');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
What the Nordics Get Right
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
    List of Bookmarks

      Sweden (Yes!) comes in for a hard time with the Alt Right and the /pol/ crowd on the Internet where it has basically become a meme.

      However, there’s something Sweden – and the Nordics – are doing right.

      According to Twitter demographer Cicerone’s calculations, the Nordics are the only major world region where fertility rates amongst women are not dysgenic.

      (Male fertility tends to be neutral to slightly eugenic in the United States, and probably elsewhere in the developed world, since children are not a burden so far as most male careers are concerned).

      Now consider that:

      1. IQ is usually less correlated with fertility than education.
      2. (Lower educated) immigrants in the Nordic countries all have substantially higher than native fertility.

      And it would turn out that Nordic women actually probably have eugenic fertility patterns.

      So it’s entirely possible that Sweden et al. will be just fine in the long term. It’s the smart fractions that overwhelmingly determine socio-economic success, and that smart fraction would appear to be quite vigorous. Moreover, while it does get a lot of Third World refuse, this may well be counterbalanced by its hovering up of human capital across the Mediterranean and East-Central Europe (along with the Anglo-Germanics).

      Meanwhile, Latin America is basically a disaster zone so far as dysgenics is concerned.

       
      Hide 311 CommentsLeave a Comment
      Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
      Trim Comments?
      1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

        If you are new to my work, start here.

      2. Obviously begs the question how many “Swedes” listed here are white, and how many are white women miscegenating with non whites?

        • Agree: WHAT
        • Replies: @WHAT
        With Volvo(!) contemplating leaving the country, answer should become visible quite soon.
        , @Thorfinnsson
        About one-quarter of people living in Sweden have an immigrant background. Immigrant background being defined as having at least one immigrant parent. This also includes other Europeans, and for a very long time the largest immigrant group was Finns (who are still at #3).

        Very few people with an immigrant background, let alone a non-European one, are to be found in the higher echelons of Swedish society.

        I have no data on miscegenation in Sweden, but one gets the impression that Sweden has much higher levels of ethnic segregation than other countries in Western Europe. Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.

        I get the impression that the Nordic "success" in fertility stems from its very generous social welfare benefits, which substantially equalize the consumption of families compared to the childless. Free "education" and a strong labor market with high wages also mean that family formation need not be delayed for financial reasons, though housing is a big problem now.
        , @Sam Coulton
        Swedish women are less likely than swedish men to miscegenate + native ethnic Swedish fertility is higher than every other country in Europe except Debmark and iceland.

        https://www.thelocal.se/20150402/single-immigrants-less-likely-to-settle-with-swedes

        Only three out of ten immigrant women and nearly two out of ten immigrant men were in a relationship with a Swede
         
        , @Realist

        Obviously begs the question how many “Swedes” listed here are white, and how many are white women miscegenating with non whites?
         
        Exactly.
      3. Israel is very high generally but also very dysgenic.

        What explains the massive difference between Pakistan and Bengal?

        • Replies: @AaronB
        Why would you say very dysgenic?

        For Sweden, the highly educated have a TFR of 1.8, in Israel its 2.78, significantly better.

        Sweden is still below replacement for its highly educated . Israel is maybe the only developed country where the highly educated is not just at replacement, but above. More smart people are coming on board. Sweden is still losing smart people in absolute terms, even if its shedding stupid people at the same or slightly higher rate.

        So granted Israel is gaining slightly more less intelligent people than Sweden, but its also gaining more smart people. And Israel's low education fertility rate is only about three quarters of a child more than its highest, which is not dramatic.

        So Sweden seems to be shrinking overall, but the changing composition is very slightly tilted towards smart people. Israel is growing overall, and it is gaining slightly more stupid people along with more smart people.

        I think it's fair to say both countries are experiencing eugenic trends in different ways.

        And considering that Israel has many wars to fight, its probably healthy that its growth is slightly tilted towards the middle and less educated, provided that it's also growing its smart sector, which it is. It needs those smart people to invent the weapons and tactics and industry, but you can't gave an army of all nerds.

        Israel is in a fantastic situation compared to the rest of the developed world.
      4. @neutral
        Obviously begs the question how many "Swedes" listed here are white, and how many are white women miscegenating with non whites?

        With Volvo(!) contemplating leaving the country, answer should become visible quite soon.

      5. @neutral
        Obviously begs the question how many "Swedes" listed here are white, and how many are white women miscegenating with non whites?

        About one-quarter of people living in Sweden have an immigrant background. Immigrant background being defined as having at least one immigrant parent. This also includes other Europeans, and for a very long time the largest immigrant group was Finns (who are still at #3).

        Very few people with an immigrant background, let alone a non-European one, are to be found in the higher echelons of Swedish society.

        I have no data on miscegenation in Sweden, but one gets the impression that Sweden has much higher levels of ethnic segregation than other countries in Western Europe. Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.

        I get the impression that the Nordic “success” in fertility stems from its very generous social welfare benefits, which substantially equalize the consumption of families compared to the childless. Free “education” and a strong labor market with high wages also mean that family formation need not be delayed for financial reasons, though housing is a big problem now.

        • Replies: @Sam Coulton

        Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.
         
        Provide a source for that or you're full of shit.
        , @Thulean Friend

        I have no data on miscegenation in Sweden, but one gets the impression that Sweden has much higher levels of ethnic segregation than other countries in Western Europe. Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.
         
        10-15 years ago maybe. There has been a significant increase in miscegenation in the last decade and a half. It's hard to put an exact number but a fair ballpark estimate, at least here in Stockholm, is about 20% of White women under the age of 35 and who have children have non-White kids, vast majority of them brown/black. That's what I see and I move around quite a lot in this city and I purposefully try to guard against biases. (Many nationalists often overestimate these occurances due to strong feelings on the subject).

        Also, they are shipping tons of these trash third worlders to smaller cities, with the result that Stockholm's city center is actually whiter than e.g. Oslo's, but our smaller cities less so than Norway's. Therefore, it isn't just concentrated to the capital.

        Importantly, there has also been a non-trivial rise of Swedish men mixing with brown/black women, even if the overall balance is very lopsided to the women. I'd say around 80% of Swedish men who racemix still do so with East/SouthEast Asian women. And there are huge amounts of these import women here nowadays.


        Nobody can of course know the future, but I am skeptical that Sweden has strong long-term prospects on current trends. More likely is that there were will be islands of immense prosperity, especially wealthy areas in Stockholm, with an ever-more dysfunctional hinterland. This won't matter much for elites, because they will be isolated from it, but it will not be a good experience for your working class/lower-middle class Swedes who are 40-50% of the ethnic Swedish population. They will not have any places left to go and increasingly no longer do. That's also where most of the mixing takes place, which could explain the data, though it is slowly rising in ranks beyond that.
      6. Hail says: • Website

        The Philippines’ dysgenics is the very worst of those in the table:

        – 3.43 TFR for “low education” mothers

        – 2.50 TFR for “medium education” mothers

        – 1.66 TFR for “high education” mothers

        ___________

        The resulting child and grandchild generations (given replacement TFR of 2.35, 2.25, 2.15 respectively) is disturbing:

        – Low-education mother genes: 31.8% –> 40.1% –> 48.4%

        – Med.-education mother genes: 49.6% –> 47.5% –> 43.7%

        – Low-education mother genes: 18.6% –> 12.4% –> 7.9%

        Classic dysgenics, in fact so stark a case as to be almost a “dysgenic nightmare” scenario, if education is a good proxy for IQ in among b.1980s and b.1990s Philippine women, which by this point I would assume it is.

        • Replies: @Hail

        – Low-education mother genes: 31.8% –> 40.1% –> 48.4%

        – Med.-education mother genes: 49.6% –> 47.5% –> 43.7%

        – Low-education mother genes: 18.6% –> 12.4% –> 7.9%
         
        Bottom row should read: "High-education mother genes"

        The same calculation for Romania, maybe useful as a 'control.' The resulting child and grandchild generations (given replacement TFRs of 2.25, 2.15, 2.10 for low, med., high education, respectively):

        Share of genes per generation, Romania: [Current] --> [Child] --> [Grandchild]
        – Low-education mother genes: 32.1% –> 36.7% –> 41.5%
        – Med.-education mother genes: 37.4% –> 36.9% –> 36.0%
        – High-education mother genes: 30.5% –> 26.4% –> 22.5%

        (Romania's dysgenic-fertility profile looks quite similar to Russia's.)

        A slower slide than the alarming case with the Philippines.

        _______________

        Relevant to the Philippines is China's eugenic-dysgenic profile. China is likely to make a bid to be the Philippines' protecting power in Q2 of this century, as we have already seen the early stages in the 2010s. Is the IQ gap between the two widening? Narrowing?

        Share of genes per generation, China: [Current] --> [Child] --> [Grandchild]
        – Low-education mother genes: 61.1% –> 67.6% –> 73.5%
        – Med.-education mother genes: 22.4% –> 19.4% –> 16.5%
        – High-education mother genes: 16.5% –> 13.0% –> 10.0%

        _______________

        Now for trying to estimate actual IQ 'hits':

        This can be attempted by attaching IQ estimates to the three education levels and seeing what the the next two generations look like, given the above shifts in the genepools.

        The Philippines may be currently taking an IQ hit of up to -0.5 IQ points per decade (this depends on what the IQ for the much-expanding low-education group is); for Romania, it looks to be more like -0.25 IQpts/decade (but this depends on how stratified by IQ the education groups really are); China may be lowest of the three, at about -0.2 IQpts/decade, though a lot of talent probably remains in the low-education bracket in China. China may be more like a negligible -0.1 IQpts/decade (until they stratify fully and dysgenic fertility sinks in).
        , @tamako
        This is the first time the Philippines has ever ended up in one of Cicerone's TFR tables, so I'd hoped to see some good news, but I end up seeing disastrous dysgenic fertility on top of brain drain...

        The worst thing about it is that Philippine public "higher education" is a hotbed for all the classist leftist crap alongside Bioleninism that's accelerating as I type about it. There's pressure to get more STEM graduates, so the quality of those who do get accepted suffers somewhat. And, when they fail...they shift out to more questionable courses.

        I want to hope, I really do, but if I watch us follow America (culturally) off a cliff, am I really right to?
      7. @Kent Nationalist
        Israel is very high generally but also very dysgenic.

        What explains the massive difference between Pakistan and Bengal?

        Why would you say very dysgenic?

        For Sweden, the highly educated have a TFR of 1.8, in Israel its 2.78, significantly better.

        Sweden is still below replacement for its highly educated . Israel is maybe the only developed country where the highly educated is not just at replacement, but above. More smart people are coming on board. Sweden is still losing smart people in absolute terms, even if its shedding stupid people at the same or slightly higher rate.

        So granted Israel is gaining slightly more less intelligent people than Sweden, but its also gaining more smart people. And Israel’s low education fertility rate is only about three quarters of a child more than its highest, which is not dramatic.

        So Sweden seems to be shrinking overall, but the changing composition is very slightly tilted towards smart people. Israel is growing overall, and it is gaining slightly more stupid people along with more smart people.

        I think it’s fair to say both countries are experiencing eugenic trends in different ways.

        And considering that Israel has many wars to fight, its probably healthy that its growth is slightly tilted towards the middle and less educated, provided that it’s also growing its smart sector, which it is. It needs those smart people to invent the weapons and tactics and industry, but you can’t gave an army of all nerds.

        Israel is in a fantastic situation compared to the rest of the developed world.

        • Replies: @Dmitry
        These are a lot of them Muslims, especially Bedouins, who have ten child in each family, and these Arabs are starting to overtake South of Israel. (North of Israel is already majority Muslim).

        Then Israeli governments forces the Bedouin children into the most high-achieving boarding schools in Israel, especially where there are Russian speakers, and the standards in those schools in the South are rapidly declining.

        In addition, Israel uses affirmative action and scholarships for Muslims to go the universities, so that Arab do not pay tuition fees, while at the same time do not go to army. Here they could be planning to increase education level of the Arabs so that it will reduce their birthrates. However, anger created in the Israeli secular population from this, is more likely to cause more and more Israeli high human capital population to emigrate (Israeli Jews have to pay very high university tuition fees, in addition to years in the army which are almost without salary).

        There has been a massive exodus of educated Israelis, who leave the country, and this is particularly with the more European and/or Russian speaking component of its population.

        The friends I stay with in Israel, for example, are still planning to emigrate to Canada, and anger about unfair positive discrimination for Arabs in all sectors, as well as general too large Middle Eastern population (e.g. Moroccan Jews can be annoying neighbours), and too many religious Jews (Haredim), is one of the motivations which is causing educated secular people in Israel to want to emigrate from there to Canada.
        , @Anon

        Israel is in a fantastic situation compared to the rest of the developed world.
         
        The developed world is not in a fantastic situation due to Jewish political influence from within their nations.

        The foremost example in the twentieth century being the fact that Jewish Power would not let Germans have their nation because Jews oppose European eugenic policies. Which is, in fact, the same policy of resistance to any minor to major modern eugenic policy for Europeans.

        Diaspora Jewish political power is the core supporter of modern policies that bring in dysgenic populations and discourage healthy European gentile culture that would be eugenic for smart populations.

        How eugenic the Jewish group is, in general, is debatable and difficult to ascertain outside of all of the propaganda, oppression of other groups, and overt nepotism / mafia behavior that leads to Jewish achievement well outside of individual ability that the European gentile population almost universally can only rely upon.
      8. @neutral
        Obviously begs the question how many "Swedes" listed here are white, and how many are white women miscegenating with non whites?

        Swedish women are less likely than swedish men to miscegenate + native ethnic Swedish fertility is higher than every other country in Europe except Debmark and iceland.

        https://www.thelocal.se/20150402/single-immigrants-less-likely-to-settle-with-swedes

        Only three out of ten immigrant women and nearly two out of ten immigrant men were in a relationship with a Swede

        • Replies: @Passer by

        Only three out of ten immigrant women and nearly two out of ten immigrant men were in a relationship with a Swede
         
        There are more male migrants than female migrants in Sweden, it created a gender disbalance in the country.

        native ethnic Swedish fertility is higher than every other country....
         
        Native fertility defined as that of swedish born mothers was 1,66 in 2018, i think. Nothing outside of the norm of western countries.
      9. @Thorfinnsson
        About one-quarter of people living in Sweden have an immigrant background. Immigrant background being defined as having at least one immigrant parent. This also includes other Europeans, and for a very long time the largest immigrant group was Finns (who are still at #3).

        Very few people with an immigrant background, let alone a non-European one, are to be found in the higher echelons of Swedish society.

        I have no data on miscegenation in Sweden, but one gets the impression that Sweden has much higher levels of ethnic segregation than other countries in Western Europe. Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.

        I get the impression that the Nordic "success" in fertility stems from its very generous social welfare benefits, which substantially equalize the consumption of families compared to the childless. Free "education" and a strong labor market with high wages also mean that family formation need not be delayed for financial reasons, though housing is a big problem now.

        Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.

        Provide a source for that or you’re full of shit.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Provide a source for that or you’re full of shit.
         
        Cue the "white knight" screeching.
        , @Anounder
        It's just Anglo/American cope. Anglos went around the world spreading liberalism and Americans have disastrous demographics. Negro males (note that the likes of Pajeets and more Kunta looking Arabs count) being desirable is more or less just a New Worlder thing. It was Americans who started the praise for Oriental women (see Madame Butterfly). Had a president who had bastard Mulatto children. Muricans, for all the Jim Crow and segregation don't really have room to talk on miscegenation.
        , @Thorfinnsson
        https://i.redd.it/xgtm6p7gq1a11.jpg

        Obviously, I can't vouch for this map...which claims its source is the Huffington Post, and of course even if true it doesn't note the race of partners. But let's assume it's true while I establish my priors.

        I have a Swedish background and family and have been to the country more than thirty times. I know what I'm talking about.

        While Sweden's welfare state and strong economy facilitate family formation, they also facilitate a "fun" early adulthood which gives youth the resources and time to participate in nightlife, travel, and study abroad. Young Swedes are encouraged to party a lot and experiment sexually, as well as to "find" themselves. And how do you suppose 20-somethings on vacation in Thailand for an entire month "find" themselves?

        Higher "education" is free, and nearly half of young Swedes have attained tertiary degrees. Studying abroad for a year is very common, and it's also quite common for young Swedes to work abroad for a time before returning to settle in Sweden.

        Northern European men can be for many young Western women "boring", so certain adventurous women are interested in having a lover from a more passionate, R-selected culture. This is nothing new and not even entirely the product of globohomo propaganda. In the postwar period there was a fad for Italian lovers among German and Nordic women. I believe there's even a German pop song from the '60s about this.

        If you want to hear something really unpleasant, when my brother lived in Africa he reported than in Tanzania there was a group of Norwegian (not Swedish but close enough) nursing students on vacation seeking...guess what.

        These "passionate" men obviously do not make suitable partners, and the sort of sexual dalliances women are keen to experiment with while on vacation or working abroad are not what they seek once they've established themselves and seek to start families and attain bourgeois respectability. Given the segregation and structure of Swedish society, the "marriage" (increasingly disappearing in Sweden) partner is a Swedish man.

        I don't see why there are men in our sphere who seek to defend the non-existent virtue of women from Western cultures. Or perhaps I should simply say modern, as this problem exists everywhere outside of the Islamic world. The entire structure of society promotes promiscuity, so why is anyone surprised when women partake in this? Other than those who end up murdered, there are practically zero negative consequences for them.
      10. @AaronB
        Why would you say very dysgenic?

        For Sweden, the highly educated have a TFR of 1.8, in Israel its 2.78, significantly better.

        Sweden is still below replacement for its highly educated . Israel is maybe the only developed country where the highly educated is not just at replacement, but above. More smart people are coming on board. Sweden is still losing smart people in absolute terms, even if its shedding stupid people at the same or slightly higher rate.

        So granted Israel is gaining slightly more less intelligent people than Sweden, but its also gaining more smart people. And Israel's low education fertility rate is only about three quarters of a child more than its highest, which is not dramatic.

        So Sweden seems to be shrinking overall, but the changing composition is very slightly tilted towards smart people. Israel is growing overall, and it is gaining slightly more stupid people along with more smart people.

        I think it's fair to say both countries are experiencing eugenic trends in different ways.

        And considering that Israel has many wars to fight, its probably healthy that its growth is slightly tilted towards the middle and less educated, provided that it's also growing its smart sector, which it is. It needs those smart people to invent the weapons and tactics and industry, but you can't gave an army of all nerds.

        Israel is in a fantastic situation compared to the rest of the developed world.

        These are a lot of them Muslims, especially Bedouins, who have ten child in each family, and these Arabs are starting to overtake South of Israel. (North of Israel is already majority Muslim).

        Then Israeli governments forces the Bedouin children into the most high-achieving boarding schools in Israel, especially where there are Russian speakers, and the standards in those schools in the South are rapidly declining.

        In addition, Israel uses affirmative action and scholarships for Muslims to go the universities, so that Arab do not pay tuition fees, while at the same time do not go to army. Here they could be planning to increase education level of the Arabs so that it will reduce their birthrates. However, anger created in the Israeli secular population from this, is more likely to cause more and more Israeli high human capital population to emigrate (Israeli Jews have to pay very high university tuition fees, in addition to years in the army which are almost without salary).

        There has been a massive exodus of educated Israelis, who leave the country, and this is particularly with the more European and/or Russian speaking component of its population.

        The friends I stay with in Israel, for example, are still planning to emigrate to Canada, and anger about unfair positive discrimination for Arabs in all sectors, as well as general too large Middle Eastern population (e.g. Moroccan Jews can be annoying neighbours), and too many religious Jews (Haredim), is one of the motivations which is causing educated secular people in Israel to want to emigrate from there to Canada.

        • Replies: @AaronB
        Many of the Russian immigrants to Israel really wished to go to Canada or America, and were only using Israel as a waystation.

        Israel isn't really a country for people whose main consideration is to have an easy and pleasant life in an atheistic setting and who prioritize material comforts. Its more a blood and soil kind of place. It also has a culture that is sort of Southern Europe and Levantine, which may not feel so comfortable to many Russians.

        So yes, a certain percentage of Russians, especially with less Jewish ancestry, certainly wish to leave and will do so.

        As for the fertility, its difficult to see how the story is not positive. The highly educated are at 2.78 - that means more smart people each year.

        The lowest educated are only at 3.5, less than a child more - and this will likely fall as groups like the Bedouin become more affluent.

        As for your points about affirmative action for Arabs and the like, they are valid and as in all such cases, a regrettable source of tension.

        Israel surely has its share of problems, and some resemble those found in other affluent countries.
        , @Andrey Kuznetsov
        "Israeli Jews have to pay very high university tuition fees"

        Not really. In a university academic year would cost around 11,000 nis a year, around 3000$~
        , @Mr. XYZ

        The friends I stay with in Israel, for example, are still planning to emigrate to Canada, and anger about unfair positive discrimination for Arabs in all sectors, as well as general too large Middle Eastern population (e.g. Moroccan Jews can be annoying neighbours), and too many religious Jews (Haredim), is one of the motivations which is causing educated secular people in Israel to want to emigrate from there to Canada.
         
        Why Canada and not the US?

        Also, right-wing Israelis should be quite happy that left-wing Israelis are emigrating since this would mean a more right-wing Israel. Of course, the smart right-wing Israelis should also follow Yoram Hazony's lead and have lots and lots of children (with Hazony himself having a whopping nine children).
      11. Socialism is probably dysgenic because it enables lower IQ, less educated and less wealthy people to have more children. Sweden isn’t quite as socialist as it appears on the surface. Lower income Swedes receive more in government benefits than lower income Americans but they also pay much higher taxes than lower income Americans. The bottom fifty percent of Americans pay almost no income taxes. Sweden did try a soak the rich tax system in the seventies but it didn’t work. People either left the country, engaged in income tax evasion, or cut back on work to avoid being in the high tax brackets. The most famous income tax evasion case involved the Swedish director Ingmar Bergman who was arrested and then had to be put in a mental hospital three days later after suffering a mental breakdown from having been arrested. The author of the world famous Pippi Longstocking children stories, who was being taxed at 102% of her income, wrote a satirical story about the high tax rates. Since there is less income redistribution from rich to poor in Sweden, more educated and wealthier people there are able to afford to have children more easily.

        • LOL: Rosie
        • Replies: @Macon Richardson

        Socialism is probably dysgenic
         
        Then again, perhaps it's not probably dysgenic. But what the hey, this is as good a time as any to write an anti-socialist rant. And well you should! The socialistic water supply system in your community or the socialistic sewage treatment system or the socialistic road, street and sidewalk system or the socialistic building codes to keep newcomers from building a yurt made of yak skins next door to you or the socialistic police system or the socialistic firefighting system or the socialistic emergency management system--they're probably dysgenic too. If everyone had to look after his own water, sewer, roadways (paths), neighbors, police and fire protection, we'd be a heartier people, self-sufficient and living the American dream.
      12. @Dmitry
        These are a lot of them Muslims, especially Bedouins, who have ten child in each family, and these Arabs are starting to overtake South of Israel. (North of Israel is already majority Muslim).

        Then Israeli governments forces the Bedouin children into the most high-achieving boarding schools in Israel, especially where there are Russian speakers, and the standards in those schools in the South are rapidly declining.

        In addition, Israel uses affirmative action and scholarships for Muslims to go the universities, so that Arab do not pay tuition fees, while at the same time do not go to army. Here they could be planning to increase education level of the Arabs so that it will reduce their birthrates. However, anger created in the Israeli secular population from this, is more likely to cause more and more Israeli high human capital population to emigrate (Israeli Jews have to pay very high university tuition fees, in addition to years in the army which are almost without salary).

        There has been a massive exodus of educated Israelis, who leave the country, and this is particularly with the more European and/or Russian speaking component of its population.

        The friends I stay with in Israel, for example, are still planning to emigrate to Canada, and anger about unfair positive discrimination for Arabs in all sectors, as well as general too large Middle Eastern population (e.g. Moroccan Jews can be annoying neighbours), and too many religious Jews (Haredim), is one of the motivations which is causing educated secular people in Israel to want to emigrate from there to Canada.

        Many of the Russian immigrants to Israel really wished to go to Canada or America, and were only using Israel as a waystation.

        Israel isn’t really a country for people whose main consideration is to have an easy and pleasant life in an atheistic setting and who prioritize material comforts. Its more a blood and soil kind of place. It also has a culture that is sort of Southern Europe and Levantine, which may not feel so comfortable to many Russians.

        So yes, a certain percentage of Russians, especially with less Jewish ancestry, certainly wish to leave and will do so.

        As for the fertility, its difficult to see how the story is not positive. The highly educated are at 2.78 – that means more smart people each year.

        The lowest educated are only at 3.5, less than a child more – and this will likely fall as groups like the Bedouin become more affluent.

        As for your points about affirmative action for Arabs and the like, they are valid and as in all such cases, a regrettable source of tension.

        Israel surely has its share of problems, and some resemble those found in other affluent countries.

        • Replies: @Dmitry

        Russian immigrants to Israel really wished to go to Canada
         
        There is constant flow of thousands of young people from Russia/Ukraine to Israel, and back to Russia/Ukraine.

        Most are just going for some adventure or because they are bored.

        Problem from Israel's perspective, is that the high layer (especially those with PhDs, etc) mostly emigrate from Israel, while the low layer stay in Israel.

        So the drunk gopniks from Ukraine, are fighting each other outside the bar in Bat Yam, and will never leave Israel all their life (they like it there).

        However, the physicists and doctors - go to Canada.

        -

        This also is the same story for the native population. For example, almost all best Israeli scientists and academics, live in America/Canada, etc.

        -

        Finally, excluding religious population, brown people are settling much more in Israel, and having more children.

        Illegal immigrants from Africa, do not leave and destroyed some areas of Israeli cities. Arabs, have the most children, but then there is an equal danger from Haredim (Jews).

        So, overall story, is quite dysgenic.

        -

        On the other hand, the economy of Israel could reverse, or reduce, the problem. If they would lower taxes, in particular corporation taxes, encourage more foreign investment and multinationals, reduce regulations and unionization of labour. They need to produce a lot more skilled jobs, to keep better people, and also they need to reform the immigration system and try to attract skilled workers from other nationalities (if they reach a higher income level - then they need to remove the Jewish ancestry requirement for legal immigration, and accept legal immigrants from other nationalities, but who have higher human capital).

        Israel surely has its share of problems, and some resemble those found in other affluent countries.

         
        But they do not have willpower solve even the easier problems which would be possible, for them to solve. For example, reducing power of Supreme Court, reducing power of the NGOs which undermine Israel from within, or repatriating illegal immigrants from Africa, and reducing their extreme liberalism and positive discrimination for Arabs.

        So it seems like there is a lack of to live, or instinct to live, in Israel, and their system flawed in a fatal way.

        And then remember, that Haredim and Arabs combined will soon become half of Israeli schoolchildren.
      13. @AaronB
        Many of the Russian immigrants to Israel really wished to go to Canada or America, and were only using Israel as a waystation.

        Israel isn't really a country for people whose main consideration is to have an easy and pleasant life in an atheistic setting and who prioritize material comforts. Its more a blood and soil kind of place. It also has a culture that is sort of Southern Europe and Levantine, which may not feel so comfortable to many Russians.

        So yes, a certain percentage of Russians, especially with less Jewish ancestry, certainly wish to leave and will do so.

        As for the fertility, its difficult to see how the story is not positive. The highly educated are at 2.78 - that means more smart people each year.

        The lowest educated are only at 3.5, less than a child more - and this will likely fall as groups like the Bedouin become more affluent.

        As for your points about affirmative action for Arabs and the like, they are valid and as in all such cases, a regrettable source of tension.

        Israel surely has its share of problems, and some resemble those found in other affluent countries.

        Russian immigrants to Israel really wished to go to Canada

        There is constant flow of thousands of young people from Russia/Ukraine to Israel, and back to Russia/Ukraine.

        Most are just going for some adventure or because they are bored.

        Problem from Israel’s perspective, is that the high layer (especially those with PhDs, etc) mostly emigrate from Israel, while the low layer stay in Israel.

        So the drunk gopniks from Ukraine, are fighting each other outside the bar in Bat Yam, and will never leave Israel all their life (they like it there).

        However, the physicists and doctors – go to Canada.

        This also is the same story for the native population. For example, almost all best Israeli scientists and academics, live in America/Canada, etc.

        Finally, excluding religious population, brown people are settling much more in Israel, and having more children.

        Illegal immigrants from Africa, do not leave and destroyed some areas of Israeli cities. Arabs, have the most children, but then there is an equal danger from Haredim (Jews).

        So, overall story, is quite dysgenic.

        On the other hand, the economy of Israel could reverse, or reduce, the problem. If they would lower taxes, in particular corporation taxes, encourage more foreign investment and multinationals, reduce regulations and unionization of labour. They need to produce a lot more skilled jobs, to keep better people, and also they need to reform the immigration system and try to attract skilled workers from other nationalities (if they reach a higher income level – then they need to remove the Jewish ancestry requirement for legal immigration, and accept legal immigrants from other nationalities, but who have higher human capital).

        Israel surely has its share of problems, and some resemble those found in other affluent countries.

        But they do not have willpower solve even the easier problems which would be possible, for them to solve. For example, reducing power of Supreme Court, reducing power of the NGOs which undermine Israel from within, or repatriating illegal immigrants from Africa, and reducing their extreme liberalism and positive discrimination for Arabs.

        So it seems like there is a lack of to live, or instinct to live, in Israel, and their system flawed in a fatal way.

        And then remember, that Haredim and Arabs combined will soon become half of Israeli schoolchildren.

        • Replies: @AaronB
        I think you are overstating the case for brain drain. Many leave temporarily and return, and it's also well known that Israel has a flourishing hi tech industry with high paid jobs, not to mention, the extensive arms industry and military provide tech opportunities.

        I personally know several Israeli hi tech emigres in NYC who dream of returning to Israel and plan on doing so, seeing their stay here as work related and temporary, and their hearts they left in Israel.

        You are vastly overstating the case in your other list of problems. Israel built a fence that stopped African immigration to zero, and they are frankly described as infiltrators, not dreamers or undocumented Israelis by everyone. This demonstrates more political will than any other Western country.

        The failure to deport Africans there is unfortunate, but in a diverse political system some concessions must be made even to idealistic dreamers, provided they are minor. In the West, such people have taken over.

        As for demographics, all the trends favor Israel long term - the Arab growth rate has cratered since the 90s and continues to decline, and the Jewish growth rate is going up.

        You are correct that orthodox Jews contribute much to the Jewish growth rate, but even the most highly educated seculars, we have seen, have above replacement TFR.

        The Palestinian population is rapidly aging, and there is speculation that with far fewer young men it won't be so interested in fighting anymore, and peace may cone as a result of demographic change.

        The political solutions you favor would transform Israel into a globalist economic outpost stripped of its specific character, a sterile Singapore in the Levant, with economic efficiency the priority.
        , @Thulean Friend

        Illegal immigrants from Africa, do not leave and destroyed some areas of Israeli cities.
         
        The illegal immigrants have declined in numbers from their high in 2012-14. Israel sent many of them to various Western countries and repatriated some of them. Many of them are stuck in Holot and other areas. I'm aware of the problems in South Tel Aviv but it's a minor picnic compared to the situation in many Western countries.

        A bigger problem for Israel is that it has bought into the melting pot idea for jews. The result is pictures like these:

        https://i.imgur.com/GhbHn0e.jpg

        Secular Ashkenazis, the ones who carry the brunt of Israel's output, are shrinking as a share of the population. This is often missed because the debate centers on jew vs non-jew, ignoring the damaging effects of intra-jewish miscengenation.

        Israel has a very strong smart fraction, though, and it also has a high fertility among them (as shown in the graph) so maybe all is not lost. Your story is also very anecdotal, you would need hard data to show a massive exodus of highly educated Israelis that is substantially above that of many other OECD countries.
        , @Mikhail
        Regarding folks from the former USSR in Israel, among some other things in the Jewish state, Israeli sports has benefited.
      14. @Sam Coulton

        Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.
         
        Provide a source for that or you're full of shit.

        Provide a source for that or you’re full of shit.

        Cue the “white knight” screeching.

      15. The mating habits of Nordic women won’t matter once Scandinavia is overrun with ME/African muslims. Even if Nordic women continue to bear their 2.3 Nordic babies, the muslims will outnumber them and will keep bearing 6.8 babies per woman and the muslim men will father those children with multiple muslim women.

        The Nords are doomed unless they deport the muslim invaders.

        • Replies: @AaronB

        2.3 Nordic babies
         
        Its 1.8.
        , @Anon

        The Nords are doomed unless they deport the muslim invaders.
         
        They won't be deported.

        They'll be slaughtered in the final apocalyptic war that is slated for the West, which is what they are being imported to fight.

        The war is designed to destroy Western nations in-total, as well as the Arabs as a race, leaving Israel as the only nation left standing.

        This is the final fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic idea and their scriptures.

        Read your Bible for some clues, but the Jewish texts state these facts outright.

        Our current leaders are unequivocal traitors and our destroyers: serving Jewish strategy.

        http://www.betemunah.org/edom.html

        Edom

        By Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)

        Jewish tradition gives us the following formula:

        Esau=Edom=Rome=Christianity.

        These two, Yaaqov and Esau, are going to be fighting throughout history. Later, these powers coalesce; Rome gives rise to the Western culture and its religion and it continues to fight the Jewish people.

        In the future, the children of Yishmael will rule over the Holy land for a long time while the land is
        empty, just as their circumcision is empty and without completion. And they will hinder the children of Israel from returning to their place, until their merit in the Holy land runs out.

        The Jewish scriptural reference for the below text that founds my primary claim in my opening paragraph of this post:

        Zohar Torah portion of Va’era page 32a

        alternately:

        Soncino Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 32a


        In the future the children of Yishmael will stir great wars in the world. And the children of Edom [the West] will gather against them, and make war with them, one on the sea, and one on the land, and one by Jerusalem; and each one will prevail over the other but the Holy land will notfall to the hands of Edom.

        At the same time, a nation from the end of the world will be awakened against wicked Rome. (Rome here is said to refer to the spiritual center of western civilization) and it will make war against her for three months, and many nations will gather there, and they will fall by her hand, until all the children of Edom will gather against her from all corners of the earth.

        And then G-d will awaken Himself against them, as it says, “a sacrificial slaughter for the Lord in Batzra”, and it says, “to shake the corners of the Land”. And after this, the children of Yishmael will be finished from the world. And all the supernal powers of the nations will be broken, and no power will remain above except for the power of Israel alone.

        Our festival readings during Succoth also speak to the war between Edom and Ishmael

        The Haftorot for both the first day of Succoth, from Zechariah 14:1-21, and Shabbat Chol HaMoed Succoth. from Yechezkel 38:18 – 39:16, describe the wars of Gog and Magog, the battles preceding the advent of the Messianic Era. These battles revolve around Jerusalem with the chief combatants being Edom and Yishmael (see Malbim to Yechezkel 38:2).

        The small book written by the prophet Ovadiah contains a prophecy regarding the end of Edom:

        Ovadiah 1:17-21 But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions. And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph aflame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be [any] remaining of the house of Esau;

        If Esau / Edom’s success is inversely proportional to that of Yaaqov / Israel, then it follows naturally that the punishment of Edom who now enslaves us in exile will come at the same time as the redemption.
         
        Note that Jews see Westerners in control of their own nations as a form of Jewish slavery.

        It is also worth noting that "Shemot"refers to the book of Exodus.

        The next text excerpt in this post is from the Zohar (Kabbalah) commentary on Shemot-Exodus.

        In the Zohar commentary on Shemot-Exodus, the commentary is not in regard to the past (which has no meaning in the Jewish religion as non-Jews perceive the past) but in regard to the events leading up to their future concept of the Messianic Era.

        This gives you a clue on how to understand the Jewish religion and its texts. In this instance: Exodus.

        Arguably the most relevant code in the texts, out of many codes, is that they are meant to be read as events happening in the present.

        Whomever sees themselves as historically rooted in the events of the OT, when properly interpreting it, is to see the OT as a continuing modern narrative (and therefore modern political instruction for that group).

        Exodus is not a myth that lives in the past, but in the present. Mircea Eliade documented this religious system method in his book: The Myth of the Eternal Return

        The Jews are now symbolically marching out of Egypt

        (or the West, which they view as enslaving them whenever they do not fully control it).

        The Exodus from Egypt having always been a myth (as asserted by mainstream scholars), or more accurately veiled political instruction to control and then destroy whatever enemies the Jews invent on their march toward destroying their Northern enemies as well as the Arabs.

        Acquiring the promised land in the myth of Exodus, along with the genocide of the non-Jews to get it, is modern political instruction on how to achieve their Messianic Age.

        Nothing in the below Chabad excerpt was inserted by me. It is 100% a Rabbinical edit:

        https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1391003/jewish/Daily-Zohar-Vaeira-Day-5.htm

        Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 32a

        The children of Ishmael [i.e. the Arab nations] will cause great wars in the world and the children of Edom will gather against them and wage war against them, one on the sea, one on the dry land, and one near Jerusalem. And they [the children of Edom] will rule over them [the children of Ishmael], but the Holy Land will not be given over to the children of Edom. [The children of Edom is the Christian West, for Edom is Rome (see Num. 24:19, Rashi) and Rome signifies Greece-Rome and the Roman Catholic Church, the foundations of Western Civilization]

        At that time, a nation from the end of the earth will be aroused against evil Rome and wage war against it for three months. Nations will gather there, and [Rome] will fall into their hands, until all the children of Edom will gather against it [that nation] from all the corners of the world. Then G‑d will be roused against them. This is the meaning of: "For G‑d has a sacrifice in Botzrah". (Isaiah 34:6) And afterwards, it is written: "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth..." (Job 38:13) He will destroy the descendants of Ishmael from the land, and break all the powers of [all the nations' guardian angels] Above. There will not remain any power of any people on earth, except the power of Israel alone.

        BeRahamim LeHayyim: One cannot ignore the facts. To do so entreats disaster. Read this in terms of the daily news, and substitute Arab nations for Ishmael, and the West and US for Edom.
         
      16. @Dmitry

        Russian immigrants to Israel really wished to go to Canada
         
        There is constant flow of thousands of young people from Russia/Ukraine to Israel, and back to Russia/Ukraine.

        Most are just going for some adventure or because they are bored.

        Problem from Israel's perspective, is that the high layer (especially those with PhDs, etc) mostly emigrate from Israel, while the low layer stay in Israel.

        So the drunk gopniks from Ukraine, are fighting each other outside the bar in Bat Yam, and will never leave Israel all their life (they like it there).

        However, the physicists and doctors - go to Canada.

        -

        This also is the same story for the native population. For example, almost all best Israeli scientists and academics, live in America/Canada, etc.

        -

        Finally, excluding religious population, brown people are settling much more in Israel, and having more children.

        Illegal immigrants from Africa, do not leave and destroyed some areas of Israeli cities. Arabs, have the most children, but then there is an equal danger from Haredim (Jews).

        So, overall story, is quite dysgenic.

        -

        On the other hand, the economy of Israel could reverse, or reduce, the problem. If they would lower taxes, in particular corporation taxes, encourage more foreign investment and multinationals, reduce regulations and unionization of labour. They need to produce a lot more skilled jobs, to keep better people, and also they need to reform the immigration system and try to attract skilled workers from other nationalities (if they reach a higher income level - then they need to remove the Jewish ancestry requirement for legal immigration, and accept legal immigrants from other nationalities, but who have higher human capital).

        Israel surely has its share of problems, and some resemble those found in other affluent countries.

         
        But they do not have willpower solve even the easier problems which would be possible, for them to solve. For example, reducing power of Supreme Court, reducing power of the NGOs which undermine Israel from within, or repatriating illegal immigrants from Africa, and reducing their extreme liberalism and positive discrimination for Arabs.

        So it seems like there is a lack of to live, or instinct to live, in Israel, and their system flawed in a fatal way.

        And then remember, that Haredim and Arabs combined will soon become half of Israeli schoolchildren.

        I think you are overstating the case for brain drain. Many leave temporarily and return, and it’s also well known that Israel has a flourishing hi tech industry with high paid jobs, not to mention, the extensive arms industry and military provide tech opportunities.

        I personally know several Israeli hi tech emigres in NYC who dream of returning to Israel and plan on doing so, seeing their stay here as work related and temporary, and their hearts they left in Israel.

        You are vastly overstating the case in your other list of problems. Israel built a fence that stopped African immigration to zero, and they are frankly described as infiltrators, not dreamers or undocumented Israelis by everyone. This demonstrates more political will than any other Western country.

        The failure to deport Africans there is unfortunate, but in a diverse political system some concessions must be made even to idealistic dreamers, provided they are minor. In the West, such people have taken over.

        As for demographics, all the trends favor Israel long term – the Arab growth rate has cratered since the 90s and continues to decline, and the Jewish growth rate is going up.

        You are correct that orthodox Jews contribute much to the Jewish growth rate, but even the most highly educated seculars, we have seen, have above replacement TFR.

        The Palestinian population is rapidly aging, and there is speculation that with far fewer young men it won’t be so interested in fighting anymore, and peace may cone as a result of demographic change.

        The political solutions you favor would transform Israel into a globalist economic outpost stripped of its specific character, a sterile Singapore in the Levant, with economic efficiency the priority.

        • Replies: @Dmitry

        stopped African immigration to zero
         
        That's not true. They can just fly in through the airport, and then do not leave, now. For example, a few years ago, the illegal immigrants were mainly men.

        However, when I was in Israel last year I saw large numbers of Sudanese girls in hijabs everywhere, and many,many African children (who are being born in Israel).

        So original illegal immigrants are now importing women and wives from Sudan and Eritrea, to Israel, and having very high birthrates inside Israel.

        By Supreme Court law, Israel will have to give these children citizenship eventually. So these are all future Israeli citizens. (Even if Israeli government and media, do not like to report this fact - it is legal fact).

        Now schools are closed down in Tel Aviv, to allow for these many African children.

        Moreover do you know Israel?

        My experience last year of exploring African areas in Tel Aviv - there are vast numbers of Africans, and Israelis have no control of those areas.

        Also they are not "nice Africans", but generally the more dangerous and criminal elements of those countries.

        Israel has little state capacity in this area. People imagine because a country has good missile defense, then it will have state capacity in all other areas.

        But Israel has clearly very low, almost third world, state capacity in this area of immigration.

        Palestinian population is rapidly aging
         
        That's not true. They have very large families. Most fertile population in Israel, are Bedouin, - although Bedouin don't have "Palestinian" self identity.

        transform Israel into a globalist economic outpost stripped of its specific character, a sterile Singapore
         
        Singapore converted a tropical swamp, with no land, to a habitable place where people want to live.

        It's one of the greatest achievements of second half of 20th century, to beginning of the 21st century.

        If any country, let alone Israel, could emulate Singapore, they would be one of the best countries in world. Moreover, if a country like Israel attracted the same immigrants as Singapore, who are often skilled secularist Chinese people, this would have a very positive effect on their demographics.
        , @Dmitry

        emigres in NYC who dream of returning to Israel
         
        Because, of course, it is currently nice in Israel.

        Especially for people like your New York hi-tech business friends, who probably have 5-10 million dollars in savings, and can avoid the bad housing conditions of the working and lower middle class of Israel, and will live in a very modern building there, with underground parking and professional dogwalkers.

        -

        If you walk around only in a rich area in Israel, where there are lots of good looking young couples, you might also think it was eugenic, and not dysgenic.

        But the highest birthrate areas in Israel, do not have such demographics.

        And I'm saying this and have not even visited places like Bedouin towns of South yet, which have the highest birthrates in Israel. (I will try to drive in the South next vacation there).
      17. @Twodees Partain
        The mating habits of Nordic women won't matter once Scandinavia is overrun with ME/African muslims. Even if Nordic women continue to bear their 2.3 Nordic babies, the muslims will outnumber them and will keep bearing 6.8 babies per woman and the muslim men will father those children with multiple muslim women.

        The Nords are doomed unless they deport the muslim invaders.

        2.3 Nordic babies

        Its 1.8.

      18. What is the optimal population size of the islands of Japan, under current tech level?

        Or, is that when you reach 200 mil, the only way not dysgenic for you is to go for 300 mil?

        A sudden drop of course can be bad, but look at what happened right after WWII. Or in China right after the hunger period around 1960. Rapid pop increases.

        People often talk about the rate of replacement. May I ask why is it almost axiomatically good?

        • Replies: @Macon Richardson
        It isn't axiomatically good per se. It's good if one wants to maintain and continue a cultural heritage that one has been born into.
        , @notanon

        why is it almost axiomatically good?
         
        i don't think it is any more.

        i'd say it's usually true but when technology gets past a certain point then quality > quantity becomes more important.

        (for a fixed living space)

        personally i think the populations of industrialized nations grew too high due to the labor needs of early industrial society and ideally would shrink to maybe 2/3 their current population while at the same time improving health and intelligence.

        once they're at a new optimal level then replacement would become an important marker again.

        #

        What is the optimal population size of the islands of Japan, under current tech level?
         
        my guess of 2/3 current size is just a guess.

        i think what would happen (if immigration is restricted) is the population would shrink to the point where it hit replacement - which would be a function of people feeling less crowded and the natural increase in the proportion of pro-natal genes over time as the women who most wanted kids had the most (as long as that desire was supported and made possible).
      19. @Mark G.
        Socialism is probably dysgenic because it enables lower IQ, less educated and less wealthy people to have more children. Sweden isn't quite as socialist as it appears on the surface. Lower income Swedes receive more in government benefits than lower income Americans but they also pay much higher taxes than lower income Americans. The bottom fifty percent of Americans pay almost no income taxes. Sweden did try a soak the rich tax system in the seventies but it didn't work. People either left the country, engaged in income tax evasion, or cut back on work to avoid being in the high tax brackets. The most famous income tax evasion case involved the Swedish director Ingmar Bergman who was arrested and then had to be put in a mental hospital three days later after suffering a mental breakdown from having been arrested. The author of the world famous Pippi Longstocking children stories, who was being taxed at 102% of her income, wrote a satirical story about the high tax rates. Since there is less income redistribution from rich to poor in Sweden, more educated and wealthier people there are able to afford to have children more easily.

        Socialism is probably dysgenic

        Then again, perhaps it’s not probably dysgenic. But what the hey, this is as good a time as any to write an anti-socialist rant. And well you should! The socialistic water supply system in your community or the socialistic sewage treatment system or the socialistic road, street and sidewalk system or the socialistic building codes to keep newcomers from building a yurt made of yak skins next door to you or the socialistic police system or the socialistic firefighting system or the socialistic emergency management system–they’re probably dysgenic too. If everyone had to look after his own water, sewer, roadways (paths), neighbors, police and fire protection, we’d be a heartier people, self-sufficient and living the American dream.

      20. @yakushimaru
        What is the optimal population size of the islands of Japan, under current tech level?

        Or, is that when you reach 200 mil, the only way not dysgenic for you is to go for 300 mil?

        A sudden drop of course can be bad, but look at what happened right after WWII. Or in China right after the hunger period around 1960. Rapid pop increases.

        People often talk about the rate of replacement. May I ask why is it almost axiomatically good?

        It isn’t axiomatically good per se. It’s good if one wants to maintain and continue a cultural heritage that one has been born into.

        • Replies: @J
        It is axiomatically good per se.

        We are born with a mission to replace ourselves and increase our kin. We are biological machines programmed to do just that.

        You could rebel against your very self, but it will not make you happy. On the contrary.
        , @yakushimaru
        If you argue this way, then how are you supposed to tell, per Mr Sailer, the President of Tanzania to maybe try to lower their country's fertility rate?

        The culture heritage is about the border etc. Not necessarily a fertility rate > 2.
      21. @Thorfinnsson
        About one-quarter of people living in Sweden have an immigrant background. Immigrant background being defined as having at least one immigrant parent. This also includes other Europeans, and for a very long time the largest immigrant group was Finns (who are still at #3).

        Very few people with an immigrant background, let alone a non-European one, are to be found in the higher echelons of Swedish society.

        I have no data on miscegenation in Sweden, but one gets the impression that Sweden has much higher levels of ethnic segregation than other countries in Western Europe. Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.

        I get the impression that the Nordic "success" in fertility stems from its very generous social welfare benefits, which substantially equalize the consumption of families compared to the childless. Free "education" and a strong labor market with high wages also mean that family formation need not be delayed for financial reasons, though housing is a big problem now.

        I have no data on miscegenation in Sweden, but one gets the impression that Sweden has much higher levels of ethnic segregation than other countries in Western Europe. Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.

        10-15 years ago maybe. There has been a significant increase in miscegenation in the last decade and a half. It’s hard to put an exact number but a fair ballpark estimate, at least here in Stockholm, is about 20% of White women under the age of 35 and who have children have non-White kids, vast majority of them brown/black. That’s what I see and I move around quite a lot in this city and I purposefully try to guard against biases. (Many nationalists often overestimate these occurances due to strong feelings on the subject).

        Also, they are shipping tons of these trash third worlders to smaller cities, with the result that Stockholm’s city center is actually whiter than e.g. Oslo’s, but our smaller cities less so than Norway’s. Therefore, it isn’t just concentrated to the capital.

        Importantly, there has also been a non-trivial rise of Swedish men mixing with brown/black women, even if the overall balance is very lopsided to the women. I’d say around 80% of Swedish men who racemix still do so with East/SouthEast Asian women. And there are huge amounts of these import women here nowadays.

        Nobody can of course know the future, but I am skeptical that Sweden has strong long-term prospects on current trends. More likely is that there were will be islands of immense prosperity, especially wealthy areas in Stockholm, with an ever-more dysfunctional hinterland. This won’t matter much for elites, because they will be isolated from it, but it will not be a good experience for your working class/lower-middle class Swedes who are 40-50% of the ethnic Swedish population. They will not have any places left to go and increasingly no longer do. That’s also where most of the mixing takes place, which could explain the data, though it is slowly rising in ranks beyond that.

        • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
        That's a lot.

        In London I would put it at under 10% of whites with children being mixed; a mixture of white women with black children and WMAF. A lot of the former are Poles or other Eastern Euros as well, sad to say.
        , @Swedish Family

        10-15 years ago maybe. There has been a significant increase in miscegenation in the last decade and a half. It’s hard to put an exact number but a fair ballpark estimate, at least here in Stockholm, is about 20% of White women under the age of 35 and who have children have non-White kids, vast majority of them brown/black. That’s what I see and I move around quite a lot in this city and I purposefully try to guard against biases. (Many nationalists often overestimate these occurances due to strong feelings on the subject).
         
        This is also my view. As I remember, most of Thorfinnsson's memories of Sweden are from the 90s and 00s, when it was indeed highly segregated, and things have changed a good deal since then. Still in the mid-to-late-00s, for instance, most nightclubs around Stureplan, Stockholm's glitziest district, refused entry to all but the best-connected immigrants, and as late as the early 10s, you could still run into people from small-town Sweden who had barely spoken to an immigrant their whole life.

        As for Sweden's TFR, there are two things to remember: (1) Swedish society goes at great length to put every young Swede through its higher education system -- including newly-arrived immigrants -- so a college degree is a worse proxy for intelligence here than in most other countries; (2) Even with an economy that is famously generous to motherhood, our TFR is still below the steady-state level. If Russia had our levels of welfare, I'm sure its TFR would explode.
        , @Thorfinnsson
        I suppose by now the tipping point is passed to facilitate domestic mixing, particularly in the lower classes where the higher aggression of vibrant men makes them attractive as partners. My family is also of high class origin which limits exposure.

        Earlier in this century the "vibrants" were still mostly self-contained in places like Rinkeby. I've also noted that they've actually finally started entering the workforce. You see non-white service workers now, which you didn't fifteen years ago. I had an Iraqi tax driver the last time I was there, whereas it wasn't so long ago that taxi drivers were from the former Yugoslavia or actually Swedish.
      22. @Macon Richardson
        It isn't axiomatically good per se. It's good if one wants to maintain and continue a cultural heritage that one has been born into.

        It is axiomatically good per se.

        We are born with a mission to replace ourselves and increase our kin. We are biological machines programmed to do just that.

        You could rebel against your very self, but it will not make you happy. On the contrary.

        • Replies: @yakushimaru
        We're not rabbits. If you have a country, then you know that you're at least a tad bit more than that. What kind of animal uses fertility rate to preserve their culture heritage?
      23. @Dmitry

        Russian immigrants to Israel really wished to go to Canada
         
        There is constant flow of thousands of young people from Russia/Ukraine to Israel, and back to Russia/Ukraine.

        Most are just going for some adventure or because they are bored.

        Problem from Israel's perspective, is that the high layer (especially those with PhDs, etc) mostly emigrate from Israel, while the low layer stay in Israel.

        So the drunk gopniks from Ukraine, are fighting each other outside the bar in Bat Yam, and will never leave Israel all their life (they like it there).

        However, the physicists and doctors - go to Canada.

        -

        This also is the same story for the native population. For example, almost all best Israeli scientists and academics, live in America/Canada, etc.

        -

        Finally, excluding religious population, brown people are settling much more in Israel, and having more children.

        Illegal immigrants from Africa, do not leave and destroyed some areas of Israeli cities. Arabs, have the most children, but then there is an equal danger from Haredim (Jews).

        So, overall story, is quite dysgenic.

        -

        On the other hand, the economy of Israel could reverse, or reduce, the problem. If they would lower taxes, in particular corporation taxes, encourage more foreign investment and multinationals, reduce regulations and unionization of labour. They need to produce a lot more skilled jobs, to keep better people, and also they need to reform the immigration system and try to attract skilled workers from other nationalities (if they reach a higher income level - then they need to remove the Jewish ancestry requirement for legal immigration, and accept legal immigrants from other nationalities, but who have higher human capital).

        Israel surely has its share of problems, and some resemble those found in other affluent countries.

         
        But they do not have willpower solve even the easier problems which would be possible, for them to solve. For example, reducing power of Supreme Court, reducing power of the NGOs which undermine Israel from within, or repatriating illegal immigrants from Africa, and reducing their extreme liberalism and positive discrimination for Arabs.

        So it seems like there is a lack of to live, or instinct to live, in Israel, and their system flawed in a fatal way.

        And then remember, that Haredim and Arabs combined will soon become half of Israeli schoolchildren.

        Illegal immigrants from Africa, do not leave and destroyed some areas of Israeli cities.

        The illegal immigrants have declined in numbers from their high in 2012-14. Israel sent many of them to various Western countries and repatriated some of them. Many of them are stuck in Holot and other areas. I’m aware of the problems in South Tel Aviv but it’s a minor picnic compared to the situation in many Western countries.

        A bigger problem for Israel is that it has bought into the melting pot idea for jews. The result is pictures like these:

        Secular Ashkenazis, the ones who carry the brunt of Israel’s output, are shrinking as a share of the population. This is often missed because the debate centers on jew vs non-jew, ignoring the damaging effects of intra-jewish miscengenation.

        Israel has a very strong smart fraction, though, and it also has a high fertility among them (as shown in the graph) so maybe all is not lost. Your story is also very anecdotal, you would need hard data to show a massive exodus of highly educated Israelis that is substantially above that of many other OECD countries.

        • Replies: @AaronB

        Secular Ashkenazis, the ones who carry the brunt of Israel’s output, are shrinking as a share of the population. This is often missed because the debate centers on jew vs non-jew, ignoring the damaging effects of intra-jewish miscengenation
         
        Since people tend to marry people with similar education and intelligence, Ashkenazim are just marrying educated and intelligent Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews.

        So the smart fraction that is emerging will be less Ashkenazi, but not any less smart.

        Since the smart fraction TFR is above replacement, this adds another layer of optimism.

        The trend is towards the whole country genuinely "melting" into one people anyways in all classes, and these Askenazi/Mizrahi differences are much weaker in each generation.
        , @Dmitry

        The result is pictures like these:
         
        It's also different units in Israeli military, have a different racial composition. And different units are fashionable, with different races there.

        So pictures are not representative of total population.

        For example, Magav - which is includes a lot of the most dangerous jobs defending Jerusalem - is full of Druze and even Bedouin men. However, their Druze and Bedouin women are not conscripted to the army.

        So women in Magav are all Jews- but obviously, very much Moroccan, Kurdish, Ethiopian, women.

        Men guarding in Jerusalem are often...

        https://i.imgur.com/R6xrqPC.jpg

        https://i.imgur.com/qmlf4Vp.jpg

        But women "Magavnikot" are not any Druze and Bedouin, but includes a lot of Ethiopians

        https://i.imgur.com/InpfQVF.jpg

        -
        They have units where all soldiers are autistic.

        They have courses of stupid soldiers, who restudy highschool.

        They have bootcamps where all soldiers are juvenile criminals, and women train all day shouting at them

        They even bootcamps where all soldiers are recent Moroccans (often via France) and Ethiopians who do not speak Hebrew.

        There are even Turkmen Muslims from Turkmenistan who are soldiers in the Israeli army (I've seen recently a report about this)

        On the other hand, cleverer youth are often recruited into special computer units.
      24. Hail says: • Website
        @Hail
        The Philippines' dysgenics is the very worst of those in the table:

        - 3.43 TFR for "low education" mothers

        - 2.50 TFR for "medium education" mothers

        - 1.66 TFR for "high education" mothers

        ___________

        The resulting child and grandchild generations (given replacement TFR of 2.35, 2.25, 2.15 respectively) is disturbing:

        - Low-education mother genes: 31.8% --> 40.1% --> 48.4%

        - Med.-education mother genes: 49.6% --> 47.5% --> 43.7%

        - Low-education mother genes: 18.6% --> 12.4% --> 7.9%

        Classic dysgenics, in fact so stark a case as to be almost a "dysgenic nightmare" scenario, if education is a good proxy for IQ in among b.1980s and b.1990s Philippine women, which by this point I would assume it is.

        – Low-education mother genes: 31.8% –> 40.1% –> 48.4%

        – Med.-education mother genes: 49.6% –> 47.5% –> 43.7%

        – Low-education mother genes: 18.6% –> 12.4% –> 7.9%

        Bottom row should read: “High-education mother genes”

        The same calculation for Romania, maybe useful as a ‘control.’ The resulting child and grandchild generations (given replacement TFRs of 2.25, 2.15, 2.10 for low, med., high education, respectively):

        Share of genes per generation, Romania: [Current] –> [Child] –> [Grandchild]
        – Low-education mother genes: 32.1% –> 36.7% –> 41.5%
        – Med.-education mother genes: 37.4% –> 36.9% –> 36.0%
        – High-education mother genes: 30.5% –> 26.4% –> 22.5%

        (Romania’s dysgenic-fertility profile looks quite similar to Russia’s.)

        A slower slide than the alarming case with the Philippines.

        _______________

        Relevant to the Philippines is China’s eugenic-dysgenic profile. China is likely to make a bid to be the Philippines’ protecting power in Q2 of this century, as we have already seen the early stages in the 2010s. Is the IQ gap between the two widening? Narrowing?

        Share of genes per generation, China: [Current] –> [Child] –> [Grandchild]
        – Low-education mother genes: 61.1% –> 67.6% –> 73.5%
        – Med.-education mother genes: 22.4% –> 19.4% –> 16.5%
        – High-education mother genes: 16.5% –> 13.0% –> 10.0%

        _______________

        Now for trying to estimate actual IQ ‘hits’:

        This can be attempted by attaching IQ estimates to the three education levels and seeing what the the next two generations look like, given the above shifts in the genepools.

        The Philippines may be currently taking an IQ hit of up to -0.5 IQ points per decade (this depends on what the IQ for the much-expanding low-education group is); for Romania, it looks to be more like -0.25 IQpts/decade (but this depends on how stratified by IQ the education groups really are); China may be lowest of the three, at about -0.2 IQpts/decade, though a lot of talent probably remains in the low-education bracket in China. China may be more like a negligible -0.1 IQpts/decade (until they stratify fully and dysgenic fertility sinks in).

        • Replies: @Cicerone
        I tried to quantify IQ loss as well. In an earlier version of this table, I named it IQ loss per generation, but realized that this is based on the assumption of perfect stratification and 100% heritability, which is of course impossible, so real IQ loss is much lower than my calculated values. So I for now call it "dysgenic index". The numbers themselves are meaningless, but they are good for a comparison between countries.

        In order to calculate them, I sliced the normal distribution in parts according to education levels, so if 40% are low educated, 40% medium and 20% high, I assumed that the lowest 40% of the normal distribution are occupied by the low, the next 40% by the medium and the rightmost 20% by the high educated. I calculated the mean "IQ" value for each slice, and used these to project the next generation. Then I calculated their average again, and compared it to the average of the initial (which is 0 by definition, as we have a normal distribution).

        This index takes into account fertility differences between education levels, but also their distribution. If low educated have a TFR of 4 and highe ducated of 2, then it still depends on the percentages of each level. A country with 99% low educated and 1% high educated in this case has less of a dysgenic effect than a country with 70% low educated and 30% high educated. This is important because generally, education categories are not comparable across countries.

        Based on this, here are the eugneic indices for some countries (the lower the value, the more dysgenic. Positivee values mean eugenic fertility). I only provide the first decimal, because those are not very precise estimates:

        Denmark, Finland, 0.2 (most eugenic trend of all countries)
        Sweden 0.1
        Canada -0,5
        Egypt, Indonesia -0,6
        Japan -0,7
        Australia -0,8
        Germany, Poland -0,9
        France, Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, Vietnam -1.0
        Belgium -1,1
        Italy -1,2
        Russia, Spain -1,3
        USA -1,4
        Israel -1,5
        Romania -1,8
        China, South Africa -2,4
        India -2,5
        Iran -2,9
        Turkey -3,0
        Philippines -3,4
        Mexico -3,7
        Brazil, Peru -3,9
        Colombia -4,1
        Ethiopia -4,2
        Haiti -5,6 (most dysgenic trend)
      25. @Thulean Friend

        Illegal immigrants from Africa, do not leave and destroyed some areas of Israeli cities.
         
        The illegal immigrants have declined in numbers from their high in 2012-14. Israel sent many of them to various Western countries and repatriated some of them. Many of them are stuck in Holot and other areas. I'm aware of the problems in South Tel Aviv but it's a minor picnic compared to the situation in many Western countries.

        A bigger problem for Israel is that it has bought into the melting pot idea for jews. The result is pictures like these:

        https://i.imgur.com/GhbHn0e.jpg

        Secular Ashkenazis, the ones who carry the brunt of Israel's output, are shrinking as a share of the population. This is often missed because the debate centers on jew vs non-jew, ignoring the damaging effects of intra-jewish miscengenation.

        Israel has a very strong smart fraction, though, and it also has a high fertility among them (as shown in the graph) so maybe all is not lost. Your story is also very anecdotal, you would need hard data to show a massive exodus of highly educated Israelis that is substantially above that of many other OECD countries.

        Secular Ashkenazis, the ones who carry the brunt of Israel’s output, are shrinking as a share of the population. This is often missed because the debate centers on jew vs non-jew, ignoring the damaging effects of intra-jewish miscengenation

        Since people tend to marry people with similar education and intelligence, Ashkenazim are just marrying educated and intelligent Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews.

        So the smart fraction that is emerging will be less Ashkenazi, but not any less smart.

        Since the smart fraction TFR is above replacement, this adds another layer of optimism.

        The trend is towards the whole country genuinely “melting” into one people anyways in all classes, and these Askenazi/Mizrahi differences are much weaker in each generation.

        • Replies: @reiner Tor

        Since people tend to marry people with similar education and intelligence, Ashkenazim are just marrying educated and intelligent Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews.

        So the smart fraction that is emerging will be less Ashkenazi, but not any less smart.
         
        No, it’s all about motivation! Genes don’t matter.

        Anyway, you don’t fully understand how this works.
        , @Mitleser

        So the smart fraction that is emerging will be less Ashkenazi, but not any less smart.

        Since the smart fraction TFR is above replacement, this adds another layer of optimism.
         
        It is above replacement, but it is not enough to maintain their share in the Israeli society.
        In relative terms, they are shrinking, just like their counterparts in other socities.
      26. @Hail
        The Philippines' dysgenics is the very worst of those in the table:

        - 3.43 TFR for "low education" mothers

        - 2.50 TFR for "medium education" mothers

        - 1.66 TFR for "high education" mothers

        ___________

        The resulting child and grandchild generations (given replacement TFR of 2.35, 2.25, 2.15 respectively) is disturbing:

        - Low-education mother genes: 31.8% --> 40.1% --> 48.4%

        - Med.-education mother genes: 49.6% --> 47.5% --> 43.7%

        - Low-education mother genes: 18.6% --> 12.4% --> 7.9%

        Classic dysgenics, in fact so stark a case as to be almost a "dysgenic nightmare" scenario, if education is a good proxy for IQ in among b.1980s and b.1990s Philippine women, which by this point I would assume it is.

        This is the first time the Philippines has ever ended up in one of Cicerone’s TFR tables, so I’d hoped to see some good news, but I end up seeing disastrous dysgenic fertility on top of brain drain…

        The worst thing about it is that Philippine public “higher education” is a hotbed for all the classist leftist crap alongside Bioleninism that’s accelerating as I type about it. There’s pressure to get more STEM graduates, so the quality of those who do get accepted suffers somewhat. And, when they fail…they shift out to more questionable courses.

        I want to hope, I really do, but if I watch us follow America (culturally) off a cliff, am I really right to?

      27. @AaronB

        Secular Ashkenazis, the ones who carry the brunt of Israel’s output, are shrinking as a share of the population. This is often missed because the debate centers on jew vs non-jew, ignoring the damaging effects of intra-jewish miscengenation
         
        Since people tend to marry people with similar education and intelligence, Ashkenazim are just marrying educated and intelligent Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews.

        So the smart fraction that is emerging will be less Ashkenazi, but not any less smart.

        Since the smart fraction TFR is above replacement, this adds another layer of optimism.

        The trend is towards the whole country genuinely "melting" into one people anyways in all classes, and these Askenazi/Mizrahi differences are much weaker in each generation.

        Since people tend to marry people with similar education and intelligence, Ashkenazim are just marrying educated and intelligent Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews.

        So the smart fraction that is emerging will be less Ashkenazi, but not any less smart.

        No, it’s all about motivation! Genes don’t matter.

        Anyway, you don’t fully understand how this works.

        • Replies: @AaronB
        I think you are suffering from PTSD :)

        I thought I gave you a long enough time to cool off...
      28. @reiner Tor

        Since people tend to marry people with similar education and intelligence, Ashkenazim are just marrying educated and intelligent Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews.

        So the smart fraction that is emerging will be less Ashkenazi, but not any less smart.
         
        No, it’s all about motivation! Genes don’t matter.

        Anyway, you don’t fully understand how this works.

        I think you are suffering from PTSD 🙂

        I thought I gave you a long enough time to cool off…

        • Replies: @reiner Tor
        I reserve the right to reply to your stupid comments remarking that they are stupid. If it triggers you, you can simply filter me out, or just scroll over my replies. I certainly wouldn’t mind you getting a nervous breakdown and leaving us altogether, but I suspect we’re still not quite there, nor will we be for a long while, unfortunately.

        Have a nice day away from the computer and smartphone!
      29. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

        The shares vary so much that I don’t know how useful these comparisons are.

        For example, the Latin American countries have shares of “high” education in the teens to low 20s percent range, while the Nordics have around twice that, with about 40+% having “high” education.

        So we’re comparing almost half the population of Nordic women with around a fifth to a quarter of Latin women. You’d have to look at the “high” education among Nordics further and subdivide it into higher levels to get a better comparison with the Latins. You’d want to look at for example Nordic women with postgrad degrees. I imagine Nordic women with Master’s and Phd’s have lower fertility than the rest of the 40+% with “high” education.

      30. @Thulean Friend

        I have no data on miscegenation in Sweden, but one gets the impression that Sweden has much higher levels of ethnic segregation than other countries in Western Europe. Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.
         
        10-15 years ago maybe. There has been a significant increase in miscegenation in the last decade and a half. It's hard to put an exact number but a fair ballpark estimate, at least here in Stockholm, is about 20% of White women under the age of 35 and who have children have non-White kids, vast majority of them brown/black. That's what I see and I move around quite a lot in this city and I purposefully try to guard against biases. (Many nationalists often overestimate these occurances due to strong feelings on the subject).

        Also, they are shipping tons of these trash third worlders to smaller cities, with the result that Stockholm's city center is actually whiter than e.g. Oslo's, but our smaller cities less so than Norway's. Therefore, it isn't just concentrated to the capital.

        Importantly, there has also been a non-trivial rise of Swedish men mixing with brown/black women, even if the overall balance is very lopsided to the women. I'd say around 80% of Swedish men who racemix still do so with East/SouthEast Asian women. And there are huge amounts of these import women here nowadays.


        Nobody can of course know the future, but I am skeptical that Sweden has strong long-term prospects on current trends. More likely is that there were will be islands of immense prosperity, especially wealthy areas in Stockholm, with an ever-more dysfunctional hinterland. This won't matter much for elites, because they will be isolated from it, but it will not be a good experience for your working class/lower-middle class Swedes who are 40-50% of the ethnic Swedish population. They will not have any places left to go and increasingly no longer do. That's also where most of the mixing takes place, which could explain the data, though it is slowly rising in ranks beyond that.

        That’s a lot.

        In London I would put it at under 10% of whites with children being mixed; a mixture of white women with black children and WMAF. A lot of the former are Poles or other Eastern Euros as well, sad to say.

      31. It says on the table that “High” is defined as post secondary. In England that means sixth form, school for 16-18 year olds; equivalent to American high school. If that definition actually does line up with ours, we’re in big trouble.

        Edit: here’s the definition
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Classification_of_Education

        In conclusion: were screwed.

      32. @Thulean Friend

        I have no data on miscegenation in Sweden, but one gets the impression that Sweden has much higher levels of ethnic segregation than other countries in Western Europe. Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.
         
        10-15 years ago maybe. There has been a significant increase in miscegenation in the last decade and a half. It's hard to put an exact number but a fair ballpark estimate, at least here in Stockholm, is about 20% of White women under the age of 35 and who have children have non-White kids, vast majority of them brown/black. That's what I see and I move around quite a lot in this city and I purposefully try to guard against biases. (Many nationalists often overestimate these occurances due to strong feelings on the subject).

        Also, they are shipping tons of these trash third worlders to smaller cities, with the result that Stockholm's city center is actually whiter than e.g. Oslo's, but our smaller cities less so than Norway's. Therefore, it isn't just concentrated to the capital.

        Importantly, there has also been a non-trivial rise of Swedish men mixing with brown/black women, even if the overall balance is very lopsided to the women. I'd say around 80% of Swedish men who racemix still do so with East/SouthEast Asian women. And there are huge amounts of these import women here nowadays.


        Nobody can of course know the future, but I am skeptical that Sweden has strong long-term prospects on current trends. More likely is that there were will be islands of immense prosperity, especially wealthy areas in Stockholm, with an ever-more dysfunctional hinterland. This won't matter much for elites, because they will be isolated from it, but it will not be a good experience for your working class/lower-middle class Swedes who are 40-50% of the ethnic Swedish population. They will not have any places left to go and increasingly no longer do. That's also where most of the mixing takes place, which could explain the data, though it is slowly rising in ranks beyond that.

        10-15 years ago maybe. There has been a significant increase in miscegenation in the last decade and a half. It’s hard to put an exact number but a fair ballpark estimate, at least here in Stockholm, is about 20% of White women under the age of 35 and who have children have non-White kids, vast majority of them brown/black. That’s what I see and I move around quite a lot in this city and I purposefully try to guard against biases. (Many nationalists often overestimate these occurances due to strong feelings on the subject).

        This is also my view. As I remember, most of Thorfinnsson’s memories of Sweden are from the 90s and 00s, when it was indeed highly segregated, and things have changed a good deal since then. Still in the mid-to-late-00s, for instance, most nightclubs around Stureplan, Stockholm’s glitziest district, refused entry to all but the best-connected immigrants, and as late as the early 10s, you could still run into people from small-town Sweden who had barely spoken to an immigrant their whole life.

        As for Sweden’s TFR, there are two things to remember: (1) Swedish society goes at great length to put every young Swede through its higher education system — including newly-arrived immigrants — so a college degree is a worse proxy for intelligence here than in most other countries; (2) Even with an economy that is famously generous to motherhood, our TFR is still below the steady-state level. If Russia had our levels of welfare, I’m sure its TFR would explode.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Even with an economy that is famously generous to motherhood, our TFR is still below the steady-state level. If Russia had our levels of welfare, I’m sure its TFR would explode.
         
        One of the problems with these types of approaches is that they just assume women are the ones who decide how many children a couple have.
        , @Thulean Friend
        I grew up in a smaller town and your observations are 100% correct. We basically had almost no non-Whites. In my secondary school (ages 12-15), we did not have a single non-White in our class. There were 5 other parallell classes for all three age groups and I think there were at most 2 or 3 non-Whites across all classes per age group, so something like 2-3% in total. And they were all hyperassimilated.

        Everything really went downhill after 9/11. We didn't get afghans but we got huge amounts of iraqis and especially somalians. I went back to my old school a few years ago when I was visiting and I could literally count the amount of white children on a single hand on the schoolyard. This is a school that has capacity for 500 kids. I was told that all the white kids now go to schools just outside the small town in a small village. It's ironic because back then these small villages had to send all their kids to our town, which created some amount of resentment. We also looked down upon them as hicks (though we were all provincial types in reality, but there's always a pecking order). But apparently they have created new private schools outside of town (fria skolvalet) to deal with this demand, giving rise to substantial segregation. SD is now big in the municipality so the social justice warrior types are a lot weaker, so despite some bleating, not much is being done about this.

        I have a hard time feeling sympathy. These people voted for what they got, by and large. Most young Swedes just go to the bigger cities. There's actually less ethnic tension here in my experience. Even Rinkeby is getting slowly gentrified with a lot of newly constructed buildings. Only the most socioeconomically successful immigrants stay on and many of them are more liberal.

        Plus Stockholm gets most of the best international migrants to Sweden, which have been coming in large droves since the last center-"right" government radically liberalised work migration requirements in 2011. While there are still many rapefugees coming, a non-trivial share of decently skilled Asian migrants are also showing up, and they concentrate in Stockholm whereas rapefugees get pushed out into the hinterlands and on the margins. So elite Swedes get a kind of "soft multiculturalism" with mostly assimilated immigrants. It's really the working/lower-middle class Swedes out in the sub-50K towns and villages who get the raw end of the stick, but who cares about them right? Just about a bunch of obsolete racists. Those are also the strongest areas for SD.
      33. @Swedish Family

        10-15 years ago maybe. There has been a significant increase in miscegenation in the last decade and a half. It’s hard to put an exact number but a fair ballpark estimate, at least here in Stockholm, is about 20% of White women under the age of 35 and who have children have non-White kids, vast majority of them brown/black. That’s what I see and I move around quite a lot in this city and I purposefully try to guard against biases. (Many nationalists often overestimate these occurances due to strong feelings on the subject).
         
        This is also my view. As I remember, most of Thorfinnsson's memories of Sweden are from the 90s and 00s, when it was indeed highly segregated, and things have changed a good deal since then. Still in the mid-to-late-00s, for instance, most nightclubs around Stureplan, Stockholm's glitziest district, refused entry to all but the best-connected immigrants, and as late as the early 10s, you could still run into people from small-town Sweden who had barely spoken to an immigrant their whole life.

        As for Sweden's TFR, there are two things to remember: (1) Swedish society goes at great length to put every young Swede through its higher education system -- including newly-arrived immigrants -- so a college degree is a worse proxy for intelligence here than in most other countries; (2) Even with an economy that is famously generous to motherhood, our TFR is still below the steady-state level. If Russia had our levels of welfare, I'm sure its TFR would explode.

        Even with an economy that is famously generous to motherhood, our TFR is still below the steady-state level. If Russia had our levels of welfare, I’m sure its TFR would explode.

        One of the problems with these types of approaches is that they just assume women are the ones who decide how many children a couple have.

        • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
        Men in our sphere would do well to lurk in places like Reddit's r/relationships at times to see the frustrations wives have with their husbands at times. There are indeed many men who fear fatherhood, as well as existing fathers who don't want more children for lifestyle reasons.

        That said, the biological clock of females means the current system of delaying family formation until "education" is complete and a career is established puts a hard ceiling on TFR. The problem is made worse by promoting a "party" lifestyle for young women.

        The entire schooling system also discourages the obvious solution of women pairing up with older men. Husbands are still older than wives as has always been the case, by pairings tend to be quite close by age. Doesn't help that few people stay in shape as they age.
        , @Swedish Family

        One of the problems with these types of approaches is that they just assume women are the ones who decide how many children a couple have.
         
        This is true. I have even seen it in my family. The wife of my older brother dearly wants another child (they have two), but he won't hear of it since it's too much work already, he says, with two. I have tried to make him see reason, but to no avail.
      34. @AaronB
        I think you are suffering from PTSD :)

        I thought I gave you a long enough time to cool off...

        I reserve the right to reply to your stupid comments remarking that they are stupid. If it triggers you, you can simply filter me out, or just scroll over my replies. I certainly wouldn’t mind you getting a nervous breakdown and leaving us altogether, but I suspect we’re still not quite there, nor will we be for a long while, unfortunately.

        Have a nice day away from the computer and smartphone!

      35. @Macon Richardson
        It isn't axiomatically good per se. It's good if one wants to maintain and continue a cultural heritage that one has been born into.

        If you argue this way, then how are you supposed to tell, per Mr Sailer, the President of Tanzania to maybe try to lower their country’s fertility rate?

        The culture heritage is about the border etc. Not necessarily a fertility rate > 2.

      36. @J
        It is axiomatically good per se.

        We are born with a mission to replace ourselves and increase our kin. We are biological machines programmed to do just that.

        You could rebel against your very self, but it will not make you happy. On the contrary.

        We’re not rabbits. If you have a country, then you know that you’re at least a tad bit more than that. What kind of animal uses fertility rate to preserve their culture heritage?

        • Replies: @notanon
        Israel is different as they have the opportunity (and intention) to increase their total living space.
      37. @Hail

        – Low-education mother genes: 31.8% –> 40.1% –> 48.4%

        – Med.-education mother genes: 49.6% –> 47.5% –> 43.7%

        – Low-education mother genes: 18.6% –> 12.4% –> 7.9%
         
        Bottom row should read: "High-education mother genes"

        The same calculation for Romania, maybe useful as a 'control.' The resulting child and grandchild generations (given replacement TFRs of 2.25, 2.15, 2.10 for low, med., high education, respectively):

        Share of genes per generation, Romania: [Current] --> [Child] --> [Grandchild]
        – Low-education mother genes: 32.1% –> 36.7% –> 41.5%
        – Med.-education mother genes: 37.4% –> 36.9% –> 36.0%
        – High-education mother genes: 30.5% –> 26.4% –> 22.5%

        (Romania's dysgenic-fertility profile looks quite similar to Russia's.)

        A slower slide than the alarming case with the Philippines.

        _______________

        Relevant to the Philippines is China's eugenic-dysgenic profile. China is likely to make a bid to be the Philippines' protecting power in Q2 of this century, as we have already seen the early stages in the 2010s. Is the IQ gap between the two widening? Narrowing?

        Share of genes per generation, China: [Current] --> [Child] --> [Grandchild]
        – Low-education mother genes: 61.1% –> 67.6% –> 73.5%
        – Med.-education mother genes: 22.4% –> 19.4% –> 16.5%
        – High-education mother genes: 16.5% –> 13.0% –> 10.0%

        _______________

        Now for trying to estimate actual IQ 'hits':

        This can be attempted by attaching IQ estimates to the three education levels and seeing what the the next two generations look like, given the above shifts in the genepools.

        The Philippines may be currently taking an IQ hit of up to -0.5 IQ points per decade (this depends on what the IQ for the much-expanding low-education group is); for Romania, it looks to be more like -0.25 IQpts/decade (but this depends on how stratified by IQ the education groups really are); China may be lowest of the three, at about -0.2 IQpts/decade, though a lot of talent probably remains in the low-education bracket in China. China may be more like a negligible -0.1 IQpts/decade (until they stratify fully and dysgenic fertility sinks in).

        I tried to quantify IQ loss as well. In an earlier version of this table, I named it IQ loss per generation, but realized that this is based on the assumption of perfect stratification and 100% heritability, which is of course impossible, so real IQ loss is much lower than my calculated values. So I for now call it “dysgenic index”. The numbers themselves are meaningless, but they are good for a comparison between countries.

        In order to calculate them, I sliced the normal distribution in parts according to education levels, so if 40% are low educated, 40% medium and 20% high, I assumed that the lowest 40% of the normal distribution are occupied by the low, the next 40% by the medium and the rightmost 20% by the high educated. I calculated the mean “IQ” value for each slice, and used these to project the next generation. Then I calculated their average again, and compared it to the average of the initial (which is 0 by definition, as we have a normal distribution).

        This index takes into account fertility differences between education levels, but also their distribution. If low educated have a TFR of 4 and highe ducated of 2, then it still depends on the percentages of each level. A country with 99% low educated and 1% high educated in this case has less of a dysgenic effect than a country with 70% low educated and 30% high educated. This is important because generally, education categories are not comparable across countries.

        Based on this, here are the eugneic indices for some countries (the lower the value, the more dysgenic. Positivee values mean eugenic fertility). I only provide the first decimal, because those are not very precise estimates:

        Denmark, Finland, 0.2 (most eugenic trend of all countries)
        Sweden 0.1
        Canada -0,5
        Egypt, Indonesia -0,6
        Japan -0,7
        Australia -0,8
        Germany, Poland -0,9
        France, Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, Vietnam -1.0
        Belgium -1,1
        Italy -1,2
        Russia, Spain -1,3
        USA -1,4
        Israel -1,5
        Romania -1,8
        China, South Africa -2,4
        India -2,5
        Iran -2,9
        Turkey -3,0
        Philippines -3,4
        Mexico -3,7
        Brazil, Peru -3,9
        Colombia -4,1
        Ethiopia -4,2
        Haiti -5,6 (most dysgenic trend)

        • Agree: Anatoly Karlin, Hail
        • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
        I can't even imagine what even more dysgenic Haitians would look like
        , @g2k
        Don't want to repeat myself here but, as per my point above, the classifications are really really low. The low and middle percentages should be added together and compared with the high for this table to be of much use. "High" here means someone has completed high school, or it's vocational equivalent, nowhere near 'smart faction' level, "medium" means high school dropout and "low" means someone who left school before 16. In the western world that only really happens with juvenile delinquents and people with very serious learning difficulties so, even if some countires do better than others, those numbers are absolutely awful for most.
        , @Anatoly Karlin
        Thanks, very interesting.

        I would note that there is less of a correlation between education and IQ in the Third World, so I would assume the dysgenic index for them isn't as completely catastrophic as it appears.

        Interesting that Indonesia is the highest Third World nation.

        In my calculations based on PISA performance/number of siblings, Indonesia was the only country to see an outright positive trend: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/nor-breeding-their-best/

        The rankings are in fact rather similar across both methods.
        , @Hail
        Dr. Richard Lynn and co-authors estimated, in the early 2000s but using 20th century data, that the Black US genotypic dysgenic rate was up to twice the White US rate, and using somewhat firmer data than the vague, three-tier education level data here.

        So if the White US rate is -0.25 IQpts/decade, the Black rate was -0.5 IQpts/decade.
        , @AP
        What index would you calculate for Ukraine?
        , @Mr. XYZ
        So, basically Whites and Asians at the top, then Middle Easterners, then Hispanics/Latinos, and then Blacks.

        This doesn't exactly bode well for the success of Hispanic-majority and Black-majority countries.
      38. @Cicerone
        I tried to quantify IQ loss as well. In an earlier version of this table, I named it IQ loss per generation, but realized that this is based on the assumption of perfect stratification and 100% heritability, which is of course impossible, so real IQ loss is much lower than my calculated values. So I for now call it "dysgenic index". The numbers themselves are meaningless, but they are good for a comparison between countries.

        In order to calculate them, I sliced the normal distribution in parts according to education levels, so if 40% are low educated, 40% medium and 20% high, I assumed that the lowest 40% of the normal distribution are occupied by the low, the next 40% by the medium and the rightmost 20% by the high educated. I calculated the mean "IQ" value for each slice, and used these to project the next generation. Then I calculated their average again, and compared it to the average of the initial (which is 0 by definition, as we have a normal distribution).

        This index takes into account fertility differences between education levels, but also their distribution. If low educated have a TFR of 4 and highe ducated of 2, then it still depends on the percentages of each level. A country with 99% low educated and 1% high educated in this case has less of a dysgenic effect than a country with 70% low educated and 30% high educated. This is important because generally, education categories are not comparable across countries.

        Based on this, here are the eugneic indices for some countries (the lower the value, the more dysgenic. Positivee values mean eugenic fertility). I only provide the first decimal, because those are not very precise estimates:

        Denmark, Finland, 0.2 (most eugenic trend of all countries)
        Sweden 0.1
        Canada -0,5
        Egypt, Indonesia -0,6
        Japan -0,7
        Australia -0,8
        Germany, Poland -0,9
        France, Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, Vietnam -1.0
        Belgium -1,1
        Italy -1,2
        Russia, Spain -1,3
        USA -1,4
        Israel -1,5
        Romania -1,8
        China, South Africa -2,4
        India -2,5
        Iran -2,9
        Turkey -3,0
        Philippines -3,4
        Mexico -3,7
        Brazil, Peru -3,9
        Colombia -4,1
        Ethiopia -4,2
        Haiti -5,6 (most dysgenic trend)

        I can’t even imagine what even more dysgenic Haitians would look like

        • Agree: reiner Tor
      39. @Dmitry
        These are a lot of them Muslims, especially Bedouins, who have ten child in each family, and these Arabs are starting to overtake South of Israel. (North of Israel is already majority Muslim).

        Then Israeli governments forces the Bedouin children into the most high-achieving boarding schools in Israel, especially where there are Russian speakers, and the standards in those schools in the South are rapidly declining.

        In addition, Israel uses affirmative action and scholarships for Muslims to go the universities, so that Arab do not pay tuition fees, while at the same time do not go to army. Here they could be planning to increase education level of the Arabs so that it will reduce their birthrates. However, anger created in the Israeli secular population from this, is more likely to cause more and more Israeli high human capital population to emigrate (Israeli Jews have to pay very high university tuition fees, in addition to years in the army which are almost without salary).

        There has been a massive exodus of educated Israelis, who leave the country, and this is particularly with the more European and/or Russian speaking component of its population.

        The friends I stay with in Israel, for example, are still planning to emigrate to Canada, and anger about unfair positive discrimination for Arabs in all sectors, as well as general too large Middle Eastern population (e.g. Moroccan Jews can be annoying neighbours), and too many religious Jews (Haredim), is one of the motivations which is causing educated secular people in Israel to want to emigrate from there to Canada.

        “Israeli Jews have to pay very high university tuition fees”

        Not really. In a university academic year would cost around 11,000 nis a year, around 3000$~

        • Replies: @Dmitry
        This is expensive for ordinary Israeli people. They also have to pay for food, accommodation, (often) travel. Life is expensive Israel - they have also served in the army almost for free, unlike Arabs, who go to university while the Jews are in bootcamps, and who are then often subsidized for university tuition with endless special scholarships.

        In addition, immigrants have free university in Israel, while native Israelis have to pay. The situation is absurd and of course it causes them to dream of going to university in the EU.
      40. @Cicerone
        I tried to quantify IQ loss as well. In an earlier version of this table, I named it IQ loss per generation, but realized that this is based on the assumption of perfect stratification and 100% heritability, which is of course impossible, so real IQ loss is much lower than my calculated values. So I for now call it "dysgenic index". The numbers themselves are meaningless, but they are good for a comparison between countries.

        In order to calculate them, I sliced the normal distribution in parts according to education levels, so if 40% are low educated, 40% medium and 20% high, I assumed that the lowest 40% of the normal distribution are occupied by the low, the next 40% by the medium and the rightmost 20% by the high educated. I calculated the mean "IQ" value for each slice, and used these to project the next generation. Then I calculated their average again, and compared it to the average of the initial (which is 0 by definition, as we have a normal distribution).

        This index takes into account fertility differences between education levels, but also their distribution. If low educated have a TFR of 4 and highe ducated of 2, then it still depends on the percentages of each level. A country with 99% low educated and 1% high educated in this case has less of a dysgenic effect than a country with 70% low educated and 30% high educated. This is important because generally, education categories are not comparable across countries.

        Based on this, here are the eugneic indices for some countries (the lower the value, the more dysgenic. Positivee values mean eugenic fertility). I only provide the first decimal, because those are not very precise estimates:

        Denmark, Finland, 0.2 (most eugenic trend of all countries)
        Sweden 0.1
        Canada -0,5
        Egypt, Indonesia -0,6
        Japan -0,7
        Australia -0,8
        Germany, Poland -0,9
        France, Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, Vietnam -1.0
        Belgium -1,1
        Italy -1,2
        Russia, Spain -1,3
        USA -1,4
        Israel -1,5
        Romania -1,8
        China, South Africa -2,4
        India -2,5
        Iran -2,9
        Turkey -3,0
        Philippines -3,4
        Mexico -3,7
        Brazil, Peru -3,9
        Colombia -4,1
        Ethiopia -4,2
        Haiti -5,6 (most dysgenic trend)

        Don’t want to repeat myself here but, as per my point above, the classifications are really really low. The low and middle percentages should be added together and compared with the high for this table to be of much use. “High” here means someone has completed high school, or it’s vocational equivalent, nowhere near ‘smart faction’ level, “medium” means high school dropout and “low” means someone who left school before 16. In the western world that only really happens with juvenile delinquents and people with very serious learning difficulties so, even if some countires do better than others, those numbers are absolutely awful for most.

        • Replies: @Cicerone
        That is rue, which is why I have calculated these "Eugenic index" values, in order to have a measure of what the trend really is. It would be better to have more categories at the higher end of course, but the data is as it is.
      41. @Sam Coulton

        Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.
         
        Provide a source for that or you're full of shit.

        It’s just Anglo/American cope. Anglos went around the world spreading liberalism and Americans have disastrous demographics. Negro males (note that the likes of Pajeets and more Kunta looking Arabs count) being desirable is more or less just a New Worlder thing. It was Americans who started the praise for Oriental women (see Madame Butterfly). Had a president who had bastard Mulatto children. Muricans, for all the Jim Crow and segregation don’t really have room to talk on miscegenation.

        • Replies: @Kent Nationalist

        Anglos went around the world spreading liberalism
         
        At least we also spread homophobia at the same time

        Negro males (note that the likes of Pajeets and more Kunta looking Arabs count) being desirable is more or less just a New Worlder thing
         
        Didn't exist until Jews took over American culture

        It was Americans who started the praise for Oriental women (see Madame Butterfly). Had a president who had bastard Mulatto children. Muricans, for all the Jim Crow and segregation don’t really have room to talk on miscegenation.
         
        Despite hundreds of years of contact, the average white American is at most in the very low single digits of black/native ancestry and the average black at about 20%. I don't think there is anywhere with similar levels of racial interaction over hundreds of years which remains equally separate.
      42. @Cicerone
        I tried to quantify IQ loss as well. In an earlier version of this table, I named it IQ loss per generation, but realized that this is based on the assumption of perfect stratification and 100% heritability, which is of course impossible, so real IQ loss is much lower than my calculated values. So I for now call it "dysgenic index". The numbers themselves are meaningless, but they are good for a comparison between countries.

        In order to calculate them, I sliced the normal distribution in parts according to education levels, so if 40% are low educated, 40% medium and 20% high, I assumed that the lowest 40% of the normal distribution are occupied by the low, the next 40% by the medium and the rightmost 20% by the high educated. I calculated the mean "IQ" value for each slice, and used these to project the next generation. Then I calculated their average again, and compared it to the average of the initial (which is 0 by definition, as we have a normal distribution).

        This index takes into account fertility differences between education levels, but also their distribution. If low educated have a TFR of 4 and highe ducated of 2, then it still depends on the percentages of each level. A country with 99% low educated and 1% high educated in this case has less of a dysgenic effect than a country with 70% low educated and 30% high educated. This is important because generally, education categories are not comparable across countries.

        Based on this, here are the eugneic indices for some countries (the lower the value, the more dysgenic. Positivee values mean eugenic fertility). I only provide the first decimal, because those are not very precise estimates:

        Denmark, Finland, 0.2 (most eugenic trend of all countries)
        Sweden 0.1
        Canada -0,5
        Egypt, Indonesia -0,6
        Japan -0,7
        Australia -0,8
        Germany, Poland -0,9
        France, Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, Vietnam -1.0
        Belgium -1,1
        Italy -1,2
        Russia, Spain -1,3
        USA -1,4
        Israel -1,5
        Romania -1,8
        China, South Africa -2,4
        India -2,5
        Iran -2,9
        Turkey -3,0
        Philippines -3,4
        Mexico -3,7
        Brazil, Peru -3,9
        Colombia -4,1
        Ethiopia -4,2
        Haiti -5,6 (most dysgenic trend)

        Thanks, very interesting.

        I would note that there is less of a correlation between education and IQ in the Third World, so I would assume the dysgenic index for them isn’t as completely catastrophic as it appears.

        Interesting that Indonesia is the highest Third World nation.

        In my calculations based on PISA performance/number of siblings, Indonesia was the only country to see an outright positive trend: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/nor-breeding-their-best/

        The rankings are in fact rather similar across both methods.

        • Replies: @Hail

        there is less of a correlation between education and IQ in the Third World, so I would assume the dysgenic index for them isn’t as completely catastrophic as it appears
         
        An attempt to use this data to quantify IQ loss should probably only be semi-seriously made in countries with similarly high education-development levels. That is, societies in which a smart person is likely to end of with high final education, and a dumb one with low final education. Say, the OECD-tier alone.

        That is one of the two big "asterisks" here, with the other being (as many commenters have noted) the ethnic factor. In Malaysia, the apparent dysgenic-fertility-by-education could be almost entirely ethnic, with Chinese at lower fertility, but intra-Chinese and intra-Malay fertility could be near eugenically stable, as in Vietnam and Indonesia; the same may apply to the USA.
      43. @AaronB

        Secular Ashkenazis, the ones who carry the brunt of Israel’s output, are shrinking as a share of the population. This is often missed because the debate centers on jew vs non-jew, ignoring the damaging effects of intra-jewish miscengenation
         
        Since people tend to marry people with similar education and intelligence, Ashkenazim are just marrying educated and intelligent Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews.

        So the smart fraction that is emerging will be less Ashkenazi, but not any less smart.

        Since the smart fraction TFR is above replacement, this adds another layer of optimism.

        The trend is towards the whole country genuinely "melting" into one people anyways in all classes, and these Askenazi/Mizrahi differences are much weaker in each generation.

        So the smart fraction that is emerging will be less Ashkenazi, but not any less smart.

        Since the smart fraction TFR is above replacement, this adds another layer of optimism.

        It is above replacement, but it is not enough to maintain their share in the Israeli society.
        In relative terms, they are shrinking, just like their counterparts in other socities.

        • Replies: @AaronB
        Correct. They are losing share to a modest degree, but gaining in absolute numbers.

        Israel's military situation probably makes this a suitable arrangement - you don't want a top heavy populace, you need grunts. But you also want to grow your smart fraction in absolute terms.
        , @reiner Tor
        The issue with AaronB's comment:

        - admixture with lower IQ groups leads to a regression to the lower mean in the children (to be more precise, to the average of the two groups), so it still means a lowering IQ for the smart fraction; he failed to take this into account

        - suddenly he managed to understand HBD (except for the point above), something which before he pretended not to understand, kept misrepresenting, argued against using straw man arguments, etc.
      44. @Sam Coulton

        Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.
         
        Provide a source for that or you're full of shit.


        Obviously, I can’t vouch for this map…which claims its source is the Huffington Post, and of course even if true it doesn’t note the race of partners. But let’s assume it’s true while I establish my priors.

        I have a Swedish background and family and have been to the country more than thirty times. I know what I’m talking about.

        While Sweden’s welfare state and strong economy facilitate family formation, they also facilitate a “fun” early adulthood which gives youth the resources and time to participate in nightlife, travel, and study abroad. Young Swedes are encouraged to party a lot and experiment sexually, as well as to “find” themselves. And how do you suppose 20-somethings on vacation in Thailand for an entire month “find” themselves?

        Higher “education” is free, and nearly half of young Swedes have attained tertiary degrees. Studying abroad for a year is very common, and it’s also quite common for young Swedes to work abroad for a time before returning to settle in Sweden.

        Northern European men can be for many young Western women “boring”, so certain adventurous women are interested in having a lover from a more passionate, R-selected culture. This is nothing new and not even entirely the product of globohomo propaganda. In the postwar period there was a fad for Italian lovers among German and Nordic women. I believe there’s even a German pop song from the ’60s about this.

        If you want to hear something really unpleasant, when my brother lived in Africa he reported than in Tanzania there was a group of Norwegian (not Swedish but close enough) nursing students on vacation seeking…guess what.

        These “passionate” men obviously do not make suitable partners, and the sort of sexual dalliances women are keen to experiment with while on vacation or working abroad are not what they seek once they’ve established themselves and seek to start families and attain bourgeois respectability. Given the segregation and structure of Swedish society, the “marriage” (increasingly disappearing in Sweden) partner is a Swedish man.

        I don’t see why there are men in our sphere who seek to defend the non-existent virtue of women from Western cultures. Or perhaps I should simply say modern, as this problem exists everywhere outside of the Islamic world. The entire structure of society promotes promiscuity, so why is anyone surprised when women partake in this? Other than those who end up murdered, there are practically zero negative consequences for them.

        • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
        I'm surprised since Spanish women always seem much more flirtatious and easy with their favours than Northern European women. The Ukraine I can believe though.
        , @(((They))) Live
        That map is BS, there is no way in hell that Irish women are the most promiscuous in Europe
        , @Samuel Coulton
        As expected, lots of rambling nonsense but not a single source was posted that day. On the other hand, the aource I posted shows that Swedish women are less likey to get with immigrants than Swedish men are. Less than 0.1% of Nordic women will ever travel to Tanzania, and there were no "foreign lovers" in postwar Scandinavia. Northern European are the most popular in Europe.
        , @TelfoedJohn

        Northern European men can be for many young Western women “boring”, so certain adventurous women are interested in having a lover from a more passionate, R-selected culture. This is nothing new and not even entirely the product of globohomo propaganda. In the postwar period there was a fad for Italian lovers among German and Nordic women.
         
        There was a similar pattern with middle-aged Nordics and Germans going to Greece to pick up young men (who were know as 'spear fisherman'). A modern equivalant is the middle-aged woman from Northern Europe who go to refugee route stopping points (in Northern Greece and the islands) in order to 'help' refugees - in other words, to fuck young men. Many of the men who go to 'help' are pedophiles who are after boys and young men.

        As is often the case with people who are ostensibly 'doing good', such degeneracy is overlooked. The charity is a useful mask. It wouldn't surprise me if this was the main impetus behind the left's obsession with refugees. It reminds me of Lawrence of Arabia - whose passionate advocacy of the Arab cause originated in a boy who he liked to bugger. (the other driver of the refugee influx is the corrupt local Greek businessman who recieve big EU funds to feed refugees, and then feed them close to dogfood while pocketing the difference)
      45. @Anounder
        It's just Anglo/American cope. Anglos went around the world spreading liberalism and Americans have disastrous demographics. Negro males (note that the likes of Pajeets and more Kunta looking Arabs count) being desirable is more or less just a New Worlder thing. It was Americans who started the praise for Oriental women (see Madame Butterfly). Had a president who had bastard Mulatto children. Muricans, for all the Jim Crow and segregation don't really have room to talk on miscegenation.

        Anglos went around the world spreading liberalism

        At least we also spread homophobia at the same time

        Negro males (note that the likes of Pajeets and more Kunta looking Arabs count) being desirable is more or less just a New Worlder thing

        Didn’t exist until Jews took over American culture

        It was Americans who started the praise for Oriental women (see Madame Butterfly). Had a president who had bastard Mulatto children. Muricans, for all the Jim Crow and segregation don’t really have room to talk on miscegenation.

        Despite hundreds of years of contact, the average white American is at most in the very low single digits of black/native ancestry and the average black at about 20%. I don’t think there is anywhere with similar levels of racial interaction over hundreds of years which remains equally separate.

        • Replies: @Anounder

        At least we also spread homophobia at the same time
         
        Plenty of societies regulated or opposed faggotry. Even the Greeks did it.

        Didn’t exist until Jews took over American culture
         
        And who let the Jews in?

        Despite hundreds of years of contact, the average white American is at most in the very low single digits of black/native ancestry and the average black at about 20%. I don’t think there is anywhere with similar levels of racial interaction over hundreds of years which remains equally separate.
         
        That's not from lack of trying. That's from dumping the bastards in with the Negroes. Euro ancestry in the American Negro is paternal largely.
      46. @Thorfinnsson
        https://i.redd.it/xgtm6p7gq1a11.jpg

        Obviously, I can't vouch for this map...which claims its source is the Huffington Post, and of course even if true it doesn't note the race of partners. But let's assume it's true while I establish my priors.

        I have a Swedish background and family and have been to the country more than thirty times. I know what I'm talking about.

        While Sweden's welfare state and strong economy facilitate family formation, they also facilitate a "fun" early adulthood which gives youth the resources and time to participate in nightlife, travel, and study abroad. Young Swedes are encouraged to party a lot and experiment sexually, as well as to "find" themselves. And how do you suppose 20-somethings on vacation in Thailand for an entire month "find" themselves?

        Higher "education" is free, and nearly half of young Swedes have attained tertiary degrees. Studying abroad for a year is very common, and it's also quite common for young Swedes to work abroad for a time before returning to settle in Sweden.

        Northern European men can be for many young Western women "boring", so certain adventurous women are interested in having a lover from a more passionate, R-selected culture. This is nothing new and not even entirely the product of globohomo propaganda. In the postwar period there was a fad for Italian lovers among German and Nordic women. I believe there's even a German pop song from the '60s about this.

        If you want to hear something really unpleasant, when my brother lived in Africa he reported than in Tanzania there was a group of Norwegian (not Swedish but close enough) nursing students on vacation seeking...guess what.

        These "passionate" men obviously do not make suitable partners, and the sort of sexual dalliances women are keen to experiment with while on vacation or working abroad are not what they seek once they've established themselves and seek to start families and attain bourgeois respectability. Given the segregation and structure of Swedish society, the "marriage" (increasingly disappearing in Sweden) partner is a Swedish man.

        I don't see why there are men in our sphere who seek to defend the non-existent virtue of women from Western cultures. Or perhaps I should simply say modern, as this problem exists everywhere outside of the Islamic world. The entire structure of society promotes promiscuity, so why is anyone surprised when women partake in this? Other than those who end up murdered, there are practically zero negative consequences for them.

        I’m surprised since Spanish women always seem much more flirtatious and easy with their favours than Northern European women. The Ukraine I can believe though.

        • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
        I don't have any experience in Spain, but if we grant that the map is true then it should be noted that young Spaniards suffer from high poverty and unemployment. They therefore have fewer opportunities to engage in irresponsible sexual behavior than young Swedes.

        Since Spain became "modern" far more recently than Sweden, they're also more likely to have disapproving parents, grandparents, and extended family. Within living memory Spanish women clad themselves like Arabs.

        Scandinavians also have a simple solution to dealing with Scandinavian shyness: getting wasted. Northern Europeans have a "problem" with binge drinking that Meds do not.

        It's generally hypothesized that this is due to a shorter history of agriculture and alcohol production, and thus there are likely fewer genes in the population which protect against alcoholism.

        It may be that the causation is different. Perhaps we have evolutionary adaptations that predispose us to binge drinking because this facilitates socialization and reproduction.
      47. @g2k
        Don't want to repeat myself here but, as per my point above, the classifications are really really low. The low and middle percentages should be added together and compared with the high for this table to be of much use. "High" here means someone has completed high school, or it's vocational equivalent, nowhere near 'smart faction' level, "medium" means high school dropout and "low" means someone who left school before 16. In the western world that only really happens with juvenile delinquents and people with very serious learning difficulties so, even if some countires do better than others, those numbers are absolutely awful for most.

        That is rue, which is why I have calculated these “Eugenic index” values, in order to have a measure of what the trend really is. It would be better to have more categories at the higher end of course, but the data is as it is.

      48. @Thulean Friend

        I have no data on miscegenation in Sweden, but one gets the impression that Sweden has much higher levels of ethnic segregation than other countries in Western Europe. Many Swedish women are likely to have fornicated with a non-white, usually abroad rather than in Sweden itself, but they settle down with Swedish men.
         
        10-15 years ago maybe. There has been a significant increase in miscegenation in the last decade and a half. It's hard to put an exact number but a fair ballpark estimate, at least here in Stockholm, is about 20% of White women under the age of 35 and who have children have non-White kids, vast majority of them brown/black. That's what I see and I move around quite a lot in this city and I purposefully try to guard against biases. (Many nationalists often overestimate these occurances due to strong feelings on the subject).

        Also, they are shipping tons of these trash third worlders to smaller cities, with the result that Stockholm's city center is actually whiter than e.g. Oslo's, but our smaller cities less so than Norway's. Therefore, it isn't just concentrated to the capital.

        Importantly, there has also been a non-trivial rise of Swedish men mixing with brown/black women, even if the overall balance is very lopsided to the women. I'd say around 80% of Swedish men who racemix still do so with East/SouthEast Asian women. And there are huge amounts of these import women here nowadays.


        Nobody can of course know the future, but I am skeptical that Sweden has strong long-term prospects on current trends. More likely is that there were will be islands of immense prosperity, especially wealthy areas in Stockholm, with an ever-more dysfunctional hinterland. This won't matter much for elites, because they will be isolated from it, but it will not be a good experience for your working class/lower-middle class Swedes who are 40-50% of the ethnic Swedish population. They will not have any places left to go and increasingly no longer do. That's also where most of the mixing takes place, which could explain the data, though it is slowly rising in ranks beyond that.

        I suppose by now the tipping point is passed to facilitate domestic mixing, particularly in the lower classes where the higher aggression of vibrant men makes them attractive as partners. My family is also of high class origin which limits exposure.

        Earlier in this century the “vibrants” were still mostly self-contained in places like Rinkeby. I’ve also noted that they’ve actually finally started entering the workforce. You see non-white service workers now, which you didn’t fifteen years ago. I had an Iraqi tax driver the last time I was there, whereas it wasn’t so long ago that taxi drivers were from the former Yugoslavia or actually Swedish.

        • Replies: @Swedish Family

        Earlier in this century the “vibrants” were still mostly self-contained in places like Rinkeby. I’ve also noted that they’ve actually finally started entering the workforce. You see non-white service workers now, which you didn’t fifteen years ago. I had an Iraqi tax driver the last time I was there, whereas it wasn’t so long ago that taxi drivers were from the former Yugoslavia or actually Swedish.
         
        There are. This is in part because of more immigrants in absolute numbers, in part because of affirmative action, and in part because the traditional Swedish working class has moved up a step or two on the educational ladder.
      49. @Dmitry

        Russian immigrants to Israel really wished to go to Canada
         
        There is constant flow of thousands of young people from Russia/Ukraine to Israel, and back to Russia/Ukraine.

        Most are just going for some adventure or because they are bored.

        Problem from Israel's perspective, is that the high layer (especially those with PhDs, etc) mostly emigrate from Israel, while the low layer stay in Israel.

        So the drunk gopniks from Ukraine, are fighting each other outside the bar in Bat Yam, and will never leave Israel all their life (they like it there).

        However, the physicists and doctors - go to Canada.

        -

        This also is the same story for the native population. For example, almost all best Israeli scientists and academics, live in America/Canada, etc.

        -

        Finally, excluding religious population, brown people are settling much more in Israel, and having more children.

        Illegal immigrants from Africa, do not leave and destroyed some areas of Israeli cities. Arabs, have the most children, but then there is an equal danger from Haredim (Jews).

        So, overall story, is quite dysgenic.

        -

        On the other hand, the economy of Israel could reverse, or reduce, the problem. If they would lower taxes, in particular corporation taxes, encourage more foreign investment and multinationals, reduce regulations and unionization of labour. They need to produce a lot more skilled jobs, to keep better people, and also they need to reform the immigration system and try to attract skilled workers from other nationalities (if they reach a higher income level - then they need to remove the Jewish ancestry requirement for legal immigration, and accept legal immigrants from other nationalities, but who have higher human capital).

        Israel surely has its share of problems, and some resemble those found in other affluent countries.

         
        But they do not have willpower solve even the easier problems which would be possible, for them to solve. For example, reducing power of Supreme Court, reducing power of the NGOs which undermine Israel from within, or repatriating illegal immigrants from Africa, and reducing their extreme liberalism and positive discrimination for Arabs.

        So it seems like there is a lack of to live, or instinct to live, in Israel, and their system flawed in a fatal way.

        And then remember, that Haredim and Arabs combined will soon become half of Israeli schoolchildren.

        Regarding folks from the former USSR in Israel, among some other things in the Jewish state, Israeli sports has benefited.

      50. @Mitleser

        So the smart fraction that is emerging will be less Ashkenazi, but not any less smart.

        Since the smart fraction TFR is above replacement, this adds another layer of optimism.
         
        It is above replacement, but it is not enough to maintain their share in the Israeli society.
        In relative terms, they are shrinking, just like their counterparts in other socities.

        Correct. They are losing share to a modest degree, but gaining in absolute numbers.

        Israel’s military situation probably makes this a suitable arrangement – you don’t want a top heavy populace, you need grunts. But you also want to grow your smart fraction in absolute terms.

      51. @Rosie

        Even with an economy that is famously generous to motherhood, our TFR is still below the steady-state level. If Russia had our levels of welfare, I’m sure its TFR would explode.
         
        One of the problems with these types of approaches is that they just assume women are the ones who decide how many children a couple have.

        Men in our sphere would do well to lurk in places like Reddit’s r/relationships at times to see the frustrations wives have with their husbands at times. There are indeed many men who fear fatherhood, as well as existing fathers who don’t want more children for lifestyle reasons.

        That said, the biological clock of females means the current system of delaying family formation until “education” is complete and a career is established puts a hard ceiling on TFR. The problem is made worse by promoting a “party” lifestyle for young women.

        The entire schooling system also discourages the obvious solution of women pairing up with older men. Husbands are still older than wives as has always been the case, by pairings tend to be quite close by age. Doesn’t help that few people stay in shape as they age.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        That said, the biological clock of females means the current system of delaying family formation until “education” is complete and a career is established puts a hard ceiling on TFR. The problem is made worse by promoting a “party” lifestyle for young women.
         
        Bullshit. A woman who doesn't start till she's thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don't even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:

        https://i.scdn.co/image/5168f36cdf40c0824766fcb65c19c1d9a12ad3cf

        Mom, Dad, brother, sister. Mrs. Mozart bore seven children. Only two survived.

        The entire schooling system also discourages the obvious solution of women pairing up with older men.
         
        That is a terrible solution. Unmarried young men are notorious for whoremongering and pumping and dumping.
      52. @Kent Nationalist
        I'm surprised since Spanish women always seem much more flirtatious and easy with their favours than Northern European women. The Ukraine I can believe though.

        I don’t have any experience in Spain, but if we grant that the map is true then it should be noted that young Spaniards suffer from high poverty and unemployment. They therefore have fewer opportunities to engage in irresponsible sexual behavior than young Swedes.

        Since Spain became “modern” far more recently than Sweden, they’re also more likely to have disapproving parents, grandparents, and extended family. Within living memory Spanish women clad themselves like Arabs.

        Scandinavians also have a simple solution to dealing with Scandinavian shyness: getting wasted. Northern Europeans have a “problem” with binge drinking that Meds do not.

        It’s generally hypothesized that this is due to a shorter history of agriculture and alcohol production, and thus there are likely fewer genes in the population which protect against alcoholism.

        It may be that the causation is different. Perhaps we have evolutionary adaptations that predispose us to binge drinking because this facilitates socialization and reproduction.

      53. Hail says: • Website
        @Cicerone
        I tried to quantify IQ loss as well. In an earlier version of this table, I named it IQ loss per generation, but realized that this is based on the assumption of perfect stratification and 100% heritability, which is of course impossible, so real IQ loss is much lower than my calculated values. So I for now call it "dysgenic index". The numbers themselves are meaningless, but they are good for a comparison between countries.

        In order to calculate them, I sliced the normal distribution in parts according to education levels, so if 40% are low educated, 40% medium and 20% high, I assumed that the lowest 40% of the normal distribution are occupied by the low, the next 40% by the medium and the rightmost 20% by the high educated. I calculated the mean "IQ" value for each slice, and used these to project the next generation. Then I calculated their average again, and compared it to the average of the initial (which is 0 by definition, as we have a normal distribution).

        This index takes into account fertility differences between education levels, but also their distribution. If low educated have a TFR of 4 and highe ducated of 2, then it still depends on the percentages of each level. A country with 99% low educated and 1% high educated in this case has less of a dysgenic effect than a country with 70% low educated and 30% high educated. This is important because generally, education categories are not comparable across countries.

        Based on this, here are the eugneic indices for some countries (the lower the value, the more dysgenic. Positivee values mean eugenic fertility). I only provide the first decimal, because those are not very precise estimates:

        Denmark, Finland, 0.2 (most eugenic trend of all countries)
        Sweden 0.1
        Canada -0,5
        Egypt, Indonesia -0,6
        Japan -0,7
        Australia -0,8
        Germany, Poland -0,9
        France, Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, Vietnam -1.0
        Belgium -1,1
        Italy -1,2
        Russia, Spain -1,3
        USA -1,4
        Israel -1,5
        Romania -1,8
        China, South Africa -2,4
        India -2,5
        Iran -2,9
        Turkey -3,0
        Philippines -3,4
        Mexico -3,7
        Brazil, Peru -3,9
        Colombia -4,1
        Ethiopia -4,2
        Haiti -5,6 (most dysgenic trend)

        Dr. Richard Lynn and co-authors estimated, in the early 2000s but using 20th century data, that the Black US genotypic dysgenic rate was up to twice the White US rate, and using somewhat firmer data than the vague, three-tier education level data here.

        So if the White US rate is -0.25 IQpts/decade, the Black rate was -0.5 IQpts/decade.

        • Replies: @Cicerone
        For the dysgenic trend, I used the six education groups available. For this table, I grouped no education, incomplete primary, primary and lower secondary into "low", but in my calculation, I used them separately.

        The thing is that fertility acording to education shifts over time, so studies using 20th century data can give little clues about the present situation.
      54. @Hail
        Dr. Richard Lynn and co-authors estimated, in the early 2000s but using 20th century data, that the Black US genotypic dysgenic rate was up to twice the White US rate, and using somewhat firmer data than the vague, three-tier education level data here.

        So if the White US rate is -0.25 IQpts/decade, the Black rate was -0.5 IQpts/decade.

        For the dysgenic trend, I used the six education groups available. For this table, I grouped no education, incomplete primary, primary and lower secondary into “low”, but in my calculation, I used them separately.

        The thing is that fertility acording to education shifts over time, so studies using 20th century data can give little clues about the present situation.

        • Replies: @Hail

        fertility acording to education shifts over time, so studies using 20th century data can give little clues about the present situation
         
        That's true. I don't know for sure, but I don't think Lynn used education in his calculation. I think it may have been WORDSUM or an equivalent. Maybe someone has the study I am thinking of handy and can link to it.
      55. Hail says: • Website
        @Anatoly Karlin
        Thanks, very interesting.

        I would note that there is less of a correlation between education and IQ in the Third World, so I would assume the dysgenic index for them isn't as completely catastrophic as it appears.

        Interesting that Indonesia is the highest Third World nation.

        In my calculations based on PISA performance/number of siblings, Indonesia was the only country to see an outright positive trend: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/nor-breeding-their-best/

        The rankings are in fact rather similar across both methods.

        there is less of a correlation between education and IQ in the Third World, so I would assume the dysgenic index for them isn’t as completely catastrophic as it appears

        An attempt to use this data to quantify IQ loss should probably only be semi-seriously made in countries with similarly high education-development levels. That is, societies in which a smart person is likely to end of with high final education, and a dumb one with low final education. Say, the OECD-tier alone.

        That is one of the two big “asterisks” here, with the other being (as many commenters have noted) the ethnic factor. In Malaysia, the apparent dysgenic-fertility-by-education could be almost entirely ethnic, with Chinese at lower fertility, but intra-Chinese and intra-Malay fertility could be near eugenically stable, as in Vietnam and Indonesia; the same may apply to the USA.

      56. Hail says: • Website

        Of interest:

        Evidence of dysgenic fertility in China
        Article in Intelligence 57 (July-August):15-24 · April 2016

        Mingrui Wang
        Beijing University of Agriculture

        John G.R. Fuerst
        Ulster Institute for Social Research

        The relationship between fertility, intelligence, and education was examined in China using a large sample sourced from the population-representative China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) dataset. […] The strength of recent selection against gf in China substantially increased between the 1960s and the mid-1980s. Later (between 1986 and 2000), the speed of decline in gf due to selection stabilized at about [negative] .31 points per decade with a slightly downward trend

        A negative relationship between educational attainment and fertility was additionally found. Both negative relations were stronger for women.

      57. Hail says: • Website
        @Cicerone
        For the dysgenic trend, I used the six education groups available. For this table, I grouped no education, incomplete primary, primary and lower secondary into "low", but in my calculation, I used them separately.

        The thing is that fertility acording to education shifts over time, so studies using 20th century data can give little clues about the present situation.

        fertility acording to education shifts over time, so studies using 20th century data can give little clues about the present situation

        That’s true. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think Lynn used education in his calculation. I think it may have been WORDSUM or an equivalent. Maybe someone has the study I am thinking of handy and can link to it.

      58. Anon[370] • Disclaimer says:
        @AaronB
        Why would you say very dysgenic?

        For Sweden, the highly educated have a TFR of 1.8, in Israel its 2.78, significantly better.

        Sweden is still below replacement for its highly educated . Israel is maybe the only developed country where the highly educated is not just at replacement, but above. More smart people are coming on board. Sweden is still losing smart people in absolute terms, even if its shedding stupid people at the same or slightly higher rate.

        So granted Israel is gaining slightly more less intelligent people than Sweden, but its also gaining more smart people. And Israel's low education fertility rate is only about three quarters of a child more than its highest, which is not dramatic.

        So Sweden seems to be shrinking overall, but the changing composition is very slightly tilted towards smart people. Israel is growing overall, and it is gaining slightly more stupid people along with more smart people.

        I think it's fair to say both countries are experiencing eugenic trends in different ways.

        And considering that Israel has many wars to fight, its probably healthy that its growth is slightly tilted towards the middle and less educated, provided that it's also growing its smart sector, which it is. It needs those smart people to invent the weapons and tactics and industry, but you can't gave an army of all nerds.

        Israel is in a fantastic situation compared to the rest of the developed world.

        Israel is in a fantastic situation compared to the rest of the developed world.

        The developed world is not in a fantastic situation due to Jewish political influence from within their nations.

        The foremost example in the twentieth century being the fact that Jewish Power would not let Germans have their nation because Jews oppose European eugenic policies. Which is, in fact, the same policy of resistance to any minor to major modern eugenic policy for Europeans.

        Diaspora Jewish political power is the core supporter of modern policies that bring in dysgenic populations and discourage healthy European gentile culture that would be eugenic for smart populations.

        How eugenic the Jewish group is, in general, is debatable and difficult to ascertain outside of all of the propaganda, oppression of other groups, and overt nepotism / mafia behavior that leads to Jewish achievement well outside of individual ability that the European gentile population almost universally can only rely upon.

        • Replies: @AaronB
        I absolutely support all Jews, or most, moving to Israel. I don't think its good for us to be a minority in other lands and I don't think its good for you.

        However, for this to happen Israel would have to at least annex the West Bank and peacefully transfer large numbers of Arabs to other Arab countries, their natural homes.

        For most of Israel's history, European countries were hostile and ferociously critical of any Israeli action towards self assertion or even self defense. I remember well in the 90s the absolutely relentless and unceasing European criticism of Israeli behavior that was even defensive in nature, like mild responses to terrorism, and of course the Europeans were at the forefront of opposing the settler movement. It began to seem that Europeans simply wanted Israel to cease existing.

        That European statehood is itself undergoing a crisis in the 21st century can be seen as a kind of karmic response on the part of the universe, although it seems self inflicted rather than Jews being responsible.

        Since Europe is moving towards a more nationalistic direction, there will likely be more sympathy for the legitimate national aspirations of Israel and the basis for a genuine cooperation between the two.

        Under such conditions, the movement if the majority if world Jewry to Israel may become feasible.
      59. @Thorfinnsson
        Men in our sphere would do well to lurk in places like Reddit's r/relationships at times to see the frustrations wives have with their husbands at times. There are indeed many men who fear fatherhood, as well as existing fathers who don't want more children for lifestyle reasons.

        That said, the biological clock of females means the current system of delaying family formation until "education" is complete and a career is established puts a hard ceiling on TFR. The problem is made worse by promoting a "party" lifestyle for young women.

        The entire schooling system also discourages the obvious solution of women pairing up with older men. Husbands are still older than wives as has always been the case, by pairings tend to be quite close by age. Doesn't help that few people stay in shape as they age.

        That said, the biological clock of females means the current system of delaying family formation until “education” is complete and a career is established puts a hard ceiling on TFR. The problem is made worse by promoting a “party” lifestyle for young women.

        Bullshit. A woman who doesn’t start till she’s thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don’t even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:

        https://i.scdn.co/image/5168f36cdf40c0824766fcb65c19c1d9a12ad3cf

        Mom, Dad, brother, sister. Mrs. Mozart bore seven children. Only two survived.

        The entire schooling system also discourages the obvious solution of women pairing up with older men.

        That is a terrible solution. Unmarried young men are notorious for whoremongering and pumping and dumping.

        • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
        LOL. Stop being such a white knight.

        Women always have been and always will be the problem.

        Educating them is useless. They have no other real purpose besides child production. They do have a bunch of secondary purposes such as "pleasure", house-maintenance, cooking and a few other things.

        If they're not producing at a fertility rate above 2.1, that ethnic group/society will disappear in the long term. The "liberation" of women is much more to blame for everything that's wrong with women today, not men.

        There's enough "white knight" cucks in our world, we don't need more ...
        , @Thorfinnsson


        Bullshit. A woman who doesn’t start till she’s thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don’t even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:

        https://i.scdn.co/image/5168f36cdf40c0824766fcb65c19c1d9a12ad3cf

        Mom, Dad, brother, sister. Mrs. Mozart bore seven children. Only two survived.
         
        If women nurse, which I assume you favor, this inhibits pregnancy for a few years. Hence why hunter-gatherers had children only every four years. This is also why the aristocracy in the past used wet nurses.

        As women age not only does pregnancy become less likely, but carries increased risk. There's a reason that pregnancies at age 35 and later are referred to as geriatric pregnancies.

        There's also the factor of energy. Being a new mother at twenty is much easier than being a new mother at forty.

        That is a terrible solution. Unmarried young men are notorious for whoremongering and pumping and dumping.
         
        Huh? I was suggesting that we (re)normalize young women marrying older men (within reason). Of course, this would require older men to actually stay in shape and dress properly. No dad bods please, especially if you're not even a dad. Western culture is extremely segregated by age cohorts. Even having friends of a different generation is uncommon.

        That said, in 1956 the median age of first marriage dropped to 22.5 for men. These young silent generation fathers went on to have stable marriages and large families because they lived in a society which was still pro-family.

        https://www.thespruce.com/estimated-median-age-marriage-2303878
        , @Pericles

        Bullshit. A woman who doesn’t start till she’s thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don’t even need that many.

         
        While there may be some exceptions, such a late starter will in practice have two or less.

        At this point, obviously more white babies are needed. Three or more, at least until we reach the point where additional new births exceed immigration. Probably for longer than that.
        , @Anonymous

        Bullshit. A woman who doesn’t start till she’s thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don’t even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:
         
        4 kids today with low infant mortality and consequently a regime of relaxed selection are not equivalent to those 4 kids in the past.

        High infant mortality in the past meant that there was pretty strong selection against unhealthy babies and high mutational load. Today, there's no such selection and most babies that are born survive. Older mothers produce babies with greater mutational load, and there's relaxed selection against mutational load today because of low infant mortality.
      60. @Thorfinnsson
        https://i.redd.it/xgtm6p7gq1a11.jpg

        Obviously, I can't vouch for this map...which claims its source is the Huffington Post, and of course even if true it doesn't note the race of partners. But let's assume it's true while I establish my priors.

        I have a Swedish background and family and have been to the country more than thirty times. I know what I'm talking about.

        While Sweden's welfare state and strong economy facilitate family formation, they also facilitate a "fun" early adulthood which gives youth the resources and time to participate in nightlife, travel, and study abroad. Young Swedes are encouraged to party a lot and experiment sexually, as well as to "find" themselves. And how do you suppose 20-somethings on vacation in Thailand for an entire month "find" themselves?

        Higher "education" is free, and nearly half of young Swedes have attained tertiary degrees. Studying abroad for a year is very common, and it's also quite common for young Swedes to work abroad for a time before returning to settle in Sweden.

        Northern European men can be for many young Western women "boring", so certain adventurous women are interested in having a lover from a more passionate, R-selected culture. This is nothing new and not even entirely the product of globohomo propaganda. In the postwar period there was a fad for Italian lovers among German and Nordic women. I believe there's even a German pop song from the '60s about this.

        If you want to hear something really unpleasant, when my brother lived in Africa he reported than in Tanzania there was a group of Norwegian (not Swedish but close enough) nursing students on vacation seeking...guess what.

        These "passionate" men obviously do not make suitable partners, and the sort of sexual dalliances women are keen to experiment with while on vacation or working abroad are not what they seek once they've established themselves and seek to start families and attain bourgeois respectability. Given the segregation and structure of Swedish society, the "marriage" (increasingly disappearing in Sweden) partner is a Swedish man.

        I don't see why there are men in our sphere who seek to defend the non-existent virtue of women from Western cultures. Or perhaps I should simply say modern, as this problem exists everywhere outside of the Islamic world. The entire structure of society promotes promiscuity, so why is anyone surprised when women partake in this? Other than those who end up murdered, there are practically zero negative consequences for them.

        That map is BS, there is no way in hell that Irish women are the most promiscuous in Europe

        • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
        Sweden and Belgium also have extremely high rates of promiscuity. It's technically not clear whether Swedish or "Belgian" women are actually more promiscuous than Irish women, or which country's women on average are the most promiscuous.
      61. @Anon

        Israel is in a fantastic situation compared to the rest of the developed world.
         
        The developed world is not in a fantastic situation due to Jewish political influence from within their nations.

        The foremost example in the twentieth century being the fact that Jewish Power would not let Germans have their nation because Jews oppose European eugenic policies. Which is, in fact, the same policy of resistance to any minor to major modern eugenic policy for Europeans.

        Diaspora Jewish political power is the core supporter of modern policies that bring in dysgenic populations and discourage healthy European gentile culture that would be eugenic for smart populations.

        How eugenic the Jewish group is, in general, is debatable and difficult to ascertain outside of all of the propaganda, oppression of other groups, and overt nepotism / mafia behavior that leads to Jewish achievement well outside of individual ability that the European gentile population almost universally can only rely upon.

        I absolutely support all Jews, or most, moving to Israel. I don’t think its good for us to be a minority in other lands and I don’t think its good for you.

        However, for this to happen Israel would have to at least annex the West Bank and peacefully transfer large numbers of Arabs to other Arab countries, their natural homes.

        For most of Israel’s history, European countries were hostile and ferociously critical of any Israeli action towards self assertion or even self defense. I remember well in the 90s the absolutely relentless and unceasing European criticism of Israeli behavior that was even defensive in nature, like mild responses to terrorism, and of course the Europeans were at the forefront of opposing the settler movement. It began to seem that Europeans simply wanted Israel to cease existing.

        That European statehood is itself undergoing a crisis in the 21st century can be seen as a kind of karmic response on the part of the universe, although it seems self inflicted rather than Jews being responsible.

        Since Europe is moving towards a more nationalistic direction, there will likely be more sympathy for the legitimate national aspirations of Israel and the basis for a genuine cooperation between the two.

        Under such conditions, the movement if the majority if world Jewry to Israel may become feasible.

        • Replies: @Hyperborean

        That European statehood is itself undergoing a crisis in the 21st century can be seen as a kind of karmic response on the part of the universe, although it seems self inflicted rather than Jews being responsible.

         
        It is good that you are, albeit slowly, beginning to reveal your ressentiment, but as I noted during the "proof of god" thread it is a dangerous line of thought that could well backfire on Jews.

        Using this bizarre logic, West Germans were punished for being turned into vassals of Jewish power and East Germans were rewarded (or at least not punished) for their heroic stance against Jewish Imperialism.
         
        http://www.unz.com/akarlin/sixth-proof/#comment-3211245

        https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/east-germanys-undeclared-war-against-israel/

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_West_Germany
      62. @Rosie

        Even with an economy that is famously generous to motherhood, our TFR is still below the steady-state level. If Russia had our levels of welfare, I’m sure its TFR would explode.
         
        One of the problems with these types of approaches is that they just assume women are the ones who decide how many children a couple have.

        One of the problems with these types of approaches is that they just assume women are the ones who decide how many children a couple have.

        This is true. I have even seen it in my family. The wife of my older brother dearly wants another child (they have two), but he won’t hear of it since it’s too much work already, he says, with two. I have tried to make him see reason, but to no avail.

        • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
        Raising children is too much work in many respects, and this needs to be addressed at a societal level.

        Parents are expected to be chauffeurs, event coordinators, unpaid academic tutors, sports coaches, legal advocates, college prep coaches, personal chefs, and more. I'm sure it's all very exhausting, especially since parents are mostly out of shape and older these days. And frequently both work full time, which increases the work burden on the father while further draining the already tired mother.

        Even little things like child safety seats are an issue. When baby boomers were children, child safety seats didn't even exist. Just throw your kids in the car and go. In fact seat belts were optional on cars. Now you're legally required in most cases to have them. They cost money, they're a pain to install, and it takes quite a bit of time to strap in and release children.

        Each additional safety seat is more work and expense, and once you have more than two kids you generally need to buy a larger, and thus more expensive, car. These larger vehicles which are still affordable are usually minivans, which any self-respecting man is ashamed to be seen in or even admit to owning.

        Is the social benefit of increased safety in car accidents for children worth the cost? I don't know.

        There was a post on Marginal Revolution lately asking the rhetorical question if big business hates families. We might go on to ask if our entire society hates families. Families are saddled with massive burdens but receive little assistance in managing these burdens other than lip service about how wonderful parents are.
      63. @Rosie

        That said, the biological clock of females means the current system of delaying family formation until “education” is complete and a career is established puts a hard ceiling on TFR. The problem is made worse by promoting a “party” lifestyle for young women.
         
        Bullshit. A woman who doesn't start till she's thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don't even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:

        https://i.scdn.co/image/5168f36cdf40c0824766fcb65c19c1d9a12ad3cf

        Mom, Dad, brother, sister. Mrs. Mozart bore seven children. Only two survived.

        The entire schooling system also discourages the obvious solution of women pairing up with older men.
         
        That is a terrible solution. Unmarried young men are notorious for whoremongering and pumping and dumping.

        LOL. Stop being such a white knight.

        Women always have been and always will be the problem.

        Educating them is useless. They have no other real purpose besides child production. They do have a bunch of secondary purposes such as “pleasure”, house-maintenance, cooking and a few other things.

        If they’re not producing at a fertility rate above 2.1, that ethnic group/society will disappear in the long term. The “liberation” of women is much more to blame for everything that’s wrong with women today, not men.

        There’s enough “white knight” cucks in our world, we don’t need more …

        • Replies: @Epigon
        That’s a lady you are addressing so your demeanour and calling out of “whiteknighting” are inappropriate.

        Furthermore, I am deeply interested in your opinion of your mother and female relatives, and especially in your family size.

        There is this Serbian thing where everyone is full of shit on family values, tradition and conservatism while they are degenerate, hypocritical, hedonistic opportunists. In addition, they all lust after a specific type of “fun” women.

        Ich begann sie allmählich zu hassen.
      64. @(((They))) Live
        That map is BS, there is no way in hell that Irish women are the most promiscuous in Europe

        Sweden and Belgium also have extremely high rates of promiscuity. It’s technically not clear whether Swedish or “Belgian” women are actually more promiscuous than Irish women, or which country’s women on average are the most promiscuous.

      65. @TheTotallyAnonymous
        LOL. Stop being such a white knight.

        Women always have been and always will be the problem.

        Educating them is useless. They have no other real purpose besides child production. They do have a bunch of secondary purposes such as "pleasure", house-maintenance, cooking and a few other things.

        If they're not producing at a fertility rate above 2.1, that ethnic group/society will disappear in the long term. The "liberation" of women is much more to blame for everything that's wrong with women today, not men.

        There's enough "white knight" cucks in our world, we don't need more ...

        That’s a lady you are addressing so your demeanour and calling out of “whiteknighting” are inappropriate.

        Furthermore, I am deeply interested in your opinion of your mother and female relatives, and especially in your family size.

        There is this Serbian thing where everyone is full of shit on family values, tradition and conservatism while they are degenerate, hypocritical, hedonistic opportunists. In addition, they all lust after a specific type of “fun” women.

        Ich begann sie allmählich zu hassen.

        • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
        Oh ok, thanks for explaining the first part lol. Now things make a bit more sense.

        As for my family size, well my parents had 3 children with me as one of them. So they did their part to have a fertility rate of above 2.1

        I don't understand what you mean by "opinion" of mother and female relatives. I actually happen to have more male relatives overall strangely (?) enough. At least that i actually keep in contact with/socialize.

        As for most Serbians being full of shit about tradition, what i would say is that everyone knows the social expectations to be traditional are strong, so no one wants to publicly go against them. Given the way that modern culture and society is currently set up, it's completely understandable why most people cave in to temptation since it's unfortunately too easy to do so. I must truthfully admit that i engaged in some degeneracy a few years earlier although i stopped that some time ago. Still, in general it's much more acceptable for men to engage in sexual degeneracy (just like it traditionally has been) compared to women since women are the ones from where children spawn.

        LOL at "Gradually I began to hate them."
      66. @Thorfinnsson
        I suppose by now the tipping point is passed to facilitate domestic mixing, particularly in the lower classes where the higher aggression of vibrant men makes them attractive as partners. My family is also of high class origin which limits exposure.

        Earlier in this century the "vibrants" were still mostly self-contained in places like Rinkeby. I've also noted that they've actually finally started entering the workforce. You see non-white service workers now, which you didn't fifteen years ago. I had an Iraqi tax driver the last time I was there, whereas it wasn't so long ago that taxi drivers were from the former Yugoslavia or actually Swedish.

        Earlier in this century the “vibrants” were still mostly self-contained in places like Rinkeby. I’ve also noted that they’ve actually finally started entering the workforce. You see non-white service workers now, which you didn’t fifteen years ago. I had an Iraqi tax driver the last time I was there, whereas it wasn’t so long ago that taxi drivers were from the former Yugoslavia or actually Swedish.

        There are. This is in part because of more immigrants in absolute numbers, in part because of affirmative action, and in part because the traditional Swedish working class has moved up a step or two on the educational ladder.

      67. @Rosie

        That said, the biological clock of females means the current system of delaying family formation until “education” is complete and a career is established puts a hard ceiling on TFR. The problem is made worse by promoting a “party” lifestyle for young women.
         
        Bullshit. A woman who doesn't start till she's thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don't even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:

        https://i.scdn.co/image/5168f36cdf40c0824766fcb65c19c1d9a12ad3cf

        Mom, Dad, brother, sister. Mrs. Mozart bore seven children. Only two survived.

        The entire schooling system also discourages the obvious solution of women pairing up with older men.
         
        That is a terrible solution. Unmarried young men are notorious for whoremongering and pumping and dumping.

        Bullshit. A woman who doesn’t start till she’s thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don’t even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:

        https://i.scdn.co/image/5168f36cdf40c0824766fcb65c19c1d9a12ad3cf

        Mom, Dad, brother, sister. Mrs. Mozart bore seven children. Only two survived.

        If women nurse, which I assume you favor, this inhibits pregnancy for a few years. Hence why hunter-gatherers had children only every four years. This is also why the aristocracy in the past used wet nurses.

        As women age not only does pregnancy become less likely, but carries increased risk. There’s a reason that pregnancies at age 35 and later are referred to as geriatric pregnancies.

        There’s also the factor of energy. Being a new mother at twenty is much easier than being a new mother at forty.

        That is a terrible solution. Unmarried young men are notorious for whoremongering and pumping and dumping.

        Huh? I was suggesting that we (re)normalize young women marrying older men (within reason). Of course, this would require older men to actually stay in shape and dress properly. No dad bods please, especially if you’re not even a dad. Western culture is extremely segregated by age cohorts. Even having friends of a different generation is uncommon.

        That said, in 1956 the median age of first marriage dropped to 22.5 for men. These young silent generation fathers went on to have stable marriages and large families because they lived in a society which was still pro-family.

        https://www.thespruce.com/estimated-median-age-marriage-2303878

        • Replies: @Rosie

        If women nurse, which I assume you favor, this inhibits pregnancy for a few years.
         
        Right. That's what your doctor tells you. Then you turn up pregnant while you're still nursing your 1 year old. Even if you start at 26 and space your children four years apart, you can still have 3 before 35.

        Huh? I was suggesting that we (re)normalize young women marrying older men (within reason).
         
        And my question to you is what are these young men going to be doing with themselves if they're single during their twenties?
      68. @Swedish Family

        One of the problems with these types of approaches is that they just assume women are the ones who decide how many children a couple have.
         
        This is true. I have even seen it in my family. The wife of my older brother dearly wants another child (they have two), but he won't hear of it since it's too much work already, he says, with two. I have tried to make him see reason, but to no avail.

        Raising children is too much work in many respects, and this needs to be addressed at a societal level.

        Parents are expected to be chauffeurs, event coordinators, unpaid academic tutors, sports coaches, legal advocates, college prep coaches, personal chefs, and more. I’m sure it’s all very exhausting, especially since parents are mostly out of shape and older these days. And frequently both work full time, which increases the work burden on the father while further draining the already tired mother.

        Even little things like child safety seats are an issue. When baby boomers were children, child safety seats didn’t even exist. Just throw your kids in the car and go. In fact seat belts were optional on cars. Now you’re legally required in most cases to have them. They cost money, they’re a pain to install, and it takes quite a bit of time to strap in and release children.

        Each additional safety seat is more work and expense, and once you have more than two kids you generally need to buy a larger, and thus more expensive, car. These larger vehicles which are still affordable are usually minivans, which any self-respecting man is ashamed to be seen in or even admit to owning.

        Is the social benefit of increased safety in car accidents for children worth the cost? I don’t know.

        There was a post on Marginal Revolution lately asking the rhetorical question if big business hates families. We might go on to ask if our entire society hates families. Families are saddled with massive burdens but receive little assistance in managing these burdens other than lip service about how wonderful parents are.

        • Replies: @Epigon
        Raising children is a tough challenge when both parents are employed and moved to the town/city from somewhere else, more so in case they moved from rural to urban setting.

        Yugocommunists and Bolsheviks atomized large agrarian families, moved them to small flats in massive proletarian sprawls - lo and behold - fertility collapsed.

        I suspect similar thing occurred in Capitalist societies where people move to more attractive/dynamic urban centres in search of opportunities.

        Whereas the burden of raising children is spread on family members in large families and villages with several related households in them - grandparents, uncles, aunts - there is no one to help with it in modern settings.
        , @Swedish Family

        ...
         
        I agree with all this. Another great difference with previous eras, and one that Spandrell twittered about some months ago, is that kids back then would spend whole evenings and weekends outdoors, romping around with the neighborhood kids. This seems very rare these days (but not in developing countries, as Spandrell noted) and means that parents get very little quality time on their own. If you have ever babysat kids, you will know how hard it can be even to read a book while they are around. Now imagine this setup every weekend for half a decade.

        What is odd about this safety mania is that the dangers of having kids running around unsupervised are very low. Every passing adult will keep an eye on them, and kiddie fiddlers -- so far as you find them in a leafy suburb -- are typically family members or otherwise related to the child, not random strangers who happen to pass a playground.
        , @Anonymous

        Raising children is too much work in many respects, and this needs to be addressed at a societal level.
         
        That's true, but a lot of "raising children" today is just costly, wasteful signaling. All these expensive interventions aren't going to turn your child into a pro athlete or genius.

        In many ways, the marginal cost of more kids goes down because older siblings are a source of hand-me-downs, guidance, care, tutoring, babysitting, etc. Moreover, there are intangibles that only siblings can provide. Older siblings who already went through your high school, college, early professional life, etc., can provide much better social, academic, and career guidance and advice than a parent can.

        I suspect a lot of the costly parental "investment" today serves as a rationalization to avoid having more children for other reasons.
      69. @Epigon
        That’s a lady you are addressing so your demeanour and calling out of “whiteknighting” are inappropriate.

        Furthermore, I am deeply interested in your opinion of your mother and female relatives, and especially in your family size.

        There is this Serbian thing where everyone is full of shit on family values, tradition and conservatism while they are degenerate, hypocritical, hedonistic opportunists. In addition, they all lust after a specific type of “fun” women.

        Ich begann sie allmählich zu hassen.

        Oh ok, thanks for explaining the first part lol. Now things make a bit more sense.

        As for my family size, well my parents had 3 children with me as one of them. So they did their part to have a fertility rate of above 2.1

        I don’t understand what you mean by “opinion” of mother and female relatives. I actually happen to have more male relatives overall strangely (?) enough. At least that i actually keep in contact with/socialize.

        As for most Serbians being full of shit about tradition, what i would say is that everyone knows the social expectations to be traditional are strong, so no one wants to publicly go against them. Given the way that modern culture and society is currently set up, it’s completely understandable why most people cave in to temptation since it’s unfortunately too easy to do so. I must truthfully admit that i engaged in some degeneracy a few years earlier although i stopped that some time ago. Still, in general it’s much more acceptable for men to engage in sexual degeneracy (just like it traditionally has been) compared to women since women are the ones from where children spawn.

        LOL at “Gradually I began to hate them.”

        • Replies: @Epigon
        I can now conclude that you are not married, have no children and have had a promiscuous, degenerate lifestyle.

        In other words, you’ve had your share of “fun” and partying, but now preach on female emancipation and liberation, promiscuity and negative social trends.

        It comes of as hypocritical - “do as I tell you and not as I do/did”.
        The absence of virtuous, bona fide reactionaries is problematic.
      70. Anon[855] • Disclaimer says:
        @Twodees Partain
        The mating habits of Nordic women won't matter once Scandinavia is overrun with ME/African muslims. Even if Nordic women continue to bear their 2.3 Nordic babies, the muslims will outnumber them and will keep bearing 6.8 babies per woman and the muslim men will father those children with multiple muslim women.

        The Nords are doomed unless they deport the muslim invaders.

        The Nords are doomed unless they deport the muslim invaders.

        They won’t be deported.

        They’ll be slaughtered in the final apocalyptic war that is slated for the West, which is what they are being imported to fight.

        The war is designed to destroy Western nations in-total, as well as the Arabs as a race, leaving Israel as the only nation left standing.

        This is the final fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic idea and their scriptures.

        Read your Bible for some clues, but the Jewish texts state these facts outright.

        Our current leaders are unequivocal traitors and our destroyers: serving Jewish strategy.

        http://www.betemunah.org/edom.html

        Edom

        By Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)

        Jewish tradition gives us the following formula:

        Esau=Edom=Rome=Christianity.

        These two, Yaaqov and Esau, are going to be fighting throughout history. Later, these powers coalesce; Rome gives rise to the Western culture and its religion and it continues to fight the Jewish people.

        In the future, the children of Yishmael will rule over the Holy land for a long time while the land is
        empty, just as their circumcision is empty and without completion. And they will hinder the children of Israel from returning to their place, until their merit in the Holy land runs out.

        The Jewish scriptural reference for the below text that founds my primary claim in my opening paragraph of this post:

        Zohar Torah portion of Va’era page 32a

        alternately:

        Soncino Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 32a

        In the future the children of Yishmael will stir great wars in the world. And the children of Edom [the West] will gather against them, and make war with them, one on the sea, and one on the land, and one by Jerusalem; and each one will prevail over the other but the Holy land will notfall to the hands of Edom.

        At the same time, a nation from the end of the world will be awakened against wicked Rome. (Rome here is said to refer to the spiritual center of western civilization) and it will make war against her for three months, and many nations will gather there, and they will fall by her hand, until all the children of Edom will gather against her from all corners of the earth.

        And then G-d will awaken Himself against them, as it says, “a sacrificial slaughter for the Lord in Batzra”, and it says, “to shake the corners of the Land”. And after this, the children of Yishmael will be finished from the world. And all the supernal powers of the nations will be broken, and no power will remain above except for the power of Israel alone.

        Our festival readings during Succoth also speak to the war between Edom and Ishmael

        The Haftorot for both the first day of Succoth, from Zechariah 14:1-21, and Shabbat Chol HaMoed Succoth. from Yechezkel 38:18 – 39:16, describe the wars of Gog and Magog, the battles preceding the advent of the Messianic Era. These battles revolve around Jerusalem with the chief combatants being Edom and Yishmael (see Malbim to Yechezkel 38:2).

        The small book written by the prophet Ovadiah contains a prophecy regarding the end of Edom:

        Ovadiah 1:17-21 But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions. And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph aflame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be [any] remaining of the house of Esau;

        If Esau / Edom’s success is inversely proportional to that of Yaaqov / Israel, then it follows naturally that the punishment of Edom who now enslaves us in exile will come at the same time as the redemption.

        Note that Jews see Westerners in control of their own nations as a form of Jewish slavery.

        It is also worth noting that “Shemot”refers to the book of Exodus.

        The next text excerpt in this post is from the Zohar (Kabbalah) commentary on Shemot-Exodus.

        In the Zohar commentary on Shemot-Exodus, the commentary is not in regard to the past (which has no meaning in the Jewish religion as non-Jews perceive the past) but in regard to the events leading up to their future concept of the Messianic Era.

        This gives you a clue on how to understand the Jewish religion and its texts. In this instance: Exodus.

        Arguably the most relevant code in the texts, out of many codes, is that they are meant to be read as events happening in the present.

        Whomever sees themselves as historically rooted in the events of the OT, when properly interpreting it, is to see the OT as a continuing modern narrative (and therefore modern political instruction for that group).

        Exodus is not a myth that lives in the past, but in the present. Mircea Eliade documented this religious system method in his book: The Myth of the Eternal Return

        The Jews are now symbolically marching out of Egypt

        (or the West, which they view as enslaving them whenever they do not fully control it).

        The Exodus from Egypt having always been a myth (as asserted by mainstream scholars), or more accurately veiled political instruction to control and then destroy whatever enemies the Jews invent on their march toward destroying their Northern enemies as well as the Arabs.

        Acquiring the promised land in the myth of Exodus, along with the genocide of the non-Jews to get it, is modern political instruction on how to achieve their Messianic Age.

        Nothing in the below Chabad excerpt was inserted by me. It is 100% a Rabbinical edit:

        https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1391003/jewish/Daily-Zohar-Vaeira-Day-5.htm

        Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 32a

        The children of Ishmael [i.e. the Arab nations] will cause great wars in the world and the children of Edom will gather against them and wage war against them, one on the sea, one on the dry land, and one near Jerusalem. And they [the children of Edom] will rule over them [the children of Ishmael], but the Holy Land will not be given over to the children of Edom. [The children of Edom is the Christian West, for Edom is Rome (see Num. 24:19, Rashi) and Rome signifies Greece-Rome and the Roman Catholic Church, the foundations of Western Civilization]

        At that time, a nation from the end of the earth will be aroused against evil Rome and wage war against it for three months. Nations will gather there, and [Rome] will fall into their hands, until all the children of Edom will gather against it [that nation] from all the corners of the world. Then G‑d will be roused against them. This is the meaning of: “For G‑d has a sacrifice in Botzrah”. (Isaiah 34:6) And afterwards, it is written: “That it might take hold of the ends of the earth…” (Job 38:13) He will destroy the descendants of Ishmael from the land, and break all the powers of [all the nations’ guardian angels] Above. There will not remain any power of any people on earth, except the power of Israel alone.

        BeRahamim LeHayyim: One cannot ignore the facts. To do so entreats disaster. Read this in terms of the daily news, and substitute Arab nations for Ishmael, and the West and US for Edom.

        • Replies: @Anon
        From this text alone, within which we can observe Jews being the only beneficiary, Jews are not our friends, nor friends or Patriots of the USA.

        This text, calling for the destruction of the West in total to include the United States so that Israel can be the only World power left standing, marks the Jewish group as a traitorous group intent on destroying our nation as well as the entire West for their benefit.

        No more shuckin and jivin by Jews on this website should be tolerated, given this context.

        No matter what other arguments that they make, this Jewish scripture marks them as our primary enemy: which is how they see us (as stated by the first Rabbi quoted above).

        Nothing else matters in that context, and they should not be engaged on any level. Every one of their positions should be read as having a primarily hostile intent if not to be an outright lie.
      71. @TheTotallyAnonymous
        Oh ok, thanks for explaining the first part lol. Now things make a bit more sense.

        As for my family size, well my parents had 3 children with me as one of them. So they did their part to have a fertility rate of above 2.1

        I don't understand what you mean by "opinion" of mother and female relatives. I actually happen to have more male relatives overall strangely (?) enough. At least that i actually keep in contact with/socialize.

        As for most Serbians being full of shit about tradition, what i would say is that everyone knows the social expectations to be traditional are strong, so no one wants to publicly go against them. Given the way that modern culture and society is currently set up, it's completely understandable why most people cave in to temptation since it's unfortunately too easy to do so. I must truthfully admit that i engaged in some degeneracy a few years earlier although i stopped that some time ago. Still, in general it's much more acceptable for men to engage in sexual degeneracy (just like it traditionally has been) compared to women since women are the ones from where children spawn.

        LOL at "Gradually I began to hate them."

        I can now conclude that you are not married, have no children and have had a promiscuous, degenerate lifestyle.

        In other words, you’ve had your share of “fun” and partying, but now preach on female emancipation and liberation, promiscuity and negative social trends.

        It comes of as hypocritical – “do as I tell you and not as I do/did”.
        The absence of virtuous, bona fide reactionaries is problematic.

        • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
        Well i'm still young and i intend to get married. So i still have time (under 30). I just need more money and security. I should also clarify that my life situation is actually somewhat similar to AP's/Anatoly's that i'm actually living in the diaspora and west (Anglosphere but not UK or USA) right now (actually have spent a few years in Serbia), but intend to return long term to Serbia. Ideally if i could find a woman to have a family with and 3 children (minimum), it would be amazing, but first sorting out money is a must.

        There's nothing hypocritical about men telling or lecturing women on much of anything. That's how things always were before and that's how things always will be unless we won't exist.

        I was being completely honest about my behavior habits. What about you though? Are you married? Do you have kids?
        , @Swedish Family

        I can now conclude that you are not married, have no children and have had a promiscuous, degenerate lifestyle.

        In other words, you’ve had your share of “fun” and partying, but now preach on female emancipation and liberation, promiscuity and negative social trends.

        It comes of as hypocritical – “do as I tell you and not as I do/did”.
        The absence of virtuous, bona fide reactionaries is problematic.
         
        You have a point, but we should not forget that 19th century Europeans were expert hypocrites. I read somewhere that even the small Swedish town of Uppsala once had thousands of prostitutes (I seem to remember over 10,000, but that that seems a fantastically high figure). This is worth bearing in mind when you read writers like Tolstoy (epic skirt chaser) and Chekhov (epic whoremonger): the attempts at moral uprightness were very real, but 19th century man was no stranger to vice.

        I happen to agree, by the way, with Žižek, who says (1) that the loss of this hypocricy over the past century is part of what separates Northern Europeans from their eastern and southern neighbors, and (2) that this "practice what you preach" mentality is sometimes a source of weakness since societies need a bit of hypocrisy to run smoothly (and, one might add, to avoid certain societal dysfuntions).
      72. Anon[505] • Disclaimer says:
        @Anon

        The Nords are doomed unless they deport the muslim invaders.
         
        They won't be deported.

        They'll be slaughtered in the final apocalyptic war that is slated for the West, which is what they are being imported to fight.

        The war is designed to destroy Western nations in-total, as well as the Arabs as a race, leaving Israel as the only nation left standing.

        This is the final fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic idea and their scriptures.

        Read your Bible for some clues, but the Jewish texts state these facts outright.

        Our current leaders are unequivocal traitors and our destroyers: serving Jewish strategy.

        http://www.betemunah.org/edom.html

        Edom

        By Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)

        Jewish tradition gives us the following formula:

        Esau=Edom=Rome=Christianity.

        These two, Yaaqov and Esau, are going to be fighting throughout history. Later, these powers coalesce; Rome gives rise to the Western culture and its religion and it continues to fight the Jewish people.

        In the future, the children of Yishmael will rule over the Holy land for a long time while the land is
        empty, just as their circumcision is empty and without completion. And they will hinder the children of Israel from returning to their place, until their merit in the Holy land runs out.

        The Jewish scriptural reference for the below text that founds my primary claim in my opening paragraph of this post:

        Zohar Torah portion of Va’era page 32a

        alternately:

        Soncino Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 32a


        In the future the children of Yishmael will stir great wars in the world. And the children of Edom [the West] will gather against them, and make war with them, one on the sea, and one on the land, and one by Jerusalem; and each one will prevail over the other but the Holy land will notfall to the hands of Edom.

        At the same time, a nation from the end of the world will be awakened against wicked Rome. (Rome here is said to refer to the spiritual center of western civilization) and it will make war against her for three months, and many nations will gather there, and they will fall by her hand, until all the children of Edom will gather against her from all corners of the earth.

        And then G-d will awaken Himself against them, as it says, “a sacrificial slaughter for the Lord in Batzra”, and it says, “to shake the corners of the Land”. And after this, the children of Yishmael will be finished from the world. And all the supernal powers of the nations will be broken, and no power will remain above except for the power of Israel alone.

        Our festival readings during Succoth also speak to the war between Edom and Ishmael

        The Haftorot for both the first day of Succoth, from Zechariah 14:1-21, and Shabbat Chol HaMoed Succoth. from Yechezkel 38:18 – 39:16, describe the wars of Gog and Magog, the battles preceding the advent of the Messianic Era. These battles revolve around Jerusalem with the chief combatants being Edom and Yishmael (see Malbim to Yechezkel 38:2).

        The small book written by the prophet Ovadiah contains a prophecy regarding the end of Edom:

        Ovadiah 1:17-21 But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions. And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph aflame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be [any] remaining of the house of Esau;

        If Esau / Edom’s success is inversely proportional to that of Yaaqov / Israel, then it follows naturally that the punishment of Edom who now enslaves us in exile will come at the same time as the redemption.
         
        Note that Jews see Westerners in control of their own nations as a form of Jewish slavery.

        It is also worth noting that "Shemot"refers to the book of Exodus.

        The next text excerpt in this post is from the Zohar (Kabbalah) commentary on Shemot-Exodus.

        In the Zohar commentary on Shemot-Exodus, the commentary is not in regard to the past (which has no meaning in the Jewish religion as non-Jews perceive the past) but in regard to the events leading up to their future concept of the Messianic Era.

        This gives you a clue on how to understand the Jewish religion and its texts. In this instance: Exodus.

        Arguably the most relevant code in the texts, out of many codes, is that they are meant to be read as events happening in the present.

        Whomever sees themselves as historically rooted in the events of the OT, when properly interpreting it, is to see the OT as a continuing modern narrative (and therefore modern political instruction for that group).

        Exodus is not a myth that lives in the past, but in the present. Mircea Eliade documented this religious system method in his book: The Myth of the Eternal Return

        The Jews are now symbolically marching out of Egypt

        (or the West, which they view as enslaving them whenever they do not fully control it).

        The Exodus from Egypt having always been a myth (as asserted by mainstream scholars), or more accurately veiled political instruction to control and then destroy whatever enemies the Jews invent on their march toward destroying their Northern enemies as well as the Arabs.

        Acquiring the promised land in the myth of Exodus, along with the genocide of the non-Jews to get it, is modern political instruction on how to achieve their Messianic Age.

        Nothing in the below Chabad excerpt was inserted by me. It is 100% a Rabbinical edit:

        https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1391003/jewish/Daily-Zohar-Vaeira-Day-5.htm

        Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 32a

        The children of Ishmael [i.e. the Arab nations] will cause great wars in the world and the children of Edom will gather against them and wage war against them, one on the sea, one on the dry land, and one near Jerusalem. And they [the children of Edom] will rule over them [the children of Ishmael], but the Holy Land will not be given over to the children of Edom. [The children of Edom is the Christian West, for Edom is Rome (see Num. 24:19, Rashi) and Rome signifies Greece-Rome and the Roman Catholic Church, the foundations of Western Civilization]

        At that time, a nation from the end of the earth will be aroused against evil Rome and wage war against it for three months. Nations will gather there, and [Rome] will fall into their hands, until all the children of Edom will gather against it [that nation] from all the corners of the world. Then G‑d will be roused against them. This is the meaning of: "For G‑d has a sacrifice in Botzrah". (Isaiah 34:6) And afterwards, it is written: "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth..." (Job 38:13) He will destroy the descendants of Ishmael from the land, and break all the powers of [all the nations' guardian angels] Above. There will not remain any power of any people on earth, except the power of Israel alone.

        BeRahamim LeHayyim: One cannot ignore the facts. To do so entreats disaster. Read this in terms of the daily news, and substitute Arab nations for Ishmael, and the West and US for Edom.
         

        From this text alone, within which we can observe Jews being the only beneficiary, Jews are not our friends, nor friends or Patriots of the USA.

        This text, calling for the destruction of the West in total to include the United States so that Israel can be the only World power left standing, marks the Jewish group as a traitorous group intent on destroying our nation as well as the entire West for their benefit.

        No more shuckin and jivin by Jews on this website should be tolerated, given this context.

        No matter what other arguments that they make, this Jewish scripture marks them as our primary enemy: which is how they see us (as stated by the first Rabbi quoted above).

        Nothing else matters in that context, and they should not be engaged on any level. Every one of their positions should be read as having a primarily hostile intent if not to be an outright lie.

      73. @Thorfinnsson
        Raising children is too much work in many respects, and this needs to be addressed at a societal level.

        Parents are expected to be chauffeurs, event coordinators, unpaid academic tutors, sports coaches, legal advocates, college prep coaches, personal chefs, and more. I'm sure it's all very exhausting, especially since parents are mostly out of shape and older these days. And frequently both work full time, which increases the work burden on the father while further draining the already tired mother.

        Even little things like child safety seats are an issue. When baby boomers were children, child safety seats didn't even exist. Just throw your kids in the car and go. In fact seat belts were optional on cars. Now you're legally required in most cases to have them. They cost money, they're a pain to install, and it takes quite a bit of time to strap in and release children.

        Each additional safety seat is more work and expense, and once you have more than two kids you generally need to buy a larger, and thus more expensive, car. These larger vehicles which are still affordable are usually minivans, which any self-respecting man is ashamed to be seen in or even admit to owning.

        Is the social benefit of increased safety in car accidents for children worth the cost? I don't know.

        There was a post on Marginal Revolution lately asking the rhetorical question if big business hates families. We might go on to ask if our entire society hates families. Families are saddled with massive burdens but receive little assistance in managing these burdens other than lip service about how wonderful parents are.

        Raising children is a tough challenge when both parents are employed and moved to the town/city from somewhere else, more so in case they moved from rural to urban setting.

        Yugocommunists and Bolsheviks atomized large agrarian families, moved them to small flats in massive proletarian sprawls – lo and behold – fertility collapsed.

        I suspect similar thing occurred in Capitalist societies where people move to more attractive/dynamic urban centres in search of opportunities.

        Whereas the burden of raising children is spread on family members in large families and villages with several related households in them – grandparents, uncles, aunts – there is no one to help with it in modern settings.

        • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
        Birth rates were negatively slammed in four waves imo.

        The first wave was the voluntary suppression of elite fertility in order to participate in "society" and increase the amount of resources inherited by heirs.

        The second wave was from industrialization and urbanization (what you just described).

        The third wave was from birth control and promiscuity.

        The fourth wave was from helicopter parenting, "diversity", and electronic entertainment.
      74. @Thorfinnsson
        Raising children is too much work in many respects, and this needs to be addressed at a societal level.

        Parents are expected to be chauffeurs, event coordinators, unpaid academic tutors, sports coaches, legal advocates, college prep coaches, personal chefs, and more. I'm sure it's all very exhausting, especially since parents are mostly out of shape and older these days. And frequently both work full time, which increases the work burden on the father while further draining the already tired mother.

        Even little things like child safety seats are an issue. When baby boomers were children, child safety seats didn't even exist. Just throw your kids in the car and go. In fact seat belts were optional on cars. Now you're legally required in most cases to have them. They cost money, they're a pain to install, and it takes quite a bit of time to strap in and release children.

        Each additional safety seat is more work and expense, and once you have more than two kids you generally need to buy a larger, and thus more expensive, car. These larger vehicles which are still affordable are usually minivans, which any self-respecting man is ashamed to be seen in or even admit to owning.

        Is the social benefit of increased safety in car accidents for children worth the cost? I don't know.

        There was a post on Marginal Revolution lately asking the rhetorical question if big business hates families. We might go on to ask if our entire society hates families. Families are saddled with massive burdens but receive little assistance in managing these burdens other than lip service about how wonderful parents are.

        I agree with all this. Another great difference with previous eras, and one that Spandrell twittered about some months ago, is that kids back then would spend whole evenings and weekends outdoors, romping around with the neighborhood kids. This seems very rare these days (but not in developing countries, as Spandrell noted) and means that parents get very little quality time on their own. If you have ever babysat kids, you will know how hard it can be even to read a book while they are around. Now imagine this setup every weekend for half a decade.

        What is odd about this safety mania is that the dangers of having kids running around unsupervised are very low. Every passing adult will keep an eye on them, and kiddie fiddlers — so far as you find them in a leafy suburb — are typically family members or otherwise related to the child, not random strangers who happen to pass a playground.

        • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
        In America things have gotten so bad that busybodies now call the police when they see unsupervised children playing outside.

        The shift from rail to motorized transport is also a major problem in cities. Used to be kids played outside in the streets in urban neighborhoods, which now is obviously dangerous.
      75. @Epigon
        I can now conclude that you are not married, have no children and have had a promiscuous, degenerate lifestyle.

        In other words, you’ve had your share of “fun” and partying, but now preach on female emancipation and liberation, promiscuity and negative social trends.

        It comes of as hypocritical - “do as I tell you and not as I do/did”.
        The absence of virtuous, bona fide reactionaries is problematic.

        Well i’m still young and i intend to get married. So i still have time (under 30). I just need more money and security. I should also clarify that my life situation is actually somewhat similar to AP’s/Anatoly’s that i’m actually living in the diaspora and west (Anglosphere but not UK or USA) right now (actually have spent a few years in Serbia), but intend to return long term to Serbia. Ideally if i could find a woman to have a family with and 3 children (minimum), it would be amazing, but first sorting out money is a must.

        There’s nothing hypocritical about men telling or lecturing women on much of anything. That’s how things always were before and that’s how things always will be unless we won’t exist.

        I was being completely honest about my behavior habits. What about you though? Are you married? Do you have kids?

        • Replies: @Rosie

        There’s nothing hypocritical about men telling or lecturing women on much of anything. That’s how things always were before and that’s how things always will be unless we won’t exist.
         
        Because we've always done it that way.
      76. @Swedish Family

        10-15 years ago maybe. There has been a significant increase in miscegenation in the last decade and a half. It’s hard to put an exact number but a fair ballpark estimate, at least here in Stockholm, is about 20% of White women under the age of 35 and who have children have non-White kids, vast majority of them brown/black. That’s what I see and I move around quite a lot in this city and I purposefully try to guard against biases. (Many nationalists often overestimate these occurances due to strong feelings on the subject).
         
        This is also my view. As I remember, most of Thorfinnsson's memories of Sweden are from the 90s and 00s, when it was indeed highly segregated, and things have changed a good deal since then. Still in the mid-to-late-00s, for instance, most nightclubs around Stureplan, Stockholm's glitziest district, refused entry to all but the best-connected immigrants, and as late as the early 10s, you could still run into people from small-town Sweden who had barely spoken to an immigrant their whole life.

        As for Sweden's TFR, there are two things to remember: (1) Swedish society goes at great length to put every young Swede through its higher education system -- including newly-arrived immigrants -- so a college degree is a worse proxy for intelligence here than in most other countries; (2) Even with an economy that is famously generous to motherhood, our TFR is still below the steady-state level. If Russia had our levels of welfare, I'm sure its TFR would explode.

        I grew up in a smaller town and your observations are 100% correct. We basically had almost no non-Whites. In my secondary school (ages 12-15), we did not have a single non-White in our class. There were 5 other parallell classes for all three age groups and I think there were at most 2 or 3 non-Whites across all classes per age group, so something like 2-3% in total. And they were all hyperassimilated.

        Everything really went downhill after 9/11. We didn’t get afghans but we got huge amounts of iraqis and especially somalians. I went back to my old school a few years ago when I was visiting and I could literally count the amount of white children on a single hand on the schoolyard. This is a school that has capacity for 500 kids. I was told that all the white kids now go to schools just outside the small town in a small village. It’s ironic because back then these small villages had to send all their kids to our town, which created some amount of resentment. We also looked down upon them as hicks (though we were all provincial types in reality, but there’s always a pecking order). But apparently they have created new private schools outside of town (fria skolvalet) to deal with this demand, giving rise to substantial segregation. SD is now big in the municipality so the social justice warrior types are a lot weaker, so despite some bleating, not much is being done about this.

        I have a hard time feeling sympathy. These people voted for what they got, by and large. Most young Swedes just go to the bigger cities. There’s actually less ethnic tension here in my experience. Even Rinkeby is getting slowly gentrified with a lot of newly constructed buildings. Only the most socioeconomically successful immigrants stay on and many of them are more liberal.

        Plus Stockholm gets most of the best international migrants to Sweden, which have been coming in large droves since the last center-“right” government radically liberalised work migration requirements in 2011. While there are still many rapefugees coming, a non-trivial share of decently skilled Asian migrants are also showing up, and they concentrate in Stockholm whereas rapefugees get pushed out into the hinterlands and on the margins. So elite Swedes get a kind of “soft multiculturalism” with mostly assimilated immigrants. It’s really the working/lower-middle class Swedes out in the sub-50K towns and villages who get the raw end of the stick, but who cares about them right? Just about a bunch of obsolete racists. Those are also the strongest areas for SD.

        • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

        I have a hard time feeling sympathy. These people voted for what they got, by and large.
         
        People can't think for themselves. That's reality, and therefore it's appropriate to feel sympathy.

        Though the appropriate lesson to be drawn is that normies are cattle who must be ruled with an iron fist by a belligerent, autistic vanguard.
        , @Swedish Family

        Everything really went downhill after 9/11. We didn’t get afghans but we got huge amounts of iraqis and especially somalians. I went back to my old school a few years ago when I was visiting and I could literally count the amount of white children on a single hand on the schoolyard. This is a school that has capacity for 500 kids. I was told that all the white kids now go to schools just outside the small town in a small village. It’s ironic because back then these small villages had to send all their kids to our town, which created some amount of resentment. We also looked down upon them as hicks (though we were all provincial types in reality, but there’s always a pecking order). But apparently they have created new private schools outside of town (fria skolvalet) to deal with this demand, giving rise to substantial segregation. SD is now big in the municipality so the social justice warrior types are a lot weaker, so despite some bleating, not much is being done about this.
         
        I'm sorry to hear what became of your hometown.

        I'm a little torn on the question of where to place newly-arrived immigrants. My experience is that immigrants from small towns are far better integrated -- that is, more Swedish in their ways and tastes -- than those who grew up in the burbs of Stockholm/Göteborg/Malmö, which is obviously a good thing, but cramming thousands of them together in a small town is a sure recipe for disaster.

        Another downside with placing them in the countryside, and it's a huge one I think, is that turning the countryside multicultural deals our cultural heritage a heavy blow. A culture needs a traditional and backward-looking countryside to sustain itself since big cities are anti-tradition almost by definition. That's how they thrive.

        Plus Stockholm gets most of the best international migrants to Sweden, which have been coming in large droves since the last center-“right” government radically liberalised work migration requirements in 2011. While there are still many rapefugees coming, a non-trivial share of decently skilled Asian migrants are also showing up, and they concentrate in Stockholm whereas rapefugees get pushed out into the hinterlands and on the margins. So elite Swedes get a kind of “soft multiculturalism” with mostly assimilated immigrants. It’s really the working/lower-middle class Swedes out in the sub-50K towns and villages who get the raw end of the stick, but who cares about them right? Just about a bunch of obsolete racists. Those are also the strongest areas for SD.
         
        Yes, there is a strong city/country divide here. Something like a reverse class war. And it's hard to overstate how insulated inner-city Stockholmers are from what happens in the country. Many never even set foot outside the city limits, save for a short drive to Arlanda or their summer house by the sea.
        , @BengaliCanadianDude

        And they were all hyperassimilated
         
        Which goes to show you that assimilation is not just a pipe dream but a reality, but only in small numbers.
        , @notanon

        I have a hard time feeling sympathy. These people voted for what they got, by and large.
         
        most people are conformists for social cohesion reasons so the blame (or credit) for what happens to a country goes to the people who decide what the majority conform to - and post-war the biggest factor in that has been US media and academia.

        America's hostile elite has poisoned the whole world in proportion to how anglophone the population is.
      77. @TheTotallyAnonymous
        Well i'm still young and i intend to get married. So i still have time (under 30). I just need more money and security. I should also clarify that my life situation is actually somewhat similar to AP's/Anatoly's that i'm actually living in the diaspora and west (Anglosphere but not UK or USA) right now (actually have spent a few years in Serbia), but intend to return long term to Serbia. Ideally if i could find a woman to have a family with and 3 children (minimum), it would be amazing, but first sorting out money is a must.

        There's nothing hypocritical about men telling or lecturing women on much of anything. That's how things always were before and that's how things always will be unless we won't exist.

        I was being completely honest about my behavior habits. What about you though? Are you married? Do you have kids?

        There’s nothing hypocritical about men telling or lecturing women on much of anything. That’s how things always were before and that’s how things always will be unless we won’t exist.

        Because we’ve always done it that way.

      78. @Thorfinnsson


        Bullshit. A woman who doesn’t start till she’s thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don’t even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:

        https://i.scdn.co/image/5168f36cdf40c0824766fcb65c19c1d9a12ad3cf

        Mom, Dad, brother, sister. Mrs. Mozart bore seven children. Only two survived.
         
        If women nurse, which I assume you favor, this inhibits pregnancy for a few years. Hence why hunter-gatherers had children only every four years. This is also why the aristocracy in the past used wet nurses.

        As women age not only does pregnancy become less likely, but carries increased risk. There's a reason that pregnancies at age 35 and later are referred to as geriatric pregnancies.

        There's also the factor of energy. Being a new mother at twenty is much easier than being a new mother at forty.

        That is a terrible solution. Unmarried young men are notorious for whoremongering and pumping and dumping.
         
        Huh? I was suggesting that we (re)normalize young women marrying older men (within reason). Of course, this would require older men to actually stay in shape and dress properly. No dad bods please, especially if you're not even a dad. Western culture is extremely segregated by age cohorts. Even having friends of a different generation is uncommon.

        That said, in 1956 the median age of first marriage dropped to 22.5 for men. These young silent generation fathers went on to have stable marriages and large families because they lived in a society which was still pro-family.

        https://www.thespruce.com/estimated-median-age-marriage-2303878

        If women nurse, which I assume you favor, this inhibits pregnancy for a few years.

        Right. That’s what your doctor tells you. Then you turn up pregnant while you’re still nursing your 1 year old. Even if you start at 26 and space your children four years apart, you can still have 3 before 35.

        Huh? I was suggesting that we (re)normalize young women marrying older men (within reason).

        And my question to you is what are these young men going to be doing with themselves if they’re single during their twenties?

        • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

        Right. That’s what your doctor tells you. Then you turn up pregnant while you’re still nursing your 1 year old. Even if you start at 26 and space your children four years apart, you can still have 3 before 35.
         
        I'm aware that nursing is not a fool-proof method of contraception.

        You're also moving the goalposts by shifting from 30 to 26.

        There is again the matter of energy. If we ignore nursing as contraception, there's still the matter that probably most mothers aren't interested in getting knocked up again while nursing a one year old and take steps to prevent that.

        And my question to you is what are these young men going to be doing with themselves if they’re single during their twenties?
         
        Okay, I misunderstood you. I'm not suggesting that men remaining unmarried in their 20s is socially optimal, merely that (re)normalization of age-stratified marriage can be useful for the time being. Ultimately we of course wish to transition back to a family-centric coupling structure in which people gain the economic, cultural, and emotional stability required to form families at a young age.

        As for what to do with unmarried young men, they should of course be looting, pillaging, and raping enemy tribes.

        https://www.factinate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Viking-raid.jpg
      79. @Epigon
        I can now conclude that you are not married, have no children and have had a promiscuous, degenerate lifestyle.

        In other words, you’ve had your share of “fun” and partying, but now preach on female emancipation and liberation, promiscuity and negative social trends.

        It comes of as hypocritical - “do as I tell you and not as I do/did”.
        The absence of virtuous, bona fide reactionaries is problematic.

        I can now conclude that you are not married, have no children and have had a promiscuous, degenerate lifestyle.

        In other words, you’ve had your share of “fun” and partying, but now preach on female emancipation and liberation, promiscuity and negative social trends.

        It comes of as hypocritical – “do as I tell you and not as I do/did”.
        The absence of virtuous, bona fide reactionaries is problematic.

        You have a point, but we should not forget that 19th century Europeans were expert hypocrites. I read somewhere that even the small Swedish town of Uppsala once had thousands of prostitutes (I seem to remember over 10,000, but that that seems a fantastically high figure). This is worth bearing in mind when you read writers like Tolstoy (epic skirt chaser) and Chekhov (epic whoremonger): the attempts at moral uprightness were very real, but 19th century man was no stranger to vice.

        I happen to agree, by the way, with Žižek, who says (1) that the loss of this hypocricy over the past century is part of what separates Northern Europeans from their eastern and southern neighbors, and (2) that this “practice what you preach” mentality is sometimes a source of weakness since societies need a bit of hypocrisy to run smoothly (and, one might add, to avoid certain societal dysfuntions).

      80. @Thulean Friend
        I grew up in a smaller town and your observations are 100% correct. We basically had almost no non-Whites. In my secondary school (ages 12-15), we did not have a single non-White in our class. There were 5 other parallell classes for all three age groups and I think there were at most 2 or 3 non-Whites across all classes per age group, so something like 2-3% in total. And they were all hyperassimilated.

        Everything really went downhill after 9/11. We didn't get afghans but we got huge amounts of iraqis and especially somalians. I went back to my old school a few years ago when I was visiting and I could literally count the amount of white children on a single hand on the schoolyard. This is a school that has capacity for 500 kids. I was told that all the white kids now go to schools just outside the small town in a small village. It's ironic because back then these small villages had to send all their kids to our town, which created some amount of resentment. We also looked down upon them as hicks (though we were all provincial types in reality, but there's always a pecking order). But apparently they have created new private schools outside of town (fria skolvalet) to deal with this demand, giving rise to substantial segregation. SD is now big in the municipality so the social justice warrior types are a lot weaker, so despite some bleating, not much is being done about this.

        I have a hard time feeling sympathy. These people voted for what they got, by and large. Most young Swedes just go to the bigger cities. There's actually less ethnic tension here in my experience. Even Rinkeby is getting slowly gentrified with a lot of newly constructed buildings. Only the most socioeconomically successful immigrants stay on and many of them are more liberal.

        Plus Stockholm gets most of the best international migrants to Sweden, which have been coming in large droves since the last center-"right" government radically liberalised work migration requirements in 2011. While there are still many rapefugees coming, a non-trivial share of decently skilled Asian migrants are also showing up, and they concentrate in Stockholm whereas rapefugees get pushed out into the hinterlands and on the margins. So elite Swedes get a kind of "soft multiculturalism" with mostly assimilated immigrants. It's really the working/lower-middle class Swedes out in the sub-50K towns and villages who get the raw end of the stick, but who cares about them right? Just about a bunch of obsolete racists. Those are also the strongest areas for SD.

        I have a hard time feeling sympathy. These people voted for what they got, by and large.

        People can’t think for themselves. That’s reality, and therefore it’s appropriate to feel sympathy.

        Though the appropriate lesson to be drawn is that normies are cattle who must be ruled with an iron fist by a belligerent, autistic vanguard.

        • Replies: @Swedish Family

        People can’t think for themselves. That’s reality, and therefore it’s appropriate to feel sympathy.
         
        That's an interesting spin. I can't say I disagree.
      81. @Epigon
        Raising children is a tough challenge when both parents are employed and moved to the town/city from somewhere else, more so in case they moved from rural to urban setting.

        Yugocommunists and Bolsheviks atomized large agrarian families, moved them to small flats in massive proletarian sprawls - lo and behold - fertility collapsed.

        I suspect similar thing occurred in Capitalist societies where people move to more attractive/dynamic urban centres in search of opportunities.

        Whereas the burden of raising children is spread on family members in large families and villages with several related households in them - grandparents, uncles, aunts - there is no one to help with it in modern settings.

        Birth rates were negatively slammed in four waves imo.

        The first wave was the voluntary suppression of elite fertility in order to participate in “society” and increase the amount of resources inherited by heirs.

        The second wave was from industrialization and urbanization (what you just described).

        The third wave was from birth control and promiscuity.

        The fourth wave was from helicopter parenting, “diversity”, and electronic entertainment.

      82. @Swedish Family

        ...
         
        I agree with all this. Another great difference with previous eras, and one that Spandrell twittered about some months ago, is that kids back then would spend whole evenings and weekends outdoors, romping around with the neighborhood kids. This seems very rare these days (but not in developing countries, as Spandrell noted) and means that parents get very little quality time on their own. If you have ever babysat kids, you will know how hard it can be even to read a book while they are around. Now imagine this setup every weekend for half a decade.

        What is odd about this safety mania is that the dangers of having kids running around unsupervised are very low. Every passing adult will keep an eye on them, and kiddie fiddlers -- so far as you find them in a leafy suburb -- are typically family members or otherwise related to the child, not random strangers who happen to pass a playground.

        In America things have gotten so bad that busybodies now call the police when they see unsupervised children playing outside.

        The shift from rail to motorized transport is also a major problem in cities. Used to be kids played outside in the streets in urban neighborhoods, which now is obviously dangerous.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        The shift from rail to motorized transport is also a major problem in cities. Used to be kids played outside in the streets in urban neighborhoods, which now is obviously dangerous.
         
        Yes, this is a problem. When you wind up having to take your kids to formal recreational activities, it gets expensive and time-consuming. It's easy to economize on housing, food, and clothing with bunk beds, bulk groceries, and hand-me-downs, but the fee for recreational activities is one-child, sometimes with a small sibling discount.
      83. @Rosie

        If women nurse, which I assume you favor, this inhibits pregnancy for a few years.
         
        Right. That's what your doctor tells you. Then you turn up pregnant while you're still nursing your 1 year old. Even if you start at 26 and space your children four years apart, you can still have 3 before 35.

        Huh? I was suggesting that we (re)normalize young women marrying older men (within reason).
         
        And my question to you is what are these young men going to be doing with themselves if they're single during their twenties?

        Right. That’s what your doctor tells you. Then you turn up pregnant while you’re still nursing your 1 year old. Even if you start at 26 and space your children four years apart, you can still have 3 before 35.

        I’m aware that nursing is not a fool-proof method of contraception.

        You’re also moving the goalposts by shifting from 30 to 26.

        There is again the matter of energy. If we ignore nursing as contraception, there’s still the matter that probably most mothers aren’t interested in getting knocked up again while nursing a one year old and take steps to prevent that.

        And my question to you is what are these young men going to be doing with themselves if they’re single during their twenties?

        Okay, I misunderstood you. I’m not suggesting that men remaining unmarried in their 20s is socially optimal, merely that (re)normalization of age-stratified marriage can be useful for the time being. Ultimately we of course wish to transition back to a family-centric coupling structure in which people gain the economic, cultural, and emotional stability required to form families at a young age.

        As for what to do with unmarried young men, they should of course be looting, pillaging, and raping enemy tribes.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        I’m aware that nursing is not a fool-proof method of contraception.
         
        The thing is that nutrition is a factor. Modern women are much more likely to fall pregnant soon after childbirth because we are well-fed, so a later age-at-first birth is fine. Tne advantage of close-in-age siblings is that they can help entertain each other.

        . I’m not suggesting that men remaining unmarried in their 20s is socially optimal, merely that (re)normalization of age-stratified marriage can be useful for the time being.
         
        True. It's important to distinguish short-term expediency from long-term ideals.
      84. @neutral
        Obviously begs the question how many "Swedes" listed here are white, and how many are white women miscegenating with non whites?

        Obviously begs the question how many “Swedes” listed here are white, and how many are white women miscegenating with non whites?

        Exactly.

      85. @Thorfinnsson
        In America things have gotten so bad that busybodies now call the police when they see unsupervised children playing outside.

        The shift from rail to motorized transport is also a major problem in cities. Used to be kids played outside in the streets in urban neighborhoods, which now is obviously dangerous.

        The shift from rail to motorized transport is also a major problem in cities. Used to be kids played outside in the streets in urban neighborhoods, which now is obviously dangerous.

        Yes, this is a problem. When you wind up having to take your kids to formal recreational activities, it gets expensive and time-consuming. It’s easy to economize on housing, food, and clothing with bunk beds, bulk groceries, and hand-me-downs, but the fee for recreational activities is one-child, sometimes with a small sibling discount.

        • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
        I was thinking about the chauffeuring problem in modern parenting, and it seems that bicycles are at least a partial solution. You can get pretty far on a bicycle in a surprisingly short period of time. This is doubly true with a properly maintained road bicycle instead of the mountain, trick, and fat tire bikes that have been favored by casual riders since the '90s. You can also carry a lot on a bike with panniers and a good old fashioned backpack.

        Of course, not all infrastructure supports bicycles, and there are activities that are too far to ride to in a reasonable period of time.

        It would also require the aforementioned busybodies not to call the police because they see eight year olds cycling unsupervised (the horror...). I could also see some ridiculous thing transpiring like CPS being contacted by the school when your kids arrive there on their own by bike in the winter. Obviously children will freeze to death if they're not transported to school in a Chevrolet Suburban in January.
      86. @Rosie

        The shift from rail to motorized transport is also a major problem in cities. Used to be kids played outside in the streets in urban neighborhoods, which now is obviously dangerous.
         
        Yes, this is a problem. When you wind up having to take your kids to formal recreational activities, it gets expensive and time-consuming. It's easy to economize on housing, food, and clothing with bunk beds, bulk groceries, and hand-me-downs, but the fee for recreational activities is one-child, sometimes with a small sibling discount.

        I was thinking about the chauffeuring problem in modern parenting, and it seems that bicycles are at least a partial solution. You can get pretty far on a bicycle in a surprisingly short period of time. This is doubly true with a properly maintained road bicycle instead of the mountain, trick, and fat tire bikes that have been favored by casual riders since the ’90s. You can also carry a lot on a bike with panniers and a good old fashioned backpack.

        Of course, not all infrastructure supports bicycles, and there are activities that are too far to ride to in a reasonable period of time.

        It would also require the aforementioned busybodies not to call the police because they see eight year olds cycling unsupervised (the horror…). I could also see some ridiculous thing transpiring like CPS being contacted by the school when your kids arrive there on their own by bike in the winter. Obviously children will freeze to death if they’re not transported to school in a Chevrolet Suburban in January.

      87. @Thorfinnsson

        Right. That’s what your doctor tells you. Then you turn up pregnant while you’re still nursing your 1 year old. Even if you start at 26 and space your children four years apart, you can still have 3 before 35.
         
        I'm aware that nursing is not a fool-proof method of contraception.

        You're also moving the goalposts by shifting from 30 to 26.

        There is again the matter of energy. If we ignore nursing as contraception, there's still the matter that probably most mothers aren't interested in getting knocked up again while nursing a one year old and take steps to prevent that.

        And my question to you is what are these young men going to be doing with themselves if they’re single during their twenties?
         
        Okay, I misunderstood you. I'm not suggesting that men remaining unmarried in their 20s is socially optimal, merely that (re)normalization of age-stratified marriage can be useful for the time being. Ultimately we of course wish to transition back to a family-centric coupling structure in which people gain the economic, cultural, and emotional stability required to form families at a young age.

        As for what to do with unmarried young men, they should of course be looting, pillaging, and raping enemy tribes.

        https://www.factinate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Viking-raid.jpg

        I’m aware that nursing is not a fool-proof method of contraception.

        The thing is that nutrition is a factor. Modern women are much more likely to fall pregnant soon after childbirth because we are well-fed, so a later age-at-first birth is fine. Tne advantage of close-in-age siblings is that they can help entertain each other.

        . I’m not suggesting that men remaining unmarried in their 20s is socially optimal, merely that (re)normalization of age-stratified marriage can be useful for the time being.

        True. It’s important to distinguish short-term expediency from long-term ideals.

      88. “It’s the smart fractions that overwhelmingly determine socio-economic success, and that smart fraction would appear to be quite vigorous.”

        No, it’s the general IQ that determines success and livability. Having a small percentage of geniuses won’t drag a dull mass up. You can see that all over South America. This is particularly true if the country is democratic and multi-racial. Voting for someone who looks like you trumps performance or intelligence. These lower intelligence groups might vote for someone who is relatively decent at first but when that doesn’t get them what they want (because it doesn’t change their biology) they’ll soon turn to racial demagogues rather then face the reality of their inabilities and dependency. You can see THIS in the modern U.S. where every public figure has to pretend that blacks are economically oppressed rather than admit the truth that blacks live far above their abilities for no other reason than that they live(d) in a majority European nation. The result is that most black leaders are ignorant, racist demagogues who value extortion rather than building.* Much of the smart class will eventually flee such a society.

        * I know, they’re not much worse than other politicians.

      89. @Rosie

        That said, the biological clock of females means the current system of delaying family formation until “education” is complete and a career is established puts a hard ceiling on TFR. The problem is made worse by promoting a “party” lifestyle for young women.
         
        Bullshit. A woman who doesn't start till she's thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don't even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:

        https://i.scdn.co/image/5168f36cdf40c0824766fcb65c19c1d9a12ad3cf

        Mom, Dad, brother, sister. Mrs. Mozart bore seven children. Only two survived.

        The entire schooling system also discourages the obvious solution of women pairing up with older men.
         
        That is a terrible solution. Unmarried young men are notorious for whoremongering and pumping and dumping.

        Bullshit. A woman who doesn’t start till she’s thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don’t even need that many.

        While there may be some exceptions, such a late starter will in practice have two or less.

        At this point, obviously more white babies are needed. Three or more, at least until we reach the point where additional new births exceed immigration. Probably for longer than that.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        While there may be some exceptions, such a late starter will in practice have two or less.
         
        If she only has two children, it's unlikely to be because she started late. Rather, it's probably going to be because she (and/or her husband) only wants two children. When you see very widely-spaced siblings, there is usually a reason for that. Often, there is an unplanned pregnancy early in the mother's life, and it took her some years to get herself together financially to have another child. Sometimes, there is a divorce and remarriage, or some other less-than-ideal situation.

        According to this article, the average spacing between siblings is 30 months. I don't know where they got that figure, but it rings true from my observations.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2012/11/08/how-far-apart-should-you-space-your-kids/#3a26b99f1b76

        Personally, I do not recommend waiting until thirty. I think mid-twenties is much better. That way, you're still young enough to go double digits if that's what you decide you want. On the other hand, you can quit and do something else after two of you'd rather. Younger motherhood actually makes sense from the standpoint of women's autonomy (not that that's the most important thing), because it's hard to know how many you want until you start having them.

        But realistically, some couples may need the extra time to get prepared. If that is the case, they can still have a very good size family if that is what they want. Moreover, if you start too early, you may not enjoy motherhood as much as you otherwise would have, in which case you might wind up having fewer children than you might have if you had waited. I suspect that is the gist of this article, though it's behind a paywall.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/us/us-birthrate-hispanics-latinos.html
      90. @Thulean Friend
        I grew up in a smaller town and your observations are 100% correct. We basically had almost no non-Whites. In my secondary school (ages 12-15), we did not have a single non-White in our class. There were 5 other parallell classes for all three age groups and I think there were at most 2 or 3 non-Whites across all classes per age group, so something like 2-3% in total. And they were all hyperassimilated.

        Everything really went downhill after 9/11. We didn't get afghans but we got huge amounts of iraqis and especially somalians. I went back to my old school a few years ago when I was visiting and I could literally count the amount of white children on a single hand on the schoolyard. This is a school that has capacity for 500 kids. I was told that all the white kids now go to schools just outside the small town in a small village. It's ironic because back then these small villages had to send all their kids to our town, which created some amount of resentment. We also looked down upon them as hicks (though we were all provincial types in reality, but there's always a pecking order). But apparently they have created new private schools outside of town (fria skolvalet) to deal with this demand, giving rise to substantial segregation. SD is now big in the municipality so the social justice warrior types are a lot weaker, so despite some bleating, not much is being done about this.

        I have a hard time feeling sympathy. These people voted for what they got, by and large. Most young Swedes just go to the bigger cities. There's actually less ethnic tension here in my experience. Even Rinkeby is getting slowly gentrified with a lot of newly constructed buildings. Only the most socioeconomically successful immigrants stay on and many of them are more liberal.

        Plus Stockholm gets most of the best international migrants to Sweden, which have been coming in large droves since the last center-"right" government radically liberalised work migration requirements in 2011. While there are still many rapefugees coming, a non-trivial share of decently skilled Asian migrants are also showing up, and they concentrate in Stockholm whereas rapefugees get pushed out into the hinterlands and on the margins. So elite Swedes get a kind of "soft multiculturalism" with mostly assimilated immigrants. It's really the working/lower-middle class Swedes out in the sub-50K towns and villages who get the raw end of the stick, but who cares about them right? Just about a bunch of obsolete racists. Those are also the strongest areas for SD.

        Everything really went downhill after 9/11. We didn’t get afghans but we got huge amounts of iraqis and especially somalians. I went back to my old school a few years ago when I was visiting and I could literally count the amount of white children on a single hand on the schoolyard. This is a school that has capacity for 500 kids. I was told that all the white kids now go to schools just outside the small town in a small village. It’s ironic because back then these small villages had to send all their kids to our town, which created some amount of resentment. We also looked down upon them as hicks (though we were all provincial types in reality, but there’s always a pecking order). But apparently they have created new private schools outside of town (fria skolvalet) to deal with this demand, giving rise to substantial segregation. SD is now big in the municipality so the social justice warrior types are a lot weaker, so despite some bleating, not much is being done about this.

        I’m sorry to hear what became of your hometown.

        I’m a little torn on the question of where to place newly-arrived immigrants. My experience is that immigrants from small towns are far better integrated — that is, more Swedish in their ways and tastes — than those who grew up in the burbs of Stockholm/Göteborg/Malmö, which is obviously a good thing, but cramming thousands of them together in a small town is a sure recipe for disaster.

        Another downside with placing them in the countryside, and it’s a huge one I think, is that turning the countryside multicultural deals our cultural heritage a heavy blow. A culture needs a traditional and backward-looking countryside to sustain itself since big cities are anti-tradition almost by definition. That’s how they thrive.

        Plus Stockholm gets most of the best international migrants to Sweden, which have been coming in large droves since the last center-“right” government radically liberalised work migration requirements in 2011. While there are still many rapefugees coming, a non-trivial share of decently skilled Asian migrants are also showing up, and they concentrate in Stockholm whereas rapefugees get pushed out into the hinterlands and on the margins. So elite Swedes get a kind of “soft multiculturalism” with mostly assimilated immigrants. It’s really the working/lower-middle class Swedes out in the sub-50K towns and villages who get the raw end of the stick, but who cares about them right? Just about a bunch of obsolete racists. Those are also the strongest areas for SD.

        Yes, there is a strong city/country divide here. Something like a reverse class war. And it’s hard to overstate how insulated inner-city Stockholmers are from what happens in the country. Many never even set foot outside the city limits, save for a short drive to Arlanda or their summer house by the sea.

        • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
        Integrating immigrants is undesirable since successful integration means miscegenation and thus dilution of the Swedish genotype and phenotype. In addition to it being desirable to preserve this from the point of view of Swedes themselves, the Swedish type has aesthetic and practical merit worth preserving.

        The best place for the immigrants is their countries of origin. Or at the bottom of the Gulf of Bothnia.
        , @Anatoly Karlin

        My experience is that immigrants from small towns are far better integrated — that is, more Swedish in their ways and tastes — than those who grew up in the burbs of Stockholm/Göteborg/Malmö...
         
        I spent my formative late childhood & teenage years as an immigrant in a relatively insular, prole northern English town.

        I will admit that I disliked and resented the place, and its denizens returned the favor. I would wager that I'd have fit in a lot better in much more cosmopolitan London, or even a "millionik" such as Manchester... perhaps even assimilated into British society... precisely because there is less to "assimilate to" in those places.

        I honestly feel myself to be more American than British (though I am of course neither), despite having spend only a decade in the latter.
      91. This is true. I’ve spent considerable time and Sweden, and the semi baby boom is clear. There’s a sense among the beautiful, but dreadfully unfeminine Swedish women that having a baby despite working is a hueman right. Selfishly abandoning the child to be raised in daycare, where he will be led around on field trips wearing a brightly colored safety vest, tethered to other children, is seen as not only normal, but the only legitimate way to raise children.

        I saw women pregnant while doing PhDs, or working high level management jobs. The idea is “It’s my right to have a baby whenever I want, and society had better remove all responsibilities and expectations from me which might get in the way”. It’s not an appealing situation to me, but it is IQ-eugenic.

        Sweden had such a massive human and physical capital endowment going into the 1990s immigration era that it was never in question if it would “be ok”. The entire population of Somalia could move to Sweden and it would “be ok” in the sense that the lights would stay on and the store shelves would be stocked. The immigrants in Sweden are too incompetent to do much more than randomly rape and throw hand grenades.

        If you’d put in place some sort of NRx fantasy national CEO dictatorship in Sweden in 1990, today you’d have a utopian, futurist society beyond anything the world has ever seen. That’s how good Sweden’s endowment was, how much potential she had. Instead you have this smug, self righteous, high income, low density country of lakes and forests, dragged down by the shitheels of the third world. It’s a weird mix, but Swedes are c*nts and deserve everything they’ve done to themselves. Don’t cry for Sweden.

      92. @Thorfinnsson

        I have a hard time feeling sympathy. These people voted for what they got, by and large.
         
        People can't think for themselves. That's reality, and therefore it's appropriate to feel sympathy.

        Though the appropriate lesson to be drawn is that normies are cattle who must be ruled with an iron fist by a belligerent, autistic vanguard.

        People can’t think for themselves. That’s reality, and therefore it’s appropriate to feel sympathy.

        That’s an interesting spin. I can’t say I disagree.

      93. @AaronB
        I think you are overstating the case for brain drain. Many leave temporarily and return, and it's also well known that Israel has a flourishing hi tech industry with high paid jobs, not to mention, the extensive arms industry and military provide tech opportunities.

        I personally know several Israeli hi tech emigres in NYC who dream of returning to Israel and plan on doing so, seeing their stay here as work related and temporary, and their hearts they left in Israel.

        You are vastly overstating the case in your other list of problems. Israel built a fence that stopped African immigration to zero, and they are frankly described as infiltrators, not dreamers or undocumented Israelis by everyone. This demonstrates more political will than any other Western country.

        The failure to deport Africans there is unfortunate, but in a diverse political system some concessions must be made even to idealistic dreamers, provided they are minor. In the West, such people have taken over.

        As for demographics, all the trends favor Israel long term - the Arab growth rate has cratered since the 90s and continues to decline, and the Jewish growth rate is going up.

        You are correct that orthodox Jews contribute much to the Jewish growth rate, but even the most highly educated seculars, we have seen, have above replacement TFR.

        The Palestinian population is rapidly aging, and there is speculation that with far fewer young men it won't be so interested in fighting anymore, and peace may cone as a result of demographic change.

        The political solutions you favor would transform Israel into a globalist economic outpost stripped of its specific character, a sterile Singapore in the Levant, with economic efficiency the priority.

        stopped African immigration to zero

        That’s not true. They can just fly in through the airport, and then do not leave, now. For example, a few years ago, the illegal immigrants were mainly men.

        However, when I was in Israel last year I saw large numbers of Sudanese girls in hijabs everywhere, and many,many African children (who are being born in Israel).

        So original illegal immigrants are now importing women and wives from Sudan and Eritrea, to Israel, and having very high birthrates inside Israel.

        By Supreme Court law, Israel will have to give these children citizenship eventually. So these are all future Israeli citizens. (Even if Israeli government and media, do not like to report this fact – it is legal fact).

        Now schools are closed down in Tel Aviv, to allow for these many African children.

        Moreover do you know Israel?

        My experience last year of exploring African areas in Tel Aviv – there are vast numbers of Africans, and Israelis have no control of those areas.

        Also they are not “nice Africans”, but generally the more dangerous and criminal elements of those countries.

        Israel has little state capacity in this area. People imagine because a country has good missile defense, then it will have state capacity in all other areas.

        But Israel has clearly very low, almost third world, state capacity in this area of immigration.

        Palestinian population is rapidly aging

        That’s not true. They have very large families. Most fertile population in Israel, are Bedouin, – although Bedouin don’t have “Palestinian” self identity.

        transform Israel into a globalist economic outpost stripped of its specific character, a sterile Singapore

        Singapore converted a tropical swamp, with no land, to a habitable place where people want to live.

        It’s one of the greatest achievements of second half of 20th century, to beginning of the 21st century.

        If any country, let alone Israel, could emulate Singapore, they would be one of the best countries in world. Moreover, if a country like Israel attracted the same immigrants as Singapore, who are often skilled secularist Chinese people, this would have a very positive effect on their demographics.

        • Replies: @AaronB
        This Israel of yours sounds like a terrible place - I am surprised you wish to take any vacations there :)

        Yet you keep on going back.

        I am moving there soon, myself.
      94. @Swedish Family

        Everything really went downhill after 9/11. We didn’t get afghans but we got huge amounts of iraqis and especially somalians. I went back to my old school a few years ago when I was visiting and I could literally count the amount of white children on a single hand on the schoolyard. This is a school that has capacity for 500 kids. I was told that all the white kids now go to schools just outside the small town in a small village. It’s ironic because back then these small villages had to send all their kids to our town, which created some amount of resentment. We also looked down upon them as hicks (though we were all provincial types in reality, but there’s always a pecking order). But apparently they have created new private schools outside of town (fria skolvalet) to deal with this demand, giving rise to substantial segregation. SD is now big in the municipality so the social justice warrior types are a lot weaker, so despite some bleating, not much is being done about this.
         
        I'm sorry to hear what became of your hometown.

        I'm a little torn on the question of where to place newly-arrived immigrants. My experience is that immigrants from small towns are far better integrated -- that is, more Swedish in their ways and tastes -- than those who grew up in the burbs of Stockholm/Göteborg/Malmö, which is obviously a good thing, but cramming thousands of them together in a small town is a sure recipe for disaster.

        Another downside with placing them in the countryside, and it's a huge one I think, is that turning the countryside multicultural deals our cultural heritage a heavy blow. A culture needs a traditional and backward-looking countryside to sustain itself since big cities are anti-tradition almost by definition. That's how they thrive.

        Plus Stockholm gets most of the best international migrants to Sweden, which have been coming in large droves since the last center-“right” government radically liberalised work migration requirements in 2011. While there are still many rapefugees coming, a non-trivial share of decently skilled Asian migrants are also showing up, and they concentrate in Stockholm whereas rapefugees get pushed out into the hinterlands and on the margins. So elite Swedes get a kind of “soft multiculturalism” with mostly assimilated immigrants. It’s really the working/lower-middle class Swedes out in the sub-50K towns and villages who get the raw end of the stick, but who cares about them right? Just about a bunch of obsolete racists. Those are also the strongest areas for SD.
         
        Yes, there is a strong city/country divide here. Something like a reverse class war. And it's hard to overstate how insulated inner-city Stockholmers are from what happens in the country. Many never even set foot outside the city limits, save for a short drive to Arlanda or their summer house by the sea.

        Integrating immigrants is undesirable since successful integration means miscegenation and thus dilution of the Swedish genotype and phenotype. In addition to it being desirable to preserve this from the point of view of Swedes themselves, the Swedish type has aesthetic and practical merit worth preserving.

        The best place for the immigrants is their countries of origin. Or at the bottom of the Gulf of Bothnia.

        • Agree: Adam, Rosie
      95. @Andrey Kuznetsov
        "Israeli Jews have to pay very high university tuition fees"

        Not really. In a university academic year would cost around 11,000 nis a year, around 3000$~

        This is expensive for ordinary Israeli people. They also have to pay for food, accommodation, (often) travel. Life is expensive Israel – they have also served in the army almost for free, unlike Arabs, who go to university while the Jews are in bootcamps, and who are then often subsidized for university tuition with endless special scholarships.

        In addition, immigrants have free university in Israel, while native Israelis have to pay. The situation is absurd and of course it causes them to dream of going to university in the EU.

      96. @Thulean Friend

        Illegal immigrants from Africa, do not leave and destroyed some areas of Israeli cities.
         
        The illegal immigrants have declined in numbers from their high in 2012-14. Israel sent many of them to various Western countries and repatriated some of them. Many of them are stuck in Holot and other areas. I'm aware of the problems in South Tel Aviv but it's a minor picnic compared to the situation in many Western countries.

        A bigger problem for Israel is that it has bought into the melting pot idea for jews. The result is pictures like these:

        https://i.imgur.com/GhbHn0e.jpg

        Secular Ashkenazis, the ones who carry the brunt of Israel's output, are shrinking as a share of the population. This is often missed because the debate centers on jew vs non-jew, ignoring the damaging effects of intra-jewish miscengenation.

        Israel has a very strong smart fraction, though, and it also has a high fertility among them (as shown in the graph) so maybe all is not lost. Your story is also very anecdotal, you would need hard data to show a massive exodus of highly educated Israelis that is substantially above that of many other OECD countries.

        The result is pictures like these:

        It’s also different units in Israeli military, have a different racial composition. And different units are fashionable, with different races there.

        So pictures are not representative of total population.

        For example, Magav – which is includes a lot of the most dangerous jobs defending Jerusalem – is full of Druze and even Bedouin men. However, their Druze and Bedouin women are not conscripted to the army.

        So women in Magav are all Jews- but obviously, very much Moroccan, Kurdish, Ethiopian, women.

        Men guarding in Jerusalem are often…

        But women “Magavnikot” are not any Druze and Bedouin, but includes a lot of Ethiopians


        They have units where all soldiers are autistic.

        They have courses of stupid soldiers, who restudy highschool.

        They have bootcamps where all soldiers are juvenile criminals, and women train all day shouting at them

        They even bootcamps where all soldiers are recent Moroccans (often via France) and Ethiopians who do not speak Hebrew.

        There are even Turkmen Muslims from Turkmenistan who are soldiers in the Israeli army (I’ve seen recently a report about this)

        On the other hand, cleverer youth are often recruited into special computer units.

        • Agree: Thulean Friend
        • Replies: @AaronB
        These pictures seem to come from a Magav Instagram site -

        http://www.instapuma.com/magav_hebron

        It's impossible to tell if those soldiers are Druze or Israeli Jews. They are obviously not Ashkenazi though.

        The Druze until recently had their own unit, until they asked to be disbanded and assimilated throughout the Army - and even before, they had the option to serve anywhere, and often ended up in the best units.

        The Bedouin also have their own tracker unit, where their excellent tracking skills are used to locate terrorist infiltrators who penetrate past the borders.

        There is even a unit of entirely Israeli Arab Muslim volunteers who guard settlements and raid Palestinian towns.

        As for Magav, it has always had the reputation of attracting lower class less educated elements in Israeli society, although recently I'm seeing more blond Russians, and generally engages in rough, highly physical police work, of a paramilitary nature, and is not really a full military unit - it isn't trained in advanced infantry skills, for instance. The instagram account shows blonds as well.

        As for the pic of Netanyahu and his wife that keeps on popping up, a Google image search shows that it was taken in a Golani infantry base in northern Israel - Golani is a conventional infantry brigade, albeit a respected one, that has a reputation for attracting mostly Sephardic soldiers who are a bit wild and unruly, although it has plenty if Ashkenazim and Russians.
      97. @AaronB
        I think you are overstating the case for brain drain. Many leave temporarily and return, and it's also well known that Israel has a flourishing hi tech industry with high paid jobs, not to mention, the extensive arms industry and military provide tech opportunities.

        I personally know several Israeli hi tech emigres in NYC who dream of returning to Israel and plan on doing so, seeing their stay here as work related and temporary, and their hearts they left in Israel.

        You are vastly overstating the case in your other list of problems. Israel built a fence that stopped African immigration to zero, and they are frankly described as infiltrators, not dreamers or undocumented Israelis by everyone. This demonstrates more political will than any other Western country.

        The failure to deport Africans there is unfortunate, but in a diverse political system some concessions must be made even to idealistic dreamers, provided they are minor. In the West, such people have taken over.

        As for demographics, all the trends favor Israel long term - the Arab growth rate has cratered since the 90s and continues to decline, and the Jewish growth rate is going up.

        You are correct that orthodox Jews contribute much to the Jewish growth rate, but even the most highly educated seculars, we have seen, have above replacement TFR.

        The Palestinian population is rapidly aging, and there is speculation that with far fewer young men it won't be so interested in fighting anymore, and peace may cone as a result of demographic change.

        The political solutions you favor would transform Israel into a globalist economic outpost stripped of its specific character, a sterile Singapore in the Levant, with economic efficiency the priority.

        emigres in NYC who dream of returning to Israel

        Because, of course, it is currently nice in Israel.

        Especially for people like your New York hi-tech business friends, who probably have 5-10 million dollars in savings, and can avoid the bad housing conditions of the working and lower middle class of Israel, and will live in a very modern building there, with underground parking and professional dogwalkers.

        If you walk around only in a rich area in Israel, where there are lots of good looking young couples, you might also think it was eugenic, and not dysgenic.

        But the highest birthrate areas in Israel, do not have such demographics.

        And I’m saying this and have not even visited places like Bedouin towns of South yet, which have the highest birthrates in Israel. (I will try to drive in the South next vacation there).

      98. @AaronB
        I absolutely support all Jews, or most, moving to Israel. I don't think its good for us to be a minority in other lands and I don't think its good for you.

        However, for this to happen Israel would have to at least annex the West Bank and peacefully transfer large numbers of Arabs to other Arab countries, their natural homes.

        For most of Israel's history, European countries were hostile and ferociously critical of any Israeli action towards self assertion or even self defense. I remember well in the 90s the absolutely relentless and unceasing European criticism of Israeli behavior that was even defensive in nature, like mild responses to terrorism, and of course the Europeans were at the forefront of opposing the settler movement. It began to seem that Europeans simply wanted Israel to cease existing.

        That European statehood is itself undergoing a crisis in the 21st century can be seen as a kind of karmic response on the part of the universe, although it seems self inflicted rather than Jews being responsible.

        Since Europe is moving towards a more nationalistic direction, there will likely be more sympathy for the legitimate national aspirations of Israel and the basis for a genuine cooperation between the two.

        Under such conditions, the movement if the majority if world Jewry to Israel may become feasible.

        That European statehood is itself undergoing a crisis in the 21st century can be seen as a kind of karmic response on the part of the universe, although it seems self inflicted rather than Jews being responsible.

        It is good that you are, albeit slowly, beginning to reveal your ressentiment, but as I noted during the “proof of god” thread it is a dangerous line of thought that could well backfire on Jews.

        Using this bizarre logic, West Germans were punished for being turned into vassals of Jewish power and East Germans were rewarded (or at least not punished) for their heroic stance against Jewish Imperialism.

        http://www.unz.com/akarlin/sixth-proof/#comment-3211245

        https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/east-germanys-undeclared-war-against-israel/

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_West_Germany

        • Replies: @AaronB
        Its not so much reveal as develop. Certain facts and lines of argument only become apparent when you adopt a new perspective.

        For instance, before I abandoned being white and sought refuge in my Jewish roots I did not put two and two together, that there is some kind of connection between the intense European effort to delegimize Israel in the 90s, and the self inflicted delegitimization of European states in the 10s. Yet it is so obvious once you see it.

        The mindset Europeans developed in their war against Israel bore fruit against themselves, after it failed to work against Israel and had nowhere to go.

        It was like a grenade that landed among your own unit.

        As for the proof of God thing, Jews invented the retribution if God logic, and we do in fact blame our calamities on our own sins.
      99. @Hyperborean

        That European statehood is itself undergoing a crisis in the 21st century can be seen as a kind of karmic response on the part of the universe, although it seems self inflicted rather than Jews being responsible.

         
        It is good that you are, albeit slowly, beginning to reveal your ressentiment, but as I noted during the "proof of god" thread it is a dangerous line of thought that could well backfire on Jews.

        Using this bizarre logic, West Germans were punished for being turned into vassals of Jewish power and East Germans were rewarded (or at least not punished) for their heroic stance against Jewish Imperialism.
         
        http://www.unz.com/akarlin/sixth-proof/#comment-3211245

        https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/east-germanys-undeclared-war-against-israel/

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_West_Germany

        Its not so much reveal as develop. Certain facts and lines of argument only become apparent when you adopt a new perspective.

        For instance, before I abandoned being white and sought refuge in my Jewish roots I did not put two and two together, that there is some kind of connection between the intense European effort to delegimize Israel in the 90s, and the self inflicted delegitimization of European states in the 10s. Yet it is so obvious once you see it.

        The mindset Europeans developed in their war against Israel bore fruit against themselves, after it failed to work against Israel and had nowhere to go.

        It was like a grenade that landed among your own unit.

        As for the proof of God thing, Jews invented the retribution if God logic, and we do in fact blame our calamities on our own sins.

        • Replies: @Hyperborean

        For instance, before I abandoned being white and sought refuge in my Jewish roots I did not put two and two together, that there is some kind of connection between the intense European effort to delegimize Israel in the 90s, and the self inflicted delegitimization of European states in the 10s. Yet it is so obvious once you see it.

        The mindset Europeans developed in their war against Israel bore fruit against themselves, after it failed to work against Israel and had nowhere to go.

        It was like a grenade that landed among your own unit.
         
        It is "obvious" because you, for whatever reason, want to see it. I have already given you the contrasting events in BRD and the DDR.
        , @Thorfinnsson
        If racism is wrong, then nation-states themselves are wrong.

        Not exactly rocket science.

        That said Israel is a bit of a different case owing to its recent establishment via immigration (including illegal immigration), military aggression, colonial settlement, and territorial expansion.
        , @Anon
        That the European leadership ever wanted to delegitimize Israel at the top government level is propaganda meant to seem consistent with their primary will to wreck Europe (subtext: under Jewish influence and authority).

        Not once has formal and substantial Jewish Power, stretching from Europe all the way back to Israel, done anything but stand up for the forces meant to wreck Europe and its peoples.

        Remember that you must include Britain in your false generalization of the European intent to "war" against Israel, which is the nation that founded modern Israel.

        If Europe did actually want to make fatal trouble for Israel, then it would. Europe never had "no where to go". You vastly underestimate Western Power vs Israeli power, especially in the beginning stages and before Israel illegally gained nukes. You have sold yourself on your own Jewish propaganda. That happens quite often. You probably also believe that a rag tag team of Jewish terrorists were able to wrestle Israel away from Britain (notice the romance aspect), that US intelligence actually believed that Iraq had WMDs, that the Gulf of Tonkin was a legitimate event, and that USA racial tensions aren't being purposefully amped up to a fatal degree by the press and by design.

        Nothing done by the Western leaders is unintended, unscripted, or naturally flowing politics. Least of all mass immigration and Israel's survival. Kid and tell yourself as many Jewish victory and hero stories as you wish. I notice that Jews are vulnerable to romantic stories about themselves (to say the least). Just don't expect adults to take your naive perspective seriously.

        What I also know is that Jewish Power benefits from victim and persecution narratives, whether true or invented.

        This is especially pertinent as the final conflict ramps up, as it is in Jewish interest for the Rabbis to be able to find doctrinal excuses for condemning the West toward its final Jewish scripted destruction: those excuses namely being the West's rising antipathy toward Jews (due to visible and very active Jewish subversion - similar to what occurred to bait the Germans into WWII) as well as the general immorality that the Jews play a central role in promoting.

        The entire story is that after WWII the West was well enough owned by Jewish Power, and it has been destroying the West ever since. The modern West, in its dissolving and imploding state, is a reflection of the Jewish dream for it on the Jewish path toward the post genocidal Messianic Age for which the destruction of all Western nations is necessary.
        , @neutral
        You were never white to start with, so there was never anything to abandon. Of course the flight from white is now very useful to lots of other non white such as Arabs, but as usual the jew pretends to be a victim to something they themselves wanted.
        , @notanon

        The mindset Europeans developed in their war against Israel bore fruit against themselves, after it failed to work against Israel and had nowhere to go.
         
        other way round.

        the anti-nationalist and anti-colonialist mindset that infected Europe was applied equally to Israel.
      100. @Dmitry

        stopped African immigration to zero
         
        That's not true. They can just fly in through the airport, and then do not leave, now. For example, a few years ago, the illegal immigrants were mainly men.

        However, when I was in Israel last year I saw large numbers of Sudanese girls in hijabs everywhere, and many,many African children (who are being born in Israel).

        So original illegal immigrants are now importing women and wives from Sudan and Eritrea, to Israel, and having very high birthrates inside Israel.

        By Supreme Court law, Israel will have to give these children citizenship eventually. So these are all future Israeli citizens. (Even if Israeli government and media, do not like to report this fact - it is legal fact).

        Now schools are closed down in Tel Aviv, to allow for these many African children.

        Moreover do you know Israel?

        My experience last year of exploring African areas in Tel Aviv - there are vast numbers of Africans, and Israelis have no control of those areas.

        Also they are not "nice Africans", but generally the more dangerous and criminal elements of those countries.

        Israel has little state capacity in this area. People imagine because a country has good missile defense, then it will have state capacity in all other areas.

        But Israel has clearly very low, almost third world, state capacity in this area of immigration.

        Palestinian population is rapidly aging
         
        That's not true. They have very large families. Most fertile population in Israel, are Bedouin, - although Bedouin don't have "Palestinian" self identity.

        transform Israel into a globalist economic outpost stripped of its specific character, a sterile Singapore
         
        Singapore converted a tropical swamp, with no land, to a habitable place where people want to live.

        It's one of the greatest achievements of second half of 20th century, to beginning of the 21st century.

        If any country, let alone Israel, could emulate Singapore, they would be one of the best countries in world. Moreover, if a country like Israel attracted the same immigrants as Singapore, who are often skilled secularist Chinese people, this would have a very positive effect on their demographics.

        This Israel of yours sounds like a terrible place – I am surprised you wish to take any vacations there 🙂

        Yet you keep on going back.

        I am moving there soon, myself.

        • Replies: @Dmitry

        moving there soon,

         
        I love Israel - I am attracted to strange, terrible and interesting places. Where do you plan to invest in property, if it's not too personal?

        -


        Here is the city where I stayed for vacation last year in Israel (with my friends who live there) . These are not my pictures, just from internet.

        https://images1.calcalist.co.il/PicServer3/2017/06/03/730619/CAL047772_l.jpg

        https://i746.photobucket.com/albums/xx108/puerrtto/Israel/DSC_0061%20Medium_zpsqn3uvcom.jpg


        http://sfilev1.f-static.com/image/users/329884/ftp/my_files/FreeImages/38.jpg

        Its local youth (only slightly self-ironically - youth like this there are waiting outside shops asking you buy them alcohol)

        https://i.imgur.com/v7iy7LN.jpg


        -

        The funny thing is, this property is extremely valuable, because if developers will build a skyscraper where the old apartment slum building is (and they will within maybe 20 years), then according to Israeli law, they have to give you a free apartment in new skyscraper they will build there.

        Sadly, many immigrants just rent there (they cannot afford to buy apartments, for the reason above).

        And how small and shabby inside, the apartments are all there. At 3:45 in video - the courtyard lol

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlPutWx50Ow
      101. @AaronB
        Its not so much reveal as develop. Certain facts and lines of argument only become apparent when you adopt a new perspective.

        For instance, before I abandoned being white and sought refuge in my Jewish roots I did not put two and two together, that there is some kind of connection between the intense European effort to delegimize Israel in the 90s, and the self inflicted delegitimization of European states in the 10s. Yet it is so obvious once you see it.

        The mindset Europeans developed in their war against Israel bore fruit against themselves, after it failed to work against Israel and had nowhere to go.

        It was like a grenade that landed among your own unit.

        As for the proof of God thing, Jews invented the retribution if God logic, and we do in fact blame our calamities on our own sins.

        For instance, before I abandoned being white and sought refuge in my Jewish roots I did not put two and two together, that there is some kind of connection between the intense European effort to delegimize Israel in the 90s, and the self inflicted delegitimization of European states in the 10s. Yet it is so obvious once you see it.

        The mindset Europeans developed in their war against Israel bore fruit against themselves, after it failed to work against Israel and had nowhere to go.

        It was like a grenade that landed among your own unit.

        It is “obvious” because you, for whatever reason, want to see it. I have already given you the contrasting events in BRD and the DDR.

        • Replies: @AaronB

        It is “obvious” because you, for whatever reason, want to see it. I
         
        Exactly. Now you're starting to get it :)
      102. @AaronB
        Its not so much reveal as develop. Certain facts and lines of argument only become apparent when you adopt a new perspective.

        For instance, before I abandoned being white and sought refuge in my Jewish roots I did not put two and two together, that there is some kind of connection between the intense European effort to delegimize Israel in the 90s, and the self inflicted delegitimization of European states in the 10s. Yet it is so obvious once you see it.

        The mindset Europeans developed in their war against Israel bore fruit against themselves, after it failed to work against Israel and had nowhere to go.

        It was like a grenade that landed among your own unit.

        As for the proof of God thing, Jews invented the retribution if God logic, and we do in fact blame our calamities on our own sins.

        If racism is wrong, then nation-states themselves are wrong.

        Not exactly rocket science.

        That said Israel is a bit of a different case owing to its recent establishment via immigration (including illegal immigration), military aggression, colonial settlement, and territorial expansion.

        • Replies: @AaronB

        If racism is wrong, then nation-states themselves are wrong

         
        This kind of thinking is too binary and stark - its modern science thinking and not suitable to what is a complex organic phenomenon.

        Ethnicity is relevant to nation state formation, but it is only one factor, and requires a certain amount of flexibility.

        But I would never deny that its relevant, and I support Europeans making it a significant factor in the formation of their own identities and states.

        Bardon Kaldian has recently been making original creative contributions in describing what might be a the elements of European and American nation states, based on history and respecting the element of organic flexibility and compromise.

        What emerges is stricter than the Jewish conception without being based on race in a simple fashion, but then Jews have a different role to play in history and we each must develop different concepts of our nation states - although there will naturally be significant overlap.

        That said Israel is a bit of a different case owing to its recent establishment via immigration (including illegal immigration), military aggression, colonial settlement, and territorial expansion.
         
        Obviously a tendentious characterization, but in more accurate and benign language, these phenomena can be good or bad depending on context.

        For instance, Europeans settling in the vast empty expanses of undeveloped Africa hardly strikes me as any great crime.

        And military aggression can be defensive.

        And so forth.
      103. @Hyperborean

        For instance, before I abandoned being white and sought refuge in my Jewish roots I did not put two and two together, that there is some kind of connection between the intense European effort to delegimize Israel in the 90s, and the self inflicted delegitimization of European states in the 10s. Yet it is so obvious once you see it.

        The mindset Europeans developed in their war against Israel bore fruit against themselves, after it failed to work against Israel and had nowhere to go.

        It was like a grenade that landed among your own unit.
         
        It is "obvious" because you, for whatever reason, want to see it. I have already given you the contrasting events in BRD and the DDR.

        It is “obvious” because you, for whatever reason, want to see it. I

        Exactly. Now you’re starting to get it 🙂

      104. @Thorfinnsson
        If racism is wrong, then nation-states themselves are wrong.

        Not exactly rocket science.

        That said Israel is a bit of a different case owing to its recent establishment via immigration (including illegal immigration), military aggression, colonial settlement, and territorial expansion.

        If racism is wrong, then nation-states themselves are wrong

        This kind of thinking is too binary and stark – its modern science thinking and not suitable to what is a complex organic phenomenon.

        Ethnicity is relevant to nation state formation, but it is only one factor, and requires a certain amount of flexibility.

        But I would never deny that its relevant, and I support Europeans making it a significant factor in the formation of their own identities and states.

        Bardon Kaldian has recently been making original creative contributions in describing what might be a the elements of European and American nation states, based on history and respecting the element of organic flexibility and compromise.

        What emerges is stricter than the Jewish conception without being based on race in a simple fashion, but then Jews have a different role to play in history and we each must develop different concepts of our nation states – although there will naturally be significant overlap.

        That said Israel is a bit of a different case owing to its recent establishment via immigration (including illegal immigration), military aggression, colonial settlement, and territorial expansion.

        Obviously a tendentious characterization, but in more accurate and benign language, these phenomena can be good or bad depending on context.

        For instance, Europeans settling in the vast empty expanses of undeveloped Africa hardly strikes me as any great crime.

        And military aggression can be defensive.

        And so forth.

      105. @Dmitry

        The result is pictures like these:
         
        It's also different units in Israeli military, have a different racial composition. And different units are fashionable, with different races there.

        So pictures are not representative of total population.

        For example, Magav - which is includes a lot of the most dangerous jobs defending Jerusalem - is full of Druze and even Bedouin men. However, their Druze and Bedouin women are not conscripted to the army.

        So women in Magav are all Jews- but obviously, very much Moroccan, Kurdish, Ethiopian, women.

        Men guarding in Jerusalem are often...

        https://i.imgur.com/R6xrqPC.jpg

        https://i.imgur.com/qmlf4Vp.jpg

        But women "Magavnikot" are not any Druze and Bedouin, but includes a lot of Ethiopians

        https://i.imgur.com/InpfQVF.jpg

        -
        They have units where all soldiers are autistic.

        They have courses of stupid soldiers, who restudy highschool.

        They have bootcamps where all soldiers are juvenile criminals, and women train all day shouting at them

        They even bootcamps where all soldiers are recent Moroccans (often via France) and Ethiopians who do not speak Hebrew.

        There are even Turkmen Muslims from Turkmenistan who are soldiers in the Israeli army (I've seen recently a report about this)

        On the other hand, cleverer youth are often recruited into special computer units.

        These pictures seem to come from a Magav Instagram site –

        http://www.instapuma.com/magav_hebron

        It’s impossible to tell if those soldiers are Druze or Israeli Jews. They are obviously not Ashkenazi though.

        The Druze until recently had their own unit, until they asked to be disbanded and assimilated throughout the Army – and even before, they had the option to serve anywhere, and often ended up in the best units.

        The Bedouin also have their own tracker unit, where their excellent tracking skills are used to locate terrorist infiltrators who penetrate past the borders.

        There is even a unit of entirely Israeli Arab Muslim volunteers who guard settlements and raid Palestinian towns.

        As for Magav, it has always had the reputation of attracting lower class less educated elements in Israeli society, although recently I’m seeing more blond Russians, and generally engages in rough, highly physical police work, of a paramilitary nature, and is not really a full military unit – it isn’t trained in advanced infantry skills, for instance. The instagram account shows blonds as well.

        As for the pic of Netanyahu and his wife that keeps on popping up, a Google image search shows that it was taken in a Golani infantry base in northern Israel – Golani is a conventional infantry brigade, albeit a respected one, that has a reputation for attracting mostly Sephardic soldiers who are a bit wild and unruly, although it has plenty if Ashkenazim and Russians.

      106. @Thorfinnsson
        https://i.redd.it/xgtm6p7gq1a11.jpg

        Obviously, I can't vouch for this map...which claims its source is the Huffington Post, and of course even if true it doesn't note the race of partners. But let's assume it's true while I establish my priors.

        I have a Swedish background and family and have been to the country more than thirty times. I know what I'm talking about.

        While Sweden's welfare state and strong economy facilitate family formation, they also facilitate a "fun" early adulthood which gives youth the resources and time to participate in nightlife, travel, and study abroad. Young Swedes are encouraged to party a lot and experiment sexually, as well as to "find" themselves. And how do you suppose 20-somethings on vacation in Thailand for an entire month "find" themselves?

        Higher "education" is free, and nearly half of young Swedes have attained tertiary degrees. Studying abroad for a year is very common, and it's also quite common for young Swedes to work abroad for a time before returning to settle in Sweden.

        Northern European men can be for many young Western women "boring", so certain adventurous women are interested in having a lover from a more passionate, R-selected culture. This is nothing new and not even entirely the product of globohomo propaganda. In the postwar period there was a fad for Italian lovers among German and Nordic women. I believe there's even a German pop song from the '60s about this.

        If you want to hear something really unpleasant, when my brother lived in Africa he reported than in Tanzania there was a group of Norwegian (not Swedish but close enough) nursing students on vacation seeking...guess what.

        These "passionate" men obviously do not make suitable partners, and the sort of sexual dalliances women are keen to experiment with while on vacation or working abroad are not what they seek once they've established themselves and seek to start families and attain bourgeois respectability. Given the segregation and structure of Swedish society, the "marriage" (increasingly disappearing in Sweden) partner is a Swedish man.

        I don't see why there are men in our sphere who seek to defend the non-existent virtue of women from Western cultures. Or perhaps I should simply say modern, as this problem exists everywhere outside of the Islamic world. The entire structure of society promotes promiscuity, so why is anyone surprised when women partake in this? Other than those who end up murdered, there are practically zero negative consequences for them.

        As expected, lots of rambling nonsense but not a single source was posted that day. On the other hand, the aource I posted shows that Swedish women are less likey to get with immigrants than Swedish men are. Less than 0.1% of Nordic women will ever travel to Tanzania, and there were no “foreign lovers” in postwar Scandinavia. Northern European are the most popular in Europe.

        • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
        Your source described relationships and thus is not in contradiction to what I stated. Swedes DO NOT settle with foreigners as a general rule. Or did not--see the comments of Thulean Friend and Swedish Family, and of course your own source describes the unfortunate pattern of certain Swedish men to import Thai wives. If they are to be believed, and they're long established credible commenters here, then in the past decade the breeding of mud monster half-castes never meant to be has begun.

        And I didn't even address the patterns of Swedish men.

        It should also be noted that unsurprisingly sources concerning the fornication habits of Swedes, or any other nationality, abroad are lacking.

        Substantial tourism to the Mediterranean countries began in the 1960s. My father had an unpleasant encounter with the Guardia Civil involving a revolver in the late 1960s, when Spain was still governed by Franco.

        Yugoslavian guest workers started arriving in Sweden in the 1970s, though there was inward labor migration from Italy and Greece already in the 1950s (along with the usual Finns and many refugees from the Baltic countries).
      107. @Samuel Coulton
        As expected, lots of rambling nonsense but not a single source was posted that day. On the other hand, the aource I posted shows that Swedish women are less likey to get with immigrants than Swedish men are. Less than 0.1% of Nordic women will ever travel to Tanzania, and there were no "foreign lovers" in postwar Scandinavia. Northern European are the most popular in Europe.

        Your source described relationships and thus is not in contradiction to what I stated. Swedes DO NOT settle with foreigners as a general rule. Or did not–see the comments of Thulean Friend and Swedish Family, and of course your own source describes the unfortunate pattern of certain Swedish men to import Thai wives. If they are to be believed, and they’re long established credible commenters here, then in the past decade the breeding of mud monster half-castes never meant to be has begun.

        And I didn’t even address the patterns of Swedish men.

        It should also be noted that unsurprisingly sources concerning the fornication habits of Swedes, or any other nationality, abroad are lacking.

        Substantial tourism to the Mediterranean countries began in the 1960s. My father had an unpleasant encounter with the Guardia Civil involving a revolver in the late 1960s, when Spain was still governed by Franco.

        Yugoslavian guest workers started arriving in Sweden in the 1970s, though there was inward labor migration from Italy and Greece already in the 1950s (along with the usual Finns and many refugees from the Baltic countries).

        • Replies: @Samuel Coulton
        If anything you said was even remotely true, we would not see the patterns we see in the Swedish data. But of course what you say is not true, and is based on made-up and seemingly irrelevant anecdotes such as "muh pop song from 1960", "muh grandpa", and irrelevant factoids such as "Yogoslavian workers arrived in the 60s".
      108. @AaronB
        This Israel of yours sounds like a terrible place - I am surprised you wish to take any vacations there :)

        Yet you keep on going back.

        I am moving there soon, myself.

        moving there soon,

        I love Israel – I am attracted to strange, terrible and interesting places. Where do you plan to invest in property, if it’s not too personal?

        Here is the city where I stayed for vacation last year in Israel (with my friends who live there) . These are not my pictures, just from internet.

        Its local youth (only slightly self-ironically – youth like this there are waiting outside shops asking you buy them alcohol)

        The funny thing is, this property is extremely valuable, because if developers will build a skyscraper where the old apartment slum building is (and they will within maybe 20 years), then according to Israeli law, they have to give you a free apartment in new skyscraper they will build there.

        Sadly, many immigrants just rent there (they cannot afford to buy apartments, for the reason above).

        And how small and shabby inside, the apartments are all there. At 3:45 in video – the courtyard lol

        • Replies: @AaronB

        I love Israel – I am attracted to strange, terrible and interesting places. Where do you plan to invest in property, if it’s not too personal?
         
        Lol, so am I. Well said.

        I would say, however, that I'm an attracted to places with depth and character, that are the opposite of a clean and beautiful American suburb, and whose deficiencies can only be considered serious from the point of view economic efficiency, but not from the pov of life.

        You realize, of course that if Israel become your Singapore dream, you will never visit again :)

        I have not yet decided where I am moving to in Israel. I am seriously considering not moving to any of the big cities, but settling in a small town in the green north or the Golan, or maybe the West Bank.

        Or maybe a farm in the Negev like Ariel Sharon lol.
      109. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Rosie

        That said, the biological clock of females means the current system of delaying family formation until “education” is complete and a career is established puts a hard ceiling on TFR. The problem is made worse by promoting a “party” lifestyle for young women.
         
        Bullshit. A woman who doesn't start till she's thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don't even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:

        https://i.scdn.co/image/5168f36cdf40c0824766fcb65c19c1d9a12ad3cf

        Mom, Dad, brother, sister. Mrs. Mozart bore seven children. Only two survived.

        The entire schooling system also discourages the obvious solution of women pairing up with older men.
         
        That is a terrible solution. Unmarried young men are notorious for whoremongering and pumping and dumping.

        Bullshit. A woman who doesn’t start till she’s thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don’t even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:

        4 kids today with low infant mortality and consequently a regime of relaxed selection are not equivalent to those 4 kids in the past.

        High infant mortality in the past meant that there was pretty strong selection against unhealthy babies and high mutational load. Today, there’s no such selection and most babies that are born survive. Older mothers produce babies with greater mutational load, and there’s relaxed selection against mutational load today because of low infant mortality.

        • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

        Older mothers produce babies with greater mutational load...
         
        AFAIK that's mainly just true for men, and negligible for women.
        , @Rosie


        4 kids today with low infant mortality and consequently a regime of relaxed selection are not equivalent to those 4 kids in the past.
         
        So what? There's nothing that can be done about that.
      110. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Thorfinnsson
        Raising children is too much work in many respects, and this needs to be addressed at a societal level.

        Parents are expected to be chauffeurs, event coordinators, unpaid academic tutors, sports coaches, legal advocates, college prep coaches, personal chefs, and more. I'm sure it's all very exhausting, especially since parents are mostly out of shape and older these days. And frequently both work full time, which increases the work burden on the father while further draining the already tired mother.

        Even little things like child safety seats are an issue. When baby boomers were children, child safety seats didn't even exist. Just throw your kids in the car and go. In fact seat belts were optional on cars. Now you're legally required in most cases to have them. They cost money, they're a pain to install, and it takes quite a bit of time to strap in and release children.

        Each additional safety seat is more work and expense, and once you have more than two kids you generally need to buy a larger, and thus more expensive, car. These larger vehicles which are still affordable are usually minivans, which any self-respecting man is ashamed to be seen in or even admit to owning.

        Is the social benefit of increased safety in car accidents for children worth the cost? I don't know.

        There was a post on Marginal Revolution lately asking the rhetorical question if big business hates families. We might go on to ask if our entire society hates families. Families are saddled with massive burdens but receive little assistance in managing these burdens other than lip service about how wonderful parents are.

        Raising children is too much work in many respects, and this needs to be addressed at a societal level.

        That’s true, but a lot of “raising children” today is just costly, wasteful signaling. All these expensive interventions aren’t going to turn your child into a pro athlete or genius.

        In many ways, the marginal cost of more kids goes down because older siblings are a source of hand-me-downs, guidance, care, tutoring, babysitting, etc. Moreover, there are intangibles that only siblings can provide. Older siblings who already went through your high school, college, early professional life, etc., can provide much better social, academic, and career guidance and advice than a parent can.

        I suspect a lot of the costly parental “investment” today serves as a rationalization to avoid having more children for other reasons.

      111. Wittgenstein does not show fertility data, but assumptions and scenarios about the future (SSPs).

        Nordic women do not have eugenic fertility patterns currently. Men do appear to have, but this also questionable.

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325856552_Education_Gender_and_Cohort_Fertility_in_the_Nordic_Countries

        Part of this is caused by the large increase in the college educated population through the years, i’m pretty sure of that.

        If the number of the highly educated has increased, this will change their overall TFR. Example:

        Past
        non college ed TFR 2,1 90 % of population
        college ed TFR 1,8 10 % of population

        Present

        10 % (TFR 1,8) + 30 % (TFR 2,1)

        non college ed TFR 2,1 60 % of population
        college ed TFR 2,02 40 % of population

      112. @Swedish Family

        Everything really went downhill after 9/11. We didn’t get afghans but we got huge amounts of iraqis and especially somalians. I went back to my old school a few years ago when I was visiting and I could literally count the amount of white children on a single hand on the schoolyard. This is a school that has capacity for 500 kids. I was told that all the white kids now go to schools just outside the small town in a small village. It’s ironic because back then these small villages had to send all their kids to our town, which created some amount of resentment. We also looked down upon them as hicks (though we were all provincial types in reality, but there’s always a pecking order). But apparently they have created new private schools outside of town (fria skolvalet) to deal with this demand, giving rise to substantial segregation. SD is now big in the municipality so the social justice warrior types are a lot weaker, so despite some bleating, not much is being done about this.
         
        I'm sorry to hear what became of your hometown.

        I'm a little torn on the question of where to place newly-arrived immigrants. My experience is that immigrants from small towns are far better integrated -- that is, more Swedish in their ways and tastes -- than those who grew up in the burbs of Stockholm/Göteborg/Malmö, which is obviously a good thing, but cramming thousands of them together in a small town is a sure recipe for disaster.

        Another downside with placing them in the countryside, and it's a huge one I think, is that turning the countryside multicultural deals our cultural heritage a heavy blow. A culture needs a traditional and backward-looking countryside to sustain itself since big cities are anti-tradition almost by definition. That's how they thrive.

        Plus Stockholm gets most of the best international migrants to Sweden, which have been coming in large droves since the last center-“right” government radically liberalised work migration requirements in 2011. While there are still many rapefugees coming, a non-trivial share of decently skilled Asian migrants are also showing up, and they concentrate in Stockholm whereas rapefugees get pushed out into the hinterlands and on the margins. So elite Swedes get a kind of “soft multiculturalism” with mostly assimilated immigrants. It’s really the working/lower-middle class Swedes out in the sub-50K towns and villages who get the raw end of the stick, but who cares about them right? Just about a bunch of obsolete racists. Those are also the strongest areas for SD.
         
        Yes, there is a strong city/country divide here. Something like a reverse class war. And it's hard to overstate how insulated inner-city Stockholmers are from what happens in the country. Many never even set foot outside the city limits, save for a short drive to Arlanda or their summer house by the sea.

        My experience is that immigrants from small towns are far better integrated — that is, more Swedish in their ways and tastes — than those who grew up in the burbs of Stockholm/Göteborg/Malmö…

        I spent my formative late childhood & teenage years as an immigrant in a relatively insular, prole northern English town.

        I will admit that I disliked and resented the place, and its denizens returned the favor. I would wager that I’d have fit in a lot better in much more cosmopolitan London, or even a “millionik” such as Manchester… perhaps even assimilated into British society… precisely because there is less to “assimilate to” in those places.

        I honestly feel myself to be more American than British (though I am of course neither), despite having spend only a decade in the latter.

        • Replies: @Thulean Friend

        I would wager that I’d have fit in a lot better in much more cosmopolitan London, or even a “millionik” such as Manchester… perhaps even assimilated into British society… precisely because there is less to “assimilate to” in those places.
         
        This is true, but it also goes both ways. Northern England has a lot of insular and backward Pakistanis (the grooming gang scandals took place there for a reason). Pakistanis in London are far more educated, but also more liberal. Even if the community as a whole is quite regressive, there are stark contrasts between the two. This pattern holds for most groups, natives and immigrants alike.

        Importantly, some immigrants actively choose to go to these cosmopolitan cities precisely because the corrosive acid of their social milieu act as a restraint on more regressive (in their view) cultural practices and norms from their own community, as links are generally much weaker in larger cities where there are less avenues for social control. This is particularly true for young girls.

        Stockholm gets the cream of the international work migrants coming to Sweden, but we also get a large share of the best educated/smartest of the 2nd and 3rd gen immigrants from smaller provinces. Some of this is simply economics, but some of it is also an active social choice by 2nd gen immigrants, particularly young educated girls.
      113. Part of the supposed big dysgenic difference between the developing world and the developed world is caused by the difference in the number of college educated people – 10 – 15 % – small percentage of the population in the developing world vs 30 -50 %- large percentage of the population in the developed world.

      114. @Anonymous

        Bullshit. A woman who doesn’t start till she’s thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don’t even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:
         
        4 kids today with low infant mortality and consequently a regime of relaxed selection are not equivalent to those 4 kids in the past.

        High infant mortality in the past meant that there was pretty strong selection against unhealthy babies and high mutational load. Today, there's no such selection and most babies that are born survive. Older mothers produce babies with greater mutational load, and there's relaxed selection against mutational load today because of low infant mortality.

        Older mothers produce babies with greater mutational load…

        AFAIK that’s mainly just true for men, and negligible for women.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        Older mothers tend to have children with older men.

        Also, there's such a premium placed on younger women in terms of attractiveness relative to older women, especially compared to men, that there's likely significant health and quality differences in offspring. A very plain young woman can be much more attractive to men simply by virtue of her youth than an older woman who was formerly a gorgeous model in her youth. And the age difference doesn't even have to be great. It can just be 10 years or so. A woman in her early 20s can have youthful physical attributes that are irresistible to men and that are greatly diminished or lost among women who hit 30, attributes that override other considerations for attractiveness. Whereas that's generally not the case for men.
      115. @Sam Coulton
        Swedish women are less likely than swedish men to miscegenate + native ethnic Swedish fertility is higher than every other country in Europe except Debmark and iceland.

        https://www.thelocal.se/20150402/single-immigrants-less-likely-to-settle-with-swedes

        Only three out of ten immigrant women and nearly two out of ten immigrant men were in a relationship with a Swede
         

        Only three out of ten immigrant women and nearly two out of ten immigrant men were in a relationship with a Swede

        There are more male migrants than female migrants in Sweden, it created a gender disbalance in the country.

        native ethnic Swedish fertility is higher than every other country….

        Native fertility defined as that of swedish born mothers was 1,66 in 2018, i think. Nothing outside of the norm of western countries.

      116. @Thorfinnsson
        Your source described relationships and thus is not in contradiction to what I stated. Swedes DO NOT settle with foreigners as a general rule. Or did not--see the comments of Thulean Friend and Swedish Family, and of course your own source describes the unfortunate pattern of certain Swedish men to import Thai wives. If they are to be believed, and they're long established credible commenters here, then in the past decade the breeding of mud monster half-castes never meant to be has begun.

        And I didn't even address the patterns of Swedish men.

        It should also be noted that unsurprisingly sources concerning the fornication habits of Swedes, or any other nationality, abroad are lacking.

        Substantial tourism to the Mediterranean countries began in the 1960s. My father had an unpleasant encounter with the Guardia Civil involving a revolver in the late 1960s, when Spain was still governed by Franco.

        Yugoslavian guest workers started arriving in Sweden in the 1970s, though there was inward labor migration from Italy and Greece already in the 1950s (along with the usual Finns and many refugees from the Baltic countries).

        If anything you said was even remotely true, we would not see the patterns we see in the Swedish data. But of course what you say is not true, and is based on made-up and seemingly irrelevant anecdotes such as “muh pop song from 1960”, “muh grandpa”, and irrelevant factoids such as “Yogoslavian workers arrived in the 60s”.

        • Disagree: Thorfinnsson
      117. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Anatoly Karlin

        Older mothers produce babies with greater mutational load...
         
        AFAIK that's mainly just true for men, and negligible for women.

        Older mothers tend to have children with older men.

        Also, there’s such a premium placed on younger women in terms of attractiveness relative to older women, especially compared to men, that there’s likely significant health and quality differences in offspring. A very plain young woman can be much more attractive to men simply by virtue of her youth than an older woman who was formerly a gorgeous model in her youth. And the age difference doesn’t even have to be great. It can just be 10 years or so. A woman in her early 20s can have youthful physical attributes that are irresistible to men and that are greatly diminished or lost among women who hit 30, attributes that override other considerations for attractiveness. Whereas that’s generally not the case for men.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Also, there’s such a premium placed on younger women in terms of attractiveness relative to older women, especially compared to men, that there’s likely significant health and quality differences in offspring.
         
        No evidence? No problem. Just make stuff up.
      118. @Thulean Friend
        I grew up in a smaller town and your observations are 100% correct. We basically had almost no non-Whites. In my secondary school (ages 12-15), we did not have a single non-White in our class. There were 5 other parallell classes for all three age groups and I think there were at most 2 or 3 non-Whites across all classes per age group, so something like 2-3% in total. And they were all hyperassimilated.

        Everything really went downhill after 9/11. We didn't get afghans but we got huge amounts of iraqis and especially somalians. I went back to my old school a few years ago when I was visiting and I could literally count the amount of white children on a single hand on the schoolyard. This is a school that has capacity for 500 kids. I was told that all the white kids now go to schools just outside the small town in a small village. It's ironic because back then these small villages had to send all their kids to our town, which created some amount of resentment. We also looked down upon them as hicks (though we were all provincial types in reality, but there's always a pecking order). But apparently they have created new private schools outside of town (fria skolvalet) to deal with this demand, giving rise to substantial segregation. SD is now big in the municipality so the social justice warrior types are a lot weaker, so despite some bleating, not much is being done about this.

        I have a hard time feeling sympathy. These people voted for what they got, by and large. Most young Swedes just go to the bigger cities. There's actually less ethnic tension here in my experience. Even Rinkeby is getting slowly gentrified with a lot of newly constructed buildings. Only the most socioeconomically successful immigrants stay on and many of them are more liberal.

        Plus Stockholm gets most of the best international migrants to Sweden, which have been coming in large droves since the last center-"right" government radically liberalised work migration requirements in 2011. While there are still many rapefugees coming, a non-trivial share of decently skilled Asian migrants are also showing up, and they concentrate in Stockholm whereas rapefugees get pushed out into the hinterlands and on the margins. So elite Swedes get a kind of "soft multiculturalism" with mostly assimilated immigrants. It's really the working/lower-middle class Swedes out in the sub-50K towns and villages who get the raw end of the stick, but who cares about them right? Just about a bunch of obsolete racists. Those are also the strongest areas for SD.

        And they were all hyperassimilated

        Which goes to show you that assimilation is not just a pipe dream but a reality, but only in small numbers.

      119. @Dmitry

        moving there soon,

         
        I love Israel - I am attracted to strange, terrible and interesting places. Where do you plan to invest in property, if it's not too personal?

        -


        Here is the city where I stayed for vacation last year in Israel (with my friends who live there) . These are not my pictures, just from internet.

        https://images1.calcalist.co.il/PicServer3/2017/06/03/730619/CAL047772_l.jpg

        https://i746.photobucket.com/albums/xx108/puerrtto/Israel/DSC_0061%20Medium_zpsqn3uvcom.jpg


        http://sfilev1.f-static.com/image/users/329884/ftp/my_files/FreeImages/38.jpg

        Its local youth (only slightly self-ironically - youth like this there are waiting outside shops asking you buy them alcohol)

        https://i.imgur.com/v7iy7LN.jpg


        -

        The funny thing is, this property is extremely valuable, because if developers will build a skyscraper where the old apartment slum building is (and they will within maybe 20 years), then according to Israeli law, they have to give you a free apartment in new skyscraper they will build there.

        Sadly, many immigrants just rent there (they cannot afford to buy apartments, for the reason above).

        And how small and shabby inside, the apartments are all there. At 3:45 in video - the courtyard lol

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlPutWx50Ow

        I love Israel – I am attracted to strange, terrible and interesting places. Where do you plan to invest in property, if it’s not too personal?

        Lol, so am I. Well said.

        I would say, however, that I’m an attracted to places with depth and character, that are the opposite of a clean and beautiful American suburb, and whose deficiencies can only be considered serious from the point of view economic efficiency, but not from the pov of life.

        You realize, of course that if Israel become your Singapore dream, you will never visit again 🙂

        I have not yet decided where I am moving to in Israel. I am seriously considering not moving to any of the big cities, but settling in a small town in the green north or the Golan, or maybe the West Bank.

        Or maybe a farm in the Negev like Ariel Sharon lol.

        • Replies: @silviosilver

        I would say, however, that I’m an attracted to places with depth and character, that are the opposite of a clean and beautiful American suburb, and whose deficiencies can only be considered serious from the point of view economic efficiency, but not from the pov of life.
         
        Lol, this should be interesting.

        Have you ever actually been to Israel? Can you speak Hebrew? Do you plan to live in a religious settlement?

        My guess is you'll be cleaving to Americans/Anglos as much as possible and struggling to come to terms with the quirkiness of Israeli behavior (less for it being specifically "Israeli," rather simply foreign). I'd be impressed if you lasted a year.
        , @Dmitry

        decided where I am moving
         
        If you want to live in the city, and have more financing, then I would go to live somewhere along the Northern part of Dizengoff Street.

        Atmosphere is so nice there in the evening. It combines very social, and yet quiet and civilized.

        Only problem in the area, is there is some kind of restriction to build new skyscrapers, and all the old buildings there are in very bad condition. (So it would be expensive, even for an apartment in a collapsing building, although the area itself is very nice).

        settling in a small town in the green north or the Golan, or maybe the West Bank.

         
        Settling in small town is not a bad idea. But why such periphery places, if you are not poor?

        Anywhere along the coast from Kfar Shmaryahu to Caesarea and even a bit more North, is full of beautiful little villages and "moshavs", with a very rural atmosphere.

        When we were driving up this road, there are a lot of trackers and farmer all over the place.

        Any of these little towns like Kfar Vitkin - it has a very agricultural atmosphere, while at the same time being convenient location and high quality road to the city.

        -

        But if you drive a bit further North already to Pardes Hanna or Zikhron Yaakov - you will be living surrounded by more Arabs than you ever saw in your life though.

        We stopped in mall in quite near around here, and everyone was Arab there (even all workers in mall).

        So it depends on your view of living in areas with a lot Arabs, if you want to even so far North as even Caesarea.
      120. @Kent Nationalist

        Anglos went around the world spreading liberalism
         
        At least we also spread homophobia at the same time

        Negro males (note that the likes of Pajeets and more Kunta looking Arabs count) being desirable is more or less just a New Worlder thing
         
        Didn't exist until Jews took over American culture

        It was Americans who started the praise for Oriental women (see Madame Butterfly). Had a president who had bastard Mulatto children. Muricans, for all the Jim Crow and segregation don’t really have room to talk on miscegenation.
         
        Despite hundreds of years of contact, the average white American is at most in the very low single digits of black/native ancestry and the average black at about 20%. I don't think there is anywhere with similar levels of racial interaction over hundreds of years which remains equally separate.

        At least we also spread homophobia at the same time

        Plenty of societies regulated or opposed faggotry. Even the Greeks did it.

        Didn’t exist until Jews took over American culture

        And who let the Jews in?

        Despite hundreds of years of contact, the average white American is at most in the very low single digits of black/native ancestry and the average black at about 20%. I don’t think there is anywhere with similar levels of racial interaction over hundreds of years which remains equally separate.

        That’s not from lack of trying. That’s from dumping the bastards in with the Negroes. Euro ancestry in the American Negro is paternal largely.

      121. Wow.. Latin America is doubly screwed.
        In addition to the demographic trends here, alot of the higher education Latin Americans seem to be immigrating en masse to Miami, Spain, or Portugal.

        I guess I should go visit Argentina now while it still has nice museums before it devolves into a Chavezian 3rd world nightmare.

      122. Also Israel seems to be doing alright compared to other 1st world countries.

        This is surprising to me as I thought the Hasidic’s and related groups were generally economically less productive.

        But maybe the Torah studying/ limiting work actually continues to have a eugenic effect where the brightest kids become the Rabbis and end up able to attract alot of girls.

      123. Anon[384] • Disclaimer says:
        @AaronB
        Its not so much reveal as develop. Certain facts and lines of argument only become apparent when you adopt a new perspective.

        For instance, before I abandoned being white and sought refuge in my Jewish roots I did not put two and two together, that there is some kind of connection between the intense European effort to delegimize Israel in the 90s, and the self inflicted delegitimization of European states in the 10s. Yet it is so obvious once you see it.

        The mindset Europeans developed in their war against Israel bore fruit against themselves, after it failed to work against Israel and had nowhere to go.

        It was like a grenade that landed among your own unit.

        As for the proof of God thing, Jews invented the retribution if God logic, and we do in fact blame our calamities on our own sins.

        That the European leadership ever wanted to delegitimize Israel at the top government level is propaganda meant to seem consistent with their primary will to wreck Europe (subtext: under Jewish influence and authority).

        Not once has formal and substantial Jewish Power, stretching from Europe all the way back to Israel, done anything but stand up for the forces meant to wreck Europe and its peoples.

        Remember that you must include Britain in your false generalization of the European intent to “war” against Israel, which is the nation that founded modern Israel.

        If Europe did actually want to make fatal trouble for Israel, then it would. Europe never had “no where to go”. You vastly underestimate Western Power vs Israeli power, especially in the beginning stages and before Israel illegally gained nukes. You have sold yourself on your own Jewish propaganda. That happens quite often. You probably also believe that a rag tag team of Jewish terrorists were able to wrestle Israel away from Britain (notice the romance aspect), that US intelligence actually believed that Iraq had WMDs, that the Gulf of Tonkin was a legitimate event, and that USA racial tensions aren’t being purposefully amped up to a fatal degree by the press and by design.

        Nothing done by the Western leaders is unintended, unscripted, or naturally flowing politics. Least of all mass immigration and Israel’s survival. Kid and tell yourself as many Jewish victory and hero stories as you wish. I notice that Jews are vulnerable to romantic stories about themselves (to say the least). Just don’t expect adults to take your naive perspective seriously.

        What I also know is that Jewish Power benefits from victim and persecution narratives, whether true or invented.

        This is especially pertinent as the final conflict ramps up, as it is in Jewish interest for the Rabbis to be able to find doctrinal excuses for condemning the West toward its final Jewish scripted destruction: those excuses namely being the West’s rising antipathy toward Jews (due to visible and very active Jewish subversion – similar to what occurred to bait the Germans into WWII) as well as the general immorality that the Jews play a central role in promoting.

        The entire story is that after WWII the West was well enough owned by Jewish Power, and it has been destroying the West ever since. The modern West, in its dissolving and imploding state, is a reflection of the Jewish dream for it on the Jewish path toward the post genocidal Messianic Age for which the destruction of all Western nations is necessary.

      124. @Pericles

        Bullshit. A woman who doesn’t start till she’s thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don’t even need that many.

         
        While there may be some exceptions, such a late starter will in practice have two or less.

        At this point, obviously more white babies are needed. Three or more, at least until we reach the point where additional new births exceed immigration. Probably for longer than that.

        While there may be some exceptions, such a late starter will in practice have two or less.

        If she only has two children, it’s unlikely to be because she started late. Rather, it’s probably going to be because she (and/or her husband) only wants two children. When you see very widely-spaced siblings, there is usually a reason for that. Often, there is an unplanned pregnancy early in the mother’s life, and it took her some years to get herself together financially to have another child. Sometimes, there is a divorce and remarriage, or some other less-than-ideal situation.

        According to this article, the average spacing between siblings is 30 months. I don’t know where they got that figure, but it rings true from my observations.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2012/11/08/how-far-apart-should-you-space-your-kids/#3a26b99f1b76

        Personally, I do not recommend waiting until thirty. I think mid-twenties is much better. That way, you’re still young enough to go double digits if that’s what you decide you want. On the other hand, you can quit and do something else after two of you’d rather. Younger motherhood actually makes sense from the standpoint of women’s autonomy (not that that’s the most important thing), because it’s hard to know how many you want until you start having them.

        But realistically, some couples may need the extra time to get prepared. If that is the case, they can still have a very good size family if that is what they want. Moreover, if you start too early, you may not enjoy motherhood as much as you otherwise would have, in which case you might wind up having fewer children than you might have if you had waited. I suspect that is the gist of this article, though it’s behind a paywall.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/us/us-birthrate-hispanics-latinos.html

        • Replies: @notanon

        But realistically, some couples may need the extra time to get prepared.
         
        the welfare system should be arranged around this imo - helping the healthiest couples have kids.
      125. @Anonymous
        Older mothers tend to have children with older men.

        Also, there's such a premium placed on younger women in terms of attractiveness relative to older women, especially compared to men, that there's likely significant health and quality differences in offspring. A very plain young woman can be much more attractive to men simply by virtue of her youth than an older woman who was formerly a gorgeous model in her youth. And the age difference doesn't even have to be great. It can just be 10 years or so. A woman in her early 20s can have youthful physical attributes that are irresistible to men and that are greatly diminished or lost among women who hit 30, attributes that override other considerations for attractiveness. Whereas that's generally not the case for men.

        Also, there’s such a premium placed on younger women in terms of attractiveness relative to older women, especially compared to men, that there’s likely significant health and quality differences in offspring.

        No evidence? No problem. Just make stuff up.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        It's a hypothesis, based on an incontrovertible fact.

        Just like the hypothesis that there must be some advantage to male height, based on the incontrovertible fact that women tend to be attracted to taller men.

        It would be good to research this subject further and try to obtain evidence for it, but it's a very sensitive subject and not politically correct in an age where the mainstream culture is anti-natalist and promotes childlessness, delayed marriage and childbearing.
      126. @Anonymous

        Bullshit. A woman who doesn’t start till she’s thirty still has plenty of time to have four, even six, children, and we don’t even need that many. The only reason we needed that many in the past was because of infant mortality. This is a Mozart family portrait:
         
        4 kids today with low infant mortality and consequently a regime of relaxed selection are not equivalent to those 4 kids in the past.

        High infant mortality in the past meant that there was pretty strong selection against unhealthy babies and high mutational load. Today, there's no such selection and most babies that are born survive. Older mothers produce babies with greater mutational load, and there's relaxed selection against mutational load today because of low infant mortality.

        4 kids today with low infant mortality and consequently a regime of relaxed selection are not equivalent to those 4 kids in the past.

        So what? There’s nothing that can be done about that.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        You're making 2 claims, one explicit and one implicit.

        The explicit claim is that a woman today can with the same likelihood have the same number of children as a woman in the past did, despite starting much later in life.

        The implicit claim is that children born today, to much older parents in a regime of low infant mortality and relaxed selection, are identical to children born in the past.

        Both of these claims are false.
      127. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Rosie


        4 kids today with low infant mortality and consequently a regime of relaxed selection are not equivalent to those 4 kids in the past.
         
        So what? There's nothing that can be done about that.

        You’re making 2 claims, one explicit and one implicit.

        The explicit claim is that a woman today can with the same likelihood have the same number of children as a woman in the past did, despite starting much later in life.

        The implicit claim is that children born today, to much older parents in a regime of low infant mortality and relaxed selection, are identical to children born in the past.

        Both of these claims are false.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        The explicit claim is that a woman today can with the same likelihood have the same number of children as a woman in the past did, despite starting much later in life.
         
        Yes, she can have the same number of surviving children.

        The implicit claim is that children born today, to much older parents in a regime of low infant mortality and relaxed selection, are identical to children born in the past.
         
        Every single thing you say always boils down to this: less freedom for women. Is there not even one single scenario in which the right thing would be to give women more freedom? It almost seems like you have some sort of axe to grind.

        We don't need to have eight kids to keep the population stable anymore. You just can't stand it that women don't have to spend their entire lives pregnant, can you?
      128. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Rosie

        Also, there’s such a premium placed on younger women in terms of attractiveness relative to older women, especially compared to men, that there’s likely significant health and quality differences in offspring.
         
        No evidence? No problem. Just make stuff up.

        It’s a hypothesis, based on an incontrovertible fact.

        Just like the hypothesis that there must be some advantage to male height, based on the incontrovertible fact that women tend to be attracted to taller men.

        It would be good to research this subject further and try to obtain evidence for it, but it’s a very sensitive subject and not politically correct in an age where the mainstream culture is anti-natalist and promotes childlessness, delayed marriage and childbearing.

      129. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

        This chart of Leonardo DiCaprio’s dating history recently went viral and caused some controversy:

      130. @Anonymous
        You're making 2 claims, one explicit and one implicit.

        The explicit claim is that a woman today can with the same likelihood have the same number of children as a woman in the past did, despite starting much later in life.

        The implicit claim is that children born today, to much older parents in a regime of low infant mortality and relaxed selection, are identical to children born in the past.

        Both of these claims are false.

        The explicit claim is that a woman today can with the same likelihood have the same number of children as a woman in the past did, despite starting much later in life.

        Yes, she can have the same number of surviving children.

        The implicit claim is that children born today, to much older parents in a regime of low infant mortality and relaxed selection, are identical to children born in the past.

        Every single thing you say always boils down to this: less freedom for women. Is there not even one single scenario in which the right thing would be to give women more freedom? It almost seems like you have some sort of axe to grind.

        We don’t need to have eight kids to keep the population stable anymore. You just can’t stand it that women don’t have to spend their entire lives pregnant, can you?

        • Replies: @Anonymous

        Yes, she can have the same number of surviving children.
         
        In general, all else equal, a population of women that starts having children sooner will be able to have more kids than a population of women who start later. I'm not talking about individual cases here and there, but in general.

        We don’t need to have eight kids to keep the population stable anymore. You just can’t stand it that women don’t have to spend their entire lives pregnant, can you?
         
        I never said women should be less free. I'm simply pointing out that age of marriage and motherhood impacts fertility rates.

        By all means promote women's freedom to choose their own lifestyles and have fewer kids, but do so without spreading falsehoods about women's marriage prospects and fertility. This is exactly what the mainstream culture and media does by promoting the lite that women can "have it all". The media promotes the myth that women can wait until their 30s and beyond to get married and have kids with no problems, and a lot of young women today believe this myth.
        , @TheTotallyAnonymous
        Why do women deserve freedom though? Also, freedom from what exactly as well?

        Women having freedom, "liberation" and "empowerment" has literally proven to be nothing but a complete disaster wherever it's implemented. The result of female empowerment in the west today is women doing millions of abortions, degenerate casual sex, political subversion, social subversion, replacing their own men by opening themselves to foreigners, plus many more horrible things that i couldn't think of from the top of my head.

        Some may think i'm over-exaggerating, but honestly, who needs Jews and other hardcore subversionists when you have old dyke white women like our glorious supreme Mama Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and millions of other disgusting fat women, old hags, dykes, feminists and so on running around uncontrollably while having positions of authority. The amount of damage they're doing is arguably just as bad, if not in some cases even worse than Jews or Third World Invaders.

        Women voting, suffrage, and any other form of women's rights have been clearly proven by history and time to be a horrible mistake. Women's freedom is at best completely useless for any civilization, nation and society, and at worst, outright harmful and destructive.
        , @anonymous coward

        Is there not even one single scenario in which the right thing would be to give women more freedom?
         
        Not him, but no. There is no such scenario in this universe.

        Moreover, there is no scenario where the right thing is to give men more freedom, but I doubt you give even a slightest rat's ass about that.
      131. It’s a hypothesis, based on an incontrovertible fact.

        No, it’s just bullshit. Men’s attraction to younger women can easily be explained by their greater number of fertile tears years remaining.

        If anything, women would be expected to face tremendous evolutionary pressure to continue producing healthy offspring as long as possible.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        You're conceding my point here. Men are attracted to younger women because younger women are more likely to produce more surviving offspring into adulthood, which implies more births and greater viability, healthy, survivability of offspring.

        Women don't produce offspring for as long as possible, and live quite long during their post-menopause years, which suggests there is a cost or disadvantage to continually producing offspring.
      132. @Anatoly Karlin

        My experience is that immigrants from small towns are far better integrated — that is, more Swedish in their ways and tastes — than those who grew up in the burbs of Stockholm/Göteborg/Malmö...
         
        I spent my formative late childhood & teenage years as an immigrant in a relatively insular, prole northern English town.

        I will admit that I disliked and resented the place, and its denizens returned the favor. I would wager that I'd have fit in a lot better in much more cosmopolitan London, or even a "millionik" such as Manchester... perhaps even assimilated into British society... precisely because there is less to "assimilate to" in those places.

        I honestly feel myself to be more American than British (though I am of course neither), despite having spend only a decade in the latter.

        I would wager that I’d have fit in a lot better in much more cosmopolitan London, or even a “millionik” such as Manchester… perhaps even assimilated into British society… precisely because there is less to “assimilate to” in those places.

        This is true, but it also goes both ways. Northern England has a lot of insular and backward Pakistanis (the grooming gang scandals took place there for a reason). Pakistanis in London are far more educated, but also more liberal. Even if the community as a whole is quite regressive, there are stark contrasts between the two. This pattern holds for most groups, natives and immigrants alike.

        Importantly, some immigrants actively choose to go to these cosmopolitan cities precisely because the corrosive acid of their social milieu act as a restraint on more regressive (in their view) cultural practices and norms from their own community, as links are generally much weaker in larger cities where there are less avenues for social control. This is particularly true for young girls.

        Stockholm gets the cream of the international work migrants coming to Sweden, but we also get a large share of the best educated/smartest of the 2nd and 3rd gen immigrants from smaller provinces. Some of this is simply economics, but some of it is also an active social choice by 2nd gen immigrants, particularly young educated girls.

      133. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Rosie

        It’s a hypothesis, based on an incontrovertible fact.
         
        No, it's just bullshit. Men's attraction to younger women can easily be explained by their greater number of fertile tears years remaining.

        If anything, women would be expected to face tremendous evolutionary pressure to continue producing healthy offspring as long as possible.

        You’re conceding my point here. Men are attracted to younger women because younger women are more likely to produce more surviving offspring into adulthood, which implies more births and greater viability, healthy, survivability of offspring.

        Women don’t produce offspring for as long as possible, and live quite long during their post-menopause years, which suggests there is a cost or disadvantage to continually producing offspring.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        You’re conceding my point here.
         
        I certainly am not.


        Men are attracted to younger women because younger women are more likely to produce more surviving offspring into adulthood, which implies more births and greater viability, healthy, survivability of offspring.
         
        Are you retarded or something? During to lower infant mortality, women do not need to have eight babies apiece. WTF do you find so incomprehensible about this simple fact?

        Women don’t produce offspring for as long as possible, and live quite long during their post-menopause years, which suggests there is a cost or disadvantage to continually producing offspring.
         
        Yes, there is a disadvantage to have children after a certain age, and that is totally irrelevant to the question at hand, which is the ideal age at first birth in an advanced society with ample nutrition and low infant mortality.

        (Commenters: Should I ignore this troll?)
      134. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Rosie

        The explicit claim is that a woman today can with the same likelihood have the same number of children as a woman in the past did, despite starting much later in life.
         
        Yes, she can have the same number of surviving children.

        The implicit claim is that children born today, to much older parents in a regime of low infant mortality and relaxed selection, are identical to children born in the past.
         
        Every single thing you say always boils down to this: less freedom for women. Is there not even one single scenario in which the right thing would be to give women more freedom? It almost seems like you have some sort of axe to grind.

        We don't need to have eight kids to keep the population stable anymore. You just can't stand it that women don't have to spend their entire lives pregnant, can you?

        Yes, she can have the same number of surviving children.

        In general, all else equal, a population of women that starts having children sooner will be able to have more kids than a population of women who start later. I’m not talking about individual cases here and there, but in general.

        We don’t need to have eight kids to keep the population stable anymore. You just can’t stand it that women don’t have to spend their entire lives pregnant, can you?

        I never said women should be less free. I’m simply pointing out that age of marriage and motherhood impacts fertility rates.

        By all means promote women’s freedom to choose their own lifestyles and have fewer kids, but do so without spreading falsehoods about women’s marriage prospects and fertility. This is exactly what the mainstream culture and media does by promoting the lite that women can “have it all”. The media promotes the myth that women can wait until their 30s and beyond to get married and have kids with no problems, and a lot of young women today believe this myth.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        I never said women should be less free. I’m simply pointing out that age of marriage and motherhood impacts fertility rates.
         
        Oh yes, I'm sure you're just the dispassionate academic.
      135. @Rosie

        The explicit claim is that a woman today can with the same likelihood have the same number of children as a woman in the past did, despite starting much later in life.
         
        Yes, she can have the same number of surviving children.

        The implicit claim is that children born today, to much older parents in a regime of low infant mortality and relaxed selection, are identical to children born in the past.
         
        Every single thing you say always boils down to this: less freedom for women. Is there not even one single scenario in which the right thing would be to give women more freedom? It almost seems like you have some sort of axe to grind.

        We don't need to have eight kids to keep the population stable anymore. You just can't stand it that women don't have to spend their entire lives pregnant, can you?

        Why do women deserve freedom though? Also, freedom from what exactly as well?

        Women having freedom, “liberation” and “empowerment” has literally proven to be nothing but a complete disaster wherever it’s implemented. The result of female empowerment in the west today is women doing millions of abortions, degenerate casual sex, political subversion, social subversion, replacing their own men by opening themselves to foreigners, plus many more horrible things that i couldn’t think of from the top of my head.

        Some may think i’m over-exaggerating, but honestly, who needs Jews and other hardcore subversionists when you have old dyke white women like our glorious supreme Mama Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and millions of other disgusting fat women, old hags, dykes, feminists and so on running around uncontrollably while having positions of authority. The amount of damage they’re doing is arguably just as bad, if not in some cases even worse than Jews or Third World Invaders.

        Women voting, suffrage, and any other form of women’s rights have been clearly proven by history and time to be a horrible mistake. Women’s freedom is at best completely useless for any civilization, nation and society, and at worst, outright harmful and destructive.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Why do women deserve freedom though?
         
        Because freedom is good for humans and women are human.

        Some may think i’m over-exaggerating, but honestly, who needs Jews and other hardcore subversionists when you have old dyke white women like our glorious supreme Mama Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and millions of other disgusting fat women, old hags, dykes, feminists and so on running around uncontrollably while having positions of authority. The amount of damage they’re doing is arguably just as bad, if not in some cases even worse than Jews or Third World Invaders.
         
        I utterly reject your claim that women's emancipation is the cause of our ills. The borders are open because of Jewish subversion and male greed (cheap labor). Male leaders have been every bit as treacherous as Merkel. She is a puppet like all the others. Replace her with a man and see what you get. (Spoiler: more of the same.)

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

        Women voting, suffrage, and any other form of women’s rights have been clearly proven by history and time to be a horrible mistake.
         
        Because if only more White women would have voted for Mittens Romney, he totally would have done something about the border. White Male loyalty to GOPe has been a disaster.

        https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/8247534.jpg
        , @Rosie

        Also, freedom from what exactly as well?
         
        I realized I forgot to address this:

        Forced prostitution.
        , @silviosilver

        Some may think i’m over-exaggerating, but honestly, who needs Jews and other hardcore subversionists when you have old dyke white women like our glorious supreme Mama Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and millions of other disgusting fat women, old hags, dykes, feminists and so on running around uncontrollably while having positions of authority. The amount of damage they’re doing is arguably just as bad, if not in some cases even worse than Jews or Third World Invaders.
         
        You would only have a point with this argument if male politicians in the west consistently took an opposing position.

        But have they? Obviously not. They have been - and remain - enthusiastic cheerleaders for massive and endless immigration.
      136. @Rosie

        The explicit claim is that a woman today can with the same likelihood have the same number of children as a woman in the past did, despite starting much later in life.
         
        Yes, she can have the same number of surviving children.

        The implicit claim is that children born today, to much older parents in a regime of low infant mortality and relaxed selection, are identical to children born in the past.
         
        Every single thing you say always boils down to this: less freedom for women. Is there not even one single scenario in which the right thing would be to give women more freedom? It almost seems like you have some sort of axe to grind.

        We don't need to have eight kids to keep the population stable anymore. You just can't stand it that women don't have to spend their entire lives pregnant, can you?

        Is there not even one single scenario in which the right thing would be to give women more freedom?

        Not him, but no. There is no such scenario in this universe.

        Moreover, there is no scenario where the right thing is to give men more freedom, but I doubt you give even a slightest rat’s ass about that.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Moreover, there is no scenario where the right thing is to give men more freedom, but I doubt you give even a slightest rat’s ass about that.
         
        What sorts of freedoms do you want that you don't already have? Not a rhetorical question.
      137. @Anonymous

        Yes, she can have the same number of surviving children.
         
        In general, all else equal, a population of women that starts having children sooner will be able to have more kids than a population of women who start later. I'm not talking about individual cases here and there, but in general.

        We don’t need to have eight kids to keep the population stable anymore. You just can’t stand it that women don’t have to spend their entire lives pregnant, can you?
         
        I never said women should be less free. I'm simply pointing out that age of marriage and motherhood impacts fertility rates.

        By all means promote women's freedom to choose their own lifestyles and have fewer kids, but do so without spreading falsehoods about women's marriage prospects and fertility. This is exactly what the mainstream culture and media does by promoting the lite that women can "have it all". The media promotes the myth that women can wait until their 30s and beyond to get married and have kids with no problems, and a lot of young women today believe this myth.

        I never said women should be less free. I’m simply pointing out that age of marriage and motherhood impacts fertility rates.

        Oh yes, I’m sure you’re just the dispassionate academic.

      138. @anonymous coward

        Is there not even one single scenario in which the right thing would be to give women more freedom?
         
        Not him, but no. There is no such scenario in this universe.

        Moreover, there is no scenario where the right thing is to give men more freedom, but I doubt you give even a slightest rat's ass about that.

        Moreover, there is no scenario where the right thing is to give men more freedom, but I doubt you give even a slightest rat’s ass about that.

        What sorts of freedoms do you want that you don’t already have? Not a rhetorical question.

      139. @TheTotallyAnonymous
        Why do women deserve freedom though? Also, freedom from what exactly as well?

        Women having freedom, "liberation" and "empowerment" has literally proven to be nothing but a complete disaster wherever it's implemented. The result of female empowerment in the west today is women doing millions of abortions, degenerate casual sex, political subversion, social subversion, replacing their own men by opening themselves to foreigners, plus many more horrible things that i couldn't think of from the top of my head.

        Some may think i'm over-exaggerating, but honestly, who needs Jews and other hardcore subversionists when you have old dyke white women like our glorious supreme Mama Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and millions of other disgusting fat women, old hags, dykes, feminists and so on running around uncontrollably while having positions of authority. The amount of damage they're doing is arguably just as bad, if not in some cases even worse than Jews or Third World Invaders.

        Women voting, suffrage, and any other form of women's rights have been clearly proven by history and time to be a horrible mistake. Women's freedom is at best completely useless for any civilization, nation and society, and at worst, outright harmful and destructive.

        Why do women deserve freedom though?

        Because freedom is good for humans and women are human.

        Some may think i’m over-exaggerating, but honestly, who needs Jews and other hardcore subversionists when you have old dyke white women like our glorious supreme Mama Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and millions of other disgusting fat women, old hags, dykes, feminists and so on running around uncontrollably while having positions of authority. The amount of damage they’re doing is arguably just as bad, if not in some cases even worse than Jews or Third World Invaders.

        I utterly reject your claim that women’s emancipation is the cause of our ills. The borders are open because of Jewish subversion and male greed (cheap labor). Male leaders have been every bit as treacherous as Merkel. She is a puppet like all the others. Replace her with a man and see what you get. (Spoiler: more of the same.)

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

        Women voting, suffrage, and any other form of women’s rights have been clearly proven by history and time to be a horrible mistake.

        Because if only more White women would have voted for Mittens Romney, he totally would have done something about the border. White Male loyalty to GOPe has been a disaster.

        • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
        Oh of course, women as a group are totally not eager voters who are inclined towards leftism and subversion at all. All the statistics where women are much more inclined to support civilization destruction, and go against the interests of the collective which they are a part of with men, aren't true. Of course not, how could they be, women are too innocent, weak, and helpless to ever be capable of doing anything to ruin their own civilization and nation ...

        Women totally aren't eager or interested to replace their own men because they consider them to be weak and pathetic ...

        http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/refugees-welcome-women.jpg

        https://www.eutimes.net/2016/09/female-volunteers-at-calais-jungle-having-sex-with-multiple-refugees-a-day/

        As for your deflection of blame, which is of course a typical female trait, onto Jews and male greed (cheap labor), women's suffrage and the right to vote is what lead to Jews being able to successfully persuade women with garbage like feminism, consumerism, LGBTQ, human rights interventionism, and literally everything else that's absolutely civilization killing.

        After all, women are never responsible or at fault for anything in this world of course. It's actually shocking how similar the behavior of women and Jews as collective groups really is. The constant whining, the subversion, trickery, deceit, selfishness, shallowness, shortsightedness, and need i go on?

        Of course, your last line of defense is Cuckservatism. All of the GOP besides maybe Trump, although he's done a lot to join their ranks, are Cuckservatives that are basically conservative only in theory but in reality completely give in to their opponents in order to virtue signal about how they're so moral and humane for subscribing to liberal doctrines. Considering Trump hasn't "done something about the border", what makes you think if Mitt Romney won in 2008, that he would've done so?

        Why should white males be loyal to the GOP and cuckservatives? They are arguably even worse than all of their other enemies because they pretend to be on the side of white men, but are completely useless and surrender on anything remotely important. Of course they're not going to vote GOP. The only reason they voted for Trump was because he promised to be different.
        , @dfordoom

        Because freedom is good for humans
         
        Is it? I think that's a completely unproven assumption.
      140. @Anonymous
        You're conceding my point here. Men are attracted to younger women because younger women are more likely to produce more surviving offspring into adulthood, which implies more births and greater viability, healthy, survivability of offspring.

        Women don't produce offspring for as long as possible, and live quite long during their post-menopause years, which suggests there is a cost or disadvantage to continually producing offspring.

        You’re conceding my point here.

        I certainly am not.

        Men are attracted to younger women because younger women are more likely to produce more surviving offspring into adulthood, which implies more births and greater viability, healthy, survivability of offspring.

        Are you retarded or something? During to lower infant mortality, women do not need to have eight babies apiece. WTF do you find so incomprehensible about this simple fact?

        Women don’t produce offspring for as long as possible, and live quite long during their post-menopause years, which suggests there is a cost or disadvantage to continually producing offspring.

        Yes, there is a disadvantage to have children after a certain age, and that is totally irrelevant to the question at hand, which is the ideal age at first birth in an advanced society with ample nutrition and low infant mortality.

        (Commenters: Should I ignore this troll?)

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        You did concede my point there.

        Nobody said women need to have 8 babies apiece. The point is that 8 babies born today are not equivalent to 8 babies born in the past under different conditions.

        You're conceding another point here by agreeing that there is a disadvantage in having children after a certain age.

        Having children late in life is not ideal in terms of increasing fertility rates or in terms of the health of offspring "in an advanced society with ample nutrition and low infant mortality." It's ideal in terms of women maximizing their pre-marital lifestyles.
      141. @TheTotallyAnonymous
        Why do women deserve freedom though? Also, freedom from what exactly as well?

        Women having freedom, "liberation" and "empowerment" has literally proven to be nothing but a complete disaster wherever it's implemented. The result of female empowerment in the west today is women doing millions of abortions, degenerate casual sex, political subversion, social subversion, replacing their own men by opening themselves to foreigners, plus many more horrible things that i couldn't think of from the top of my head.

        Some may think i'm over-exaggerating, but honestly, who needs Jews and other hardcore subversionists when you have old dyke white women like our glorious supreme Mama Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and millions of other disgusting fat women, old hags, dykes, feminists and so on running around uncontrollably while having positions of authority. The amount of damage they're doing is arguably just as bad, if not in some cases even worse than Jews or Third World Invaders.

        Women voting, suffrage, and any other form of women's rights have been clearly proven by history and time to be a horrible mistake. Women's freedom is at best completely useless for any civilization, nation and society, and at worst, outright harmful and destructive.

        Also, freedom from what exactly as well?

        I realized I forgot to address this:

        Forced prostitution.

      142. @Rosie

        Why do women deserve freedom though?
         
        Because freedom is good for humans and women are human.

        Some may think i’m over-exaggerating, but honestly, who needs Jews and other hardcore subversionists when you have old dyke white women like our glorious supreme Mama Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and millions of other disgusting fat women, old hags, dykes, feminists and so on running around uncontrollably while having positions of authority. The amount of damage they’re doing is arguably just as bad, if not in some cases even worse than Jews or Third World Invaders.
         
        I utterly reject your claim that women's emancipation is the cause of our ills. The borders are open because of Jewish subversion and male greed (cheap labor). Male leaders have been every bit as treacherous as Merkel. She is a puppet like all the others. Replace her with a man and see what you get. (Spoiler: more of the same.)

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

        Women voting, suffrage, and any other form of women’s rights have been clearly proven by history and time to be a horrible mistake.
         
        Because if only more White women would have voted for Mittens Romney, he totally would have done something about the border. White Male loyalty to GOPe has been a disaster.

        https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/8247534.jpg

        Oh of course, women as a group are totally not eager voters who are inclined towards leftism and subversion at all. All the statistics where women are much more inclined to support civilization destruction, and go against the interests of the collective which they are a part of with men, aren’t true. Of course not, how could they be, women are too innocent, weak, and helpless to ever be capable of doing anything to ruin their own civilization and nation …

        Women totally aren’t eager or interested to replace their own men because they consider them to be weak and pathetic …

        https://www.eutimes.net/2016/09/female-volunteers-at-calais-jungle-having-sex-with-multiple-refugees-a-day/

        As for your deflection of blame, which is of course a typical female trait, onto Jews and male greed (cheap labor), women’s suffrage and the right to vote is what lead to Jews being able to successfully persuade women with garbage like feminism, consumerism, LGBTQ, human rights interventionism, and literally everything else that’s absolutely civilization killing.

        After all, women are never responsible or at fault for anything in this world of course. It’s actually shocking how similar the behavior of women and Jews as collective groups really is. The constant whining, the subversion, trickery, deceit, selfishness, shallowness, shortsightedness, and need i go on?

        Of course, your last line of defense is Cuckservatism. All of the GOP besides maybe Trump, although he’s done a lot to join their ranks, are Cuckservatives that are basically conservative only in theory but in reality completely give in to their opponents in order to virtue signal about how they’re so moral and humane for subscribing to liberal doctrines. Considering Trump hasn’t “done something about the border”, what makes you think if Mitt Romney won in 2008, that he would’ve done so?

        Why should white males be loyal to the GOP and cuckservatives? They are arguably even worse than all of their other enemies because they pretend to be on the side of white men, but are completely useless and surrender on anything remotely important. Of course they’re not going to vote GOP. The only reason they voted for Trump was because he promised to be different.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Oh of course, women as a group are totally not eager voters who are inclined towards leftism and subversion at all.
         
        We value the welfare state. If you consider that "subversion" then so be it.

        Women totally aren’t eager or interested to replace their own men because they consider them to be weak and pathetic …
         
        You're paranoid.

        https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ethnic-preferences2.png?w=1400&strip=all&quality=75

        women’s suffrage and the right to vote is what lead to Jews being able to successfully persuade women with garbage like feminism, consumerism, LGBTQ, human rights interventionism, and literally everything else that’s absolutely civilization killing.
         
        What an incoherent load of nonsense. Having the right to vote didn't allow Jews to persuade us of anything. What did allow them to do so was White men handing over the commanding heights of the culture (media, academy, courts) over to the Jews.

        The things you mention have nothing to do with women's suffrage. Women have consistently been more opposed to military adventurism than men.

        https://www.e-ir.info/wp-content/uploads/fig1clements.jpg

        https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2011/12/Clements-fig-1a.jpg

        https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2011/12/Clements-fig-2.jpg

        LGBTQ has only been slightly more popular among women than men, who liked the idea of permissive sexual mores.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/

        https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/playboy-founder-hugh-hefner-early-proponent-lgbtq-rights-n805591
        https://www.newsweek.com/hugh-hefner-playboy-gay-rights-advocate-673046
        https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/28/16379500/hugh-hefner-lgbtq-rights&ved=2ahUKEwi50a2YtMjjAhVBTt8KHVCHDh0QFjADegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0xlaij-djIPvptXZ6971fn&cshid=1563794510287

        As for your deflection of blame, which is of course a typical female trait, onto Jews and male greed (cheap labor),

         
        When some woman-hating jerk blames women for things we have no control over, we can agree (in which case the allegations are true) or we can defend ourselves (which will be construed as further evidence of our incorrigible wickedness). It looks like you've got all of your bases covered.

        Cheap labor:

        https://www.businessinsider.com/koch-network-to-support-dreamers-legal-status-2019-1
        https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/kochs-dreamers-talks-529687
        https://time.com/5491587/koch-brothers-network-immigration-reform/

        You find me one White billionaire (just one out of several hundred) to fund conservative women's activism and I'll get some heels on the ground. Until then, STFU.

        Why should white males be loyal to the GOP and cuckservatives? They are arguably even worse than all of their other enemies because they pretend to be on the side of white men, but are completely useless and surrender on anything remotely important.
         
        Indeed. And whose fault is that?
        , @AP

        Considering Trump hasn’t “done something about the border”, what makes you think if Mitt Romney won in 2008, that he would’ve done so?
         
        Mitt was going to make conditions such that they would "self-deport."

        Because he is a much more competent executive, although his policies and rhetoric would probably have been milder than Trump's, he would have been more effective and thus there would have been fewer migrants (IIRC even the Obama administration deported more has Trump's) .
      143. @Rosie

        Why do women deserve freedom though?
         
        Because freedom is good for humans and women are human.

        Some may think i’m over-exaggerating, but honestly, who needs Jews and other hardcore subversionists when you have old dyke white women like our glorious supreme Mama Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and millions of other disgusting fat women, old hags, dykes, feminists and so on running around uncontrollably while having positions of authority. The amount of damage they’re doing is arguably just as bad, if not in some cases even worse than Jews or Third World Invaders.
         
        I utterly reject your claim that women's emancipation is the cause of our ills. The borders are open because of Jewish subversion and male greed (cheap labor). Male leaders have been every bit as treacherous as Merkel. She is a puppet like all the others. Replace her with a man and see what you get. (Spoiler: more of the same.)

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

        Women voting, suffrage, and any other form of women’s rights have been clearly proven by history and time to be a horrible mistake.
         
        Because if only more White women would have voted for Mittens Romney, he totally would have done something about the border. White Male loyalty to GOPe has been a disaster.

        https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/8247534.jpg

        Because freedom is good for humans

        Is it? I think that’s a completely unproven assumption.

        • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
        • Replies: @Rosie

        Is it? I think that’s a completely unproven assumption.
         
        It's not an assumption; it's a statement of value. If you don't value freedom, then I have no common ground to have any sort of discussion with you about anything.
        , @EldnahYm
        In many cases, it's clearly bad for some humans. One need only observe the behavior of drug addicts, alcoholics, tobacco users, and morbidly obese people to see that freedom is not always good.

        Also many types of freedoms are at odds with each other obviously. One's freedom to enjoy peace and quiet is harmed by a neighbor's freedom to listen to loud music.
      144. @dfordoom

        Because freedom is good for humans
         
        Is it? I think that's a completely unproven assumption.

        Is it? I think that’s a completely unproven assumption.

        It’s not an assumption; it’s a statement of value. If you don’t value freedom, then I have no common ground to have any sort of discussion with you about anything.

      145. @AaronB
        Its not so much reveal as develop. Certain facts and lines of argument only become apparent when you adopt a new perspective.

        For instance, before I abandoned being white and sought refuge in my Jewish roots I did not put two and two together, that there is some kind of connection between the intense European effort to delegimize Israel in the 90s, and the self inflicted delegitimization of European states in the 10s. Yet it is so obvious once you see it.

        The mindset Europeans developed in their war against Israel bore fruit against themselves, after it failed to work against Israel and had nowhere to go.

        It was like a grenade that landed among your own unit.

        As for the proof of God thing, Jews invented the retribution if God logic, and we do in fact blame our calamities on our own sins.

        You were never white to start with, so there was never anything to abandon. Of course the flight from white is now very useful to lots of other non white such as Arabs, but as usual the jew pretends to be a victim to something they themselves wanted.

      146. @TheTotallyAnonymous
        Oh of course, women as a group are totally not eager voters who are inclined towards leftism and subversion at all. All the statistics where women are much more inclined to support civilization destruction, and go against the interests of the collective which they are a part of with men, aren't true. Of course not, how could they be, women are too innocent, weak, and helpless to ever be capable of doing anything to ruin their own civilization and nation ...

        Women totally aren't eager or interested to replace their own men because they consider them to be weak and pathetic ...

        http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/refugees-welcome-women.jpg

        https://www.eutimes.net/2016/09/female-volunteers-at-calais-jungle-having-sex-with-multiple-refugees-a-day/

        As for your deflection of blame, which is of course a typical female trait, onto Jews and male greed (cheap labor), women's suffrage and the right to vote is what lead to Jews being able to successfully persuade women with garbage like feminism, consumerism, LGBTQ, human rights interventionism, and literally everything else that's absolutely civilization killing.

        After all, women are never responsible or at fault for anything in this world of course. It's actually shocking how similar the behavior of women and Jews as collective groups really is. The constant whining, the subversion, trickery, deceit, selfishness, shallowness, shortsightedness, and need i go on?

        Of course, your last line of defense is Cuckservatism. All of the GOP besides maybe Trump, although he's done a lot to join their ranks, are Cuckservatives that are basically conservative only in theory but in reality completely give in to their opponents in order to virtue signal about how they're so moral and humane for subscribing to liberal doctrines. Considering Trump hasn't "done something about the border", what makes you think if Mitt Romney won in 2008, that he would've done so?

        Why should white males be loyal to the GOP and cuckservatives? They are arguably even worse than all of their other enemies because they pretend to be on the side of white men, but are completely useless and surrender on anything remotely important. Of course they're not going to vote GOP. The only reason they voted for Trump was because he promised to be different.

        Oh of course, women as a group are totally not eager voters who are inclined towards leftism and subversion at all.

        We value the welfare state. If you consider that “subversion” then so be it.

        Women totally aren’t eager or interested to replace their own men because they consider them to be weak and pathetic …

        You’re paranoid.

        women’s suffrage and the right to vote is what lead to Jews being able to successfully persuade women with garbage like feminism, consumerism, LGBTQ, human rights interventionism, and literally everything else that’s absolutely civilization killing.

        What an incoherent load of nonsense. Having the right to vote didn’t allow Jews to persuade us of anything. What did allow them to do so was White men handing over the commanding heights of the culture (media, academy, courts) over to the Jews.

        The things you mention have nothing to do with women’s suffrage. Women have consistently been more opposed to military adventurism than men.

        LGBTQ has only been slightly more popular among women than men, who liked the idea of permissive sexual mores.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/

        https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/playboy-founder-hugh-hefner-early-proponent-lgbtq-rights-n805591
        https://www.newsweek.com/hugh-hefner-playboy-gay-rights-advocate-673046
        https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/28/16379500/hugh-hefner-lgbtq-rights&ved=2ahUKEwi50a2YtMjjAhVBTt8KHVCHDh0QFjADegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0xlaij-djIPvptXZ6971fn&cshid=1563794510287

        As for your deflection of blame, which is of course a typical female trait, onto Jews and male greed (cheap labor),

        When some woman-hating jerk blames women for things we have no control over, we can agree (in which case the allegations are true) or we can defend ourselves (which will be construed as further evidence of our incorrigible wickedness). It looks like you’ve got all of your bases covered.

        Cheap labor:

        https://www.businessinsider.com/koch-network-to-support-dreamers-legal-status-2019-1
        https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/kochs-dreamers-talks-529687
        https://time.com/5491587/koch-brothers-network-immigration-reform/

        You find me one White billionaire (just one out of several hundred) to fund conservative women’s activism and I’ll get some heels on the ground. Until then, STFU.

        Why should white males be loyal to the GOP and cuckservatives? They are arguably even worse than all of their other enemies because they pretend to be on the side of white men, but are completely useless and surrender on anything remotely important.

        Indeed. And whose fault is that?

        • Replies: @Rosie
        On gay marriage:

        https://www.people-press.org/2019/05/14/attitudes-on-gay-marriage-2019-appendix-charts/pp_2019-05-14_same-sex-marriage_a-03/
        , @TheTotallyAnonymous
        I never said that the welfare state was "subversion". Truthfully though, as far as punishing men through no-fault divorce, payments to single mothers, and encouraging women's education, the welfare state really is an extremely subversive, harmful, and destructive influence on any given society.

        As for white women on average sexually preferring their own men, that has historically been true since it's only natural for women to prefer their own men. Of course, as captured goods, women rarely effectively resist being the spoils of war for a victorious tribe that conquers another. It's simply not in their nature to do so. Whites/Europeans are currently in a situation where they are a tribe being conquered by other tribes, if you haven't noticed. Regardless, in-group preferences can be persuaded to change through propaganda promoting interracial sex, marriage and so on. The propaganda pushing interracial sex is thick and aggressive, plus we are far from seeing the end of it. Perceptions can change over time and the lengths to which something that is biologically or genetically natural can be altered, are shockingly large. White women inter-racially cuckolding their men (having sex with black and brown men) is absolutely real, and happens to a much larger degree than most people think. There is a good reason why phrases like "coal burner" and "mud shark" exist.

        With the exception of Anglo nations, France and Switzerland, before WW1, most of Europe or the "white world" was not democratic in general (in the modern sense, at minimum). It was only after 1945 that democracy, and with it, women's suffrage became firmly established throughout the world. It's very clear that a lot of the civilization killing trends of today had their seeds planted since 1945. Democracy is in general useless because voting doesn't change much of anything in the overwhelming majority of situations. The "success" of Democracy and women's suffrage in general is also very much a strongly ethnic Anglo thing as well. By now, they've persuaded some other West Europeans to value it over the centuries, but still, nobody besides Anglos, other West Europeans and Jews (it has different meanings to each group, of course) even really cares about Democracy.

        Who do you think encourages women's suffrage and feminism you silly Shiksa?

        The part about women being opposed to war should be strongly tested before and after they have been exposed to some kind of hoax massacre, war crime or genocide propaganda (For example, "gassed" Syrian babies, Iraqi soldiers "raping Kuwaiti stewardesses", Srebrenica "genocide", and so on). Otherwise, you are correct, it is obvious that women have historically, on average, been strongly opposed to war.

        Still, women support LGBTQ on average more than men do. That is something even you admit. Of course, you conveniently glossed over how women have mass murdered millions of babies across several decades through their unholy abortions.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

        Women in the United States have managed to mass murder almost 46 million babies from 1970-2015. It's reasonable to assume most of those abortions were done by white women since Anglos/whites were the majority population of the USA until now or the near future (not clear whether peoples' of European descent are currently a majority in the USA or not).

        FIGURE 1: The number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15-49 and per 100 live births (Russia, 1959-2014)

        http://www.ponarseurasia.org/sites/default/files/Picture1_5.png

        KEY: Per 100 Births (purple); Per 1,000 Women (red) | Source: Rosstat data

        Of course, this proves that women regardless of whether they're in the USA or Russia, are still the same. More accurately, it applies for women of any ethnicity or race across literally the whole planet. Unfortunately, most people won't believe it unless abortion becomes completely legal and accessible worldwide where they will have firsthand evidence of it. Whenever women are empowered with the "freedom" of abortion, they'll always be eager and certain to mass murder millions of babies.

        Women are genocidal scum that mass murder millions of babies ...
      147. @Cicerone
        I tried to quantify IQ loss as well. In an earlier version of this table, I named it IQ loss per generation, but realized that this is based on the assumption of perfect stratification and 100% heritability, which is of course impossible, so real IQ loss is much lower than my calculated values. So I for now call it "dysgenic index". The numbers themselves are meaningless, but they are good for a comparison between countries.

        In order to calculate them, I sliced the normal distribution in parts according to education levels, so if 40% are low educated, 40% medium and 20% high, I assumed that the lowest 40% of the normal distribution are occupied by the low, the next 40% by the medium and the rightmost 20% by the high educated. I calculated the mean "IQ" value for each slice, and used these to project the next generation. Then I calculated their average again, and compared it to the average of the initial (which is 0 by definition, as we have a normal distribution).

        This index takes into account fertility differences between education levels, but also their distribution. If low educated have a TFR of 4 and highe ducated of 2, then it still depends on the percentages of each level. A country with 99% low educated and 1% high educated in this case has less of a dysgenic effect than a country with 70% low educated and 30% high educated. This is important because generally, education categories are not comparable across countries.

        Based on this, here are the eugneic indices for some countries (the lower the value, the more dysgenic. Positivee values mean eugenic fertility). I only provide the first decimal, because those are not very precise estimates:

        Denmark, Finland, 0.2 (most eugenic trend of all countries)
        Sweden 0.1
        Canada -0,5
        Egypt, Indonesia -0,6
        Japan -0,7
        Australia -0,8
        Germany, Poland -0,9
        France, Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, Vietnam -1.0
        Belgium -1,1
        Italy -1,2
        Russia, Spain -1,3
        USA -1,4
        Israel -1,5
        Romania -1,8
        China, South Africa -2,4
        India -2,5
        Iran -2,9
        Turkey -3,0
        Philippines -3,4
        Mexico -3,7
        Brazil, Peru -3,9
        Colombia -4,1
        Ethiopia -4,2
        Haiti -5,6 (most dysgenic trend)

        What index would you calculate for Ukraine?

      148. @Rosie

        Oh of course, women as a group are totally not eager voters who are inclined towards leftism and subversion at all.
         
        We value the welfare state. If you consider that "subversion" then so be it.

        Women totally aren’t eager or interested to replace their own men because they consider them to be weak and pathetic …
         
        You're paranoid.

        https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ethnic-preferences2.png?w=1400&strip=all&quality=75

        women’s suffrage and the right to vote is what lead to Jews being able to successfully persuade women with garbage like feminism, consumerism, LGBTQ, human rights interventionism, and literally everything else that’s absolutely civilization killing.
         
        What an incoherent load of nonsense. Having the right to vote didn't allow Jews to persuade us of anything. What did allow them to do so was White men handing over the commanding heights of the culture (media, academy, courts) over to the Jews.

        The things you mention have nothing to do with women's suffrage. Women have consistently been more opposed to military adventurism than men.

        https://www.e-ir.info/wp-content/uploads/fig1clements.jpg

        https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2011/12/Clements-fig-1a.jpg

        https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2011/12/Clements-fig-2.jpg

        LGBTQ has only been slightly more popular among women than men, who liked the idea of permissive sexual mores.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/

        https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/playboy-founder-hugh-hefner-early-proponent-lgbtq-rights-n805591
        https://www.newsweek.com/hugh-hefner-playboy-gay-rights-advocate-673046
        https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/28/16379500/hugh-hefner-lgbtq-rights&ved=2ahUKEwi50a2YtMjjAhVBTt8KHVCHDh0QFjADegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0xlaij-djIPvptXZ6971fn&cshid=1563794510287

        As for your deflection of blame, which is of course a typical female trait, onto Jews and male greed (cheap labor),

         
        When some woman-hating jerk blames women for things we have no control over, we can agree (in which case the allegations are true) or we can defend ourselves (which will be construed as further evidence of our incorrigible wickedness). It looks like you've got all of your bases covered.

        Cheap labor:

        https://www.businessinsider.com/koch-network-to-support-dreamers-legal-status-2019-1
        https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/kochs-dreamers-talks-529687
        https://time.com/5491587/koch-brothers-network-immigration-reform/

        You find me one White billionaire (just one out of several hundred) to fund conservative women's activism and I'll get some heels on the ground. Until then, STFU.

        Why should white males be loyal to the GOP and cuckservatives? They are arguably even worse than all of their other enemies because they pretend to be on the side of white men, but are completely useless and surrender on anything remotely important.
         
        Indeed. And whose fault is that?
      149. AP says:
        @TheTotallyAnonymous
        Oh of course, women as a group are totally not eager voters who are inclined towards leftism and subversion at all. All the statistics where women are much more inclined to support civilization destruction, and go against the interests of the collective which they are a part of with men, aren't true. Of course not, how could they be, women are too innocent, weak, and helpless to ever be capable of doing anything to ruin their own civilization and nation ...

        Women totally aren't eager or interested to replace their own men because they consider them to be weak and pathetic ...

        http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/refugees-welcome-women.jpg

        https://www.eutimes.net/2016/09/female-volunteers-at-calais-jungle-having-sex-with-multiple-refugees-a-day/

        As for your deflection of blame, which is of course a typical female trait, onto Jews and male greed (cheap labor), women's suffrage and the right to vote is what lead to Jews being able to successfully persuade women with garbage like feminism, consumerism, LGBTQ, human rights interventionism, and literally everything else that's absolutely civilization killing.

        After all, women are never responsible or at fault for anything in this world of course. It's actually shocking how similar the behavior of women and Jews as collective groups really is. The constant whining, the subversion, trickery, deceit, selfishness, shallowness, shortsightedness, and need i go on?

        Of course, your last line of defense is Cuckservatism. All of the GOP besides maybe Trump, although he's done a lot to join their ranks, are Cuckservatives that are basically conservative only in theory but in reality completely give in to their opponents in order to virtue signal about how they're so moral and humane for subscribing to liberal doctrines. Considering Trump hasn't "done something about the border", what makes you think if Mitt Romney won in 2008, that he would've done so?

        Why should white males be loyal to the GOP and cuckservatives? They are arguably even worse than all of their other enemies because they pretend to be on the side of white men, but are completely useless and surrender on anything remotely important. Of course they're not going to vote GOP. The only reason they voted for Trump was because he promised to be different.

        Considering Trump hasn’t “done something about the border”, what makes you think if Mitt Romney won in 2008, that he would’ve done so?

        Mitt was going to make conditions such that they would “self-deport.”

        Because he is a much more competent executive, although his policies and rhetoric would probably have been milder than Trump’s, he would have been more effective and thus there would have been fewer migrants (IIRC even the Obama administration deported more has Trump’s) .

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Mitt was going to make conditions such that they would “self-deport.”
         
        Lol my achin' sides!
      150. @AP

        Considering Trump hasn’t “done something about the border”, what makes you think if Mitt Romney won in 2008, that he would’ve done so?
         
        Mitt was going to make conditions such that they would "self-deport."

        Because he is a much more competent executive, although his policies and rhetoric would probably have been milder than Trump's, he would have been more effective and thus there would have been fewer migrants (IIRC even the Obama administration deported more has Trump's) .

        Mitt was going to make conditions such that they would “self-deport.”

        Lol my achin’ sides!

        • Replies: @Rosie
        This must be women's fault:

        https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-tariffs/over-600-u-s-companies-urge-trump-to-resolve-trade-dispute-with-china-letter-idUSKCN1TE36K
        , @AP
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2012/11/26/trump-mitt-romneys-maniacal-self-deportation-policy-cost-him-minorities/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5effe077ba98

        Trump: Mitt Romney’s ‘maniacal’ self-deportation policy cost him minorities

        Romney "had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump told NewsMax.com. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote ... He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”

        Romney said during the Republican primary that illegal immigrants should "self-deport," meaning that if the government made it impossible for them to find jobs or obtain driver’s licenses, they would leave the country of their own accord.
      151. @Rosie

        Mitt was going to make conditions such that they would “self-deport.”
         
        Lol my achin' sides!
        • Replies: @Anonymous
        Ackshually...

        https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-everyone-know-women-consumers/

        1. If the consumer economy had a sex, it would be female. Women drive 70-80% of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence. Influence means that even when a woman isn’t paying for something herself, she is often the influence or veto vote behind someone else’s purchase.
         
        If men actually controlled consumer spending, demand for most consumer goods would collapse and the trade deficit would disappear. Men, especially married men, tend to be natural cheapskates. When married men control spending, they generally try to get away with being as cheap as possible to the great consternation of their wives, besides indulging in a few big ticket personal toys such as boats and the like.
      152. AP says:
        @Rosie

        Mitt was going to make conditions such that they would “self-deport.”
         
        Lol my achin' sides!

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2012/11/26/trump-mitt-romneys-maniacal-self-deportation-policy-cost-him-minorities/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5effe077ba98

        Trump: Mitt Romney’s ‘maniacal’ self-deportation policy cost him minorities

        Romney “had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump told NewsMax.com. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote … He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”

        Romney said during the Republican primary that illegal immigrants should “self-deport,” meaning that if the government made it impossible for them to find jobs or obtain driver’s licenses, they would leave the country of their own accord.

      153. Romney said during the Republican primary that illegal immigrants should “self-deport,”

        And of course we know Republicans always keep their promises.

        🤣

        • Replies: @AP
        Sure, but Romney had a tendency of getting things done. Arguably, a soft but actually implemented policy would have been better than a hard policy that was not implemented.
      154. @Mitleser

        So the smart fraction that is emerging will be less Ashkenazi, but not any less smart.

        Since the smart fraction TFR is above replacement, this adds another layer of optimism.
         
        It is above replacement, but it is not enough to maintain their share in the Israeli society.
        In relative terms, they are shrinking, just like their counterparts in other socities.

        The issue with AaronB’s comment:

        – admixture with lower IQ groups leads to a regression to the lower mean in the children (to be more precise, to the average of the two groups), so it still means a lowering IQ for the smart fraction; he failed to take this into account

        – suddenly he managed to understand HBD (except for the point above), something which before he pretended not to understand, kept misrepresenting, argued against using straw man arguments, etc.

        • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
        • Replies: @AaronB
        I thought I had shown that regression to the mean is another HBD fantasy, at least as understood by HBDers, and a rare and unusual event....

        That the concept would imply constant turnover in the smart fraction, the non existence of a stable smart fraction, and the non existence of talented families who consistently produce offspring above the mean..
      155. @yakushimaru
        What is the optimal population size of the islands of Japan, under current tech level?

        Or, is that when you reach 200 mil, the only way not dysgenic for you is to go for 300 mil?

        A sudden drop of course can be bad, but look at what happened right after WWII. Or in China right after the hunger period around 1960. Rapid pop increases.

        People often talk about the rate of replacement. May I ask why is it almost axiomatically good?

        why is it almost axiomatically good?

        i don’t think it is any more.

        i’d say it’s usually true but when technology gets past a certain point then quality > quantity becomes more important.

        (for a fixed living space)

        personally i think the populations of industrialized nations grew too high due to the labor needs of early industrial society and ideally would shrink to maybe 2/3 their current population while at the same time improving health and intelligence.

        once they’re at a new optimal level then replacement would become an important marker again.

        #

        What is the optimal population size of the islands of Japan, under current tech level?

        my guess of 2/3 current size is just a guess.

        i think what would happen (if immigration is restricted) is the population would shrink to the point where it hit replacement – which would be a function of people feeling less crowded and the natural increase in the proportion of pro-natal genes over time as the women who most wanted kids had the most (as long as that desire was supported and made possible).

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        i think the populations of industrialized nations grew too high due to the labor needs of early industrial society and ideally would shrink to maybe 2/3 their current population
         
        That's quite possibly true. But how do you rate your chances of persuading the corporate sector that ever-shrinking markets might be a good thing? And in today's world the corporate sector has more influence over policy than elected officials.
      156. a lot of welfare systems only target the poorest which leads to only the poor and the rich being able to afford as many children as they’d like.

        assuming that for women in the 115+ range it’s mostly not primarily about money then maybe a system that favors women in the 100-115 range would be closer to optimal.

      157. i think much lower population density and expansion into space would be a lot better than the ant’s nest we are going to get under current extrapolation.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        i think much lower population density and expansion into space would be a lot better than the ant’s nest we are going to get under current extrapolation.
         
        Expansion into space? There's nowhere reachable that could be made even vaguely habitable. Colonies in space would be a major drain on resources, for zero gain.
      158. @yakushimaru
        We're not rabbits. If you have a country, then you know that you're at least a tad bit more than that. What kind of animal uses fertility rate to preserve their culture heritage?

        Israel is different as they have the opportunity (and intention) to increase their total living space.

      159. @Thorfinnsson
        https://i.redd.it/xgtm6p7gq1a11.jpg

        Obviously, I can't vouch for this map...which claims its source is the Huffington Post, and of course even if true it doesn't note the race of partners. But let's assume it's true while I establish my priors.

        I have a Swedish background and family and have been to the country more than thirty times. I know what I'm talking about.

        While Sweden's welfare state and strong economy facilitate family formation, they also facilitate a "fun" early adulthood which gives youth the resources and time to participate in nightlife, travel, and study abroad. Young Swedes are encouraged to party a lot and experiment sexually, as well as to "find" themselves. And how do you suppose 20-somethings on vacation in Thailand for an entire month "find" themselves?

        Higher "education" is free, and nearly half of young Swedes have attained tertiary degrees. Studying abroad for a year is very common, and it's also quite common for young Swedes to work abroad for a time before returning to settle in Sweden.

        Northern European men can be for many young Western women "boring", so certain adventurous women are interested in having a lover from a more passionate, R-selected culture. This is nothing new and not even entirely the product of globohomo propaganda. In the postwar period there was a fad for Italian lovers among German and Nordic women. I believe there's even a German pop song from the '60s about this.

        If you want to hear something really unpleasant, when my brother lived in Africa he reported than in Tanzania there was a group of Norwegian (not Swedish but close enough) nursing students on vacation seeking...guess what.

        These "passionate" men obviously do not make suitable partners, and the sort of sexual dalliances women are keen to experiment with while on vacation or working abroad are not what they seek once they've established themselves and seek to start families and attain bourgeois respectability. Given the segregation and structure of Swedish society, the "marriage" (increasingly disappearing in Sweden) partner is a Swedish man.

        I don't see why there are men in our sphere who seek to defend the non-existent virtue of women from Western cultures. Or perhaps I should simply say modern, as this problem exists everywhere outside of the Islamic world. The entire structure of society promotes promiscuity, so why is anyone surprised when women partake in this? Other than those who end up murdered, there are practically zero negative consequences for them.

        Northern European men can be for many young Western women “boring”, so certain adventurous women are interested in having a lover from a more passionate, R-selected culture. This is nothing new and not even entirely the product of globohomo propaganda. In the postwar period there was a fad for Italian lovers among German and Nordic women.

        There was a similar pattern with middle-aged Nordics and Germans going to Greece to pick up young men (who were know as ‘spear fisherman’). A modern equivalant is the middle-aged woman from Northern Europe who go to refugee route stopping points (in Northern Greece and the islands) in order to ‘help’ refugees – in other words, to fuck young men. Many of the men who go to ‘help’ are pedophiles who are after boys and young men.

        As is often the case with people who are ostensibly ‘doing good’, such degeneracy is overlooked. The charity is a useful mask. It wouldn’t surprise me if this was the main impetus behind the left’s obsession with refugees. It reminds me of Lawrence of Arabia – whose passionate advocacy of the Arab cause originated in a boy who he liked to bugger. (the other driver of the refugee influx is the corrupt local Greek businessman who recieve big EU funds to feed refugees, and then feed them close to dogfood while pocketing the difference)

      160. @Rosie

        Oh of course, women as a group are totally not eager voters who are inclined towards leftism and subversion at all.
         
        We value the welfare state. If you consider that "subversion" then so be it.

        Women totally aren’t eager or interested to replace their own men because they consider them to be weak and pathetic …
         
        You're paranoid.

        https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ethnic-preferences2.png?w=1400&strip=all&quality=75

        women’s suffrage and the right to vote is what lead to Jews being able to successfully persuade women with garbage like feminism, consumerism, LGBTQ, human rights interventionism, and literally everything else that’s absolutely civilization killing.
         
        What an incoherent load of nonsense. Having the right to vote didn't allow Jews to persuade us of anything. What did allow them to do so was White men handing over the commanding heights of the culture (media, academy, courts) over to the Jews.

        The things you mention have nothing to do with women's suffrage. Women have consistently been more opposed to military adventurism than men.

        https://www.e-ir.info/wp-content/uploads/fig1clements.jpg

        https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2011/12/Clements-fig-1a.jpg

        https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2011/12/Clements-fig-2.jpg

        LGBTQ has only been slightly more popular among women than men, who liked the idea of permissive sexual mores.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/

        https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/playboy-founder-hugh-hefner-early-proponent-lgbtq-rights-n805591
        https://www.newsweek.com/hugh-hefner-playboy-gay-rights-advocate-673046
        https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/28/16379500/hugh-hefner-lgbtq-rights&ved=2ahUKEwi50a2YtMjjAhVBTt8KHVCHDh0QFjADegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0xlaij-djIPvptXZ6971fn&cshid=1563794510287

        As for your deflection of blame, which is of course a typical female trait, onto Jews and male greed (cheap labor),

         
        When some woman-hating jerk blames women for things we have no control over, we can agree (in which case the allegations are true) or we can defend ourselves (which will be construed as further evidence of our incorrigible wickedness). It looks like you've got all of your bases covered.

        Cheap labor:

        https://www.businessinsider.com/koch-network-to-support-dreamers-legal-status-2019-1
        https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/kochs-dreamers-talks-529687
        https://time.com/5491587/koch-brothers-network-immigration-reform/

        You find me one White billionaire (just one out of several hundred) to fund conservative women's activism and I'll get some heels on the ground. Until then, STFU.

        Why should white males be loyal to the GOP and cuckservatives? They are arguably even worse than all of their other enemies because they pretend to be on the side of white men, but are completely useless and surrender on anything remotely important.
         
        Indeed. And whose fault is that?

        I never said that the welfare state was “subversion”. Truthfully though, as far as punishing men through no-fault divorce, payments to single mothers, and encouraging women’s education, the welfare state really is an extremely subversive, harmful, and destructive influence on any given society.

        As for white women on average sexually preferring their own men, that has historically been true since it’s only natural for women to prefer their own men. Of course, as captured goods, women rarely effectively resist being the spoils of war for a victorious tribe that conquers another. It’s simply not in their nature to do so. Whites/Europeans are currently in a situation where they are a tribe being conquered by other tribes, if you haven’t noticed. Regardless, in-group preferences can be persuaded to change through propaganda promoting interracial sex, marriage and so on. The propaganda pushing interracial sex is thick and aggressive, plus we are far from seeing the end of it. Perceptions can change over time and the lengths to which something that is biologically or genetically natural can be altered, are shockingly large. White women inter-racially cuckolding their men (having sex with black and brown men) is absolutely real, and happens to a much larger degree than most people think. There is a good reason why phrases like “coal burner” and “mud shark” exist.

        With the exception of Anglo nations, France and Switzerland, before WW1, most of Europe or the “white world” was not democratic in general (in the modern sense, at minimum). It was only after 1945 that democracy, and with it, women’s suffrage became firmly established throughout the world. It’s very clear that a lot of the civilization killing trends of today had their seeds planted since 1945. Democracy is in general useless because voting doesn’t change much of anything in the overwhelming majority of situations. The “success” of Democracy and women’s suffrage in general is also very much a strongly ethnic Anglo thing as well. By now, they’ve persuaded some other West Europeans to value it over the centuries, but still, nobody besides Anglos, other West Europeans and Jews (it has different meanings to each group, of course) even really cares about Democracy.

        Who do you think encourages women’s suffrage and feminism you silly Shiksa?

        The part about women being opposed to war should be strongly tested before and after they have been exposed to some kind of hoax massacre, war crime or genocide propaganda (For example, “gassed” Syrian babies, Iraqi soldiers “raping Kuwaiti stewardesses”, Srebrenica “genocide”, and so on). Otherwise, you are correct, it is obvious that women have historically, on average, been strongly opposed to war.

        Still, women support LGBTQ on average more than men do. That is something even you admit. Of course, you conveniently glossed over how women have mass murdered millions of babies across several decades through their unholy abortions.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

        Women in the United States have managed to mass murder almost 46 million babies from 1970-2015. It’s reasonable to assume most of those abortions were done by white women since Anglos/whites were the majority population of the USA until now or the near future (not clear whether peoples’ of European descent are currently a majority in the USA or not).

        FIGURE 1: The number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15-49 and per 100 live births (Russia, 1959-2014)

        KEY: Per 100 Births (purple); Per 1,000 Women (red) | Source: Rosstat data

        Of course, this proves that women regardless of whether they’re in the USA or Russia, are still the same. More accurately, it applies for women of any ethnicity or race across literally the whole planet. Unfortunately, most people won’t believe it unless abortion becomes completely legal and accessible worldwide where they will have firsthand evidence of it. Whenever women are empowered with the “freedom” of abortion, they’ll always be eager and certain to mass murder millions of babies.

        Women are genocidal scum that mass murder millions of babies …

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Whites/Europeans are currently in a situation where they are a tribe being conquered by other tribes, if you haven’t noticed.
         
        Yes, I had noticed, and sadly, stupid White men like you are actively going out of your way to ensure that nothing can be done about that fact by alienating your only allies.

        Whenever women are empowered with the “freedom” of abortion, they’ll always be eager and certain to mass murder millions of babies.
         
        Abortion chiefly empowered men...to walk away from their responsibilities.

        https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/


        Women are genocidal scum that mass murder millions of babies …

         
        What does that say about men?

        https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/395816-dem-pollster-women-are-less-likely-to-be-pro-choice

        Mr. Karlin, are there any limits?
        , @dfordoom

        I never said that the welfare state was “subversion”. Truthfully though, as far as punishing men through no-fault divorce, payments to single mothers, and encouraging women’s education, the welfare state really is an extremely subversive, harmful, and destructive influence on any given society.
         
        No-fault divorce is disastrous but it has nothing to do with the welfare state. Nor does encouraging women’s education have anything to do with the welfare state. You could have a very successful welfare state without no-fault divorce and encouraging women’s education.

        The welfare state and the social experiments which you (quite correctly) identify as harmful are two different concepts. Two different animals. The welfare state is an Old Left concept. It is not necessarily anti-family. These social experiments are the product of the New Left. There is no common ground between the Old Left and the New Left.
      161. @AaronB
        Its not so much reveal as develop. Certain facts and lines of argument only become apparent when you adopt a new perspective.

        For instance, before I abandoned being white and sought refuge in my Jewish roots I did not put two and two together, that there is some kind of connection between the intense European effort to delegimize Israel in the 90s, and the self inflicted delegitimization of European states in the 10s. Yet it is so obvious once you see it.

        The mindset Europeans developed in their war against Israel bore fruit against themselves, after it failed to work against Israel and had nowhere to go.

        It was like a grenade that landed among your own unit.

        As for the proof of God thing, Jews invented the retribution if God logic, and we do in fact blame our calamities on our own sins.

        The mindset Europeans developed in their war against Israel bore fruit against themselves, after it failed to work against Israel and had nowhere to go.

        other way round.

        the anti-nationalist and anti-colonialist mindset that infected Europe was applied equally to Israel.

      162. @Thulean Friend
        I grew up in a smaller town and your observations are 100% correct. We basically had almost no non-Whites. In my secondary school (ages 12-15), we did not have a single non-White in our class. There were 5 other parallell classes for all three age groups and I think there were at most 2 or 3 non-Whites across all classes per age group, so something like 2-3% in total. And they were all hyperassimilated.

        Everything really went downhill after 9/11. We didn't get afghans but we got huge amounts of iraqis and especially somalians. I went back to my old school a few years ago when I was visiting and I could literally count the amount of white children on a single hand on the schoolyard. This is a school that has capacity for 500 kids. I was told that all the white kids now go to schools just outside the small town in a small village. It's ironic because back then these small villages had to send all their kids to our town, which created some amount of resentment. We also looked down upon them as hicks (though we were all provincial types in reality, but there's always a pecking order). But apparently they have created new private schools outside of town (fria skolvalet) to deal with this demand, giving rise to substantial segregation. SD is now big in the municipality so the social justice warrior types are a lot weaker, so despite some bleating, not much is being done about this.

        I have a hard time feeling sympathy. These people voted for what they got, by and large. Most young Swedes just go to the bigger cities. There's actually less ethnic tension here in my experience. Even Rinkeby is getting slowly gentrified with a lot of newly constructed buildings. Only the most socioeconomically successful immigrants stay on and many of them are more liberal.

        Plus Stockholm gets most of the best international migrants to Sweden, which have been coming in large droves since the last center-"right" government radically liberalised work migration requirements in 2011. While there are still many rapefugees coming, a non-trivial share of decently skilled Asian migrants are also showing up, and they concentrate in Stockholm whereas rapefugees get pushed out into the hinterlands and on the margins. So elite Swedes get a kind of "soft multiculturalism" with mostly assimilated immigrants. It's really the working/lower-middle class Swedes out in the sub-50K towns and villages who get the raw end of the stick, but who cares about them right? Just about a bunch of obsolete racists. Those are also the strongest areas for SD.

        I have a hard time feeling sympathy. These people voted for what they got, by and large.

        most people are conformists for social cohesion reasons so the blame (or credit) for what happens to a country goes to the people who decide what the majority conform to – and post-war the biggest factor in that has been US media and academia.

        America’s hostile elite has poisoned the whole world in proportion to how anglophone the population is.

        • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
        • Replies: @Rosie

        most people are conformists for social cohesion reasons so the blame (or credit) for what happens to a country goes to the people who decide what the majority conform to – and post-war the biggest factor in that has been US media and academia.
         
        That is very fair. Of course, TheTotallyAnonymous thinks the Jew defense is good for the good for the gender but not for the goose.
      163. @Rosie

        While there may be some exceptions, such a late starter will in practice have two or less.
         
        If she only has two children, it's unlikely to be because she started late. Rather, it's probably going to be because she (and/or her husband) only wants two children. When you see very widely-spaced siblings, there is usually a reason for that. Often, there is an unplanned pregnancy early in the mother's life, and it took her some years to get herself together financially to have another child. Sometimes, there is a divorce and remarriage, or some other less-than-ideal situation.

        According to this article, the average spacing between siblings is 30 months. I don't know where they got that figure, but it rings true from my observations.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2012/11/08/how-far-apart-should-you-space-your-kids/#3a26b99f1b76

        Personally, I do not recommend waiting until thirty. I think mid-twenties is much better. That way, you're still young enough to go double digits if that's what you decide you want. On the other hand, you can quit and do something else after two of you'd rather. Younger motherhood actually makes sense from the standpoint of women's autonomy (not that that's the most important thing), because it's hard to know how many you want until you start having them.

        But realistically, some couples may need the extra time to get prepared. If that is the case, they can still have a very good size family if that is what they want. Moreover, if you start too early, you may not enjoy motherhood as much as you otherwise would have, in which case you might wind up having fewer children than you might have if you had waited. I suspect that is the gist of this article, though it's behind a paywall.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/us/us-birthrate-hispanics-latinos.html

        But realistically, some couples may need the extra time to get prepared.

        the welfare system should be arranged around this imo – helping the healthiest couples have kids.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        the welfare system should be arranged around this imo – helping the healthiest couples have kids
         
        I certainly don't disagree, but you're always going to need a safety net. You can look to countries that don't have one to this very day, and it's not a pretty picture. Human trafficking, even child sex trafficking becomes a commonplace, as it was in Victorian England.
      164. @notanon

        I have a hard time feeling sympathy. These people voted for what they got, by and large.
         
        most people are conformists for social cohesion reasons so the blame (or credit) for what happens to a country goes to the people who decide what the majority conform to - and post-war the biggest factor in that has been US media and academia.

        America's hostile elite has poisoned the whole world in proportion to how anglophone the population is.

        most people are conformists for social cohesion reasons so the blame (or credit) for what happens to a country goes to the people who decide what the majority conform to – and post-war the biggest factor in that has been US media and academia.

        That is very fair. Of course, TheTotallyAnonymous thinks the Jew defense is good for the good for the gender but not for the goose.

      165. @TheTotallyAnonymous
        I never said that the welfare state was "subversion". Truthfully though, as far as punishing men through no-fault divorce, payments to single mothers, and encouraging women's education, the welfare state really is an extremely subversive, harmful, and destructive influence on any given society.

        As for white women on average sexually preferring their own men, that has historically been true since it's only natural for women to prefer their own men. Of course, as captured goods, women rarely effectively resist being the spoils of war for a victorious tribe that conquers another. It's simply not in their nature to do so. Whites/Europeans are currently in a situation where they are a tribe being conquered by other tribes, if you haven't noticed. Regardless, in-group preferences can be persuaded to change through propaganda promoting interracial sex, marriage and so on. The propaganda pushing interracial sex is thick and aggressive, plus we are far from seeing the end of it. Perceptions can change over time and the lengths to which something that is biologically or genetically natural can be altered, are shockingly large. White women inter-racially cuckolding their men (having sex with black and brown men) is absolutely real, and happens to a much larger degree than most people think. There is a good reason why phrases like "coal burner" and "mud shark" exist.

        With the exception of Anglo nations, France and Switzerland, before WW1, most of Europe or the "white world" was not democratic in general (in the modern sense, at minimum). It was only after 1945 that democracy, and with it, women's suffrage became firmly established throughout the world. It's very clear that a lot of the civilization killing trends of today had their seeds planted since 1945. Democracy is in general useless because voting doesn't change much of anything in the overwhelming majority of situations. The "success" of Democracy and women's suffrage in general is also very much a strongly ethnic Anglo thing as well. By now, they've persuaded some other West Europeans to value it over the centuries, but still, nobody besides Anglos, other West Europeans and Jews (it has different meanings to each group, of course) even really cares about Democracy.

        Who do you think encourages women's suffrage and feminism you silly Shiksa?

        The part about women being opposed to war should be strongly tested before and after they have been exposed to some kind of hoax massacre, war crime or genocide propaganda (For example, "gassed" Syrian babies, Iraqi soldiers "raping Kuwaiti stewardesses", Srebrenica "genocide", and so on). Otherwise, you are correct, it is obvious that women have historically, on average, been strongly opposed to war.

        Still, women support LGBTQ on average more than men do. That is something even you admit. Of course, you conveniently glossed over how women have mass murdered millions of babies across several decades through their unholy abortions.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

        Women in the United States have managed to mass murder almost 46 million babies from 1970-2015. It's reasonable to assume most of those abortions were done by white women since Anglos/whites were the majority population of the USA until now or the near future (not clear whether peoples' of European descent are currently a majority in the USA or not).

        FIGURE 1: The number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15-49 and per 100 live births (Russia, 1959-2014)

        http://www.ponarseurasia.org/sites/default/files/Picture1_5.png

        KEY: Per 100 Births (purple); Per 1,000 Women (red) | Source: Rosstat data

        Of course, this proves that women regardless of whether they're in the USA or Russia, are still the same. More accurately, it applies for women of any ethnicity or race across literally the whole planet. Unfortunately, most people won't believe it unless abortion becomes completely legal and accessible worldwide where they will have firsthand evidence of it. Whenever women are empowered with the "freedom" of abortion, they'll always be eager and certain to mass murder millions of babies.

        Women are genocidal scum that mass murder millions of babies ...

        Whites/Europeans are currently in a situation where they are a tribe being conquered by other tribes, if you haven’t noticed.

        Yes, I had noticed, and sadly, stupid White men like you are actively going out of your way to ensure that nothing can be done about that fact by alienating your only allies.

        Whenever women are empowered with the “freedom” of abortion, they’ll always be eager and certain to mass murder millions of babies.

        Abortion chiefly empowered men…to walk away from their responsibilities.

        https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

        Women are genocidal scum that mass murder millions of babies …

        What does that say about men?

        https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/395816-dem-pollster-women-are-less-likely-to-be-pro-choice

        Mr. Karlin, are there any limits?

        • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
        The ability to abort is something that can only be given to women by the state. It is the state empowering women to avoid their biological responsibility by fulfilling their highest natural purpose. That is, to make babies and raise them.

        As for your claim that abortion is actually more popular among men than women, at least in the USA, it's simply wrong. It's one thing whether men and women support or oppose "the right" to abort in an absolute sense - completely for or against in every single circumstance - compared to whether they support it in certain situations - such as rape, harm to the mother, deformed or mutated child, and so on. -

        What's clear is that in the USA at least, men are de facto more opposed to an absolute "right" to abortion compared to women.

        https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qigghgwcleq9dnscmblkiq.png

        So it is very clear that the percentage of women who support an absolute "right" to abortion is larger than the percentage of men who support it.

        You've also stated that abortion allows men to "walk away from their responsibilities". There is some truth to this. The thing is that when the traditional family was broken apart since the sexual liberation of the 1960's, men didn't have any incentive, and with good reason, stopped feeling any obligations to be faithful and loyal to women by helping them raise their children. After all, why should they be? Since then, women have been allowed to openly run around being degenerate whores without any form of social restraint. In fact, it was and still is encouraged as "female empowerment" for women to go and have sex with lots of men. In the modern world we've reached the point where women even brag about being gang-banged ...

        What incentive does a man have to commit and be faithful towards a woman in the 21st century west? If a man enters into a conventional marriage with a woman, he's signed himself off with at least half of his financial value to the complete mercy of a woman, thanks to women being empowered with no fault divorce. The government's eagerness to grant welfare payments to single mothers encourages women to be complete whores and cheat on men whenever they like because they don't depend on men to survive. The education of women is also a complete disaster because women are on average, as a collective, inferior to men in terms of intelligence and physical strength in literally nearly every category. Putting aside the fact that women are biologically weaker forms of life, modern education in the west is a mess. When women get educated, especially when they go to university or college, they usually spend their time being absolute degenerate whores that play around with tens and hundreds of penises over a few year time period. University and College take away any family restraint that may have existed beforehand. In the process, they also rip apart a few men with false rape accusations because they don't think those men satisfied them well enough. They can do this because the state has empowered women with the ability to literally ruin the lives of men based on the way the wind blows over their vagina. The same applies for no fault divorces as well, of course.

        University and college basically transform women to become a worthless form of human waste. If they actually even end up working at jobs, at best, they become nothing more than an inferior version of a male corporate slave. Any man who enters a conventional marriage with a woman in the modern west is by default a cuckold to either the state or other men who have their way with his wife. The scenario where a married man ends up being cuckolded by both is unfortunately all too common. Of course, since to begin with, most women aren't virgins and are encouraged to be sexually promiscuous from an early age, most men are also cucks before they even marry a woman since an average woman will have played with tens of penises. This is the case because male semen alters a woman's biology and genetics. It also does the same with her future offspring, even if the semen and sperm of another man that come later are the ones that make the future baby. Basically, the man whose semen has first access to a woman is the one whose genetics that woman will most reliably continue in her own person and her future offspring regardless of what happens after. There's a whole discipline to it called Telegony (Women, Liberals and Jews are trying to discredit the science of it because they want men to be cucks):

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegony_(pregnancy)

        http://www.pravdareport.com/health/94136-telegony/

        https://culturacolectiva.com/technology/telegony-phenomenon-children-get-ex-partners-looks

        Virginity has always historically been valued with good reason. Unfortunately, if i had to guess the average age at which women lose their virginity in the west, it would be around 15. Maybe even earlier. This means that the majority of women in the modern west are damaged goods while the majority of men are cuckolds ... Women simply must become the private property of men in any society, if that society intends to survive in the long term.

        You've also managed to expose how much of a typical dumb woman you really are. Of course, by whining for Anatoly Karlin to ban me, you're showing how strong and empowered women truly are. So strong and empowered that they have to beg either stronger males or the government to help them when they're confronted with any threats ...
      166. @reiner Tor
        The issue with AaronB's comment:

        - admixture with lower IQ groups leads to a regression to the lower mean in the children (to be more precise, to the average of the two groups), so it still means a lowering IQ for the smart fraction; he failed to take this into account

        - suddenly he managed to understand HBD (except for the point above), something which before he pretended not to understand, kept misrepresenting, argued against using straw man arguments, etc.

        I thought I had shown that regression to the mean is another HBD fantasy, at least as understood by HBDers, and a rare and unusual event….

        That the concept would imply constant turnover in the smart fraction, the non existence of a stable smart fraction, and the non existence of talented families who consistently produce offspring above the mean..

        • Replies: @notanon

        That the concept would imply..
         
        it hasn't been proved yet but i believe regression to the mean will end up being male variance anchored by female variance cos that's such a neat fail-safe system.

        if so it wouldn't imply any of the things you mention.
        , @Swedish Family

        I thought I had shown that regression to the mean is another HBD fantasy, at least as understood by HBDers, and a rare and unusual event….

        That the concept would imply constant turnover in the smart fraction, the non existence of a stable smart fraction, and the non existence of talented families who consistently produce offspring above the mean..
         
        Sorry, I don't quite see your logic here.

        Let's take that last assertion of yours. You are saying that "talented families who consistently produce offspring above the mean" would not exist if regression to the mean were real, but this phenomenon is perfectly explainable by the common definition of the concept.

        I think your error here is that you define "mean" wrongly: the mean is not the mean of many individuals (e.g. a large population) but specifically the mean of the two parents, and by "regression to the mean" we mean that two parents with a strong "random" component on a given trait (let's say general intelligence) will on average have offspring with a weaker "random" component (that is, lower general intelligence). An example with IQ (which I prefer to avoid referring to, but it makes an easy example):

        Average Family

        Father's IQ: 100 (genetic component) + 15 (random component) = 115 (1 SD over his "set point")
        Mother's IQ: 100 (genetic component) + 30 (random component) = 130 (2 SD over her "set point")

        What is their offspring's expected IQ? The answer is not 122.5, as you might expect, but 100 (the average of their genetic components). There are some tacit assumptions here, but I'll skip those for the sake of simplicity. Next, let's have a look at a bright couple:

        Bright Family

        Father's IQ: 100 (genetic component) - 15 (random component) = 85 (1 SD under his "set point")
        Mother's IQ: 130 (genetic component) + 0 (random component) = 130 (0 SD over her "set point")

        Again, what is their offspring's expected IQ? The answer, as before, is that their offspring's expected IQ is the average of the two parents' "genetic IQ," that is 115. Note that this expectation is higher than that in the "average family" even though the father is probably a bit dull.

        Well, this is my understanding of the concept anyway. I'm happy to be corrected.
      167. @notanon

        But realistically, some couples may need the extra time to get prepared.
         
        the welfare system should be arranged around this imo - helping the healthiest couples have kids.

        the welfare system should be arranged around this imo – helping the healthiest couples have kids

        I certainly don’t disagree, but you’re always going to need a safety net. You can look to countries that don’t have one to this very day, and it’s not a pretty picture. Human trafficking, even child sex trafficking becomes a commonplace, as it was in Victorian England.

        • Replies: @notanon

        you’re always going to need a safety net
         
        i think a lot of problems can be designed out.

        child sex trafficking becomes a commonplace
         
        i think child sex trafficking is mostly* a function of excess males creating a demand for prostitution that greatly exceeds available supply (as now due to mass immigration or Victorian England when men moved into the cities en masse for factory work).

        *the actively pedophile thing is separate imo but even then i wonder if there's a hormonal or genetic component to it which could be looked at if the blank slate ideology gets demolished.
      168. @Rosie

        the welfare system should be arranged around this imo – helping the healthiest couples have kids
         
        I certainly don't disagree, but you're always going to need a safety net. You can look to countries that don't have one to this very day, and it's not a pretty picture. Human trafficking, even child sex trafficking becomes a commonplace, as it was in Victorian England.

        you’re always going to need a safety net

        i think a lot of problems can be designed out.

        child sex trafficking becomes a commonplace

        i think child sex trafficking is mostly* a function of excess males creating a demand for prostitution that greatly exceeds available supply (as now due to mass immigration or Victorian England when men moved into the cities en masse for factory work).

        *the actively pedophile thing is separate imo but even then i wonder if there’s a hormonal or genetic component to it which could be looked at if the blank slate ideology gets demolished.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        i think child sex trafficking is mostly* a function of excess males creating a demand for prostitution that greatly exceeds available supply (as now due to mass immigration or Victorian England when men moved into the cities en masse for factory work).
         
        The problem is that men fear venereal disease, but still want sex, so they demand virgins, and in practice that means they want them younger and younger so they can be sure. After they have been thus used, they are considered "damaged goods" and have no chance to marry. Sometimes their own families sell them off to pay off a debt or medical bills or what have you.

        https://youtu.be/M6qqw2a6Jw0
      169. @AaronB
        I thought I had shown that regression to the mean is another HBD fantasy, at least as understood by HBDers, and a rare and unusual event....

        That the concept would imply constant turnover in the smart fraction, the non existence of a stable smart fraction, and the non existence of talented families who consistently produce offspring above the mean..

        That the concept would imply..

        it hasn’t been proved yet but i believe regression to the mean will end up being male variance anchored by female variance cos that’s such a neat fail-safe system.

        if so it wouldn’t imply any of the things you mention.

      170. @notanon

        you’re always going to need a safety net
         
        i think a lot of problems can be designed out.

        child sex trafficking becomes a commonplace
         
        i think child sex trafficking is mostly* a function of excess males creating a demand for prostitution that greatly exceeds available supply (as now due to mass immigration or Victorian England when men moved into the cities en masse for factory work).

        *the actively pedophile thing is separate imo but even then i wonder if there's a hormonal or genetic component to it which could be looked at if the blank slate ideology gets demolished.

        i think child sex trafficking is mostly* a function of excess males creating a demand for prostitution that greatly exceeds available supply (as now due to mass immigration or Victorian England when men moved into the cities en masse for factory work).

        The problem is that men fear venereal disease, but still want sex, so they demand virgins, and in practice that means they want them younger and younger so they can be sure. After they have been thus used, they are considered “damaged goods” and have no chance to marry. Sometimes their own families sell them off to pay off a debt or medical bills or what have you.

        • Replies: @notanon
        in my experience the vast majority of the demand for child prostitutes (in the West) comes from immigrants working for minimum wage and sending most of it home so they have no spending money - in particular immigrants from countries where the age of consent is much lower so 13 (for example) is not even seen as a big deal - and for the most part the girls are supplied by gangs from the same ethnic group.

        it may be different elsewhere.
      171. @Rosie

        i think child sex trafficking is mostly* a function of excess males creating a demand for prostitution that greatly exceeds available supply (as now due to mass immigration or Victorian England when men moved into the cities en masse for factory work).
         
        The problem is that men fear venereal disease, but still want sex, so they demand virgins, and in practice that means they want them younger and younger so they can be sure. After they have been thus used, they are considered "damaged goods" and have no chance to marry. Sometimes their own families sell them off to pay off a debt or medical bills or what have you.

        https://youtu.be/M6qqw2a6Jw0

        in my experience the vast majority of the demand for child prostitutes (in the West) comes from immigrants working for minimum wage and sending most of it home so they have no spending money – in particular immigrants from countries where the age of consent is much lower so 13 (for example) is not even seen as a big deal – and for the most part the girls are supplied by gangs from the same ethnic group.

        it may be different elsewhere.

      172. Regression to the mean also contradicts evolutionary theory, which says that a favorable mutation is passed along to ones children…

        • Replies: @notanon
        balanced selection - what's favorable?
        , @reiner Tor
        Regression to the mean is a very simple concept. It’s certain to be true, because it’s almost tautological. Do you really not understand it? Or maybe you never thought it through.
      173. @AaronB
        Regression to the mean also contradicts evolutionary theory, which says that a favorable mutation is passed along to ones children...

        balanced selection – what’s favorable?

        • Replies: @AaronB
        As far as I understand it, the idea is that a smart person may emerge from a stupid family due to favourable mutations, but then his offspring doesn't get this mutation but reverts to the mean...

        Doesn't the whole theory of evolution rest on the idea that favourable mutations are passed along?
      174. @notanon
        balanced selection - what's favorable?

        As far as I understand it, the idea is that a smart person may emerge from a stupid family due to favourable mutations, but then his offspring doesn’t get this mutation but reverts to the mean…

        Doesn’t the whole theory of evolution rest on the idea that favourable mutations are passed along?

        • Replies: @notanon
        right - but if a particular trait had both costs and benefits you'd want the mean value to be the optimal value for the average person - outliers might have more of the benefits but more of the costs too.

        regression to the mean = fail-safe
        , @EldnahYm
        A person who has a new mutation that increases intelligence is more likely to have smarter offspring relative to someone who does not have this mutation, all else equal. This is not incompatible with the notion that a smart person from a long line of smart people is more likely to pass on genes for smartness than a smart person from a long line of dumb people.

        Regression to the mean is not based upon the idea that new mutations are not passed on.

        Statistics is not incompatible with evolutionary theory. On the contrary, people like R.A. Fisher developed much of modern statistics by trying to develop an evolutionary account of biology.
      175. @AaronB
        As far as I understand it, the idea is that a smart person may emerge from a stupid family due to favourable mutations, but then his offspring doesn't get this mutation but reverts to the mean...

        Doesn't the whole theory of evolution rest on the idea that favourable mutations are passed along?

        right – but if a particular trait had both costs and benefits you’d want the mean value to be the optimal value for the average person – outliers might have more of the benefits but more of the costs too.

        regression to the mean = fail-safe

        • Replies: @AaronB
        Sure, but natural selection is blind, and doesn't optimize.

        As long as the trait overall is beneficial, even if it has serious drawbacks it will be selected for.
      176. @AaronB
        I thought I had shown that regression to the mean is another HBD fantasy, at least as understood by HBDers, and a rare and unusual event....

        That the concept would imply constant turnover in the smart fraction, the non existence of a stable smart fraction, and the non existence of talented families who consistently produce offspring above the mean..

        I thought I had shown that regression to the mean is another HBD fantasy, at least as understood by HBDers, and a rare and unusual event….

        That the concept would imply constant turnover in the smart fraction, the non existence of a stable smart fraction, and the non existence of talented families who consistently produce offspring above the mean..

        Sorry, I don’t quite see your logic here.

        Let’s take that last assertion of yours. You are saying that “talented families who consistently produce offspring above the mean” would not exist if regression to the mean were real, but this phenomenon is perfectly explainable by the common definition of the concept.

        I think your error here is that you define “mean” wrongly: the mean is not the mean of many individuals (e.g. a large population) but specifically the mean of the two parents, and by “regression to the mean” we mean that two parents with a strong “random” component on a given trait (let’s say general intelligence) will on average have offspring with a weaker “random” component (that is, lower general intelligence). An example with IQ (which I prefer to avoid referring to, but it makes an easy example):

        Average Family

        Father’s IQ: 100 (genetic component) + 15 (random component) = 115 (1 SD over his “set point”)
        Mother’s IQ: 100 (genetic component) + 30 (random component) = 130 (2 SD over her “set point”)

        What is their offspring’s expected IQ? The answer is not 122.5, as you might expect, but 100 (the average of their genetic components). There are some tacit assumptions here, but I’ll skip those for the sake of simplicity. Next, let’s have a look at a bright couple:

        Bright Family

        Father’s IQ: 100 (genetic component) – 15 (random component) = 85 (1 SD under his “set point”)
        Mother’s IQ: 130 (genetic component) + 0 (random component) = 130 (0 SD over her “set point”)

        Again, what is their offspring’s expected IQ? The answer, as before, is that their offspring’s expected IQ is the average of the two parents’ “genetic IQ,” that is 115. Note that this expectation is higher than that in the “average family” even though the father is probably a bit dull.

        Well, this is my understanding of the concept anyway. I’m happy to be corrected.

        • Replies: @AaronB
        Aha, can a favourable genetic mutation be classed under the random component?

        Surely, some children are smarter than their parents through a random favourable mutation, which gets passed down. Perhaps that is how dynasties of talent start.

        Of course, that is how the human race got smart to begin with. Or became human.

        Ok, if some children are smarter than their parents for random unknown reasons, I can see why we have no grounds to expect these random unknown reasons to precisely reproduce themselves again.

        Although since we don't know what they are, we cannot really estimate the probability, and cannot establish a rule of reversion to the mean.

        What percentage of the smart fraction then is there only because of some random unknown reasons? I suspect it isn't very high, or we'd be seeing much more turnover among the elite.

        Also, we have no grounds to posit a reversion to the racial mean in any given case if, as you say, the mean is that of the two parents.

        The two parents may belong to the genetic smart fraction of their race, or one or both may belong to that percentage that is smart due to random unknown reasons, and their offspring will under revert.

        Since the percentage of people smarter than their parents for random unknown reasons is probably not very large, reversion to the mean must be fringe phenomena.
      177. @AaronB
        Regression to the mean also contradicts evolutionary theory, which says that a favorable mutation is passed along to ones children...

        Regression to the mean is a very simple concept. It’s certain to be true, because it’s almost tautological. Do you really not understand it? Or maybe you never thought it through.

        • Replies: @AaronB
        Are you keeping up with all this Tor?
      178. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Rosie

        You’re conceding my point here.
         
        I certainly am not.


        Men are attracted to younger women because younger women are more likely to produce more surviving offspring into adulthood, which implies more births and greater viability, healthy, survivability of offspring.
         
        Are you retarded or something? During to lower infant mortality, women do not need to have eight babies apiece. WTF do you find so incomprehensible about this simple fact?

        Women don’t produce offspring for as long as possible, and live quite long during their post-menopause years, which suggests there is a cost or disadvantage to continually producing offspring.
         
        Yes, there is a disadvantage to have children after a certain age, and that is totally irrelevant to the question at hand, which is the ideal age at first birth in an advanced society with ample nutrition and low infant mortality.

        (Commenters: Should I ignore this troll?)

        You did concede my point there.

        Nobody said women need to have 8 babies apiece. The point is that 8 babies born today are not equivalent to 8 babies born in the past under different conditions.

        You’re conceding another point here by agreeing that there is a disadvantage in having children after a certain age.

        Having children late in life is not ideal in terms of increasing fertility rates or in terms of the health of offspring “in an advanced society with ample nutrition and low infant mortality.” It’s ideal in terms of women maximizing their pre-marital lifestyles.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        You did concede my point there.
         
        You're an idiot and a troll.

        You’re conceding another point here by agreeing that there is a disadvantage in having children after a certain age.
         
        Did anyone ever deny that? If you're going to claim uncontroversial, trivial points as some sort of "concession," then all you're doing is showing yourself to be an assholea and a sophist.

        Now that you have admitted that we don't need to have eight kids, the only questions are: how many will we have and when do we need to start having children to achieve our desired fertility? Assuming a woman wants to have three children, spaced the usual 30 months apart, a woman should aim to start no later than her mid-20s. That leaves plenty of time for four years of college, and even a master's degree, which is what this is all about, isn't it? You don't want women getting an education.

        It’s ideal in terms of women maximizing their pre-marital lifestyles.
         
        Bullshit. It's about a woman accomplishing her own personal goals, which I know is deeply offensive to you, since you see us as nothing but baby-making machines.

        Not that you care, but FWIW, some husbands are considerate enough to wait for their wives to finish their education before demanding children.
      179. @Swedish Family

        I thought I had shown that regression to the mean is another HBD fantasy, at least as understood by HBDers, and a rare and unusual event….

        That the concept would imply constant turnover in the smart fraction, the non existence of a stable smart fraction, and the non existence of talented families who consistently produce offspring above the mean..
         
        Sorry, I don't quite see your logic here.

        Let's take that last assertion of yours. You are saying that "talented families who consistently produce offspring above the mean" would not exist if regression to the mean were real, but this phenomenon is perfectly explainable by the common definition of the concept.

        I think your error here is that you define "mean" wrongly: the mean is not the mean of many individuals (e.g. a large population) but specifically the mean of the two parents, and by "regression to the mean" we mean that two parents with a strong "random" component on a given trait (let's say general intelligence) will on average have offspring with a weaker "random" component (that is, lower general intelligence). An example with IQ (which I prefer to avoid referring to, but it makes an easy example):

        Average Family

        Father's IQ: 100 (genetic component) + 15 (random component) = 115 (1 SD over his "set point")
        Mother's IQ: 100 (genetic component) + 30 (random component) = 130 (2 SD over her "set point")

        What is their offspring's expected IQ? The answer is not 122.5, as you might expect, but 100 (the average of their genetic components). There are some tacit assumptions here, but I'll skip those for the sake of simplicity. Next, let's have a look at a bright couple:

        Bright Family

        Father's IQ: 100 (genetic component) - 15 (random component) = 85 (1 SD under his "set point")
        Mother's IQ: 130 (genetic component) + 0 (random component) = 130 (0 SD over her "set point")

        Again, what is their offspring's expected IQ? The answer, as before, is that their offspring's expected IQ is the average of the two parents' "genetic IQ," that is 115. Note that this expectation is higher than that in the "average family" even though the father is probably a bit dull.

        Well, this is my understanding of the concept anyway. I'm happy to be corrected.

        Aha, can a favourable genetic mutation be classed under the random component?

        Surely, some children are smarter than their parents through a random favourable mutation, which gets passed down. Perhaps that is how dynasties of talent start.

        Of course, that is how the human race got smart to begin with. Or became human.

        Ok, if some children are smarter than their parents for random unknown reasons, I can see why we have no grounds to expect these random unknown reasons to precisely reproduce themselves again.

        Although since we don’t know what they are, we cannot really estimate the probability, and cannot establish a rule of reversion to the mean.

        What percentage of the smart fraction then is there only because of some random unknown reasons? I suspect it isn’t very high, or we’d be seeing much more turnover among the elite.

        Also, we have no grounds to posit a reversion to the racial mean in any given case if, as you say, the mean is that of the two parents.

        The two parents may belong to the genetic smart fraction of their race, or one or both may belong to that percentage that is smart due to random unknown reasons, and their offspring will under revert.

        Since the percentage of people smarter than their parents for random unknown reasons is probably not very large, reversion to the mean must be fringe phenomena.

        • Replies: @Swedish Family

        What percentage of the smart fraction then is there only because of some random unknown reasons? I suspect it isn’t very high, or we’d be seeing much more turnover among the elite.
         
        Yes, the standard deviation I gave is probably far too high. I'm sure there is hard data on this, but from my observations, brothers and sisters seldom differ very obviously in intelligence once you account for differences in interests and so on.
      180. @notanon
        right - but if a particular trait had both costs and benefits you'd want the mean value to be the optimal value for the average person - outliers might have more of the benefits but more of the costs too.

        regression to the mean = fail-safe

        Sure, but natural selection is blind, and doesn’t optimize.

        As long as the trait overall is beneficial, even if it has serious drawbacks it will be selected for.

      181. @reiner Tor
        Regression to the mean is a very simple concept. It’s certain to be true, because it’s almost tautological. Do you really not understand it? Or maybe you never thought it through.

        Are you keeping up with all this Tor?

        • Replies: @reiner Tor
        A simple model.

        IQ is the sum total of three variables:

        1) genetic IQ (GIQ)

        2) systematic environmental effects (SIQ), which is found in modern environments to be close to 0 (in medieval environments it was substantial, with poor children starving and so their IQs were systematically negatively affected by their environment)

        3) random environmental effects (RIQ), which is substantial, and currently accounts for maybe 20% of variation

        Since SIQ is close to zero, let's not think of it any longer. So, IQ=SIQ+RIQ.

        To make the model simple enough, let's imagine that SIQ can only be a round number (so, either 110, or 120, but never 117), and that RIQ is ±10.

        Also, to keep things simple, imagine that there's a perfect assortative mating. 140 IQ guys marrying 140 IQ gals.

        So you have a guy whose IQ is 140. This is the result of GIQ+RIQ. So either he has 150 or 130 GIQ. However, there are many more people with a GIQ of 130 than those with a GIQ of 150. Therefore, it's overwhelmingly likely that the 140 IQ guy actually only has a GIQ of 130. In other words, smart people (those above the average, especially those very much above the average) are very likely to be the beneficiaries of random luck. Their GIQ is probably lower. Imagine two 140 IQ people marrying. Their expected GIQ is 130 in both cases (there's a small chance for both to be 150, so the expected value might be maybe 133; the important point is that the expected GIQ for both is lower than the actual measured phenotypical IQ), so naturally their child will also have a GIQ of 130. This means that their children will have an IQ of either 140 or 120: so on average, just 130. Now, the 140 child in the next generation will also have a 140 IQ spouse, repeating this. The 120 IQ child will have a 120 IQ spouse. Now, the 120 IQ spouse could have a GIQ of 110 or 130, but, alas, 110 is more likely than 130, because there are way more people with a GIQ of 110 than 130. So the 120 IQ spouse will now probably have a 115 GIQ child (okay, now we have to allow this, but this was just a very simple model to explain this), who will either have 105 or 125 actual phenotypical IQ, marrying someone with 125 or 105.

        However, if you are substantially below the average, the dynamics will be the opposite. So the 70 IQ guy will likely have a GIQ of 80, rather than 60. Same thing for his (presumably also 70 IQ) spouse. His children will therefore have a GIQ of 80, and with a little luck could reach 90. (But with no luck will still be floored at 70, i.e. the average of the parents.)

        Now, of course, RIQ is actually something like a normal distribution like most of these things, so its effects are usually small (maybe just 5 IQ points), but its results are less binary than in my example (i.e. it won't be one child exactly at the parents' level, the other substantially closer to the mean, instead it will be both children somewhat closer to the mean than the parents were), but it will continue in the next generation (because the 140 IQ couple's 137 IQ child will marry a 137 IQ spouse, so his children will only be 135 IQ, and so on and so on; similarly, the 60 IQ couple's child will be expected to be 63 IQ, who will thus marry a 63 IQ spouse, and his children will be 65 IQ, etc.).

        Please note that in the second generation the effect will be slightly smaller, because whereas in the first generation we expected both members to benefit from good luck in the high IQ case, or bad luck in the low IQ case, one generation later we only expect this of the spouse. This is, of course, merely expected value. It's random, so theoretically it's possible that both members of a 150 IQ couple actually have a GIQ of 160, in which case their children are expected to be even smarter. But it's not very likely, so the expected IQ of a 150 IQ couple will be lower than 150.

        As we get closer to the mean (of the population), the effect gets weaker, and if you cross it, it will reverse. So a 110 IQ couple's children will be expected to be lower IQ, but not very much lower. And a 95 IQ couple's children are already expected to be more intelligent than their parents.

        Now, if you managed to get a bunch of 140 IQ people with an average expected RIQ of -10, and put them on an island, then the resulting population would have an average IQ of 130. This is high, but not as high as the founding population. But then it would stay there forever. (Absent any selective pressure, of course.) It won't revert to the mean of the bigger population, now it would be a new population, whose mean would be, from the second generation, 130, and all reversion would be purely to this new mean of the new population.
      182. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Rosie
        This must be women's fault:

        https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-tariffs/over-600-u-s-companies-urge-trump-to-resolve-trade-dispute-with-china-letter-idUSKCN1TE36K

        Ackshually…

        https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-everyone-know-women-consumers/

        1. If the consumer economy had a sex, it would be female. Women drive 70-80% of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence. Influence means that even when a woman isn’t paying for something herself, she is often the influence or veto vote behind someone else’s purchase.

        If men actually controlled consumer spending, demand for most consumer goods would collapse and the trade deficit would disappear. Men, especially married men, tend to be natural cheapskates. When married men control spending, they generally try to get away with being as cheap as possible to the great consternation of their wives, besides indulging in a few big ticket personal toys such as boats and the like.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        If men actually controlled consumer spending, demand for most consumer goods would collapse and the trade deficit would disappear.
         
        You are such a ridiculous little creep. Even if true, who cares? The elimination of the trade deficit wouldn't redound to the benefit of American workers. It would just put a lot of third-worldwrs out of jobs.


        When married men control spending, they generally try to get away with being as cheap as possible
         
        No they don't. They just try to get away as cheaply as possible when it's for something they don't care about, as you admit here (contradicting yourself):

        besides indulging in a few big ticket personal toys such as boats and the like.

         
        I'll say.
        , @Rosie

        Ackshually…
         
        How much of an idiot is 375?

        Women buy shit, keeping men employed in factories. Greedy men fire them and replace them with Third World sweatshop labor.

        Conclusion: It's all women's fault.
      183. @dfordoom

        Because freedom is good for humans
         
        Is it? I think that's a completely unproven assumption.

        In many cases, it’s clearly bad for some humans. One need only observe the behavior of drug addicts, alcoholics, tobacco users, and morbidly obese people to see that freedom is not always good.

        Also many types of freedoms are at odds with each other obviously. One’s freedom to enjoy peace and quiet is harmed by a neighbor’s freedom to listen to loud music.

      184. @AaronB
        As far as I understand it, the idea is that a smart person may emerge from a stupid family due to favourable mutations, but then his offspring doesn't get this mutation but reverts to the mean...

        Doesn't the whole theory of evolution rest on the idea that favourable mutations are passed along?

        A person who has a new mutation that increases intelligence is more likely to have smarter offspring relative to someone who does not have this mutation, all else equal. This is not incompatible with the notion that a smart person from a long line of smart people is more likely to pass on genes for smartness than a smart person from a long line of dumb people.

        Regression to the mean is not based upon the idea that new mutations are not passed on.

        Statistics is not incompatible with evolutionary theory. On the contrary, people like R.A. Fisher developed much of modern statistics by trying to develop an evolutionary account of biology.

        • Replies: @AaronB
        Ok, that makes sense.

        But it does seem like a marginal phenomenon.

        And the example that started this discussion, Ashkenazi Israelis marrying smart Sephardis, doesn't seem like a situation where regression to the mean might be a significant factor.
      185. @EldnahYm
        A person who has a new mutation that increases intelligence is more likely to have smarter offspring relative to someone who does not have this mutation, all else equal. This is not incompatible with the notion that a smart person from a long line of smart people is more likely to pass on genes for smartness than a smart person from a long line of dumb people.

        Regression to the mean is not based upon the idea that new mutations are not passed on.

        Statistics is not incompatible with evolutionary theory. On the contrary, people like R.A. Fisher developed much of modern statistics by trying to develop an evolutionary account of biology.

        Ok, that makes sense.

        But it does seem like a marginal phenomenon.

        And the example that started this discussion, Ashkenazi Israelis marrying smart Sephardis, doesn’t seem like a situation where regression to the mean might be a significant factor.

        • Replies: @EldnahYm
        One can imagine a scenario where the impact of particular genes is different in people of highly divergent genetic backgrounds, perhaps due to differing gene-gene interactions or other reasons. This could lead to a situation where mixing leads to lower or higher than expected offspring intelligence.

        To know about the impact of IQ biased Ashkenazi and Sephardic, we would need empirical data.
      186. @AaronB
        Ok, that makes sense.

        But it does seem like a marginal phenomenon.

        And the example that started this discussion, Ashkenazi Israelis marrying smart Sephardis, doesn't seem like a situation where regression to the mean might be a significant factor.

        One can imagine a scenario where the impact of particular genes is different in people of highly divergent genetic backgrounds, perhaps due to differing gene-gene interactions or other reasons. This could lead to a situation where mixing leads to lower or higher than expected offspring intelligence.

        To know about the impact of IQ biased Ashkenazi and Sephardic, we would need empirical data.

        • Replies: @AaronB
        Yes, I can see that being the case.

        At this point its speculation, though
      187. @AaronB
        Are you keeping up with all this Tor?

        A simple model.

        IQ is the sum total of three variables:

        1) genetic IQ (GIQ)

        2) systematic environmental effects (SIQ), which is found in modern environments to be close to 0 (in medieval environments it was substantial, with poor children starving and so their IQs were systematically negatively affected by their environment)

        3) random environmental effects (RIQ), which is substantial, and currently accounts for maybe 20% of variation

        Since SIQ is close to zero, let’s not think of it any longer. So, IQ=SIQ+RIQ.

        To make the model simple enough, let’s imagine that SIQ can only be a round number (so, either 110, or 120, but never 117), and that RIQ is ±10.

        Also, to keep things simple, imagine that there’s a perfect assortative mating. 140 IQ guys marrying 140 IQ gals.

        So you have a guy whose IQ is 140. This is the result of GIQ+RIQ. So either he has 150 or 130 GIQ. However, there are many more people with a GIQ of 130 than those with a GIQ of 150. Therefore, it’s overwhelmingly likely that the 140 IQ guy actually only has a GIQ of 130. In other words, smart people (those above the average, especially those very much above the average) are very likely to be the beneficiaries of random luck. Their GIQ is probably lower. Imagine two 140 IQ people marrying. Their expected GIQ is 130 in both cases (there’s a small chance for both to be 150, so the expected value might be maybe 133; the important point is that the expected GIQ for both is lower than the actual measured phenotypical IQ), so naturally their child will also have a GIQ of 130. This means that their children will have an IQ of either 140 or 120: so on average, just 130. Now, the 140 child in the next generation will also have a 140 IQ spouse, repeating this. The 120 IQ child will have a 120 IQ spouse. Now, the 120 IQ spouse could have a GIQ of 110 or 130, but, alas, 110 is more likely than 130, because there are way more people with a GIQ of 110 than 130. So the 120 IQ spouse will now probably have a 115 GIQ child (okay, now we have to allow this, but this was just a very simple model to explain this), who will either have 105 or 125 actual phenotypical IQ, marrying someone with 125 or 105.

        However, if you are substantially below the average, the dynamics will be the opposite. So the 70 IQ guy will likely have a GIQ of 80, rather than 60. Same thing for his (presumably also 70 IQ) spouse. His children will therefore have a GIQ of 80, and with a little luck could reach 90. (But with no luck will still be floored at 70, i.e. the average of the parents.)

        Now, of course, RIQ is actually something like a normal distribution like most of these things, so its effects are usually small (maybe just 5 IQ points), but its results are less binary than in my example (i.e. it won’t be one child exactly at the parents’ level, the other substantially closer to the mean, instead it will be both children somewhat closer to the mean than the parents were), but it will continue in the next generation (because the 140 IQ couple’s 137 IQ child will marry a 137 IQ spouse, so his children will only be 135 IQ, and so on and so on; similarly, the 60 IQ couple’s child will be expected to be 63 IQ, who will thus marry a 63 IQ spouse, and his children will be 65 IQ, etc.).

        Please note that in the second generation the effect will be slightly smaller, because whereas in the first generation we expected both members to benefit from good luck in the high IQ case, or bad luck in the low IQ case, one generation later we only expect this of the spouse. This is, of course, merely expected value. It’s random, so theoretically it’s possible that both members of a 150 IQ couple actually have a GIQ of 160, in which case their children are expected to be even smarter. But it’s not very likely, so the expected IQ of a 150 IQ couple will be lower than 150.

        As we get closer to the mean (of the population), the effect gets weaker, and if you cross it, it will reverse. So a 110 IQ couple’s children will be expected to be lower IQ, but not very much lower. And a 95 IQ couple’s children are already expected to be more intelligent than their parents.

        Now, if you managed to get a bunch of 140 IQ people with an average expected RIQ of -10, and put them on an island, then the resulting population would have an average IQ of 130. This is high, but not as high as the founding population. But then it would stay there forever. (Absent any selective pressure, of course.) It won’t revert to the mean of the bigger population, now it would be a new population, whose mean would be, from the second generation, 130, and all reversion would be purely to this new mean of the new population.

        • Replies: @AaronB
        Thank you. That was very well and thoroughly explained.

        I suppose the presumption would be that the high GIQ section of the Sephardic population would be marrying into the Ashkenazi.

        Populations with different mean GIQ will have a certain amount of overlap - however, the existence of RIQ partially masks the overlap. Obviously if we could precisely pinpoint the GIQ overlap there would be no reversion to the mean resulting from their union.

        So RIQ introduces a wild card. So I think it is fair to say that the new population resulting from the union will have a slightly lower mean IQ, but I think it's fair to presume many unions will be within the GIQ overlap.

        So I accept that slight lowering may occur, but it is unlikely to be significant or have a very large impact.

        A small price to pay for social harmony and good will.

        Only one thing you said was not quite right - it isn't random environmental effects. We actually cannot characterize what it is at all, we are completely in the dark about the nature of these effects.
        , @Swedish Family

        A simple model.
         
        Thanks for giving your explanation in such detail.

        Where I might disagree is that you assume that the direction of the random effect is not random, but depends on the GIQ of the population from which the two parents are drawn (e.g. the higher the parents' average IQ relative to the population mean, the greater the probability of a negative random effect). This doesn't strike me as self-evident: if both parents have a far higher GIQ than the population from which they are drawn, does it not make more sense to treat them as an all new "population" and use their average GIQ as the "baseline"? This would seem especially useful if we imagine people from two wildly different populations mating. Using your model, how could we even define the baseline if a dull Israeli and a smart Haitian mated? I suppose we could use as the baseline the average of the average Israeli and Haitian GIQs, but that's just a scaled-up version of my model, isn't it? Or am I missing something?
      188. @EldnahYm
        One can imagine a scenario where the impact of particular genes is different in people of highly divergent genetic backgrounds, perhaps due to differing gene-gene interactions or other reasons. This could lead to a situation where mixing leads to lower or higher than expected offspring intelligence.

        To know about the impact of IQ biased Ashkenazi and Sephardic, we would need empirical data.

        Yes, I can see that being the case.

        At this point its speculation, though

      189. @reiner Tor
        A simple model.

        IQ is the sum total of three variables:

        1) genetic IQ (GIQ)

        2) systematic environmental effects (SIQ), which is found in modern environments to be close to 0 (in medieval environments it was substantial, with poor children starving and so their IQs were systematically negatively affected by their environment)

        3) random environmental effects (RIQ), which is substantial, and currently accounts for maybe 20% of variation

        Since SIQ is close to zero, let's not think of it any longer. So, IQ=SIQ+RIQ.

        To make the model simple enough, let's imagine that SIQ can only be a round number (so, either 110, or 120, but never 117), and that RIQ is ±10.

        Also, to keep things simple, imagine that there's a perfect assortative mating. 140 IQ guys marrying 140 IQ gals.

        So you have a guy whose IQ is 140. This is the result of GIQ+RIQ. So either he has 150 or 130 GIQ. However, there are many more people with a GIQ of 130 than those with a GIQ of 150. Therefore, it's overwhelmingly likely that the 140 IQ guy actually only has a GIQ of 130. In other words, smart people (those above the average, especially those very much above the average) are very likely to be the beneficiaries of random luck. Their GIQ is probably lower. Imagine two 140 IQ people marrying. Their expected GIQ is 130 in both cases (there's a small chance for both to be 150, so the expected value might be maybe 133; the important point is that the expected GIQ for both is lower than the actual measured phenotypical IQ), so naturally their child will also have a GIQ of 130. This means that their children will have an IQ of either 140 or 120: so on average, just 130. Now, the 140 child in the next generation will also have a 140 IQ spouse, repeating this. The 120 IQ child will have a 120 IQ spouse. Now, the 120 IQ spouse could have a GIQ of 110 or 130, but, alas, 110 is more likely than 130, because there are way more people with a GIQ of 110 than 130. So the 120 IQ spouse will now probably have a 115 GIQ child (okay, now we have to allow this, but this was just a very simple model to explain this), who will either have 105 or 125 actual phenotypical IQ, marrying someone with 125 or 105.

        However, if you are substantially below the average, the dynamics will be the opposite. So the 70 IQ guy will likely have a GIQ of 80, rather than 60. Same thing for his (presumably also 70 IQ) spouse. His children will therefore have a GIQ of 80, and with a little luck could reach 90. (But with no luck will still be floored at 70, i.e. the average of the parents.)

        Now, of course, RIQ is actually something like a normal distribution like most of these things, so its effects are usually small (maybe just 5 IQ points), but its results are less binary than in my example (i.e. it won't be one child exactly at the parents' level, the other substantially closer to the mean, instead it will be both children somewhat closer to the mean than the parents were), but it will continue in the next generation (because the 140 IQ couple's 137 IQ child will marry a 137 IQ spouse, so his children will only be 135 IQ, and so on and so on; similarly, the 60 IQ couple's child will be expected to be 63 IQ, who will thus marry a 63 IQ spouse, and his children will be 65 IQ, etc.).

        Please note that in the second generation the effect will be slightly smaller, because whereas in the first generation we expected both members to benefit from good luck in the high IQ case, or bad luck in the low IQ case, one generation later we only expect this of the spouse. This is, of course, merely expected value. It's random, so theoretically it's possible that both members of a 150 IQ couple actually have a GIQ of 160, in which case their children are expected to be even smarter. But it's not very likely, so the expected IQ of a 150 IQ couple will be lower than 150.

        As we get closer to the mean (of the population), the effect gets weaker, and if you cross it, it will reverse. So a 110 IQ couple's children will be expected to be lower IQ, but not very much lower. And a 95 IQ couple's children are already expected to be more intelligent than their parents.

        Now, if you managed to get a bunch of 140 IQ people with an average expected RIQ of -10, and put them on an island, then the resulting population would have an average IQ of 130. This is high, but not as high as the founding population. But then it would stay there forever. (Absent any selective pressure, of course.) It won't revert to the mean of the bigger population, now it would be a new population, whose mean would be, from the second generation, 130, and all reversion would be purely to this new mean of the new population.

        Thank you. That was very well and thoroughly explained.

        I suppose the presumption would be that the high GIQ section of the Sephardic population would be marrying into the Ashkenazi.

        Populations with different mean GIQ will have a certain amount of overlap – however, the existence of RIQ partially masks the overlap. Obviously if we could precisely pinpoint the GIQ overlap there would be no reversion to the mean resulting from their union.

        So RIQ introduces a wild card. So I think it is fair to say that the new population resulting from the union will have a slightly lower mean IQ, but I think it’s fair to presume many unions will be within the GIQ overlap.

        So I accept that slight lowering may occur, but it is unlikely to be significant or have a very large impact.

        A small price to pay for social harmony and good will.

        Only one thing you said was not quite right – it isn’t random environmental effects. We actually cannot characterize what it is at all, we are completely in the dark about the nature of these effects.

      190. @reiner Tor
        A simple model.

        IQ is the sum total of three variables:

        1) genetic IQ (GIQ)

        2) systematic environmental effects (SIQ), which is found in modern environments to be close to 0 (in medieval environments it was substantial, with poor children starving and so their IQs were systematically negatively affected by their environment)

        3) random environmental effects (RIQ), which is substantial, and currently accounts for maybe 20% of variation

        Since SIQ is close to zero, let's not think of it any longer. So, IQ=SIQ+RIQ.

        To make the model simple enough, let's imagine that SIQ can only be a round number (so, either 110, or 120, but never 117), and that RIQ is ±10.

        Also, to keep things simple, imagine that there's a perfect assortative mating. 140 IQ guys marrying 140 IQ gals.

        So you have a guy whose IQ is 140. This is the result of GIQ+RIQ. So either he has 150 or 130 GIQ. However, there are many more people with a GIQ of 130 than those with a GIQ of 150. Therefore, it's overwhelmingly likely that the 140 IQ guy actually only has a GIQ of 130. In other words, smart people (those above the average, especially those very much above the average) are very likely to be the beneficiaries of random luck. Their GIQ is probably lower. Imagine two 140 IQ people marrying. Their expected GIQ is 130 in both cases (there's a small chance for both to be 150, so the expected value might be maybe 133; the important point is that the expected GIQ for both is lower than the actual measured phenotypical IQ), so naturally their child will also have a GIQ of 130. This means that their children will have an IQ of either 140 or 120: so on average, just 130. Now, the 140 child in the next generation will also have a 140 IQ spouse, repeating this. The 120 IQ child will have a 120 IQ spouse. Now, the 120 IQ spouse could have a GIQ of 110 or 130, but, alas, 110 is more likely than 130, because there are way more people with a GIQ of 110 than 130. So the 120 IQ spouse will now probably have a 115 GIQ child (okay, now we have to allow this, but this was just a very simple model to explain this), who will either have 105 or 125 actual phenotypical IQ, marrying someone with 125 or 105.

        However, if you are substantially below the average, the dynamics will be the opposite. So the 70 IQ guy will likely have a GIQ of 80, rather than 60. Same thing for his (presumably also 70 IQ) spouse. His children will therefore have a GIQ of 80, and with a little luck could reach 90. (But with no luck will still be floored at 70, i.e. the average of the parents.)

        Now, of course, RIQ is actually something like a normal distribution like most of these things, so its effects are usually small (maybe just 5 IQ points), but its results are less binary than in my example (i.e. it won't be one child exactly at the parents' level, the other substantially closer to the mean, instead it will be both children somewhat closer to the mean than the parents were), but it will continue in the next generation (because the 140 IQ couple's 137 IQ child will marry a 137 IQ spouse, so his children will only be 135 IQ, and so on and so on; similarly, the 60 IQ couple's child will be expected to be 63 IQ, who will thus marry a 63 IQ spouse, and his children will be 65 IQ, etc.).

        Please note that in the second generation the effect will be slightly smaller, because whereas in the first generation we expected both members to benefit from good luck in the high IQ case, or bad luck in the low IQ case, one generation later we only expect this of the spouse. This is, of course, merely expected value. It's random, so theoretically it's possible that both members of a 150 IQ couple actually have a GIQ of 160, in which case their children are expected to be even smarter. But it's not very likely, so the expected IQ of a 150 IQ couple will be lower than 150.

        As we get closer to the mean (of the population), the effect gets weaker, and if you cross it, it will reverse. So a 110 IQ couple's children will be expected to be lower IQ, but not very much lower. And a 95 IQ couple's children are already expected to be more intelligent than their parents.

        Now, if you managed to get a bunch of 140 IQ people with an average expected RIQ of -10, and put them on an island, then the resulting population would have an average IQ of 130. This is high, but not as high as the founding population. But then it would stay there forever. (Absent any selective pressure, of course.) It won't revert to the mean of the bigger population, now it would be a new population, whose mean would be, from the second generation, 130, and all reversion would be purely to this new mean of the new population.

        A simple model.

        Thanks for giving your explanation in such detail.

        Where I might disagree is that you assume that the direction of the random effect is not random, but depends on the GIQ of the population from which the two parents are drawn (e.g. the higher the parents’ average IQ relative to the population mean, the greater the probability of a negative random effect). This doesn’t strike me as self-evident: if both parents have a far higher GIQ than the population from which they are drawn, does it not make more sense to treat them as an all new “population” and use their average GIQ as the “baseline”? This would seem especially useful if we imagine people from two wildly different populations mating. Using your model, how could we even define the baseline if a dull Israeli and a smart Haitian mated? I suppose we could use as the baseline the average of the average Israeli and Haitian GIQs, but that’s just a scaled-up version of my model, isn’t it? Or am I missing something?

      191. @AaronB
        Aha, can a favourable genetic mutation be classed under the random component?

        Surely, some children are smarter than their parents through a random favourable mutation, which gets passed down. Perhaps that is how dynasties of talent start.

        Of course, that is how the human race got smart to begin with. Or became human.

        Ok, if some children are smarter than their parents for random unknown reasons, I can see why we have no grounds to expect these random unknown reasons to precisely reproduce themselves again.

        Although since we don't know what they are, we cannot really estimate the probability, and cannot establish a rule of reversion to the mean.

        What percentage of the smart fraction then is there only because of some random unknown reasons? I suspect it isn't very high, or we'd be seeing much more turnover among the elite.

        Also, we have no grounds to posit a reversion to the racial mean in any given case if, as you say, the mean is that of the two parents.

        The two parents may belong to the genetic smart fraction of their race, or one or both may belong to that percentage that is smart due to random unknown reasons, and their offspring will under revert.

        Since the percentage of people smarter than their parents for random unknown reasons is probably not very large, reversion to the mean must be fringe phenomena.

        What percentage of the smart fraction then is there only because of some random unknown reasons? I suspect it isn’t very high, or we’d be seeing much more turnover among the elite.

        Yes, the standard deviation I gave is probably far too high. I’m sure there is hard data on this, but from my observations, brothers and sisters seldom differ very obviously in intelligence once you account for differences in interests and so on.

      192. @Rosie

        Romney said during the Republican primary that illegal immigrants should “self-deport,”
         
        And of course we know Republicans always keep their promises.

        🤣

        Sure, but Romney had a tendency of getting things done. Arguably, a soft but actually implemented policy would have been better than a hard policy that was not implemented.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Sure, but Romney had a tendency of getting things done. Arguably, a soft but actually implemented policy would have been better than a hard policy that was not implemented.
         
        Romney wouldn't have done a damned thing about immigration, for the same reason that Trump isn't doing anything: the donor class veto.

        It's all academic anyway. College-educated White White women voted for him for muh tax cuts. Non-college White women had no use for him. With Trump, that was reversed. In either case, White White women have never been fully won over by the GOP, and for good reason. They're useless.
      193. @Anonymous
        You did concede my point there.

        Nobody said women need to have 8 babies apiece. The point is that 8 babies born today are not equivalent to 8 babies born in the past under different conditions.

        You're conceding another point here by agreeing that there is a disadvantage in having children after a certain age.

        Having children late in life is not ideal in terms of increasing fertility rates or in terms of the health of offspring "in an advanced society with ample nutrition and low infant mortality." It's ideal in terms of women maximizing their pre-marital lifestyles.

        You did concede my point there.

        You’re an idiot and a troll.

        You’re conceding another point here by agreeing that there is a disadvantage in having children after a certain age.

        Did anyone ever deny that? If you’re going to claim uncontroversial, trivial points as some sort of “concession,” then all you’re doing is showing yourself to be an assholea and a sophist.

        Now that you have admitted that we don’t need to have eight kids, the only questions are: how many will we have and when do we need to start having children to achieve our desired fertility? Assuming a woman wants to have three children, spaced the usual 30 months apart, a woman should aim to start no later than her mid-20s. That leaves plenty of time for four years of college, and even a master’s degree, which is what this is all about, isn’t it? You don’t want women getting an education.

        It’s ideal in terms of women maximizing their pre-marital lifestyles.

        Bullshit. It’s about a woman accomplishing her own personal goals, which I know is deeply offensive to you, since you see us as nothing but baby-making machines.

        Not that you care, but FWIW, some husbands are considerate enough to wait for their wives to finish their education before demanding children.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Bullshit. It’s about a woman accomplishing her own personal goals, which I know is deeply offensive to you, since you see us as nothing but baby-making machines.

         
        I have been trying to make what I consider a straightforward point: that if women are rushed into motherhood, they might have fewer children than they otherwise would have. It appears that the same may be true for men, as their fertility expectations are affected by their sense of financial well-being.

        https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol39/9/default.htm
        , @Anonymous
        I think higher education is largely useless for most men as well. It's not a sexist thing.

        Generally speaking, most young women who are highly interested in higher education and postgraduate studies aren't determined to settle down in their mid-20s and start having 3 kids. Why would they be? Higher ed opens up new career and social opportunities that they will want to explore. Settling down right after college wastes those opportunities.

        By "pre-marital lifestyles", I include things such as "accomplishing personal goals".
      194. @Anonymous
        Ackshually...

        https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-everyone-know-women-consumers/

        1. If the consumer economy had a sex, it would be female. Women drive 70-80% of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence. Influence means that even when a woman isn’t paying for something herself, she is often the influence or veto vote behind someone else’s purchase.
         
        If men actually controlled consumer spending, demand for most consumer goods would collapse and the trade deficit would disappear. Men, especially married men, tend to be natural cheapskates. When married men control spending, they generally try to get away with being as cheap as possible to the great consternation of their wives, besides indulging in a few big ticket personal toys such as boats and the like.

        If men actually controlled consumer spending, demand for most consumer goods would collapse and the trade deficit would disappear.

        You are such a ridiculous little creep. Even if true, who cares? The elimination of the trade deficit wouldn’t redound to the benefit of American workers. It would just put a lot of third-worldwrs out of jobs.

        When married men control spending, they generally try to get away with being as cheap as possible

        No they don’t. They just try to get away as cheaply as possible when it’s for something they don’t care about, as you admit here (contradicting yourself):

        besides indulging in a few big ticket personal toys such as boats and the like.

        I’ll say.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        It would benefit American households by curtailing wasteful consumer spending. Spending is also a cost to household budgets.

        I'm not contradicting myself. There are only so many boats a middle class man can buy. Traditionally, married middle class men who control their household budgets are very cheap.

        BTW, things like boats are high value added manufacturing goods. Women's consumer spending tends to be for low value added, low tech goods.
      195. @AP
        Sure, but Romney had a tendency of getting things done. Arguably, a soft but actually implemented policy would have been better than a hard policy that was not implemented.

        Sure, but Romney had a tendency of getting things done. Arguably, a soft but actually implemented policy would have been better than a hard policy that was not implemented.

        Romney wouldn’t have done a damned thing about immigration, for the same reason that Trump isn’t doing anything: the donor class veto.

        It’s all academic anyway. College-educated White White women voted for him for muh tax cuts. Non-college White women had no use for him. With Trump, that was reversed. In either case, White White women have never been fully won over by the GOP, and for good reason. They’re useless.

      196. @Rosie

        You did concede my point there.
         
        You're an idiot and a troll.

        You’re conceding another point here by agreeing that there is a disadvantage in having children after a certain age.
         
        Did anyone ever deny that? If you're going to claim uncontroversial, trivial points as some sort of "concession," then all you're doing is showing yourself to be an assholea and a sophist.

        Now that you have admitted that we don't need to have eight kids, the only questions are: how many will we have and when do we need to start having children to achieve our desired fertility? Assuming a woman wants to have three children, spaced the usual 30 months apart, a woman should aim to start no later than her mid-20s. That leaves plenty of time for four years of college, and even a master's degree, which is what this is all about, isn't it? You don't want women getting an education.

        It’s ideal in terms of women maximizing their pre-marital lifestyles.
         
        Bullshit. It's about a woman accomplishing her own personal goals, which I know is deeply offensive to you, since you see us as nothing but baby-making machines.

        Not that you care, but FWIW, some husbands are considerate enough to wait for their wives to finish their education before demanding children.

        Bullshit. It’s about a woman accomplishing her own personal goals, which I know is deeply offensive to you, since you see us as nothing but baby-making machines.

        I have been trying to make what I consider a straightforward point: that if women are rushed into motherhood, they might have fewer children than they otherwise would have. It appears that the same may be true for men, as their fertility expectations are affected by their sense of financial well-being.

        https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol39/9/default.htm

      197. @Anonymous
        Ackshually...

        https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-things-everyone-know-women-consumers/

        1. If the consumer economy had a sex, it would be female. Women drive 70-80% of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence. Influence means that even when a woman isn’t paying for something herself, she is often the influence or veto vote behind someone else’s purchase.
         
        If men actually controlled consumer spending, demand for most consumer goods would collapse and the trade deficit would disappear. Men, especially married men, tend to be natural cheapskates. When married men control spending, they generally try to get away with being as cheap as possible to the great consternation of their wives, besides indulging in a few big ticket personal toys such as boats and the like.

        Ackshually…

        How much of an idiot is 375?

        Women buy shit, keeping men employed in factories. Greedy men fire them and replace them with Third World sweatshop labor.

        Conclusion: It’s all women’s fault.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        Women's consumer spending tends to be for very low value added, low tech goods. It generally doesn't support a high value added, high wage manufacturing economy.

        Men tend to buy high tech gadgets, tools, vehicles, boats, equipment, etc., which also generates demand for sophisticated high tech capital goods.
      198. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Rosie

        You did concede my point there.
         
        You're an idiot and a troll.

        You’re conceding another point here by agreeing that there is a disadvantage in having children after a certain age.
         
        Did anyone ever deny that? If you're going to claim uncontroversial, trivial points as some sort of "concession," then all you're doing is showing yourself to be an assholea and a sophist.

        Now that you have admitted that we don't need to have eight kids, the only questions are: how many will we have and when do we need to start having children to achieve our desired fertility? Assuming a woman wants to have three children, spaced the usual 30 months apart, a woman should aim to start no later than her mid-20s. That leaves plenty of time for four years of college, and even a master's degree, which is what this is all about, isn't it? You don't want women getting an education.

        It’s ideal in terms of women maximizing their pre-marital lifestyles.
         
        Bullshit. It's about a woman accomplishing her own personal goals, which I know is deeply offensive to you, since you see us as nothing but baby-making machines.

        Not that you care, but FWIW, some husbands are considerate enough to wait for their wives to finish their education before demanding children.

        I think higher education is largely useless for most men as well. It’s not a sexist thing.

        Generally speaking, most young women who are highly interested in higher education and postgraduate studies aren’t determined to settle down in their mid-20s and start having 3 kids. Why would they be? Higher ed opens up new career and social opportunities that they will want to explore. Settling down right after college wastes those opportunities.

        By “pre-marital lifestyles”, I include things such as “accomplishing personal goals”.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Generally speaking, most young women who are highly interested in higher education and postgraduate studies aren’t determined to settle down in their mid-20s and start having 3 kids. Why would they be? Higher ed opens up new career and social opportunities that they will want to explore. Settling down right after college wastes those opportunities.
         
        And here you reveal your ridiculous lack of insight about women. You are projecting Male values and sensibilities (spread your seed) into women. You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

        https://www.chronicle.com/article/Ring-by-Spring-How/241840


        I think higher education is largely useless for most men as well. It’s not a sexist thing
         
        Then you're just a cretin who doesn't understand that education isn't just about money.
        , @dfordoom

        I think higher education is largely useless for most men as well. It’s not a sexist thing.
         
        Agreed. Society only needs a small number of university graduates. Our universities, throughout the West, are churning out way more graduates than are actually needed for society. In particular they're turning out absurd numbers of lawyers and absurd numbers of people with completely useless degrees. These surplus college graduates are not merely useless but dangerous. They gravitate towards political activism.

        We're probably producing at least twice as many graduates as we need overall and in some areas we're producing four or five times as many as we need.
      199. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Rosie

        If men actually controlled consumer spending, demand for most consumer goods would collapse and the trade deficit would disappear.
         
        You are such a ridiculous little creep. Even if true, who cares? The elimination of the trade deficit wouldn't redound to the benefit of American workers. It would just put a lot of third-worldwrs out of jobs.


        When married men control spending, they generally try to get away with being as cheap as possible
         
        No they don't. They just try to get away as cheaply as possible when it's for something they don't care about, as you admit here (contradicting yourself):

        besides indulging in a few big ticket personal toys such as boats and the like.

         
        I'll say.

        It would benefit American households by curtailing wasteful consumer spending. Spending is also a cost to household budgets.

        I’m not contradicting myself. There are only so many boats a middle class man can buy. Traditionally, married middle class men who control their household budgets are very cheap.

        BTW, things like boats are high value added manufacturing goods. Women’s consumer spending tends to be for low value added, low tech goods.

      200. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Rosie

        Ackshually…
         
        How much of an idiot is 375?

        Women buy shit, keeping men employed in factories. Greedy men fire them and replace them with Third World sweatshop labor.

        Conclusion: It's all women's fault.

        Women’s consumer spending tends to be for very low value added, low tech goods. It generally doesn’t support a high value added, high wage manufacturing economy.

        Men tend to buy high tech gadgets, tools, vehicles, boats, equipment, etc., which also generates demand for sophisticated high tech capital goods.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Women’s consumer spending tends to be for very low value added, low tech goods. It generally doesn’t support a high value added, high wage manufacturing economy.
         
        Blah, blah, blah you're just so stories are so tiresome. The fact remains that women have provided consumer demand for all manner of things that a working- class man could earn a living making before greedy men decided to replace him, to wit:

        Fancy new dishwashers and refrigerators with all the bells and whistles
        Furniture
        Cabinetry

        We still keep men working installing hardwood floors, granite countertops, etc

        I know you'll have some reason why that's "low-tech" or otherwise not worthwhile, because after all what we all really need is new obamaphone every year and a bigger television set.
      201. @AaronB

        I love Israel – I am attracted to strange, terrible and interesting places. Where do you plan to invest in property, if it’s not too personal?
         
        Lol, so am I. Well said.

        I would say, however, that I'm an attracted to places with depth and character, that are the opposite of a clean and beautiful American suburb, and whose deficiencies can only be considered serious from the point of view economic efficiency, but not from the pov of life.

        You realize, of course that if Israel become your Singapore dream, you will never visit again :)

        I have not yet decided where I am moving to in Israel. I am seriously considering not moving to any of the big cities, but settling in a small town in the green north or the Golan, or maybe the West Bank.

        Or maybe a farm in the Negev like Ariel Sharon lol.

        I would say, however, that I’m an attracted to places with depth and character, that are the opposite of a clean and beautiful American suburb, and whose deficiencies can only be considered serious from the point of view economic efficiency, but not from the pov of life.

        Lol, this should be interesting.

        Have you ever actually been to Israel? Can you speak Hebrew? Do you plan to live in a religious settlement?

        My guess is you’ll be cleaving to Americans/Anglos as much as possible and struggling to come to terms with the quirkiness of Israeli behavior (less for it being specifically “Israeli,” rather simply foreign). I’d be impressed if you lasted a year.

        • Replies: @AaronB
        I am an Israeli citizen. (And an American one).
        , @Dmitry
        If he (assuming not troll) is an immigrant with bourgeois financial resources, especially if it is by New York standards, and goes to live with middle class Israeli people - he will be fine in terms of his neighbours.

        If he lives in some building in North Tel Aviv, he will probably have old neighbours who talk to him in the corridor, with perfect English grammar, about how they like to go vacation in London, or their opinion about German philosophy.

        But most immigrants to Israel are young people (people 20-30 years old) without money, and really even living in ghetto housing will cost most of their income.

        My friends in Israel (which is a recently graduated medical doctor now), live in ghetto housing in Bat Yam.

        I was in Bat Yam last year for my vacation. I had an informative day with my luggage, waiting in Bat Yam mall.

        If you want to know the Israeli "base population", you need to spend a Friday in Bat Yam mall. My impression is that somehow all the "gopniks" of Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Ethiopia and Egypt, have been dropped onto Bat Yam mall on Friday.
      202. @TheTotallyAnonymous
        Why do women deserve freedom though? Also, freedom from what exactly as well?

        Women having freedom, "liberation" and "empowerment" has literally proven to be nothing but a complete disaster wherever it's implemented. The result of female empowerment in the west today is women doing millions of abortions, degenerate casual sex, political subversion, social subversion, replacing their own men by opening themselves to foreigners, plus many more horrible things that i couldn't think of from the top of my head.

        Some may think i'm over-exaggerating, but honestly, who needs Jews and other hardcore subversionists when you have old dyke white women like our glorious supreme Mama Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and millions of other disgusting fat women, old hags, dykes, feminists and so on running around uncontrollably while having positions of authority. The amount of damage they're doing is arguably just as bad, if not in some cases even worse than Jews or Third World Invaders.

        Women voting, suffrage, and any other form of women's rights have been clearly proven by history and time to be a horrible mistake. Women's freedom is at best completely useless for any civilization, nation and society, and at worst, outright harmful and destructive.

        Some may think i’m over-exaggerating, but honestly, who needs Jews and other hardcore subversionists when you have old dyke white women like our glorious supreme Mama Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and millions of other disgusting fat women, old hags, dykes, feminists and so on running around uncontrollably while having positions of authority. The amount of damage they’re doing is arguably just as bad, if not in some cases even worse than Jews or Third World Invaders.

        You would only have a point with this argument if male politicians in the west consistently took an opposing position.

        But have they? Obviously not. They have been – and remain – enthusiastic cheerleaders for massive and endless immigration.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        But have they? Obviously not. They have been – and remain – enthusiastic cheerleaders for massive and endless immigration.
         
        Male or female, the politicians are all puppets, every single one.
        , @TheTotallyAnonymous
        I never stated that male politicians weren't behind harming the west. Male politicians are also theoretically much more likely to try and resist their masters if given the opportunity. Trump, Salvini and Orban could theoretically be considered to be such politicians.

        Still, i only pointed out that women are doing much more harm than they are helping much of anything. They are doing more harm than good because they're too dumb to realize what's really going on, and their emotional irrationality has been weaponized against their own men and society ...
        , @dfordoom

        You would only have a point with this argument if male politicians in the west consistently took an opposing position.

        But have they? Obviously not. They have been – and remain – enthusiastic cheerleaders for massive and endless immigration.
         
        The entire political class in the West is worthless and toxic. Male politicians and female politicians are equally toxic.

        But any argument that women improve the overall quality of the political class is clearly absurd.
      203. @Anonymous
        I think higher education is largely useless for most men as well. It's not a sexist thing.

        Generally speaking, most young women who are highly interested in higher education and postgraduate studies aren't determined to settle down in their mid-20s and start having 3 kids. Why would they be? Higher ed opens up new career and social opportunities that they will want to explore. Settling down right after college wastes those opportunities.

        By "pre-marital lifestyles", I include things such as "accomplishing personal goals".

        Generally speaking, most young women who are highly interested in higher education and postgraduate studies aren’t determined to settle down in their mid-20s and start having 3 kids. Why would they be? Higher ed opens up new career and social opportunities that they will want to explore. Settling down right after college wastes those opportunities.

        And here you reveal your ridiculous lack of insight about women. You are projecting Male values and sensibilities (spread your seed) into women. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

        https://www.chronicle.com/article/Ring-by-Spring-How/241840

        I think higher education is largely useless for most men as well. It’s not a sexist thing

        Then you’re just a cretin who doesn’t understand that education isn’t just about money.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        Your link is about students at Jerry Falwell's university and other fundamentalist Christian universities. It describes a minority subculture in the US. Most young people are not a part of that culture. It's not representative.

        Education isn't about money, which is why higher education is pointless for most men and women.
      204. @Anonymous
        Women's consumer spending tends to be for very low value added, low tech goods. It generally doesn't support a high value added, high wage manufacturing economy.

        Men tend to buy high tech gadgets, tools, vehicles, boats, equipment, etc., which also generates demand for sophisticated high tech capital goods.

        Women’s consumer spending tends to be for very low value added, low tech goods. It generally doesn’t support a high value added, high wage manufacturing economy.

        Blah, blah, blah you’re just so stories are so tiresome. The fact remains that women have provided consumer demand for all manner of things that a working- class man could earn a living making before greedy men decided to replace him, to wit:

        Fancy new dishwashers and refrigerators with all the bells and whistles
        Furniture
        Cabinetry

        We still keep men working installing hardwood floors, granite countertops, etc

        I know you’ll have some reason why that’s “low-tech” or otherwise not worthwhile, because after all what we all really need is new obamaphone every year and a bigger television set.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        Large appliances like fridges and dishwashers are replaced very infrequently, much less frequently than cars. Likewise for traditional furniture. Those stats that describe how women control upwards of 80+% of consumer spending does not consist of items that are bought once or twice a lifetime like refrigerators.

        Home remodeling contractors would be an example of a non-tradeable service, not a tradeable good, so irrelevant to our discussion here. Although I would note that a lot of the household spending on home remodeling by women could be characterized as wasteful or luxury spending.
      205. @silviosilver

        Some may think i’m over-exaggerating, but honestly, who needs Jews and other hardcore subversionists when you have old dyke white women like our glorious supreme Mama Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and millions of other disgusting fat women, old hags, dykes, feminists and so on running around uncontrollably while having positions of authority. The amount of damage they’re doing is arguably just as bad, if not in some cases even worse than Jews or Third World Invaders.
         
        You would only have a point with this argument if male politicians in the west consistently took an opposing position.

        But have they? Obviously not. They have been - and remain - enthusiastic cheerleaders for massive and endless immigration.

        But have they? Obviously not. They have been – and remain – enthusiastic cheerleaders for massive and endless immigration.

        Male or female, the politicians are all puppets, every single one.

      206. @silviosilver

        I would say, however, that I’m an attracted to places with depth and character, that are the opposite of a clean and beautiful American suburb, and whose deficiencies can only be considered serious from the point of view economic efficiency, but not from the pov of life.
         
        Lol, this should be interesting.

        Have you ever actually been to Israel? Can you speak Hebrew? Do you plan to live in a religious settlement?

        My guess is you'll be cleaving to Americans/Anglos as much as possible and struggling to come to terms with the quirkiness of Israeli behavior (less for it being specifically "Israeli," rather simply foreign). I'd be impressed if you lasted a year.

        I am an Israeli citizen. (And an American one).

        • Replies: @silviosilver
        So you've lived there and can speak the language?
      207. @notanon

        why is it almost axiomatically good?
         
        i don't think it is any more.

        i'd say it's usually true but when technology gets past a certain point then quality > quantity becomes more important.

        (for a fixed living space)

        personally i think the populations of industrialized nations grew too high due to the labor needs of early industrial society and ideally would shrink to maybe 2/3 their current population while at the same time improving health and intelligence.

        once they're at a new optimal level then replacement would become an important marker again.

        #

        What is the optimal population size of the islands of Japan, under current tech level?
         
        my guess of 2/3 current size is just a guess.

        i think what would happen (if immigration is restricted) is the population would shrink to the point where it hit replacement - which would be a function of people feeling less crowded and the natural increase in the proportion of pro-natal genes over time as the women who most wanted kids had the most (as long as that desire was supported and made possible).

        i think the populations of industrialized nations grew too high due to the labor needs of early industrial society and ideally would shrink to maybe 2/3 their current population

        That’s quite possibly true. But how do you rate your chances of persuading the corporate sector that ever-shrinking markets might be a good thing? And in today’s world the corporate sector has more influence over policy than elected officials.

        • Replies: @notanon

        ever-shrinking markets
         
        we have ever shrinking markets now - it's why the global economy is crumbling

        more poor people -> less effective demand (velocity of money)

        how do you rate your chances of persuading the corporate sector
         
        poorly - it needs some economist outside the West to prove a large middle class creates the optimal velocity of money.
      208. @notanon
        i think much lower population density and expansion into space would be a lot better than the ant's nest we are going to get under current extrapolation.

        i think much lower population density and expansion into space would be a lot better than the ant’s nest we are going to get under current extrapolation.

        Expansion into space? There’s nowhere reachable that could be made even vaguely habitable. Colonies in space would be a major drain on resources, for zero gain.

        • Replies: @notanon
        nah
      209. @TheTotallyAnonymous
        I never said that the welfare state was "subversion". Truthfully though, as far as punishing men through no-fault divorce, payments to single mothers, and encouraging women's education, the welfare state really is an extremely subversive, harmful, and destructive influence on any given society.

        As for white women on average sexually preferring their own men, that has historically been true since it's only natural for women to prefer their own men. Of course, as captured goods, women rarely effectively resist being the spoils of war for a victorious tribe that conquers another. It's simply not in their nature to do so. Whites/Europeans are currently in a situation where they are a tribe being conquered by other tribes, if you haven't noticed. Regardless, in-group preferences can be persuaded to change through propaganda promoting interracial sex, marriage and so on. The propaganda pushing interracial sex is thick and aggressive, plus we are far from seeing the end of it. Perceptions can change over time and the lengths to which something that is biologically or genetically natural can be altered, are shockingly large. White women inter-racially cuckolding their men (having sex with black and brown men) is absolutely real, and happens to a much larger degree than most people think. There is a good reason why phrases like "coal burner" and "mud shark" exist.

        With the exception of Anglo nations, France and Switzerland, before WW1, most of Europe or the "white world" was not democratic in general (in the modern sense, at minimum). It was only after 1945 that democracy, and with it, women's suffrage became firmly established throughout the world. It's very clear that a lot of the civilization killing trends of today had their seeds planted since 1945. Democracy is in general useless because voting doesn't change much of anything in the overwhelming majority of situations. The "success" of Democracy and women's suffrage in general is also very much a strongly ethnic Anglo thing as well. By now, they've persuaded some other West Europeans to value it over the centuries, but still, nobody besides Anglos, other West Europeans and Jews (it has different meanings to each group, of course) even really cares about Democracy.

        Who do you think encourages women's