We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Invasion from Africa? Not as if it hasn't happened before.And it went VERY badly for the native Europeans the last time.Just 45,000 years ago, the Cro Magnons came boiling up from the south to displace the Neanderthals.
NRO's K-Lo reports on the #PostcardsforMacron movement to rebuke France's feminist president for his remark, “I always say: ‘Present me the woman who decided, being perfectly educated, to have seven, eight, or nine children’.”
Remember, folks, that a top dogma of feminists is that the masculine will has great power over the weak female mind. Rarely do feminists come straight out and say this but it is implicit in so many of their cracks aimed at women who do not conform to feminist rule, as France's feminist president illustrated.
Next visit Hungary, Czech republic, Poland and Slovakia.
No need to visit savages and muzzles infested places.
the problem with socialism is that, eventually, you run out of other people.
The fact that they are just figuring this out now suggests our elites are not very bight. Willfully stupid in fact.
Secular societies will be crushed by religious ones - that is one simple way of viewing the coming century.
We can still call the continent ‘Europe,’ at least in translation from the languages of Europe’s new masters and occupiers.
In the banlieus and elsewhere, Islamist pressure makes it certain that sooner or later the West is going to vomit Stalin’s memes out of its body politic. The worst way would be through a reflex development of Western absolutism — Christian chauvinism, nativism and militarism melding into something like Francoite fascism. The self-panicking leftists who think they see that in today’s Republicans are comically wrong (as witnessed by the fact that they aren’t being systematically jailed and executed), but it is quite a plausible future for the demographically-collapsing nations of Europe - esr
That was written twelve years ago. And I’m not sure why winning would be ‘in the worst way.’ Either invaders are repulsed, or natives are replaced. There is only one China.
It's probably too late. The reality of the demographics is that on present trends most European and European-derived countries will be majority non-white and/or majority Muslim by 2100. Unless our "elites" get their fingers out of their asses pdq, Western civilization is screwed, for while there are no doubt many outliers from every race and culture who appreciate and wish to enjoy the kind of high-trust societies that Whites create, there aren't enough of them, and those non-White majorities will inevitably turn European countries into the same kinds of s**tholes those peoples tried to escape from.
This is the cold, hard, reality, on present trends. Now it may be arguable that projections are off because x, y scenario or circumstance is going to intervene. e.g. perhaps it is true that people of any and every race and culture will have less children as they become more prosperous. But all that needs to be brought into the clear light of day and argued back and forth now.
I'd have no hesitation from ordering the navy to fire a warning shot and then sink the vessel and ensure there were no survivors. Number of boats attempting the crossing tomorrow: zero. Invaders caught inshore to be hanged. Number of entrants tomorrow: zero. These are easily solved problem, what is lacking is will.
Speaking as an actual Navy sailor, however, I'd have profound concerns about an order to sink a vessel full of civilians and ensure there were no survivors. Even a vessel full of combatants gets a reprieve and rescue under the law of war.
Interdict, turn back, and/or rescue from a sinking ship and offload onto a boat headed back, yes. Murder, no. But thanks for your input, Sgt. Slaughter.
If the Europeans would let people get off those boats, and then take the boats out to sea and sink them, that would reduce the problem considerably.
You served in the military? Who knew?
And who knew that people who did not so serve were not entitled to hold an opinion worthy of serious consideration if it infringed on your area of obvious expertise?
You know, one man's "civilian" is another man's invader, Romulus Augustulus.
Fair enough, dick. Here's the thing: Since I did serve, and have a child serving now, I think I have a little more insight into the attitudes of the people whom you'd have sinking these ships than those who presumably did not serve. Very few of us who join the US military do so with the ambition to sink ships full of noncombatants and gun down civilians at the border. Round 'em up, put 'em in camps, and send 'em packing — sure. But all of us would rather save the killing for real bad guys.
No, you don't have any more insight on whether to sink a boat full of invaders, and I fail to see how your being in the Navy (or having a child in the Navy) would make you think you do -- except insofar as the complex logistics involved in sending a leaky boat from Libya to the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea come into play.
I am sure I have at least as much insight as you, in fact. Indeed, as far as I can tell, you and I on are on the same page with regard to sinking them. As in, let's not sink them. Funny, you would mistake my chastising you for being a supercilious boob to another commenter for agreeing with the commenter's -- completely understandable -- opinion.
So it seems to me that I may be less of a dick than you.
Now I know how Ted Cruz must feel.
I'm curious. What branch did you serve with? I'm an Air Force vet.
Financial support, 42 years, active duty.
Thanks for your service.
You're welcome. My annual taxes would cover the annual salaries, room and board of both Mr. Carr and his son, with plenty left over for gas to tow a few invaders' boats back to Libya.
Yes I know. That's why the west has not won a single war since WW2. We win battles, tire ourselves out and then retreat. We've convinced ourselves that being nice to the enemy is more important that strategic objectives. The military should have *zero* concerns with slaughtering the civilians of an enemy power. That is how wars are won and have always been won. But here we are, "nice" losers.
It's not a military problem. People ignore immigration laws because they've been shown to be weak and easily circumvented. Change the law, and enforce the law.
The US would be entirely justified in bombing the cities of enemies with armies in the field at war with the US. Total war is justified, and the US made lots of mistakes in past conflicts not to remember that rule.
The US isn't going to start killing unarmed people from a country we're not a war with. It's not who we are, and who we should never become.
… how much harder assimilation may be than they once hoped.
There is no "may" about it. America has been a 400 year lab experiment in African assimilation, and we have tried literally everything to make it happen. On the whole, blacks today are no more assimilated to white American culture than they were three centuries ago on the tobacco plantations of North Carolina. So you have to be willingly enstupidated not to realize that Africans will never assimilate to European civilization. The reasons have nothing to do with racism or the wrong government policies being applied (two popular racial lodestars -- the former being embraced by the cultural Marxist left as the go-to excuse, the latter by the conservative right).
The Left wants white Americans to stop using their ineffable white privilege, while conservatives want to treat Africans as if they were the same as Europeans. The Left thinks magically, as if we have cast a spell over blacks. The conservatives think that, because maple trees thrive in Minneapolis, so too will palm trees, if you just give the palms equal access to the deep, rich humus that fertilizes maple trees and encourage them to shed their leaves in October for the cold and snowy winter to come, like all smart trees do.
Both are similarly delusional.
"America has been a 400 year lab experiment in African assimilation, and we have tried literally everything to make it happen. On the whole, blacks today are no more assimilated to white American culture than they were three centuries ago on the tobacco plantations of North Carolina."
When exactly has America actually tried to assimilate blacks? Don't cite the Great Society and race-based programs. That's not assimilation. That's accommodation.
I don't think this is true. Mexicans waving Mexican flags are not assimilated. What definition of assimilation are you using that suggests blacks are not assimilated into America? They have higher crime rate, or lower test scores? Poor whites in Kentucky also have some of these problems - are they not assimilated? What does assimilated mean to you?
"Mexicans waving Mexican flags are not assimilated."--Kyle Smith
How about Yahoos waving Confederate flags? Do you consider them "assimilated"? Explain.
How about Beckian Cruzian Cultists like you who still haven't recovered from November 8th 2016? Do you consider them "assimilated"? Explain.
What assimilation "means to me" is irrelevant. What assimilation is is the question; however, your questions tell me that you really don't know what assimilation means, what the crime rates and mean IQ of poor whites in Kentucky are versus blacks, what is even meant by IQ, how it is inherited and how it affects "test scores," or how behavioral proclivities (like aggression and violent tendencies, lack of planning, and impulsiveness) are also inherited. And most of all, you don't see how all of these things make up a people who build a civilization and how a people determine their culture much more than their culture determines them. You don't understand how people can't assimilate if their innate characteristics differ too much from those who founded the society in which they find themselves. There will be friction, forced and voluntary separation, special privileges provided (e.g., affirmative action), a growing lack of trust and neighborliness, a sense of disconnectedness, increased psychosis and other mental illness, increased government control, conflict, and even war. But what there won't be, on the whole, is assimilation.
Thus, my answering your questions, when your assumptions are faulty and your knowledge of the facts are either scant or wrong, would be futile.
Again, I served in America's most assimilationist organization, the US military, and I can tell you from experience that black Americans bleed the same red, white, and blue that white Americans bleed. An immigrants from Africa, on the whole, make very fine Americans. It's some segments of our slave descendants who aren't doing so well. But even in that case, it's hard to say that we give them the correct incentives.
When you have to use trite sentiment, ersatz patriotism, or rhetorical pabulum to make your point, it's usually means it's a weak one, Brendon.
And this? "An[d] immigrants from Africa, on the whole, make very fine Americans." Hilarious in its fatuity. Do we really need to start listing the statistics that disprove this, or how about just listing some of the more infamous anecdotes? No, better not list anecdotes. It would be like saying "some of the black guys in the military get wounded and, when they do, they bleed like me. So all blacks are like all whites in all other respects"
"But even in that case, it's hard to say that we give them the correct incentives."
So ... more magic fertilizer? Or should we just throw coconuts on the lawns of suburban Minneapolis and tell them to grow like maples?
I guess I'm an optimist. But my experiences in the military were positive so I know it works in principle and in practice.
What works in principle and in practice? Bleeding or turning white?
Treating people equally.
Careful, that's SJW rhetoric you're saying there. /sarc
This can't be racist because it's in the NYT but in some European countries this kind of analysis and discussion would be prohibited or branded far right-wing hate speech. The real issue is cultural assimilation or lack of it and some European political leaders and elites would prefer that it not happen as insurance to keep past excesses from happening again. It's fair to ask the question when does a country stop being (fill in the blank) France, Germany etc., and become merely a designation on a map without the cultural heritage that created it. Recent European elections suggest a growing number of voters understand the stakes that politicians refuse to acknowledge.
"And the experience of recent refugee crises has demonstrated to European leaders both how easily populations can move northward, and how much harder assimilation may be than they once hoped."
I don't believe that is strictly true. I think the experience of recent elections has demonstrated to European leaders both how many of their constituents understand how easily populations can move northward, and how many of their constituents understand how much harder assimilation is than the leaders once hoped.
Indeed. The article ignored entirely the nationalist shift in countries like Sweden and Italy which up until now had been reliably Socialist-left.
The only excuse for this omission I can think of is the idea that the reaction has come too late to mean anything.
The "Scottish Solution" to indigenous rights, giving illegals the right to vote, could indeed make the destruction of the indigenous people inevitable, so it may well be a justifiable position that superior numbers whichever side of a useless border they're on will inevitably conquer.
Only time will tell.
Well, here's what I see.
-Leadership solves/controls problems in a timely fashion. There isn't any leadership in Europe nor here. Trump is the-boy-at-the-dyke, working hard, but not getting much help; the issue still very much in doubt.
-In 1900 there were approximately 1Bn people on the planet; 2000 approx. 7.5Bn. With most of the increase among the poorly educated, unable to feed the children aborning. And the cry is, after a couple of trillion in aid, "Now look at the problem we have created that you have to help us with".
-EU assimilation of migrants? Failure! Cultural failure. Skills failure. Does any other word come to mind?
-Something I've not seen mentioned before is that while everyone in the US is biting their nails as to what to do with the lack of jobs when automation takes over every repetitive job in the country, said, might present the EU with an opportunity. The Europeans having a falling but highly educated population might avoid that problem altogether. But then we are immediately forced to circle back to uncontrolled, unassimilated immigration. And then circle back again to lack of leadership. (Shrugs)
-Disease. If something new came up that moved as fast as once-upon-a-time smallpox and presented physical horrors like Ebola, borders would be slammed shut fast. But too late. I read an estimate decades ago that if one single person with Smallpox were to walk the streets of any Western city, given air travel, there would be 53 million cases within two weeks and it would spool up catastrophically after that.
Read the Hot Zone, by Preston.
-Things cannot go on as they are, at some point all the narratives and all the good intentions will simply be overwhelmed by raw events.
I'm thinking it's time to read Lucifer's Hammer again.
Or as the cook on the Edmond Fitzgerald said when the main hatchway caved in, "Boys it's been good to know you".
The average African IQ is about 75. Somalia’s average IQ is 68. These groups will never contribute to modern, high tech societies. They will never be able to pay for the services they will feel entitled to. therefore, they will be on welfare for generations to come.
Now you have to explain why on average America's recent immigrants from poor African countries outperform America's blacks.
And we'll have the privilege of keeping most of them behind bars for generations too, at 50,000 dollars a year.
I’d be curious to see the source of that statistic. My experience is that intelligence is less determined by race and more determined by upbringing. We don’t need racism, we need a merit-based immigration system.
This again? How much data do we need?
However, I doubt the IQ of a well educated Somalia with good nutrition will end up being that low. So there is some room for impact.
Well your tiny experience is no match for group statistics.
Don't be lazy and Google it. I am dubious of your avowed curiosity. People who demand someone else provide them easy-to-obtain information are usually the ones who don't want to see it.
This is also my experience. I have never asked anyone for a source for anything unless a fairly good go at searching for it turned up nothing.
Your experience is not concordant with reality, it's more in line with wish fulfillment.
Upbringing, so long as it is not harmful, has almost zero effect on intelligence and other life outcomes.
Does this give anyone else deja vu?
China was going to take over, or India, or middle easterners...yet fertility rates often change rapidly for rational reasons, which is why piliticians can't usually do much about it.
Women have a lot of children when child mortality is high and there is a positive labor correlation (i.e. more kids get more done). They drop as more children survive and labor is worth less than the woman's time and energy making babies, i.e. when having more kids doesn't make your life better.
This is why literacy, and knowledge based economies, have fewer kids. And why people who believe in traditional family roles and love kids (i.e. religious folks) have more kids.
I predict if African populations are actually rising quickly due to health improvements, growth will slow within the next decade or so. And if their societies don't stabilize lives will be lost to war anyway.
The problem is that they are growing so fast they will soon consume the entire worlds food supply. In 50 years are you willing to say that 2 billion people have to starve to death because we're not going to feed them any more? It could be one billion if we bite the bullet today. You're in favour, yes?
The speculation about declining birth rates may not apply to cultural and ethnic groups with IQs of 68 or 75.
Fertility rates change rapidly for basically one rational reason: at the margin, women's time has other, more valuable uses (in their own opinions) than child-rearing. This is generally more true in richer societies and families, although the income effect, strictly speaking, is in the other direction: if you keep everything else the same, women have more children as their families are richer. But the substitution effect swamps the income effect, as in so many things.
Compacting the argument to bumper-sticker brevity (and over-simplicity): feminism kills modernity.