Saturday, February 7, 2015

"Russia’s Demographic Time Bomb"

Something I almost never see mentioned is, "Who is going to feed all these Third Worlders?" They cannot feed themselves.

Most people don't know it, but the only reason we have so many crops is because of nitrogen fertilizer, which is the creation of advanced technology. Without it, mass starvation by the hundreds of millions.

Africa cannot feed itself. With the whites leaving southern Africa, Africans have turned into clueless buffoons trying to grow food on farms. The same with the Middle East. Asia can, but it'll be rice. America can. Why should we feed our enemies?

If our population declines, so what? America was a better place with half the population. As for our enemies, without us to feed them, they'll die. We won't.

Americans aren't going to be replaced by Africans and Asians and South Americans. They can't even run their own Third World shitholes, which is why they try to leave and come here. And they'll destroy America and be at eternal war with each other, the way "Latins" are ethically cleansing blacks in the U.S.

For that matter, they're won't help us and instead want to destroy us.

This was written by Patrick J. Buchanan and is from The American Conservative.

In the last stanza of “The Battle of Blenheim,” Robert Southey writes:

‘But what good came of it at last?’ Quoth little Peterkin.
‘Why, that I cannot tell,’ said he; ‘But ’twas a famous victory.’

What did it really matter? The poet was asking of the triumph of the Duke of Marlborough—”Who this great fight did win.” What brings back this poem about the transience of glory and folly of war—during this week’s struggle over whose flag will fly over Crimea—is a wall chart that just arrived from the UN.

“World Population 2012″ projects the population growth, or decline, of every country and continent, between now and 2050. Most deeply involved in Crimea’s crisis are Russia and Ukraine. Yet, looking at the UN numbers, there seems an element of absurdity in this confrontation that could lead to a shooting war.

Between 2012 and 2050, Ukraine, war or no war, will lose one-fourth of its population. Eleven to twelve million Ukrainians will vanish from the earth, a figure far higher than the highest estimate of the death toll of the horrific Holodomor of 1932-33. Russia will lose 22 million people, with her population falling below 121 million. Every month between now and 2050, close to 50,000 Russians will disappear. Some demographers believe the UN numbers to be optimistic. Indeed, this writer has seen projections far more dire.

Those who warn that Vladimir Putin is trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union might explain how this is going to be done as Russia loses 22 million people, while the former Soviet republics of Central Asia—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan—together add 22 million people.

How often in history do nations with shrinking populations invade and annex those with surging populations?

When the UN was set up in 1945, Stalin wanted each of 15 Soviet republics given a seat in the General Assembly. He settled for three seats—for Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia, now Belarus. That was the core of the old Soviet Union. Yet, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine will lose together 35 million people by mid-century, a figure comparable to the human losses from four years of the Hitler-Stalin war and seven decades of Bolshevik rule.

Our War Party is demanding that we send military assistance and possibly troops to Poland, the Baltic republics and Rumania, and bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would mean America would fight Russia to defend them all, should another clash occur as in 2008 in Georgia and today in Crimea. Does this make sense—for any of us?

According to the UN, there are 6.3 million Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians. And these three Baltic republics will see their combined populations sink by one million by 2050. How would a NATO-Russia war over Estonia benefit Estonia?

In March 1939, Britain gave a war guarantee to Poland and, honoring it, declared war on Germany. That was the end of the British Empire. And how did the “Good War” work out for Poland? Her Jewish population of 3 million was largely annihilated, and, by some estimates, 3 million Catholic Poles perished. Poland then endured four decades of rule by Polish satraps of Soviet commissars. V-E Day brought something other than victory for the nation for whom Britain went to war. Today, Poland’s population is back to 38 million. But on the UN chart, Poland is on schedule to lose 4 million Poles by mid-century.

While our War Party debates where to draw the red line against Russia, the UN projects that the 10 countries on both sides of that line—Russia, Belarus, the Baltic republics, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria—will together lose 50 million people by mid-century, and another 50 million by the end of the century.

The fertility rate in these 10 countries is barely two-thirds of what is needed to maintain an existing population.

Remarkable. The century following the peaceful end of the Cold War and the liberation of the captive nations may witness population losses for Europe that exceed those of two world wars and rival those of the Black Death of the 14th century. European Man is an endangered species. European Man is dying out. By 2050, Russia, the fourth most populous nation in 1950, will be 15th, behind Egypt, and far behind Congo and Tanzania. The only Western nation in the top 14 will be the USA. But most Americans will then trace their ancestry to Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Since 1914, all the great European empires—British, French, German, Russian, Italian—have vanished. All the great armies and navies have melted away. All are being invaded and repopulated by African, Asian, and Middle Eastern peoples they once ruled. And almost all of the native-born populations of Europe are aging and dying and passing away.

“This is how the world ends,” said T.S. Eliot, “Not with a bang but a whimper.” Like Southey, he, too, may have got it right.


A.B. Prosper said...

I couldn't agree with you more on the population issue, the US and the world would be measurably nicer with less people in it.

I also have to say, rising food prices are going to make the world a much less pleasant place. Our main goal will be preventing a Camp of the Saints situation.

As for ethnic strife, its ongoing here in California Hispanic vs. Black and as soon as the Feds or States shuts down one guy, another pops up.

Its a very low grade ethic civil war interestingly where Whites don't seem to have to take sides. Yet anyway.

RE: situation in Russia and the West isn't very good but Russia did have its first natural population growth in two decades back in 2013.

As noted also its TFR is the highest in Southern, Central or Eastern Europe and with the current religious resurgence has a chance of rising above replacement.

There is also some preliminary evidence that younger Russians eschew excess vodka and one would hope harder drugs.

Russia has hope unlike the West

That said, its population has never been that high, its a hard place to live.

Lower death rates aside, the rest of Europe is screwed

Unlike the conventional wisdom this should have been expected, all of Europe is grossly overcrowded and high urbanized with many people having no way to make a living. Its only logical populations should decline

I don't know why so many people have trouble understanding that with upwards 40% of peak fertile age young people with no full time work and who knows how many with low paid jobs, you aren't going to have many babies.

The numbers suggest to me that a lot of people want 2 maybe 3 kids but simply can't afford them.

I don't know how we fix it but decent Euro-Folks and other White people clearly don't want to live in a slum so the Davos crowd can have another private jet.

This is a good thing.

My guess and I know it will rankle the Neo-Liberals (who are the same warmongers Pat Buchanan was talking about anyways) but maybe some kind of economic nationalism and distributism mix is the way to go.

You change the incentives to favor domestic working and middle classes and not the rich and poor as is current and than control trade.

How we do this especially with some of the corruption levels and the Marxists is of course the real question and its way above my pay grade anyway

Robert What? said...

It is only because of the white western man's innovation and hard work that the third world invaders' populations are surging. Otherwise they'd be dying by the Millons. Essentially we are feeding and healing our destroyers.

outsider said...

I have a good excuse. I'm the world's biggest outsider. But why the devil aren't normal white people reproducing? This is still THEIR society, for now. They can arrange it into anything they want. Their opportunities are endless. And yet they seem to want it all to fade away with themselves.

A.B. Prosper said...

outsider, they don't have money enough for children.

To use US wages as an example, it takes about 2k a month + 500 per child to not live like a shit-pig or be constantly on the edge more or less depending on where you are of course

if your combined income man and woman and benefits is say 2000 per month including health care that you seldom use, how many children can you afford and still maintain any quality of life?

The answer is zero of course, maybe one. and as such you get what you get, low birth rates,

Its not complicated, make sure young people have steady work at a decent pay rate and a healthy pro-natal society and you'll have a higher fertility rate

This means however a society that pushes women to motherhood, sets business policy for the common good and grossly limits immigration and trade.

European societies being what they are do the opposite of the 1st, dabble in the second and fail on the last two.

As for the idea that people actually have power, if so they sure don't feel it and while they could take it, they do not have a better replacement ideology and frankly between Uncle Sam's Occupation and simply exhaustion from centuries of internecine European bloodshed I can't blame

To my way of thinking, the entirety of the European psyche is damaged from the PTSD of WW2.

How they heal from it I do not know but its not more Christianity of that i am fairly certain,

Héctor said...

@A.B. Prosper and Unclebob : The quantity of people is not the problem, is the quality. It seems that I, as a foreigner, understand better than you that your country has the capability to sustain far higher populations and that overpopulation on a planetary level is a myth, however the quality of the society will inhibit progress (the elite is not interested in anyone leaving this rock, such a move would undermine their power, hence transport and energy technologies have been suppressed mostly, patent system is used to block and slow down most innovation in today's society).

Ever wonder why every invention seems to be geared at improving the monitoring, control and violence capabilities of the State?

By the way the hallmarks of all declining societies is a fall in the birthrate, aging and lack of vigour, that's a historical harbinger not of hope or readjustment but of despair, whether or not your country has immigration. Just ask Japan whose culture is sinking ever to new lows and they have almost no immigration; they have collectively lost the will the live.

Many of you Americans (and unfortunately us Europeans as well as others), don't understand nature abhors a vacuum.

Anonymous said...

9 Lingering Myths About Russia: