Germany who actually welcome the refugees. Many people volunteer to help or donate. The anti-immigration protesters are a small minority. At the moment most Germans still think that Syrian refugees should be let in. This will probably change if the wave doesn’t stop, though.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    A distinguished German professor pointed out a while ago that immigration cannot possibly fund the German pension problem.
    In order for the contributor/claimant ratio to stay constant, the German population must increase to something utterly ridiculous, like 600 million, this century. And the exponential growth will only continue.
    , @Anonymous
    Actually, the German economy is already complaining about a lack of people. This will only grow in the future, even though they already imported quite a number of workers from other European countries.

    Where can we read or view an interview with the German economy?
    , @ben tillman

    Actually, the German economy is already complaining about a lack of people.
     
    The German economy can't talk.

    You are not really well-informed, are you?
     
    You can't read, can you?

    I said Germany's rulers are doing this, not Germany, and you said a lot of Germans are happy with it. Your response doesn't even contradict my statement.
  115. @Priss Factor
    "The 800k refugees mostly Syrian aren’t the problem. The next million or so from Syria won’t be the real problem."

    I agree that Syrians are among the better refugees.

    But they are still too many. Also, look at them. They are different genetically. They will lead to darkening of the German race.

    And given Germany's problem with Turks, I don't think this will end well.

    Of course, Germany has 900,000 blacks already.

    If the only way Germans can gain moral credit is by abolishing themselves, it is truly a sad thing indeed.

    At least, how about dividing Germany in half again. One half remains all German, the other half can go for multi-culti garbage.

    They will lead to darkening of the German race.

    Ooh, what a horrible idea! Phhh…
    What German race, actually? There is nothing like that. The original German population was already a mixture: Slavs, Germans & Celts. & the last 40 to 50 years have seen quite some influx from other populations.

    And given Germany’s problem with Turks

    Not a big problem. There are just a few hot spots like Berlin-Neukölln or some area in Duisburg (compared to French Banlieues that’s nothing, anyway), else Germans & Turks get along quite well.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Ooh, what a horrible idea! Phhh…
    What German race, actually? There is nothing like that. The original German population was already a mixture: Slavs, Germans & Celts. & the last 40 to 50 years have seen quite some influx from other populations."

    You vile dammy, do you want Germany to end up like Sicily or North Africa?

    Slavs, German, and Celts are all Northern stock.

    Dammyass piece of turd.

    "Not a big problem. There are just a few hot spots like Berlin-Neukölln or some area in Duisburg (compared to French Banlieues that’s nothing, anyway), else Germans & Turks get along quite well."

    The thing is, dammy-ass, Turks have their own country and belong in Turkey.
    Problem or no problem, Germany will not be Germany if it's taken over by foreigners.
  116. @george
    "Muslim immigrants to Syria have had 1,381 years to assimilate, how has that going along? "

    Fine until NATO started and fueled a civil war.

    If East Germany stayed independent they would not have to accept immigrants just like Poland does not. If they stayed communist immigrants would not go there like N Korea.

    Poland has already accepted over 400,000 Ukrainian
    refugees. Technically, the vast majority have short-term
    work permits which apparently can be renewed indefinitely
    or are illegals. In any case, they have no intention of
    returning to Ukraine, and, based on their Facebook
    comments and anecdotal evidence, they seem to love it
    in Poland. Most send money to their relatives in Ukraine,
    and go back for visits, but typically learn Polish very
    quickly and some even study at Poland’s universities.

    Pick-up artists like Roosh V who tried Ukraine but moved
    permanently to Poland as Ukraine became unsafe now have
    a choice in Poland between Polish girls or Ukrainian
    girls. Like a kid in a candy store. And the country is still
    99.9% white and Christian. Poland is now probably the
    largest white country in the world. Ukraine and Russia
    are multiracial.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    …a choice in Poland between Polish girls or Ukrainian
    girls. Like a kid in a candy store. And the country is still
    99.9% white and Christian.
     
    Christian girls don't have time for "pick-up artists".
    , @AP
    Using Ukrainians for the purpose of refugee stats is a brilliant way for Poland to avoid taking its "fair share" of Muslim refugees. Good job, Poland.

    Neither Ukraine nor Russia are "multiracial" in a genetic sense. Russia is 80% Slavic. Half the non-Slavs are Caucasians (middle-eastern types who resemble Greeks or Italians). Most Caucasians such as Armenians, Georgians and even Chechens are Indo-European, unlike Semitic Arabs.

    The other half of Russia's non-Slavic population are mostly central Asians with considerable European heritage (Tatars are something like 80% European, Bashkirs to the east 60% European). Googleimage Marat Izmailov, a Tatar soccer star or Dinara Safina, a Tatar tennis star. Russia has perhaps under 5% pure Asian population.

    Other than .7% of Ukraine's population being Tatars (who themselves are part European), Ukraine is European. That would be about 99.3%.
  117. @SPMoore8
    56 Million was correct at 1900, but it was almost 80 MM in 1939, and that's the number I had in mind. The current German population is 80.3 MM, about 750,000 more than it was in 1939.

    German population is currently 593 per square mile. Other European countries with higher densities include: United Kingdom (660), Belgium (919), Netherlands (1,064). (BTW, Israel is 961).
    I've never heard anyone argue that any of those countries were overpopulated.

    England proper overtook the Benelux countries in the density stakes a couple of years ago. Over 1000/sq.m. and climbing.
    I don’t hear any “refugees” clamouring for the right to start a new life in the Wester Ross, Machynlleth or South Armagh.
    I’d have more respect for them if they were, but it’s That London and the megalopolis of the North&Midlands former industrial area or bust, as far as they’re concerned. Which is why the likes of Nicola Sturgeon (Scotland’s mini-Merkel) can proffer blithe assurances of acceptance on the nation’s behalf.
    She kens fine they’ll turn up, take one look, and run away screaming through the blizzards and bogs.

  118. @Anon 2
    Germany dominant in 1900? You must be joking. France was the
    center of culture on the European continent for centuries, since
    at least Louis XIV. Berlin was still a backwater in the 19th century.
    Britain was ahead of everyone in industrial development, and
    although Germany was beginning to catch up, esp. in the armaments
    and chemical industry, it had a backward region - namely Prussia -
    that had to be brought up to speed, just like today's eastern
    Germany is underdeveloped and underpopulated. The only
    area where Germany was strong in 1900 was science, esp. physics
    and chemistry.

    Germany dominant in 1900? You must be joking.

    They did defeat France in 1871.

    Franco-Prussian War
    … 19 July 1870 – 10 May 1871 …
    The German coalition mobilised its troops much more quickly than the French and rapidly invaded northeastern France. The German forces were superior in numbers, had better training and leadership and made more effective use of modern technology, particularly railroads and artillery.

    A series of swift Prussian and German victories in eastern France, culminating at the Battle of Sedan and the Siege of Metz saw the French army decisively defeated

    Rather than advancing in a column or line formation, Prussian infantry moved in small groups that were harder to target by artillery or French defensive fire.[21] The sheer number of soldiers available made encirclement en masse and destruction of French formations relatively easy.

    by the famous Krupp 6-pounder (3 kg) steel breech-loading cannons being issued to Prussian artillery batteries.[24] Firing a contact-detonated shell, the Krupp gun had a longer range and a higher rate of fire than the French bronze muzzle loading cannon, which relied on faulty time fuses.

    The Prussian army was controlled by the General Staff, under Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke. The Prussian army was unique in Europe for having the only such organisation in existence, whose purpose in peacetime was to prepare the overall war strategy, and in wartime to direct operational movement and organise logistics and communications.

    Moltke embraced new technology, particularly the railroad and telegraph, to coordinate and accelerate mobilisation of large forces.

    • Replies: @Obelix
    Europe didn't have a "dominant" power in 1900. That's precisely why the place was so politically volatile.
  119. The problem is: this is how grown Western men behave these days!

  120. @Erik Sieven
    before the migration explosion this year there were approximately 8 million people in Germany within the age of 20-30 years. which is the main age to find a spouse, marry, have children. 4 million men, 4 million women. Now there will 1 million newcomers this year alone. The vast majority of them are men between 20 and 30 years. Lets say 800.000 of them are males of this age. Then the new partner market is 4 million women and 4.8 million men. Of course the newcomers will have not a very high status in the partner market, as most of them are middle easterners who (in contrast to subsaharan Africans) are not much liked by german women and also they have no money, but still this will have an impact on the partner market. Bad news for young males in Germany, but a glorious situation for young women. I can understand every women who cheers "refugees welcome"

    You’ve just explained almost perfectly the demographic effect of this invasion. People really don’t understand numbers when it comes to their effect on population. They see 800,000 migrants and think it’s only 1% of the population. But it’s a far larger share of the breeding age population. And then you have to take into account that these young men will soon be applying to bring in their wives/girlfriends/arranged marriage partners. And then they will breed at a rate far higher than native German breeding rates, and they will have children who will start breeding sooner and faster than the native Germans.

    800,000 “refugee” men will very quickly turn into 800,000 refugee couples, and within 2 generations their demographic effect on the German population will be far greater than 1%. That’s how a nation can get swamped by what seems, at first, to be a fairly small number of people.

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    People really don’t understand numbers when it comes to their effect on population. They see 800,000 migrants and think it’s only 1% of the population.
     
    The open borders crowd is excited to see whites die out or pushed out of their own nations. They completely understand what is happening.

    There are people, like us, who also understand the demographic implications, but can't do anything other than complain, talk about it, and hopefully have a slightly larger birth rate ourselves.
    , @Threecranes
    "People really don’t understand numbers when it comes to their effect on population."

    Very true, and that's because they don't understand the explosive power latent in exponential growth--but people who are used to handling money at interest do.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    that these young men will soon be applying to bring in their wives/girlfriends/arranged marriage partners…
     
    /first cousins/nieces/foster/step-/half-sisters…

    Sending home for goats, sheep, and other ruminants would be preferable. And the USDA has higher standards than ICE.
    , @LKM
    And they'll be breeding at a far higher rate than they would naturally be capable of because they'll be supported by tax dollars stolen from local whites, who may then decide that they can't afford to have children because it's too expensive.

    A week ago or so I saw a German news report that showed a Syrian couple that had already been in Germany for a year. They had one small child and were complaining that their accommodations (paid for by the local church) were insufficient for their current family. They were expecting another child in a few months, which means they got pregant while being supported by Germans. That's how these people think. They just have kids until they can't. It's like the episode of Star Trek with the Tribbles!
  121. @Anonymous
    "Germans and other Europeans used to have high birth rates, now they’re low. This is not some inevitable fate or irreversible trend. Making babies isn’t rocket science, it’s a social issue that can be addressed with basic cultural will power.

    "If German/Western schools taught children that their biological ethnicity was worth keeping and stressed the value of having larger families, it would happen. Instead, our schools have moved mountain and ocean to reduce white racism and tell whites that their biology is no more special than a random stranger, which reduces fertility."

    I completely agree with you. When I was growing up we were taught that the world faced a very serious over-population problem. I would imagine that this contributed to some extent to a decrease in birth rate.

    “When I was growing up we were taught that the world faced a very serious over-population problem.”

    We were told that we had to save the world by having less children. And now that we’re having less children, we’re told that we need to be replaced because we’re not having enough children.

    Would be interesting to go back and review where all the population reduction messages were coming from. Not that it really matters, it’s all bullshit anyway. If nations can only survive by having an ever increasing population, then the inevitable end will be an overpopulated planet that has destroyed its environmental support system and succumbs to famine and plague. The pyramid scheme is not a viable model, never has been.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    Ditto. I was given the impression that parents should have only two children at the most or be considered evil and irresponsible.

    In fact the message going around was that it was probably better to have no kids at all.

    I have no doubt that the kinds of people saying now that Europe has no choice but to abolish itself because whites aren't having children were 40 years ago saying that children were a luxury.

    , @Anonymous
    You stopped hearing from them the very moment whites, worldwide, stopped reproducing.
  122. @anon
    African men tend to be well liked by European women but that doesn't mean some guy who washed ashore will be able to find a native woman. In the UK where there are many African migrants who have white girlfriends, it's because Polish/Baltic women migrate to the UK in higher numbers than their male counterparts.

    Germany probably gets more Polish/Baltic migrants than even the UK so I predict similar outcomes with a lot of births by Polish/Baltic mothers attributable to Africans.

    I’ve heard German men complain about German women who’d rather have several kids with African men than German men

  123. @SPMoore8

    But even if women were still having 2+ children each, there would be no reason to think that they would not be swamped by immigrants.
     
    They would still be swamped with immigrants but they would be refusing to take them; that is my guess, IF and only IF they did not have a declining population. That's my rationale for what they are doing.

    Keep in mind that Germany has chosen very deliberately to allow 1% of their population in immigrants this year. There must be a reason why they are doing it. And I don't think it's because of "Holocaust Guilt" or anything like that.

    Keep in mind that Germany has chosen very deliberately to allow 1% of their population in immigrants this year. There must be a reason why they are doing it. And I don’t think it’s because of “Holocaust Guilt” or anything like that.

    I’m sure the elite politicians and academic have their motivations, but they sure aren’t explaining them, and we can only speculate. Merkel is no dummy. In 2010, she gave an infamous widely discussed speech declaring that:

    “And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other… has failed, utterly failed.”

    Maybe that was nothing more than political pandering, but it seemed quite genuine. Now, she is obviously far more pro welcoming non European Muslim immigrants, and we can only speculate as to why.

    My fear is that it’s just pressure from the open border elites or basic political pandering or the fact that the non-natives now control or are expected to control much of the vote and the native people officially have had their own political representation extinguished.

    There is a small chance the European elites have a better strategy in mind. If there is a Arab demographic takeover of Germany, maybe that justifies some kind of leadership takeover of the middle east and a transition away from democracy and universal suffrage? Combining universal suffrage and this style of true unstoppable open borders spells overt oppression for ethnic Germans who will always be outvoted by demographically larger rival ethnic groups.

    The native German people absolutely don’t want this. There are a few Germans who love it, but the broader German people would have overwhelmingly voted this away if they were ever given a choice. The open border crowd wasn’t interested in giving the natives a say in the matter.

    I’m stunned by how fast this is happening and how the German people really weren’t given a choice, and how they weren’t given a warning, as in, “Get your birth rates up or politicians will flip your entire country inside out for political favor”. They were told, “hey don’t think about this, look the other way. Oh, too late, we’ve secretly organized this permanent complete overthrow of your society.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Hint:
    It's all about post-Hitler guilt.
  124. @Wilkey
    You've just explained almost perfectly the demographic effect of this invasion. People really don't understand numbers when it comes to their effect on population. They see 800,000 migrants and think it's only 1% of the population. But it's a far larger share of the breeding age population. And then you have to take into account that these young men will soon be applying to bring in their wives/girlfriends/arranged marriage partners. And then they will breed at a rate far higher than native German breeding rates, and they will have children who will start breeding sooner and faster than the native Germans.

    800,000 "refugee" men will very quickly turn into 800,000 refugee couples, and within 2 generations their demographic effect on the German population will be far greater than 1%. That's how a nation can get swamped by what seems, at first, to be a fairly small number of people.

    People really don’t understand numbers when it comes to their effect on population. They see 800,000 migrants and think it’s only 1% of the population.

    The open borders crowd is excited to see whites die out or pushed out of their own nations. They completely understand what is happening.

    There are people, like us, who also understand the demographic implications, but can’t do anything other than complain, talk about it, and hopefully have a slightly larger birth rate ourselves.

  125. Why all this talk of ‘assimilation’ and demographics. Are not these people asylum seekers, not immigrants? Surely the civil war in Syria will not last forever. Some reports are that Assad’s regime is on its last legs now but even if not there is no reason the nation cannot be partitioned de jure as it has become de facto with a state to satisfy the religious and ethnic preference of every Syrian.

  126. @GW
    My original comment was made slightly in jest, but your response was so ridiculous it needed a response.

    The truth of Western modernity is that women have been persuaded to pursue careers, education, individual lifestyles, etc. and have been discouraged from marriage/children. And yes, women do tend to want children more then men. This is natural. That's why it bears more fruit (literally) for society to incentivize the sex that naturally desires to have children to actually have more children. Also if women's goals were primarily outwardly focused (toward a family) instead of inwardly focused (being independent and modern), this would raise the price of sex for men, harnassing their strong desire for sex toward marriage.

    Notice that I didn't bring up taking away social programs, that seems to have been your own feminist assumption. But what is a bigger social program for a woman than a successful husband? The Scandinavian model of giving women a year off from their corporate jobs for maternity leave is actually anti-woman. In a traditiona system homemakers get the entirety of their lives away from a corporate job. No need for daycare either.

    As far as economics go, your point is moot. The question isn't how can birth rates be increased while keeping the same standard of living, the question is how birth rates can be increased. Plus tax incentives and other government subsidies to encourage families can both incentivize men to marry/beget and allow married adults a standard a living they would receive as singles.

    I’m not a feminist or an anti-feminist, I am just interested in what works and what doesn’t and the national differences in Europe tend to suggest that conservative policies and attitudes lead to failure in birth rates while more liberal attitudes lead to higher birth rates nation-wide. I am most definitely an anti-communist and I still pointed out that communist societies could maintain high birth rates.

    Again, the fall in birth rates has nothing to do with women working outside of child care because women always worked and this “traditionalist” vision where “traditional” women spent all their time taking care of children was never a reality. Here’s what an actually traditional society looked like for average people:

    Men worked, women worked, children already worked when they were in what we’d now consider preschool age. Without contraception poor families had 8 children and a couple of them would most likely die before adulthood, often because families were too busy working to watch the children. An individual child with a modern mother with a job gets more hours of motherly care than a child in a pre-modern traditional society.

    Wealthy people would, of course, consider it a sign of status if the wife didn’t have to do any work – but then, it would be an even bigger sign of status if the man of the house didn’t have to do any work. The wealthy had nannies do most of their child care for all of history and it’s not because aristocratic women would have been somehow indoctrinated into hating child care. Daycare and other Social Democrat type policies are basically about giving the average Swede a version of the things that the gentry always enjoyed.

    The big transition for women was that mass production killed the necessity of a lot of the tasks given to women in a traditional society. Back in the agrarian days, villages would for example not have chain clothing stores with huge selections of stuff made in China. The women would make the clothing and spend much of their time passing on the needed skills and knowledge to the next generation. Today there’s little point for every woman to learn those crafts or spend hours and hours of every day making clothing so women tend to seek education and work elsewhere. Human behavior adapts when incentives change. Nothing surprising.

    • Agree: E. Burke, SPMoore8
    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    I am just interested in what works and what doesn’t and the national differences in Europe tend to suggest that conservative policies and attitudes lead to failure in birth rates while more liberal attitudes lead to higher birth rates nation-wide.
     
    Which conservative policies and attitudes lead to failure in birth rates? Which liberal attitudes lead to higher birth rates?
  127. @Gerry T. Neal
    Low fertility is not a reason to import large numbers of immigrants but rather a reason not to do so. When you import large numbers of immigrants during a period of extended low fertility, you are in effect running a policy of population replacement. A policy of population replacement at some point becomes a policy of national suicide. It is difficult to say where exactly that point is. It would also be difficult to say at what point the process of replacing failed body parts with artificial equivalents ceases to be life-saving and kills the individual replacing him with what it is in effect a robot. Such a point exists, however, in both cases, and the moral, responsible, and sane way of looking at it is that we should not try to get as close to that point as possible but rather leave a healthy distance between ourselves and it. http://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.com/2011/02/suicide-cult.html

    Low fertility is not a reason to import large numbers of immigrants but rather a reason not to do so.

    Yes, from the perspective of the native Germans that have their own sovereignty, low fertility rate is a reason to halt immigration and fix their birth rate issue.

    From the perspective of the open borders cabal, absolutely everything is a justification for mass immigration.

    Immigration is the magic cure all that lowers crime and improves the economy. And when the banlieue immigrant areas are crime ridden economic disasters, the problem is that the natives not smiling widely enough, and the solution is even more immigration.

    A policy of population replacement at some point becomes a policy of national suicide.

    Suicide implies that this was chosen and the native people actually got to have a say in this, which I don’t think was the case.

  128. @Anonymous
    Yes, birth-rates in Europe are dire. There's no getting away from that.

    BUT

    The EU, at this very moment - and for the last 40 years actually, and certainly indefinitely into the future, simply CANNOT generate enough jobs for those infants once the grow up to be adults. Youth unemployment in the EU is ridiculously high.
    This is due to shitheads running EU economic policy.
    The EU is a horrid, horrid arrogant, pompous 'superior' dictatorship. This will not change.

    Yes, birth-rates in Europe are dire. There’s no getting away from that.

    Birth rates can be changed with basic cultural will power. If society came together and agreed that raising native European fertility was important, that would happen. With mixed societies it’s harder to unmix or selectively boost fertility, but it’s possible.

    I met a typical western woman who said all throughout her teens and twenties every parent and teacher was telling her, “Don’t get pregnant! Don’t get pregnant!”. When she was childless in her early thirties, her family went into the reverse panic and started telling her, “Get pregnant! Get pregnant! Try and get the whole proper husband and marriage thing but if that doesn’t work out, then just get pregnant by accident.”

    My point is that that messaging actually works. As a single man, I can’t effect cultural change. I tell my cousins to have more kids and they think I am a socially awkward and crazy. But if the broader culture adopts larger family sizes as a value, it would happen.

    When I was in school, teachers and parents were constantly telling us “don’t have kids, don’t have kids.” We were warned about over population and the massive responsibility of parent hood.

  129. @Peter Akuleyev
    Just to be clear, no one is more in favor of immigration than German business interests. An example of how they think was in Die Zeit this week:

    "The conditions for (immigration of refugees) to succeed actually appear excellent: Companies in Germany are complaining about a lack of skilled workers, business associations are calling for more immigration, even the labor unions are on board. After all, forecasts show that without immigration 14 million workers will disappear by 2050, simply based on demographics. That is why, despite the horrific attacks on refugee hostels, there is wide spread hope, even euphoric expectations: the young refugees could help to fix our demographic problem and finance our pensions."

    I think there is also an unspoken sentiment in Germany that Syrians are higher quality immigrants than macho North Africans or illiterate Anatolian Turks. A sentiment I would tend to agree with. Letting in Syrians to drown the Turks is sort of like the US policy of drowning blacks in a sea of Latinos.

    Companies in Germany are complaining about a lack of skilled workers, business associations are calling for more immigration

    Immigrants are “skilled workers”, LOL.

    the young refugees could help to fix our demographic problem

    Concern about overpopulation in the 60s – 70s, including calls for coercive measures (liberals support of China’s one-child being an example) completely disappeared suddenly without explanation or apology. It’s like party-line on fascism pre-Ribbontrop, post-Ribbontrop, Barbossa flip-flopping.

    Maybe they should just come out and say that Catholic anti-birth-control stance was right. Their motto should be “Let not one square yard of Nature reclaim part of any city!”

  130. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” and with the 80 million you cite you’re batting .666.

    According to Wiki: “the 1939 census now also included the areas of Austria, Sudetenland and Memelland.”

    Maybe Germany would agree to your 80 million if you will allow them to reoccupy their former borders.

  131. @Maj. Kong
    Japan is a long ways off geographically from a high-fertility Third World nation. South Korea is next door to one, but its their cousins.

    I doubt a mass migration to China could get across the Himalayas or the Taklimakan desert.

    Australia sits across from 200 million Indonesian Muslims.

    There's a subway under the Bosporous.

    ---

    The undeveloped Gandhi was able to defeat the British Empire, by hitting its weak point. That weak point was the idea that Britain was a civilizing force against barbarians. Gandhi was able to make the British look like barbarians.

    If I was guessing, I think a similar Third World figure could do the same to China, if they hit the Chinese weak point: Greed and Anti-Americanism.

    It’s a common fiction that the Brits pulled out of the sub-Continent because they didn’t want to look like barbarians. After WWII, the mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy and the threat of the Indian National Army left the Brits with no choice but to withdraw, they simply didn’t have the manpower or the stomach, for a fight. Atlee gave credit to Gandhi in order to save face for the Brits. Churchill’s foolish guarantee to Poland led to the destruction of the British Empire and Poland was lost anyway. Britain, with America’s and Russia’s help defeated Germany, but lost itself.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    Not really. The British were in a deep financial crisis partly caused by America seeking to break Britain with demands for the repayment of wartime aid. Germany was treated much better.

    Britain had lost much of its imperial chutzpah even before the war. And now it also could not expect its Indian troops to fight against their own future leaders. Once the independence activists scented independence the forward momentum was difficult to control. But yes it could have been handled better.

    Peter Hitchens on Poland:

    The point of decision was far earlier, and Churchill played no part in it. He was left with the position which Chamberlain and Halifax had bequeathed to him. In March/April 1939, the Franco-British guarantee of Poland's independence ( which seems to have resulted from an emotional spasm on the part of Halifax) altered the course of European history. This pledge, which we knew we could not fulfil, and which Germany knew we could not fulfil, but which Poland alone took seriously, ended Poland's pact with Hitler, dating from 1934 and continuing up to the point when Poland shared joyfully ( as did Hungary) in the spoils of Munich. It might truthfully be said that it led directly to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the consequent partition of Poland. It also gave Poland, or rather the unlovely Joszef Beck, the absolute power to decide when and under what circumstances Britain and France entered any war against Hitler.

    It is plain that Britain and France were going to have to take some sort of military action against Hitler sooner or later, or at the very least to conclude an anti-German pact with Stalin, which would probably have amounted to the same thing. We ended up in a compulsory alliance with Stalin for which we paid in very hard coin indeed. Hardly anyone would have chosen September 1939 (when the tiny British Army was still drilling with broomsticks) as the ideal moment, or the independence of Poland as the ideal issue. In the same way it was plain that the USA would be bound to be drawn into this. The question must be whether British and French diplomacy were competently handled, and whether the timing was right. And whether cleverer diplomacy and better timing might indeed have saved Britain from the accelerated decline which it has actually suffered.

  132. @Wilkey
    You've just explained almost perfectly the demographic effect of this invasion. People really don't understand numbers when it comes to their effect on population. They see 800,000 migrants and think it's only 1% of the population. But it's a far larger share of the breeding age population. And then you have to take into account that these young men will soon be applying to bring in their wives/girlfriends/arranged marriage partners. And then they will breed at a rate far higher than native German breeding rates, and they will have children who will start breeding sooner and faster than the native Germans.

    800,000 "refugee" men will very quickly turn into 800,000 refugee couples, and within 2 generations their demographic effect on the German population will be far greater than 1%. That's how a nation can get swamped by what seems, at first, to be a fairly small number of people.

    “People really don’t understand numbers when it comes to their effect on population.”

    Very true, and that’s because they don’t understand the explosive power latent in exponential growth–but people who are used to handling money at interest do.

  133. @Ttjy
    Who cares if the population is decreasing? Populations can't increase forever. Can Japan and Britain have an ever increasing population? Sooner or later there will be too many people.


    Why do we want assimilation?

    Ttjy said:

    “Who cares if the population is decreasing? Populations can’t increase forever. Can Japan and Britain have an ever increasing population? Sooner or later there will be too many people…”

    The United States had 180 million people in 1960. The quality of life was much better. A young couple could buy a new 3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath house in Palo Alto or Marin County for $35,000. In the D.C. suburbs of Fairfax or Montgomery County $25,000 would get you a new home. My dad paid $47,000 for his house in Georgetown. My mom and stepfather in San Francisco ( who was building those homes in Palo Alto and Marin) paid $68,000 in 1965 for their Victorian in ( lower) Pacific Heights. Today those suburban homes would cost close to a $1 million and I don’t even want to think about what the San Francisco and Georgetown homes would cost except to say I couldn’t afford them.

    There was the new Beltway around Washington. It wasn’t choked with traffic. The Golden Gate and Bay Bridges in San Francisco were the same. People did not have to commute 25-50 miles to an find an affordable home.

    Only a fool would imagine the quality of life in America has improved by the addition of 140 million additional people. The infrastructure can’t keep up with rapid population growth in existing cities because you can’t add new highways, runways, sewers or mass transit systems without incurring huge costs for land acquisition and disruption to existing neighborhoods.

    Germany ( and eastern Europe) are already facing some real constraints on energy supplies. It is simply not possible for Germany to meet its power generation and environmental goals if it has to provide electricity and gas supplies to large numbers of asylum seekers, refugees, migrants or whatever you wish to call them. That hijab clad Muslim women typically do not work but do breed makes this new population even more of a burden than,e.g., Latino or Asian immigrants to the US. That Germany is already on the hook for hundreds of billions of Euros for bailouts to Greece, Portugal and Spain makes it delusional to imagine it can take on an enormous influx of even temporary new residents.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The United States had 180 million people in 1960. The quality of life was much better. A young couple could buy a new 3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath house in Palo Alto or Marin County for $35,000. In the D.C. suburbs of Fairfax or Montgomery County $25,000 would get you a new home. My dad paid $47,000 for his house in Georgetown. My mom and stepfather in San Francisco ( who was building those homes in Palo Alto and Marin) paid $68,000 in 1965 for their Victorian in ( lower) Pacific Heights. Today those suburban homes would cost close to a $1 million

    Without some kind of normalization for incomes, you've spilled a lot of ink telling us nothing.
  134. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Finnish PM Sipilä’s tolerance stunt in giving his home to “refugees” seems to have gone a bit wrong…

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0R507E20150905

    Meet one of said refugees, Fahad Firas: several social media profiles, has travelled several European cities, stereotypical bodybuilding and gangsta poses, one with a assault rifle…

    https://m.facebook.com/fahad.firas.967?_rdr

    Compilation:

    Sipilä has already met him:

    PS. It was nice seeing your blog post about our State Broadcasting Company’s Black Mannerheim-movie.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Maybe said Finnish PM likes rough trade...
  135. One thing I don’t get is that most far lefties I’ve met are Malthusians. The fact that population growth has slowed, and even reversed in most Western nations is something they should be happy about. They shouldn’t want to change that. It would seem to me they’d realize that by exporting excess population from those nations that haven’t gotten their Malthusian, zero-population-growth marching orders, they are easing population pressure on those nations and encouraging them to further overpopulate.

    What it would seem that they should be doing instead is encouraging as many of those people to stay in their home countries, and encourage Western corporations and colonial nations to “exploit” them as much as possible, bringing first-world jobs, governance and living conditions to those populations so that they will, hopefully, catch the first-world “too prosperous to breed” bug.

  136. @ben tillman

    I am not “proposing” anything, I am simply trying to present a best case for why the Germans are doing what they are doing.
     
    You didn't present any case. You think a country needs to be full. There is only one reason a large population is preferable to a small one: to prevent invasion. But you are suggesting invasion as the solution, not the problem!


    Perhaps it’s lipstick on a pig, but we won’t know until we see how it plays out. Meanwhile, I have nothing to do with what Germany is doing, I’m just trying to suggest that they aren’t committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We’ll find out.
     
    Germany isn't doing anything. Its rulers are.

    There is only one reason a large population is preferable to a small one: to prevent invasion. But you are suggesting invasion as the solution, not the problem!

    Nice.

  137. @Anon 2
    Nine million? Nonsense. In the early 1930s Germany's Jewish
    population was only 525,000 (0.75%). In Austria - about 200,000.
    You're confusing Germany with Poland where the Jewish
    population was about 3.2 million (almost 10%). Poland was
    the center of Jewish life for centuries as the Jews were expelled
    from everywhere else in Europe, including Germany, but the
    Polish-Lithuanian Republic in contrast invited the Jewish
    refugees to settle in Poland, starting in the 1200s. Look it
    up in Wikipedia.

    There were very few Jews in prewar Germany, and even fewer
    in France, Britain or Italy, which doesn't help to answer the
    question why the plan for the Final Solution originated in
    Germany.

    Nine million? Nonsense. In the early 1930s Germany’s Jewish
    population was only 525,000 (0.75%).

    I understand that “Ashkenazi” means “German”, and surely he was talking about the growth in the population of Ashkenazi Jews, most of whom lived east of Germany.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    Exactly
  138. @Bettega
    It's curious because German antifas hate Germany ("Bomber Harris, Do it Again" is one of their favourite slogans, refering to the firebombing of Dresden) and yet they sell mass immigration arguing that it will be good for Germany.

    Either they hate Germany and want mass immigration to end the work Bomber Harris began, or they see mass immigration as something genuinely good, and their whole "Antideutsche" antics were just for show.

    Antifas are mostly a bunch of confused college kids who hate their parents, thus authority. It would serve them right to live in a majority Muslim country.

  139. …the image of a nation that is very homogeneous and in which nearly all people speak German as their mother tongue, are fair-skinned and largely Christian…

    Sounds like a lovely place. It’s a sign that we live in bizarro world that he considers that description something to be ashamed of.

  140. Migrants throw away the food and water given to them….

    • Replies: @Jill
    Youtube pulled the video. You can still see it here...

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=344_1441354394
  141. @Maj. Kong
    Japan is a long ways off geographically from a high-fertility Third World nation. South Korea is next door to one, but its their cousins.

    I doubt a mass migration to China could get across the Himalayas or the Taklimakan desert.

    Australia sits across from 200 million Indonesian Muslims.

    There's a subway under the Bosporous.

    ---

    The undeveloped Gandhi was able to defeat the British Empire, by hitting its weak point. That weak point was the idea that Britain was a civilizing force against barbarians. Gandhi was able to make the British look like barbarians.

    If I was guessing, I think a similar Third World figure could do the same to China, if they hit the Chinese weak point: Greed and Anti-Americanism.

    Except China would deal with a Ghandi in a much more lethal fashion than Britain. Britain’s “weak point” has always been it’s fastedious adherence to the rule of law & popular sentiment. That’s not much of an issue in China thus I doubt your scenario ever becomes a reality.

  142. “We must get used to the thought that our country is changing.”

    Does anyone wonder how it is that we get exactly the same message here in the USA?

  143. @Anonymous
    It probably can't at this point. Because of science, secularism, and material progress, Westerners today simply don't and can't believe in Christianity like their ancestors used to. Only isolated groups such as the Amish probably approach it. You would need a major religious revival, or some major disruption like the Dark Ages, or a new religion or revelation to resurrect the sort of belief that once prevailed among Westerners.

    I think you make a good point here, concerning the decline in faith. Faith used to carry with it certain basic ideas: that our lives had a purpose, that our collective existence had a purpose, that there was a future point we were aiming at, that we should grow, expand, and master, that we should be selfless in promoting that agenda, that we would be judged for how we lived our lives, and so on.

    Nowadays I frequently hear, from both sides of the spectrum, that the human race has permanently damaged the planet, that life is ultimately not worth living, that the goal of life is merely an existence with no pain and no want, that there is no ultimate reason either for an individual’s life or a nation’s life, that judgment does not exist, that how we live our lives does not matter, and anyone who says that is brainwashed by the plutocracy, and that robots will inherit the earth, and that’s there’s nothing worth dying for.

    A civilization like that isn’t going to last. It’s not my fault.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Nowadays I frequently hear, from both sides of the spectrum, that the human race has permanently damaged the planet, that life is ultimately not worth living, that the goal of life is merely an existence with no pain and no want, that there is no ultimate reason either for an individual’s life or a nation’s life, that judgment does not exist, that how we live our lives does not matter, and anyone who says that is brainwashed by the plutocracy, and that robots will inherit the earth, and that’s there’s nothing worth dying for.

     

    Too true, and yet it's not the whole picture, is it? If it were, why would SJWs work so hard, to their own discomfort and ultimate detriment, to try -- over and over, in the face of overwhelming historical evidence -- to revolutionize the societies in which they live?

    I agree that loss of faith is the ultimate cause of cultural decline. But while some fade into apathy and ennui, others inflate their own sense of importance. They believe that they hold power over human sin and guilt, and that they, rather than God, can act to save others -- and the world. This heretical pride fuels most forms of modernist/postmodern humanistic utopianism, from Marxism to environmentalism to the handing over of deracinated western cultures to 'migrants'.

    Yeats was certainly on to something when he wrote that 'the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity'. The worst still believe there is a grand narrative that they, via sheer force of will rooted in the certainty of their own wisdom and essential goodness, can write, or re-write, even today.

  144. @Anonymous
    It probably can't at this point. Because of science, secularism, and material progress, Westerners today simply don't and can't believe in Christianity like their ancestors used to. Only isolated groups such as the Amish probably approach it. You would need a major religious revival, or some major disruption like the Dark Ages, or a new religion or revelation to resurrect the sort of belief that once prevailed among Westerners.

    Well, having large families doesn’t really have to be connected to religion or to lack of reproductive rights. I’m sure there are plenty of Mormons with large families who are agnostics, atheists, deists or whatever. It’s all about the culture. If having a large family is seen as enjoyable, a marker of status and a guarantee of an “echo throughout infinity”, then people will have large families if they can afford them. If the family is seen as a burden or as a status marker for uneducated social inferiors, then people will not have children at all, or will have the minimum to satisfy parental expectations of familial continuity.

    It also matters if the people most likely to want large families instead have to channel their desire for posterity into spending on a “rat race” of expensive schools and such for the credentials of their child. In this case, people will rather have one child whom they can offer every possible advantage, instead of multiple children in a more socially egalitarian meritocracy.

    I see it in my c0untry as well – high schools and kindergartens with fancy names and huge tuitions promising parents that their child will belong to a certain peer group and will be better positioned for foreign University admittance and education. This costs a lot, which is no barrier to the uber rich, but is a barrier to middle class people with high ambition looking to purchase some certainty for their only offspring. So, instead of 2-3 kids educated on the public dime, they’d rather have one whom they offer the best of the best, even at the cost of indebtedness normally seen for purchasing a home, not an education. Until now, the rich and the poor were educated in the same schools, and separation between the smart and the dumb took place before high school, also maintaining a more socially heterogeneous group. So children would grow up with friends, rivals and what have you from all walks of life, and possibly retain those friends and at least an understanding of the intrinsic similarities between people of different social classes. That’s why our rich (thieving or not) are more likely to be coarse and down to Earth, not “let them eat cake” types.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Curious what country you live in and what your racial background is.
  145. @SPMoore8
    I assume you mean to call me a dummy, and I'm OK with that as long as we understand that if Europeans in the EU and the US are not going to generate (at least) replacement populations, the change in identity and genetics is going to happen regardless of what any of us might prefer.

    It's not the end of the world. I'm sure the genetic structure of Germans today bears scant resemblance to the Goths who were in the Crimea 1,500 years ago.

    Goths have nothing to do with Germany, there is no link between the Goths (who were Eastern Germanics strongly influenced by steppe cultures) and what eventually became Germany from the 10th century onwards. German nationalists beginning in the 15th century claimed all the Germanic peoples in antiquity as their own, and the Nazis were enthusiasts for the Goths (they called Sevastopol Theoderichhafen), but that’s merely myth-making. So your example is pretty meaningless.
    And no, Germany hasn’t been that successful at assimilating Turks and other Muslim immigrants. Things are not as bad as in Britain or France, but in retrospect allowing mass immigration by Turks and other Muslims was a serious mistake. It’s naive to exspect that things will turn out fine with the current influx…but then Germans are hardly known for their good judgement.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Far be it from me to insist on Crimean Gothic continuity with Germany today, that was done by others. Nevertheless, the Crimean Goths spoke a Germanic dialect so there must be some continuity, either cultural or genetic.

    But actually, all you are saying is that "Germans" as such have only existed for a thousand years, which is exactly my point. It's not as though cultural evolution and/or genetic alteration came to a stop in 1,000 AD. Just for example, in that ensuing 1,000 years there has been significant influx of West Slavic and Scandinavian DNA into what constitutes "Germans", also Jewish, Magyar, and French.

    Again, it's not my problem. I tried to suggest the only reason why someone could approve of this intake (declining birth rates) and the only way in which it will work (assimilation). It's up to the Germans to either make it work or to stop it from happening.
    , @Romanian
    Nobody allowed immigration from the Turks. They came as guest workers to respond to a temporary shortage of labor, many went home, but others didn't and, eventually, rather than face up to the fact that the guy crashing on their couch didn't want to go home and had to be thrown out on his ass, the Germans relented and let him move in officially and get a say in how things were run. Teutoncucks.
  146. Even as the country prepares to mark a quarter-century of German reunification this fall, a spate of violent anti-immigrant protests in the eastern state of Saxony has led to accusations that differences between the two regions still exist, revealing just how difficult it can be even for two peoples who share a language and heritage to feel as one.

    I recently saw a German commenter at another blog pointing out that the German media was heavily flogging the (misinformation, according to him) that all the anti-migrant reaction was among those bigoted hicks in the east, particularly Saxony. In reality, he claimed, these incidents were happening all over the west, too, but the media was not reporting them. If so, our intrepid NYT reporter is doing her part to push the narrative – “See, there really is no such thing as a ‘German’! ‘Germans’ in the West probably have more in common with Syrians than they do with ‘Germans’ in the East, la la la”.

    Would be interested to hear other takes on this from any German commenters out there. (Not that there’s any such thing as a “German” commenter, of course!)

    I read a lot of Soviet/Chinese propaganda long ago when I was a student. It now seems to me that the West’s propaganda organs are starting to surpass anything I ever came across back then, in craziness, sledge-hammer crudity, and balls-to-the-wall shameless effrontery.

  147. That dead child who washed up on shore could very well have been planted for propaganda purposes. It is irrelevant whether or not this is true, but the images are having the desired effect.

    Does anyone remember the phony story about incubator babies that was cooked up to foment support for the United States’s first Middle East war?

    (Apologies for redundancy if anyone here has mentioned this already.)

    Also notice how women and children are always carefully positioned in the foreground of journalist’s photographs of these mobs.

    Notice also how TeeVee reporters write and read this invasion as a sob story from the perspective of the poor, dusty travelers.

    Those travelers are Gypsies, nothing more. They are just another wave of the same kind of people who have wandered into Europe to become a problem. The woman who placed herself on the railroad tracks with a baby in her arms looked to me exactly like Gypsy beggars I’ve seen in Eastern Europe. Some, as you know, will even cripple their children to turn them into beggars. It is all designed to exploit the good hearts of European people.

  148. @German_reader
    Goths have nothing to do with Germany, there is no link between the Goths (who were Eastern Germanics strongly influenced by steppe cultures) and what eventually became Germany from the 10th century onwards. German nationalists beginning in the 15th century claimed all the Germanic peoples in antiquity as their own, and the Nazis were enthusiasts for the Goths (they called Sevastopol Theoderichhafen), but that's merely myth-making. So your example is pretty meaningless.
    And no, Germany hasn't been that successful at assimilating Turks and other Muslim immigrants. Things are not as bad as in Britain or France, but in retrospect allowing mass immigration by Turks and other Muslims was a serious mistake. It's naive to exspect that things will turn out fine with the current influx...but then Germans are hardly known for their good judgement.

    Far be it from me to insist on Crimean Gothic continuity with Germany today, that was done by others. Nevertheless, the Crimean Goths spoke a Germanic dialect so there must be some continuity, either cultural or genetic.

    But actually, all you are saying is that “Germans” as such have only existed for a thousand years, which is exactly my point. It’s not as though cultural evolution and/or genetic alteration came to a stop in 1,000 AD. Just for example, in that ensuing 1,000 years there has been significant influx of West Slavic and Scandinavian DNA into what constitutes “Germans”, also Jewish, Magyar, and French.

    Again, it’s not my problem. I tried to suggest the only reason why someone could approve of this intake (declining birth rates) and the only way in which it will work (assimilation). It’s up to the Germans to either make it work or to stop it from happening.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Again, it’s not my problem. I tried to suggest the only reason why someone could approve of this intake (declining birth rates) ....
     
    I don't see how that could be a reason why someone would approve of the influx. A low birth rate makes preventing immigration even more critical.
  149. 1,639 years ago, tens of thousands of Goths crossed the Danube River. It was a harsh winter, and the tribespeople were very, very grateful to their hosts.

    How’d that work out work out over the next few decades for the Western Roman Empire, I wonder? Never mind — stale, irrelevant ancient history, with no relevance to today.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I got yelled at a few months ago for bringing up the Roman comparison, which I have heard since about 1966, but it remains very apt.

    The Roman Empire had a declining birth rate, a form of same sex marriage (I recall from "I Claudius"), was dominated by various introspective ideologies, and allowed all manner of non-Roman tribes to camp within its Eastern Marches, because it was easier than keeping them out. I also seem to recall, from reading Gibbon, that they elected a number of non-Roman emperors during the period of decline in order to control the situation.

    Substituting Islam for Christianity, Rome for the EU/US, and the African/Muslim barbarians for the Goths, Vandals, etc. leads to some interesting thought experiments.
    , @Romanian
    "But the most experienced statesman of Europe has never been summoned to consider the propriety or the danger of admitting or rejecting an innumerable multitude of barbarians, who are driven by despair and hunger to solicit a settlement on the territories of a civilised nation . When that important proposition, so essentially connected with the public safety, was referred to the ministers of Valens, they were perplexed and divided; but they soon acquiesced in the flattering sentiment which seemed the most favourable to the pride, the indolence, and the avarice of their sovereign.

    “That successful day put an end to the distress of the barbarians and the security of the Romans: from that day the Goths, renouncing the precarious condition of strangers and exiles, assumed the character of citizens and masters, claimed an absolute dominion over the possessors of land, and held, in their own right, the northern provinces of the empire, which are bounded by the Danube”. Such are the words of the Gothic historian,(72) who celebrates, with rude eloquence, the glory of his countrymen. But the dominion of the barbarians was exercised only for the purposes of rapine and destruction.

    The advocates of Theodosius could affirm, with some appearance of truth and reason, that it was impossible to extirpate so many warlike tribes, who were rendered desperate by the loss of their native country; and that the exhausted provinces would be revived by a fresh supply of soldiers and husbandmen. The barbarians still wore an angry and hostile aspect; but the experience of past times might encourage the hope that they would acquire the habits of industry and obedience; that their manners would be polished by time, education, and the influence of Christianity; and that their posterity would insensibly blend with the great body of the Roman people."

    It did, somewhat. It only took like 500 years and, of course, everything was a bastardized version of what the Romans had. Even the conceit of Napoleon calling himself First Consul alludes to this.

    We should have something like a game where you can think of how the future nations of Europe will ape their predecessors to claim continuity. Maybe Merkel will be the new Virgin Mary figure. Or a conservative business suit will become imam-wear. Kind of like how Immortan Joe's Warboys wanted to McFeast in Valhalla, all shiny and chrome.

  150. @Ozymandias
    "When I was growing up we were taught that the world faced a very serious over-population problem."

    We were told that we had to save the world by having less children. And now that we're having less children, we're told that we need to be replaced because we're not having enough children.

    Would be interesting to go back and review where all the population reduction messages were coming from. Not that it really matters, it's all bullshit anyway. If nations can only survive by having an ever increasing population, then the inevitable end will be an overpopulated planet that has destroyed its environmental support system and succumbs to famine and plague. The pyramid scheme is not a viable model, never has been.

    Ditto. I was given the impression that parents should have only two children at the most or be considered evil and irresponsible.

    In fact the message going around was that it was probably better to have no kids at all.

    I have no doubt that the kinds of people saying now that Europe has no choice but to abolish itself because whites aren’t having children were 40 years ago saying that children were a luxury.

  151. @German_reader
    Goths have nothing to do with Germany, there is no link between the Goths (who were Eastern Germanics strongly influenced by steppe cultures) and what eventually became Germany from the 10th century onwards. German nationalists beginning in the 15th century claimed all the Germanic peoples in antiquity as their own, and the Nazis were enthusiasts for the Goths (they called Sevastopol Theoderichhafen), but that's merely myth-making. So your example is pretty meaningless.
    And no, Germany hasn't been that successful at assimilating Turks and other Muslim immigrants. Things are not as bad as in Britain or France, but in retrospect allowing mass immigration by Turks and other Muslims was a serious mistake. It's naive to exspect that things will turn out fine with the current influx...but then Germans are hardly known for their good judgement.

    Nobody allowed immigration from the Turks. They came as guest workers to respond to a temporary shortage of labor, many went home, but others didn’t and, eventually, rather than face up to the fact that the guy crashing on their couch didn’t want to go home and had to be thrown out on his ass, the Germans relented and let him move in officially and get a say in how things were run. Teutoncucks.

  152. Migration apologists repeat mantra-like that migrants are needed to pay for future pensions with tax contributions.

    Leaving aside the idea that a vibrant new population will have any interest in paying for the pensions of old white people this is mostly false.

    A recent and much cited study by the University of London saying that migrants in the UK made a major positive fiscal contribution was torn apart by Migrationwatch:

    http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/347

    The university was acting as a propaganda unit for open borders. Migrants are a huge fiscal drain. Britain should invest in robots, not Somalis.

    No-one asks what might have happened without massive immigration. Whether cheaper house prices and a nicer urban environment might not have persuaded more young British to shrug off 60 years of liberal brain washing to have children.

  153. @ic1000
    1,639 years ago, tens of thousands of Goths crossed the Danube River. It was a harsh winter, and the tribespeople were very, very grateful to their hosts.

    How'd that work out work out over the next few decades for the Western Roman Empire, I wonder? Never mind -- stale, irrelevant ancient history, with no relevance to today.

    I got yelled at a few months ago for bringing up the Roman comparison, which I have heard since about 1966, but it remains very apt.

    The Roman Empire had a declining birth rate, a form of same sex marriage (I recall from “I Claudius”), was dominated by various introspective ideologies, and allowed all manner of non-Roman tribes to camp within its Eastern Marches, because it was easier than keeping them out. I also seem to recall, from reading Gibbon, that they elected a number of non-Roman emperors during the period of decline in order to control the situation.

    Substituting Islam for Christianity, Rome for the EU/US, and the African/Muslim barbarians for the Goths, Vandals, etc. leads to some interesting thought experiments.

  154. @ic1000
    1,639 years ago, tens of thousands of Goths crossed the Danube River. It was a harsh winter, and the tribespeople were very, very grateful to their hosts.

    How'd that work out work out over the next few decades for the Western Roman Empire, I wonder? Never mind -- stale, irrelevant ancient history, with no relevance to today.

    But the most experienced statesman of Europe has never been summoned to consider the propriety or the danger of admitting or rejecting an innumerable multitude of barbarians, who are driven by despair and hunger to solicit a settlement on the territories of a civilised nation . When that important proposition, so essentially connected with the public safety, was referred to the ministers of Valens, they were perplexed and divided; but they soon acquiesced in the flattering sentiment which seemed the most favourable to the pride, the indolence, and the avarice of their sovereign.

    “That successful day put an end to the distress of the barbarians and the security of the Romans: from that day the Goths, renouncing the precarious condition of strangers and exiles, assumed the character of citizens and masters, claimed an absolute dominion over the possessors of land, and held, in their own right, the northern provinces of the empire, which are bounded by the Danube”. Such are the words of the Gothic historian,(72) who celebrates, with rude eloquence, the glory of his countrymen. But the dominion of the barbarians was exercised only for the purposes of rapine and destruction.

    The advocates of Theodosius could affirm, with some appearance of truth and reason, that it was impossible to extirpate so many warlike tribes, who were rendered desperate by the loss of their native country; and that the exhausted provinces would be revived by a fresh supply of soldiers and husbandmen. The barbarians still wore an angry and hostile aspect; but the experience of past times might encourage the hope that they would acquire the habits of industry and obedience; that their manners would be polished by time, education, and the influence of Christianity; and that their posterity would insensibly blend with the great body of the Roman people.”

    It did, somewhat. It only took like 500 years and, of course, everything was a bastardized version of what the Romans had. Even the conceit of Napoleon calling himself First Consul alludes to this.

    We should have something like a game where you can think of how the future nations of Europe will ape their predecessors to claim continuity. Maybe Merkel will be the new Virgin Mary figure. Or a conservative business suit will become imam-wear. Kind of like how Immortan Joe’s Warboys wanted to McFeast in Valhalla, all shiny and chrome.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The usual way history assesses failed rulers is either by repeating legends of how sadistic and cruel they were or by telling stories about their perverted sexual practices. That being the case, I expect in 500 years there will be a number of hilarious stories to be told about the Empress Angela.
  155. @Romanian
    "But the most experienced statesman of Europe has never been summoned to consider the propriety or the danger of admitting or rejecting an innumerable multitude of barbarians, who are driven by despair and hunger to solicit a settlement on the territories of a civilised nation . When that important proposition, so essentially connected with the public safety, was referred to the ministers of Valens, they were perplexed and divided; but they soon acquiesced in the flattering sentiment which seemed the most favourable to the pride, the indolence, and the avarice of their sovereign.

    “That successful day put an end to the distress of the barbarians and the security of the Romans: from that day the Goths, renouncing the precarious condition of strangers and exiles, assumed the character of citizens and masters, claimed an absolute dominion over the possessors of land, and held, in their own right, the northern provinces of the empire, which are bounded by the Danube”. Such are the words of the Gothic historian,(72) who celebrates, with rude eloquence, the glory of his countrymen. But the dominion of the barbarians was exercised only for the purposes of rapine and destruction.

    The advocates of Theodosius could affirm, with some appearance of truth and reason, that it was impossible to extirpate so many warlike tribes, who were rendered desperate by the loss of their native country; and that the exhausted provinces would be revived by a fresh supply of soldiers and husbandmen. The barbarians still wore an angry and hostile aspect; but the experience of past times might encourage the hope that they would acquire the habits of industry and obedience; that their manners would be polished by time, education, and the influence of Christianity; and that their posterity would insensibly blend with the great body of the Roman people."

    It did, somewhat. It only took like 500 years and, of course, everything was a bastardized version of what the Romans had. Even the conceit of Napoleon calling himself First Consul alludes to this.

    We should have something like a game where you can think of how the future nations of Europe will ape their predecessors to claim continuity. Maybe Merkel will be the new Virgin Mary figure. Or a conservative business suit will become imam-wear. Kind of like how Immortan Joe's Warboys wanted to McFeast in Valhalla, all shiny and chrome.

    The usual way history assesses failed rulers is either by repeating legends of how sadistic and cruel they were or by telling stories about their perverted sexual practices. That being the case, I expect in 500 years there will be a number of hilarious stories to be told about the Empress Angela.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That being the case, I expect in 500 years there will be a number of hilarious stories to be told about the Empress Angela.

    Dude I thought you DIDN'T believe that Merkel's allowing in all the migrants was a bad thing.
    , @Romanian
    Don't you mean Sultana Malakia of the United Francistan, the Lovecraftian Goat with a Thousand Young (Shub-Niggurath), beholden to Caliph Ibrahim, formerly Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and commanding the loyalty of Sheikh Hollanda of the Wilāyat of Gallia and of Dawood al-Britani of Ingrisstan, formerly David Cameron?
  156. attilathehen [AKA "Matilda"] says:

    These Asian-black Muslims will not be accepted. There is very little assimilation between non-whites and Germans. Look at blacks in the USA. They are not accepted. The blacks in Germany now are mostly from WWII to the present. These can be deported back to their black countries. The same will happen with the Muslims and Asians. Something else is behind this sudden impetus to send these refugees to Germany. Pope Francis is now advocating that Europe open their homes to these Muslim invaders. He has forgotten about the Christians being persecuted and killed in the Middle East. The game is just to end white countries.

  157. Are there really are morons who think that Europe will be transformed into a retirement village provided for by the vigorous productive Muslim youth?

    • Replies: @Stubborn in Germany
    THAT is exactly the message that is being pushed by German politicians and news media 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

    If it were just one nutter wearing a sandwich board, or even just one top pol and one mass-market media, the message would sink without a trace, on grounds of obvious insanity.

    But when it's being pushed at the populace all the time, it is very effective. Surprised me, actually. I thought people in the 21st century were a bit more savvy and cynical. Obviously I was mistaken.

    I've thought for some time on the motivations of the elites. Don't really have a simple answer, but I think the principal explanation is lack of backbone. Building a fence around Europe and policing it would mean abandoning people in failed societies to their fate. "Live and let die," you know?

    That would be my maxim. It should be the maxim of the politicians, too, but they are too pusillanimous. Of course, some of the blame needs to go the people who elected them. Well, as others have already remarked, it's the decline and fall of the Roman Empire all over again.
  158. @Rich
    It's a common fiction that the Brits pulled out of the sub-Continent because they didn't want to look like barbarians. After WWII, the mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy and the threat of the Indian National Army left the Brits with no choice but to withdraw, they simply didn't have the manpower or the stomach, for a fight. Atlee gave credit to Gandhi in order to save face for the Brits. Churchill's foolish guarantee to Poland led to the destruction of the British Empire and Poland was lost anyway. Britain, with America's and Russia's help defeated Germany, but lost itself.

    Not really. The British were in a deep financial crisis partly caused by America seeking to break Britain with demands for the repayment of wartime aid. Germany was treated much better.

    Britain had lost much of its imperial chutzpah even before the war. And now it also could not expect its Indian troops to fight against their own future leaders. Once the independence activists scented independence the forward momentum was difficult to control. But yes it could have been handled better.

    Peter Hitchens on Poland:

    The point of decision was far earlier, and Churchill played no part in it. He was left with the position which Chamberlain and Halifax had bequeathed to him. In March/April 1939, the Franco-British guarantee of Poland’s independence ( which seems to have resulted from an emotional spasm on the part of Halifax) altered the course of European history. This pledge, which we knew we could not fulfil, and which Germany knew we could not fulfil, but which Poland alone took seriously, ended Poland’s pact with Hitler, dating from 1934 and continuing up to the point when Poland shared joyfully ( as did Hungary) in the spoils of Munich. It might truthfully be said that it led directly to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the consequent partition of Poland. It also gave Poland, or rather the unlovely Joszef Beck, the absolute power to decide when and under what circumstances Britain and France entered any war against Hitler.

    It is plain that Britain and France were going to have to take some sort of military action against Hitler sooner or later, or at the very least to conclude an anti-German pact with Stalin, which would probably have amounted to the same thing. We ended up in a compulsory alliance with Stalin for which we paid in very hard coin indeed. Hardly anyone would have chosen September 1939 (when the tiny British Army was still drilling with broomsticks) as the ideal moment, or the independence of Poland as the ideal issue. In the same way it was plain that the USA would be bound to be drawn into this. The question must be whether British and French diplomacy were competently handled, and whether the timing was right. And whether cleverer diplomacy and better timing might indeed have saved Britain from the accelerated decline which it has actually suffered.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It is plain that Britain and France were going to have to take some sort of military action against Hitler sooner or later, or at the very least to conclude an anti-German pact with Stalin, which would probably have amounted to the same thing.

    What makes you say that? Germany had territorial ambitions only to the East, and those ambitions were actually modest compared to the foreign territories that the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union had or would assert claims to. Adolf Hitler envisioned Britain and Germany as indefinite allies into the future. There was no reason for Britain and France to take any military action.
  159. @jill
    Migrants throw away the food and water given to them….


    https://youtu.be/j3vvbCf_fB8

    Youtube pulled the video. You can still see it here…

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=344_1441354394

  160. @Pat Hannagan
    800,000 new residents this year offers Germany an opportunity to rejuvenate its aging demographics and ensure its economic prosperity

    800, 000 master craftsman engineers to slot right into the German guild system straight outta Mosul!

    What a boon.

    Why stop at 800,000, surely they want more than that?

    Is this the same Melissa Eddy?

    …and it will no longer be a German Germany, but another Islamic state. It’s amazing that these do-gooders don’t realize that it takes more than “bodies’ to keep a nation intact and functioning well. Is a Syrian Muslim the same as a German German? Can one really replace the other to the optimum degree? Hardly. Such childish innocence is hard to fathom. Mahmoud and Mathias are not the same in body or in spirit. One cannot replace the other.

  161. @SPMoore8
    On the contrary, I have very significant German heritage and I am proud of it. However, I am an American, and Germany's gonna do what it's gonna to do. All I can do is wish them good luck. I'm not sure that the (screened) refugees going to Germany are going to be a net benefit or not. But we'll find out. If they do it the way the French did it, then they're committing suicide. If they manage to assimilate them, then Germany will be fine. But it's not like Angela Merkel is the Fuehrerin. If the German people don't like it, then they have to do something about it.

    On the contrary, I have very significant German heritage and I am proud of it. However, I am an American, and Germany’s gonna do what it’s gonna to do.

    Look you seem like you are a fan of what Germany is doing and think it is a good thing.

    This isn’t really intended to be a direct attack on you, but you seem a lot more like a German than an American in the way you think. Do you think other Americans feel ties and loyalty to you?

    So go to where your kinship and loyalty lies. If you want to be a suicide queen, do it over there. You’ll have lots of company.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    This isn’t really intended to be a direct attack on you, but you seem a lot more like a German than an American in the way you think.

    Not sure what to make of that but I will take it as a compliment. American born and bred and served 4 years as a volunteer in the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
  162. “An innocent Syrian child is finally safe in Mother Merkel’s arms”

    This suggests a new nickname for Angela Merkel: Mother Courage

    Mother Courage and Her Children

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    'Barren Vixen', more like.
  163. @Anon 2
    Poland has already accepted over 400,000 Ukrainian
    refugees. Technically, the vast majority have short-term
    work permits which apparently can be renewed indefinitely
    or are illegals. In any case, they have no intention of
    returning to Ukraine, and, based on their Facebook
    comments and anecdotal evidence, they seem to love it
    in Poland. Most send money to their relatives in Ukraine,
    and go back for visits, but typically learn Polish very
    quickly and some even study at Poland's universities.

    Pick-up artists like Roosh V who tried Ukraine but moved
    permanently to Poland as Ukraine became unsafe now have
    a choice in Poland between Polish girls or Ukrainian
    girls. Like a kid in a candy store. And the country is still
    99.9% white and Christian. Poland is now probably the
    largest white country in the world. Ukraine and Russia
    are multiracial.

    …a choice in Poland between Polish girls or Ukrainian
    girls. Like a kid in a candy store. And the country is still
    99.9% white and Christian.

    Christian girls don’t have time for “pick-up artists”.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Among pick up artists, Poland is known for being the best place for "day game". Videos posted on Youtube show PUAs able to approach girls on the street, take them on a date on the spot, and sleep with them all in a matter of a few hours or even under an hour.
  164. @bossel

    There is only one reason a large population is preferable to a small one: to prevent invasion.
     
    Actually, the German economy is already complaining about a lack of people. This will only grow in the future, even though they already imported quite a number of workers from other European countries.
    German (future) pensioners fear for their pensions, since the German system relies on the workforce (well, their tax) to support the pensions. Hence, if the workforce shrinks, the pension level is in danger.

    If the Syrian refugees can be integrated as was done with the Turks, it won't be much of a problem. A problem may arise because this could set a precedent. In other crises in the future refugees may feel that Germany is the easiest option. German politicians already say that the current situation is special, but will future refugees hear that message (& believe it)?

    Germany isn’t doing anything. Its rulers are.
     
    You are not really well-informed, are you? There are lots of Germany who actually welcome the refugees. Many people volunteer to help or donate. The anti-immigration protesters are a small minority. At the moment most Germans still think that Syrian refugees should be let in. This will probably change if the wave doesn't stop, though.

    A distinguished German professor pointed out a while ago that immigration cannot possibly fund the German pension problem.
    In order for the contributor/claimant ratio to stay constant, the German population must increase to something utterly ridiculous, like 600 million, this century. And the exponential growth will only continue.

  165. @Anonymous
    So how does it make the hbders here feel that German women, who have some of the highest iqs in the world among white women, prefer African males, who have an iq of 30 points below them?

    It is utterly unsurprising. Women everywhere have a taste for male violence and a dangerous African thug beats a beta male White guy every time. That’s just how women are. Like water being wet.

    Women despise male intelligence as it is associated with lower dominance unless mediated by Alpha behavior.

  166. @Anonymous
    Finnish PM Sipilä's tolerance stunt in giving his home to "refugees" seems to have gone a bit wrong...

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0R507E20150905

    Meet one of said refugees, Fahad Firas: several social media profiles, has travelled several European cities, stereotypical bodybuilding and gangsta poses, one with a assault rifle...

    https://m.facebook.com/fahad.firas.967?_rdr

    Compilation:

    http://i.imgur.com/W11cdrv.jpg


    Sipilä has already met him:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao_7rxdsYL4


    PS. It was nice seeing your blog post about our State Broadcasting Company's Black Mannerheim-movie.

    Maybe said Finnish PM likes rough trade…

  167. @SPMoore8
    The usual way history assesses failed rulers is either by repeating legends of how sadistic and cruel they were or by telling stories about their perverted sexual practices. That being the case, I expect in 500 years there will be a number of hilarious stories to be told about the Empress Angela.

    That being the case, I expect in 500 years there will be a number of hilarious stories to be told about the Empress Angela.

    Dude I thought you DIDN’T believe that Merkel’s allowing in all the migrants was a bad thing.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    That's because everyone is jumping to conclusions. Personally, I wouldn't do it. I was simply trying to present what I think is the logic of the German ruling class in allowing these migrants into Germany. Now, I don't like to be the kind person to predict failure: that ends up with me wishing for failure, and I hate that. So I am going to hope it works, and that assimilation works (that's the key.)

    However, if Germany and the EU follow the trajectory of the Roman Empire, it won't work, except in the very, very long term. That's the scenario we're discussing now. If it does work, Germany strengthens its position in Europe, and can get back to work on that Berlin to Baghdad railroad. If it fails, well, that's the way it goes. After what I've been hearing about the mating habits of Germans, I'm surprised they have managed to survive this long.
  168. @Wilkey
    You've just explained almost perfectly the demographic effect of this invasion. People really don't understand numbers when it comes to their effect on population. They see 800,000 migrants and think it's only 1% of the population. But it's a far larger share of the breeding age population. And then you have to take into account that these young men will soon be applying to bring in their wives/girlfriends/arranged marriage partners. And then they will breed at a rate far higher than native German breeding rates, and they will have children who will start breeding sooner and faster than the native Germans.

    800,000 "refugee" men will very quickly turn into 800,000 refugee couples, and within 2 generations their demographic effect on the German population will be far greater than 1%. That's how a nation can get swamped by what seems, at first, to be a fairly small number of people.

    that these young men will soon be applying to bring in their wives/girlfriends/arranged marriage partners…

    /first cousins/nieces/foster/step-/half-sisters…

    Sending home for goats, sheep, and other ruminants would be preferable. And the USDA has higher standards than ICE.

  169. @Ozymandias
    "When I was growing up we were taught that the world faced a very serious over-population problem."

    We were told that we had to save the world by having less children. And now that we're having less children, we're told that we need to be replaced because we're not having enough children.

    Would be interesting to go back and review where all the population reduction messages were coming from. Not that it really matters, it's all bullshit anyway. If nations can only survive by having an ever increasing population, then the inevitable end will be an overpopulated planet that has destroyed its environmental support system and succumbs to famine and plague. The pyramid scheme is not a viable model, never has been.

    You stopped hearing from them the very moment whites, worldwide, stopped reproducing.

  170. @Massimo Heitor

    Keep in mind that Germany has chosen very deliberately to allow 1% of their population in immigrants this year. There must be a reason why they are doing it. And I don’t think it’s because of “Holocaust Guilt” or anything like that.
     
    I'm sure the elite politicians and academic have their motivations, but they sure aren't explaining them, and we can only speculate. Merkel is no dummy. In 2010, she gave an infamous widely discussed speech declaring that:

    "And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other... has failed, utterly failed."

     

    Maybe that was nothing more than political pandering, but it seemed quite genuine. Now, she is obviously far more pro welcoming non European Muslim immigrants, and we can only speculate as to why.

    My fear is that it's just pressure from the open border elites or basic political pandering or the fact that the non-natives now control or are expected to control much of the vote and the native people officially have had their own political representation extinguished.

    There is a small chance the European elites have a better strategy in mind. If there is a Arab demographic takeover of Germany, maybe that justifies some kind of leadership takeover of the middle east and a transition away from democracy and universal suffrage? Combining universal suffrage and this style of true unstoppable open borders spells overt oppression for ethnic Germans who will always be outvoted by demographically larger rival ethnic groups.

    The native German people absolutely don't want this. There are a few Germans who love it, but the broader German people would have overwhelmingly voted this away if they were ever given a choice. The open border crowd wasn't interested in giving the natives a say in the matter.

    I'm stunned by how fast this is happening and how the German people really weren't given a choice, and how they weren't given a warning, as in, "Get your birth rates up or politicians will flip your entire country inside out for political favor". They were told, "hey don't think about this, look the other way. Oh, too late, we've secretly organized this permanent complete overthrow of your society."

    Hint:
    It’s all about post-Hitler guilt.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Hint:
    It’s all about post-Hitler guilt.


    Same things is happening with White people in the United States.
  171. @bossel

    There is only one reason a large population is preferable to a small one: to prevent invasion.
     
    Actually, the German economy is already complaining about a lack of people. This will only grow in the future, even though they already imported quite a number of workers from other European countries.
    German (future) pensioners fear for their pensions, since the German system relies on the workforce (well, their tax) to support the pensions. Hence, if the workforce shrinks, the pension level is in danger.

    If the Syrian refugees can be integrated as was done with the Turks, it won't be much of a problem. A problem may arise because this could set a precedent. In other crises in the future refugees may feel that Germany is the easiest option. German politicians already say that the current situation is special, but will future refugees hear that message (& believe it)?

    Germany isn’t doing anything. Its rulers are.
     
    You are not really well-informed, are you? There are lots of Germany who actually welcome the refugees. Many people volunteer to help or donate. The anti-immigration protesters are a small minority. At the moment most Germans still think that Syrian refugees should be let in. This will probably change if the wave doesn't stop, though.

    Actually, the German economy is already complaining about a lack of people. This will only grow in the future, even though they already imported quite a number of workers from other European countries.

    Where can we read or view an interview with the German economy?

  172. @Romanian
    Well, having large families doesn't really have to be connected to religion or to lack of reproductive rights. I'm sure there are plenty of Mormons with large families who are agnostics, atheists, deists or whatever. It's all about the culture. If having a large family is seen as enjoyable, a marker of status and a guarantee of an "echo throughout infinity", then people will have large families if they can afford them. If the family is seen as a burden or as a status marker for uneducated social inferiors, then people will not have children at all, or will have the minimum to satisfy parental expectations of familial continuity.

    It also matters if the people most likely to want large families instead have to channel their desire for posterity into spending on a "rat race" of expensive schools and such for the credentials of their child. In this case, people will rather have one child whom they can offer every possible advantage, instead of multiple children in a more socially egalitarian meritocracy.

    I see it in my c0untry as well - high schools and kindergartens with fancy names and huge tuitions promising parents that their child will belong to a certain peer group and will be better positioned for foreign University admittance and education. This costs a lot, which is no barrier to the uber rich, but is a barrier to middle class people with high ambition looking to purchase some certainty for their only offspring. So, instead of 2-3 kids educated on the public dime, they'd rather have one whom they offer the best of the best, even at the cost of indebtedness normally seen for purchasing a home, not an education. Until now, the rich and the poor were educated in the same schools, and separation between the smart and the dumb took place before high school, also maintaining a more socially heterogeneous group. So children would grow up with friends, rivals and what have you from all walks of life, and possibly retain those friends and at least an understanding of the intrinsic similarities between people of different social classes. That's why our rich (thieving or not) are more likely to be coarse and down to Earth, not "let them eat cake" types.

    Curious what country you live in and what your racial background is.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    It's in the online handle. I'm a Romanian. Racial background is lily white (though not Slavic). I have chestnut hair, strong jaw and hazel eyes, but features generally vary in the region. For me, think Bucky Barnes in The Winter Soldier, who is played by a Romanian, crossed with Tom Hardy. I haven't done one of those ancestry tests, but general genetic testing shows that people in this region are a mix of various European populations, some passing through. Traditionally, it is said we're a mix of mostly Italics with Thracians (Romans+Dacians). My personal history (until I get that 23andme test done), being descended from unremarkable serfs in the boondocks, suggests that I am either a pure local stock, or, at most, I have a little bit of Greek, Gypsy, Bulgarian or Serb in me.

    This link discusses haplogroup data for the region and the huge compatibility (>80%) with all of our neighbors, especially the Southern ones. Ukrainians and Russians are an exception. Google translate makes it mostly intelligible if you already know something about genetics.

    http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/un-pic-de-genetica-romania-si-vecinii-sai

    Having been a Communist country is the explanation behind the egalitarianism (and meritocracy) in our educational system and how only now, after becoming more well off (and unequal), we are getting private schools with fancy names (Cambridge, Lauder-Reut which is very Jewish etc). I lament to my friends and colleagues that our drive to copy the West will result in us getting only the bad things that are considered quintessentially Western now, and ignoring the good things of a generation ago, that made the West's fortunes.
  173. @Maj. Kong
    Real incomes in the US have been flat for a long time. A second earner in the household is an easy way around. No propaganda required, just keeping up with the Joneses.

    more like, as Sailer has noted before, keeping away from the Jamals.

  174. @Anonymous
    So how does it make the hbders here feel that German women, who have some of the highest iqs in the world among white women, prefer African males, who have an iq of 30 points below them?

    So how does it make the hbders here feel that German women, who have some of the highest iqs in the world among white women, prefer African males, who have an iq of 30 points below them?

    If all your premises are true, that’s an interesting question.

  175. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @unit472
    Ttjy said:

    "Who cares if the population is decreasing? Populations can’t increase forever. Can Japan and Britain have an ever increasing population? Sooner or later there will be too many people..."

    The United States had 180 million people in 1960. The quality of life was much better. A young couple could buy a new 3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath house in Palo Alto or Marin County for $35,000. In the D.C. suburbs of Fairfax or Montgomery County $25,000 would get you a new home. My dad paid $47,000 for his house in Georgetown. My mom and stepfather in San Francisco ( who was building those homes in Palo Alto and Marin) paid $68,000 in 1965 for their Victorian in ( lower) Pacific Heights. Today those suburban homes would cost close to a $1 million and I don't even want to think about what the San Francisco and Georgetown homes would cost except to say I couldn't afford them.

    There was the new Beltway around Washington. It wasn't choked with traffic. The Golden Gate and Bay Bridges in San Francisco were the same. People did not have to commute 25-50 miles to an find an affordable home.

    Only a fool would imagine the quality of life in America has improved by the addition of 140 million additional people. The infrastructure can't keep up with rapid population growth in existing cities because you can't add new highways, runways, sewers or mass transit systems without incurring huge costs for land acquisition and disruption to existing neighborhoods.

    Germany ( and eastern Europe) are already facing some real constraints on energy supplies. It is simply not possible for Germany to meet its power generation and environmental goals if it has to provide electricity and gas supplies to large numbers of asylum seekers, refugees, migrants or whatever you wish to call them. That hijab clad Muslim women typically do not work but do breed makes this new population even more of a burden than,e.g., Latino or Asian immigrants to the US. That Germany is already on the hook for hundreds of billions of Euros for bailouts to Greece, Portugal and Spain makes it delusional to imagine it can take on an enormous influx of even temporary new residents.

    The United States had 180 million people in 1960. The quality of life was much better. A young couple could buy a new 3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath house in Palo Alto or Marin County for $35,000. In the D.C. suburbs of Fairfax or Montgomery County $25,000 would get you a new home. My dad paid $47,000 for his house in Georgetown. My mom and stepfather in San Francisco ( who was building those homes in Palo Alto and Marin) paid $68,000 in 1965 for their Victorian in ( lower) Pacific Heights. Today those suburban homes would cost close to a $1 million

    Without some kind of normalization for incomes, you’ve spilled a lot of ink telling us nothing.

    • Replies: @jill
    "Between 1973 and 2014 productivity grew 72.2 percent, or 1.33 percent each year, while the typical worker’s compensation was nearly stagnant, growing just 0.22 percent annually, or 9.2 percent over the entire 1973–2014 period. Further, nearly all of the pay growth over this 41-year period occurred during the seven years from 1995 to 2002, when wages were boosted by the very tight labor markets of the late 1990s and early 2000s. This divergence of pay and productivity has meant that the vast majority of workers were not benefiting much from productivity growth; the economy could afford higher pay but was not providing it."

    http://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/
  176. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    English women like them too.

    So do American women. I’ve heard a number of them say that the world needs more dark-skinned babies.

    Of course, men of African descent are heavily promoted to Western women in the public programming (media, academia, advertising) and women are as susceptible to marketing as everyone else. It is hard to say how “natural” this preference is.

  177. A BBC WS program yesterday that mentioned the unusual degree to which Germans read newspapers. Many buy both a regional and national paper (by the way in Germany there are open paper racks and somewhere to put the money, very high trust). Another long report and discussion on the BBC World Service from Germany today. The recent arrivals are 66% male, half under 25.

    One thing I think that people are being misled about is the relative strength of opposition. There really does seem to be a grassroots consensus driving Merkel’s shift. She is known for not moving without assessing the situation. There are thousands of volunteers helping, and hundreds turning out at Munich railway station to welcome refugees to Germany. No protesters there, not a one. On the program panel no mainstream Germans were unhappy over non European immigration as such, although an associate of Merkel cautioned that long term resourcing would be a problem if there were millions each year coming in. The political discussion was mainly about how proud Germans ought to be. They seem glad this is happening. With a well-educated woman who is one of those volunteer’s putting up a refugee at her comfortable apartment in Berlin, the pro-immigration BBC journalist had to actually start playing devil’s advocate, and ask with her having a young daughter if it wasn’t risky have a Syrian asylum seeker sleeping on her sofa and various pals of his also at her flat, but she responded “what could they do, they have come from somewhere worse”.

    The one anti-immigration elected politician interviewed (he recently left his party because it had gone extremist) was really mild and more wanting a reduction of the levels than complaining about non-European immigration as such ( There are about of a third from the Balkans right now.) An Afghan they interviewed that said some people were friendly but had told him to go home, the German MP said the island where the Afghan is living and working now is a holiday resort for the rich that many Germans cannot afford to go to. Regional small businesses are complaining to the MP about being unable to find skilled labour.

    US and UK economists are always going on about Germany’s falling population but my impression is that Germans are not using a falling population argument for accepting non-European migrants; it is mainly a moral imperative. The pundits in the Economists are predicting Britain will be the biggest country in the EU in a few generations. The bullfrog mentality. Germany like Japan is in my opinion a lot stronger that their falling population doom-mongers of the Economist would have it. (check out the Eamonn Fingleton articles about Japan’s population). What kind of productive jobs are there going to be for these teeming masses of immigrant descended people in the UK? I think they are going to be doing things that are thinly disguised begging, windscreen cleaners ect.

    There was an established Syrian who was asked about the racism he had encountered in Berlin. He said there wasn’t any, none at all. The most recent poll said 59% of Germans had no concern about immigration. Opposition to immigration is far smaller than 40%.

    The basis of the anti-nuclear political consensus in Germany is educated young German women, who also seem to especially supportive of immigration. The opposition to nuclear power is supposed to derive from fear of nuclear war. I imagine a WW2 hangover feeling that any kind of racial nativism might lead to Germany getting into a war could be behind the enthusiasm for immigrants. Germany is rich and has not been transformed by immigration in the way British cities have though.

    “One of the strangest myths in the comments of this site is the idea that birth rates have collapsed solely because of women not wanting children instead of mainly because of men not wanting children. Do you really think there’s some huge number of men out there who would be eager to support a wife and children entirely on their own income but who are missing that life of their dreams because there’s no matching women for them?” The immigrants are young and male so hundreds of thousands of German men will never reproduce. One thing that studies have found is an absence of evidence that having children makes men or women happier.

    I think no one really knows the prime mover cause of falling birth-rates, but there does seem to be a trend that more and more women never become mothers. It’s doubled since the seventies in the UK. You can give explanations for Germany, yet Ukraine with its astoundingly lower level surely has many dissimilarities. Germany and Ukraine are perhaps enlightening about one thing; with a low birthrate a country will get invaded, one way or the other.

  178. @Anonymous
    So how does it make the hbders here feel that German women, who have some of the highest iqs in the world among white women, prefer African males, who have an iq of 30 points below them?

    I live over here, and I have yet to meet an attractive, intelligent German woman who sleeps with African men. Most of the German women who shack up with Africans are either poorly educated and working class (i.e. IQs maybe 10-15 points higher than their African mates, if that), fairly unattractive far left types, often with drug problems, or women over 40 who have moved on to the “sex tourism” phase of their lives, and aren’t planning to breed. Germans are secretly very class conscious and upper class Germans do not sleep with blacks, anymore than upper class American whites. An African man looking for a high status white woman will do best in England, but he has to be able to talk like Idris Elba.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I've never been to Germany, I don't know any Germans, I have no connection whatsoever with that country.
    However, from what I've gleaned there does seem to be a fair scions of black US servicemen and German women prominent in fields such as sport and entertainment.

    Those fakers in Milli Vanilli and Boney M spring to mind.
  179. @Anon
    Christ this blog's commenter pool is filled with weirdos.

    A more realistic strategy might include the removal of all state subsidies/student loan programs to non-STEM subjects in universities. This would disproportionately affect women. Will parents still want their daughters enrolling in Genderqueer Critical Theory when they’re paying full price? That might happen in the US, but maybe not in countries with higher taxes that make saving for college harder.

    These women would then have to enroll in some post-secondary education/training, be it community college or the trades. Either way, they spend much less of their prime reproductive years accruing debt and being indoctrinated by progressives and they get out in the real world much faster.

    A side benefit of this is that is will vastly reduce the market for progressive professors/sessional instructors.

    • Replies: @Anon 2
    Gee, hooking up and going to bed in less than an hour? Just
    like in the good ol' USA. In your dreams! Actually, Poland is
    still a fairly conservative and religious country. Girls in their
    early 20s typically acquire boyfriends through their social
    circles, not the pick-up scene, and go steady until they get
    married. Except for low-class dregs, they wouldn't have time
    for pick-up artists. The marriage rate is very high and the
    divorce rate is still very low as compared to the decadent West.
    Practically all children are raised in two-parent families.

    Poland to this day has a very romantic culture, going back to
    the days of Adam Mickiewicz and Frederic Chopin, the
    culture that armored it against the German, Russian, and
    most recently Marxist materialist onslaught. Poetry, film, and
    theater are world class. 10-15 years ago Krakow had two Nobel Prize laureates as residents: Czeslaw Milosz and Wislawa Szymborska
    Szymborska. Both won the Prize for poetry. This doesn't happen
    randomly - it can only happen in a place that worships the magic
    of poetry, theater, film, and most recently video games, as the
    success of the Witcher series demonstrates.

  180. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    I live over here, and I have yet to meet an attractive, intelligent German woman who sleeps with African men. Most of the German women who shack up with Africans are either poorly educated and working class (i.e. IQs maybe 10-15 points higher than their African mates, if that), fairly unattractive far left types, often with drug problems, or women over 40 who have moved on to the "sex tourism" phase of their lives, and aren't planning to breed. Germans are secretly very class conscious and upper class Germans do not sleep with blacks, anymore than upper class American whites. An African man looking for a high status white woman will do best in England, but he has to be able to talk like Idris Elba.

    I’ve never been to Germany, I don’t know any Germans, I have no connection whatsoever with that country.
    However, from what I’ve gleaned there does seem to be a fair scions of black US servicemen and German women prominent in fields such as sport and entertainment.

    Those fakers in Milli Vanilli and Boney M spring to mind.

    • Replies: @AP
    This doesn't contradict what Peter wrote.
  181. @Wilkey
    You've just explained almost perfectly the demographic effect of this invasion. People really don't understand numbers when it comes to their effect on population. They see 800,000 migrants and think it's only 1% of the population. But it's a far larger share of the breeding age population. And then you have to take into account that these young men will soon be applying to bring in their wives/girlfriends/arranged marriage partners. And then they will breed at a rate far higher than native German breeding rates, and they will have children who will start breeding sooner and faster than the native Germans.

    800,000 "refugee" men will very quickly turn into 800,000 refugee couples, and within 2 generations their demographic effect on the German population will be far greater than 1%. That's how a nation can get swamped by what seems, at first, to be a fairly small number of people.

    And they’ll be breeding at a far higher rate than they would naturally be capable of because they’ll be supported by tax dollars stolen from local whites, who may then decide that they can’t afford to have children because it’s too expensive.

    A week ago or so I saw a German news report that showed a Syrian couple that had already been in Germany for a year. They had one small child and were complaining that their accommodations (paid for by the local church) were insufficient for their current family. They were expecting another child in a few months, which means they got pregant while being supported by Germans. That’s how these people think. They just have kids until they can’t. It’s like the episode of Star Trek with the Tribbles!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    > "Tribbles"

    yes, that's what I've been thinking recently.

    Tribbles are the greatest danger to men, not monsters. We know how to fight aggressive monsters, we are defenseless against tribbles.

    Mostly because Leftist would immediately attack anyone who is tribblephobic.
    , @Dew
    It just doesn't seem right that these people can feel free to have as many babies as they please knowing that they will be supported by taxpayers money. Then they have the nerve to complain they aren't getting enough.

    I also don't feel that most of these migrants are "poor refugees" since the vast majority of them seem to be twenty to thirty something males who are looking to fill their pockets.
    , @Bill B.
    Yes. Lots of Europeans wait to have children - a marker particularly of north Europe - and in the last two decades have found starting a family costly and awkward because of the need for couples to work and smaller home sizes etc..

    Migrants on welfare have no such qualms. Europe pays for its own replacement.

    The most important scene from Idiocracy:

    http://youtu.be/hL1-340ODCM
  182. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    …a choice in Poland between Polish girls or Ukrainian
    girls. Like a kid in a candy store. And the country is still
    99.9% white and Christian.
     
    Christian girls don't have time for "pick-up artists".

    Among pick up artists, Poland is known for being the best place for “day game”. Videos posted on Youtube show PUAs able to approach girls on the street, take them on a date on the spot, and sleep with them all in a matter of a few hours or even under an hour.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    That doesn't sound very Christian, does it?
  183. @Peter Akuleyev
    The idea and planning for the Final Solution originated only after Germany had acquired millions of unwanted Jews through conquering Poland and the western regions of the Soviet Union. The Nazis never planned to murder all the German Jews, they would have been perfectly happy to steal all their assets and let them emigrate. And, in fact, most German Jews did emigrate before the war started. Unfortunately many never got further than the Netherlands or France.

    Hitler was a product of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

  184. @Mr. Anon
    "An innocent Syrian child is finally safe in Mother Merkel’s arms"

    This suggests a new nickname for Angela Merkel: Mother Courage

    Mother Courage and Her Children

    ‘Barren Vixen’, more like.

  185. @Anonymous
    That being the case, I expect in 500 years there will be a number of hilarious stories to be told about the Empress Angela.

    Dude I thought you DIDN'T believe that Merkel's allowing in all the migrants was a bad thing.

    That’s because everyone is jumping to conclusions. Personally, I wouldn’t do it. I was simply trying to present what I think is the logic of the German ruling class in allowing these migrants into Germany. Now, I don’t like to be the kind person to predict failure: that ends up with me wishing for failure, and I hate that. So I am going to hope it works, and that assimilation works (that’s the key.)

    However, if Germany and the EU follow the trajectory of the Roman Empire, it won’t work, except in the very, very long term. That’s the scenario we’re discussing now. If it does work, Germany strengthens its position in Europe, and can get back to work on that Berlin to Baghdad railroad. If it fails, well, that’s the way it goes. After what I’ve been hearing about the mating habits of Germans, I’m surprised they have managed to survive this long.

  186. @SPMoore8
    Far be it from me to insist on Crimean Gothic continuity with Germany today, that was done by others. Nevertheless, the Crimean Goths spoke a Germanic dialect so there must be some continuity, either cultural or genetic.

    But actually, all you are saying is that "Germans" as such have only existed for a thousand years, which is exactly my point. It's not as though cultural evolution and/or genetic alteration came to a stop in 1,000 AD. Just for example, in that ensuing 1,000 years there has been significant influx of West Slavic and Scandinavian DNA into what constitutes "Germans", also Jewish, Magyar, and French.

    Again, it's not my problem. I tried to suggest the only reason why someone could approve of this intake (declining birth rates) and the only way in which it will work (assimilation). It's up to the Germans to either make it work or to stop it from happening.

    Again, it’s not my problem. I tried to suggest the only reason why someone could approve of this intake (declining birth rates) ….

    I don’t see how that could be a reason why someone would approve of the influx. A low birth rate makes preventing immigration even more critical.

  187. @Sunbeam
    On the contrary, I have very significant German heritage and I am proud of it. However, I am an American, and Germany’s gonna do what it’s gonna to do.

    Look you seem like you are a fan of what Germany is doing and think it is a good thing.

    This isn't really intended to be a direct attack on you, but you seem a lot more like a German than an American in the way you think. Do you think other Americans feel ties and loyalty to you?

    So go to where your kinship and loyalty lies. If you want to be a suicide queen, do it over there. You'll have lots of company.

    This isn’t really intended to be a direct attack on you, but you seem a lot more like a German than an American in the way you think.

    Not sure what to make of that but I will take it as a compliment. American born and bred and served 4 years as a volunteer in the Armed Forces of the United States of America.

  188. @Anonymous
    Hint:
    It's all about post-Hitler guilt.

    Hint:
    It’s all about post-Hitler guilt.

    Same things is happening with White people in the United States.

  189. @Anonymous
    The United States had 180 million people in 1960. The quality of life was much better. A young couple could buy a new 3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath house in Palo Alto or Marin County for $35,000. In the D.C. suburbs of Fairfax or Montgomery County $25,000 would get you a new home. My dad paid $47,000 for his house in Georgetown. My mom and stepfather in San Francisco ( who was building those homes in Palo Alto and Marin) paid $68,000 in 1965 for their Victorian in ( lower) Pacific Heights. Today those suburban homes would cost close to a $1 million

    Without some kind of normalization for incomes, you've spilled a lot of ink telling us nothing.

    “Between 1973 and 2014 productivity grew 72.2 percent, or 1.33 percent each year, while the typical worker’s compensation was nearly stagnant, growing just 0.22 percent annually, or 9.2 percent over the entire 1973–2014 period. Further, nearly all of the pay growth over this 41-year period occurred during the seven years from 1995 to 2002, when wages were boosted by the very tight labor markets of the late 1990s and early 2000s. This divergence of pay and productivity has meant that the vast majority of workers were not benefiting much from productivity growth; the economy could afford higher pay but was not providing it.”

    http://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/

  190. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill B.
    Not really. The British were in a deep financial crisis partly caused by America seeking to break Britain with demands for the repayment of wartime aid. Germany was treated much better.

    Britain had lost much of its imperial chutzpah even before the war. And now it also could not expect its Indian troops to fight against their own future leaders. Once the independence activists scented independence the forward momentum was difficult to control. But yes it could have been handled better.

    Peter Hitchens on Poland:

    The point of decision was far earlier, and Churchill played no part in it. He was left with the position which Chamberlain and Halifax had bequeathed to him. In March/April 1939, the Franco-British guarantee of Poland's independence ( which seems to have resulted from an emotional spasm on the part of Halifax) altered the course of European history. This pledge, which we knew we could not fulfil, and which Germany knew we could not fulfil, but which Poland alone took seriously, ended Poland's pact with Hitler, dating from 1934 and continuing up to the point when Poland shared joyfully ( as did Hungary) in the spoils of Munich. It might truthfully be said that it led directly to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the consequent partition of Poland. It also gave Poland, or rather the unlovely Joszef Beck, the absolute power to decide when and under what circumstances Britain and France entered any war against Hitler.

    It is plain that Britain and France were going to have to take some sort of military action against Hitler sooner or later, or at the very least to conclude an anti-German pact with Stalin, which would probably have amounted to the same thing. We ended up in a compulsory alliance with Stalin for which we paid in very hard coin indeed. Hardly anyone would have chosen September 1939 (when the tiny British Army was still drilling with broomsticks) as the ideal moment, or the independence of Poland as the ideal issue. In the same way it was plain that the USA would be bound to be drawn into this. The question must be whether British and French diplomacy were competently handled, and whether the timing was right. And whether cleverer diplomacy and better timing might indeed have saved Britain from the accelerated decline which it has actually suffered.

    It is plain that Britain and France were going to have to take some sort of military action against Hitler sooner or later, or at the very least to conclude an anti-German pact with Stalin, which would probably have amounted to the same thing.

    What makes you say that? Germany had territorial ambitions only to the East, and those ambitions were actually modest compared to the foreign territories that the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union had or would assert claims to. Adolf Hitler envisioned Britain and Germany as indefinite allies into the future. There was no reason for Britain and France to take any military action.

  191. @Anonymous
    Curious what country you live in and what your racial background is.

    It’s in the online handle. I’m a Romanian. Racial background is lily white (though not Slavic). I have chestnut hair, strong jaw and hazel eyes, but features generally vary in the region. For me, think Bucky Barnes in The Winter Soldier, who is played by a Romanian, crossed with Tom Hardy. I haven’t done one of those ancestry tests, but general genetic testing shows that people in this region are a mix of various European populations, some passing through. Traditionally, it is said we’re a mix of mostly Italics with Thracians (Romans+Dacians). My personal history (until I get that 23andme test done), being descended from unremarkable serfs in the boondocks, suggests that I am either a pure local stock, or, at most, I have a little bit of Greek, Gypsy, Bulgarian or Serb in me.

    This link discusses haplogroup data for the region and the huge compatibility (>80%) with all of our neighbors, especially the Southern ones. Ukrainians and Russians are an exception. Google translate makes it mostly intelligible if you already know something about genetics.

    http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/un-pic-de-genetica-romania-si-vecinii-sai

    Having been a Communist country is the explanation behind the egalitarianism (and meritocracy) in our educational system and how only now, after becoming more well off (and unequal), we are getting private schools with fancy names (Cambridge, Lauder-Reut which is very Jewish etc). I lament to my friends and colleagues that our drive to copy the West will result in us getting only the bad things that are considered quintessentially Western now, and ignoring the good things of a generation ago, that made the West’s fortunes.

  192. @LKM
    And they'll be breeding at a far higher rate than they would naturally be capable of because they'll be supported by tax dollars stolen from local whites, who may then decide that they can't afford to have children because it's too expensive.

    A week ago or so I saw a German news report that showed a Syrian couple that had already been in Germany for a year. They had one small child and were complaining that their accommodations (paid for by the local church) were insufficient for their current family. They were expecting another child in a few months, which means they got pregant while being supported by Germans. That's how these people think. They just have kids until they can't. It's like the episode of Star Trek with the Tribbles!

    > “Tribbles”

    yes, that’s what I’ve been thinking recently.

    Tribbles are the greatest danger to men, not monsters. We know how to fight aggressive monsters, we are defenseless against tribbles.

    Mostly because Leftist would immediately attack anyone who is tribblephobic.

  193. @SPMoore8
    The usual way history assesses failed rulers is either by repeating legends of how sadistic and cruel they were or by telling stories about their perverted sexual practices. That being the case, I expect in 500 years there will be a number of hilarious stories to be told about the Empress Angela.

    Don’t you mean Sultana Malakia of the United Francistan, the Lovecraftian Goat with a Thousand Young (Shub-Niggurath), beholden to Caliph Ibrahim, formerly Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and commanding the loyalty of Sheikh Hollanda of the Wilāyat of Gallia and of Dawood al-Britani of Ingrisstan, formerly David Cameron?

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  194. @Anonymous
    So how does it make the hbders here feel that German women, who have some of the highest iqs in the world among white women, prefer African males, who have an iq of 30 points below them?

    So how does it make the hbders here feel that German women, who have some of the highest iqs in the world among white women, prefer African males, who have an iq of 30 points below them?

    They don’t.

  195. @bossel

    There is only one reason a large population is preferable to a small one: to prevent invasion.
     
    Actually, the German economy is already complaining about a lack of people. This will only grow in the future, even though they already imported quite a number of workers from other European countries.
    German (future) pensioners fear for their pensions, since the German system relies on the workforce (well, their tax) to support the pensions. Hence, if the workforce shrinks, the pension level is in danger.

    If the Syrian refugees can be integrated as was done with the Turks, it won't be much of a problem. A problem may arise because this could set a precedent. In other crises in the future refugees may feel that Germany is the easiest option. German politicians already say that the current situation is special, but will future refugees hear that message (& believe it)?

    Germany isn’t doing anything. Its rulers are.
     
    You are not really well-informed, are you? There are lots of Germany who actually welcome the refugees. Many people volunteer to help or donate. The anti-immigration protesters are a small minority. At the moment most Germans still think that Syrian refugees should be let in. This will probably change if the wave doesn't stop, though.

    Actually, the German economy is already complaining about a lack of people.

    The German economy can’t talk.

    You are not really well-informed, are you?

    You can’t read, can you?

    I said Germany’s rulers are doing this, not Germany, and you said a lot of Germans are happy with it. Your response doesn’t even contradict my statement.

  196. @ben tillman

    Nine million? Nonsense. In the early 1930s Germany’s Jewish
    population was only 525,000 (0.75%).
     
    I understand that "Ashkenazi" means "German", and surely he was talking about the growth in the population of Ashkenazi Jews, most of whom lived east of Germany.

    Exactly

  197. @Gerry T. Neal
    Low fertility is not a reason to import large numbers of immigrants but rather a reason not to do so. When you import large numbers of immigrants during a period of extended low fertility, you are in effect running a policy of population replacement. A policy of population replacement at some point becomes a policy of national suicide. It is difficult to say where exactly that point is. It would also be difficult to say at what point the process of replacing failed body parts with artificial equivalents ceases to be life-saving and kills the individual replacing him with what it is in effect a robot. Such a point exists, however, in both cases, and the moral, responsible, and sane way of looking at it is that we should not try to get as close to that point as possible but rather leave a healthy distance between ourselves and it. http://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.com/2011/02/suicide-cult.html

    Low fertility is not a reason to import large numbers of immigrants but rather a reason not to do so. When you import large numbers of immigrants during a period of extended low fertility, you are in effect running a policy of population replacement. A policy of population replacement at some point becomes a policy of national suicide.

    Genocide, not suicide. The peoples in question aren’t making these decisions.

  198. @Jaakko Raipala
    I'm not a feminist or an anti-feminist, I am just interested in what works and what doesn't and the national differences in Europe tend to suggest that conservative policies and attitudes lead to failure in birth rates while more liberal attitudes lead to higher birth rates nation-wide. I am most definitely an anti-communist and I still pointed out that communist societies could maintain high birth rates.

    Again, the fall in birth rates has nothing to do with women working outside of child care because women always worked and this "traditionalist" vision where "traditional" women spent all their time taking care of children was never a reality. Here's what an actually traditional society looked like for average people:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Raatajat_rahanalaiset.JPG

    Men worked, women worked, children already worked when they were in what we'd now consider preschool age. Without contraception poor families had 8 children and a couple of them would most likely die before adulthood, often because families were too busy working to watch the children. An individual child with a modern mother with a job gets more hours of motherly care than a child in a pre-modern traditional society.

    Wealthy people would, of course, consider it a sign of status if the wife didn't have to do any work - but then, it would be an even bigger sign of status if the man of the house didn't have to do any work. The wealthy had nannies do most of their child care for all of history and it's not because aristocratic women would have been somehow indoctrinated into hating child care. Daycare and other Social Democrat type policies are basically about giving the average Swede a version of the things that the gentry always enjoyed.

    The big transition for women was that mass production killed the necessity of a lot of the tasks given to women in a traditional society. Back in the agrarian days, villages would for example not have chain clothing stores with huge selections of stuff made in China. The women would make the clothing and spend much of their time passing on the needed skills and knowledge to the next generation. Today there's little point for every woman to learn those crafts or spend hours and hours of every day making clothing so women tend to seek education and work elsewhere. Human behavior adapts when incentives change. Nothing surprising.

    I am just interested in what works and what doesn’t and the national differences in Europe tend to suggest that conservative policies and attitudes lead to failure in birth rates while more liberal attitudes lead to higher birth rates nation-wide.

    Which conservative policies and attitudes lead to failure in birth rates? Which liberal attitudes lead to higher birth rates?

  199. Genocide, not suicide. The peoples in question aren’t making these decisions.

    So when the Germans are killing minorities, it’s genocide. But when they are not killing minorities, it’s also genocide. Trust me, if the Germans were not accepting these migrants they’d also be accused of genocide. No wonder they want to commit suicide …..

  200. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Germany dominant in 1900? You must be joking.

     

    They did defeat France in 1871.

    Franco-Prussian War
    ... 19 July 1870 – 10 May 1871 ...
    The German coalition mobilised its troops much more quickly than the French and rapidly invaded northeastern France. The German forces were superior in numbers, had better training and leadership and made more effective use of modern technology, particularly railroads and artillery.
    ...
    A series of swift Prussian and German victories in eastern France, culminating at the Battle of Sedan and the Siege of Metz saw the French army decisively defeated
    ...
    Rather than advancing in a column or line formation, Prussian infantry moved in small groups that were harder to target by artillery or French defensive fire.[21] The sheer number of soldiers available made encirclement en masse and destruction of French formations relatively easy.
    ...
    by the famous Krupp 6-pounder (3 kg) steel breech-loading cannons being issued to Prussian artillery batteries.[24] Firing a contact-detonated shell, the Krupp gun had a longer range and a higher rate of fire than the French bronze muzzle loading cannon, which relied on faulty time fuses.
    ...
    The Prussian army was controlled by the General Staff, under Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke. The Prussian army was unique in Europe for having the only such organisation in existence, whose purpose in peacetime was to prepare the overall war strategy, and in wartime to direct operational movement and organise logistics and communications.
    ...
    Moltke embraced new technology, particularly the railroad and telegraph, to coordinate and accelerate mobilisation of large forces.

     

    Europe didn’t have a “dominant” power in 1900. That’s precisely why the place was so politically volatile.

  201. @LKM
    And they'll be breeding at a far higher rate than they would naturally be capable of because they'll be supported by tax dollars stolen from local whites, who may then decide that they can't afford to have children because it's too expensive.

    A week ago or so I saw a German news report that showed a Syrian couple that had already been in Germany for a year. They had one small child and were complaining that their accommodations (paid for by the local church) were insufficient for their current family. They were expecting another child in a few months, which means they got pregant while being supported by Germans. That's how these people think. They just have kids until they can't. It's like the episode of Star Trek with the Tribbles!

    It just doesn’t seem right that these people can feel free to have as many babies as they please knowing that they will be supported by taxpayers money. Then they have the nerve to complain they aren’t getting enough.

    I also don’t feel that most of these migrants are “poor refugees” since the vast majority of them seem to be twenty to thirty something males who are looking to fill their pockets.

  202. @LKM
    A more realistic strategy might include the removal of all state subsidies/student loan programs to non-STEM subjects in universities. This would disproportionately affect women. Will parents still want their daughters enrolling in Genderqueer Critical Theory when they're paying full price? That might happen in the US, but maybe not in countries with higher taxes that make saving for college harder.

    These women would then have to enroll in some post-secondary education/training, be it community college or the trades. Either way, they spend much less of their prime reproductive years accruing debt and being indoctrinated by progressives and they get out in the real world much faster.

    A side benefit of this is that is will vastly reduce the market for progressive professors/sessional instructors.

    Gee, hooking up and going to bed in less than an hour? Just
    like in the good ol’ USA. In your dreams! Actually, Poland is
    still a fairly conservative and religious country. Girls in their
    early 20s typically acquire boyfriends through their social
    circles, not the pick-up scene, and go steady until they get
    married. Except for low-class dregs, they wouldn’t have time
    for pick-up artists. The marriage rate is very high and the
    divorce rate is still very low as compared to the decadent West.
    Practically all children are raised in two-parent families.

    Poland to this day has a very romantic culture, going back to
    the days of Adam Mickiewicz and Frederic Chopin, the
    culture that armored it against the German, Russian, and
    most recently Marxist materialist onslaught. Poetry, film, and
    theater are world class. 10-15 years ago Krakow had two Nobel Prize laureates as residents: Czeslaw Milosz and Wislawa Szymborska
    Szymborska. Both won the Prize for poetry. This doesn’t happen
    randomly – it can only happen in a place that worships the magic
    of poetry, theater, film, and most recently video games, as the
    success of the Witcher series demonstrates.

    • Replies: @AP
    Poland is indeed the most conservative Western country, by far.

    Abortion rate, 2012: Poland 1.95. Compared to 126.2 for the USA and 250.2 for the UK. And 564.8 for Russia (a country some Westerners confuse for a conservative one).

    % Marriages ending in divorce: 27% in Poland, compared to 53% for the USA, 47% UK, 51% Russia.

    Weekly church attendance (2004): Poland 52%, compared to USA 39%, Canada 20% and UK 12%.

    % never going to church (2008): Poland under 10%; Russia 30% - 40% (tied with Germany and Sweden); UK 50% to 60%

    HIV adult prevalence (2011): Poland .1% (lowest possible); UK .3%, USA .9%, Russia 1.1%
  203. @Anonymous
    Among pick up artists, Poland is known for being the best place for "day game". Videos posted on Youtube show PUAs able to approach girls on the street, take them on a date on the spot, and sleep with them all in a matter of a few hours or even under an hour.

    That doesn’t sound very Christian, does it?

  204. @Anonymous
    So how does it make the hbders here feel that German women, who have some of the highest iqs in the world among white women, prefer African males, who have an iq of 30 points below them?

    t German women, who have some of the highest iqs in the world among white women, prefer African males, who have an iq of 30 points below them?

    Heidi Klum and Leni Riefenstahl hardly represent “German women”.

  205. If the Latinos in the Southwest are assimilating, and speaking English, then it’s much less of a problem as far as I am concerned. Yes, I understand that many people are concerned with genetic heritage issues, but I am not particularly concerned with that.

    Concern over genetic heritage is smarter than the alternatives. If you are right, then you win nothing. If you’re wrong, you lose everything. If we are right, we win everything. If we’re wrong, we lose nothing. You’re making a losing bet.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Concern over genetic heritage is smarter than the alternatives. If you are right, then you win nothing. If you’re wrong, you lose everything. If we are right, we win everything. If we’re wrong, we lose nothing. You’re making a losing bet.

    Could you elaborate on this in more concrete terms? What are "the alternatives"? Right about what exactly? Win what? Lose what?
  206. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor

    If the Latinos in the Southwest are assimilating, and speaking English, then it’s much less of a problem as far as I am concerned. Yes, I understand that many people are concerned with genetic heritage issues, but I am not particularly concerned with that.
     
    Concern over genetic heritage is smarter than the alternatives. If you are right, then you win nothing. If you're wrong, you lose everything. If we are right, we win everything. If we're wrong, we lose nothing. You're making a losing bet.

    Concern over genetic heritage is smarter than the alternatives. If you are right, then you win nothing. If you’re wrong, you lose everything. If we are right, we win everything. If we’re wrong, we lose nothing. You’re making a losing bet.

    Could you elaborate on this in more concrete terms? What are “the alternatives”? Right about what exactly? Win what? Lose what?

  207. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Why has virtually nobody spoken up in favor of charging the father of Aylan Kurdi, the drowned child in the now-famous photo, with the crime of child neglect?

    That man’s decision to put his family in an unseaworthy raft was obviously dangerous and, as we see, had fatal consequences. He and his family were in coastal Turkey when they boarded the raft — not Syria — so it seems very unlikely that they were in a kind of imminent peril that would justify so grave a risk. Parents have gotten into trouble with the law for much less in the United States.

    The only public account of anyone expressing this view has one Peter Bucklitsch, a one-time UKIP parliamentary candidate in England, being quickly chastised by the media after a few comments to this effect, which he follows immediately with a groveling apology. Had he possessed some Trumpian spine and stuck to his fundamental point he could have used the furor as a chance to make a name for himself, but sadly he seems not to be made of the right stuff.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/outrage-ukip-candidate-claims-dead-6375931

  208. @LKM
    And they'll be breeding at a far higher rate than they would naturally be capable of because they'll be supported by tax dollars stolen from local whites, who may then decide that they can't afford to have children because it's too expensive.

    A week ago or so I saw a German news report that showed a Syrian couple that had already been in Germany for a year. They had one small child and were complaining that their accommodations (paid for by the local church) were insufficient for their current family. They were expecting another child in a few months, which means they got pregant while being supported by Germans. That's how these people think. They just have kids until they can't. It's like the episode of Star Trek with the Tribbles!

    Yes. Lots of Europeans wait to have children – a marker particularly of north Europe – and in the last two decades have found starting a family costly and awkward because of the need for couples to work and smaller home sizes etc..

    Migrants on welfare have no such qualms. Europe pays for its own replacement.

    The most important scene from Idiocracy:

    http://youtu.be/hL1-340ODCM

  209. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:
    @bossel

    They will lead to darkening of the German race.
     
    Ooh, what a horrible idea! Phhh...
    What German race, actually? There is nothing like that. The original German population was already a mixture: Slavs, Germans & Celts. & the last 40 to 50 years have seen quite some influx from other populations.

    And given Germany’s problem with Turks
     
    Not a big problem. There are just a few hot spots like Berlin-Neukölln or some area in Duisburg (compared to French Banlieues that's nothing, anyway), else Germans & Turks get along quite well.

    “Ooh, what a horrible idea! Phhh…
    What German race, actually? There is nothing like that. The original German population was already a mixture: Slavs, Germans & Celts. & the last 40 to 50 years have seen quite some influx from other populations.”

    You vile dammy, do you want Germany to end up like Sicily or North Africa?

    Slavs, German, and Celts are all Northern stock.

    Dammyass piece of turd.

    “Not a big problem. There are just a few hot spots like Berlin-Neukölln or some area in Duisburg (compared to French Banlieues that’s nothing, anyway), else Germans & Turks get along quite well.”

    The thing is, dammy-ass, Turks have their own country and belong in Turkey.
    Problem or no problem, Germany will not be Germany if it’s taken over by foreigners.

  210. @anon

    I’m just trying to suggest that they aren’t committing national suicide. Or maybe they are. We’ll find out.
     
    Actually, we probably won't. There's basically zero chance that they're going to assimilate during our lifetimes. Will they in the future? Probably not, but I guess anything's possible.

    We can say that things are going to be pretty bad for a lot of people until they do, though. So, basically, the question is whether Germany ought to do something that will assuredly cause problems in the present, and might very well cause catastrophic problems for future generations, just because, you never know, it might turn out to be totally OK.

    And for what? To help a few refugees? So they can feel better about themselves? Are they planning on taking in every group of refugees from this day forward? I don't foresee a time in the future when there will ever be a shortage of people fleeing from some kind of crisis or another who would rather be in Europe. If the Germans decide that they really need bunches more Muslims, they can always let them in later. It's not like they're going anywhere. But once they're in, it's going to be a lot more difficult to get them out if they decide they've made a huge mistake.

    How anyone could consider this a responsible thing to do is beyond me.

    The alternative would be the US (primarily) to stop meddling in the Middle East, Egypt, Libya, Somalia, etc. That can’t even be contemplated let alone discussed.

  211. @Bill Jones
    Are there really are morons who think that Europe will be transformed into a retirement village provided for by the vigorous productive Muslim youth?

    THAT is exactly the message that is being pushed by German politicians and news media 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

    If it were just one nutter wearing a sandwich board, or even just one top pol and one mass-market media, the message would sink without a trace, on grounds of obvious insanity.

    But when it’s being pushed at the populace all the time, it is very effective. Surprised me, actually. I thought people in the 21st century were a bit more savvy and cynical. Obviously I was mistaken.

    I’ve thought for some time on the motivations of the elites. Don’t really have a simple answer, but I think the principal explanation is lack of backbone. Building a fence around Europe and policing it would mean abandoning people in failed societies to their fate. “Live and let die,” you know?

    That would be my maxim. It should be the maxim of the politicians, too, but they are too pusillanimous. Of course, some of the blame needs to go the people who elected them. Well, as others have already remarked, it’s the decline and fall of the Roman Empire all over again.

  212. @SPMoore8
    I think you make a good point here, concerning the decline in faith. Faith used to carry with it certain basic ideas: that our lives had a purpose, that our collective existence had a purpose, that there was a future point we were aiming at, that we should grow, expand, and master, that we should be selfless in promoting that agenda, that we would be judged for how we lived our lives, and so on.

    Nowadays I frequently hear, from both sides of the spectrum, that the human race has permanently damaged the planet, that life is ultimately not worth living, that the goal of life is merely an existence with no pain and no want, that there is no ultimate reason either for an individual's life or a nation's life, that judgment does not exist, that how we live our lives does not matter, and anyone who says that is brainwashed by the plutocracy, and that robots will inherit the earth, and that's there's nothing worth dying for.

    A civilization like that isn't going to last. It's not my fault.

    Nowadays I frequently hear, from both sides of the spectrum, that the human race has permanently damaged the planet, that life is ultimately not worth living, that the goal of life is merely an existence with no pain and no want, that there is no ultimate reason either for an individual’s life or a nation’s life, that judgment does not exist, that how we live our lives does not matter, and anyone who says that is brainwashed by the plutocracy, and that robots will inherit the earth, and that’s there’s nothing worth dying for.

    Too true, and yet it’s not the whole picture, is it? If it were, why would SJWs work so hard, to their own discomfort and ultimate detriment, to try — over and over, in the face of overwhelming historical evidence — to revolutionize the societies in which they live?

    I agree that loss of faith is the ultimate cause of cultural decline. But while some fade into apathy and ennui, others inflate their own sense of importance. They believe that they hold power over human sin and guilt, and that they, rather than God, can act to save others — and the world. This heretical pride fuels most forms of modernist/postmodern humanistic utopianism, from Marxism to environmentalism to the handing over of deracinated western cultures to ‘migrants’.

    Yeats was certainly on to something when he wrote that ‘the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity’. The worst still believe there is a grand narrative that they, via sheer force of will rooted in the certainty of their own wisdom and essential goodness, can write, or re-write, even today.

  213. @Anon 2
    Gee, hooking up and going to bed in less than an hour? Just
    like in the good ol' USA. In your dreams! Actually, Poland is
    still a fairly conservative and religious country. Girls in their
    early 20s typically acquire boyfriends through their social
    circles, not the pick-up scene, and go steady until they get
    married. Except for low-class dregs, they wouldn't have time
    for pick-up artists. The marriage rate is very high and the
    divorce rate is still very low as compared to the decadent West.
    Practically all children are raised in two-parent families.

    Poland to this day has a very romantic culture, going back to
    the days of Adam Mickiewicz and Frederic Chopin, the
    culture that armored it against the German, Russian, and
    most recently Marxist materialist onslaught. Poetry, film, and
    theater are world class. 10-15 years ago Krakow had two Nobel Prize laureates as residents: Czeslaw Milosz and Wislawa Szymborska
    Szymborska. Both won the Prize for poetry. This doesn't happen
    randomly - it can only happen in a place that worships the magic
    of poetry, theater, film, and most recently video games, as the
    success of the Witcher series demonstrates.

    Poland is indeed the most conservative Western country, by far.

    Abortion rate, 2012: Poland 1.95. Compared to 126.2 for the USA and 250.2 for the UK. And 564.8 for Russia (a country some Westerners confuse for a conservative one).

    % Marriages ending in divorce: 27% in Poland, compared to 53% for the USA, 47% UK, 51% Russia.

    Weekly church attendance (2004): Poland 52%, compared to USA 39%, Canada 20% and UK 12%.

    % never going to church (2008): Poland under 10%; Russia 30% – 40% (tied with Germany and Sweden); UK 50% to 60%

    HIV adult prevalence (2011): Poland .1% (lowest possible); UK .3%, USA .9%, Russia 1.1%

  214. @Anonymous
    I've never been to Germany, I don't know any Germans, I have no connection whatsoever with that country.
    However, from what I've gleaned there does seem to be a fair scions of black US servicemen and German women prominent in fields such as sport and entertainment.

    Those fakers in Milli Vanilli and Boney M spring to mind.

    This doesn’t contradict what Peter wrote.

  215. @Anon 2
    Poland has already accepted over 400,000 Ukrainian
    refugees. Technically, the vast majority have short-term
    work permits which apparently can be renewed indefinitely
    or are illegals. In any case, they have no intention of
    returning to Ukraine, and, based on their Facebook
    comments and anecdotal evidence, they seem to love it
    in Poland. Most send money to their relatives in Ukraine,
    and go back for visits, but typically learn Polish very
    quickly and some even study at Poland's universities.

    Pick-up artists like Roosh V who tried Ukraine but moved
    permanently to Poland as Ukraine became unsafe now have
    a choice in Poland between Polish girls or Ukrainian
    girls. Like a kid in a candy store. And the country is still
    99.9% white and Christian. Poland is now probably the
    largest white country in the world. Ukraine and Russia
    are multiracial.

    Using Ukrainians for the purpose of refugee stats is a brilliant way for Poland to avoid taking its “fair share” of Muslim refugees. Good job, Poland.

    Neither Ukraine nor Russia are “multiracial” in a genetic sense. Russia is 80% Slavic. Half the non-Slavs are Caucasians (middle-eastern types who resemble Greeks or Italians). Most Caucasians such as Armenians, Georgians and even Chechens are Indo-European, unlike Semitic Arabs.

    The other half of Russia’s non-Slavic population are mostly central Asians with considerable European heritage (Tatars are something like 80% European, Bashkirs to the east 60% European). Googleimage Marat Izmailov, a Tatar soccer star or Dinara Safina, a Tatar tennis star. Russia has perhaps under 5% pure Asian population.

    Other than .7% of Ukraine’s population being Tatars (who themselves are part European), Ukraine is European. That would be about 99.3%.

  216. @SPMoore8
    One reason why I cannot be too upset with what the Germans are doing in allowing 1% of their population in migrants is that Germany's fertility is below replacement and I have seen figures where the Germany population -- sitting at about 80 MM for most of the 20th C -- is going to drop down to 65 MM in a few decades. Well, if the Germans aren't going to have the babies, then they will have to import the people who will, I guess.

    The key issue for migrants in Germany is assimilation. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the 20th Century the Germans absorbed not only millions of ethnic Germans (who were Germans in name only) after WW2, but also large numbers of East Europeans who didn't want to go home and significant numbers of Hungarians who fled their homeland after 1956.

    Yes, I realize that Syrians are not Europeans, and I realize that Germany has had difficulties absorbing South Slavs and Turks in the past. But, in the end, it really comes down to assimilation, and I think they can pull it off.

    The situation, BTW, is not really comparable to the situation in the US: if we were simply absorbing 1% of our population in Latinos every year, and they were fully assimilating, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that the Latinization of the US, particularly in the Southwest, is much more dire than that.

    You can say that assimilation is a failure in the US, and that neither we nor Europe should be bringing in other peoples who don't fit the HBD profile. But, given the birth rate, what are you gonna do? Can't make women have children.

    One percent? Germany has had a mass immigration program since the 1960s.

  217. @Anonymous
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade

    Crazy stuff, European are trying to get to Jerusalem some 900 years ago because Jesus..

    The "Abrahamic" religions ruined the minds and lives of awful a lot of people.

    If you read on, I think you will find Europeans did in fact get to Jerusalem and established a kingdom there that lasted for a century. This century’s respite was exactly what Europe needed to catch its breath and avoid complete subjugation under Islam. If Europe had not been Christian, it would just have become Muslim, and everyone would still be stuck in the Iron Age.
    Later, it is true, Jerusalem fell, even Constantinople, but Europe survived. At least until now.

  218. @Earl Lemongrab
    If you're a northern European country with a falling population, you can do much, much worse than Syria. Heck, a lot of them have blue eyes and light hair, so you're not even diluting that much.

    You are still getting jihadists in battallion strength. So if your jihadists have a higher average IQ (if that is what you are saying) I doubt this will really be to your benefit.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS