Hi! Im Danny, pleased to meet you all. Now everyone knows me.
Doesnt make know1nothings posts any more relevant, but thanks for the crutch. I feel like im banging my head against a wall today. Feel like Pearl Jam is a band i should not love because they have people like this who follow them. Fascism and the Inquisition died a long time ago, or so i thought.
hahaha, you're quite a bit of fun to read. i must ask... how old are you? im guessing junior high... high school at best. threatening to "leave" pearl jam cos the other fans wont see your way... that's pretty hilarious. what are you... 7 years old? dont like the way the other kids are playing the game so you'll take your toys and go home?
you are truly off your rocker my friend. you can hang with pat robertson and jerry jenkins in the "lost touch with reality" club any day!
so now that we have got rid of the (religious) pain in our collective asses, can we get th4e thread back on track??
what are the demographic and economic challenges europe is likely/is sure to face and how are they going to tackle it?
Well firstly they have to decide what European Union really means to people.
Over here for example they always show figures how much we pay to EU and how much we get aid back in cold cash and they forget to mention how much we gain from the lower interest rates and the integrated bigger market compared if we still had our own weak currency and had to pay all the tariffs that countries outside EU have to pay to to trade with EU. So even still it's how much WE pay THEM and what do we get back in pure money and rarely it's mentioned how much the stability of being a part of a bigger economy actually brings.
So the main question is that will people of Europe start to treat the Europe as their home or do they still stick to the old geographical borders and only look at EU's value as the benefits it brings to their own country. That's why i think the EU is going to face a long ice age since all the politicians are judged on how they look after their own countries benefits and not what is good for whole Europe.
I'm pro EU but also a realist and i'm pretty sure the integration progress will come to a halt until people realize that teaming up can be a good thing and that everyone needs to compromise to get the Union to work...at this moment it's still how many euros we pay to Brussels and how many they give us back-type of bs.
again, i do not feel that i am belittleing anyone...i have admitted that i have faults and weakness, i just see a faith in a higher power as a human weakness... that is not "belittling"
i did not say they were inferior, or lesser than me, or scum? i just said that it was a weakness, not that they were weak...there is a difference IMO
Perhaps that is your intent. But I don't think it is the way you come across.
It comes across as an arrogant...I know the truth sort of way and religion is most certainly THE #1 topic that nobody can be sure of the truth.
Personally, I don't see a decline in population as a problem nor a challenge. I see it as a step in the right direction.
Economics is a belief system based upon false assuptions about how markets work. That is why economic predictions are so variable and so wrong. Societies based upon these erroneous economic principles are bound to erupt into social chaos and bound to fail. We see signs of this all over the place: war, corporate collapse, genocide, extreme weather, re-emergence of infectious diseases, cancer, species extinction, ecological degredation. Yes, all of these effects are caused by our adherence to a spurious way of living.
Who is it that created all the vital problems on the globe? Dinosaurs? Giraffes? Tigers? Elephants? Wooly Mammoth?
I think the fewer people the better. I think all countries should be working on lowering their populations. And I think economics be dammed.
As an old Native American prophesy states:
"When the last fish has been caught and the last tree has been cut down...Only then will man realize that he cannot eat money."
Europe is so messed up,people think that just because a country has a great economy that everything is perfect.Ireland has a wonderful economy now,all thanks to the EU but since we've got that good economy our society has been reduced to a pathetic level.Suicides,alcoholism,divorce and drug use are everywhere and it's all because our government would rather concentrate on our economy then pur people.
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
Is POPULATION dead in Europe?
'Demographic suicide'
Among the consequences of Europe's abandonment of its religious roots and the moral code that derives therefrom is a plunge in its birth rates to below the replacement level. Abortion, birth control, acceptance of gay marriage and casual sex are driving the trend. Europe is "committing demographic suicide, systematically depopulating itself," according to Weigel.
United Nations population statistics back him up.
Not a single Western European country has a fertility rate sufficient to replace the current population, which demographers say requires 2.1 children per family. Germany, Russia, Spain, Poland and Italy all have rates of about 1.3 children, according to the U.N. The Czech Republic's is less than 1.2, and even Ireland is at 1.9 children. (The U.S. rate, which has remained stable, is slightly more than 2 children per woman.)
Fifteen countries, "mostly located in Southern and Eastern Europe, have reached levels of fertility unprecedented in human history," according to the U.N.'s World Population Prospects 2004 revision.
As children grow scarce and longevity increases in Europe, the continent is becoming one vast Leisure World. By 2050, the U.N. projects, more than 40% of the people in Italy will be 60 or older. By mid-century, populations in 25 European nations will be lower than they are now; Russia will lose 31 million people, Italy 7.2 million, Poland 6.6 million and Germany 3.9 million. So Europe is abandoning religion, growing older, shrinking and slowly killing itself. These are signs of a society in eclipse - the Roman Empire writ large. Is this any model for America?
Are we speaking about god, or about Europe getting older and older?
The author of this article forgot to write than in Europe people live more than in other countruies beacuse we have a higher life expectancy (especially in Italy and in Sweden, but, outside europe, also in Japan).
We've survived to 2 world war, we'll survive also to demographic change.
And then the writer didn't consider the immigrants.
In fact, this years, the first time since 1990, in Italy the people born are more than the people dead.
(and here, gay mariages are not yet legal, and religious roots not yet abandonend,suddently.so it's not a question of moral, but just of better quality of life)
God bless america, but does god bless also ignorance?I don't think so.
(Do you know what Bacon said? KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.)
In The Prague Post, an English-language weekly newspaper, a front-page article reports, in titillating detail, how the city has become Europe's new capital for pornographic filmmaking,
'Demographic suicide'
Among the consequences of Europe's abandonment of its religious roots and the moral code that derives therefrom is a plunge in its birth rates to below the replacement level. Abortion, birth control, acceptance of gay marriage and casual sex are driving the trend. Europe is "committing demographic suicide, systematically depopulating itself," according to Weigel.
United Nations population statistics back him up.
Not a single Western European country has a fertility rate sufficient to replace the current population, which demographers say requires 2.1 children per family. Germany, Russia, Spain, Poland and Italy all have rates of about 1.3 children, according to the U.N. The Czech Republic's is less than 1.2, and even Ireland is at 1.9 children. (The U.S. rate, which has remained stable, is slightly more than 2 children per woman.)
Fifteen countries, "mostly located in Southern and Eastern Europe, have reached levels of fertility unprecedented in human history," according to the U.N.'s World Population Prospects 2004 revision.
As children grow scarce and longevity increases in Europe, the continent is becoming one vast Leisure World. By 2050, the U.N. projects, more than 40% of the people in Italy will be 60 or older. By mid-century, populations in 25 European nations will be lower than they are now; Russia will lose 31 million people, Italy 7.2 million, Poland 6.6 million and Germany 3.9 million. So Europe is abandoning religion, growing older, shrinking and slowly killing itself. These are signs of a society in eclipse - the Roman Empire writ large. Is this any model for America?
James P. Gannon is a retired journalist and author ofA Life in Print: Selections from the Work of a Reporter, Columnist and Editor.
...OR it could be that since gender equality is now more realized than before, along with developments in the labour market and the new norm of the 2 income household makes little room for having children. What is really worth noting is the countries where fertility approaches 1, are the countries with the least accomodations for children in terms of economic support, childcare and so on. These countries have the most family-oriented welfare provisions, which means that income is tested against family and so on and is basically built around supporting the family as a structure, are the ones that go down the drain fertility-wise. The countries that are doing better around the 2 mark, are the countries where welfare provisions are oriented towards the individual, with ample support-regimes for children and available child-care.
Interestingly, it is precisely the countries where religion and tradition stands strongest, namely in Southern and Eastern Europe, that struggles the most, as opposed to the thesis proposed here.
It's a matter of making society, or more specifically the labour market, accomodate having children. Where there are good protections and support for mothers, fertility rates are higher, because they can combine working with having kids. These largely traditional countries (Germany to a certain extent, and particularly Italy and Poland) is built around the assumption of the family unit. It assumes 1 breadwinner and a parent at home taking care of kids, and the system is geared towards that.
I could elaborate on the importance of type of welfare regime and specific policies if anyone requests it. I have just read through a lot of research related to this for different EU countries.
But no nations are on the 2.1 mark that is true. But those that accomodate children, like the scandinavian welfare states, the rates are 1,9 and not 1,3 as in other places. Anyway, with the surplus of people being born elsewhere, we just have to let more of them in to close that gap. There won't be fewer people in Europe, but most likely a more ethnically diverse Europe. That may pose problems in the future, sure, but not insurmountable.
So in conclusion, the model should not perhaps be Italy. But the scandinavian countries and others have had more success in keeping the fertility rates at 1,9 at least. The problem is the new economy that demands a 2-income household and increased flexibility. The solution can be to demote women back to the home anmd reverse their participation in society, OR we accomodate having children much more comprehensively and independant of a perceived family unit that increasingly is not the truth anymore.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Dan,
Very interesting stuff you've put forward about birth rates and government support. On Tuesday our local paper had a story that toed the birth rates and government support into what seems to be best for children. It noted that these countries that offer the most government financial support also have the highest rates of single parents. Single parents are in no way in the child's best interest. So in a way the government is putting the economy ahead of children's best interests. Cannibalizing it's future for the present economy.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
What a completely ambiguous, fraudulent, and frivolously puritanical right wing post that was.
How can you link falling birth rates and people waking up from the tyranny of religion?
Do you want people running around screwing each other and having ten children and AIDS?
Do you want a ban on condoms and abortion too? Force marriage on people not willing to bind themselves to the patriarchical principles of domination over women, of subjugation and opprssion?
Enlightenment is a good word, and its one you should try. But, being part of the flock, a sheep to Rome and the false god they have shoved down the worlds throat for 2000 years, I doubt you wil have the mental capacity to do so.
Some monkeys.
I'm with you.
What an absurdly ridiculous article.
The tie-in with religion is hilarious:D ...hahaha!
Dan,
Very interesting stuff you've put forward about birth rates and government support. On Tuesday our local paper had a story that toed the birth rates and government support into what seems to be best for children. It noted that these countries that offer the most government financial support also have the highest rates of single parents. Single parents are in no way in the child's best interest. So in a way the government is putting the economy ahead of children's best interests. Cannibalizing it's future for the present economy.
Could it be that in those countries, noone is forced to stay in bad relationships because of economic resons?
What exactly is so wrong about the single parent? Research shows that the bad effects come from the danger of poverty being a 1-income household with child-responsibilites, not so much the single part in itself. Support would alleviate that and greatly reduce the problem. It further depends on family relations with the individuals, whether both parents are around, how they relate, the extended family and so on. In short, the social network around the child. Not whether it's a traditional nuclear family or not. The non-nuclear family may have had a stigma cost attached to it before, but now that it is pretty common, that doesnt apply anymore. Having a statistical "single parent" can in cases be better than having 2 people who constantly fight and dont really want to be together anymore. 2 loving caring parents is by all means a plus, but an ideal that is not realized nor possible for many people.
What would you do then? Just deny any support, so that they will be poor too? Force the biological parents to live together? Criminalize divorce?
As pointed out, the countries where religion and tradition stands strongest suffers the most, because they are the ones whose system to a larger degree is out of sync with reality. Having a system that assumes the nuclear patriarchal family no longer works when say half the families dont fit that picture anymore.
The change that is happening to families is the same that is happening in the economy, labour market and politics across the west. Increased focus on the individual and individualization, more focus on being happy so that people less than before tolerate bad conditions, fierce consumerism that further builds under the individual, politics geared towards "what's in it for me" rather than collective solutions of the past. You can't make the family be the anomaly that doesnt go along with the times. Or rather, even if you have a vested interest in keeping it as is (as is indeed the case in many of these states), then you are denying reality.
It's not about "what's best" in itself when it comes to forming policies either, it's "what's reality at the moment, and what can be done about this". The 2 parent loving household will of course be the ideal to many. But you dont help that ideal by forcing it on others by making alternatives unfeasible economically. That would be a thoroughly hollow victory. So rather than being stuck on an ideal that most likely is unrealistic for the larger population, one should alleviate the present problems that arise accordingly (of one thinks lone parenting in itself is a problem). I'll say lone parenting in itslef is no problem. The problem is poverty and poor social integration that can be loosely associated with that.
But what policies would you want to rid of this problem as you see it?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Dan, I'm not saying I have answers but government programs should at least try to find a way to incentive the ideal. Current programs do not do this.
A single parent family may be better than a two parent family with a bad marriage. But it is never better than a two parent family that is happily married. But the government does nothing to help promote or foster this ideal. Instead it's focus is on the economy and not childrens' best interest. It seems that all programs seems to be set up to make it easier for all the parents to work rather to make it easier for a parent to stay home and raise their children. I see this as a systematic problem with the programs.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Dan, I'm not saying I have answers but government programs should at least try to find a way to incentive the ideal. Current programs do not do this.
On the contrary, those countries in trouble have policies that could be an "incentive" to keeping the family intact, and they are out of touch with the people, leading to very low fertility rates as children simply can't be fitted in.
A single parent family may be better than a two parent family with a bad marriage. But it is never better than a two parent family that is happily married.
Could be. As I said, the "single" or "married" label isn't what's important, it's the social network around a child in terms of the parent's family and friends. How many resources are available to that child both economically and socially. So a single parent household can easily be just as good as the happily married couple. I have nothing against the happily married ones, just questioning their self-evidence as the only cohabitation that works.
But the government does nothing to help promote or foster this ideal. Instead it's focus is on the economy and not childrens' best interest. It seems that all programs seems to be set up to make it easier for all the parents to work rather to make it easier for a parent to stay home and raise their children. I see this as a systematic problem with the programs.
As said, the systems that are failing fertility-wise are the ones where the nuclear family is still heavily emphasized and geared towards the male bread-winner model. Women in these countries too want a career and a job to feel like they're worth something. Work has far more purposes than mere income in western societies. When people want to work, is it wrong to accomodate that? And when it comes to work vs home, well, I'd support the long maternity/paternity leave with a consequent opportunity for childcare. Noone is forcing these people back into work, but most want to, or have to because of economy and self-realizing reasons. The system that has developed now depends on 2 incomes for most families. And both men and women want to work, so it would be wrong to deny them that in my view, by restriictive or "family-centred" policies like Germany and Italy. As the numbers show, work comes first, children come second to many people. If women must choose between kids and carreer, carreer wins for very many, as it does for men.
The consequence of the equality of the sexes in the labour market will be new social organizations, and childcare institutions in order to make things go around. If you lament the equality of the sexes, that is your prerogative. My point is that the equality of the sexes, equal opportunities for self-actualization, and more equal life-goals for men and women leads to the necessity of generous individual-focused support systems. Most important is the availability of affordable child care.
Women's emancipation can not be reversed, and indeed I would not want it if it was possible either. In that light, I see few ways to "encourage" certain family types that wouldn't inflict on people's private life inappropriately, or lead to a skewed out-of-touch system.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Could be. As I said, the "single" or "married" label isn't what's important, it's the social network around a child in terms of the parent's family and friends. How many resources are available to that child both economically and socially. So a single parent household can easily be just as good as the happily married couple. I have nothing against the happily married ones, just questioning their self-evidence as the only cohabitation that works.
Just talk to any kid who lives with only one parent. Ask them if they would prefer their current situation or live with both parents who are happy with one parent being a stay at home parent.
I'm a single parent. I know that even with the great support system I have that it is nowhere near the ideal for my son. It's damn good but far from ideal. It may be great for the economy but it's not great for my kid.
Why bother mentioning Womens emancipation. This issue has nothing to do with women. The government policy either puts the interest of children first or it doesn't. I'd say the government policy throws childrens best interst to the wind for the sake of the economy.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Just talk to any kid who lives with only one parent. Ask them if they would prefer their current situation or live with both parents who are happy with one parent being a stay at home parent.
I'm a single parent. I know that even with the great support system I have that it is nowhere near the ideal for my son. It's damn good but far from ideal. It may be great for the economy but it's not great for my kid.
Why bother mentioning Womens emancipation. This issue has nothing to do with women. The government policy either puts the interest of children first or it doesn't. I'd say the government policy throws childrens best interst to the wind for the sake of the economy.
Yes, but do ideal really exist in reality? Or is it just that, an ideal? Maybe you'd rather be with someone, that's understandable. Most people, myself included, wants that someone to share life with, to be sure. But I see no reason to view any alternative as detrimental to children's health, mental functioning or happiness. Perhaps your child would be more happy if you had someone, I won't rule it out, especially if your child knows it's important to you. But does that mean that it is unhappy now? Your son sounds like he's going to be just alright from the sound of it.
I'd say you shouldn't beat yourself up over it, but be as good and loving a parent as you can. And I also think that you should be eligible for benefits if you were struggling to find work, or make the ends meet economically.
And women's emancipation is crucial to the whole debate. If the problem is the absence of an "at-home" parent, then the women leaving that position in order to work equally alongside men is a crucial development. If they didn't, they'd still be stuck at home economically dependant on the male breadwinner, and hence there for the kids.
Government policy can not, or at least should not, force people to cohabitate just for economic reasons. I see no reasons to keep bad relationships going just because someone doesnt like the divorce statistics. The problem is not divorce, but that which leads up to the divorce. And keeping them un-divorced changes nothing of that.
Individualization of society is a fact. Combined with women entering the work-force fully I view this as the cat being out of the bag. You may lament these changes and wish for a return to the safe authoritarianism of the past.People are more and more emphasizing freedom and self-realization. The flip-side is instability in household arrangements. If you want to reverse the situation in the household, you must also reverse the situation in society that creates this household situation. There's a pro and con- side to evrything.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
In my opinions, the first step is to facilitate people's ability to combine kids and work. Now that prevension is wide-spread and having children is more of a conscious choice than it was before. People won't have them unless they are able to, and are not stuck at home for the next 10 years because of no/too expensive childcare. That will turn many people off. If conditions facilitate having children, people will have them, thus offsetting the crisis at least.
As for what to do with labour? Simple. Import it from all the overpopulated places on the globe. We did it before in the 60s and 70s, we can do it again.
Thing is, I dont see this as an apocalyptic scenario for Europe, I really don't. It's something to think about, and something that will have to have an influence on policies in the near future certainly. But I dont really see the BIG problem, unless one is afraid of Europe's "purity" and scared of the swarthy people elsewhere.
And the premise for this debate, that overhyped article by an american with implied religious connections and agenda, is not the best starting point for this. Fertility rates are generally low in western societies, true. But there is a difference between a rate of 1,9 which isn't that much of a crisis, and a rate of 1,3 which can get dramatic in the future.
My solution, enable people to have children. Quite simple. And if a shortfall, import labour from elsewhere, as we did the last time.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
As for what to do with labour? Simple. Import it from all the overpopulated places on the globe. We did it before in the 60s and 70s, we can do it again.
not so simple. one could point out that 7/7 happened in london cos of the people uk imported. even if incidents like 7/7 didnt happen, right wingers could point out that the racial purity of blondland was being screwed. everyday there is news of neo nazi violence in eastern europe, in the moscows and the warsaws, who having at last decided to go capitalistic, are finding it hard to come to terms with one of the problems that often comes when you suddenly try to industrialise - you fall short of skilled manpower.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
not so simple. one could point out that 7/7 happened in london cos of the people uk imported. even if incidents like 7/7 didnt happen, right wingers could point out that the racial purity of blondland was being screwed. everyday there is news of neo nazi violence in eastern europe, in the moscows and the warsaws, who having at last decided to go capitalistic, are finding it hard to come to terms with one of the problems that often comes when you suddenly try to industrialise - you fall short of skilled manpower.
My aren't we optimistic.
Of course one can point out many things. Doesn't mean it is right, nor that many subscribe to that view.
I dont know what news you get where you get this "every day". There are incidents, to be sure, and there still is a marginal rebel-movement among disillusioned youth that has neo-nazi sympathies, surely. But that movement is very very much a tiny minority. What you get is ofcourse some concern about the new neighbours, and it changes the character of a city and neighbourhood to have lots of "new contrymen". But people are always worried about change, and you'll always have some reactionary that can draw some support on that politically. Of course there are issues with immigrants, but not insurmountable in any way. Europe imported millions of workers in the 60s and 70s, and that has gone quite well, actually.
And what you are on about with the moscows and warsaws, I can't say. They have gone capitalist, yes, but they already were industrialized. So I'm not following you there. The trouble in Europe is not the lack of skilled manpower, quite the opposite. Europe now is not characterized by a lack of labour, but a surplus of it.
As an european I dont see these problems as that towering and dooming as you do. They should be dealt with, of course, but they are still not as dooming as you would want it it seems.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I don't see this as a beginning of the end either. Attitudes towards foreign workforce will change when the situation reaches the point where certain sectors can't function like they used do because of the lack of workers. Many racial problems occure between an isolated unemployed or low income group of local people and their frustration towards immigrants, which they view as people who are stealing their social welfare and jobs and who are not willing to adapt to their new culture. Hardly anyone has negative thoughts towards foreigners who work or/and try to speak the local language. They are very well accepted by the community since people see they are trying to be part of it.
So if you look at this grim future from the positive side it's possible that the whole immigration subject can turn into a positive thing when europeans realize they need new blood here. Also since there should be enough jobs for anyone who wants to work in the future, the amount of frustrated unemployed locals should go down drastically, which should also decrease the support for extreme right groups.
but they are still not as dooming as you would want it it seems.
Peace
Dan
i dont WANT it to be dooming - i just GET THE FEELING it is potentially dangerous, the combo of demographic suicide problem, the pension bomb problem and the immigrant-neo nazi friction (riots in paris, vangalising of graves - we get all the news thru the internet.)
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
i dont WANT it to be dooming - i just GET THE FEELING it is potentially dangerous, the combo of demographic suicide problem, the pension bomb problem and the immigrant-neo nazi friction (riots in paris, vangalising of graves - we get all the news thru the internet.)
Well, I can't stop you from having a feeling.
I acknowledge the challenges, but feel they are being blown out of proportion quite frankly. Reading all the bad news from somewhere gives no accurate picture of what really goes on.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
The New Year is just minutes old and now comes Pat Buchanan to warn: The Death of the West!
In his ultracontroversial book, which will be banned, blocked and burned in many quarters, brave Buchanan contends that the U.S. will be a Third World nation by the year 2050.
The BestSellingAuthorTVHostPresidentialCandidateColumnist predicts Europe will be inundated by an Islamic-Arab-African invasion and most First World nations, including Japan, will have begun slowly to vanish from the earth.
Buchanan is primed and ready for a media blitz behind DEATH OF THE WEST [ranked #492 on AMAZON's hourly sales chart Wednesday morning], set for release from DUNNE.
Buchanan will light the bonfire on NBC's TODAY show this Friday, according to a network source.
But the DRUDGE REPORT can once again bring you the first sneak.
Relying upon the most recent UN population studies, Buchanan declares:
• By 2050, only 10% of the world’s people will be of European descent. One third of Europe’s people will be over 60, and one-in-ten over 80. Involuntary euthanasia has already come to Europe.
• Between now and 2050, Asia, Africa, and Latin America will grow by three to four billion people -- 30 to 40 new Mexicos! -- as Europe will lose the equivalent of the entire population of Germany, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland.
• By 2050, 23 million Germans will have disappeared along with 16 million Italians and 30 million Russians.
• Russia will lose Siberia and the far east to China and be pushed out of the Caucuses and Central Asia, where Islamic populations are exploding while Russia’s is dying.
• Either Europe must effect a radical cutback in pensions and health care for seniors, or Europe must import scores of millions of Arabs and Africans to care for the elderly and pay the taxes to sustain their welfare states.
• The 4.2 million Palestinians in Israel and on the West Bank and Gaza will explode to 9 million by 2025, and 15 million by 2050, when Palestinians will outnumber Israel’s Jewish population two-to-one.
• America’s “Dual Containment” policy in the Persian Gulf seems unsustainable. In less than 25 years, Iraq will have 42 million people and Iran 94 million people, more than any European nation except Russia.
• The Islamic invasions of Spain and France in the eighth century, and of the Balkans and Central Europe from the 14th to the 17th centuries, will be reenacted in the lifetime of most of those now living. Islam has already surpassed Catholicism as the largest religion on earth.
• It is the Christian nations -- Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox -- that have begun to die. In a chapter titled, “Where Have All the Children Gone?” Buchanan explains why, and why it is unlikely the West can solve the demographic crisis before it leads to The Death of the West.
In his chapter La Reconquista, Buchanan contends that an invasion of the United States is taking place and that America now harbors a “nation within a nation.”
• There are 30 million foreign born in the U.S. today, and between 9 and 11 million illegal aliens, or as many undocumented aliens in the U.S. as there are people in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut.
• Mexico is exporting its poor and unemployed for U.S. taxpayers to employ and educate. Radical and militant Hispanics and Mexican leaders alike believe this will lead to the cultural and demographic recapture of the Southwest from America, reversing the results of The Mexican War.
• By supporting open borders, the GOP is committing suicide. First-time Hispanic voters chose Clinton 15-1 over Dole. Of the seven major immigration states -- Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Texas and Florida -- Mr. Bush lost five, and perhaps six. Of the 10 states with the smallest share of immigrants, Bush won all 10.
• European-Americans are a minority in America’s most populous state, California, and by 2004, will be a minority in Texas.
• The political agenda of California Hispanics includes race welfare for illegal aliens, racial preferences, bilingual education, open borders, dual citizenship, Cinqo de Mayo as a California holiday, and, in one case, replacing a statue of an American hero of the Mexican War with the Aztec god Quetzacoatl.
• White Americans are fleeing California at the rate of 100,000 a year.
• MeCHA, the student organization that claims chapters on hundreds of campuses has a program that reads like a Mexican version of the agenda of the white-supremacist Aryan Nation.
• In 2001, an Office for Mexicans Abroad in Mexico was providing survival kits with everything from dried meat to anti-diarrhea pills to condoms to Mexicans setting off to break in to the United States .
• As of 2000, there were 8.4 million foreign born in California, as many foreign born as there are people in New Jersey, a primary cause of the state energy and schools crisis.
• Among Third World immigrants, poverty rates and incarceration rates are double and triple what they are among native-born Americans.
Shooting up the flares and waving the flag, Buchanan argues that the 1960s “counter-culture” has become America’s dominant culture, and the iconoclasts of that counter-culture are systematically demolishing America’s history and heritage.
• Under Political Correctness, America’s greatest heroes -- soldiers, explorers and statesmen from Columbus to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson -- are under savage attack as genocidal racists and exploiters of indigenous peoples.
• The history books of American public schools are being rewritten with the old heroes ignored or trashed and Western civilization disparaged and demeaned.
• When Mel Gibson’s film, “The Patriot,” came out in 2000, it was savagely attacked for presenting black Americans as fighting patriots in the Revolutionary War.
• With the assault on Confederate books, symbols, flags, heroes, and holidays almost complete, the attack is now proceeding against the Puritan fathers, soldiers who fought in The Mexican War, and, in New Jersey, even against the Declaration of Independence itself.
• In some school districts, Mark Twain, Flannery O’Connor, and any realistic portrayal of the America South, including Harper’ Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, are now forbidden.
• Even the great museums on America’s Mall, to introduce school children to the greatness and glory of America’s past, are being used to indoctrinate children in how wicked and evil our forefathers were.
In his chapter, “The De-Christianization of America,” Buchanan argues that the death of the Christian faith in Western countries is a primary cause of their dying populations. Whenever faith dies, the people die. A new atheistic civilization is arising, he argues, and is using its dominance of the culture and the courts to drive Christianity out of the temples of our civilization.
• Secular Humanism, widely mocked and disparaged, a few decades ago, is now the dominant faith of the nation’s cultural elites. The moral tenets of humanism are replacing those of Christianity in our public life.
• Even Christian churches are rewriting their hymnals to make them acceptable to the dominant culture.
• Anti-Catholic films and filthy and blasphemous anti-Christian art are the deliberate insults of a triumphant pagan and secularist faith.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
You're quoting Buchanan..... from drudge......
A blowhard from an at times very ironic and satiric site. Not the best source I'd say... Unless you were looking for laughs.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
damn !!!
you show the tenacity of a british bulldog in ruining this thread .
its a thread about the demographic problems europe is goign to face. try to get that into your fool head.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
loking at the thread title what the fuck do u think was the original intention of the post???
had it been about religion, it'd have been titled down the lines of "europe - godless prospects ahead". dig?
and you are a fine example of the recently lobotomised brainless sort.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
hahaha, you're quite a bit of fun to read. i must ask... how old are you? im guessing junior high... high school at best. threatening to "leave" pearl jam cos the other fans wont see your way... that's pretty hilarious. what are you... 7 years old? dont like the way the other kids are playing the game so you'll take your toys and go home?
you are truly off your rocker my friend. you can hang with pat robertson and jerry jenkins in the "lost touch with reality" club any day!
not needed
what are the demographic and economic challenges europe is likely/is sure to face and how are they going to tackle it?
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Well firstly they have to decide what European Union really means to people.
Over here for example they always show figures how much we pay to EU and how much we get aid back in cold cash and they forget to mention how much we gain from the lower interest rates and the integrated bigger market compared if we still had our own weak currency and had to pay all the tariffs that countries outside EU have to pay to to trade with EU. So even still it's how much WE pay THEM and what do we get back in pure money and rarely it's mentioned how much the stability of being a part of a bigger economy actually brings.
So the main question is that will people of Europe start to treat the Europe as their home or do they still stick to the old geographical borders and only look at EU's value as the benefits it brings to their own country. That's why i think the EU is going to face a long ice age since all the politicians are judged on how they look after their own countries benefits and not what is good for whole Europe.
I'm pro EU but also a realist and i'm pretty sure the integration progress will come to a halt until people realize that teaming up can be a good thing and that everyone needs to compromise to get the Union to work...at this moment it's still how many euros we pay to Brussels and how many they give us back-type of bs.
Perhaps that is your intent. But I don't think it is the way you come across.
It comes across as an arrogant...I know the truth sort of way and religion is most certainly THE #1 topic that nobody can be sure of the truth.
Personally, I don't see a decline in population as a problem nor a challenge. I see it as a step in the right direction.
Economics is a belief system based upon false assuptions about how markets work. That is why economic predictions are so variable and so wrong. Societies based upon these erroneous economic principles are bound to erupt into social chaos and bound to fail. We see signs of this all over the place: war, corporate collapse, genocide, extreme weather, re-emergence of infectious diseases, cancer, species extinction, ecological degredation. Yes, all of these effects are caused by our adherence to a spurious way of living.
Who is it that created all the vital problems on the globe? Dinosaurs? Giraffes? Tigers? Elephants? Wooly Mammoth?
I think the fewer people the better. I think all countries should be working on lowering their populations. And I think economics be dammed.
As an old Native American prophesy states:
"When the last fish has been caught and the last tree has been cut down...Only then will man realize that he cannot eat money."
It always ends up drivel
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
Are we speaking about god, or about Europe getting older and older?
The author of this article forgot to write than in Europe people live more than in other countruies beacuse we have a higher life expectancy (especially in Italy and in Sweden, but, outside europe, also in Japan).
We've survived to 2 world war, we'll survive also to demographic change.
And then the writer didn't consider the immigrants.
In fact, this years, the first time since 1990, in Italy the people born are more than the people dead.
(and here, gay mariages are not yet legal, and religious roots not yet abandonend,suddently.so it's not a question of moral, but just of better quality of life)
God bless america, but does god bless also ignorance?I don't think so.
(Do you know what Bacon said? KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.)
...OR it could be that since gender equality is now more realized than before, along with developments in the labour market and the new norm of the 2 income household makes little room for having children. What is really worth noting is the countries where fertility approaches 1, are the countries with the least accomodations for children in terms of economic support, childcare and so on. These countries have the most family-oriented welfare provisions, which means that income is tested against family and so on and is basically built around supporting the family as a structure, are the ones that go down the drain fertility-wise. The countries that are doing better around the 2 mark, are the countries where welfare provisions are oriented towards the individual, with ample support-regimes for children and available child-care.
Interestingly, it is precisely the countries where religion and tradition stands strongest, namely in Southern and Eastern Europe, that struggles the most, as opposed to the thesis proposed here.
It's a matter of making society, or more specifically the labour market, accomodate having children. Where there are good protections and support for mothers, fertility rates are higher, because they can combine working with having kids. These largely traditional countries (Germany to a certain extent, and particularly Italy and Poland) is built around the assumption of the family unit. It assumes 1 breadwinner and a parent at home taking care of kids, and the system is geared towards that.
I could elaborate on the importance of type of welfare regime and specific policies if anyone requests it. I have just read through a lot of research related to this for different EU countries.
But no nations are on the 2.1 mark that is true. But those that accomodate children, like the scandinavian welfare states, the rates are 1,9 and not 1,3 as in other places. Anyway, with the surplus of people being born elsewhere, we just have to let more of them in to close that gap. There won't be fewer people in Europe, but most likely a more ethnically diverse Europe. That may pose problems in the future, sure, but not insurmountable.
So in conclusion, the model should not perhaps be Italy. But the scandinavian countries and others have had more success in keeping the fertility rates at 1,9 at least. The problem is the new economy that demands a 2-income household and increased flexibility. The solution can be to demote women back to the home anmd reverse their participation in society, OR we accomodate having children much more comprehensively and independant of a perceived family unit that increasingly is not the truth anymore.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Very interesting stuff you've put forward about birth rates and government support. On Tuesday our local paper had a story that toed the birth rates and government support into what seems to be best for children. It noted that these countries that offer the most government financial support also have the highest rates of single parents. Single parents are in no way in the child's best interest. So in a way the government is putting the economy ahead of children's best interests. Cannibalizing it's future for the present economy.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I'm with you.
What an absurdly ridiculous article.
The tie-in with religion is hilarious:D ...hahaha!
Good thing Italy is not "religious"
Could it be that in those countries, noone is forced to stay in bad relationships because of economic resons?
What exactly is so wrong about the single parent? Research shows that the bad effects come from the danger of poverty being a 1-income household with child-responsibilites, not so much the single part in itself. Support would alleviate that and greatly reduce the problem. It further depends on family relations with the individuals, whether both parents are around, how they relate, the extended family and so on. In short, the social network around the child. Not whether it's a traditional nuclear family or not. The non-nuclear family may have had a stigma cost attached to it before, but now that it is pretty common, that doesnt apply anymore. Having a statistical "single parent" can in cases be better than having 2 people who constantly fight and dont really want to be together anymore. 2 loving caring parents is by all means a plus, but an ideal that is not realized nor possible for many people.
What would you do then? Just deny any support, so that they will be poor too? Force the biological parents to live together? Criminalize divorce?
As pointed out, the countries where religion and tradition stands strongest suffers the most, because they are the ones whose system to a larger degree is out of sync with reality. Having a system that assumes the nuclear patriarchal family no longer works when say half the families dont fit that picture anymore.
The change that is happening to families is the same that is happening in the economy, labour market and politics across the west. Increased focus on the individual and individualization, more focus on being happy so that people less than before tolerate bad conditions, fierce consumerism that further builds under the individual, politics geared towards "what's in it for me" rather than collective solutions of the past. You can't make the family be the anomaly that doesnt go along with the times. Or rather, even if you have a vested interest in keeping it as is (as is indeed the case in many of these states), then you are denying reality.
It's not about "what's best" in itself when it comes to forming policies either, it's "what's reality at the moment, and what can be done about this". The 2 parent loving household will of course be the ideal to many. But you dont help that ideal by forcing it on others by making alternatives unfeasible economically. That would be a thoroughly hollow victory. So rather than being stuck on an ideal that most likely is unrealistic for the larger population, one should alleviate the present problems that arise accordingly (of one thinks lone parenting in itself is a problem). I'll say lone parenting in itslef is no problem. The problem is poverty and poor social integration that can be loosely associated with that.
But what policies would you want to rid of this problem as you see it?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
A single parent family may be better than a two parent family with a bad marriage. But it is never better than a two parent family that is happily married. But the government does nothing to help promote or foster this ideal. Instead it's focus is on the economy and not childrens' best interest. It seems that all programs seems to be set up to make it easier for all the parents to work rather to make it easier for a parent to stay home and raise their children. I see this as a systematic problem with the programs.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Could be. As I said, the "single" or "married" label isn't what's important, it's the social network around a child in terms of the parent's family and friends. How many resources are available to that child both economically and socially. So a single parent household can easily be just as good as the happily married couple. I have nothing against the happily married ones, just questioning their self-evidence as the only cohabitation that works.
As said, the systems that are failing fertility-wise are the ones where the nuclear family is still heavily emphasized and geared towards the male bread-winner model. Women in these countries too want a career and a job to feel like they're worth something. Work has far more purposes than mere income in western societies. When people want to work, is it wrong to accomodate that? And when it comes to work vs home, well, I'd support the long maternity/paternity leave with a consequent opportunity for childcare. Noone is forcing these people back into work, but most want to, or have to because of economy and self-realizing reasons. The system that has developed now depends on 2 incomes for most families. And both men and women want to work, so it would be wrong to deny them that in my view, by restriictive or "family-centred" policies like Germany and Italy. As the numbers show, work comes first, children come second to many people. If women must choose between kids and carreer, carreer wins for very many, as it does for men.
The consequence of the equality of the sexes in the labour market will be new social organizations, and childcare institutions in order to make things go around. If you lament the equality of the sexes, that is your prerogative. My point is that the equality of the sexes, equal opportunities for self-actualization, and more equal life-goals for men and women leads to the necessity of generous individual-focused support systems. Most important is the availability of affordable child care.
Women's emancipation can not be reversed, and indeed I would not want it if it was possible either. In that light, I see few ways to "encourage" certain family types that wouldn't inflict on people's private life inappropriately, or lead to a skewed out-of-touch system.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'm a single parent. I know that even with the great support system I have that it is nowhere near the ideal for my son. It's damn good but far from ideal. It may be great for the economy but it's not great for my kid.
Why bother mentioning Womens emancipation. This issue has nothing to do with women. The government policy either puts the interest of children first or it doesn't. I'd say the government policy throws childrens best interst to the wind for the sake of the economy.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Yes, but do ideal really exist in reality? Or is it just that, an ideal? Maybe you'd rather be with someone, that's understandable. Most people, myself included, wants that someone to share life with, to be sure. But I see no reason to view any alternative as detrimental to children's health, mental functioning or happiness. Perhaps your child would be more happy if you had someone, I won't rule it out, especially if your child knows it's important to you. But does that mean that it is unhappy now? Your son sounds like he's going to be just alright from the sound of it.
I'd say you shouldn't beat yourself up over it, but be as good and loving a parent as you can. And I also think that you should be eligible for benefits if you were struggling to find work, or make the ends meet economically.
And women's emancipation is crucial to the whole debate. If the problem is the absence of an "at-home" parent, then the women leaving that position in order to work equally alongside men is a crucial development. If they didn't, they'd still be stuck at home economically dependant on the male breadwinner, and hence there for the kids.
Government policy can not, or at least should not, force people to cohabitate just for economic reasons. I see no reasons to keep bad relationships going just because someone doesnt like the divorce statistics. The problem is not divorce, but that which leads up to the divorce. And keeping them un-divorced changes nothing of that.
Individualization of society is a fact. Combined with women entering the work-force fully I view this as the cat being out of the bag. You may lament these changes and wish for a return to the safe authoritarianism of the past.People are more and more emphasizing freedom and self-realization. The flip-side is instability in household arrangements. If you want to reverse the situation in the household, you must also reverse the situation in society that creates this household situation. There's a pro and con- side to evrything.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
by insourcing manpower??
outsourcing jobs??
a bit of both??
FDI-ing into eastern european economies?
having more kids??
all of the above??
even yesterday Putin called for more kids and measures which would encourage more children.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
In my opinions, the first step is to facilitate people's ability to combine kids and work. Now that prevension is wide-spread and having children is more of a conscious choice than it was before. People won't have them unless they are able to, and are not stuck at home for the next 10 years because of no/too expensive childcare. That will turn many people off. If conditions facilitate having children, people will have them, thus offsetting the crisis at least.
As for what to do with labour? Simple. Import it from all the overpopulated places on the globe. We did it before in the 60s and 70s, we can do it again.
Thing is, I dont see this as an apocalyptic scenario for Europe, I really don't. It's something to think about, and something that will have to have an influence on policies in the near future certainly. But I dont really see the BIG problem, unless one is afraid of Europe's "purity" and scared of the swarthy people elsewhere.
And the premise for this debate, that overhyped article by an american with implied religious connections and agenda, is not the best starting point for this. Fertility rates are generally low in western societies, true. But there is a difference between a rate of 1,9 which isn't that much of a crisis, and a rate of 1,3 which can get dramatic in the future.
My solution, enable people to have children. Quite simple. And if a shortfall, import labour from elsewhere, as we did the last time.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
not so simple. one could point out that 7/7 happened in london cos of the people uk imported. even if incidents like 7/7 didnt happen, right wingers could point out that the racial purity of blondland was being screwed. everyday there is news of neo nazi violence in eastern europe, in the moscows and the warsaws, who having at last decided to go capitalistic, are finding it hard to come to terms with one of the problems that often comes when you suddenly try to industrialise - you fall short of skilled manpower.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
My aren't we optimistic.
Of course one can point out many things. Doesn't mean it is right, nor that many subscribe to that view.
I dont know what news you get where you get this "every day". There are incidents, to be sure, and there still is a marginal rebel-movement among disillusioned youth that has neo-nazi sympathies, surely. But that movement is very very much a tiny minority. What you get is ofcourse some concern about the new neighbours, and it changes the character of a city and neighbourhood to have lots of "new contrymen". But people are always worried about change, and you'll always have some reactionary that can draw some support on that politically. Of course there are issues with immigrants, but not insurmountable in any way. Europe imported millions of workers in the 60s and 70s, and that has gone quite well, actually.
And what you are on about with the moscows and warsaws, I can't say. They have gone capitalist, yes, but they already were industrialized. So I'm not following you there. The trouble in Europe is not the lack of skilled manpower, quite the opposite. Europe now is not characterized by a lack of labour, but a surplus of it.
As an european I dont see these problems as that towering and dooming as you do. They should be dealt with, of course, but they are still not as dooming as you would want it it seems.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So if you look at this grim future from the positive side it's possible that the whole immigration subject can turn into a positive thing when europeans realize they need new blood here. Also since there should be enough jobs for anyone who wants to work in the future, the amount of frustrated unemployed locals should go down drastically, which should also decrease the support for extreme right groups.
i dont WANT it to be dooming - i just GET THE FEELING it is potentially dangerous, the combo of demographic suicide problem, the pension bomb problem and the immigrant-neo nazi friction (riots in paris, vangalising of graves - we get all the news thru the internet.)
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Well, I can't stop you from having a feeling.
I acknowledge the challenges, but feel they are being blown out of proportion quite frankly. Reading all the bad news from somewhere gives no accurate picture of what really goes on.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
BUCHANAN DECLARES: DEATH OF THE WEST
The New Year is just minutes old and now comes Pat Buchanan to warn: The Death of the West!
In his ultracontroversial book, which will be banned, blocked and burned in many quarters, brave Buchanan contends that the U.S. will be a Third World nation by the year 2050.
The BestSellingAuthorTVHostPresidentialCandidateColumnist predicts Europe will be inundated by an Islamic-Arab-African invasion and most First World nations, including Japan, will have begun slowly to vanish from the earth.
Buchanan is primed and ready for a media blitz behind DEATH OF THE WEST [ranked #492 on AMAZON's hourly sales chart Wednesday morning], set for release from DUNNE.
Buchanan will light the bonfire on NBC's TODAY show this Friday, according to a network source.
But the DRUDGE REPORT can once again bring you the first sneak.
Relying upon the most recent UN population studies, Buchanan declares:
• By 2050, only 10% of the world’s people will be of European descent. One third of Europe’s people will be over 60, and one-in-ten over 80. Involuntary euthanasia has already come to Europe.
• Between now and 2050, Asia, Africa, and Latin America will grow by three to four billion people -- 30 to 40 new Mexicos! -- as Europe will lose the equivalent of the entire population of Germany, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland.
• By 2050, 23 million Germans will have disappeared along with 16 million Italians and 30 million Russians.
• Russia will lose Siberia and the far east to China and be pushed out of the Caucuses and Central Asia, where Islamic populations are exploding while Russia’s is dying.
• Either Europe must effect a radical cutback in pensions and health care for seniors, or Europe must import scores of millions of Arabs and Africans to care for the elderly and pay the taxes to sustain their welfare states.
• The 4.2 million Palestinians in Israel and on the West Bank and Gaza will explode to 9 million by 2025, and 15 million by 2050, when Palestinians will outnumber Israel’s Jewish population two-to-one.
• America’s “Dual Containment” policy in the Persian Gulf seems unsustainable. In less than 25 years, Iraq will have 42 million people and Iran 94 million people, more than any European nation except Russia.
• The Islamic invasions of Spain and France in the eighth century, and of the Balkans and Central Europe from the 14th to the 17th centuries, will be reenacted in the lifetime of most of those now living. Islam has already surpassed Catholicism as the largest religion on earth.
• It is the Christian nations -- Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox -- that have begun to die. In a chapter titled, “Where Have All the Children Gone?” Buchanan explains why, and why it is unlikely the West can solve the demographic crisis before it leads to The Death of the West.
In his chapter La Reconquista, Buchanan contends that an invasion of the United States is taking place and that America now harbors a “nation within a nation.”
• There are 30 million foreign born in the U.S. today, and between 9 and 11 million illegal aliens, or as many undocumented aliens in the U.S. as there are people in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut.
• Mexico is exporting its poor and unemployed for U.S. taxpayers to employ and educate. Radical and militant Hispanics and Mexican leaders alike believe this will lead to the cultural and demographic recapture of the Southwest from America, reversing the results of The Mexican War.
• By supporting open borders, the GOP is committing suicide. First-time Hispanic voters chose Clinton 15-1 over Dole. Of the seven major immigration states -- Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Texas and Florida -- Mr. Bush lost five, and perhaps six. Of the 10 states with the smallest share of immigrants, Bush won all 10.
• European-Americans are a minority in America’s most populous state, California, and by 2004, will be a minority in Texas.
• The political agenda of California Hispanics includes race welfare for illegal aliens, racial preferences, bilingual education, open borders, dual citizenship, Cinqo de Mayo as a California holiday, and, in one case, replacing a statue of an American hero of the Mexican War with the Aztec god Quetzacoatl.
• White Americans are fleeing California at the rate of 100,000 a year.
• MeCHA, the student organization that claims chapters on hundreds of campuses has a program that reads like a Mexican version of the agenda of the white-supremacist Aryan Nation.
• In 2001, an Office for Mexicans Abroad in Mexico was providing survival kits with everything from dried meat to anti-diarrhea pills to condoms to Mexicans setting off to break in to the United States .
• As of 2000, there were 8.4 million foreign born in California, as many foreign born as there are people in New Jersey, a primary cause of the state energy and schools crisis.
• Among Third World immigrants, poverty rates and incarceration rates are double and triple what they are among native-born Americans.
Shooting up the flares and waving the flag, Buchanan argues that the 1960s “counter-culture” has become America’s dominant culture, and the iconoclasts of that counter-culture are systematically demolishing America’s history and heritage.
• Under Political Correctness, America’s greatest heroes -- soldiers, explorers and statesmen from Columbus to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson -- are under savage attack as genocidal racists and exploiters of indigenous peoples.
• The history books of American public schools are being rewritten with the old heroes ignored or trashed and Western civilization disparaged and demeaned.
• When Mel Gibson’s film, “The Patriot,” came out in 2000, it was savagely attacked for presenting black Americans as fighting patriots in the Revolutionary War.
• With the assault on Confederate books, symbols, flags, heroes, and holidays almost complete, the attack is now proceeding against the Puritan fathers, soldiers who fought in The Mexican War, and, in New Jersey, even against the Declaration of Independence itself.
• In some school districts, Mark Twain, Flannery O’Connor, and any realistic portrayal of the America South, including Harper’ Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, are now forbidden.
• Even the great museums on America’s Mall, to introduce school children to the greatness and glory of America’s past, are being used to indoctrinate children in how wicked and evil our forefathers were.
In his chapter, “The De-Christianization of America,” Buchanan argues that the death of the Christian faith in Western countries is a primary cause of their dying populations. Whenever faith dies, the people die. A new atheistic civilization is arising, he argues, and is using its dominance of the culture and the courts to drive Christianity out of the temples of our civilization.
• Secular Humanism, widely mocked and disparaged, a few decades ago, is now the dominant faith of the nation’s cultural elites. The moral tenets of humanism are replacing those of Christianity in our public life.
• Even Christian churches are rewriting their hymnals to make them acceptable to the dominant culture.
• Anti-Catholic films and filthy and blasphemous anti-Christian art are the deliberate insults of a triumphant pagan and secularist faith.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
A blowhard from an at times very ironic and satiric site. Not the best source I'd say... Unless you were looking for laughs.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965