Where you see a few exceptions, I see the vast general majority.
Poland and Hungary were nations harbouring the very worst nazis. It is no wonder that at this point they are the worst anti-Arab racists, as well. It is not out of virtue that they refuse these people. It is simply more lucrative for their leaders to placate racists than liberals.
The US will become a mixing pot of Euro, Latin, Asian and African humanity, it is in no danger of the sort to which Europe is falling. Europe can not mix races, its white population is too sordid and insolent for it, it is not generous enough to give of itself, and too petty to trust.
It is a shit-pit.
It is literally laughable, a continent that must derive its last hope for survival from Poland. The fact that this can actually be said now says enough - any such statement is equal to a eulogy.
As for freedom of speech: that has never existed in Europe. Laws against certain types of speech are perpetually pervasive and ubiquitous there. In my experience, furthermore, and Ive have traveled the continent very extensively, it is only a minute minority of people that is not fascistic in its a priori intuitions.
Sauwelios is one out of perhaps 5 people I know there who have been able to keep their heads above the fascistic swamp of European intellect.
::
To compare my analysis to nazism is a fallacy, as I do not advocate extermination. I simply see that the white race has no future in Europe. It is too weak. It will persist as a third rate humanoid animal in a huge working camp, but it will not come to rulership anymore.
Are you suggesting that Polish people helped the Nazis? That seems untrue.
"The occupation of Poland by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union during the Second World War (1939–1945) began with the German-Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939, and formally concluded with the defeat of Germany by the Allies in May 1945. Throughout the entire course of foreign occupation, the territory of Poland was divided between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (USSR) with the intention of eradicating Polish culture and subjugating its people by occupying German and Soviet powers.[1] In summer-autumn of 1941 the lands annexed by the Soviets were overrun by Nazi Germany in the course of the initially successful German attack on the USSR. After a few years of fighting, the Red Army was able to repel the invaders and drive the Nazi forces out of the USSR and across Poland from the rest of Central and Eastern Europe.
Both occupying powers were equally hostile to the existence of sovereign Poland, Polish culture and the Polish people, aiming at their destruction.[2] Before Operation Barbarossa, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union coordinated their Poland-related policies, most visibly in the four Gestapo-NKVD Conferences, where the occupants discussed plans for dealing with the Polish resistance movement and future destruction of Poland.[3]
About 6 million Polish citizens—nearly 21.4% of Poland’s population—died between 1939 and 1945 as a result of the occupation,[4][5][6] half of whom were Polish Jews. Over 90% of the death toll came through non-military losses, as most of the civilians were targeted by various deliberate actions by Germans and the Soviets.[4] Overall, during German occupation of pre-war Polish territory, 1939–1945, the Germans murdered 5,470,000–5,670,000 Poles, including nearly 3,000,000 Jews.[5][6]" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupat … land_(1939
Poland was a site of tremendous conflict and death, being right next to Nazi Germany and also the USSR.
"The Soviet invasion of Poland was a Soviet military operation that started without a formal declaration of war on 17 September 1939. On that morning, 16 days after Nazi Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east. The invasion and the battle lasted for the following 20 days and ended on 6 October 1939 with the two-way division and annexation of the entire territory of the Second Polish Republic by both Germany and the Soviet Union.[7] The joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland was secretly agreed to in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed on 23 August 1939.[8]
The Red Army, which vastly outnumbered the Polish defenders, achieved its targets by using strategic and tactical deception. Some 230,000 Polish prisoners of war had been captured.[4][9] The campaign of mass persecution in the newly acquired areas began immediately. In November 1939 the Soviet government ostensibly annexed the entire Polish territory under its control. Some 13.5 million Polish citizens who fell under the military occupation were made into new Soviet subjects following mock elections conducted by the NKVD secret police in the atmosphere of terror,[10][11] the results of which were used to legitimize the use of force. The Soviet campaign of ethnic cleansing began with the wave of arrests and summary executions of officers, policemen and priests.[Note 5][12][13] Over the next year and a half, the Soviet NKVD sent hundreds of thousands of people from eastern Poland to Siberia and other remote parts of the Soviet Union in four major waves of deportation between 1939 and 1941.[Note 6]" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_ … _of_Poland
Polish are “racist”? What?
Auschwitz was built in annexed Polish territory, but not by Poland or its people. They fought until the end of the war, and suffered immense casualties. I do not understand this seeming intent on your part to marginalize them, paint them as racists or Nazi collaborators.
Neither will I judge all Europeans based on the actions of some. I am no “racist” nor the kind of thinker that paints with such broad brushes as to miss the details. Reality is in the details, and to preemptively judge someone based on their being of a certain ancestry or nationality is about the most insane and utter nonsense imaginable.
You claim Poland and Hungary resist Islamic immigration out of racism, rather than out of sensible nationalism and concern? What reason or evidence do you have for that? I see no reason to allow mass immigration of poor foreigners of different cultures and religions into any country, that leads predictably to demographic chaos and cultural war. The European people are generally against the mass immigration being FORCED upon them by their leaders. The real problem is three-fold: 1) corrupt leaders like Murk-hell and Macron who push mass immigration for many different reasons, all of them bad, 2) lack of free speech protections in European nations, leading to Big Brother societies, and 3) cultural Marxism and leftist ideology generally which has infected the minds of many people, many of them young people, but certainly does not have a grip over everyone.
I oppose those three things. Yet consider that despite all that, as I said, most Europeans oppose mass foreign immigration into their lands.
Simply because it accounts too many people as pertaining to one quality of humanity.
There are too many Whites for the White Race to be worth much for a standard. To be a white supremacist or a black supremacist means to have lowered ones standards to a common denominator that is so common that it can’t be expected to functionally produce high enough standards to actually exalt itself practically, as for example nationalism is capable of doing I the case of great nations. Nationalism is exclusivist, where racism is very generalist and holds with it no standard besides just being born from caucasian parents… which really isn’t a very Spartan commandment at all. And commandments for type-exaltations need to be able to compare to Spartan standards, as Sparta is an attempt to resemble nature, as Judaism is as well, as of course the all-surpassing will called Pallas Athena, who since the days described by Homer to its downfall initiated by Sokrates in her bastardized name, has presided over the spirit of hardness that we call reason. As Sokrates is being defeated by the work of our generation, all other things fall away to this order, all standards less demanding must fall away for the West to retain any meaning whatsoever - we must purge. We must sacrifice all of our plebeian tendencies - and what are tendencies but beings, swaths of them, a frothy entitoid foam - to the islamic and nihilist forces of capital and ownership, and let Europe become a machine of oppression as an example of terror, of how not to live for the rest of the world. As the Eastern, Western and Southern extremities of the European world-map continue to flourish, all forces of death gather in the place where the Caesars made war, and the parodic end of history repeats itself faster and faster until the singularity comes in the form of a German slogan about efficiency, a Merkelian blurp of appeasement and low pay, entropy limited to its maximum within an open system.
Void - I laud your fighting for Poland and Hungary and those few people that are reasonable - I have no intention of limiting your sympathy for the forces you sympathize with. I just have given up looking for them in actual human form - I havent found them anywhere in Europe except in Greece itself. And Ive looked, Ive spent eight years driving around the continent for a see place where I could I’ve and build. All were infected with commerce and egalitarianism far worse than anywhere in the Americas. The very worst I found Madrid, by the way. But beneath all this utterly banal egalitarianism is an undisturbed core of old tribalistic stupidity. There is a reason for these world wars to have broken out in Europe, people were wretched enough to want them, to surrender to them, and for transcontinental slavetrade to have een invented by the Dutch - its not virtue that marks the European, it is only a particularly shrewd will to power. Ive seen into the castles, locks and craftsmanship of the Medieval Germans… that shocked me profoundly, to see how intricate the things they could make to entrap and mislead even then - and as for Poland and Hungary, I always base myself on a thorough intimacy with European history, especially the past century and what led up to it - I never trust what a people says in public - that is all crafted. I look at the things that transpired amidst them throughout our time. My grandfathers father took on a Polish name as he escaped the Czars, I have ties to the Polish spirit in a weird way, but my visit there did nothing to lift my gloom. I am not sorry, as I must judge as I see things.
Parodites was right, or it looks that way - America can restore its economic logic but Europe has lost it when it lost its colonies. Without them it can only implode. The World Wars were the first stage of that implosion, the postmodernist EU is a new phase of thinning out, preparing for the second implosion. Racism is a symptom of the depletion of honour and the loss of perspective on self valuing, it is the most banal form of recognition, completely cosmetic, apathetic, selfless.
Europe will become an instrument. To whom and to what end, that is yet to be determined, elsewhere.
I would speak of the death of Europe in order to galvanize Europeans to wake up and fight for themselves and their future, but I don’t really see Europe simply imploding. Europe is too large and populous and diverse in its many countries to simply fall apart like that; what happens is that one or two small areas fall apart, and this causes the rest to recoil and brace themselves, to fortify where those who fell failed to fortify. Germany and Sweden are fucked beyond repair, and I’m sad to say this may also be true of France. But Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, former east bloc nations of course, Norway even, Britain, Austria, these are the places that will recoil once the collapse becomes more obviously undeniable in Germany, France and Sweden. I’ve been to Europe and I speak to people from there often, although I admit my perspective is still quite limited, but from what I see there is only the great possibility that the EU will fail and some European nations will return to saner nationalism, some will implode with chaos and collapse, and others will be Balkanized. Europe as a unified (not really, it never was) continent is what is coming apart, and a few of the more insane European nations; as for the rest of Europe, it will be fine. There is no longer any will for a land war nor the armies and military hardware to wage it, so at least that isn’t a concern, although in a way that would probably lead to a faster resolution.
Turkey and Russia are wild cards, but I think Russia will simply reach out support to whichever European nations don’t demonize Russia like we’re still in s Cold War, especially the Eastern European nations will get nice overtures from Russia and also financial help once the EU collapses. Turkey, who the hell knows anymore with them. But a collapse of the EU and a return to sane nationalism and national sovereignty would put Turkey back in check.
That’s the thing with distributed processing, and distributed political power, it is a natural check against cancer spreading very far. Free markets naturally isolate the cancer and contain it until it suffocates on its own.
I want to see mass deportations of any immigrants who came to Europe since 2015 and who have no education or marketable skills, who are welfare dependent, or who are in suspected terrorist lists. But of course that won’t happen, and instead it will be war. I’m waiting for the next county to leave the EU. Greece should have been the first but the Eurotrash leaders pulled a sleight of hand threat and got Tsipras to turn traitor. So it fell to Britain instead.
Who is next? Just have to wait and see. The EU is probably the worst idea for continental Europe since Nazism.
This guy thinks America and U.K. are behind European countries giving up their borders and legal procedures for dealing with refugees. I’m not sure what I think of that, since he doesn’t provide any evidence to support the claim other than conjecture, but he makes many other good points.
What all this amounts to are the death merchants of infinite economic growth that have reduced the west to mere economic materialism. In the early 2000’s they knew that the birth death model in population of the west couldn’t sustain itself with reproduction so very low and now if Swiss citizens die as an example the economic material notion is that we’ll just replace them with Nigerians or something to that effect. A warm body is just a warm body after all in any kind of economic materialist model. What this economic materialism can’t model is the unique cultures, ethnicities, traditions, and histories of people it is destroying but then again none of that can be quantified.
Essentially those that control the economies of the west don’t care as their main concern is power and function where appearances are redundant to them. The only way forward is extreme resistance and violence. Peace is unattainable, peace is a lie.
This modern (postmodern) leftist ideology of multiculturalism thinks that all people are exactly the same and perfectly interchangeable from one culture to another, like pieces on a game board or something. It’s nonsense. Also, the birth rate issue isn’t even a problem, MIT did a study showing there is no correlation between an aging population and declining GDP.
"
Abstract
Several recent theories emphasize the negative effects of an aging population on economic growth, either because of the lower labor force participation and productivity of older workers or because aging will create an excess of savings over desired investment, leading to secular stagnation. We show that there is no such negative relationship in the data. If anything, coun- tries experiencing more rapid aging have grown more in recent decades. We suggest that this counterintuitive finding might reflect the more rapid adoption of automation technologies in countries undergoing more pronounced demographic changes, and provide evidence and theo- retical underpinnings for this argument." economics.mit.edu/files/12536
But if you want more kids in your society, maybe try to actually value that in your own people, rather than taking the Marxist route of attempting to destroy the family unit and destroy women by turning them into irresponsible, self-hating, kid-hating feminists.
This is about all I could find (so far). There is a map of the situation at the beginning of 2017. In the meantime, France’s Socialist Party has imploded and is no longer in government.
You are right that many parties that don’t call themselves Socialist or Communist are nevertheless Left or Centre-Left. Clearly that applies to Social-Democrats or Labourists. These have severed or never had links with Real Socialism as historically has been seen in Europe, and quite generally are minority members of coalitions. I maintain that their presence does not qualifies those governments as ‘leftist’. But that, ultimately, depends on where you draw the line. If anything that is not Lepen or Wilders (who, by the way, has an Indonesian mother) is leftist, including parties belonging to ALDE or PPE, then, OK, your statement can’t be objected.
Generally, I find these non-leftist parties not so intellectually conspicuous. They have proved to be unable to elaborate models that are not helpless remakes of past formulas that today translate only into isolationism. Not even Switzerland does that. And “care” was anything but absent in fascist regimes. But, OK, I guess you mean something else. Nevertheless, I suspect that leftist intellectuals would claim that the ghost world began exactly when they lost the upper hand, roughly since the eighties. Personally I believe that this claim shows very well why they lost the upper hand, together with the bottomless hubris of self-styling themselves as the only possible dignified thinkers, but it does not mean they are entirely wrong.
As for the latin ‘Communists’, I believe you are being too kind. The parties in themselves deserved indeed some respect until a generation ago, the old leaders were tough, rough yet decent people. Not their voters… These are the same who now engulf the ballots with votes for the populists. They have never seen politics and their parties as anything but lobbing, a way to reap a lot of “care” for themselves, while being dispensed of any care for their communities and their very sons (which, by the way, the begot only seldom). This is where I think you mistake Socialism for something else. Socialism was then (because no longer is), what populism is now. The promise of a niche of inflated affluence for the happy fews who hold imaginary rights (assuming that there may be rights that are not imaginary). It was the rights of the workers then (and back then they were not exactly few), it has become the priority of the nationals now (also because they generally no longer work). This attitude has been decisive for Brexit, it was the ruthless (and ineffective) elimination of a social competitor. If they really were still socialists, they would have cornered a government who offset the cost of the crisis on their shoulders. Instead they simply worked in order to have a bigger slice of the residual cake, with a naif reasoning that now appears fatally flawed, for now UK’s economy is halting while the inflation is on the rise.
It might be as you say. Still the Kanzlerin would not exactly agree, I guess you can give me that.
I think the German government implemented this ‘generous’ policy for two reasons: a) a considersable commercial surplus and the need to boost the internal market, have some inflation (which is a word that curls the toes of Germans, and yet they needed it) and possibly compensate a setback on their exports (which they do not even need in the end); b) defuse the populists, which they achieved successfully.
This can explain only the contingent case. In more general terms, welfare in my view is the only sovereign activity nation-state governemnts can still (think to) manage. As for the rest, they have almost no say on global economy, or on “globalization” tout court, and they can’t steer that unless they become part of larger governance schemes. Sure, there is a whole range of degrees of influence, yet not even the US can afford the alternative.
(The ECB would prove me wrong in a way, but… really?).
As of now, Switzerland is faring with a kind of Grosse Koalition (if I understood that correctly, because I never wanted to know anything about the Swiss government before today). None of the ruling parties has the name Socialist, but there is a Social-Democratic party. It looks similar in Austria, but the Social-Democrats should be the first party. Nevertheless these Austrian leftists do believe in borders, or so it seems.
If you mean the governments, that would be Belgium, Hungary, Poland… Even Norway.
Europe as we know it, as we have been taught to know it, probably is. And, given some common readings of ours, isn’t that what we already knew?
I mean, the man thought that the situation was already compromised by the massive urbanisation at the end of the XIX century… And was Socialism the cause or the effect?
“Necessity at work”…
Valuing one’s own society and culture, which includes genetic ancestral lineage but is not defined by that alone, more than other societies and cultures isn’t “racism”, it isn’t based on hate of others who are different. It is based on in group preference which is quite rational when not taken to extremes.
Know what is coming next, from the leftist multicultural Marxist “utopian”? Familism and childism, namely the idea that if you value your own family over other families, or value your own children over other children, you are a bigoted and evil “fascist”.
These crazy Marxists are confused about the simple fact that to value one thing more than another doesn’t mean you hate the other. But facts and logic never stopped them from trying to enact the communist wet dream-- too bad if it actually gets here these “revolutionary” useful idiots will be the first to be purged by the new State.
This is not true for the country where I am from, the Netherlands. The Social Democratic Party has had close ties even to Maoist China, and what is eft of their constituency after their recent implosion is still hard line Socialist. But it is true that the VVD, the party that finally managed to harm them after an uninterrupted thriving of many decades, is not traditionally leftist, it is only pro EU and pro-institution, pro-state, pro-top-down regulation. To my mind, this is all leftist, as rightist to my mind would be favouring small government. But this doesn’t really exist in Europe.
Note that by these standards, Hitler is leftist as well, which I think is correct, as he was a statist and the opposite of an individualist.
So Id like to reaffirm the terms as designating favouring big vs small state, privacy vs “security”, self-determination vs commune-ism.
Agreed. When the liberalization and privatization began in the Netherlands late 80s and when it pushed through late 90s, the country basically died. I have to agree.
Well, yes. My grandfather was one of the original Communists who actually killed some nazi scum in the war. It was then a party of unionizing steel and dockworkers that actually were able to influence the government. That ended with the next generation, that of my parents, the baby boomers, a generation of the laziest and most hedonistic type of people, thriving on the work of their ancestors and claiming all sorts of moral positions while never lifting a finger, never taking a personal risk. These continued to vote Socialist with a morally righteous idea about it, while turning the nation into a bourgeoise paradise for tourism and lading their children full of debts. That is what Leftism has become, to my eyes - it is realistically what it is now.
I would not do them the honour of calling them Communists. I see them simply as Statists, as anti-individualists. And I really observe that about 99 percent of Europe is in such a way anti-individual, from the racist mob-ist “right” to the statist mob-ist left, they are all directly positioned against the development of individual will and discernment.
I think all things considered, Germany has consistently been making a play for dominance in Europe at any cost. Their migration and integration policies are very different from other EU nations. German Turks actually feel, look, sound like Germans. More so than many white Germans, who are often emasculated. Turks are remarkably potent in different fields of society. Versus that strong state tied together with the most powerful type of islamic families, the French, English and Scandinavian states that all invited undisciplined Berbers (I like Berbers, mind you, El Khadire) and unorganized Arabs, who will never structurally amount to anything that is useful in a western nation except low wage labor, below industry levels.
Germany is the only nation that actually took their immigrants seriously, that had plans for them. Thus they can afford to expand immigration as the other nation drown in it.
I just know these nations have very copious welfare programs, which Id interpret as socialist.
I can relate to your sentiments about Switzerland. What a bizarre sarcophagus of a country.
I mean general policies - but I think in that sense your list also applies. Except to Belgium, which is such a void that really no political label fits them. Since the 1910’s they’ve really been not much more than a stomping ground for larger countries.
It is somewhat relieving to see that acknowledged so coolly. Yes, you are right.
The loss of colonies on the one hand and the urbanization on the other presented a loss of wealth and of aristocracy and thus of functional higher education, of method, of culture.
So… what is going to happen next? It looks as if for Europe there truly is only a way down into deeper poverty, cultural as well as economic. And that traditionally leads to war. But for war, there must be some vitality left, and I think the chances are that all Europe can become now is a slave-pit, a place of low wages, no culture, excessive media presence, and a blend between human and robotic life.
Inasmuch as both Communism and Nazism were declensions (as perverted as one might like to call them, that’s not the point) of Hegel’s Ethical State, inasmuch as they put the source of power into people (whatever they thought ‘people’ meant) and only into that, yes he was. Inasmuch as they decree that the world must be the reflection of a metaphysical-moral order (not so differently from Medieval Kings, Popes, or Puritans, not so differently from these bourgeois Socialists, although in the anemic form of Human Rights - rights to everything, to houses, jobs, parasitic lifestyles, to education without effort, to the social ablation of sexes, to the absence of pain and fear, maybe even to eternal life…), then the ever more tentacular State is the only way.
My impression is that the ‘ghost world’ is this: self-inflicted anesthesia. It’s extreme, but I guess that there is truth at the bottom of it. We have these abundant stimuli, for which we can’t stop craving, of pleasure and enjoyment. Sensuality has become masturbation basically. The rest is apathy. We abhor cruelty and repel it from our minds, and you know that somewhere is written that there would be no ‘spirit’ without (self-inflicted) cruelty. All that ‘negative’ in life that thrusts to ‘overcome’ has been taken away from us (for ‘our own good’, that’s sure). But it remained in those tough hardline commies, and because of that they knew their finest hours.
Yes. That’s how Germans do things, but it’s not only that.
Germany can rest on an impeccable public administration, an engine that exerts every ounce of government’s power on the state. As well as an excellent education system. (Both are not so different from the Netherlands’ or Denmark’s). But they have vision too, also because they are powerful enough to have it. They assess the options and then set the route - and they act. There is also a deep risk-aversion connaturated to Germany (Friederich II of Prussia was not really German, he was even anti-German; the German who thought to imitate him, Hitler, failed), and that can well explain overzealous efforts to prevent adverse situations, even if those look only remotely possible. Of course they too make sacrifices to their public opinion, and indeed 8 years of crisis were possible also with their substantial contribution to a ghastly credit crunch.
It’s no surprise that the most powerful and quite healthy economy leads the game. And it’s no surprise the German government aims at preserving and increasing this dominance. What else can they do? Their voters are in Germany, not in Greece or Portugal. (And, by the way, no one is innocent, PIGS are definitely not without blame, far from it).
As long as Germany leads in the EU (because it would still lead outside the EU), most of us will benefit from that in some way. There is an alternative, however: that the EU becomes something else, and possibly something more: the dreaded super-state, a federation (or, more pausibly, a confederation like Switzerland). That would end that situation described by Hamilton, with states saving their own banks while opposing other states doing the same thing, or requests for extra-deficit that then are not put to the promised use, possibly it would even prevent doctoring balance-sheets and extravagant pension schemes. In the end we have a common independent central bank, but no real common fiscal governance: it’s nonsense. The inter-governmental scheme will never grant the control needed. It’s no speculation, we have already seen that.
On a different theme, I guess we focus on the cultural difference of migrants to affirm our identity by denying theirs. I would like it better if Europeans had some identity to affirm that is not expressed through negative priorities. However, this resistance of migrants to be absorbed can be explained in various ways, but I would single out this: they are very backward and conservative. To put it in a very obscure formula, their psycho-rigidity parallels the populist one. I don’t think we are seeing a real clash of civilizations, it’s just a clash of psycho-rigidities. On the other hand, the only good answer I happen to know has been: ‘OK, be politically correct as much as you like, explain, rationalise, justify as much as you want these muslims and their sociopathic ideals, yet, at the end of the day, you prefer living among us, don’t you?’. And, well, yes, I do. Why is that? I don’t exactly know. I feel the only answer I can give is that this is where I come from, where I belong. And not even that is true, I don’t really come from here, they don’t speak my mother tongue, I enjoy eating things they don’t even imagine can exist, I did not attend the same schools… Yet, here I am, and I want to stay, it’s home, I have nowhere else to go. OK, in my case there are many things that can explain my effortless adaptation, but I guess that these muslims, born and bred in the same town where I live, would answer in the same way. And, as they are generally narrow-minded, as they generally have limited economical means and are not part of the sub-urbanized population, as they usually work in direct contact with poorly educated natives in a similar condition, they soak up popular characters. So much that, as you point out, they become stereotypes of the region where they live. It is known that there are second or third-generation Turks that can speak only Bavarian.
Maybe that does not explain much, it is only anecdotal evidence, but it suggests at least why I think it is not an ‘invasion’. I have no research to back this, but it seems to me that the pattern seen in previous immigration waves from other European countries still largely applies here. Dispossesed people moving to richer countries looking for a decent living, stubbornly locked in a rural mentality, but that within a generation or two become part of the landscape. And as for religion, well… did Americans of Irish or Italian or Polish ancestry massively become Calvinists or Episcopalians?
The really aggravating factor, what is really dooming Europe, has been the collapse of the natives’ fertility rate compared to the way more robust one of the newcomers (bearing in mind that immigrants have always shown sustained fertility rates), for all the reasons you exposed so well.
Then, I know, I know, some of them have an awful longing to blow themselves in airports and concert halls, often their ‘entrepreneurship’ could also be called ‘crime’. It’s no excuse, but also Irish, Italians, even Jews, had their gangsters and terrorists. Anarchists were very present in Italian and Jewish communities in America at the beginning of the XX century. (I connect the terrorism to the third essay of the GM, but no need to dwell on this specific aspect now).
