Flooding the Back Streets of Europe
Third World immigrants are attracted to Germany not by abstract concepts of free speech, the rule of law, liberal democracy and personal freedom but by the higher standard of living they can enjoy at the expense of the German taxpayer. In part because of the Nazi period, the pressure on Germans to conform to the United Nations-sponsored ideology of multiculturalism has been immense, much worse than anything we have experienced in the United Kingdom. History matters: the Nazi past will remain an integral part of Germany’s history but no other nation has submitted itself to such soul-searching and public flagellation in order to face up to its past and to make amends. However, one of the downsides has been to treat any assertion of national German pride as a manifestation of Neo-Nazi tendencies, as something hideously offensive and shameful when it is, in fact, the normal, emotional and rational pride in, and commitment to, one’s country of origin, to one’s Vaterland, to use that beautifully evocative German word.
It is this specifically German historical, social and political background that makes the publication of Thilo Sarrazin’s book in Germany so remarkable, and all the more remarkable for its having been written by one of Germany’s top technocrats, a person at the very heart of the German administrative establishment, a person, who whatever his misgivings about the state of Germany, I, for one, would have expected to remain silent. Clearly, Herr Sarrazin has had enough. He instinctively grasps the truth of Solzhenitysn’s eleventh commandment: thou shall not live by the Lie. There is something about Sarrazin that bears the stamp of Martin Luther, Pastor Martin Niemöller and the White Rose students who defied the Nazis in Munich. Moral courage is always inspirational and life-enhancing. Indeed, the fact that Sarrazin’s book has become a best seller in Germany and attracted enormous support for its author may well have prompted Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, publicly to admit (October 2010) that multiculturalism had utterly failed in Germany. Indeed, it has: and not just in Germany. _SMOA
Here is a 15 minute politically correct video look at Sarrazin's themes:
It is important to see beyond the self-blindered political correctness, and understand how Europe will decline as a result of its negligent attitudes toward immigration -- particularly immigration from the Muslim third world. One of the many problems that an Islamic explosion brings to the western world is a general decline in average human capital and a lowered capacity to meet difficult challenges. The average IQ of populations in most Islamic countries, for example, is 90 or lower.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called "consanguinity") and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants"Europe's indigenous women are not having children, so that the population of Europeans in several European nations is dropping rapidly. "Muhammed", or a variant, is swiftly becoming the most popular name in newborn wards of European hospitals. European schools, prisons, and poverty rolls are filling up with legal and illegal third world immigrants and their offspring.
Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.).
A large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred - which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequenses greatly.
The amount of blood related marriages is lower among Muslim immigrants living in the West. Among Pakistanis living in Denmark the amount is down to 40 percent and 15 percent among Turkish immigrants (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants".).
More than half of Pakistani immigrants living in Britain are intermarried:
The research, conducted by the BBC and broadcast to a shocked nation on Tuesday, found that at least 55% of the community was married to a first cousin. This is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.” (Times of India, 17/11 2005 Ban UK Pakistanis from marrying cousins).
The lower percentages might be because it is difficult to get the chosen family member to the country, or because health education is better in the West.
Low intelligence
Several studies show that children of consanguineous marriages have lower intelligence than children of non-related parents. Research shows that the IQ is 10-16 points lower in children born from related parents and that abilities related to social behavior develops slower in inbred babies:
"Effects of parental consanguinity on the cognitive and social behavior of children have been studied among the Ansari Muslims of Bhalgapur, Bihar.
IQ in inbred children (8-12 years old) is found to be lower (69 in rural and 79 in suburban populations) than that of the outbred ones (79 and 95 respectively). The onset of various social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures, oral expression and hand-grasping are significantly delayed among the new-born inbred babies." (Indian National Science Academy, 1983 Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of nsari Muslim Children").
The article "Effects of inbreeding on Raven Matrices" concludes that "Indian Muslim school boys, ages 13 to 15 years, whose parents are first cousins, were compared with classmates whose parents are genetically unrelated on the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices, a nonverbal test of intelligence. The inbred group scored significantly lower and had significantly greater variance than the non-inbred group, both on raw scores and on scores statistically adjusted to control for age and socioeconomic status." (Behaviour Genetics, 1984). _EuropeNews_via_IslamMonitor
The cities of Europe have already begun to change in most unpleasant ways -- in terms of rape, robbery, assaults etc. It is in the cities of Europe where the effects of this massive demographic handover are most prominent. Once a crime-prone sub-population grows above 10% in a city, quality of life begins to drop -- even outside the immigrant ghettos. As city populations with lower IQ and high criminal tendencies grows to 20%, 30%, and higher, all hope for a decent life in the city must be abandoned. If that city is a nation's capital or industrial center, the loss of quality of life within the city is felt well out into the country-side -- even if the percentage of the crime-bringing sub-population is very low outside of the city.
Labels: demographic change, european decline, Islam, multiculturalism, Sarrazin
posted by al fin at 6:32 am
8 Comments:
Playing Devil's Advocate on the consanguinity issue - such inbreeding does indeed increase reinforcement of bad genes. However, over generations that, in turn leads to the elimination of bad gene carriers (ie dead babies). Can't say I like it as a solution but it should mean, if anything, slight genetic superiority among Moslems.
The same should apply to polygamy since it allows the alphas to pass on more genes.
Personally I think that, with the probable exception of Jews & Africans, cultural differences far override genetic ones.
Focusing on immigration may be concentrating on the symptom rather than on the ailment.
Immigrants go to Germany (and elsewhere) because those countries have unfilled jobs. And those unfilled jobs are related to the decisions of women in Germany (and elsewhere) back in the 1980s & 1990s not to have children.
In the 19th Century & earlier, Europeans were the immigrants. Women were then having more children than Europe could support. Apparently, at one point, there were more French immigrants than native Algerians in Algeria.
Why did child-rearing become so untrendy among European (and more generally Western) women in the late 20th Century? Could it be that there was a loss of confidence in the future?
Environmentalists and their ilk persuaded many Europeans that they were a plague on the planet, and that the future would be a miserable place. It would be cruel to bring children into such a horrible world. Much better for women to be "liberated" from child-rearing and instead to find fulfillment as career women, stamping government forms in a cubicle in an anonymous office building.
Perhaps the solution to the immigration conundrum lies in the low self-image of Western Civilization which some parties have so assiduously (& successfully) promoted.
Kinuachdrach, people in Europe don't have children because they don't have the money to raise.
For example, in Italy, a child cost 7500 €/year of schooling (from kindergarden to high school this is near 100.000 €/baby). This come from the pockets of the taxpayers.
Add the expenses the family must pay directly.
Add a home costing much more in the last 10 years.
For a normal man, earning a normal paycheck, this imply that ten years go to pay for the home (more than 150 k €), other ten year go to pay for one kid. This is half of what he earn in his entire life of work. He must also pay his upkeeping, the upkeep of the home, etc. Then his wife usually need to have a job, so it is difficult to raise more than one or two children.
Add that homes are smaller than in the US, so there is a resistance to have more babies because you don't know where to put them.
All apartments I see have two bedrooms (parents/one child).
People would love to have more children, but they (the majority anyway) don't have many choices.
However, over generations that, in turn leads to the elimination of bad gene carriers (ie dead babies). Can't say I like it as a solution but it should mean, if anything, slight genetic superiority among Moslems.
This is impossible because, although a small percentage of the kids will end up dead. A far larger percentage of the kids will be functional enough to live to adulthood, but not as functional as the majority of adults in a society that does not have consanguineous marriage.
Also, if consanguinity did confir the advantage you suggest it does, then the Middle-east would be more productive than other regions of the world. The fact is, it is not.
Consider than more books are translated into Japanese each year (120 million people) than are translated into Arabic (300 million people) in the past 500 years. The Muslim Middle-east does not manufacture a SINGLE product to competitive international standards and that their level of patent applications is similar.
Why did child-rearing become so untrendy among European (and more generally Western) women in the late 20th Century? Could it be that there was a loss of confidence in the future?
The solution is to cure aging. Once we become post-human, reproductive and other issues become superfluous.
Transhumanism can solve all of the problems of the West. All other memes are as obsolete as the horse and buggy.
The problem is not just in Europe, it is in America. Last year when I had my daughter I was one of three paying customers in the labor and delivery ward. I was also one of 7 women that had a full term vaginal delivery. The paying customers typically left in about 3 days, everyone else was recovering from surgery or had a baby in the NICU.
My husbands buddies wives are of the lot that do not want to have any children at all. They do not want to have to down grade their standard of living, or sacrifice their bodies, for a child. They want to be able to go bar hopping every weekend, and eat out every meal, these women will not sacrifice their careers as teachers and surgical techs to have a child nor will they pay for child care, its just too expensive.... They hate my guts.
kurt9: Even with pseudo-immortality (achieved with nano-bots)we will still need some women to have children as we cannot prevent accidental death. In fact with the perpetual youth of nano-bots I expect accidental death will go up, as young men will think they are invincible. In fact in Russia more men die in alcohol related accidents than old age, I think. I am not criticizing, I would love to look 20 something until I die of an accidental cause but I think high IQ women should be encouraged to be the ones to have the children that replace those that die in accidents. It would push America in a positive demographic direction.
I can't agree Europeans and Americans stopped having children because they can no longer afford it, or that women don't want to have them (partying, fat, blah, blah).
I believe majority of women, smart and stupid alike, still wants from the bottom of their being to have children, because that's a drive as basic as men's libido. It's written into human nature at its core. It is enough to bring a baby to an office, and within 2 minutes you will have all female employees gathered around it, even “career-heads” at an investment bank. Ever heard of a “ticking clock”? It's damn real. It brings on terrible anxiety, like you can't be happy until that crucial need is satisfied. Whatever you do, you feel like you are not doing the top-priority thing.
As to expense associated – I think it's a particularly LAME EXCUSE. I was dumped after almost 5 years of perfect relationship, just when I reminded my high-IQ Mr. Perfect that – well, darling, if you want to have children as you said you wanted, it's time to start now, or it will cost us a few thousands pounds a try at in vitro. The guy was on 6 figure salary (in pounds), stable job for years, and with stable, growing prospects.
What a baby would have cost him? Diapers, food, clothes. And I know for sure that both grandmothers-never-to-be had hidden stashes of baby clothes & whatever. What percentage of a 6-figure salary would a (smaller ;) half of a food and diaper bill take? This is just ridiculous!
I think it is more due to MEDIA MESSAGE. Just think of those powerful images in movies – there is one scene of a man sleeping with a woman, the next second we see a messy scene with a screaming baby, a man clearly on the edge of nervous break-down, body language indicating he wants to run and hide, and the man's friends tell him he is fucked/screwed/his great, carefree life is over.
Ever seen Shrek the Third? The overall, logical message was that fatherhood was not so scary as it seemed, but I think images of puke and poo flying everywhere were far more powerful.
And it seems smart men are as susceptible to this crap as the stupid ones, it's just they are better at preventing unplanned pregnancy than their stupid cousins. And smart women sleep mainly with smart men.
"I believe majority of women, smart and stupid alike, still wants from the bottom of their being to have children, because that's a drive as basic as men's libido
Truer words have never been spoken. But - and this is a huge "but" - fertility is not about women having children or not, but about the NUMBER of children they have.
I am from Southern Europe. My sister has one daughter and she swears that she is not going to have more children: she told me that she wants to keep some of free time to do things like taking coffee with friends. Furthermore, she is 36, because she was focused on her study and work so she married at the age of 33.
My mother had three children (including me). My grandmother had four children. My great-grandmother had nine children.
So you see the progression. Less and less children. My country is far below the replacement rate. My culture and my people are doomed.
Post a Comment
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell
<< Home