I think I’ve posted this before and I know I’ve recently spotlighted the dying demographic nations like Poland (lowest fertility rate in the EU).
But let’s look again and wonder how such steep changes could happen, shall we?
“Population growth in Eastern Europe is now negative, and Southern Europe is projected to join it with zero growth around 2005.
Western and Northern Europe, in contrast, are expected to maintain positive growth until around 2025 and 2040, respectively (figure 36). Declines in growth not only come earlier but are also much sharper in Eastern and Southern Europe than in Western and Northern Europe. Were international migration eliminated, zero growth in Western and Northern Europe would come instead much earlier, around 2005. With no migration, the growth trajectories for Western, Northern, and Southern Europe would still be roughly similar but would be pegged at a lower level, but the growth trajectory for Eastern Europe would be little changed. Looking beyond 2050, one sees each region return gradually to zero or slightly positive growth.”
But by all means think voting and anti-marriage propaganda will help…. It’s like demographic Santa. Babies can be wished into existence! What incentives? Also, EE, this is why you don’t traffic and pimp out your nubile young women to rich Arabs and STD-ridden tourists. You ate the demographic seed crop. If you continue to betray your women (fact: most white people are women) then you deserve to die out. Misogyny (as with misandry) are anti-natal. Figure 35 shows the wages of sin is death i.e. treason = extinction. The MRA/MGTOW anti-natal propaganda is largely the rejected gamma trying to genetically murder those above him (the coward’s way, Wormtongue) by fish bicycle logic. Surely you’re smarter than that? SJWs perform the same gamma/spiteful mutant function among women.
“The United Kingdom dominates Northern Europe demographically, with 64 per cent of regional population. Its growth trajectory is about 0.1 points higher than that for Northern Europe as a whole. The region also includes three small Baltic countries with economies in transition: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Their growth trajectories are radically different, being even more negative than that for Eastern Europe. The remaining European countries with economies in transition are all in Eastern Europe, except for Albania and the successor states to Yugoslavia, which are in Southern Europe. However, growth in Albania and the former Yugoslav republics is not that different from, and actually slightly higher than, growth in Southern Europe as a whole. Southern Europe is dominated by Italy and Spain, whose projected slow growth is reflected in the regional trajectory.”
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. Reprobate mind? Sexually decadent cultures?
“Projected fertility trends are consistent with the growth trends. Some initial fertility decline further below replacement is expected in this decade, except in Western Europe, where fertility is believed to have hit bottom in the early 1990s and has risen slightly since then (figure 38).” That’s Labour immigration policy.
“Each region is then assumed to reach total fertility of 1.85 by 2045-2050, with Northern and Western Europe progressing along a higher trajectory than Southern and Eastern Europe. Within the following quarter century, fertility is then expected to rise further to replacement level, with Southern Europe lagging behind the other regions.”
Yet I find it hilarious that Eastern Europe is taking the most degenerate of white trash immigrants, the PUAs. They’ll soon learn it isn’t even race of the immigrant, it’s whether they’ll render your local population infertile with STDs and cause local disruption with their carousing. Like the Vikings, they’ll take your women. It’s the rule. And if the local women refuse, like Taharrush, they’ll be forced. I’d expect druggings to become commonplace (including alcohol spikings) whenever PUAs move into an area.
Sort your incitement to rape laws NOW. Protect your culture. Don’t become like NY or London. Do not let the sexual locusts eat your nubile seed crop. r-types emigrate.
“Fertility stays at current levels in the constant projection scenario, which leads to incredibly large numbers for world population. For the European population, however, it leads instead, in the long run, to startlingly low numbers. By 2300, Western, Southern, and Northern Europe would each have only 28-30 million people, and Eastern Europe would have only 5 million. The European Union,which has recently expanded to encompass 452-455 million people (according to 2000 or 2005 figures) would fall by 2300 to only 59 million. About half the countries of Europe would lose 95 per cent or more of their population, and such countries as the Russian Federation and Italy would have only 1 per cent of their population left. Although one might entertain the possibility that fertility will never rise above current levels, the consequences appear sufficiently grotesque as to make this seem improbable.”
95 per cent or more of their population
and party countries like Italy and the world’s strip club Russia:
only 1 per cent of their population left
“sufficiently grotesque” is code for effective genocide folks
Also: You don’t judge whether something is POSSIBLE by emotional appeal.
See, you don’t need to kill everyone, just most of them, to prevent a functioning economy, especially the young people, and if you can keep them bachelors so much the better, because white people need to marry first before they breed. Distractions include careerism, the gym and notch counting.
“These changes take a century. Quicker societal adjustments are necessary when demographic change is rapid in the short-run, though such demographic changes tend to be more difficult to predict. Table 9 shows the highest and lowest growth rates expected for each country in any period between 2000 and 2300. Most of the largest positive growth rates appear in 2000-2005, while fertility is still high in various countries. The largest negative growth rates appear close to 2050 or beyond 2100, when countries enter a period of below-replacement fertility. European countries tend to show slowest growth earlier, African countries later, except for some Southern African countries where slow growth appears around 2020-2030 because of HIV/AIDS.”
or a SARs bioweapon.
Yet the anti-natal channels on Youtube are the only kind exempt from the so-called ‘redpill’ ban hammer.
Makes ya think. Activates the almonds. Rustles my jimmies. I wonder (((why))). They hate white males and they’re telling them to nix their genome with the snip or race mixing. I wonder why those channels are up? Why are so many pick-up artists non-white? And yes, that includes the Jews. When do we get the AQ – the Asian Question of them inserting themselves into our culture and policies? Hello fellow hwyte male. Let them slice your balls.
That’s the Boomer fallout, the consequences of all the dysgenic policies, from abortion to the Pill to free love/hook-up/whoredom to Asian and African immigration/invasion. I know some of you didn’t vote for it, it still exists. I’ll be considered generationally along Trigglypuff so deal with it.
TABLE 8 is a sobering read.
e.g. Croatia, millions of population, -27 by 2100, maximum 0% change. Stop importing degenerates.
Israel 63M by 2100, curious. 70% + max change. Almost like they knew.
Poland -33M by 2100. By all means, let degenerates immigrate. Make it worse.
BY contrast, Somali 658 million. Not a typo.
Serbia, -26 million by 2100. Were the shekels worth it?
I’m sorry I base my opinions on data.
By comparison, so-called cucked Sweden minus 8 million by 2100.
So Eastern Europe is literally worse off than the Swedes. Nobody says anything. Controlled ops.
UK gains 10M, mostly non-Anglo, I’d wager. The native pop is suppressed by (economic) factors and anti-marriage propaganda.
America gains 53M, mostly mystery meat if you look at new births and white deaths. Thanks, Boomers.
Yemen gains 700M. Not a typo.
“In 2000-2005, 56 countries, out of 192, have total fertility of 4.0 or higher. By 2045-2050, the number will be zero. Instead, 139 countries will have total fertility under 2.0. Beyond 2050, however, the progression is not unilinear. The number of countries with fertility below 2.0 will fall, as more and more countries return to a replacement level just above 2.0. But fertility levels of 2.2 or higher are not expected to return.”
So Marxism of any kind (including precious socialists) will go the way of the dodo. The production simply won’t be there to leech from.
You read the rest. This century, the white man dies. If they endorsed anti-natal practices, it’s deserved. Revenge is mine, saith the LORD.
We need exogenic wombs, it seems. Because there won’t be enough fertile women to go around.
Duh? Nothing to do with women, who always worked. That was a false flag by Peterson, who curiously didn’t show any data (because that data does not exist). Women always worked, even in pre-industry, except the royalty and certain aristocrats. That is nowhere near most women, let alone all. Contrary to Peterson’s nagging, Western incomes are still high internationally, so what would explain the 60s-00s replacement of the working class, but globalisation broadly and international competition from mass immigration locally? Naturally his lefty politics won’t allow him to finger the true culprit because that raises uncomfortable questions for his age group.
Missionaries violated the Bible by giving gibs to heathens, as in ‘those who will not work, shall not eat’. https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php But y’know, that’s just actually looking for the DATA. UK average income $42k. Meanwhile places with an intact culture (relatively) and plausibly more K-family units (read: high marriage rates) have super low incomes and larger families as the norm still. e.g. Poland $15.2k Croatia $14.9k Russia $11.2k Serbia $16.1k Hungary $7k since you all have such a hard-on for the EE nations
so it’s a blatant FALLACY to conflate income with family formation in white people
with ONGOING data to prove it decisively (no muh 21st century is different)
losers: “it’s all about the money! that’s why women don’t want me!” sure
and population has gone up steadily e.g. Russia. https://www.worlddata.info/europe/russia/populationgrowth.php The data is out there but the fake redpill refuse to admit immigration is the problem and always has been (because literally most of them are immigrants, Magic Dirt men playing hello fellow white man). They wish to foment mutual white hatred (r-select impulse, the spiteful mutant) and what are the two biggest demographics in any race? Men v. women. Men stop protecting the women, women are easy prey. Divide, conquer. Cowardly but dysgenic.
The rise of the East has killed the West and the traditional breeding stock of the working class. Globalisation kills. Blaming the in-group is what the Globalists want, it produces further sterility and prevents you from questioning them (political triangulation), see: SJWs salivating over causing a gender war and larping as white women when they aren’t (religiously).
Did women get the vote in 1995, ya morons?
example of this all with EE nations again:
Poland has one of the lowest birth rates in the EU (as covered before, the r-women don’t want kids when asked) but even their population has been holding steady despite emigration and low incomes. https://www.worlddata.info/europe/poland/populationgrowth.php Blaming ‘women’ for working is plain ignorant of history! Did they think their grandmothers all twiddled their thumbs? What would they prefer? Living on welfare? Starving? Working until their eggs are all gone? Those are the only options, all demographic death. Women cannot fix this and shouldn’t be blamed for it. At some point they need to man up and admit men need to correct the ‘mistakes’ of their forefathers i.e. globalisation, immigration, multiculturalism.
There was data going round, mentioned by Academic Agent, that if only women voted in the UK since WW2, no left wing government would’ve ever gotten into power since. I’d like a video on that. Shan’t hold my breath but if enough people pester him he could trigger some broflakes because the sloth of r-men votes socialism due to lower T, r-women want to work. Americans need to look at data before complaining. Why are no major MGTOW/MRA channels removed from youtube? The plan is anti-white family, duh.
Besides, adopting pure r, we physically could not outnumber them by over-breeding, they’re generations ahead of us. The baby cult cannot flatten r-numbers.
“The global fertility rate fell from 5.25 children per woman in 1900, to 2.44 children per woman in 2018. The steepest drop in this shift happened in a single decade, from 1970 to 1980.” When Boomers gave the Pill to unmarried couplesand factories moved overseas.
“The overall decline in fertility rates isn’t expected to end anytime soon, and it’s even expected to fall past 2.1 children per woman, which is known as the “replacement rate”. Any fertility below this rate signals fewer new babies than parents, leading to an eventual population decline. Experts predict that world fertility will further drop from 2.5 to 1.9 children per woman by 2100. This means that global population growth will slow down or possibly even go negative.” All socialist/Marx models rely on rising population, that’s why all their policies e.g. Sex Ed, single parent gibs, no criminal punishment for adultery, all have the same outcome. They’re breeding chattel for their pension pot. Socialists oversee the breeding of their own slaves. Dark, huh?
As Darwin suggested, evolution is a race for life, and until the overseas threats are dealt with, local solutions are null and void. The ship is sinking, stop your enemies from blowing more holes in the boat. K-selection requires a fair i.e. closed system for operation. Globalists hate this because one such system would easily outcompete them. R-types pouring into the same territory exploiting shared resources will starve all Ks.
Going by the historical definition, nations such as Finland, Sweden, Ireland, and Switzerland were Third World countries. Based on today’s definition, these would not be considered Third World countries. Instead, what many now interpret “Third World” to mean encompasses economically poor and non-industrialized countries, as well as newly industrialized countries.
The international economic order has changed in the last 40 years and will no doubt go on changing, as leading economist, Angus Maddison, explains.*
In 1962, we usually divided the world into three regions. The advanced capitalist group was then known as the developed world. The second was the “Sino-Soviet bloc”. Countries “in course of development” were the third world. The China-USSR split occurred in the early 1960s; most of the communist regimes collapsed around 1990, and the hostility of the cold war has largely faded away. The income gap between the former communist countries and the advanced capitalist group has become very much wider than it was. For this reason, a tripartite division of the world economy is no longer appropriate.
For rough comparisons, it is now useful to divide the world in two and compare developments in the advanced capitalist group with the aggregate for lower-income countries – designated as the “West” and the “Rest” in our tables. On average, the West increased its income per head fourfold from 1950 to 2001 – a growth rate of 2.8% a year. In the rest of the world there was a threefold increase – a growth rate of 2.2%. In both cases this was much better than earlier performance. From 1820 to 1950, income grew 1.3% a year in the West and 0.6% in the Rest. Though the gap in income level was still increasing, the acceleration in performance was bigger in the Rest.
Population of the West rose by half from 1950 to 2001 (0.8% a year), about the same pace as in 1820-1950. In the Rest, the situation was very different. Population grew by 2.0%, compared with 0.6% in the earlier period. This reflected a major improvement in welfare as mortality declined and life expectation rose from 44 to 65 years in 2001 – much faster than in the West. In the past two decades birth rates have fallen rapidly – a demographic transition which happened earlier in the West.
The West is now a relatively homogeneous group in terms of living standards, growth performance, economic institutions and modes of governance. Over the past five decades there has also been significant convergence in most of these respects. This is not true of the Rest. There are more than 180 countries in this group. They have nearly all increased their income levels significantly since 1950, but the degree of success has varied enormously. Most of Asia is experiencing fast per capita income growth. Most African countries are fairly stagnant. Most Latin American countries found it very difficult to keep a steady trajectory of advance in the 1980s and 1990s. Population growth is fastest in Africa, a good deal slower in Latin America and slower still in Asia. Life expectation and levels of education are lowest in Africa, better in Latin America, and better still in Asia.
Between 1950 and 2001, the Asian group increased per capita income fivefold and narrowed the relative gap between their incomes and the West. In other regions there was no convergence. Latin American income rose more than twofold, in the former command economies of Eastern Europe and the USSR less than twofold and in Africa about two thirds.
The divergence was even more striking in 1990-2001. In this period the Western group increased their income by a fifth, the Asian group by half, Latin America by a sixth, Africa stagnated and in the former communist countries per capita income fell by a quarter. [DS: WHYYYYYYY]
American policy since 1973 has been much more successful than that of Western Europe and Japan in realising potential for income growth. The incidence of unemployment is now about half of that in Western Europe, whereas in 1950–1973 it was usually double the European rate. Labour force participation increased, with employment expanding from 41% of the population in 1973 to 49% in 1998, compared with an average European rise from 42 to 44%. The percentage drop in working hours per person was half of that in Western Europe. These high levels of activity were achieved with a rate of inflation which was generally more modest than in Western Europe.
US policymakers have been less inhibited in operating at high levels of demand than their European counterparts. Having the world’s major reserve currency, and long used to freedom of international capital movements, they generally treated exchange rate fluctuations with benign neglect. The Reagan administration made major tax cuts, and carried out significant measures of deregulation in the expectation that they would provoke a positive supply response that would outweigh potential inflationary consequences. The US operated with more flexible labour markets. Its capital market was better equipped to supply venture funds to innovators. Its economy was as big as Western Europe but much more closely integrated. Demand buoyancy was sustained by a stock market boom in the 1990s.
The United States was a major gainer from the globalisation of international capital markets. In the postwar period until 1988, US foreign assets always exceeded liabilities, but thereafter its net foreign asset position moved from around zero to minus $1.5 trillion (more than 20% of GDP). Thus the rest of the world helped to sustain the long American boom and financed the large US payments deficit.
The table provides a quantification of growth performance of eight major regions of the world economy and some very tentative projections for development up to the year 2015.
The demographic projections are those of the United Nations Population Division, and indicate a continuing decline in the rate of population growth in virtually all parts of the world. Nevertheless there will still be a very striking difference between the advanced capitalist group and Africa. At 0.33% a year it would take 210 years to double population in the first group. In Africa it is likely to happen within 32 years. [forcing all white people to marry would not work]
In making per capita GDP projections, I assumed a continuance of 1990-2001 rates of performance in Western Europe and Japan and a mild slowdown in the USA, where the information technology bubble of the 1990s has burst, and where the capital inflow which financed its trade deficit seems likely to slacken substantially. Aggregate per capita growth in the “West” seems unlikely to slow down very significantly, but combined with the demographic slowdown, it means that aggregate GDP growth would be about 2% a year. This pace would be similar to that in 1913-1950. Growth momentum transmitted by the “West” is likely to be more modest than in 1870-1913 and 1973-2001.
Asia (excluding Japan)
The most buoyant part of the world economy since the early 1970s has been Asia (excluding Japan). These economies have grown faster than those of the West and their buoyancy has been sustained in great part by their own policies. Their weight in the world economy is much larger than any other non-Western region. I assumed that their per capita growth 2001-2015 will be at the same pace as in 1990-2001.
These economies are catching up with the West and are still at a level of development where “opportunities of backwardness” are unlikely to erode. The combination of high investment rates and rapid GDP growth means that their physical capital stock has been growing more rapidly than in other parts of the world. The East Asian economies also have a high ratio of employment to population. This is due to falling fertility and a rising share of population of working age, but also reflects the traditionally high labour mobilisation of multi-cropping rice economies. In all cases which are documented they had high rates of improvement in education and the quality of human capital. Equally striking were the rapid growth of exports, the high ratio of exports to GDP, and a willingness to attract foreign direct investment as a vehicle for assimilation of foreign technology. These characteristics of China, South Korea and Chinese-Taipei have made for super-growth, but there is a second tier of countries whose growth is accelerating rapidly. The most notable case is India which has the potential to join the super-growth club. There are other economies where prospects are more problematic, but these are only a sixth of the Asian total. The projections assume no substantial change in their performance.
Latin America is the second largest non-Western region with about 8% of world product and a slightly bigger share of world population. Until the 1970s, economic policy was different from that in the advanced capitalist group. Most countries never seriously tried to observe the fixed rate discipline of Bretton Woods. National currencies were repeatedly devalued, IMF advocacy of fiscal and monetary rectitude was frequently rebuffed, high rates of inflation became endemic. Most countries reacted with insouciance to the worldwide explosion of prices, and governments felt that they could accommodate high rates of inflation. They were able to borrow on a large scale at negative real interest rates to cover external deficits incurred as a result of expansionary policies.
However, the basic parameters had changed by the early 1980s. By then, the OECD countries were pushing anti–inflationary policy very vigorously. The change to restrictive monetary policy initiated by the US Federal Reserve pushed up interest rates suddenly and sharply. Between 1973 and 1982, external debt increased sevenfold and the credit worthiness of Latin America as a whole was grievously damaged by Mexico’s debt delinquency in 1982. The flow of voluntary private lending stopped abruptly, and created a massive need for retrenchment in economies teetering on the edge of hyperinflation and fiscal crisis. In most countries resource allocation was distorted by subsidies, controls, widespread commitments to government enterprise and detailed interventionism. Most of them also had serious social tension, and several had unsavoury political regimes.
In the 1930s, most Latin American countries resorted to debt default, but it was not a very attractive option in the 1980s. World trade had not collapsed, international private lending continued on a large scale. The IMF and World Bank had substantial facilities to mitigate the situation, and leverage to pressure Western banks to make involuntary loans and legitimate a substantial degree of delinquency.
In the 1980s, the attempts to resolve these problems brought major changes in economic policy. But in most countries, changes were made reluctantly. After experiments with heterodox policy options in Argentina and Brazil, most countries eventually embraced the neoliberal policy mix pioneered by Chile. They moved towards greater openness to international markets, reduced government intervention, trade liberalisation, less distorted exchange rates, better fiscal equilibrium and establishment of more democratic political systems.
The cost of this transition was a decade of falling per capita income in the 1980s. After 1990, economic growth revived substantially but the process was interrupted by contagious episodes of capital flight.
My projections for Latin America assume some modest improvement in per capita performance in 2001-2015.
Africa has nearly 13% of world population, but only 3% of world GDP. It is the world’s poorest region. Its population is growing seven times as fast as in Western Europe. Per capita income in 2001 was below its 1980 peak. African economies are more volatile than most others because export earnings are concentrated on a few primary commodities, and extremes of weather (droughts and floods) are more severe and have a heavy impact.
As a result of rapid growth, little more than half the population is of working age. Almost half are illiterate. They have had a high incidence of infectious and parasitic disease (malaria, sleeping sickness, hookworm, river blindness, yellow fever). Over two thirds of HIV-infected people live in Africa. As a result the quantity and quality of labour input per head of population is much lower than in other parts of the world.
European powers became interested in grabbing Africa in the 1880s. Twenty-two countries eventually emerged from French colonisation, 21 from British, 5 from Portuguese, 3 from Belgian, 2 from Spanish. Germany lost its colonies after the First World War, Italy after the Second. The colonialists created boundaries to suit their own convenience, with little regard to local traditions or ethnicity. European law and property rights were introduced with little regard to traditional forms of land allocation. Hence European colonists often got the best land and most of the benefits from exploitation of mineral rights and plantation agriculture. African incomes were kept low by forced labour or apartheid practices. Little was done to build a transport infrastructure or to cater for popular education.
Colonisation ended between 1956 and 1974. In South Africa, the mass of the population did not get political rights until 1994. Independence brought many serious challenges. The political leadership had to try to create elements of national solidarity and stability more or less from scratch. The new national entities were in most cases a creation of colonial rule. There was great ethnic diversity with no tradition or indigenous institutions of nationhood. The linguistic vehicle of administration and education was generally French, English or Portuguese rather than the languages most used by the mass of the population. Africa became a focus of international rivalry during the cold war. China, the USSR, Cuba and East European countries supplied economic and military aid to new countries viewed as proxies in a worldwide conflict of interest. Western countries, Israel and Chinese-Taipei were more generous in supplying aid and less fastidious in its allocation than they might otherwise have been. As a result, Africa accumulated large external debts which had a meagre developmental pay-off.
There was a great scarcity of people with education or administrative experience. Suddenly these countries had to create a political elite, staff a national bureaucracy, establish a judiciary, create a police force and armed forces, send out dozens of diplomats. The first big wave of job opportunities strengthened the role of patronage and rent-seeking, and reduced the attractions of entrepreneurship. The existing stock of graduates was too thin to meet the demands and there was heavy dependence on foreign personnel.
The process of state creation involved armed struggle in many cases. Many countries have suffered from civil wars and bloody dictators. These wars were a major impediment to development.
In many African states, rulers have sought to keep their positions for life. In most states, rulers relied for support on a narrow group who shared the spoils of office. Corruption became widespread, property rights insecure, business decisions risky.
A major factor in the slowdown since 1980 has been external debt. As the cold war faded from the mid-1980s, foreign aid levelled off, and net lending to Africa fell. Although the flow of foreign direct investment has risen it has not offset the fall in other financial flows
The challenges to development in Africa are greater than in any other continent, the deficiencies in health, education and nutrition the most extreme. It is the continent with the greatest need for financial aid and technical assistance. The per capita GDP projections assume that these kinds of aid will be increased and that per capita growth will be positive. However, it is unlikely that African countries will, by 2015, be able to establish a trajectory of rapid catch-up such as Asian economies have achieved.
In Eastern Europe, the economic system was similar to that in the USSR from 1948 to the end of the 1980s, and so was economic performance. In 1950-1973, per capita growth more or less kept pace with that of Western Europe, but faltered badly as the economic and political system began to crumble. From 1973-1990, it grew at 0.5% a year compared with 1.9% in Western Europe.
The transition from a command to a market economy was difficult in all of the countries. The easiest part was freeing prices and opening of trade with the West. This ended shortages and queuing, improved the quality of goods and services and increased consumer welfare. However, much of the old capital stock became junk; the labour force needed to acquire new skills and work habits; the legal and administrative systems and the tax/social benefit structure had to be transformed; the distributive and banking networks to be rebuilt from scratch. The travails of transition led to a fall in average per capita income for the group from 1990 to 1993, but it rose by over 3% a year from then to 2001. My projection assumes that this pace of advance can be maintained at least until 2015. In fact, these countries can probably do better than this if they can be integrated into the European Union with better access to its goods, labour, and capital markets, its regional and other subsidies, than they have thus far enjoyed. Present real income levels are only a third of those in Western Europe. Wages are also much lower, but the disparity in skills is much less. The Eastern economies are therefore capable of mounting a catch-up dynamic similar to that of Asia if the integration takes place.
Successor states of former USSR
Fifteen successor states emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In all of them, there was already a very marked deceleration of economic growth in 1973-1990. There was colossal inefficiency in resource allocation, a very heavy burden of military expenditure and associated spending, depletion and destruction of natural resources.
Capital/output ratios were higher than in capitalist countries. Materials were used wastefully. Shortages created a chronic tendency to hoard inventories. The steel consumption/GDP ratio was four times as high as in the US. The average industrial firm had 814 workers in 1987 compared with 30 in Germany and the UK. Transfer of technology from the West was hindered by trade restrictions, lack of foreign direct investment and very restricted access to foreign technicians and scholars. Work incentives were meagre, malingering on the job was commonplace. [but UBI and pensions will make it better /s]
The quality of consumer goods was poor. Retail outlets and service industries were few. Prices bore little relation to cost. Consumers wasted time queuing, bartering or sometimes bribing their way to the goods and services they wanted. There was an active black market, and special shops for the nomenklatura. There was increasing cynicism, frustration, growing alcoholism and a decline in life expectation. [so like America now?]
Soviet spending on its military and space effort was around 15% of GDP in the 1970s and 1980s, nearly three times the US ratio and five times as high as in Western Europe. There were significant associated commitments to Afghanistan, Cuba, Mongolia, North Korea, Vietnam and Soviet client states in Africa.
In the 1950s a good deal of agricultural expansion was in virgin soil areas, whose fertility was quickly exhausted. Most of the Aral sea was transformed into a salty desert. Exploitation of mineral and energy resources in Siberia and Central Asia required bigger infrastructure costs than in European Russia. The Chernobyl nuclear accident had a disastrously polluting effect on a large area of the Ukraine.
In 1985-1991 Gorbachev established a remarkable degree of political freedom and liberated Eastern Europe but had no coherent economic policy. From then to end 1999, Yeltsin broke up the Soviet Union, destroyed its economic and political system and moved towards a “market” economy. The economic outcome was a downward spiral of real income for the mass of the population. On average, GDP was nearly 30% lower in 2002 in the 15 republics than in 1990. Fixed investment and military spending fell dramatically, so the drop in private consumption was milder. There were very big changes in income distribution. Under the old system, basic necessities (bread, housing, education, health, crèches and social services) had been highly subsidised by the government or provided free by state enterprises to their workers. These all became relatively more expensive, the real value of wages and pensions was reduced by hyperinflation, and the value of popular savings was destroyed. There were major gains in the income of a new oligarchy. [i.e. cancelling Marxism cannot be overnight]
The new “market” economy is grossly inefficient and unfair in allocating resources. There has been legislation to establish Western style property rights, but in practice accountancy is opaque and government interpretation of property rights is arbitrary. Many businesses are subject to criminal pressure. Property owners such as shareholders or investors are uncertain whether their rights will be honoured. Workers are not sure their wages will be paid.
*This article is an adapted extract from Angus Maddison’s chapter, “The West and the Rest in the International Economic Order”, in Development is Back, OECD Development Centre, 2002.
What the MSM never talks about in the West. Bet you never heard about it.
Don’t worry, most people haven’t.
Every time I tell people Russia and China are officially in bed (making the Russia accusation really Chink ones), people don’t believe me until I show them. Russia outsourced its Marxism to China, like everything else.
The Soviet Union never died, it simply changes premises.
China + India = 2819328161 (inc. most planetary fighting-age men)
Minus the feeble and elderly from the Western figures in your mind so….
3,254,462,713 = 3.25 billion members before considering entering members.
Check my stats.
World population when I checked: 7791849800 or 7.79 billion for short later.
41.767% before counting other nation members.
Over half of the world’s population, practically speaking, are in one full union and …. you didn’t even know about this?
So no you can’t 2.2 kids fuck your way out of this from the comfy little suburbs, even including the genetic suicides like MGTOW and dregs of spiteful mutants like SJWs. You could force every single fertile white woman to marry every equivalent man (forcing men to marry) and it still won’t outcompete them in quantity because they’re r-types.
Whites are the global minority, in extremis. I have long since covered this. Go forth and multiply Boomers, you had ONE job. Proof if one generation drops the ball (abortion, inc the Pill) we all suffer. Especially if they enable the super-boosting of the birth rate of the out-group too. The NWO types were breeding us all like cattle for a war, yet to happen. Nothing short of a full Malthusian trap and mass deportations would work now.
Asia is the most r-select continent and race, Africa is also the least of our problems.
4.6 billion and counting, the global MAJORITY. Weebs BTFO. Most of the planet is Asian, they’re such blatant r-strategists. You’ve been cucked genetically already by the bleeding heart of your forebears’ “charity” (really pathological altruism).
4.6/7.79 = 59% Asian. The planet is 59% Asian. Stop ignoring this.
You can’t discuss a future for the West until you address this. It’s redpill reality.
I included my maths, you have NO excuse. What’s the SCO called, again?
They know. They also told white men getting married was ‘too risky’. Boo hoo princess, grow up. Do you get in a car? Don’t do it, it might crash! You sicken me.
For once, the cover models are all-white.
Celebrate the barren life!
If you don’t believe me, you’ve seen that one, have you seen this?
Yay! We’re dead-ends genetically!
MGTOW are pure Establishment propaganda at this point. Whatever the origins, it’s now a weapon.
Why do you think they’re still around financially? They haven’t been “cancelled” on all socialist media?
The so-called ‘incel’ violence (really bachelor is the historic term until age 35) is just a white person version of a terror cell, an anti-white terror cell. Their forums are a cult where nobody is allowed to leave or be happy with a family. Happiness in a family unit doesn’t exist, don’t believe the studies!
So noble, so intelligent.
Because dehumanising white women and only whites as ‘females’ makes you cultured. Nothing like those evil SJWs, who don’t believe in the word ‘woman’! Can you imagine being that easily triggered by the word ‘woman’?
Like fine don’t marry, celibacy has always existed, fairy. It isn’t special. Bragging about something you haven’t done is worse than bragging about something you were born. It isn’t even a thing. At least Africans were born black, they did something.
I have run the numbers.
Try to look young forever, rather than be a breeder, ew!
I covered the circumcision/viagra connection.
Member states plus three observers:
+ Iran, Belarus, Afghanistan = 3,386,833,331
Bumps it up to 43% of the whole world population, so far. As white Westerners are dying apace.
Tell me: why isn’t this in our news?
Why is the white minority stuff never ever ever mentioned to be already here?
Well, I foresee this ending well. Signed, Malthus.
Assuming 100% of them were “Christian”, your cultural, political and genetic futures are still dead.
CHINO is multicultural Christianity, and it’s bullshit. An Italian Christian is not an English Christian is not a Syrian Christian is not a Jamaican Christian is not a Chink Christian. That’s multiculturalism via the back door.
The rate of population growth in the UK has increased in recent years. In 2015 the population increased by 513,000 people (0.8%).
Population increases come from immigration and natural growth (the number of births minus the number of deaths. The total number of immigrants coming into the UK is offset by the number of people who emigrate from the United Kingdom each year (see British people abroad below) to reach a final population growth total for the year.
No, total immigration doesn’t minus, net is minus. Why not report total?
Boomers should be exit taxed heavily for escaping the mess they created.
back to top
About one third of the UK population increase in recent years is a result of natural population growth – where the number of people being born in the UK is higher than the number of people dying every year. The remaining two thirds of the population increase is the result of net immigration into the United Kingdom.
About half of the people coming to the UK in 2015 were from the European Union. Recent data indicates that there are approximately 3 million EU citizens living and working in the UK. This equates to 5% of the UK population. The other half came from non-EU countries.
That’s …6 million.
If you have another country’s passport, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
And that’s just official, not illegal.
And new, not second+ generations in the multicultural colonies.
Immigration is a contentious topic in the UK, with many people believing that it is too high.
Because of this immigration was one of the most important topics during the recent referendum about whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union (often referred to as the Brexit referendum.
8 years ago:
The office for National statistics records data on ethnicity in each census. In 2011 it reported that the largest ethnic group in the UK was White (87.17%), followed by Asian or Asian British (6.92%) and Black (3.01%).
There’s no such thing as “Asian British”, like there’s no such thing as a hyphenated American. You’re either American or not. Asia is not in Britain. Race/ethnicity is not citizenship.
Most white people in Britain are descended from a number of different ethnic groups, not all of which are indigenous to the British Isles.
non sequitur but nice way of saying ‘invaders’
and they’re not from different forensic groups at all, same race, same subrace/s
They were all THE SAME RACE.
This heritage reflects the history of the British Isles, which has been invaded on a number of occasions.
The black population in Britain has roots going back to the 15th and 16th centuries.
No, it doesn’t. That isn’t a root. Africa is a root.
Phylogenetic tree root of blacks is Africa.
The British Asian population also has a long history which began in the 17th century.
No. It began in Asia, where they belong.
Plus, that isn’t a long history, that’s a blip.
Diversity + Proximity = War
The 2011 census showed that Christianity remains the dominant religion in the UK. The number of people who reported that they were Christians in the UK was 37,583,962, which is 59.49% of the total population. The number of people who report that they are Christian fell by more than 12% between 2001 and 2011, from 71.58% in 2001.
The next most common responses were either no religion (25.67%) or religion not stated (7.17%). The number of people who gave one of these answers increased from 23.18% in 2001 to 32.84% in 2011.
Well, guess it was nice knowing them.
And this is outdated.
Islam is the second most commonly reported religion in the UK with 4.41% of the population.
49,808,000 English 1st language speakers.
546,000 Polish locusts.
273,000 Punjabi 3rd place.
Arab 7, French 8, Chinese 9.
Note: Indigenous languages such as Welsh and Scots do not feature on this list as they were more commonly reported as second languages.
As this chart from the ONS shows, the proportion of people in London whose first language is not English is far higher (around 20%) in London than it is in the rest of the country.
According to the 2011 census, the most commonly spoken non-indigenous language in the UK was Polish, with 546,000 native speakers in England and Wales – approximately 1% of the population.
From one nation, the locusts of Europe. The chavvy breeder scum of the white race.
And that’s just speakers, not other Poles. Because they’re all such nationalists and Poland is so great, right?
They hate immigrant invasion the MOST.
source: Americans who never lived with them.
If they’re so proud of Poland, could they fuck off back there?
If they’re defending the West, can they do it from Poland?
But diversity is our strength! At least low IQ places like Poland aren’t fucking over the country permanently…
Fertility rate in the UK has also fallen over the past 50 years, from 2.95 children per woman in 1965 to 1.82 children per woman in 2014.
Good, pre-WW levels. Sustainable, among ourselves.
This is below the replacement rate (2.33 children per woman across the world, but 2.0 children per woman in industrialised countries) but higher than the EU average fertility rate which in 2014 was just 1.58 children per woman.
If you don’t force men to marry, no kids.
We live in the marriage-free world.
But yes, EU and other socialism is literally dying.
And, finally, at the bottom of the pyramid we can see the effects of a dip in the UK’s birth rate during the early 21st century, followed by an boost in recent years.
Non-native births, discounted.
Race is not citizenship. A passport entitles you to nothing from the outgroup.
If you could vote away your future to benefit elderly lazy rich assholes who hate you while keeping their trust fund brats in coke or dissolve the academic institutions’ fraud that’s ruined your once prosperous society’s life and possibility to reproduce, which would you pick?
(((Who))) owns these young plantation workers? Who bought their debt?
Where are the names?
Stopping them from having savings, being minimalists etc etc.?
Look at your chains.
Credit: Master Brew
Do you want your people to be indentured servants to con artists who practiced decades-long trickery?
Why turn a blind eye to this socialism? Do you really think the product has gained hundreds of percent in value?
I am shook. Women don’t wanna be lumbered with the baby of a man who doesn’t care enough to be a husband and father?* They aren’t attracted to feckless manchilds?
“That’s because the decline in fertility has been far greater among minorities than among non-Hispanic whites”
NOT. A. BUG.
Chart for the lazy people:
Look at the actual data before whining.
That’s called a selection pressure, children.
Men won’t marry? Women won’t breed.
Who wins? [women, their relatives breed]
“But the “white” fertility figure is a bit misleading, as it includes most Hispanics, who have historically had much higher birth rates than non-Hispanic whites. Looking at all Hispanics together, these women are missing nearly 19% of the babies that would have been born from 2008-2016, or about 2.2 million births, as their age-adjusted fertility rates have fallen from 2.85 births per woman to just 2.1, and continue to decline. Meanwhile, non-Hispanic fertility has only declined from 1.95 births per woman to 1.72, yielding about 2.3 million missing births. Solidly half of the missing kids over the last decade would have been born to Hispanic mothers, despite the fact that Hispanics only make up about a quarter of fertility-age women.
Thus, in racial or ethnic terms, America’s “Baby Bust” is kinda, sorta, a little bit racist”
Telling them to be breeding sows isn’t?
Hey, what exactly are they claiming these women should do?
Get back in the maternity ward? Pump out future Dem voters?
*If you really “care” (virtue signal) about Western birth rates, Chicken Littles of the internet, ask MGTOW why they’re complaining about the birth rate but not marrying. You don’t get to complain if you’re causing the ‘problem’.
[GDP will go up in a generation with fewer lower IQ drains on its system.]
Other data article:
For the lazy:
“That is, most long-run change in fertility can be accounted for by changes in the marital composition of society.”
“Marital status is a key determinant of whether or not women have as many kids as they want.”
HALF OR MORE.
Meanwhile, student loans must be written off if you care about IQ.
“It’s possible that debt may also reduce fertility, independently of marriage. Some studies do show that student debt has a strong effect on delaying fertility. The economic rationale is simple: having and raising children costs money, and student debt gobbles up a share of income right off the top of the budget. Crucially, even income-based repayment doesn’t fix this, as it resets with higher incomes: a debtor can’t earn their way out. As income rises, so do debt payments. At some high threshold, of course, the debtor can exceed the required payments and can advance the date of final repayment, but the point is that student loans, no matter how they are structured, divert money that might have gone towards planning for a child. It’s even possible that student loans delay marriage because they cause debtors to change their childbearing anticipations: maybe debtors realize they won’t be able to afford a child for a long time, and so they postpone marriage until they are (financially) ready for a child.”
Men can’t afford to marry, have kids unless loans are much lower.
Loan control would be a conservative policy, boosting high IQ fertility.
More babies being born are born to high IQ, educated parents.
Again, actual data.
“Finances, and student debt, specifically, aren’t the only reason for delayed marriage. Most unmarried people who want to get married say either that they are too young and unready for marriage, or else they haven’t found the right person. It may be that part of the problem is the decline in “marriageable men.” At the metro area level, the imbalance in sex ratios can sometimes be enormous.”
“The simple fact of the matter is that marital status is a key determinant of whether or not women have as many kids as they want.”
Women want to have kids, it’s the mens’ fault.
“Combined, it turns out that a combination of marital status, age, and fertility ideals is a pretty good predictor of individual-level fertility. In other words, marital status serves as a circuit-breaker on fertility aims: married people get close to achieving their aims, while never-married people generally don’t.”
“But one vital driver of birth rates is marriage. And as long as the average age of first marriage rises and the number of prime childbearing years the average woman spends married falls, we can expect to see fertility linger at low levels. Therefore, any policy supporting childbirth—however generous it may be—that does not also somehow impact marriage trends is unlikely to boost long-term fertility.”
In many of the countries that fought in the World Wars, there was a sudden increase in the number of boys born afterwards. The year after World War I ended, an extra two boys were born for every 100 girls in the UK, compared to the year before the war started. The gene, which Mr Gellatly has described in his research, could explain why this happened.
As the odds were in favour of men with more sons seeing a son return from the war, those sons were more likely to father boys themselves because they inherited that tendency from their fathers. In contrast, men with more daughters may have lost their only sons in the war and those sons would have been more likely to father girls. This would explain why the men that survived the war were more likely to have male children, which resulted in the boy-baby boom.
In most countries, for as long as records have been kept, more boys than girls have been born. In the UK and US, for example, there are currently about 105 males born for every 100 females.
It is well-documented that more males die in childhood and before they are old enough to have children.
That is prior to competition, crime, psychiatric issues including self-loathing and desire to never reproduce, as well as the sexual selection of women for a suitable man.
Externalities like the economy, racial wars, anti-natal culture notwithstanding.
The female genome is more stable, two Xs will do that. It contains more data too, the Y is smaller.
Women must be more stable biologically as the (genetic) carrier sex, another reason against female drafting. If some men die, they clearly recover (and as proven here, come back better) but when a race loses its women, it goes extinct.
So in the same way that the gene may cause more boys to be born after wars, it may also cause more boys to be born each year.
The fitter male lines are self-replacing. This is why all adult men should have been drafted. The reward of winning a war should be reproducing into your society’s future, to reward the cowards who remained behind is an insult to the brave K-types of the sex.
This is the red-pill. Men evolved to be expendable to one another in the protection of their shared racial germline.
Cowards know they’re cannon fodder. They betray their fellow man (intra-racial Brotherhood is the only acceptable collectivism). It reminds me of the Little Red Hen, and what man would want a coward in their ranks, that’s treason waiting to happen?
Or as we call them, cucks.
Behold, the back-up genetic programme: the self-culling cannon fodder.
Remarkable that genetic dead-ends appreciate the importance of marriage enough to insult all married couples as inferior (rationalization).
Also, demographic decline virtue signalling (- you can’t out-breed Asia, war is inevitable).
Asia*: highest population density, territorial expansive, fastest growing religion (Islam).
Trump could shit gold and it’s still inevitable.
More than r-selection, perhaps a feature of it.
If you’re stupid like Asians and murder your girls (glaring at India and China) then you cull the female-preferred genes among men, slowly killing your racial future because there won’t be enough carrier women to go around and the ‘problem’ will only get worse. There is no culling effect equivalent to war in women except socialist policy.
There’s your ‘war against women’. Affirmative Action for unfit male genes collapses both their group and the fit men of their race who were weak enough to allow it to happen. If every man is entitled to 1 waifu thanks to socialist compulsion (and all men, all women forced to marry by law**) but five infant boys survive due to medical technology…. 100-105=-5
Socialism’s birth policies are as dysgenic as their economics that punish effort.
This is why men shouldn’t decide who gets to breed with laws, women evolved for that task.
Socialism cannot replace sexual selection. What the internet considers it is not, reproduction is required.
A war will be mandatory if the leftover men have any hope of reproduction, by conquest and rape …..and ‘immigration’. The neocolonialism as BPS explained, of buying up properties in another homeland (r-migration for resources).
*As previously covered, most money to purchase is loaned by the Chinese Communist government. They are the true buyers overseas. Ban foreigners from literally buying your country. It’s a matter of national security. That includes the Putin-banished Russians’ blood money in London keeping the gasping death rattle of a real estate bubble alive. I’d extend this to the compulsory purchase of properties made by shell corps overseas, with unexplained funds (anti-corruption law) or belonging to dual passport holders who refuse to drop the other one (loyalty to another nation).
The concrete used in protected property basements is doomed to collapse. Like the postmodern glass monstrosities, they all crumble eventually, that’s why huge basements aren’t built in English soil. Rainy, flood-prone soil. Next to the biggest river incoming to the landmass.
And we get frequent earthquakes, of the sort that causes cracks in… concrete.
It’s a capital city so traffic causes tremors too – including planes.
Every heinous skyscraper you ever see will be self-destructing. Rich tower or council estate.
I’m literally the first person to look this up. Engineers study ENTROPY.
This error is old as Babel. We don’t need to lift a finger, ugly postmodern structures are already crumbling.
They’ll go the way of wooden castles.
Shad viewers? Anyone?
If only the Nazis had simply purchased American land, we’d be speaking German.
They’re still going to shoot you by the way. They need to outnumber you, fill University places then government positions first. If they have the land, all that’s needed are executions.
**Reducing citizens to breeding sows for the government, thanks, socialism!
Socialism is hence r-select and among other issues, assumes all men can be provider husbands, all women are fertile and all citizens are heterosexual. Socialism is doomed to fail by virtue of mathematics and basic biology.