Guillaume Durocher has an English language write-up of the disquieting conclusions reached by researchers at the nationalist French website Fdesouche.
These assertions are based on the percentage of Muslim first names granted at birth, statistics for which can be downloaded from INSEE (France) and Statbel (Belgium).
Here are the original articles:
- Baromètre 2018 du taux de prénoms musulmans donnés aux enfants nés en France département par département (étude exclusive)
- Baromètre 2018 du taux d’octroi de prénoms musulmans pour les naissances en Belgique (exclusif)
The most obvious objection is that some Muslim names are also French names, but they tried to account for that – see the methodology section in the first article.
Incidentally, Fdesouche is also the same website that revealed that one third of newborns in France were being tested for sickle-cell disease, a procedure usually done if the infant is of African or Middle Eastern origin. Steve Sailer wrote about it in English in 2015.
Anyhow, here is a graph for France from the end of WW2 from the Fdesource writeup on France:
As we can see, the percentage of Muslim first names amongst newborns went up from essentially nothing, to 5% by the 1980s, where they stagnated until they began to soar inexorably in the late 1990s.
And here is a map of Muslim names in France as of 2017:
They speculate that they could might even have undercounted Muslim names, since INSEE does not publish “rare” names (less than three cases per department) for privacy reasons. The state that rare names are relatively more frequent amongst Muslims.
In contrast to France, the growth in the incidence of Muslim names in Belgium has actually greatly slowed down since the early 2000s.
Moreover, in the capital Brussels, it hasn’t budged since the mid-2000s, even though it has settled at a much higher rate (44%) than the Île-de-France (28%).
This is probably a function of Brussels stepping into its role as the EU’s Washington D.C. The rising cost of living is ejecting low income people into Flanders and especially Wallonia, while the city itself sucks up human capital from the entire EU.
The resulting equilibrium may well be surprisingly stable. As Durocher notes:
We ought to be cognizant of the fact that the “global cities” appear to be quite economically and socially viable for the foreseeable future. The most intelligent of our people, indeed of the entire planet’s population, are moving to Silicon Valley, New York, London, Paris, Brussels, and so on. The functionality of these cognitive elites seems to more than make up for the masses of low-quality immigrants. There is a working modus vivendi whereby the rich Whites and foreigners drive out dysfunctional minorities through rising property prices, inflicting them on the hapless White middle and working classes in the suburbs.
The surveillance/welfare state is largely capable of jailing/baby-sitting minorities as necessary, as we see in Michael Bloomberg’s New York and across Western Europe. Each city becomes more or less residentially segregated quite naturally, with the metropolitan Whites generally moving beside fellow Whites despite their “anti-racist” sentiments (see the situation in New York and London). Furthermore, the foreign ethnic groups generally form no single ethnic and/or religious, but are themselves divided into innumerable ethno-religious groups: this limits political conflict insofar as no single group is large enough to have undisputed power. Where only two or three ethnic groups can credibly vie for power, this tends to be a major cause for ethnic civil war. Our “global cities,” while being forces for dysgenic reproduction and ethnic entropy, appear quite sustainable for the time being.
Possibly things may come to a head in 60 years time, when Durocher estimates that an Islamic majority in births could happen in France.
Non-Whites may become a majority of the total population of France a few years earlier.
On the other hand, the French were also the first people in the world to undergo the demographic transition; their “breeders” have been increasing their share of the population longer than any other people, which possibly explains why the French now have the highest fertility rate (even adjusting for Muslims) of any major European people. In contrast, the Arabs and Africans who have arrived in France were in the midst of and the start of their peoples’ demographic transitions, respectively. It’s plausible that the ethnic share of the French population will instead trough, and then start rising again.
Belle France is not alone in committing suicide. The whole EU did that. Including Brexiting formerly Great formerly Britain.
Which are the healthiest countries in Europe?
http://www.pewforum.org/2018/10/29/eastern-and-western-europeans-differ-on-importance-of-religion-views-of-minorities-and-key-social-issues/
OCTOBER 29, 2018
Eastern and Western Europeans Differ on Importance of Religion, Views of Minorities, and Key Social Issues
Muslim is one problem, how much is the non muslim AND non white population? France has pathological rates of miscegenation, so that non muslim fertility rate is likely to be a big amount of mullatos and non Muslim Sub Saharans.
French Christophe Guilluy scocial geographer in Cicero.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator
The French journalist Laurent Obertone quoted this study, from the French institute for demographic studies https://www.ined.fr/fichier/s_rubrique/19558/dt168_teo.fr.pdf in which he found estimates for the share of newborns of non-european origins’in France. That would be over 40%
and it appears Durocher may be too optimistic. Gérard Collomb, who just resigned as interior minister, has came out in the press with panicky statements. He’s almost hinting at a civil war and says things can get out of control within 5-6 years if no drastic changes happen. Yes this is as bad as it sounds and quite frankly a bombshell. Too bad he supported the diversity candidate early on, the one who’s still on a refugees-kumbaya line, and well, he left and eschewed the daunting task. Excerpts here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/TugdualDenis/status/1057313300139122688
very interesting, especially when combined with the sickle cell data and the comments from Coulomb.
The whole EU has not “committed suicide.” Immigration is down since 2015 and nearly every European country has a steadily growing nationalist/populist party intent on reducing immigration, including new kid on the populist block Spain:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46043427
Certainly the Brits need to pull a finger out of their arse (no offence to Northern Ireland) but otherwise things are looking up from just a few years ago.
Well it’s about time. I would have thought Spain would have been out in front of nationalism in Western Europe, given their history.
Things are actually much worse for France: the current population of Francophone Africa is supposed to double before 2050.
Sickle cell may be a blessing in disguise. Even people who have only a single copy tend to be somewhat lethargic – easily defeated militarily. But, of course, that’s still only a minority. But sprinkle them in an army and it will impact its morale.
I wonder if anyone did a study on black names.
Of course, the Leftists think they will secularize the Muslims and use them as an atheistic poison pill for MENA, while simultaneously using them as part of a coalition to gain permanent political power.
Meanwhile, the Muslims who are a little more sanguine than they expected, are blowing the triumphalist horn a little early in their own conquest. And why shouldn’t they? The height of their civilization was when they conquered Spain – they have foundations named after it. And now they think they have the whole of the West in the bag – by far the greatest civilization that ever existed.
Well, there is something else in the bag that the Leftists and Muslims have both forgotten: black dynamite! And it will blow them both to smithereens!
[their “breeders” have been increasing their share of the population longer than any other people, which possibly explains why the French now have the highest fertility rate (even adjusting for Muslims) of any major European people]
The death of the west. So sad. Europeans true enemy was not each other but to the south.
Argh, to think that as late as 2000 the situation was still easily democratically salvageable.
It’s times like this you really have to hate outfits like the Front Nationale, with their ‘package deal’ anti-immigration stance, who presented the issue as: if you want anti-immigration, then you have to accept the rest of our fascistic package too. A real shocker that the electorate rejected that.
(Of course, clever media types knew full well what loons FNers were, so that even if FNers tried to restrict themselves to talking immigration, it was child’s play to draw out the rest of their views from them, and then job done. And yes I know, there’s a million ‘technical’ reasons why they’re not really fascists, but eh, walks like a duck etc.)
Not correct that Brussels is an expensive place to live, it is not ‘prices’ driving people out … Brussels is cheap cheap cheap, the cheapest capital city in Western Europe in terms of living costs
Small apartment flat listings, still as little as €300 per month … pages and pages of them under €600
https://www.immoweb.be/fr/recherche/appartement/a-louer/bruxelles?minprice=300&maxprice=600
And lots of cheap bargain shopping, thanks to both the Dutch chain bargain stores, and the many low-price bargain shops run by members of the immigrant communities … Transport is cheap too, unlimited riding on all public transport for around €50 per month
The suburbs of Brussels can actually be more expensive
The sooner, the better. France shall burn.
Never trust official figures. 20% Muslim is about their share in the general population. Would that mean their numbers are not increasing? That Muslim women have only two kids on average during their fertile years? Hard to believe.
Moderation won’t help because the design of the French political system ensures that the failure of the FN/RN is almost certain.
It’s not that hard to believe. Iran has been under 2 children since 2002, and was sitting at 1.66 in 2016. Turkey just got down to about replacement (2.05). Most Arab countries are uncomfortably high (3+), but this has reduced enormously in recent years, so the trend is clearly down. (Well, mostly down. Algeria declined to about 2.5 a decade ago, only to shoot up to nearly 3 again.)
The FN’s immoderate approach ensured anti-immigration was linked to the FN. This made it nearly impossible for the French centre-right to oppose immigration (a welcome development for the donor class, no doubt).
Tempting explanation but nit sure that’s right. MLP tried to sanitize the party alienating her own father in the process with the result that FN has actually improved relatively less than almost any other European nationalist party during this period.
As Nick Land recently pointed out commenting on Bolsonaro, the ultimate stage of mass democracy is when you can no longer win without being compared to Hitler.
Does the French center-right want to oppose immigration?
Their last president was the son of immigrants.
The current President is backed by their cuckseratives who wanted him to win after their leading cuck had lost in the primaries.
https://abload.de/img/juppenistftbruq8.png
There is really not much you can do if almost the whole system is against you and situation does not look too bad.
it’s not clear why he believes 5 more years of this would make long-term trends irreversibly bad. They already are even if migration was stopped overnight. Same Fdesouche has a thread on the destructions yesterday night http://www.fdesouche.com/1097701-halloween-echauffourees-malgre-la-mobilisation-renforcee-annoncee-par-castaner-videos It’s been several years in a row now
It’s bad enough that French kids and families copy American culture, but TV, movies take their toll. Apparently for ethnics it’s a licence to imitate The Purge
In France, and most of Western Europe, centre right means they are left wing.
Right, but neither of those countries you mention have a generous welfare state, or France’s GDP. Bringing up 3 or 4 kids in France is easier than in Algeria or even Turkey.
I did a similar analysis to verify the sickle cell data. My findings:
The sickle cell growth rate is so high that it has to be driven in large parts by new immigration. (Or a constant TFR of 8.0 would do the trick. Not realistic.)
The non-sickle cell decline in absolute numbers is so fast that I assume mixed kids are part of the sickle-cell set. (Or a constant TFR of 1.1 would lead to these numbers.)
The decline varies a lot between the data points, which doesn’t inspire confidence in the absolute accuracy. If I translate the decline into a constant TFR the time intervals between 2000, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015 correspond to 1.2, 1.58, 0.82, 0.80, 0.61. So either they changed methodology in 2010, by including mixed kids in the sickle-cell data, or there was a massive collapse in french native fertility. Or maybe these variation are normal? I gonna look at Japan and Korea to see how stable decreases usually should be.
(I calculate the constant TFR as 2*(decrease^30). If a country had this TFR over generations, it would lead to the observed decrease per year in number of births.)
France also has Europe’s largest Jewish population and this study ignores the more dangerous blacks.
The cities in France seem pretty gone now, the countryside still seems good and the cheap land and housing would facilitate a higher birthrate.
Still I just need to look at a London Primary school to realise we are not far behind.
Seems to be a close race between the two on who becomes majority non white first.
High GDP correlates with low fertility, not the other way around. Iran was much wealthier in 2016 than in 1986, so it was easier to have 5 kids in 2016 than in 1986. But Iranians didn’t.
I’m not so sure that the growth rate of support is the appropriate metric here, since the FN was hitting 15% of the vote decades ago, when most other nationalist parties were struggling to get so much as 5%.
Compared to her father, MLP did indeed move the party closer to victory. The electorate in 2017 was considerably less white than when when her father was in his prime, which makes her performance all the more impressive.
On the other hand, the dewhitening of France was going to push support her way almost irrespective of what she did or said.
I could have sworn I’d quipped in somewhere on Unz that:
First they ignore you
Then they ridicule you
Then they call you Hitler
Then you win
But I can’t find the post.
Anyway, ‘going Hitler’ is probably a lot more feasible in the social media age. Have you ever watched interviews of Jean-Marie Le Pen? He’d explode. There was no holding back. But without a ‘troll army’ to back him up, it was simplicity itself for the media to discredit him. The same media tricks don’t work so well these days.
The real race is who is going to do something about it first. So just compare FN to BNP or (hah) NF. No comparison at all.
Just what happened in 1996?
In the final analysis, you must blame the French electorate.
The FN, tried, tried and tried again – despite the ferocious hostility of the French establishment.
Ethnic French voters should have been hard and cynical enough to see through the bullshit.
The voters of many other nations are.
I doubt it Iran, squeezed by years and years of stringent sanctions is any richer now than 30 years ago.
For the situation in France, I would recommend Guillaume Faye’s La colonisation de l’Europe (I believe there is an English translation).
While Faye doesn’t understate the threat he also has an optimistic and practical air about him that I like.
1986 was a serious recession in Iran (slumping oil price), in which per capita output shrank by over 10%. So using 1985 as a starting point, in 2018, per capita GDP is about 50-60% higher. Not spectacular, by any means. But considerably wealthier. And the economy is more diversified too. (Iranians have shown themselves to be a resilient people.)
Maybe in the truly final analysis (say 50 years from now).
But in the interim, no political party can afford to take that attitude and hope to be elected. And no party that is elected does take it.
Remember the proverb: “a bad worker blames his tools.”
The FN is one of the most popular nationalist parties in Europe.
if the media told the truth about anti-white violence, especially in the schools, the FN would win French elections in a landslide.
the center right parties are bought – their donors want mass immigration
i don’t know about France but in a lot of other places there is the growing problem of kids living at home cos they can’t afford a place of their own (stagnant wages plus increased housing costs – both from immigration – magnified dramatically since the banking crash) which is preventing family formation – so maybe a 2008 crash effect?
Do what? When you mix two organic substances that is it, you are done, there is no way short of a total re-start to ‘do something about it‘. A very large % of the anti-nationalist vote in France, UK, etc… is simple resignation. People understand what has happened, and they also understand that at this point it cannot be undone. So they prefer to go down peacefully.
Look at Salvini: what other than talk and some symbolic brakes has he done? What can he possibly do other than ‘slow it down‘? In effect manage it and accept that the demographic change is inevitable.
There is such a thing as a catastrophic error.
How about just declaring everything west of the Elbe and Trieste was being irretrievably lost, and just hold the line on everything to the East? Unless people here are willing to undertake large scale forced population transfers, which is truthfully what is needed to save anything West of Prague?
Let us be totally honest here, other than large scale genocide, is there anything that can still be done? If people here do not have the determination to do that, and that is sensible also, just declare everything west of Prague as being beyond saving, and just hold the line.
There are 200,000 Ukrainians in Poland with permission to work, and about 200,000 is what the population of Ukraine fell in 2016.
Rivers of blood would have to flow first.
I understand what you’re saying. I’m not blind to these realities.
Still, to answer your question, if a determined nationalist party actually took power, it would not be impossible to halt and reverse the tide. I’m sure it would mean accepting some degree of unavoidable but otherwise undesirable ‘demographic change,’ but the great bulk of it could indeed be reversed. The means wouldn’t be lacking, only the will.
Salvini, even if he had the will (who can really knows if he does), does not have the mandate for anything so drastic at this point. If the nationalist tide keeps rising, then I would not yet write Italy off just yet.
Assuming that there comes a demographic point of no return (some combination of non-white numbers and white lack of will), it doesn’t mean that there aren’t better or worse outcomes for whites. If it’s a choice between a horrible endgame (massacres?) and a benign endgame (quietly into the night), then the “something” that can be done would be to tilt things towards the latter.
Much of the electorate has indeed resigned itself. But if one cares about any of this, I don’t see what choice there is but to keep plugging away, hoping for the best. And if it’s possible to lead a basically decent life at the same time, then why the hell not?
Why would it require “genocide”? Did the Algerians have to “genocide” the French to get them to leave Algeria? Did the the Croats “genocide” the Serbs to get them to leave Croatia? Hell, not even the Israelis had to “genocide” the Palestinians to get them to leave Palestine. (Then again, they were no slouches – they certainly massacred their fair share. It’s just not what I’d call “genocide.”)
Germany would not allow it. They call the tune because French banks made loans to the Italians that the Italian are now almost openly saying they won’t pay back. French bankers are behind Macron’s plan to get Germany to pay. A lot of the post WW1 immigration into France was rationalized as a way to strengthen France against Germany. Ironic, eh?
I’m pretty optimistic about Eastern Europe and their ability to maintain their ethnic and demographic majorities, after reading that Pew document. Eastern Europe seems to be the best half of Europe, in general (and as a dyed in the wool commie I’d have said that during the COld War as well).
“3. That being a breeder is predominantly a biologically hereditary trait is clearly false.”
The data disagrees which your hunches. Look at a twin study sometime, for crying out loud.
I don’t think the situation is quite as bad as that, but yea, I think in the end a milder version of what you propose might be the best solution. Maybe additionally, some of the western and central European countries could partition themselves. If you undid German reunification and made Vienna a free city, for example, the new East Germany and Austrian hinterlands would be pretty ethnically and tribally homogeneous.
Most of Eastern Europe, outside Macedonia, is not in danger of diversification / multiculturalization any time soon.
that’s one of the key points – if it’s 33% sickle cell but only 20% muslim that makes a big difference to the analysis as lots of different ethnic groups leads to lots of low level gang violence which is very bad for normal people but good for the oligarchs as an ultra cheap form of social control (as long as they themselves live somewhere safe).
only a unified ethno-sectarian bloc is a direct threat to their power (in the short term).
combined with coulomb’s comments that implies France is a few years away from 1970’s Belfast rather than 1980’s Lebanon.
(unless the non-muslim black population starts converting for strong horse reasons)
I call ethnic cleansing genocide, why isn’t it the same anyhow?
The problem is that the decrease is slowest between 2007 and 2010. So the 2008 crash effect would need to somehow hit a couple of years delayed. Maybe.
I’m wondering what effect smartphones have on fertility. They seem to have driven youth crime down by a crazy margin, so they can be counted as one of the bigger environment changes in recent history. Could be that they will lead fertility to new record lows.
The Spanish basically told Jews and Muslims they had to leave and they did.
OK, my point was that a country with a high GDP can afford a generous welfare state if only for some decades. And a comprehensive welfare state correlates with high fertility among citizens or immigrants of Third World background.
The Chaco region of Paraguay is pretty empty, why not have a few WNs buy land there? In order to prove their money racist credential they can even allow a few Iranians and Bosniaks to settle there.
Fertility is somewhat heritable, but that seems to me one case where nurture clearly trumps nature. I would expect that selection on cultural traits will probably trump selection on genes on the way to our malthusian future. See the Haredim in Israel as one example.
The Greco-Turkish population transfers happened fairly peacefully and both sides are better off for them. Same with the removal of Germans from Eastern Europe, although that was of course a special case.
Reminds me of a Russian joke.
– How do you make yourself feel good?
– Bring a goat to live in your house.
– But the smell would be awful!
– Yes, but then you get the goat out and feel real good.
Leave or convert. Jews left in 1492, Muslims in 1614, many of them of partial Iberian descent. But can a similar measure be taken in the 21st century? I mean, without NATO carpet bombing the offending country?
2cents:
The migrants’ communities are not monolithic. I have been to the Turkish events here in Germany (weddings, funeral etc.):
Ten percent of the young couples are paper-Turks. Superficially they are Turks and are proud of it. But they won’t fight with the crazy iman and his crew of sexually-economically frustated virgins. Just throw them a few bones likes token positions or tonedown the rhetorics.
Ten percent of young couples are socio-culturally not that integrated, but they are working-class and show ability of discpline/work-ethic. Currently they are fence-sitters, but with a strong working-class focused policies, their personal situation might improve and the hope of social mobility for their children might lure many of them over. Those folks are easily impressed by Trumpian/Erdogan-style politicians.
Some old folk, who came as Gastarbeiter in 1960s and still command authority within their families, still show sign of gratitude. They see their families as part of the “Cool Kids”-nations. They deeply despise the backyard folks in the old country (in case of Turkey: Erdogans’ voter-base).
Now the Turkish community is the largest migrant-community in Germany, but the ratio is still 30 (against Erdogan) vs 70% for Erdogan.
Now other migrant groups like the Vietnamese are actually even more succesful (with the 2nd gen: 70% college graduates).
The key for nationalist parties in Europe:
– lockdown the nationalists’ vote by being uncompromising in core issues like migration
– maintain strong ties to certain core-voters like policemen/soldiers – the subtle threat of a military coup d’etat.
– use young nationalist men to lure as many young single women (the Leftist/Green core-voters in the urban districts) into the fold
– expand the fold by emphasizing social-conservative values and stripmine social-conservative voters away from GOP-like parties and bring social-conservative migrants into the fold.
– economically there should be focus on working-class policies to poach naive working-class folks, who are still afraid of being called Nazis and working-class migrants.
– divide and conquer the migrants into Cool Kids and losers.
All that should bring in around 25% of (lower-classes) natives’ votes and (depending on which migrant community) around 10 – 25% of the migrants.
Depending on the voting system this might enough for 20-25% of seats in the assemblies. The era of dominating Volksparteien (CDU/SPD in the 1960s in West Germany) will soon be over.
This means that the Nationalist forces still come out on top.
At least it will shutdown the Open Borders-dogma and buys time to deport the unwanted/non-integrating migrants.
Not perfect, but good enough.
In fact, FN program is certainly not fascist, it’s more socialist. But the people like you would repeat “received wisdom” of libtard propaganda and kill the country. Serves you and your ilk right. RIP.
Do you have any statistical evidence for that?
According to Centres For Disease Control data, Puerto Rican and Cuban (broken out separately from the larger “Hispanic” category) fertility rates are way below replacement and have been for some time. Granted, American welfare isn’t as generous as European, but it doesn’t get much more third world than Cuba.
The population of France and the US will be 50 percent not white in a few decades, who is willing to massacre half of the population just to make those countries white again, although maybe you can convince the American Indians to pitch in return for 5 percent of the land in the liberated United States, which is a lot more land than what they have now. Maybe give the Red Indians them the Dakotas in return for their help. LOL
Because genocide implies killing, whereas cleansing doesn’t (though it may involve it).
i don’t think either “moderation” or “going hitler” is the best way.
i think having two distinct strands is best: a semi respectable political movement which takes positions just outside the media’s overton window but inside the voter’s (like Trump) and a separate radical culture war organisation which is significantly outside the overton window (but not too far) whose job is to keep pulling the window to the right – which is basically what the post-war left did.
(the two strands need to be separate cos media dominance)
(nb since big business allied with the identity politics Left, “Left” and “Right” nowadays mostly means globalist vs nationalist)
The words “media” and “truth” should not be used in the same sentence. The owners of the MSM didn’t invest their money to tell you the truth. Any propaganda is a pack of lies: nobody needs propaganda to impress upon the people that 2×2=4.
it’s not going to be Brazil; it’s going to be south Africa
and then everyone starves
How many soldiers and lower ranking officers in the US military can be converted to a white racialist cause?
For all I know, it’s as you say. That, however, is a very short-term, transitory state of affairs and, if I may say, a ‘weak’ perspective. It’s a bit like saying in the 1930s that the Nazis could never take power in Germany because the French and “Brits wouldn’t allow it.”
Let us be realistic here, how are you going to persuade people to have been there for generations to leave without making examples out of a few of them, like what happened in the Balkans? With the same result of you getting Belgraded by NATO. Thus my suggestion to just hold the Elbe line.
i don’t know if this effected France but the crash in 2008 was the end result of a ten year credit bubble that pushed house prices up so it would be possible the effect on fertility started before the crash itself?
are their stats on when the number of youngsters still living at home in their 20s started to rocket?
(iirc France is more renting than mortgages so it may be different there)
Well the situation may be too far lost, like stage 4 cancer, that going Hitler is the only logical solution?
i don’t know – if you look back at the last few millennia you had women more or less forced to have many kids cos of high child mortality.
in that environment would innate desire for children be selected for?
conversely in an environment where it is very much choice based then wouldn’t desire for children be selected for over time even if it wasn’t true in the past.
What are you asking me for? It’s not like I have any idea what it might be like to expel people at gunpoint. Somebody asked how it might play out so I answered. In reality, there’s a great deal else that will have to take place before that point is reached, and that’s what I’d prefer to focus on. Perhaps on one will ever be expelled. Well okay, whatever, that’s totally out of my hands. Again, it’s a loooong time before something like that can even be seriously contemplated. So why, right now, should I urgently focus my mind on “holding the Elbe,” as though that it is some simple, workable, or even meaningful plan that can be put into action tomorrow?
Has to be societal virtue. Catholic Canadian women were having tons of children, and then abruptly stopped. This was even after infant mortality dropped.
i don’t think so – the actual facts of the matter are clear and the main things preventing a rational response to the problem are a) a bunch of oligarchs bribing politicians and b) a media that lies about everything.
the big problem for nationalists imo has always been that trying to stay within the media’s overton window makes them toothless while being outside makes them too easy to demonize.
Trump’s election has demonstrated a possible 3rd option where you have a Trumpist party always staying just outside the overton window and a separate more radical culture war vanguard acting as an ice breaker ahead.
Holding the Elbe line is defeatist. Maybe it’s time for Reconquista?
yes i think that is probably a lot and maybe most of it but that would mean it could be partially reversed almost immediately by a pro-natal govt even if they were swimming against the tide of an anti-natal global media and completely reversed if the bulk of global media went back to being pro-natal.
but even despite that if a nation did leave it all up to choice in a 100% anti-natal media environment it seems to me that innate desire for children would as a result automatically be selected for – even if it didn’t exist in the past.
(which would be an interesting experiment)
(kinda like mid-western conservative women apparently being better looking – a natural consequence of desire for children in a choice based environment imo)
Check out this clip around 7:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KECNC2A3vsY
JLP is hammering Bernard Tapie (famous as owner of Olympique Marseille, but at the time a Socialist Party deputy) on unemployment (after the early 90s recession) and the twelve years of socialist rule. Then JPL claims that every immigrant who enters France is taking a job from a French worker, and Tapie’s face just lights up. He’s elated. He was just waiting for it. He knows he’s got JPL – the “racist.”
It’s not just defeatist, it’s meaningless. What the hell is someone who commits to this “plan” supposed to do? It’s like an American deciding he’s going to “hold the Missouri.” He doesn’t even have to do anything; just sit there and delude himself that he’s taking action.
Who here is willing to go full Himmler and consider killing 150 million Americans or 30 million French just make those countries white again, hence why I suggested just writing those places off as lost and holding the Elbe and the Gulf of Bothia.
Conversion is an unworkable solution, IMO. Mugabe’s mother taught catechism.
I presume you mean Africans living in France, but that’s pretty drastic as a policy, I don’t think even most militants would advocate it.
How the heck are you going to persuade them to leave unless you do so at gunpoint, really it’s hopeless.
People in most of Western Europe are beaten down and scared. Most of the time one cannot even have a rational discussion with them about migration issues, they see discussions of ethnicity and demographics as taboos. The few nationalist political forces are marginalised, they are in a very tight box controlled by the courts, media, and academia. It is about jobs, careers, money – people with the wrong views are frozen out. I often wonder – other than in style – how is it all that different from most authoritarian systems in the past? Most of the time, in most places the consequence for incorrect thought was losing one’s career, losing opportunities, being banned from public discourse. Western Europe is heading there.
On a more optimistic note, I agree that there are better and worse outcomes in the future for the native Europeans. People like Salvini can halt the deluge, even if reversing it is almost impossible. There is an old saying, ‘when in a hole, stop digging‘, so even freezing additional arrivals helps. Slow assimilation is also happening, and some recalcitrant migrants could be removed (if there was a will).
On a pessimistic note, the demographic numbers are very unfavourable. There are literally billions in Africa and Asia that would come if they could. The family ‘reunification‘ with its exponentially exploding numbers is also very hard to control. How can one tell someone who to marry in a free society?
When the French pied noirs left Algeria, they were generally going to a much more advanced society and a richer economy. How would one motivate someone to return to Nigeria, India or Eritrea? There is also the anger and resentment that the migrants have, and they will have more in the future. Whoever thought that this was a ‘good policy‘, should be held accountable. Maybe that would start the recovery process in the society and people would stop being so scared.
Who says anything about killing? All countries (USA and France included) should follow the first rule of holes: if you are in one, stop digging. Quite a few European parties and many Trump supporters see that as a necessary step: stop invasion by “refugees”. Also, stop chain migration to prevent everyone who is already in from bringing a few hundred “relatives”. Next, just fining the employers in the US to the tune of $50,000-100,000 for each illegal they employ would push 10-15 million illegals out of the US and stem their flow into the US (much more efficiently than any stupid wall). Make sure that only legal residents are entitled to any benefits, as many of the “refugees” are seeking freebies (they don’t go to countries where you have to earn your keep, like Hungary or Russia). In Europe most of the self-proclaimed “refugees” are illegals. Everybody has to stop legalizing illegals: the people who break the law are criminals and must be punished, locals – by jail terms, foreigners – by deportation. In fact, the greatest opponents of illegal immigration in the US are legal Mexicans, who ran away from Mexico and don’t want the country they ran into to become another Mexico.
The key problem is that fat cats who bought the politicians and MSM in the US and the EU want cheap workforce. Getting the money out of politics (say, mandating exact same fixed level of spending by all candidates for every post, the money provided by the state = the taxpayers) would restore the power of voters. Unfortunately, this kind of measures would never pass current parliaments full of people “elected” thanks to donations of those fat cats. So, the system is totally screwed. It must be destroyed and new system built in its place. Unfortunately, this means revolution, and the citizens of the countries being destroyed are averse to that. The hope for salvation is slim, but it is still greater than zero.
Looking at the names of the French World Cup team, it seems apparent that there are a lot of “modern” French citizens with non-Muslim names: Alexandre, Alphonse, Benjamin, Blaise [Pascal], Geoffrey,Kurt, Kylian [Gaelic], Patrice, Paul, Samuel, Steve(n), Thomas.
Zero percent. Unless you can offer them a better deal than the US government.
From something Peter Frost said I got the impression that the death of politician Maurice Duplessis was the main factor in a sudden collapse of Catholicism in Quebec., with even priests and nuns leaving and getting married in many cases. Prosperity was building, people who are poor and in need of help turn to their family, religious community and/or political organisation.
Are you seriously this stupid or are you just playing dumb?
What do people do when you point a gun at them? They do what you tell them to. So unless they figure being deported to another territory is a fate worse than death, they’ll comply.
You may have to make an example of a few in order to prove you’re serious, but people will quickly get the picture.
But again, who cares? This all so far removed from anything remotely plausible for the foreseeable future that it’s an exercise in futility even discussing it.
i’m pretty sure if enough white people decided they neither wanted to go extinct nor kill tens of millions they could think of something.
and if that doesn’t happen this ends in south Africa so they may not get a choice.
I think I generally agree with that thesis. I don’t think it could have “held out” either way from my research, except as a shell of itself, the French nationalists were attempting fairly strenuous measures but it just led to mass defection instead. For example, if they required all children to learn French, it led to parents leaving the Quebec area since they wanted their children to grow up learning a more economically competitive language. A lot of nationalists underestimate economic impacts of political decision and the simplest way to defect by a lot of people: exit.
Incidentally, many people who I interviewed regarding the Quiet Revolution heavily objected to the term, apparently due to the presence of violence during the era of change.
Reconquista was made possible by FIRST holding the Pyrenees line – for CENTURIES, and before any real Reconquista had even started yet.
yes, 20% is probably an underestimate for that reason but i expect their number gives a good idea of what the likely upper limit is, say c. 25% ish.
Various incentives could be offered, including a semi-colonial approach for the poorest places. I’m not really in the mood to go into it here, since it would require a great deal of explanation of why I’ve even entertained such a way-out-there idea let alone actually suggested it.
Failing that, there are all sorts of segregation schemes that could be implemented. This would take advantage of the mutual hostility among many immigrants – ie they’re ticket to getting the other hated groups out of their hair. Obviously expulsion should be the primary goal, but this is a decent fallback option.
That’s why I think building up Europeans’ resolve is one of the most important tasks. If the immigrants can get angry, then dammit, Europeans can learn to get twice as angry, vow-on-their-forefathers angry. Then we’ll see. Is that unrealistic? Well, looking at the sorry state of most Europeans today, it’s laughably unrealistic. But human beings always have a latent capacity to get mad, so it would be absurd to lose hope on this point.
Very few Moors and Jews converted to Christianity.
Trust your lying eyes. I happen to visit France frequently. And not just Isle de France or Lyon or Marseilles, where most Muslims live. They’re all over the place. Not just Algerians, but Senegalese and other Muslim Africans.
How can you possibly reliably eyeball such a thing? Even if you’re seeing mothers pushing prams three or four kids full, don’t forget you’re not seeing the mothers pushing prams with no kids. So until I see some actual stats, I’m not going to simply assume they’re up around 3.0, when they may well be below 2.0. (Fingers crossed!)
“On a more optimistic note, I agree that there are better and worse outcomes in the future for the native Europeans….Slow assimilation is also happening…”
“Slow assimilation” also means GENETIC assimilation – i.e., gradual alteration of the racial/ethnic characteristics of the host populations (most of which are unique European ethno-racial population units, precious products of thousands of years of human biological evolution, that cannot be replaced or “re-created” once altered into something else, and that are concentrated in geographically small countries). Are you sure you want this?
Of course, as with everything else, it is the exact numbers involved that are most important; and even this is preferable to complete wipeout or civilizational replacement.
“Whoever thought that this was a ‘good policy‘, should be held accountable. Maybe that would start the recovery process in the society and people would stop being so scared.”
Bingo!
Trump was elected because working people were not willing to take the immediate level of economic pain that the system demanded. What you are suggesting would be more immediately painful still.
Many western countries have an economy based on a pumped up housing market, the price of property, ( value of assets held as collateral by banks) would plummet if immigration was only stabilised. If it was actually reversed a vast number of people would find themselves in negative equity. A country would have to be in WW3 before such sacrifices could be asked of the population.
Never trust official figures. That’s all I’m saying.
Seems like a good point to haul out the old saying ‘the fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one great thing’. So what if there are some amateurish policy proposals about local taxes in Bretagne or whatever for the reporters to chuckle at. If the oh so clever elites are 180 degrees wrong, stubbornly wrong, on the by-far most crucial question … the very survival of the French nation … not much use, are they?
Never visited Brussels myself but don’t the muslim hordes live right next to the center of power, in Molenbeek or something like that. I seem to recall some reportage from when they blew up the Brussels subway. Then mostly silence.
There is only one moral to be taken from his terrible French-made catastrophe:
‘Viktor Orban, for God’s sake, stick to your guns’.
Incentives for leaving/disincentives for staying. These could both be peaceful.
Incentives: a check for leaving – given only to the young to maximize effect. Free one-way transport. If you go back, you can trade with us – have access to some of our technology.
Disincentives: complete economic segregation. No welfare. Not even white managers. Must use your own banks. Our roads are toll roads. You can dig wells for water. Regulate your day around the sun, and chop wood for heat.
I’m afraid it is unlikely that there will be zero violence. Technically, we are already long past that point, and heading to a worse future. Obviously, the moral goal would be to minimize the violence going forward. There are only two rational options open to Europe, if it is to survive. #1: Develop a workable policy where the percentage of Europeans in Europe never decreases, but mostly grows. Or #2: Send them back. And I don’t think the invaders will accept #1.
There are virtually no French in Algeria today, correct?
Well, maybe the French could do the same to the Algerians and the rest and let’s not argue about what it’s called.
I used to know a guy named Musselman. He didn’t know that his name meant Muslim, or Moor. He was European-looking, though kind of swarthy.
I still puzzle over how that could be his surname. If he had an ancestor that converted, one would think that he would try to hide the fact. Maybe, it was some kind of joke name, for having a swarthy ancestor.
The joy of the cuck. What a faggot.
The trouble is that the power people, the people who actually run western Europe, couldn’t give a damn about the views expressed here, and are, in fact, actually hostile to the sentiments espoused in this forum.
If you want to understand the mindset of the euro elite, just read The Economist, their in-house magazine and lodestar.
The Economist, reliably, week after damned week, urges on the elitists to accept ever more third world immigration into Europe. In fact, they advocate uncontrolled and unlimited third world immigration.
The rationale, is, in their opinion that it is ‘good for economic growth’ and ‘will save Europe’.
One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Honestly, given that immigrants skew young, I thought the number of newborn Muslims in France would be bigger than 20% by now. Still, the trend is clear for the future.
Not all the subsaharan Africans in France are muslims; some come from countries where Christians are a majority or form a large part of the population (the French Caribbean, Cameroon, Gabon, the Congo, the Ivory Coast)
Not all the subsaharan Africans in France are muslims; some come from countries where Christians are a majority
I know that — in fact it was precisely my point, that counting Muslims alone seriously underestimates the “defrancization” of French society.
immigrants especially illegal immigrants / refugees are often mostly young men which limits the baby making potential (but not the potential for insurgency)
if you add in an estimate for single young male illegals / refugees i think these numbers show the Paris region at least is close to slipping into an open Belfast type insurgency.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/content/uploads/2011/05/183_feature_mckittrick_map.jpg
(my guess is they’re already past that point but the French state surrendered the ground to avoid it going public)
It depends on what the in-mixture is. Europeans have mixed with surrounding regions for tens of thousands of years – Europeans are the cumulative result of those genes. That to me doesn’t seem that much of an issue, and it is likely to continue in the future under any scenario. Endlessly marrying 2nd or 3rd cousins is also not optimal.
The issue is the massive invasion of very different racial groups: Africans, Indians, east Asians, some Middle Easterners, lately even mestizos from Latin America. Assimilating those groups is more difficult and it changes dramatically the DNA profile.
Realistically, given what the European elites have managed to create, gradual managed assimilation is probably among the better scenarios.
Holding people accountable would open up the currently stifled discussion of the subject. How is massively replacing one’s population any less corrupt than ‘re-allocating‘ a few posh apartments to friends? Maybe sending Tony Blair to live out his miserable life in Nigeria would sober up the elites. Or even better in Niger.
“The issue is the massive invasion of very different racial groups: Africans, Indians, east Asians, some Middle Easterners, lately even mestizos from Latin America. Assimilating those groups is more difficult and it changes dramatically the DNA profile.”
This was exactly my point. The previous “mixings of Europeans” were almost entirely with other European ethnic groups.
“Maybe sending Tony Blair to live out his miserable life in Nigeria would sober up the elites. Or even better in Niger.”
The comeuppance needs to be a LOT harsher than that – and involve many more than just the douchebag Blair (although that WOULD be fun to watch).
Then the population deserves everything that’s coming to it.
It works on the nation state the same way. Quebec had a growing population and faced no enemies over the border. It was a couch potato entity.
Many a true word said in jest. Poland has just asked for an American military base on its territory, and it is highly anti immigrant all of a sudden what explains this?
Those states are dying, and that is when the emergent properties of states come to the fore.Merkel was perhaps very wise to bring in a few million immigrants. What is going to happen in Germany a without her will not be pretty.
I’m sceptical of the idea that a sufficiently large sample of identical twins have been reared in sufficiently different environments, paired with sufficiently different partners, and have produced numbers of descendants sufficiently similar to each other to say anything of the kind.
If you want Germany to be Pakistan North, rather than the homeland of the Deutsche Volk, well I suppose that’s the way to go.
Good for the overspill of Pakistani genetics, but not much help for the people of Beethoven, Goethe, Gauss, Benz, Bismarck, Wagner etc etc.
Well, I must concede that Economist type thinking is the current zeitgeist.
the cheap labor type immigrant populations have an unusual population pattern where you have the “couple” part of the population with the usual pyramidal type distribution and then on top of that there is a large bloc of single young men so i think you’re both right – the number of children currently being produced by the “couple” part is c. 20-25% but the young male part is out of proportion to that.
Anyway, you’re talking crap.
There is at present a very very strong political/elitist move – not least led by Germany – towards fully federal Europe in the near future. In this context ‘German population’ will be as much as an irrelevance to the unitary EU state as ‘Virginia population’ is to the USA as an entirety.
The EU population is massive and stable. Any and all the ‘workers’ Germany supposedly ‘needs’ can be found within the EU.
those nations are being murdered.
and obviously so – if non-replacement level reproduction is a problem did Merkel make any attempt to increase native reproduction?
none of them did – not Merkel, not Macron, not Sarkozy, not Blair – none of them ever even suggested it
none of them made any effort to find out what has caused the massive drop in sperm rate
their only policy has been replacement levels of immigration
genocide
On one hand we’re told that 50% of jobs are going to be automated, on the other that countries need to maintain their numbers or grow in order to survive. I say present demographic trends are an adjustment to future times, when labor will no longer be a priced commodity. A Germany with 40 million genuine Germans will be more productive than a Germany with 120 million inhabitants recruited from all over the Third World.
Anyway, unless one is foolish enough not to understand the reality of exponential growth, adjustment of national fertility rates to a steady state somewhere near replacement is a necessity.
I agree the population growth equals economic growth analysis is soon going to be proved wrong and there will be a lot of unemployed people chasing the jobs that can not be automated. Be that as it may, the countries that are most opposed to immigration are those such as Poland where lots of natives, especially the young and qualified, are leaving the country. Quite a contrast to Britain and France where the population is growing due to non-European immigration . So economically successful countries like the UK are going to survive as states but not nations while poor countries like Poland will survive only as smaller nations of older people, but collapse as states and rely on the EU and US to defend, subsidize, and employ their young people at good pay. It’s already started, as Gunnar Heinsohn predicted.
It’s not meaningless at all. For a start, the policy implications are that migrant flows should be directed to the highest-migration, most ‘cosmopolitan’ parts of Western Europe rather than spread out over the continent, that the Schengen open internal borders (particularly between East and West) need to be ended, and that the western powers need to stop trying to preach to the east about the benefits of multiethnic societies. Those are three very big policy implications right there. They may not be on the horizon at the moment, but they’re all going to be much easier to do than massive population transfers.
Down the road, maybe the nationalists can even salvage parts of western European countries by negotiating for some kind of partition.
“that as it may, the countries that are most opposed to immigration are those such as Poland where lots of natives, especially the young and qualified, are leaving the country”
1) The world is overpopulated anyway and I don’t think a somewhat smaller Polish population would be a disaster. Poland has 38 million people today, they could easily survive with half that. Might lead to some nice consequences like the restoration of old growth forests with European bison wandering through them.
2) As Eastern Europe gets richer and converges with the western powers, the flow of Poles, Czechs, Hungarians etc. will slow and then reverse. Prague for example is already nearly converging on western European income levels. Maybe down the road they can get back-migration from Americans of Slavic descent as well: I suspect that fifty years down the road Poland might be a more attractive place to live, in some regards, than America.
3) All this is contigent on the European Union / Schengen continuing to exist in their current form. I don’t think they will last more than another decade or two, and if they do, Poland won’t be a part of them. The political and value differences are becoming insurmountable.
There’s a Russian one with a similar message: “A bad dancer is hindered even by his dick”.
I can assure you that the majority of the UK working class, as opposed to the capitalists/political class, would dearly like to see the UK’s massive Polish immigrant population return home.
In a generation most of the population will be surplus due to their jobs being done by weak AI, so that 20% of people will be wards of the state along with a lot of poverty-prone whites and most people doing repetitive clerical or production work . Difficult to see how the current system of government will survive that. There maybe classes of people with less rights expulsions of immigrant communities and payment of the Third World to take them, along with demand for stronger AI that can perform economic miracles, Whoever invents less–weak AI will become the first trillionaire.
Fermi said nuclear chain reaction was 50 years away, two years later he had created one. He also wondered why there were no aliens. One explanation is none get past the invention of a machines that can think. Last year an AI for playing the Chinese game Go was sort of loosened up and taught itself to beat the champion at Go and also was able to play chess, where it wiped the floor against other chess computers (actually their human programmers), by using “insane attacking” and subtle positional advantage. As in the Chinese proverb “It is later than you think”.
Within fifty years strong AI (an artificial general intelligence) will exist, be capable of getting round human control, and any objective it has will entail being secure from being turned off. Devising safe AGI seems quite likely to take longer than simply inventing an artificial general intelligence. The first AGI is likely to be incredibly intelligent, dangerous and subtle. So I expect no bison–or humans.
The thing is, these single immigrants you mention have large families at home, ready to join them as soon as they’re legal in France. And a great number of those will get local white (and black) women pregnant as well.
Family reunification will close the gap.