• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

2050: Europe dies due to Demographic collapse


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 05 January 2011 - 08:25 PM


http://newswhip.ie/n...raphic-collapse


Demography is destiny. This axiom is underlined by HSBC’s “World in 2050″ survey.

The bank’s detailed analysis is based on the theoretical work of Harvard professor Robert Barro. It analyzes everything from fertility rates to education levels and the rule of law, and predicts that the world’s economic output will triple by 2050, provided the major states can avoid conflict. However, a grim future seems assured for much of continental Europe.

A birth rate of 2.1 children per woman will keep a society stable in population terms. However, according to the Daily Telegraph: “The low fertility of Korea (1.1), Singapore (1.2) Germany (1.3), Poland (1.3), Italy (1.4), Spain (1.4) and Russia (1.4), more or less dooms these countries to aging crises and population decline unless they open the floodgates to immigration.”




This is a serious problem we all need to discuss. It is very difficult to see any other solution to it than, as members of this forum acknowledge, extend healthy lifespan very soon.

  • like x 1

#2 Solarclimax

  • Guest
  • 209 posts
  • -62

Posted 05 January 2011 - 08:54 PM

Tut tut. You should source your news from sources that are not serving corrupt agendas.
  • dislike x 2

#3 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 05 January 2011 - 10:02 PM

A demographic collapse is not "bad" per se. It is only that our currently constructed mindset about progress and economic growth are wedded to the idea that the population must grow and we must build build build, more roads, more buildings, more houses, more everything. Focusing on improving the lives of the people who are already on the planet and a quality over quantity mindset is ok with me. Interesting, I was just blogging about this today.

I suppose there could be a problem if people who are hostile to the developed world (for whatever logical or irrational reasons) reproduce more with the sole purpose of demographically defeating their "enemies". However, in this case, at this point in human history, I think technology will trump biology.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 05 January 2011 - 10:25 PM

A demographic collapse is not "bad" per se. It is only that our currently constructed mindset about progress and economic growth are wedded to the idea that the population must grow and we must build build build, more roads, more buildings, more houses, more everything. Focusing on improving the lives of the people who are already on the planet and a quality over quantity mindset is ok with me. Interesting, I was just blogging about this today.

I suppose there could be a problem if people who are hostile to the developed world (for whatever logical or irrational reasons) reproduce more with the sole purpose of demographically defeating their "enemies". However, in this case, at this point in human history, I think technology will trump biology.

There's at least one reason why a demographic collapse is bad; we've set up our retirement and elder care systems in such a way that we need a good sized population of younger workers to pay for them. While there are other ways to construct a social system, changing in mid-stream isn't going to be easy. I doubt that there's a significant number of people who reproduce more in order to "defeat" anyone (though they do breed more for other reasons), although that doesn't stop some members of the groups that are under demographic pressure (Native Europeans, White Americans, Israelis) from being stressed out over it. After all, becoming a minority doesn't exactly look like a picnic, particularly if you are a member of a culture that hasn't historically treated the upcoming majority very well. The Japanese appear to be looking to robots to deal with the new demographics.
  • like x 1

#5 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 06 January 2011 - 04:10 AM

Yeah, couple of days ago our prime minister said something along the lines of "seriously, folks, start making babies, because we're really heading for the wall" and the media is all over the impending demographic collapse, but the thing is - lots of people my age, at the end of college or just having graduated, simply won't be able to afford in the near future to both start an independent household of 2+2 and not live in a cartoon box at the same time for the next two decades untill the kids are standing on their own, the unemployment isn't high at all ( in big cities that is, the country is a different story ), but most of the possibilities are either Mcjob-ish or as low corporate drones ( if you last enough time, then maybe you will climb the ladder up a bit, but it's an equal chance they will just lay you off for a fresh, new sucker who's thinking he's going to make it big ), there's a sticky floor at work here for 20 smthings and income stability is becoming a pretty elite thing at the moment, most can get by, but not much more, like getting a house loan.

The complementary message conveyed is that one should should also save every spare penny they earn for the future, because the state supplied retirement is going to be very, very low, for the above reasons of demographics. So there's a vicious dillema - either couples decide to start a family and carry the sacrifice, all resting on the hope that enough other people do the same, so that they manage to save the system together, or they remain as not awfully affluent DINKs, save some money for old age, but in effect bringing closer the crisis.

And the immigrants are a difficult issue, there isn't even any serious debate going on on this, and people seeing how it has ultimately played out in France and Germany, may not be all thumbs up about it, especially the older ones.

Edited by chris w, 06 January 2011 - 04:22 AM.


#6 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 06 January 2011 - 05:38 AM

Ah, sorry, obviously "carton boxes", not "cartoon", it was late.

#7 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 06 January 2011 - 07:59 AM

This is a serious problem we all need to discuss. It is very difficult to see any other solution to it than, as members of this forum acknowledge, extend healthy lifespan very soon.


Umm, at least it will remove the over-population question as a knee-jerk response to using medicine to extend human life. Problem is that the dumbest people breed the fastest. Although I come from a large family, I'm pretty sure I'll never have children for a few reasons:

1) Marriage / living with someone else probably isn't for me. I value freedom. I want to spend my time how I want.
1b) Most marriages don't work. I think in the US, now over half of all children are born out of wedlock. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but it's really hard to raise a child as a single parent and it's not the best way to do it. I'm not so confident that I could maintain a marriage (and also find someone else who could do the same). Divorce / marital issues are very painful to children.
2) I hate sitting next to screaming children on airplanes.
3) Expensive, I'd rather spend the extra money saved on retiring early -> freedom.

I could see adopting an older child or maybe mentoring later in life, but at this point, I'd simply prefer to devote my time to other things. Appears parts of Europe feel the same way.

#8 InquilineKea

  • Guest
  • 773 posts
  • 89
  • Location:Redmond,WA (aka Simfish)

Posted 09 January 2011 - 08:51 PM

The reasons are really quite simple. The economic climate is very harsh for young workers. 40% (yes) of young college graduates in Spain are unemployed (IIRC). When your economic situation is still unstable and when you need time to work (and climb) the corporate ladder, having children is tantamount to economic suicide. Especially when older workers form unions to keep their jobs even when they're not as technically skilled as younger workers.

Also, people are taking longer and longer to stay in school. This, also, contributes to lower birthrates, since having children in school is tantamount to academic suicide (it also delays your entry to the workforce too). Honestly, one of the major problems here is that primary education takes MUCH longer than it needs to take, especially for intelligent people. I went to an early entrance program at a pretty decent university, and while the students there are definitely above average, there are few, if any, geniuses in that program. I think that a high percent of intelligent people are capable of graduating from primary school in 9 years.

Edited by inquilinekea, 09 January 2011 - 08:55 PM.

  • like x 1

#9 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 09 January 2011 - 10:42 PM

I'm sure the governments will find a fix.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#10 kurt9

  • Guest
  • 256 posts
  • 26

Posted 09 January 2011 - 11:42 PM

This "birth-dearth" issue has been promulgated by those pushing a political and ideological agenda. We all know that radical life extension is the only long-term solution to this problem. Even some of the writers who have written about this issue (Mark Steyn, for example) have made brief references to what they called "transhumanism" as a possible solution. However generally they either ignore the possibility of radical life extension (either they don't know about it or think its not technically possible) or are hostile towards it. The hostility clearly indicates that these people are using the problem (let no crisis go to waste) as a means to promote their ideology and political agenda over all else.

BTW, this is one dynamic that has made me even more libertarian today than 20 years ago. Since all political issues are hijacked by those promoting specific political and ideological agendas, it is impossible that effective solutions to anything can be realized through any political process. Hence, the best society is one with minimal government where people are free to create their only solutions to whatever problems they may encounter, free of any ideological bias and corruption.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#11 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 11 January 2011 - 03:10 PM

There's at least one reason why a demographic collapse is bad; we've set up our retirement and elder care systems in such a way that we need a good sized population of younger workers to pay for them.


Who is we? Not me (voluntarily, anyway). Ponzi schemes always fail eventually. I don't expect to ever receive social security. Since I have no expectation of ever receiving government welfare, the demographic collapse is not inherently "bad" for me personally. When social security and medicare collapse (in the U.S.), I fully expect to devote resources taking care of my elder family members. Personal family care is better anyway.

Demographic collapse would be quite good for the environment.

#12 Nationalist

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 13 January 2011 - 01:51 PM

You also need to look behind the numbers to see what is sustaining population increase. Where I live, in the UK, people of Pakistani origin are reproducing at 10x the base rate, which is why we have a non-negative growth. Unfortunately this doesn't bode well for our economy because this population has a male unemployment rate of 50% and female rate of 75%. We risk economic collapse despite having an adequate population. Pakistan itself is not short of people but is an economic basket case.
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 2

#13 InquilineKea

  • Guest
  • 773 posts
  • 89
  • Location:Redmond,WA (aka Simfish)

Posted 15 January 2011 - 02:14 AM

This is an interesting article: (I don't necessarily agree with it)
http://worldofweirdt...man-population/
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#14 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 22 January 2011 - 02:13 PM

Birth rates have a functional relationship with household incomes, the cost of upbringing, and culturally determined preferences for childbearing. So besides exhorting the public to produce a greater quantity of children, it would seem most prudent to use considerable public resources to place deflationary pressure against child raising cost increases, so that at the very least, such price behavior doesn't increase at a rate exceeding core inflation. Because of the fiscal picture in some European states, though, hard choices will have to be made between committing resources to avert predicted demographic trends, and other public welfare priorities, like senior health---which may offer less of a relative return. Additionally, to maximize tax returns, public policy must treat full employment, aggregate demand, and the labor force's size and rate of participation as paramount concerns.

Edited by Rol82, 22 January 2011 - 02:29 PM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#15 E. Holmes

  • Guest
  • 3 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 January 2011 - 09:25 PM

A couple things I've observed:

- Consistent population growth in certain demographics: namely, Asians, Indians, Africans/Caribbean/etc.
- Consistent population decline in certain demographics: Europeans, European Americans.
- Countries opening floodgates to mass immigration to "solve" economic problems, etc

The headline should read "2050: No more Europeans left in Europe. Or the world.".

There will be people in Europe, just not Europeans.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#16 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 24 January 2011 - 12:31 AM

A couple things I've observed:

- Consistent population growth in certain demographics: namely, Asians, Indians, Africans/Caribbean/etc.
- Consistent population decline in certain demographics: Europeans, European Americans.
- Countries opening floodgates to mass immigration to "solve" economic problems, etc

The headline should read "2050: No more Europeans left in Europe. Or the world.".

There will be people in Europe, just not Europeans.


Can European states afford such a narrow definition of "European?" Indeed, if there was convincing convincing evidence that a preponderance of immigrants didn't become assimilated, productive, and law-abiding citizens, there might be reason for concern. But there isn't, and I think it would behoove the nauseating nativist elements to cease viewing the world through such a zero-sum prism. Structural conditions make tribalistic feelings difficult to mute, of course, so I appreciate the sentiments. Especially since I myself am frequently guilty of being overly proud of my family's heritage, which can give rise to irrational actions---like for instance, exclusively buying French wine, and becoming oddly elated when I find a Jew in Iowa. But these feelings add height to barriers that disturb peace, progress, and general well-being. So I have to be ever vigilant about governing my own behavior, and continue to tirelessly apply a sledgehammer to sectarian walls that I encounter. Anyway, let me part with the immortal words John F. Kennedy delivered at his American University address:

"If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

Edited by Rol82, 24 January 2011 - 07:14 AM.


#17 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 January 2011 - 01:47 AM

Birth rates have a functional relationship with household incomes, the cost of upbringing, and culturally determined preferences for childbearing. So besides exhorting the public to produce a greater quantity of children, it would seem most prudent to use considerable public resources to place deflationary pressure against child raising cost increases, so that at the very least, such price behavior doesn't increase at a rate exceeding core inflation. Because of the fiscal picture in some European states, though, hard choices will have to be made between committing resources to avert predicted demographic trends, and other public welfare priorities, like senior health---which may offer less of a relative return. Additionally, to maximize tax returns, public policy must treat full employment, aggregate demand, and the labor force's size and rate of participation as paramount concerns.

In the several decades following the end of WWII, the US provided enormous tax breaks to parents with dependent children. At the same time, due to different demographics as well as a lack of expensive medical procedures, the amount spent on the elderly was relatively small. Today's tax breaks for childrearing are relatively meager, when viewed in inflation adjusted terms. The elderly today represent one of our largest expenditures. It would certainly make more economic sense to devote more money to kids and less to their grandparents. But kids don't vote, and grandparents do...
  • like x 1

#18 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 26 January 2011 - 01:59 AM

Birth rates have a functional relationship with household incomes, the cost of upbringing, and culturally determined preferences for childbearing. So besides exhorting the public to produce a greater quantity of children, it would seem most prudent to use considerable public resources to place deflationary pressure against child raising cost increases, so that at the very least, such price behavior doesn't increase at a rate exceeding core inflation. Because of the fiscal picture in some European states, though, hard choices will have to be made between committing resources to avert predicted demographic trends, and other public welfare priorities, like senior health---which may offer less of a relative return. Additionally, to maximize tax returns, public policy must treat full employment, aggregate demand, and the labor force's size and rate of participation as paramount concerns.

In the several decades following the end of WWII, the US provided enormous tax breaks to parents with dependent children. At the same time, due to different demographics as well as a lack of expensive medical procedures, the amount spent on the elderly was relatively small. Today's tax breaks for childrearing are relatively meager, when viewed in inflation adjusted terms. The elderly today represent one of our largest expenditures. It would certainly make more economic sense to devote more money to kids and less to their grandparents. But kids don't vote, and grandparents do...


Indeed, I think Felix Salmon put it quite well when he said that "when economics and politics meet, politics always wins." I think there are some important, and politically viable changes that can be made, though, like means testing, raising the retirement age (or the age determined schedule of benefits), and exploring the notion of offering recipients the option of investing a portion of future benefits in higher yield investment vehicles.

Edited by Rol82, 26 January 2011 - 06:48 AM.


#19 DairyProducts

  • Guest
  • 207 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 26 January 2011 - 03:50 AM

Birth rates have a functional relationship with household incomes, the cost of upbringing, and culturally determined preferences for childbearing. So besides exhorting the public to produce a greater quantity of children, it would seem most prudent to use considerable public resources to place deflationary pressure against child raising cost increases, so that at the very least, such price behavior doesn't increase at a rate exceeding core inflation. Because of the fiscal picture in some European states, though, hard choices will have to be made between committing resources to avert predicted demographic trends, and other public welfare priorities, like senior health---which may offer less of a relative return. Additionally, to maximize tax returns, public policy must treat full employment, aggregate demand, and the labor force's size and rate of participation as paramount concerns.

In the several decades following the end of WWII, the US provided enormous tax breaks to parents with dependent children. At the same time, due to different demographics as well as a lack of expensive medical procedures, the amount spent on the elderly was relatively small. Today's tax breaks for childrearing are relatively meager, when viewed in inflation adjusted terms. The elderly today represent one of our largest expenditures. It would certainly make more economic sense to devote more money to kids and less to their grandparents. But kids don't vote, and grandparents do...

You would think the parents of the baby boomers who benefited so much from a well functioning U.S. government would want to pass that gift on to their grandchildren, but from anecdotal evidence and voting patterns, it would appear they do not. I do not look forward to the age of austerity (except military of course) in this country. I have lived around neutered local governments and the results are not pretty for the residents. However, I will gladly look for any signs of optimism so please inform me if any of you see any.

#20 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 27 January 2011 - 09:30 PM

have you looked at northern ireland?

A demographic collapse is not "bad" per se. It is only that our currently constructed mindset about progress and economic growth are wedded to the idea that the population must grow and we must build build build, more roads, more buildings, more houses, more everything. Focusing on improving the lives of the people who are already on the planet and a quality over quantity mindset is ok with me. Interesting, I was just blogging about this today.

I suppose there could be a problem if people who are hostile to the developed world (for whatever logical or irrational reasons) reproduce more with the sole purpose of demographically defeating their "enemies". However, in this case, at this point in human history, I think technology will trump biology.

There's at least one reason why a demographic collapse is bad; we've set up our retirement and elder care systems in such a way that we need a good sized population of younger workers to pay for them. While there are other ways to construct a social system, changing in mid-stream isn't going to be easy. I doubt that there's a significant number of people who reproduce more in order to "defeat" anyone (though they do breed more for other reasons), although that doesn't stop some members of the groups that are under demographic pressure (Native Europeans, White Americans, Israelis) from being stressed out over it. After all, becoming a minority doesn't exactly look like a picnic, particularly if you are a member of a culture that hasn't historically treated the upcoming majority very well. The Japanese appear to be looking to robots to deal with the new demographics.


Edited by chrono, 30 January 2011 - 10:51 PM.
fixed quote tag


#21 johnross

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Dumfries, Scotland

Posted 06 February 2011 - 07:24 PM

You also need to look behind the numbers to see what is sustaining population increase. Where I live, in the UK, people of Pakistani origin are reproducing at 10x the base rate, which is why we have a non-negative growth. Unfortunately this doesn't bode well for our economy because this population has a male unemployment rate of 50% and female rate of 75%. We risk economic collapse despite having an adequate population. Pakistan itself is not short of people but is an economic basket case.

These figures are garbage. In the Bangladeshi community average family size is 4.7 and Pakistani is 4.2 so the "native English" would have to be running an average of 0.4 or thereabouts, whereas it's actually over 2. I would think most UK readers would recognise this little rant as typical of the BNP (a far right racist group) or the English Defence League (similar).

#22 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 06 February 2011 - 11:01 PM

You also need to look behind the numbers to see what is sustaining population increase. Where I live, in the UK, people of Pakistani origin are reproducing at 10x the base rate, which is why we have a non-negative growth. Unfortunately this doesn't bode well for our economy because this population has a male unemployment rate of 50% and female rate of 75%. We risk economic collapse despite having an adequate population. Pakistan itself is not short of people but is an economic basket case.

These figures are garbage. In the Bangladeshi community average family size is 4.7 and Pakistani is 4.2 so the "native English" would have to be running an average of 0.4 or thereabouts, whereas it's actually over 2. I would think most UK readers would recognise this little rant as typical of the BNP (a far right racist group) or the English Defence League (similar).


You're absolutely right, and I find it laughable that anyone could seriously believe that the birth rate of immigrant households could greatly exceed the median rates of their indigenous countries. It would also be quite the leap to attribute most endemic economic difficulties to relaxed restrictions on immigration, but who needs thoughtful self-criticism when you have communities of vulnerable foreigners to scapegoat and expel.

Edited by Rol82, 07 February 2011 - 07:09 PM.


#23 rashlan

  • Guest
  • 124 posts
  • 20
  • Location:UK

Posted 09 February 2011 - 12:30 AM

I can't believe Nationalist, is basically being called racist for stating facts.

Among working age men, Muslims had the highest overall levels of economic inactivity in 2004 – 31 per cent compared with 16 per cent of Christians. This is partly explained by the young age profile of Muslims and the correspondingly high proportion of students. However, among older men of working age, Muslims also tended to have the highest levels of economic inactivity, largely due to ill health.

Within each religious group women were more likely than men to be economically inactive. The main reason was that they were looking after the family and home. Muslim women were more likely than other women to be economically inactive. About seven in ten (69 per cent) Muslim women of working age were economically inactive, compared with no more than four in ten women of working age in each of the other groups. Christian women were least likely to be economically inactive (25 per cent).

http://www.statistic...gget.asp?id=979

His figures for the increase in the Muslim population are also correct. The only inaccurate part of his statement was implying that it was solely from birth rates. The 10x figure comes from including Muslim immigration into the UK http://www.timesonli...icle5621482.ece

I really expected more from imminst members! It's a shame some of you haven't had to live in Tower Hamlets or one of the other Muslim Ghettos around the uk. White people are routinely racially abused in these areas (Spat at, called names etc)
It also isn't confined just to those areas, as my sister found out when heavily Pregnant.
What is it with people being so quick brand people racist?
My point is that racism is far from one sided and the racism card is far to readily banded about!

Edited by rashlan, 09 February 2011 - 12:42 AM.


#24 rashlan

  • Guest
  • 124 posts
  • 20
  • Location:UK

Posted 09 February 2011 - 01:25 AM

Muslims had the highest rates of disability, with 24% of females and 21% of males claiming a disability.

http://www.telegraph...-RE8-02527.html
This usually entitles you to a new free car, changed every three years and up to £120 a week on top of any other benefits you're claiming.

Edited by rashlan, 09 February 2011 - 01:34 AM.


#25 Antiskunk

  • Guest
  • 18 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 February 2011 - 10:20 PM

I can't believe Nationalist, is basically being called racist for stating facts.

Among working age men, Muslims had the highest overall levels of economic inactivity in 2004 – 31 per cent compared with 16 per cent of Christians. This is partly explained by the young age profile of Muslims and the correspondingly high proportion of students. However, among older men of working age, Muslims also tended to have the highest levels of economic inactivity, largely due to ill health.

Within each religious group women were more likely than men to be economically inactive. The main reason was that they were looking after the family and home. Muslim women were more likely than other women to be economically inactive. About seven in ten (69 per cent) Muslim women of working age were economically inactive, compared with no more than four in ten women of working age in each of the other groups. Christian women were least likely to be economically inactive (25 per cent).

http://www.statistic...gget.asp?id=979

His figures for the increase in the Muslim population are also correct. The only inaccurate part of his statement was implying that it was solely from birth rates. The 10x figure comes from including Muslim immigration into the UK http://www.timesonli...icle5621482.ece

I really expected more from imminst members! It's a shame some of you haven't had to live in Tower Hamlets or one of the other Muslim Ghettos around the uk. White people are routinely racially abused in these areas (Spat at, called names etc)
It also isn't confined just to those areas, as my sister found out when heavily Pregnant.
What is it with people being so quick brand people racist?
My point is that racism is far from one sided and the racism card is far to readily banded about!


Besides, Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. How can one be racist when not referring to a race?
Have none of you heard of the racial attacks against white people in England, having acid poured in peoples faces?
Why is it that only white people can be racist? One comment, even if factually correct, is deemed "racist", whereas white people must endure constant abuse where retaliating is, again, deemed racist.
David Cameron made his first right-wing comment since being in power recently, mentioning that multi-culturism has failed Britain. It is perfectly common that particular ethnicities congregate together in a particular area until there is a large enough community to negate feeling like they should integrate into the indigenous society. This results in communities that don't even speak English, that wander the supermarkets at 2 o'clock in the morning avoiding eye contact with whites and speaking in hushed voices in a foreign language.
Toni Blair's chief advisor recently stated that the sole reason for mass immigration into the UK over the last decade was to solidify their voting base (and to "rub the right's nose in it"), as over 90% of recent immigrants vote for the labour party.

#26 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 09 February 2011 - 10:29 PM

Wow....
In the States, Arab American households have incomes that are above the median, and when compared to other demographic groups, have one of the highest rates of educational attainment. So if I were to take a wild guess, maybe some policy calibrations need to be made. Here's a report from that hopelessly biased Census Bureau:
http://www.census.go...bs/censr-21.pdf

And as for their politics, well their views aren't exceptionally or dangerously radical:
http://pewresearch.o...m-americans.pdf

Edited by Rol82, 10 February 2011 - 02:04 AM.


#27 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 10 February 2011 - 02:25 AM

I can't believe Nationalist, is basically being called racist for stating facts.

Among working age men, Muslims had the highest overall levels of economic inactivity in 2004 – 31 per cent compared with 16 per cent of Christians. This is partly explained by the young age profile of Muslims and the correspondingly high proportion of students. However, among older men of working age, Muslims also tended to have the highest levels of economic inactivity, largely due to ill health.

Within each religious group women were more likely than men to be economically inactive. The main reason was that they were looking after the family and home. Muslim women were more likely than other women to be economically inactive. About seven in ten (69 per cent) Muslim women of working age were economically inactive, compared with no more than four in ten women of working age in each of the other groups. Christian women were least likely to be economically inactive (25 per cent).

http://www.statistic...gget.asp?id=979

His figures for the increase in the Muslim population are also correct. The only inaccurate part of his statement was implying that it was solely from birth rates. The 10x figure comes from including Muslim immigration into the UK http://www.timesonli...icle5621482.ece

I really expected more from imminst members! It's a shame some of you haven't had to live in Tower Hamlets or one of the other Muslim Ghettos around the uk. White people are routinely racially abused in these areas (Spat at, called names etc)
It also isn't confined just to those areas, as my sister found out when heavily Pregnant.
What is it with people being so quick brand people racist?
My point is that racism is far from one sided and the racism card is far to readily banded about!

-The aptly named user Nationalist wasn't being accused of racism (although he's clearly flirting with bigotry), but the all too familiar ideas of the BNP were, which is a charge not entirely without basis.
-Regardless of the accuracy of the figures cited by the Times of London, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants are facing no imminent or long term danger of displacement.
-Although acts of racism are certainly not confined to one racial group, I doubt that the incidence of Arab racism is as pervasive as you suggest. Unless you have any data that supports this contrary position, which I highly doubt anyway.
-Rather than treating data that you cite as racially determined and implicitly, very difficult to alter, maybe you should focus your energy on eroding barriers that are leading to qualitatively different outcomes----since the conditions of Arab communities are hardly uniform in the West.
-The economic consequences of immigration have been extensively studied, and in no methodologically sound study, have the results been found to be anything more than marginally regressive. Instead, relaxed rates of immigration have usually been found to be net-positive. And if you're willing to take the time, I could cite some relevant research, but I get the impression that I'm vainly addressing pamphlet readers.

#28 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 10 February 2011 - 05:03 AM

I can't believe Nationalist, is basically being called racist for stating facts.

"Facts", like "doesn't bode well for our economy" and "we risk economic collapse". As his name suggests, "Nationalist" is a nationalist. I'm sure it's possible to be a nationalist that isn't a racist, but one doesn't see that very often, does one?

#29 johnross

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Dumfries, Scotland

Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:39 AM

It is undoubtedly true that a significant but unknown percentage of the British Muslim community despise the "native" non-Muslims around them. They are taught this in their religion. I am opposed to all superstitions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc; Islam is simply a particularly obnoxious variety of stupidity and the form of it that is followed by a large number of believers in Britain is outstandingly vicious. It compares readily with the American Christians who turn up at gay funerals with slogans gloating about the gay dead person burning in hell. It is also true that a large number (again unknown) of "Muslims" do not wish to be part of that; they do not wish to be Muslim at all but prefer to stay alive, and are trapped in a community that not only regards apostasy as a capital offence but is prepared to carry out the death sentence. It is Britain's misfortune that a lot of the Muslim immigrants come from very backward parts of Pakistan and Bangladesh and have brought their medieval village customs with them. These customs are not all built into Islam but have been incorporated into it by barely educated rural imams. The combination makes them extremely unpleasant people. Mixing this up with misdirected rage at social and economic problems in Britain helps nobody and confusing the issue with abused statistics only makes it worse. If you are unemployed and badly educated don't blame Muslims, blame the rich. They are the people who actually control the economy and don't pay their taxes; they ensure that state provision of education health etc. is as poor as possible and the ill educated Muslim who is left steeped in ignorance by the system is no more responsible for his plight than an unemployable drunken native British oaf.
  • like x 1

#30 Bardamu

  • Guest
  • 4 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 17 February 2011 - 11:03 PM

Some casual observations from a white American:

There is bigotry on both sides, and the blame rests with neither indigenous Europeans or Arabic immigrants. Multiculturalism--the notion that distinct cultures could and should live amongst one anther, no matter how different their values ('cause as humans we all have the same values LOLRITE?!?)--is the real culprit here.

The 'fundamental' stubbornness of the Islamic community creates tension. As a minority, you can't expect the majority population to cater to your needs and adapt their culture/way of life to suit your own -- that's called entitlement. But, lo and behold, that's exactly the attitude a sizable portion of European Muslims are doing.

Remember the uproar that followed Lars Vilks' cartoon representation of Mohamed? This guy was declared an Infidel by not just the Muslims in Denmark, but the the Islamic community worldwide. Now flip the script: would the global Christian community declare holy war against a single Arab guy who drew a picture of Christ getting raped or something? No.

Can we blame the members of Europe's Islamic community for their stubbornness? I don't think so. They're just fighting for what they believe in--their values, in other words--and since the only belief that Liberal Secular Democratic Europeans have held is the belief that all beliefs are equal, they thought they could get away with their anti-Western hijinks without reprisal. A religion is more than a spiritual doctrine, after all. It's also a political ideology. And (Fundamentalist) Islam's ideology holds that all non-Islamic ideologies are inferior. Essentially, Muslims are exploiting European passivity to further their own agenda: spreading the word of Allah.

The recent resurgence in nationalism is an awakening of European cultural consciousness and rebuttal to the very real threat of Muslims outbreeding Europeans, which would turn Europe into a caliphate of the Middle East.

I believe every culture/race/religion (they're intertwined to a degree) deserves a homeland. Europeans included.

Edit: spelling

Edited by Bardamu, 17 February 2011 - 11:29 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users