Based on : “How many kids a woman wants with you shows her respect for your masculinity. One or two kids by IVF and C-section? She hates your guts, pack a suitcase. Tiger Moms are hell in divorce court, ask reddit redpill and MGTOW forums. If she doesn’t want 4-7 kids, she isn’t traditional. If she pretends to change her mind after marriage, divorce her before the first kid, it’s easier. Try to void it. 1 to 2 kids is literally postmodern lawyercunt numbers. They also delay by like 7-10 years then act surprised when menopause means they don’t have more kids. Wake up to this stunt. Like Dog Moms.”
There needs to be an express crime for reproductive future faking. Cluster Bs do it. Too many traditional men and women fall for it. Kinda like breach of promise.
Now some sources later try to back track and say this has been ‘debunked’. It has not. Why? They used a Danish study i.e. all white people. For both. HOWEVER, two whites are not representative of MOST couples seeking IVF. It’s mixed race, like Anna Bey and her Arab Asian. They have a higher failure rate for IVF, as I’ve proven in the past, Asian women have the highest IVF fail rate, compared to English women at least.
(They have fewer quality eggs, as r-types).
Obviously the medical places providing this ‘service’ at great expense will deny the divorce risk shooting up, so don’t trust any IVF negative ‘debunkings’. Look at the samples used and how representative they are of who ACTUALLY seeks the treatment, especially in UK and USA.
“One-fifth, or 20 per cent, ended up separated or divorced 16 years after undergoing the fertility treatment, according to the findings.”
So 1/3 to 1/5? Hardly much better despite statistical ironing, is it?
Divorce isn’t an option for the barren in Biblical times. No get-out clauses, stop picking infertile women. The Lord is punishing you. Getting frivorced is what Boomers do. In sickness and in health is Biblical.
“When both partners’ age, education and partnership status was factored in, no difference in the risk of relationship break-up was found.”
In this Danish study, what they didn’t look at? Race. Known to predict divorce. If it weren’t for C-sections, narrow-hipped Asian women in particular would die in childbirth. Mother Nature’s telling you no.
“Nearly all groups saw population gains this decade and the increase in the Two or More Races population (referred to throughout this story as the Multiracial population) was especially large (up 276%). The White alone population declined by 8.6% since 2010.”
The manosphere is a psyop or Youtube would’ve shoahed them by now.
“….Coupled with the 4.1 million respondents who identified as Asian in combination with another race group, such as White or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, the Asian alone or in combination population comprised 24 million people (7.2% of the total population). The Asian alone population grew by 35.5% between 2010 and 2020. In comparison, the Asian in combination population grew by 55.5%.”
The future of America is Chinese invasion because your men are cucks.
Statistically, mudsharks are not the problem here, are they?
Who could it be? Who could need to take some personal responsibility?
Those are honeypots you’re being targeted by. There’s billions of them and tens of millions of you white men in that fertile age group. Wake UP. Smells like genocide. You’re being targeted for replacement.
The browning out of American pioneer stock. Any race that chooses to do this to themselves, deserves to be wiped out frankly. It’s genetic suicide but with a slice of Biblical adultery.
Too much IQ difference is noted between white men and women. Women have a higher average in all races. It’s medically impossible for a lower IQ white woman to give birth to a much higher IQ white man. That isn’t how the mutations work. Even regression to the mean literally works the opposite way, like supermodel kids being bland looking. Look at Lily Rose Depp compared to her mother in her prime. No comparison, the mother is hotter. Why? JD’s ~1% mixed genes fucked it up, too much genetic noise.
National IQs are usually more accurate than student studies unless the country cheats. Compare urban to rural then, like with China.
“Because the hybrids are intermediate in BOTH GPA and PVT score – but whites score higher on PVT and lower on GPA than Asians. And the W/A hybrids were below the whites but above the Asians on PVT, and above the whites but below the Asians on GPA.” The data is not clear cut and certainly not in favour, unlike how it’s claimed by self-cuckolds. Just look at the mental health of the kids.
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.
" Why should either two men live at the discretion of three, or three at the
discretion of two ? Both propositions are absurd from a reasonable point of view.
If being a slave and owning a slave are both wrong relations, what difference
does it make whether there are a million slave-owners and one slave, or one
slave-owner and a million slaves ? Do robbery and murder cease to be what they
are if done by ninety-nine per cent, of the population ? Clear your ideas on the
subject, Mr. Bramston, and see that numbers cannot affect the question of what is
right and wrong. Suppose some man with the cunning brain of a Napoleon
were to train and organize the Chinamen, and then should lead them to annex
such parts of the West as they desired ; on your theory of numbers, if they
exceeded the population of the country they appropriated it would be all right."
" I do not say that it is a satisfactory answer; but might not a majority inside
a country afford a right method of decision, without extending the rule to the case
of one country against another?"
" On what ground ? " said Markham. " From where are the rights to come
which you have so suddenly discovered ? Do you think that the moral laws that
govern men are made to appear and disappear at our convenience ? Forget that. "
The Victorian translation is “Do one”.
The rationale of mass invasion. It’s even argued by postmodernism a lifetime before it ‘came out’.
Democracy applies ONLY if the people are homogeneous (A People), mature adults (not manchildren or feckless fake tradwives pretending not to be leeches) and not weakened by sexual degeneracy (or they’ll vote in others’ resources to pay for their medical care, welfare, girlfriend’s cohabiting (living in sin) abortion. Sin begets sin.
The pamphlets at first denounced Catholicism from a radical Lutheran perspective, but soon started to proclaim that the Bible called for the absolute equality of man in all matters including the distribution of wealth. The pamphlets, which were distributed throughout northern Germany, successfully called upon the poor of the region to join the citizens of Münster to share the wealth of the town and benefit spiritually from being the elect of Heaven.
What did they actually do? Rape the women and children. Kill any men who hadn’t deserted and tried to stop them.
The first commune. And they called for immigration to do it.
But we urge you, brothers, to excel more and more and to aspire to live quietly, to attend to your own matters, and to work with your own hands, as we instructed you. Then you will behave properly toward outsiders,
Relying on foreigners for your employ is hardly anti-fragile.
This includes remote workers relying on Asian IT.
without being dependent on anyone.
Go Galt as much as possible and dedicate your time to worthy people of your choosing, not a civil servant tyrant.
MGTOW are acting like they invented being single because if they’re not edgy, bachelor doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. They might be compared with the dreaded spinster.
For decades, the hostile elite has been flooding Western Europe with non-Whites from the developing world’s most impoverished and war-torn areas. The devastation of WWII came as a psychological shock to many; globalists advocated diluting White racial purity to never again experience the horrors of all-out war in Europe. The hostile elite justified this race replacement using the most flippant excuses. “Europeans aren’t having enough children,” they complained, “we need more super-fertile Third World invaders!” “We need fresh blood for jobs no European wants to do,” others moaned, “without workers, who will support Europeans in their old age?” On deeper examination, the hostile elite’s reasons for Third World invasion must be immediately dismissed as deliberate falsehoods.
Step one: cut off all welfare – ALL of it.
Globalists claim that low fertility is always a bad thing; but a reduction in the number of excess mouths to feed would allow wages and living standards to rise. Letting jobs go without anyone to fill them isn’t as damaging as the globalists would like us to believe;
it is if you rely on usury, a ponzi scheme with populations that hates K-selection
through the market’s built-in self-correcting mechanism, rising corporate demand would induce an increase in real wages and the labor supply would fix itself. If there is a genuine labor shortage, excess demand would be channeled into research and development, leading to the invention of labor-saving devices. Conversely, they could also stimulate the fertility rate by offering various incentives, like cash bonuses.
Based on IQ and tax contribution only.
Excessive reliance on foreign workers to support elderly Europeans is just another ridiculous Ponzi scheme; invaders would get old, requiring even more workers; needless to say, such infinite growth is ecologically unsustainable. There are limits to Europe’s carrying capacity; as neo-Malthusianist ecologists are fond of pointing out, infinite growth with limited resources is an impossibility. A more logical solution would be to eliminate mandatory retirement age,
Public pensions are just a lite introduction of Communism.
Sell your white kids out to Asia, free money! Judas was paid.
Pensions tank every Empire including Rome. Pensions were originally rare and based on the highest, longest military service. Stop the planefags passports from retiring to Asia away from the mess they made of the country they actively betrayed.
allowing the elderly to work for as long as they wanted.
But Boomers! Won’t somebody think of the Boomer degenerates!
They’re so loving though, John Lennon was their idol, that race-mixing wife-beater!
What did the Boomers ever do for us?
Another serious problem with the fatuous “we need workers to support our elderly pensioners” is that Mohammed al-Baghdadi will not want to support elderly Whites when his people form Europe’s next majority.
There is only one plausible reason for elite-managed Third World invasion: demographic aggression against Europeans in retaliation for the horrors of WWII.
In retaliation for sparing the Jews.
No kindness goes unpunished.
For centuries, Whites were subjected to evolutionary selective pressures that maximized the prevalence of beneficial traits, but removed maladaptive traits from the gene pool.
Death penalty for crime into the 19th century, even for kids (before they bred), did that.
Stop paying breeding sows and deadbeats.
Let STDs kill the host than be “treated”, weakening drug efficacy for everybody, then spread by re-infection.
The 20th century will be seen as weak for allowing STDs to go unpunished. That enabled the Boomer degeneracy, that is the key.
Syphilis is so much worse than HIV. Most zombie films are based on it, the face caves in and the genitals rot off.
Not only did IQs rise, but high trust cultures fostering social cohesion and co-operative behavior were established. As a result, Europeans were able to rapidly recover from tragedies like the Mongol invasions and the Black Death. In fact, if Europe had been destroyed by a devastating thermonuclear war, the surviving Whites would have still been able to recover because of their enormous social and human capital. After a few generations, the population would return to replacement levels of fertility and Western civilization would flourish once again.
…Compared to the Third Reich’s environmental impact, the globalist regimes of modern Europe are far more destructive. As most population growth in globalist-occupied Europe is both artificially induced and massive, there will be overcrowding, significant material scarcity and increased carbon emissions (cause for concern among those convinced by the scientific evidence for global warming). Exponential population growth in a finite territory always harms ecological sustainability; available resources for the next generation of Whites would be substantially reduced.
r-types want to smother us
there’ll be white reservations from white flight, mass rape (rejecting non-whites is racism rhetoric) then pogroms to pick the last of us off
The globalists, on the other hand, actively seek to destroy Western Europe through physical and cultural genocide. Their favorite weapon, non-White invasion, will reduce indigenous Whites to a minority. This will eventually lead to race extinction through miscegenation and race war. The end result of globalism will be far more destructive than the World Wars combined.
Was feeding the world worth it?
Charity begins at home. It should bloody stay there.
The Guardian academia protests about ‘muh pensions’ won’t be the half of it. You didn’t earn a pension, Rome fell by making them non-military too. Public pensions are a myth to compel obedience from these useful idiots.
Being sustainable actually = national sustainability and avoiding over-breeding beyond food security and other needs. K-selection, not the promising of fiat gibs.
Thus, for a technologically sophisticated society, SFT asserts that a nation’s per capita GDP is determined by the population fraction with IQ greater than or equal to some threshold IQ. Consistent with the data of Lynn and Vanhanen, that threshold IQ is 108, a bit less than the minimum required for what used to be a bachelor’s degree. Figure 3 illustrates the fit of (3) to the data of Lynn and Vanhanen.
Dysgenics kills GDP.
Your immigration policy will starve you, State, for importing voter leeches.
“They find about 70% of the variance in IQ is associated with genetic variation. Bouchard et al, Science, Oct 12, 1990, present an excellent review of these studies.”
Know thy HBD or die.
“Controlling thus for environmental factors, Murray found earnings stratified conspicuously by IQ.
There is much more, Estraneo, but two nails are sufficient to fix the direction of a one-way sign. The arrow of cause points mostly from IQ to income, and not the other way round.”
Non-whites have no right to be in white homelands.
End of story.
The pro-Asian muh business angle “forgets”:
they only hire one another (crowding whites out the market in their own lands)
they steal (ideas, products etc)
they tax evade (wrong change, cash in hand)
they take over an area (Londonistan, Chinatown)
they push out the natives in every way – Universities, Eton
they still benefit from diversity quotas and academic help despite being more affluent middle class than whites (UK census)
vice and degeneracy – strip clubs, massage parlours, gang shootings
low national IQs, infanticide, child rape (“brides”), incest (+cousin marriage retards), disbelief in hygiene
the blessed Money doesn’t stay in this economy – remittance is theft, it is anti-nationalism.
Plus the targeted rape of whites among “Asians” and the More Government way they always vote.
In many ways, Asians are the closest another race has to Jews in behaviour (see listed) but that’s hardly surprising considering the most common type of Jew claims (but may not have) Middle Eastern i.e. Asian descent.
They are honorary Jews, either way.
Stop doing the ‘honorary White’ thing, there’s no such thing.
They are collectivists (Marxists) and this is genetic to them.
You won’t be throwing the Asians in the camps this time.
When war breaks out, they’ll be throwing Whitey.
By 2055, Asians are projected to be the largest immigrant group living in the United States, and will make up some 38% of all immigrants by 2065, followed by Hispanics (31%), whites (20%) and blacks (9%). source
not including those born there and anchor mixed babies, because for every loss of a fertile European to a mixed breeding relationship, it’s a direct gain for the non-white side …per child.
And you lose.
Look at all the tradcucks, they’re not with black women. They’re (((paid))).
“The US government would never, never, ever let Cap and Tony use phones from an off-brand Chinese phone manufacturer,” writes Segan, “especially after the huge controversies around Huawei and ZTE and whether their phones are full of backdoors for the Chinese government.”
– May, 2016.
They never include mixed for a reason but one-drop applies to Asian half-breeds too.
Who are you not allowed to criticize?
Meanwhile, 62% of Americans surveyed said that immigrants strengthen the country “because of their hard work and talents,” while 28% say immigrants are a burden because they take jobs, housing and health care away from US-born citizens
That’s really solid anti-white rhetoric, if whites had no work ethic (Christian) and talent (IQ) then there would be no America. I see the attempts at self loathing (part of mentacide) are still effective brainwashing.
Land of opportunity – except for the whites who built it, they just lazy dumb rednecks.