Peştera Muierii woman is related to Europeans, but she is not a direct ancestor
Doesn’t have to be, a lot of bloodlines died.
Reduced diversity in Europe caused by Last Glaciation, not out-of-Africa bottleneck
Natural selection kills diversity. We know this.
Genetic load appears indifferent across 40,000 years of European history.
Postmodern habits like drugs, drinking, bad diet, sleeping around, can screw up your epigenetics over a few generations. We absorb viruses into our genome. Outbreeding depression does it in one. You can, in fact, fuck up tens of thousands of years of effort on part of your ancestors. If only we had a commandment about this.
Pet theory: planes are evil. Sink the boats.
Few complete human genomes from the European Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP) have been sequenced. Using novel sampling and DNA extraction approaches, we sequenced the genome of a woman from “Peştera Muierii,” Romania who lived ∼34,000 years ago to 13.5× coverage. The genome shows similarities to modern-day Europeans, but she is not a direct ancestor. Although her cranium exhibits both modern human and Neanderthal features, the genome shows similar levels of Neanderthal admixture (∼3.1%) to most EUP humans but only half compared to the ∼40,000-year-old Peştera Oase 1. All EUP European hunter-gatherers display high genetic diversity, demonstrating that the severe loss of diversity occurred during and after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) rather than just during the out-of-Africa migration. The prevalence of genetic diseases is expected to increase with low diversity; however, pathogenic variant load was relatively constant from EUP to modern times, despite post-LGM hunter-gatherers having the lowest diversity ever observed among Europeans.
The Neanderthals were human. They were, at most, a race. Basic classification 101. It’s politically incorrect to admit this.
Welcome Global Cooling, it kills off redundant diversity. The people still living are the winners.
OOA is laughable at this point. Multi-Regional is correct. They don’t have to keep tweaking it to fit the data, replete with Black Swans that shouldn’t be there.
Assumption is incorrect, diseases become more serious, the higher the diversity. It’s akin to mixing random chemicals in a beaker. You’re more likely to blow your arm off, the more different the ingredients or elements. Well, mutations work the same way and most are disadvantageous i.e. they lower Darwinian fitness. A novel combination is dangerous. Inbreeding depression takes centuries in a super-restricted, incestuous environment; meanwhile, outbreeding depression occurs in one generation between any two genomes of sufficient distance. Odds are, if a kid has some super-rare obscure disease, barely recorded, they’re mixed race. The more mixed, the more health problems, including mental health. Taboos are based on health outcomes. They demonstrate low fitness for any one environment and ‘fail to thrive’ in either parental environment as a result. It dooms them to never belong and fit in, a core human need as a social species. Every group has a runt to its litter, but that shouldn’t be encouraged as the norm, it’s cruel. Happily, this means such mutants and feeble specimens were almost unheard of throughout our history, so we have nothing to feel guilty about. It’s literally the parent’s fault they made an experimental kid. Nobody forced you to play God.
This is why Africans in Africa are healthier than the mongrels in America. It isn’t just diet. Also why full-blooded Africans generally hate them. They are equally disgusted by the degeneration as any other race, it’s human aversion to disease.
Similarly, White Americans have extremely high white DNA but also suffer poorer health compared to their homelands. Why? Admixture of subrace. The same applies to a lesser-degree within a race, of sufficient genetic distance. It’s unlikely to be fatal, but breeding with a person with high mutations (r-type) will ruin the bloodline of the person whose is low. It’s only fine if they’re both low, which is unlikely when so distant in ancestry as to cross countries (and emigration is r-select). Consider the children of supermodels. Regression to the mean, except mutations only build. So you get a bland, dull looking child, nothing special. Breeding two racehorses is fine, breeding it with a donkey makes a mule, however good the racehorse genes of one parent. That’s the evil of genetic regression. Beware it. A racehorse with a regular horse may be fine but is likely to be uninspiring by the racing parental standard. This also applies to plants and flowers. Excess distance causes fertility dysfunction and is collectively called the process of speciation. Enough of the odd couples die off genetically while others, more natural, succeed and replace them using natural selection (by omission) to win zero sum. It works on a mathematical level. It’s basic game theory. Live or die.
EVOLUTION HAS NO CONTINUOUS SPEED. IT IS AN ONGOING PROCESS AND OPERATES FASTER SOME TIMES THAN OTHERS. I repeat, evolution is non-uniform as a biological driving force to live. I’ve never seen a shred of proof for it being the same everywhere, at all times and in all peoples. That smacks of absurd equalism and doesn’t account for the violence of history, both natural disasters and wars. There is much to the contrary, like this. Bloodlines die out, in part, all the damn time. All the bloody time! Yet certain people who claim to be high IQ like to pretend it has a constant speed like ‘c’, it is a positive claim and I’d like evidence. It doesn’t have to make sense to you, to be demonstrably true.
How many of Edison’s many children survived? Surprisingly few. That’s in a century. Writ large, same pattern. The birth rate doesn’t matter, longevity of genes does. Do not conflate them. Dilution is also a partial death. It’s like genetic atrophy. When children disappoint their parents, whose fault is that?
I find it funny supposed Christians mock evolution, only to insist on muh birth rates. If you believe in Revelations, it won’t matter, because winning is Darwinian. It isn’t about cross-comparisons to other groups, more r-select (read: arrogant while times are good) and their over-populating to over-consume and eventual, frequent famine (hello China), but quality within. Genetics are moreso about what you DON’T have than what you do. i.e. You can’t steal IQ, China, keep funding genetic engineering though. You tried. R-types can only run an ‘Empire’ of inferior quality by oppressing their own kind and even then, it fractures and implodes due to their sadism (low group loyalty > no in-group empathy). They are collectivists who hate freedoms and rights. Introduce more k-select competition and they’re easily brought to heel, like the French. Beaten (and saved) by a nation of shop-keepers. There’s a difference between conspicuous consumption and responsible innovation. R-types can’t tell until it’s all failing and none of their people running the machines (high corruption, nepotism) were smart enough to invent them (low child investment), so cannot fix it. Corrupt societies deserve to suffer and die. Evolution is social as much as genetic. = epigenome
TLDR: With debt bubbles as with population bubbles. It’s the same bubble. Malthus wins.
While K-types look foolish during good times, they lose the least (high child investment pays off) when times get tough and due to high group loyalty, fare better against challenges by more r-groups. Ks have the steadier gene = winning. You don’t buy a Ferrari on credit to compete with your neighbour, you wait for his to get repossessed.
See: Skyscraper Index. Recently: Asian.
This low load of mutations and high fertility into the modern era, suggests Neanderthals were the same race, and they’re trying to report the finding without admitting this. Curse the editors.
nb I wonder whether the RNA trial mutants will be having fertility problems with their own, or only with the rest of us. Speciation is epigenetic.
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.
Men of culture. I know they exist but I seem to be related to most of them.
Bring back good breeding. Leave Debrett’s at schools. Speaking of –
He nailed the pronunciation. Nailed it to the wall like art.
I find it tricky to recite aloud, it’s a tongue twister. There’s a little flyting in how he mocks his self-proclaimed enemies for hating his scant contentment, it’s so stoic. It’s what rap wished it could be, you can feel the genuine confidence.
I think a lot of lost men could benefit from studying it, alongside ‘IF’.
A great poem, especially in these times. That is one of the greatest poems in English literature, and while quite well-known here, I’m shocked how few foreigners have ever heard of it.
White culture and grace in a poem. They’d never dare teach it in schools, it has so many virtues, a sense of known superiority and a kind of contempt for lesser minds. It’s taught at uni level, it’s on the oxford website.
Although the human germline mutation rate is higher than that in any other well-studied species, the rate is not exceptional once the effective genome size and effective population size are taken into consideration. Human somatic mutation rates are substantially elevated above those in the germline, but this is also seen in other species.
What is exceptional about humans is the recent detachment from the challenges of the natural environment and the ability to modify phenotypic traits in ways that mitigate the fitness effects of mutations, e.g., precision and personalized medicine. This results in a relaxation of selection against mildly deleterious mutations, including those magnifying the mutation rate itself.
Actually, it’s anti-selection aka dysgenics. There is always a pressure in some direction, read Darwin?
You can’t have dystopia without dysgenics. That’s all a dystopia is.
The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition,
By race and subrace.
potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies,
Technically you only need one truly fuck-up generation (say Boomers) to install those social policies up to 3 (living memory). This is without external group effects i.e. invasion on a genetic level, rape. So it isn’t fair to say immigration caused this, it compounds it severely. The Boomers and their outsized ingroup-gene infanticide will go down in history as mass murderers, if there’s anyone left.
and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern. Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention.
Medicine isn’t magic. It cannot do that. We already cannot afford the current population with the present and dwindling useful tax base, let alone Japan levels of old coots living to infinity and China levels of population size.
You can’t fuck your way out of this, r-types. You can’t immigrate it either, those new entries have a lower IQ, higher overall group fertility and represent a smaller usable tax base. Debt doesn’t exist to cover this medical cost, even digital money typing. You can’t even type your way out of it. Hyperinflation would occur first, long before actually. Try running the numbers, see if you’re as smart as me. The cost of quality food is the anchor point. Of all living expenses, that one actually keeps you alive?
Don’t become a doctor, kids. Medicine bubble, heard it here first.
Hell, NHS GPs are already quitting now. Retention will only get worse. The ones who stay have lower IQ and can’t find gainful employment anywhere else. This is how socialism degrades infrastructure, the first generation the NHS seemed fine but the second, it attracted parasites to become GPs for the money and by the third, the original talented ones (by private sector standards) had retired and died, leaving training downhill from there.
Other people have explained that before. That one isn’t me.
Resolving the uncertainties of the magnitude and timescale of these effects will require the establishment of stable, standardized, multigenerational measurement procedures for various human traits.
Measurement? We’re lower IQ than ingroup Victorian ancestors by reaction time.
No relevant barriers to entry? Say, for breeding? At least on state funding?
Shows what they think of the producers, dunnit?
Leave the leech alone! The parasites are fine!
Yeah wait a few generations, maybe a century and hope the metrics are correctly chosen to matter!
Long after the researchers are dead so you can’t kill them for being wrong.
This is Idiocracy, even academia is full of nitwits.
We used to have a breeding license, it’s called a marriage certificate.
Below a certain IQ, you can’t actually consent to get married or breed. Maybe study that first?
No, that would be both logical and responsible.
See, I don’t just sit here bitching. I have solutions but nobody listens.
nb Historians and real scientists say European, liars typically say Caucasian.
For example, among European populations in the year 1600 AD the average individual had around a 25-40 % chance of dying in infancy, a 50 % chance of dying during childhood (Volk and Atkinson 2008), and only around a 40 % chance of fully participating in reproduction (Rühli and Henneberg 2013). The average family size was close to five in 1600s England (Arkell & Whiteman, 1998) -given the high rates of pre- term, infant, and child mortality, the numbers ever conceived would likely have been considerably higher. These historical Western infant and child mortality statistics are similar to those observed in contemporary hunter-gatherer populations (Volk and Atkinson 2008)
I’ll list the maths since there’s always that one idiot who “disagrees”.
Of those born, low ball:
100 – 25% = 75
75 – 50% = 37.5
37.5 – 40% = 15 15 of 100 births eventually reproduced, at best.
Your ancestors in 1600 weren’t entitled to breed either. STFU, stupid sections of America.
Natural selection is important.
RITES OF PASSAGE. TOUGH ONES.
Assuming you aren’t tradlarping?
Bear in mind, that wasn’t sex-specific and those estimates are the population i.e. they have to breed with one another.*
Less conservative estimate:
100 – 40% = 60
60 – 50% = 30
30 – 40% = 12 12 of 100 births eventually reproduced, by academic estimate. The more realistic one.
Again, stop being so entitled. Considering the odds, five kids average is actually pretty low.
The entitled brats, appealing to a tradition that’s totally ignorant and imaginary, are the spiteful mutants. In any other time period, you’d probably be dead by now. Male infant mortality is higher than female overall for humans, which hasn’t been factored in.
And WWs 1 and 2 culled the bravest genes of that millennia selection by machine gun and sniper.
At least the bankers made mo- wait, they’ve already “run out” of fake money. Less than a century later.
What was it all for?
or 7.5/100 births eventually reproduced as a couple TOPS
down to, more reasonably
6% of MEN* (or women, maybe**) compared to the grandfather’s generation.
[Father 50% reproduction as male, Grandfather 100% comparison, since all grandfathers would have bred logically.]
or 6/100 births from the total population, coupled.
Assuming 50/50 male/female birth split and flat survival, which doesn’t exist.**
Since breeding requires TWO people, America.
3 generations tops, with a 6% male survival in 1600 Europe.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
6% by sex.
This doesn’t further subdivide by health, wealth, religion or attractiveness.
If one surviving guy in that 100 births total was infertile or refused marriage, you can kinda see why it was a big deal.
This is why inheritance was always conditional on religion, approved choice of spouse and vitally, children.
If the Boomers wanna do some good, write into your will your kids get nothing unless actively Christian, married, with at least one child with a spouse you approve of. They won’t do it. They’ll complain about no grandkids though. That never gets old.
As in, normal group preference, genophilia. No mutations.
Reminds me of the study that found distant cousins most fecund.
Britons are still living in the same ‘tribes’ that they did in the 7th Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into our genetic make-up. Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire.
In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK, suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415 years.
Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said: “What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD.
“When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel between areas and genetic similarity.
The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically.
And the research has finally answered the question of whether the Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Brits or wiped out communities.
The team found that people in central and southern England have a significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing population.
By choice or rape?
But there is no genetic signature from the Danish Vikings even though they controlled large parts of England – The Danelaw – from the 9th century, suggesting they conquered, kept largely to themselves, and then left. Only Orkney residents were found to have Viking DNA.
“We found that 25 per cent of the DNA of someone living in Orkney is from Norse ancestry which suggests that when the Vikings arrived they intermingled with the local population rather than wiping them out,” added Prof Peter Donnelly.
“Similarly the Saxons in Germany have contributed DNA to some of the English groups but not to some of the others. We can see not only the differences in the UK but the reasons for those differences in terms of population movements.”
Inbreeding is great if you have low genetic load in the participants, it preserves the health, looks and intellect of the bloodline. The breeding of good breeding was this deliberate sexual selection for fitness. It’s only a problem when you introduce mutations. They compound.
Outbreeding is far more likely to produce diseased or infertile offspring, much like a liger or a mongrel, the depression of mutations in genetic load can occur in a single generation.
dynasties and wealth spending v trendy riches and conspicuous consumption
bloodlines and family being more important than how you make money (modern people uplift their job title above their damn spouse)
the parents as the core of the family unit, not the children
how respect is connected to fear…. well, it is!
tolerance for idiots (who do not know they’re idiots)
multiculturalism – yes, a little bit of that, even just across classes
nationalism and belonging to a culture or time period versus international non-identity (usually channeling into brands over a religion – people literally stan over toaster models nowadays)
persecution based on appearance
needing to fix messes caused by outsiders, super competence being viewed externally as “creepy” (tell me those kids don’t respect their parents, they even have disciplined staff) and their reaction times are better than Special Ops
use of “magic” (IQ) to get what they want, despite attracting a lot of envy
gender roles – Morticia is sexy, smart and maternal (hourglass dresses), Gomez is rich, loyal and paternal (he wears a smoking jacket and smokes a cigar) – his wealth allows them to outsource a lot of childcare and spend time together, strengthening the marriage
plenty of quality family time, even family dinners (values, as one film was called)
emphasis is inter-generational AND in doing so, more individual (the kids encouraged by the parents to find themselves in a safe environment, because they’ll have time to make mistakes)
they are the educated gentrifiers – they own a damn leatherbound library
you can’t cancel people who don’t rely on your approval, maybe some anti-white person would call the child-nappers, faux concerned about Gomez
delighting in the old-fashioned (dead things is the extreme of this, including archaic notions of culture and ancestry)
despite all else, they’re the only happy people – maybe they dress for the funeral of Western Civ?
Hell, I’d watch THAT film.
Instead of fighting one another like the State wants, they support one another.
It’s anti-propaganda. Does Gomez seem annoyed by Morticia or “scared” of marriage?
Do the kids hate spending time at home?
Does Morticia want to do charity work outside the home?
Is Gomez sleeping with a secretary?
Are the elderly relations pushed aside like corpses already?
Are the kids told to shut up and go away, doing dangerous stuff without supervision?
It’s amazing really.
Imagine if they set one film in the ghetto. They couldn’t do it. Too obvious.
White people are not made equal to one another either.
Glorifying someone because of their skin colour is downright anti-social. There is zero need for immigration, we must be self-sustaining wherever possible. Self-loathing from the fake right because Muh Polish r superior is just as cringe-worthy as some SJW fawning over a Syrian Muslim.
Letting someone like this in harkens to a pro-Europe bland culture that never existed. Europe has never been united because it’s impossible, Empires DIE.
Magic Dirt doesn’t apply to other whites and genetic distance shows difference at a subrace level too.
Eastern Europe is a shithole. They have the r-selected birthrate and low child investment to prove it. Importing people from those places will attract opportunistic dregs outsourcing their childcare costs to the ‘fellow whites’.
Because they love us so much… as long as we give them free shit our own people are entitled to.
Gibs to whites is immoral too.
Thou shalt not steal. So much for Christianity.
This muh fellow white bullshit is cucky, libertarian and anti-national.
Bare minimum, consider IQ and criminality. Never fund the outgroup’s reproduction.
Oppression from Fellow Huwites is a bitter pill to swallow.
Eastern Europe didn’t tighten up its standards over the centuries like the West and it shows, they deserve the comparatively inferior system they have now. No excuses for them either. If they really loved their country so much, they wouldn’t infest ours like a white chinatown (cultural invasion, replacement) and eat the seed crop like hungry rats aboard the Titanic (pillaging, post-invasion).
Oh but muh cultural enrichment, right?
Why does the Guardian love them, that tells you everything you need to know….
Why is mugging, stabbing and burglary up in London but DOWN in Poland? [see end]
The so-called red-pills have blinkers on for Muh Fellow White crime and it’s sickening.
It’s all non-white, right? Wow, you’re so red-pilled! All white immigrants are magically saints!
They’re totally not playing you and your bullshit sense of white loyalty. Which has never existed in all history, it’s been nationalism or bust.
For a reason.
Because a Polish bloke raping your sister is so much better. The whites only cucks disgust me. How deluded do you have to be?
I don’t wanna live near foreign thieves and sex pests, I don’t care if they’re so white they’d glow in sunlight! Advocating for them purely on the morally meaningless grounds of pigment is a betrayal of the domestic people, who can move nowhere else. It’s still genocide, of the people and culture, it’s still a replacement. It’s also a betrayal of native men, whose work is stolen, directly, by people with de facto MORE options.
No work, no money, no family. It’s directly impacting our birth rates.
These cuckoo egg pregnancies are not one of us, genetically, culturally, criminally and they will leave (abandoning us to debts they ran up with their welfare) when the economy contracts, predictably (r-types).
Covering for criminals is emboldening them to get worse.
Accusations: 1st place Poland, 2nd Romania, 3rd Lithuania, 4th Ireland, 8th French, 9th Italian, 10th Portuguese. Yes, famous non-white countries, and I’m sure the criminals here love the people enabling it because Muh Whites make civilization, right?
London is so civilized now! Walk through any Polish-dominant area alone at night and see how safe you feel, among your fellow white! It’s totally like the 50s, surrounded by fellow Anglos! They’re just like us! Diversity is our strength! We need them!
We all know what they’re teaching their kids. Giving your kid a crowbar is not civilized behaviour.
Many become builders to know how to break into said structures. A lot case a joint while working on it, they have a reason to be seen on the property later and they can keep prices low as bait because of pawn sales. It’s easy to become a burglar when you know who’s living alone, who’s on holiday, what security they have and you made a spare key.
We must dispel this hilarious myth that all white people are civilized, it’s shit.
Why trust someone with a foreign passport to secure your home, when they can hop on a plane today? Rich people don’t hire Trojan builders, it’s known what they really are. The builders can also be scouts for valuable items, related to the burglar. House parties are also used for scouting.
Muh white ppl = civilization!
like Spain? Portugal? Greece? France? Romania?
Even Hitler didn’t believe that and he was on some serious meds.
Believing this will ruin us, like it ruined Rome.
Yes, the women are hot, so what? If you remove the trowel make-up most of them look weird (manjaw, with African broad, fat-lipped mouths) and plain (beady eyes, large nose). From the neck-down the average is okay but the problem is comparing to fat people, so they’d always look better obviously. Compared to healthy body weight anglos or West Europeans generally, they have blatant peasant limbs (stocky) and squat torsos, no waist on the women unless starved. Athletic boyish figures when young, prone to obesity past 30. You can get on a plane to Poland any time you like, that’s no reason to import the whores of eight welfare kids on the rest of us. The hot ones get thrown into modelling and out of normal reach anyway, they peak at 15. Come back 8 years later and they’re a mess. They age like Polynesians, if there’s anything there, a strong bloom from about 15-25 then age like festering shit on the sidewalk in summer. R-types peak sexually earlier.
Nordic women are the real natural beauties of the region, no make-up required (especially the Kardashian eye make-up, that’s how you spot fug). Oddly, they’re not queuing up to live here. Nor become breeding sows on our taxpayer teat. Funny that.
We must be honest about the myriad anti-social ways immigrants are screwing us, even when it makes us uncomfortable. No free passes, that is a weakness.
Let’s face it, there are shitty white people too and they’re a bigger threat, when you think about it.
Unless sex crimes in a foreign nation are suddenly okay when a white guy’s doing it?
Over 350 per 100k here, closer to 30 per 100k in Poland.
Did their criminals just magically disappear?
Do your research.
I am only salty for good reason, after reading a lot of data.
Get on a plane and fuck a Polish whore if you want, don’t bring them here to rob me and then have the brass cheek to complain about immigrants. I used to think they were nice too, they ALL do that nice routine until they take over an area. Then they seem to turn but the appeasement (r-selected) was always fake.
Look at the stats out there. We’re being played.
Figure it out now, or when your life could depend on it during a global recession.