T
Ted
Guest
On Jul 7, 1:14 pm, Cerberus <uyrav23lrs...@hotblast.e4ward.com> wrote:
> Demography Is Destiny
>
> Jared Taylor
>
> I have been asked to speak on the subject, "Demography is Destiny."
> The phrase is attributed to the 19th century French mathematician and
> philosopher, August Comte (1798-1857), who is known as the "father of
> sociology." By it he meant that as a rise or fall in birth rates works
> itself out over the decades, it affects everything in a society. He
> would therefore have understood immediately the significance of
> something now happening in many nations of the West: The average
> number of children each woman has is closer to one than to the 2.2
> necessary to maintain the population. When a society does reach a
> birth rate of one child per woman, each generation is half the size of
> the previous one, and that society is headed for extinction.
>
> It is, indeed, worrying that birth rates are so low in the most
> advanced, Western countries, as well as in certain successful Asian
> ones. No one has a definitive explanation of why the world's richest
> women have the fewest children, but the self-absorption that seems to
> accompany material wealth seems to be a big part of it. If Westerners
> really do think about their motives for refusing to reproduce-if the
> problem is not pure narcissism-the thinking probably runs like this:
> "The world is overpopulated anyway, so a shortfall in my country will
> be made up for by people in Africa or Latin America." In other words,
> millions more Guatemalans and Nigerians will make up for fewer
> Italians or Germans. The assumption, of course, is that all human
> populations are essentially interchangeable. We shall come back to
> this assumption later, for it is a crucial part of how demography
> becomes destiny.
>
> There is one aspect of the demography question August Comte did not
> anticipate, and that is immigration. Immigration of the kind we have
> today--millions of aliens moving into already-settled territory,
> taking
> up residence or even citizenship--is a recent thing. It is not that
> people did not move about in the past. But up until just a few decades
> ago, if your people wanted to move into someone else's territory, they
> would fight you. People did not willingly step aside and let large
> numbers of aliens settle on their land.
>
> The spread of Arabs across north Africa and into Europe, the peopling
> of whole continents by Europeans, the Japanese penetration of Asia-
> this was not immigration. It was conquest. The unopposed arrival of
> large numbers of unarmed aliens into already-occupied territory is
> something new.
>
> There is a clear pattern to this unprecedented movement of peoples. It
> is a mass migration from the Third World to the developed world. Put
> in racial terms, it is non-whites moving into lands that were
> previously all or overwhelmingly white.
>
> There are two reasons for this. One is that Westerners have created
> the most successful, agreeable societies in the history of mankind. In
> material terms, for an African to move to Europe or for a Honduran to
> move to the United States represents an instant, astonishing advance.
> It is hardly surprising that millions of people are desperate to leave
> their hard-scrabble lives for even the crumbs of the wealthiest
> societies ever known.
>
> The second reason for this pattern is that only Western-white-
> societies permit immigration. There are countless Indonesians and
> Filipinos who would love to live in Japan, and enjoy the wealth the
> Japanese people have created for themselves, but they cannot. The
> Japanese forbid it. The Japanese understand that demography is
> destiny, and they have the quaint preference that their destiny remain
> Japanese. The same is true for the people of South Korea, Taiwan,
> Singapore, and even Malaysia. They understand the importance of
> demography, and they want to keep their destinies in their own hands.
>
> In the West it is obligatory to believe--indeed, it is considered
> immoral not to believe--that all populations are essentially
> replaceable. If Caribbean blacks or Bangladeshi Muslims come to this
> country [Britain], they will turn into good little Welshmen, or
> Englishmen, or Scots. And to the extent that they do not, whatever
> differences remain will ginger up the poor, colorless local stock.
>
> This view--that it is desirable to supplement or even replace one's
> own people with aliens--is the greatest threat the West faces. We have
> faced great threats before--the Mongol invasions, the Arab advance,
> Turks at the gates of Vienna--but these were physical, armed threats
> that we met with physical force. Never before have we been
> psychologically unmanned, never before did we believe that welcoming
> the Arabs or opening our borders to the Turks would lead to
> "enrichment" or bring the benefits of "diversity." This delusion, if
> it persists, will be our death knell.
>
> Part of the idea that Europeans can be successfully and happily
> replaced by non-whites is the trendy view that race is not a
> biological category but a sociological or optical illusion. Never mind
> that people of different races differ greatly in appearance and
> behavior; or that they can be distinguished unerringly by DNA
> comparison at just 100 randomly-selected sites; or that they may react
> differently to medical treatment. Anyone who is incapable of detecting
> important differences between, say, an Australian Aborigine and a
> Dane, or an African Pygmy and a Korean is just plain - brilliant.
> Because only very intelligent people could possibly persuade
> themselves of something so obviously wrong and stupid.
>
> Craig Ventner of the Human Genome Project in America once famously
> claimed that all humans are essentially identical twins. Every
> institution in the West has fallen into line with this view that
> racial or ethnic differences are so trivial that only demons or morons
> could notice or care about them.
>
> In fact,when different peoples mix, for whatever reason, two things
> happen. The first-without fail--is conflict. When the Arabs of
> Northern Sudan and the blacks of Southern Sudan meet each other, they
> do not say to themselves, "Here is my biological equivalent, my
> identical twin," and then fall into each others' arms. Instead, they
> say to themselves, "These people are different from us, and I find
> these differences repulsive." They then go on to kill each other with
> no compunction.
>
> The same consciousness of differences is at the root of every
> wholesale conflict anywhere in the world. Whether it is Hutus hacking
> Tutsis to pieces in Rwanda, or Sinhalese and Tamils blowing each other
> up in Sri Lanka, whether it is ex-Yugoslavia or Palestine, it is
> always the same: Wherever people are most diligently killing each
> other it is because people who differ in some significant way are
> trying to share territory. The very diversity that we in the United
> States and you in Britain are constantly being exhorted to "celebrate"
> is the cause of the most intensely murderous conflicts anywhere.
>
> Today, it is not war of the conventional kind that creates mountains
> of corpses; it is the frictions of "diversity." The UN did a careful
> study of the period from 1989 to 1992, and found there were 82
> conflicts that created more than a thousand deaths. Of this number,
> 79--no fewer than 79 out of 82--were the result of religious or ethnic
> hatred within borders. These were fights inside countries, not between
> them. This is how the world celebrates "diversity;" with guns and
> knives and anything else people can lay their hands on.
>
> The United States has its share of conflict, of course. So far, we
> have not piled up corpses by the thousand, probably because the
> majority white population has submitted supinely to ridicule,
> demonization, and dispossession. However, the United States now has
> plenty of violence that does not even involve whites, and the seeds
> have been planted for much worse to come.
>
> Blacks and Hispanics each now make up about 13 percent of the US
> population. Hispanics are increasing much more rapidly than blacks,
> and are pushing them out of many poor parts of the western United
> States. It is between these two groups that friction is worst.
>
> California high schools have become a juvenile version of Sudan or Sri
> Lanka. Blacks and Hispanics somehow do not think of each other as
> interchangeable groups of identical twins. The constant threat of
> violence hangs over schools with large numbers of blacks and
> Hispanics, and newspapers duly report lunch-time riots and after-
> school brawls, in which a black and a Hispanic begin to fight and
> hundreds of students then square off along racial lines. It may take
> dozens of riot police, and helicopters hovering overhead to stop the
> mayhem. If it were not for uniformed police patrolling the halls, and
> metal detectors to keep out smuggled weapons, the body count in the
> high schools might put California on the UN's list.
>
> Just last May, a rumor ran through the schools of Los Angeles that the
> Hispanics had chosen May 5th=-the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo--to
> launch an all-out attack on black students. As it turned out, there
> was no mass violence. Perhaps the increased police presence
> discouraged the Hispanics or maybe there never was a plan, but this
> was such a believable rumor that 51,000 students stayed home from
> school that day. This was about one in five middle and high school
> students or nearly twice the usual rates of absence.
>
> We find similar racial violence in prisons in the United States. Many
> are in a constant state of lockdown, which is to say that the men are
> cooped up in their cells and not allowed to mix. If they mingle in the
> chow line or in the exercise yards, blacks and Hispanics and sometimes
> whites--who are now the least aggressive prison group--will be at each
> others' throats. The conflict is so predictable, and the consequences
> so disagreeable that the one constant demand from prisoners is for
> segregated housing.
>
> Segregation would make life easier for guards, too, since levels of
> violence would drop sharply, and prison authorities would be spared
> the embarrassment of the dead and wounded. Segregation would make
> prisons safer, ...
>
> read more
> Demography Is Destiny
>
> Jared Taylor
>
> I have been asked to speak on the subject, "Demography is Destiny."
> The phrase is attributed to the 19th century French mathematician and
> philosopher, August Comte (1798-1857), who is known as the "father of
> sociology." By it he meant that as a rise or fall in birth rates works
> itself out over the decades, it affects everything in a society. He
> would therefore have understood immediately the significance of
> something now happening in many nations of the West: The average
> number of children each woman has is closer to one than to the 2.2
> necessary to maintain the population. When a society does reach a
> birth rate of one child per woman, each generation is half the size of
> the previous one, and that society is headed for extinction.
>
> It is, indeed, worrying that birth rates are so low in the most
> advanced, Western countries, as well as in certain successful Asian
> ones. No one has a definitive explanation of why the world's richest
> women have the fewest children, but the self-absorption that seems to
> accompany material wealth seems to be a big part of it. If Westerners
> really do think about their motives for refusing to reproduce-if the
> problem is not pure narcissism-the thinking probably runs like this:
> "The world is overpopulated anyway, so a shortfall in my country will
> be made up for by people in Africa or Latin America." In other words,
> millions more Guatemalans and Nigerians will make up for fewer
> Italians or Germans. The assumption, of course, is that all human
> populations are essentially interchangeable. We shall come back to
> this assumption later, for it is a crucial part of how demography
> becomes destiny.
>
> There is one aspect of the demography question August Comte did not
> anticipate, and that is immigration. Immigration of the kind we have
> today--millions of aliens moving into already-settled territory,
> taking
> up residence or even citizenship--is a recent thing. It is not that
> people did not move about in the past. But up until just a few decades
> ago, if your people wanted to move into someone else's territory, they
> would fight you. People did not willingly step aside and let large
> numbers of aliens settle on their land.
>
> The spread of Arabs across north Africa and into Europe, the peopling
> of whole continents by Europeans, the Japanese penetration of Asia-
> this was not immigration. It was conquest. The unopposed arrival of
> large numbers of unarmed aliens into already-occupied territory is
> something new.
>
> There is a clear pattern to this unprecedented movement of peoples. It
> is a mass migration from the Third World to the developed world. Put
> in racial terms, it is non-whites moving into lands that were
> previously all or overwhelmingly white.
>
> There are two reasons for this. One is that Westerners have created
> the most successful, agreeable societies in the history of mankind. In
> material terms, for an African to move to Europe or for a Honduran to
> move to the United States represents an instant, astonishing advance.
> It is hardly surprising that millions of people are desperate to leave
> their hard-scrabble lives for even the crumbs of the wealthiest
> societies ever known.
>
> The second reason for this pattern is that only Western-white-
> societies permit immigration. There are countless Indonesians and
> Filipinos who would love to live in Japan, and enjoy the wealth the
> Japanese people have created for themselves, but they cannot. The
> Japanese forbid it. The Japanese understand that demography is
> destiny, and they have the quaint preference that their destiny remain
> Japanese. The same is true for the people of South Korea, Taiwan,
> Singapore, and even Malaysia. They understand the importance of
> demography, and they want to keep their destinies in their own hands.
>
> In the West it is obligatory to believe--indeed, it is considered
> immoral not to believe--that all populations are essentially
> replaceable. If Caribbean blacks or Bangladeshi Muslims come to this
> country [Britain], they will turn into good little Welshmen, or
> Englishmen, or Scots. And to the extent that they do not, whatever
> differences remain will ginger up the poor, colorless local stock.
>
> This view--that it is desirable to supplement or even replace one's
> own people with aliens--is the greatest threat the West faces. We have
> faced great threats before--the Mongol invasions, the Arab advance,
> Turks at the gates of Vienna--but these were physical, armed threats
> that we met with physical force. Never before have we been
> psychologically unmanned, never before did we believe that welcoming
> the Arabs or opening our borders to the Turks would lead to
> "enrichment" or bring the benefits of "diversity." This delusion, if
> it persists, will be our death knell.
>
> Part of the idea that Europeans can be successfully and happily
> replaced by non-whites is the trendy view that race is not a
> biological category but a sociological or optical illusion. Never mind
> that people of different races differ greatly in appearance and
> behavior; or that they can be distinguished unerringly by DNA
> comparison at just 100 randomly-selected sites; or that they may react
> differently to medical treatment. Anyone who is incapable of detecting
> important differences between, say, an Australian Aborigine and a
> Dane, or an African Pygmy and a Korean is just plain - brilliant.
> Because only very intelligent people could possibly persuade
> themselves of something so obviously wrong and stupid.
>
> Craig Ventner of the Human Genome Project in America once famously
> claimed that all humans are essentially identical twins. Every
> institution in the West has fallen into line with this view that
> racial or ethnic differences are so trivial that only demons or morons
> could notice or care about them.
>
> In fact,when different peoples mix, for whatever reason, two things
> happen. The first-without fail--is conflict. When the Arabs of
> Northern Sudan and the blacks of Southern Sudan meet each other, they
> do not say to themselves, "Here is my biological equivalent, my
> identical twin," and then fall into each others' arms. Instead, they
> say to themselves, "These people are different from us, and I find
> these differences repulsive." They then go on to kill each other with
> no compunction.
>
> The same consciousness of differences is at the root of every
> wholesale conflict anywhere in the world. Whether it is Hutus hacking
> Tutsis to pieces in Rwanda, or Sinhalese and Tamils blowing each other
> up in Sri Lanka, whether it is ex-Yugoslavia or Palestine, it is
> always the same: Wherever people are most diligently killing each
> other it is because people who differ in some significant way are
> trying to share territory. The very diversity that we in the United
> States and you in Britain are constantly being exhorted to "celebrate"
> is the cause of the most intensely murderous conflicts anywhere.
>
> Today, it is not war of the conventional kind that creates mountains
> of corpses; it is the frictions of "diversity." The UN did a careful
> study of the period from 1989 to 1992, and found there were 82
> conflicts that created more than a thousand deaths. Of this number,
> 79--no fewer than 79 out of 82--were the result of religious or ethnic
> hatred within borders. These were fights inside countries, not between
> them. This is how the world celebrates "diversity;" with guns and
> knives and anything else people can lay their hands on.
>
> The United States has its share of conflict, of course. So far, we
> have not piled up corpses by the thousand, probably because the
> majority white population has submitted supinely to ridicule,
> demonization, and dispossession. However, the United States now has
> plenty of violence that does not even involve whites, and the seeds
> have been planted for much worse to come.
>
> Blacks and Hispanics each now make up about 13 percent of the US
> population. Hispanics are increasing much more rapidly than blacks,
> and are pushing them out of many poor parts of the western United
> States. It is between these two groups that friction is worst.
>
> California high schools have become a juvenile version of Sudan or Sri
> Lanka. Blacks and Hispanics somehow do not think of each other as
> interchangeable groups of identical twins. The constant threat of
> violence hangs over schools with large numbers of blacks and
> Hispanics, and newspapers duly report lunch-time riots and after-
> school brawls, in which a black and a Hispanic begin to fight and
> hundreds of students then square off along racial lines. It may take
> dozens of riot police, and helicopters hovering overhead to stop the
> mayhem. If it were not for uniformed police patrolling the halls, and
> metal detectors to keep out smuggled weapons, the body count in the
> high schools might put California on the UN's list.
>
> Just last May, a rumor ran through the schools of Los Angeles that the
> Hispanics had chosen May 5th=-the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo--to
> launch an all-out attack on black students. As it turned out, there
> was no mass violence. Perhaps the increased police presence
> discouraged the Hispanics or maybe there never was a plan, but this
> was such a believable rumor that 51,000 students stayed home from
> school that day. This was about one in five middle and high school
> students or nearly twice the usual rates of absence.
>
> We find similar racial violence in prisons in the United States. Many
> are in a constant state of lockdown, which is to say that the men are
> cooped up in their cells and not allowed to mix. If they mingle in the
> chow line or in the exercise yards, blacks and Hispanics and sometimes
> whites--who are now the least aggressive prison group--will be at each
> others' throats. The conflict is so predictable, and the consequences
> so disagreeable that the one constant demand from prisoners is for
> segregated housing.
>
> Segregation would make life easier for guards, too, since levels of
> violence would drop sharply, and prison authorities would be spared
> the embarrassment of the dead and wounded. Segregation would make
> prisons safer, ...
>
> read more