4. JANUAR 2006: OPLYST AMERIKANER – UDSYNET OG OVERBLIKKET ER NÆSTEN HELT GÅET TABT HERHJEMME

Information of USA

 THE CENTURY AHEAD

 It’s the Demography, Stupid

 The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.

BY MARK STEYN

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There’ll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands–probably–just as in Istanbul there’s still a building called St. Sophia’s Cathedral. But it’s not a cathedral; it’s merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West. One obstacle to doing that is that, in the typical election campaign in your advanced industrial democracy, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society–government health care, government day care (which Canada’s thinking of introducing), govern ment paternity leave (which Britain’s just introduced). We’ve prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity–”Go forth and multiply,” because if you don’t you won’t be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare.

Americans sometimes don’t understand how far gone most of the rest of the developed world is down this path: In the Canadian and most Continental cabinets, the defense ministry is somewhere an ambitious politician passes through on his way up to important jobs like the health department. I don’t think Don Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health and Human Services.

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths–or, at any rate, virtues–and that’s why they’re proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam.

Speaking of which, if we are at war–and half the American people and significantly higher percentages in Britain, Canada and Europe don’t accept that proposition–then what exactly is the war about?

We know it’s not really a “war on terror.” Nor is it, at heart, a war against Islam, or even “radical Islam.” The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us.
There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it’s easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in “Palestine,” Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally.

Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it’s not what this thing’s about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It’s not the HIV that kills you, it’s the pneumonia you get when your body’s too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose–as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly. Which the smarter Islamists have figured out.

They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there’s an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.

That’s what the war’s about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder”–as can be seen throughout much of “the Western world” right now.

The progressive agenda–lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism–is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn’t involve knowing anything about other cultures–the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It’s fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don’t want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society.

It’s a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.Then September 11 happened. And bizarrely the reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, the prince of Wales did, the prime minister of the United Kingdom did, the prime minister of Canada did . . . The premier of Ontario didn’t, and so 20 Muslim community leaders had a big summit to denounce him for failing to visit a mosque. I don’t know why he didn’t. Maybe there was a big backlog, it was mosque drive time, prime ministers in gridlock up and down the freeway trying to get to the Sword of the Infidel-Slayer Mosque on Elm Street. But for whatever reason he couldn’t fit it into his hectic schedule. Ontario’s citizenship minister did show up at a mosque, but the imams took that as a great insult, like the Queen sending Fergie to open the Commonwealth Games. So the premier of Ontario had to hold a big meeting with the aggrieved imams to apologize for not going to a mosque and, as the Toronto Star’s reported it, “to provide them with reassurance that the provincial government does not see them as the enemy.”

Anyway, the get-me-to-the-mosque-on-time fever died down, but it set the tone for our general approach to these atrocities. The old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between the traffic light changing in New York and the first honk from a car behind. The new definition is the gap between a terrorist bombing and the press release from an Islamic lobby group warning of a backlash against Muslims. In most circumstances, it would be considered appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual “hate crime” by scaremongering about a purely hypothetical one. Needless to say, there is no campaign of Islamophobic hate crimes. If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes. A commenter on Tim Blair’s Web site in Australia summed it up in a note-perfect parody of a Guardian headline: “Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow Morning’s Terrorist Attack.” Those community leaders have the measure of us.

Radical Islam is what multiculturalism has been waiting for all along. In “The Survival of Culture,” I quoted the eminent British barrister Helena Kennedy, Queen’s Counsel. Shortly after September 11, Baroness Kennedy argued on a BBC show that it was too easy to disparage “Islamic fundamentalists.” “We as Western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves,” she complained. “We don’t look at our own fundamentalisms.”

Well, said the interviewer, what exactly would those Western liberal fundamentalisms be? “One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I’m not sure that’s true.”

Hmm. Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism. So you’re nice to gays and the Inuit? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of fellows like that, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti masochists. In other words, just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda.

For example, one day in 2004, a couple of Canadians returned home, to Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto. They were the son and widow of a fellow called Ahmed Said Khadr, who back on the Pakistani-Afghan frontier was known as “al-Kanadi.” Why? Because he was the highest-ranking Canadian in al Qaeda–plenty of other Canucks in al Qaeda, but he was the Numero Uno. In fact, one could argue that the Khadr family is Canada’s principal contribution to the war on terror. Granted they’re on the wrong side (if you’ll forgive my being judgmental) but no one can argue that they aren’t in the thick of things. One of Mr. Khadr’s sons was captured in Afghanistan after killing a U.S. Special Forces medic. Another was captured and held at Guantanamo. A third blew himself up while killing a Canadian soldier in Kabul. Pa Khadr himself died in an al Qaeda shootout with Pakistani forces in early 2004. And they say we Canadians aren’t doing our bit in this war!

In the course of the fatal shootout of al-Kanadi, his youngest son was paralyzed. And, not unreasonably, Junior didn’t fancy a prison hospital in Peshawar. So Mrs. Khadr and her boy returned to Toronto so he could enjoy the benefits of Ontario government health care. “I’m Canadian, and I’m not begging for my rights,” declared the widow Khadr. “I’m demanding my rights.”

As they always say, treason’s hard to prove in court, but given the circumstances of Mr. Khadr’s death it seems clear that not only was he providing “aid and comfort to the Queen’s enemies” but that he was, in fact, the Queen’s enemy. The Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal 22nd Regiment and other Canucks have been participating in Afghanistan, on one side of the conflict, and the Khadr family had been over there participating on the other side. Nonetheless, the prime minister of Canada thought Boy Khadr’s claims on the public health system was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his own deep personal commitment to “diversity.” Asked about the Khadrs’ return to Toronto, he said, “I believe that once you are a Canadian citizen, you have the right to your own views and to disagree.”

That’s the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: You can choose which side of the war you want to fight on. When the draft card arrives, just tick “home team” or “enemy,” according to taste. The Canadian prime minister is a typical late-stage Western politician: He could have said, well, these are contemptible people and I know many of us are disgusted at the idea of our tax dollars being used to provide health care for a man whose Canadian citizenship is no more than a flag of convenience, but unfortunately that’s the law and, while we can try to tighten it, it looks like this lowlife’s got away with it. Instead, his reflex instinct was to proclaim this as a wholehearted demonstration of the virtues of the multicultural state. Like many enlightened Western leaders, the Canadian prime minister will be congratulating himself on his boundless tolerance even as the forces of intolerance consume him.

That, by the way, is the one point of similarity between the jihad and conventional terrorist movements like the IRA or ETA. Terror groups persist because of a lack of confidence on the part of their targets: The IRA, for example, calculated correctly that the British had the capability to smash them totally but not the will. So they knew that while they could never win militarily, they also could never be defeated. The Islamists have figured similarly. The only difference is that most terrorist wars are highly localized. We now have the first truly global terrorist insurgency because the Islamists view the whole world the way the IRA view the bogs of Fermanagh: They want it, and they’ve calculated that our entire civilization lacks the will to see them off.

We spend a lot of time at The New Criterion attacking the elites, and we’re right to do so. The commanding heights of the culture have behaved disgracefully for the last several decades. But if it were just a problem with the elites, it wouldn’t be that serious: The mob could rise up and hang ‘em from lampposts–a scenario that’s not unlikely in certain Continental countries. But the problem now goes way beyond the ruling establishment. The annexation by government of most of the key responsibilities of life–child-raising, taking care of your elderly parents–has profoundly changed the relationship between the citizen and the state. At some point–I would say socialized health care is a good marker–you cross a line, and it’s very hard then to persuade a citizenry enjoying that much government largesse to cross back. In National Review recently, I took issue with that line Gerald Ford always uses to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” Actually, you run into trouble long before that point: A government big enough to give you everything you want still isn’t big enough to get you to give anything back. That’s what the French and German political classes are discovering.

Go back to that list of local conflicts I mentioned. The jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you’re not shy about taking on the Israelis, the Russians, the Indians and the Nigerians, why wouldn’t you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Danes and New Zealanders? So the jihadists are for the most part doing no more than giving us a prod in the rear as we sleepwalk to the cliff. When I say “sleepwalk,” it’s not because we’re a blasé culture. On the contrary, one of the clearest signs of our decline is the way we expend so much energy worrying about the wrong things. If you’ve read Jared Diamond’s bestselling book “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” you’ll know it goes into a lot of detail about Easter Island going belly up because they chopped down all their trees. Apparently that’s why they’re not a G-8 member or on the U.N. Security Council. Same with the Greenlanders and the Mayans and Diamond’s other curious choices of “societies.” Indeed, as the author sees it, pretty much every society collapses because it chops down its trees.

Poor old Diamond can’t see the forest because of his obsession with the trees. (Russia’s collapsing even as it’s undergoing reforestation.) One way “societies choose to fail or succeed” is by choosing what to worry about. The Western world has delivered more wealth and more comfort to more of its citizens than any other civilization in history, and in return we’ve developed a great cult of worrying. You know the classics of the genre: In 1968, in his bestselling book “The Population Bomb,” the eminent scientist Paul Ehrlich declared: “In the 1970s the world will undergo famines–hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” In 1972, in their landmark study “The Limits to Growth,” the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993.

None of these things happened. In fact, quite the opposite is happening. We’re pretty much awash in resources, but we’re running out of people–the one truly indispensable resource, without which none of the others matter. Russia’s the most obvious example: it’s the largest country on earth, it’s full of natural resources, and yet it’s dying–its population is falling calamitously.The default mode of our elites is that anything that happens–from terrorism to tsunamis–can be understood only as deriving from the perniciousness of Western civilization. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, “Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.”

And even though none of the prognostications of the eco-doom blockbusters of the 1970s came to pass, all that means is that 30 years on, the end of the world has to be rescheduled. The amended estimated time of arrival is now 2032. That’s to say, in 2002, the United Nations Global Environmental Outlook predicted “the destruction of 70 percent of the natural world in thirty years, mass extinction of species. . . . More than half the world will be afflicted by water shortages, with 95 percent of people in the Middle East with severe problems . . . 25 percent of all species of mammals and 10 percent of birds will be extinct . . .”

Etc., etc., for 450 pages. Or to cut to the chase, as the Guardian headlined it, “Unless We Change Our Ways, The World Faces Disaster.”

Well, here’s my prediction for 2032: unless we change our ways the world faces a future . . . where the environment will look pretty darn good. If you’re a tree or a rock, you’ll be living in clover. It’s the Italians and the Swedes who’ll be facing extinction and the loss of their natural habitat.

There will be no environmental doomsday. Oil, carbon dioxide emissions, deforestation: none of these things is worth worrying about. What’s worrying is that we spend so much time worrying about things that aren’t worth worrying about that we don’t worry about the things we should be worrying about. For 30 years, we’ve had endless wake-up calls for things that aren’t worth waking up for. But for the very real, remorseless shifts in our society–the ones truly jeopardizing our future–we’re sound asleep.
The world is changing dramatically right now, and hysterical experts twitter about a hypothetical decrease in the Antarctic krill that might conceivably possibly happen so far down the road there are unlikely to be any Italian or Japanese enviro-worriers left alive to be devastated by it.

In a globalized economy, the environmentalists want us to worry about First World capitalism imposing its ways on bucolic, pastoral, primitive Third World backwaters. Yet, insofar as “globalization” is a threat, the real danger is precisely the opposite–that the peculiarities of the backwaters can leap instantly to the First World. Pigs are valued assets and sleep in the living room in rural China–and next thing you know an unknown respiratory disease is killing people in Toronto, just because someone got on a plane. That’s the way to look at Islamism: We fret about McDonald’s and Disney, but the big globalization success story is the way the Saudis have taken what was 80 years ago a severe but obscure and unimportant strain of Islam practiced by Bedouins of no fixed abode and successfully exported it to the heart of Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Manchester, Buffalo…

What’s the better bet? A globalization that exports cheeseburgers and pop songs or a globalization that exports the fiercest aspects of its culture? When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it’s hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they’re running out a lot faster than the oil is. “Replacement” fertility rate–i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller–is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common? Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you’ll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada’s fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That’s to say, Spain’s population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy’s population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria’s by 36%, Estonia’s by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans–and mostly red-state Americans.

As fertility shrivels, societies get older–and Japan and much of Europe are set to get older than any functioning societies have ever been. And we know what comes after old age. These countries are going out of business–unless they can find the will to change their ways. Is that likely? I don’t think so. If you look at European election results–most recently in Germany–it’s hard not to conclude that, while voters are unhappy with their political establishments, they’re unhappy mainly because they resent being asked to reconsider their government benefits and, no matter how unaffordable they may be a generation down the road, they have no intention of seriously reconsidering them. The Scottish executiverecently backed down from a proposal to raise the retirement age of Scottish public workers. It’s presently 60, which is nice but unaffordable. But the reaction of the average Scots worker is that that’s somebody else’s problem. The average German worker now puts in 22% fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable will propose closing the gap in any meaningful way.

This isn’t a deep-rooted cultural difference between the Old World and the New. It dates back all the way to, oh, the 1970s. If one wanted to allocate blame, one could argue that it’s a product of the U.S. military presence, the American security guarantee that liberated European budgets: instead of having to spend money on guns, they could concentrate on butter, and buttering up the voters. If Washington’s problem with Europe is that these are not serious allies, well, whose fault is that? Who, in the years after the Second World War, created NATO as a postmodern military alliance? The “free world,” as the Americans called it, was a free ride for everyone else. And having been absolved from the primal responsibilities of nationhood, it’s hardly surprising that European nations have little wish to reshoulder them. In essence, the lavish levels of public health care on the Continent are subsidized by the American taxpayer. And this long-term softening of large sections of the West makes them ill-suited to resisting a primal force like Islam.

There is no “population bomb.” There never was. Birthrates are declining all over the world–eventually every couple on the planet may decide to opt for the Western yuppie model of one designer baby at the age of 39. But demographics is a game of last man standing. The groups that succumb to demographic apathy last will have a huge advantage. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk should have understood that their so-called population explosion was really a massive population adjustment. Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for under 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30% of the world’s population to just over 20%, the Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%.

Nineteen seventy doesn’t seem that long ago. If you’re the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair’s less groovy, but the landscape of your life–the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge–isn’t significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified.

And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.

And by 2020?

So the world’s people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less “Western.” Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)–or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.

Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.

What will Europe be like at the end of this process? Who knows? On the one hand, there’s something to be said for the notion that America will find an Islamified Europe more straightforward to deal with than M. Chirac, Herr Schroeder & Co. On the other hand, given Europe’s track record, getting there could be very bloody. But either way this is the real battlefield. The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they’re flying planes into buildings for they’re likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock ‘em over?
The latter half of the decline and fall of great civilizations follows a familiar pattern: affluence, softness, decadence, extinction. You don’t notice yourself slipping through those stages because usually there’s a seductive pol on hand to provide the age with a sly, self-deluding slogan–like Bill Clinton’s “It’s about the future of all our children.” We on the right spent the 1990s gleefully mocking Mr. Clinton’s tedious invocation, drizzled like syrup over everything from the Kosovo war to highway appropriations. But most of the rest of the West can’t even steal his lame bromides: A society that has no children has no future.

Permanence is the illusion of every age. In 1913, no one thought the Russian, Austrian, German and Turkish empires would be gone within half a decade. Seventy years on, all those fellows who dismissed Reagan as an “amiable dunce” (in Clark Clifford’s phrase) assured us the Soviet Union was likewise here to stay. The CIA analysts’ position was that East Germany was the ninth biggest economic power in the world. In 1987 there was no rash of experts predicting the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself.

Yet, even by the minimal standards of these wretched precedents, so-called post-Christian civilizations–as a prominent EU official described his continent to me–are more prone than traditional societies to mistake the present tense for a permanent feature. Religious cultures have a much greater sense of both past and future, as we did a century ago, when we spoke of death as joining “the great majority” in “the unseen world.” But if secularism’s starting point is that this is all there is, it’s no surprise that, consciously or not, they invest the here and now with far greater powers of endurance than it’s ever had. The idea that progressive Euro-welfarism is the permanent resting place of human development was always foolish; we now know that it’s suicidally so.

To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted. The CIA is predicting the EU will collapse by 2020. Given that the CIA’s got pretty much everything wrong for half a century, that would suggest the EU is a shoo-in to be the colossus of the new millennium. But even a flop spook is right twice a generation. If anything, the date of EU collapse is rather a cautious estimate. It seems more likely that within the next couple of European election cycles, the internal contradictions of the EU will manifest themselves in the usual way, and that by 2010 we’ll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on American network news every night. Even if they avoid that, the idea of a childless Europe ever rivaling America militarily or economically is laughable. Sometime this century there will be 500 million Americans, and what’s left in Europe will either be very old or very Muslim. Japan faces the same problem: Its
population is already in absolute decline, the first gentle slope of a death spiral it will be unlikely ever to climb out of. Will Japan be an economic powerhouse if it’s populated by Koreans and Filipinos? Very possibly. Will Germany if it’s populated by Algerians? That’s a trickier proposition.

Best-case scenario? The Continent winds up as Vienna with Swedish tax rates.

Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner–and we’re already seeing a drift in that direction.

In July 2003, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Tony Blair remarked: “As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?”

Excellent question. Britannia will never again wield the unrivalled power she enjoyed at her imperial apogee, but the Britannic inheritance endures, to one degree or another, in many of the key regional players in the world today–Australia, India, South Africa–and in dozens of island statelets from the Caribbean to the Pacific. If China ever takes its place as an advanced nation, it will be because the People’s Republic learns more from British Hong Kong than Hong Kong learns from the Little Red Book. And of course the dominant power of our time derives its political character from 18th-century British subjects who took English ideas a little further than
the mother country was willing to go.

A decade and a half after victory in the Cold War and end-of-history triumphalism, the “what do you leave behind?” question is more urgent than most of us expected. “The West,” as a concept, is dead, and the West, as a matter of demographic fact, is dying.

What will London–or Paris, or Amsterdam–be like in the mid-’30s? If European politicians make no serious attempt this decade to wean the populace off their unsustainable 35-hour weeks, retirement at 60, etc., then to keep the present level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035. As things stand, Muslims are already the primary source of population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?

This ought to be the left’s issue. I’m a conservative–I’m not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I’m with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? Who, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West’s collapsed birthrates? Even if one were to take the optimistic view that Europe will be able to resist the creeping imposition of Sharia currently engulfing Nigeria, it remains the case that the Muslim world is not notable for setting much store by “a woman’s right to choose,” in any sense.
I watched that big abortion rally in Washington in 2004, where Ashley Judd and Gloria Steinem were cheered by women waving “Keep your Bush off my bush” placards, and I thought it was the equivalent of a White Russian tea party in 1917. By prioritizing a “woman’s right to choose,” Western women are delivering their societies into the hands of fellows far more patriarchal than a 1950s sitcom dad. If any of those women marching for their “reproductive rights” still have babies, they might like to ponder demographic realities: A little girl born today will be unlikely, at the age of 40, to be free to prance around demonstrations in Eurabian Paris or Amsterdam chanting “Hands off my bush!”

Just before the 2004 election, that eminent political analyst Cameron Diaz appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show to explain what was at stake:

“Women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. . . . If you think that rape should be legal, then don’t vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body,” she advised Oprah’s viewers, “then you should vote.”

Poor Cameron. A couple of weeks later, the scary people won. She lost all rights to her body. Unlike Alec Baldwin, she couldn’t even move to France. Her body was grounded in Terminal D.

But, after framing the 2004 presidential election as a referendum on the right to rape, Miss Diaz might be interested to know that men enjoy that right under many Islamic legal codes around the world. In his book “The Empty Cradle,” Philip Longman asks: “So where will the children of the future come from? Increasingly they will come from people who are at odds with the modern world. Such a trend, if sustained, could drive human culture off its current market-driven, individualistic, modernist course, gradually creating an anti-market culture dominated by fundamentalism–a new Dark Ages.”

Bottom line for Cameron Diaz: There are worse things than John Ashcroft out there.

Mr. Longman’s point is well taken. The refined antennae of Western liberals mean that whenever one raises the question of whether there will be any Italians living in the geographical zone marked as Italy a generation or three hence, they cry, “Racism!” To fret about what proportion of the population is “white” is grotesque and inappropriate. But it’s not about race, it’s about culture. If 100% of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy, it doesn’t matter whether 70% of them are “white” or only 5% are. But if one part of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy and the other doesn’t, then it becomes a matter of great importance whether the part that does is 90% of the population or only 60%, 50%, 45%.

Since the president unveiled the so-called Bush Doctrine–the plan to promote liberty throughout the Arab world–innumerable “progressives” have routinely asserted that there’s no evidence Muslims want liberty and, indeed, that Islam is incompatible with democracy. If that’s true, it’s a problem not for the Middle East today but for Europe the day after tomorrow. According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah–in the United Kingdom. If a population “at odds with the modern world” is the fastest-breeding group on the planet–if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions–how safe a bet is the survival of the “modern world”?

Not good.

“What do you leave behind?” asked Tony Blair. There will only be very few and very old ethnic Germans and French and Italians by the midpoint of this century. What will they leave behind? Territories that happen to bear their names and keep up some of the old buildings? Or will the dying European races understand that the only legacy that matters is whether the peoples who will live in those lands after them are reconciled to pluralist, liberal democracy? It’s the demography, stupid. And, if they can’t muster the will to change course, then “What do you leave behind?” is the only question that matters.

Mr. Steyn is a syndicated columnist and theater critic for The New Criterion, in whose January issue this article appears.

After America, bestseller

Steyn’s 2011 must-read was a Top Five Washington Post bestseller, a Top Four New York Times bestseller, a Top Four Amazon bestseller, a Top Three Globe & Mail bestseller in Canada, and a Number One bestseller at Amazon Canada. And now it’s out in paperback, with a brand new introduction and more timely than ever in the wake of the US elections.

Stikord herfra

SVERIGES MIGRATIONSVERKET OG KORRUPTION – OM OMFANGET SVARER TIL DEN NEDDYSSEDE KORRUPTION I DANMARK UNDER BOSNIEN-KRIGEN VIDES IKKE

The Local:

“En anklagende advokat er af den opfattelse af Migrationsverkets ansatte sandsynligvis vil vise sig at være involveret i en længere række bestikkelsessager efter to ansatte blev arresteret for mistanke om at salg af opholdstilladelse.

Two arrested for selling residence permits (29 Jan 13)
An employee from the Malmö branch of the agency remains held on remand on suspicion of aggravated bribery. And another employee who was recently released from custody remains suspected of bribery.  A previous manager, who currently works in another state department in southern Sweden, is also suspected of involvement in the scam…”

——
Om den nye års-antals-rekord i 2012 med 110.000 fortrinsvis fra lav-IQ-områder skyldes akkordarbejde i Migrationsverket eller måske snarere korruption kan vi ikke vide.

RØDE OG BLÅ SOCIALISTER OG ISLAM

RØDE SÅVEL SOM BLÅ SOCIALISTER BEKÆMPER VESTENS CIVILISATION

SAMMEN MED ISLAM

Ét har de tilfælles, underkastelse:

Vestens socialister bakker islamisterne op og alliancen mellem socialister og islam ødelægger den vestlige civilisation (målet er vor underkastelse): http://truthandgrace.com/muslimalliance.htm

Daniel Pipe’s dokumentation:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/06/the-leftist-islamist-alliance-in-Pictures

David Horowitz:

http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/europe_islamist_leftist_alliance.htm

 

 

Blairs og Browns gigantattentat på England med over 3 mio. indvandrere på godt ti år. Her er børn født af indvandrere i England ikke medregnet. Hvordan det officielle billede af landenes skæbnesvangre tilstand tegnes: Amsterdam har fremmedflertal nu, Holland 2025, Bruxelles 30 pct. , og dermed 15-20 år mere for Belgien, Sverige i 2050, England 2050, Tyskland 2050 – det er 38 år for de tre sidste.

Hvordan er det her?

I Danmark vil det aldrig ske

I Danmark klarede Anders Fogh Rasmussen og Lars Løkke Rasmussen med støtteparti fra 2001 til 2011 at forøge antallet indvandrere og deres børn med 50,6% fra 488.584 til 735.924. D.v.s. en stigning i det absolutte antal med 247.340, bl.a. fra Somalia, Irak og Afghanistan med henholdsvis 9.988, 10.702 og 19.076 på ti år. IQ-gennemsnittene i de tre nævnte lande er henholdsvis 72, 84, 87. I England er indbyggertallet ca. 11 gange større end i Danmark. Ganger vi forøgelsen i Danmark med 11 får vi 2,72 mill (og børnene født i DK er medregnet i modsætning til i de 3 mio. i England ovenfor).

42,2% af samtlige tildelte danske statsborgerskaber i hele perioden 1979-2011 blev tildelt af VK-regeringen med støtteparti på 10 år. Samme regering tildelte 45,1% af statsborgersagerne fra Sydvest- og Sydasien (Tyrkiet, Pakistan o.s.v.), 37,3% af samme sager fra Mellemøsten, men 61,7% af sagerne fra Afrika på 10 ud af i alt 32 år.

Nogen vil sige det var meget godt gået. Andre vil sige de faktisk var værre end dem vi havde forud, for de lovede ikke det modsatte af det de leverede. Det sker først nu. Meningerne er delte, for det er bedst eller sikrest for ‘de ansvarlige’ uden ansvar. Så går det hele stille og roligt som det plejer.

“Uanset statsgældskrisen har vi i flere år hørt, at det drejer sig om at få indvandrere til det danske arbejdsmarked – ‘der skal arbejdes noget mere’, forlyder det. 662.951 var ledige, udstødte eller sendt på førtidspension den 1. januar 2011, hvoraf 25-30% var ikke-vestlige, og virksomhederne lukker eller flytter fortsat i nye rekord-antal hvert år. Arbejdsstyrken der udbyder sig på arbejdsmarkedet har udviklet sig således fra 2006-2010: 2.789.845, 2.800.250, 2.711.054, 2.650.573, 2.620.321 (kilde: http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1366)

1. Er egnetheden til det danske arbejdsmarked mere krævende end 662.951 i landet kunne leve op til i 2011, så finder vi det aldeles uforståeligt at knap 3 ud af 4 af individerne med udenlandsk oprindelse i Danmark er immigranter repræsenterende lavere IQ-gennemsnit end det danske. Det er tydeligt påvist internationalt, at IQ-gennemsnit er entydigt tæt forbundet med arbejdsmarkedsegnethed og produktivitet.

2. Når samtidig påvises af det offentlige selv, at netop individerne med ikke-vestlig oprindelse i gennemsnit søger tre gange eller oftere til de offentlige kasser i sammenligning med danskerne, så finder vi det ganske uforståeligt og stærkt foruroligende, at kursen ikke lægges drastisk om. Det skal særligt tages i betragt-ning, at de såkaldte sociale udgifter til 16-64 årige endog overstiger udgifterne, der er aldersbestemt folkepension, med mere end 140 mia. kr. og endda synes at vokse hurtigere end disse. D.v.s. det er dyrere at finansiere livet for individerne i de arbejdsdygtige aldre end 953.428 folkepensionister (i 2011), der har ydet deres (1. januar 2011), og forskellen øges tilmed år for år. I 2012 988.943 folkepensionister.

3. Danskere med omkring dansk gennemsnitsintelligens, og som ikke er ganske uvant med en rational tankegang tror jeg vil finde, at der er ikke nogen realistisk mening i en sådan samfundsindretning, som den beskrives sporadisk her fra en arbejdsmarked- og socialøkonomisk synsvinkel.

Når IQ-gennemsnittet blandt danskere er 98, hvori ligger da fordelen ved at øge antallet af immigranter med IQ<=89 med mere end 75 pct. fra 2001 til 2011? Antallet af alle med lavere IQ-gennemsnit end danskerne er øget med mere end 60 pct. i perioden.

 

De blå socialisters øvrige indsats i Danmark – ultrakort

Monopol- eller statssektoren i Danmark voksede målt i personale med yderligere 12 pct. i 1980-erne, hvor Danmark havde en såkaldt borgerlig regering fra 1983. Om den voksede med en større procent de senere år, hvor Danmark havde verdens mest altomfattende velfærd og verdens højeste skatter? Alene i perioden 2001-2009 voksede det offentlige forbrug med 37,8 procent i løbende priser.

Europas sidste dage

Schriftsteller Henryk Broder: “Wir erleben die lezten Tage Europas”

Amerikansk videnskabsmand og offentlig intellektuel med indgående kendskab til Europa sagde det samme med bog for treethalvt år siden: http://danmark.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/europas-sidste-dage-the-last-days-of-europe/

———————————

Da europæerne ikke sætter sig op mod magthaverne, men lader det køre, er der ikke noget at gøre.

Sådan ligger landet

I Danmark vil det aldrig ske

-  hvordan det officielle billede af landets skæbnesvangre tilstand tegnes – Amsterdam har fremmedflertal nu, Holland 2025, Bruxelles 30 pct. , og dermed 15-20 år mere for Belgien, Sverige i 2050, Norge 2055, England 2050, Tyskland 2050 – det er 38-43 år for de fire sidste og meget mindre for Holland og Belgien.

Det er nærliggende at gå ud fra, at Danmarks Statistik har kendskab til oprindelserne, hvorfra indvandrerne i Danmark stammer, selvom offentligheden ikke må få kendskab til de tilrejsendes og deres børns oprindelse i sin helhed. Det betragtelige antal tildelte danske statsborgerskaber (se tabel 2) og børnene født af disse naturaliserede, der netop selv føder i disse år, har vi ingen grund til at betegne danske, når deres arv netop er udenlandsk. Men lad det være: Vi anser det for særligt grotesk, at netop et brev fra tinget (en administrativ handling) har som konsekvens, at enhver analyse eller opregning om befolkningen skal køres af sporet, såfremt følgende spiller ind: oprindelse, også dansk oprindelse, arvelige egenskaber som f.eks. arvelige sygdomme og forebyggelse af samme, herunder epidemier, og IQ, som internationalt er entydigt påvist er at være bestemmende for arbejdsmarkedstilknytningen og produktiviteten samt for kriminaliteten. Det er en skærpende omstændighed, men ikke den eneste, der gør det afgørende at foretage en korrektion, som i det mindste udbedrer den værste divergens fra virkeligheden: En betragtelig og stadigt voksende andel af børn efter naturaliserede udlændinge i Danmark betegnes danskere.

 

“At være fra’, ’at stamme fra’ er blevet ikke en-entydige udtryk. Det skyldes primært de tællekategorier, der officielt er blevet anvendt til opgørelserne siden 1992. De fleste har givet bemærket, at medierne konsekvent betegner alle, der er født i Danmark, for ‘danske’. “De nye danskere” skal i medierne blot over grænsen som immigranter, nå, nej, grænsen er så godt som væk. Hvis de er nået ind i de sammensluttede europæiske lande skal de op til ’det rige nord’, og uanset om deres ansøgning om ophold afvises, så bliver der flere ‘nydanskere’ med uddannelsesplads og bolig, forstås.

I den officielle danske definition er gældende, at man skal være dansk statsborger og have mindst én forældre, der er dansk statsborger, og som er født i Danmark. Der er både et fødested og mindst én forældre, og dennes nationalitiet og fødested samt den pågældendes egen nationalitet.

Sådan er det, men det ændres gradvist, fordi fødestedskriteriet tilstræbes at skulle være enegældende, og derfor forventes forældretilknytningen ignoreret; den skal fjernes fra den anvendte registrering i den del af informationerne, som offentligheden skal have indsigt i. Jeg kan ikke tolke det anderledes (se nedenfor). Vi har alle hørt om en dansk terrorist i Marokko. Det er mest til at le lidt af. Ja, ikke terroren, naturligvis.

I disse biologiske, herunder DNA og nanoteknologiske tider vil en ændring til det rene fødestedskriterium skabe et gennemgribende roderi og ødelægge grundlaget for forskningen, så intet fornuftigt kan analyseres, hvis det relaterer sig til befolkningen og dens oprindelse. Udfordringerne i videnskaben kommer desværre det politiske korrekte establishment på tværs. Marxister foretrækker ligeledes at forklare snart sagt alt ud fra omgivelserne og egen moral. Bekæmpelse af arvelige sygdomme, viden om virus (herunder epidemier) og forskning i antibiotika mod disse ligger lige for o.m.a., men det kan ikke analyseres retvisende. Alt vedrørende arvelighed (biogenetik) udviskes, når oprindelsen, og hvad knytter sig dertil, ikke kan ses af de registrerede data. Egnethed til arbejdsmarkedet (f.eks. via IQ) kunne inddrages under socioøkonomiske og sociodemografiske faktorer; men det ryger også ud med de udviskede kendetegn knyttende sig til oprindelse.

Derudover kan vi tage fødslernes fordeling på oprindelse i landet: Nogle børn født i Danmark får ganske rigtigt forældrenes statsborgerskab, men langt hovedparten betegnes og tælles i kategorien danske, blot fordi de er født her. Og dem bliver der flere og flere af, både m.h.t. antal og procentandelen af alle fødte. Alle børn og børnebørn af naturaliserede og alle naturaliserede. Hertil kommer ikke-naturaliserede af 2. generation efter de oprindelige indvandrere, der også betegnes danske, hvoraf mange, men ikke alle netop er naturaliserede. Og netop disse generationer/kategorier er de fødende de senere år.

Ingen fordeling af en fødselsårgang på oprindelserne findes i Danmarks Statistiks oversigter til offentligheden.

Kvindernes tilbøjelighed til at føde børn i de fødende aldre er kultur- og traditionsbestemt, bestemt af prævention, af love og religion, af kvindens alder ved første fødsel, kvindernes deltagelse i uddannelse og arbejdsmarkedstilknytningen. Som det er nu kan du få oplyst antallet, der har skiftet statsborgerskab (siden 1979) fra anden nationalitet til dansk statsborgerskab, men absolut intet om børn og børnebørn anknyttet ved fødsel til disse naturaliserede. Og end ikke antal fødte af udenlandske statsborgere oplyses. Det sidste ville netop gøre den analyseinteresserede opmærksom på manglerne i opgørelserne. Kun det samlede antal fødte i landet oplyses. Med overraskende pludseligt fald i den totale fertilitet eller fødselshyppighed kan der ikke findes forklaringer.

Ja, alle mulige andre fordelinger af en fødselsårgang på landsdele, på byer og endog på ugens dage opgøres, men hovedparten af dette er ligegyldigt. Nu er det ikke sådan at fødselstilbøjelighed hos den enkelte kvinde pr. automatik ændres ved et naturalisationsbrev fra tingets indfødsretsudvalg. Heller ikke den enkeltes kriminalitetstilbøjelighed udviskes endegyldigt som følge af et sådant brev, og hverken brevet eller andre bestræbelser kan ændre på f.eks. IQ, og dermed på uddannelses og/eller arbejdsmarkeds-egnethed. Paradoksalt har vi ellers hørt meget om den sidste skulle have vore lederes interesse de senere år. Når forudsætningerne for egnetheden imidlertid ignoreres, må vi betragte interessen som én af de tomme klichéer, der er tænkt blot at skulle narre offentligheden.

Alt i alt kan vi ikke længere relatere de udenlandske oprindelser til kriminalitet, arbejdsmarkedet, fødslerne (som nævnt), de sociale- og andre offentlige udgifter samt til andre karakteristika, der måtte eller kunne forventes at være relateret til oprindelsen. Alle bekrivelser heraf uden den fornødne korrektion er fuldstændig misvisende. Forskningsverdenen og erhvervslivet kunne måske interessere sig for at afdække om oprindelsen spiller ind ved dette og hint i en korrekt udført analyse, f.eks. variansanalyse, korrelationsanalyse, hypotese-test, Chi-Square-test. Men det lader sig ikke gøre uden en korrektion af den officielle befolkningsopgørelse, der præsenteres for offentligheden.

CPR-udtræk kan vælges, men sandsynligvis er dette sidste end ikke holdbart, og i alt fald aldeles utidssvarende og unødigt besværligt. Der er adskillige problemer, nogle måske fortsat hidrørende fra 1970′erne, hvor forældretilknytningen bortfaldt for flere tusinde individer i Danmark, men efter hvad vi oplyses forsøgtes genoprettet med eller uden pålæg herom. Og endelig en yderligere opblødning af familietilknytningen ved en ændring af indfødsretsloven af 4. maj 2004 via en ny lovbekendtgørelse om indfødsretten af 7. maj 2004.

Nogle hævder at Danmarks Statistik har oplysningerne. Er det tro eller viden? Jeg ved det ikke. M.h.t. til de mistede records fra 1970′erne om familietilknytningen har jeg ikke set påvist, at det er lykkedes at rekonstruere utidsvarende cpr., et 1. generationsystem med persondata. Og det har Hans Oluf Hansen, der afgik som professor i statistik/demografi i 2010, heller ikke. Når vi samtidig ser at nye initiativer gående i samme retning atter dukke op dagen før Grundlovsdag 2004, lige inden de skal på sommerferie, de kære folketingsmedarbejdere, og vi absolut intet skal høre i medierne hverken før, under eller efter vedtagelsen, så det er naturligt at rejse nogle spørgsmål.

Lader man officielt alle eller de fleste fødte med anden oprindelse i Danmark betegne som danske og ligeså nogle af de naturaliserede og også deres børn, er det rent meningsløst roderi man står overfor ved enhver analytisk knytning pr. gennemsnitsbetragtning af en delpopulation til socioøkonomiske forhold (arbejdsmarkedsegnethed (f.eks. IQ), ledighed, sociale ydelser m.h.t. antal og udgifter, kriminalitet, sundhedsudgifter, undervisning og uddannelse m.v.) eller demografiske forhold (fødslernes og aldrenes fordeling for at nævne et par eksempler). Dette fører til det nærmest latterlige resultat, at pressen kan berette om større fertilitet blandt danskerne end blandt de udenlandske oprindelser, som det også netop er sket i de senere år. Ja, det bliver såmænd bekræftet af enkelte DS’s medarbejdere i chefstillinger.

Således læser du hos Danmarks Statistik: http://www.dst.dk/upload/tema2008.pdf

Uddrag:

”Fødsler og dødelighed i Danmark – set i et internationalt perspektiv. Af Otto Andersen og Marianne Mackie (red.)

I 2007 blev vi knap 31.500 flere danskere, så den danske befolkning nåede en størrelse på 5.475.791 personer 1. januar 2008. Væksten er sket ved, at der blev født 8.500 flere personer, end der døde, og der indvandrede 23.000 personer flere, end der udvandrede…”

Vi kan først rette, at folketallet – ikke antallet af danskere - steg ikke med 31.500, men med 28.707 i 2007, selvom indvandringen udgjorde 24.042, ikke 23.000. Danskerne havde et fødselsunderskud. De udenlandske oprindelser derimod præsterede derfor et fødselsoverskud, der primært kunne ”udfylde hullerne” efter danskerne plus derudover 4.665 flere børn til at præstere folketallets vækst, 28.707.

Kilde til befolkningsstatistikken for dokumentation: http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1280.

Bemærk, den grænseoverskridende brug af kendetegnene ’antal danskere’ og ’folketallet’.

Men desværre, alene folketallet pr. 1. januar 2008 er korrekt aflæst af forfatterne fra institutionens egne tabeller ved seneste link ovenfor under ’befolkning og valg’ (og bemærk i tilknytning hertil definitionen på dansk i de tre sidste afsnit under baggrund side 2 på linket: http://www.lilliput-information.com/perspektiv.pdf )

Vi har et logisk problem med at fatte, hvorledes folketallet i landet kan vokse med mere end nettoantallet, der indvandrer, når den samlede fertilitet i landet fortsat er langt under to børn pr. kvinde, samtidig med at lavfertiliteten blandt danskerne nu igennem to generationer ikke betinger noget relativt højt antal fødende danske kvinder. Var det sidste ikke en kendsgerning, kunne fejlen have bygget på en meget nærliggende forveksling af fertiliteten med fødselsraten (set utallige gange før). På samme grundlag kan der ikke fæstes nogen lid til det officielle befolkningsprognosearbejde i samme sags sammenhæng, heller ingen lid til nogen meldinger om delpopulationers anknytning til socioøkonomiske og demografiske forhold. Vi har tilmed fået oplyst i pressen – ved en fejl naturligvis – at der sandelig bliver udarbejdet (2004) én officiel tilgængelig prognose, men der er andre prognoser til det daværende Integrationsministeriums og Indenrigsministeriets orientering.

Jyllands-Posten skrev således 30. maj 2004, men også den 22. maj i en lidt anden version (bl.a. uden omtale af den anden prognose, der bliver tilsendt integrationsministeriet): http://jp.dk/indland/article359867.ece ’Danskere frygter muslimsk dominans’. Den lidt anden version, den egentlige om den hemmeligholdte prognose: http://jp.dk/morgenavisen/indblik/article361742.ece?ncc=1 (skal man betale for at læse nu). Et enkelte citat fra den sidste :

”Men der findes en anden prognose – om end fagfolkene bag den ikke ynder at få den frem i offentligheden. Prognosen er bestilt af Integrationsministeriets Tænketank for bedre integration hos (mit: det såkaldt ‘uafhængige’ ) analyseinstitut DREAM (mit: under Finansministeriet).”

Hemmeligholdelserne for offentligheden fortsætter i bedste velgående i 2010, 2011 og 2012.  2010: “Nu føder ikke-vestlige kun 1,6 barn i gennemsnit, dansker-ne hævder de føder 1,9 barn”, skrev bl.a. Information og også Berlingske Tidende den 25. Juli 2010. D.v.s.: At nu føder danskerne angiveligt 1,9 barn pr. kvinde mod tidligere (for et par år siden) angiveligt 1,7 barn.

Det sidste skal givet oversættes politisk ukorrekt til: At nu føder de etniske danskere og et stort antal ikke-vestlige papirdanskere og deres børn og børnebørn i gennemsnit 1,9 barn pr. kvinde i gennemsnit mod tidligere (for et par år tidligere) angiveligt 1,7 barn. Resten af de fødte sættes i forhold til det optalte/benævnte antal ikke-vestlige. Vi ser bort fra de vestliges fødsler, fordi fødselsraterne for disse er som etniske danskernes eller lavere.

Hvis vi holder os til befolkningsregistret i Danmarks Statistik: Begreberne ‘indvandrere’, ‘efterkommere’ og ’andre’ er end ikke videnskabeligt holdbare, som vi har antydet ovenfor. Dette er tillige bekræftet: Der er tale om datadrevne definitioner, der ikke ligger fast, meldes det fra landets førende demograf indtil 2010 professor Hans Oluf Hansen (2001, se første kilde side 11). Danskeren, nr. 1 februar 2006, side 5-6: “I en kommentar til Den Danske Forening giver Hans Oluf Hansen udtryk for, at CPR-registeret og Danmarks Statistiks definitioner af indvandrere og efterkommere er uegnede grundlag for både en beskrivelse af den nuværende befolkning og for udarbejdelse af prognoser om den fremtidige befolkning. Han anbefaler en egentlig folketælling, som kan give klarhed over blandt andet folks etniske tilhørsforhold.”

Du kan se konsekvenserne af at bruge disse tællebegreber i seneste årsopgørelse: http://www.lilliput-information.com/indv20111og2.pdf. Det er næsten udelukkende addition og subtraktion, der gøres brug af heri og så nødvendige ledsagekommenterer. Den morsommeste skal du have med: Hvordan flere og flere bliver til færre og færre.

 

Danmarks Statistik-befolkningsfremskrivning:

Fremskrivninger fra 30. maj 2002 http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2002/NR217.pdf antal: 1.069.777 i prognosepunktet 2040 bliver i Nyt fra DS nr. 220, 23. maj 2007 http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2007/NR220.pdf til antal: 746.696 ’indvandrere’ og ’efterkommere’ i alt i prognosepunktet 2050.

Sammenhold årstal og antal parvis. Vi har hævdet at de fødte børn må ‘gå i deres moder igen’ efter 2040, hvis dette skulle være sandt, idet én af prognose-forudsætningerne er en konstant nettoindvandring på gennemsnitlig 18.000 pr. år fra prognosetidspunktet til 2040.

Lad mig sluttelig anføre at mit afsløringsarbejde gennem de seneste 25 år er foregået med i overført forstand bind for øjnene og ikke uden adskillige ubehageligheder, der i øvrigt fortsætter under arbejdet. Det er første og sidste gang du skal læse herom.

Kilder: Hansen, Hans Oluf & Längerich Karsten (2001): Modeling External Reproduction, Citizenship, and Ethnic Differentials In Labor Supply. Published in Proceedings of Symposium on Applied Statistics, arranged by Univ. of Copenhagen, Dept of Econ. And Statistics Denmark, January 22-24, 2001

Vig, J. E. (10.10.2011): Befolkningsrelateret forskning ikke mulig i Danmark, hvis den skal bygge på den officielle danske befolkningsstatistik efter 1991.

Links:

Danskeren nr. 1, 2006 (side 6): http://www.dendanskeforening.dk/files/files/DANSKEREN%20nr.%201%20-%202006.pdf

Korrigeret Befolkningsregnskab for 2011: http://www.lilliput-information.com/indv20111og2.pdf

Befolkningsrelateret forskning ikke mulig i Danmark: Befolkningsrelateret forskning ikke mulig i Danmark, hvis den skal bygge på den officielle danske befolkningsstatistik efter 1991.

Ændring af indfødsretsloven 4. maj 2004: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=28974

Befolkningsfremskrivninger 30. maj 2002 fra DS: http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2002/NR217. pdf

Befolkningsfremskrivninger 23. maj 2007 fra DS: http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/ Nyt/2007/NR220.pdf

 

 

 For at få en mere realistisk beskrivelse af befolkningsammensætningen har vi været henvist til at rekonstruere hele forløbet fra 1979, der er det tidligste år, hvorfra vi kan få officielle antal af tildelte danske statsborgerskaber.

Ved rekonstruktionen har vi den officielle samlede fødselsrate og ditto dødrate år for år i Danmark. For de 235 repræsenterede oprindelser i landet har vi, da vi ikke får nogen rådata om antallet af fødsler fordelt på oprindelse som nævnt, forudsat at fertiliteterne er uændrede i forhold til i oprindelseslandet til trods for at det er de unge og yngre og dermed de mest fødende, der typisk vandrer. Tilsvarende overvurderes immigranternes dødelighed i Danmark.

I Søndagsavisen 25. januar 2004 udtalte lederen af personstatistik i Københavns Kommune, Claus Woll : ”Jeg vil da gerne påpege, at der efter min mening ikke har været dækning for de konklusioner, der er draget i medierne på baggrund af rapporten (vort: om indvandreres og efterkommeres fødsler i København udarbejdet af sociologistuderende Connie Carrøe Christiansen)”. Ifølge Søndagsavisen afslører en nærmere granskning af tallene, at efterkommere af indvandrere fra ikke-vestlige lande tværtimod får flere børn end deres forældre. For denne gruppe er fødselsraten indenfor de seneste 5 år steget med 10%.

Ved i modellen at tildele indvandrerne de af FN foreslåede fødselrater i oprindelseslandene viser det sig, at vi får for lave beregnede totale fødselsrater i Danmark i forhold til de oplyste fra Danmarks Statistik år for år, og hvis de totale officielle fødselsrater fastholdes, er den beregnede etnisk danske fødselsrate i konsekvens heraf større end angivet af netop FN (i 2009: 10,23, hvor FN anfører 9,60 for alle udviklede nationer) (se beviset side 4 i kilden under tabel 1). Dette indikerer at FN-raterne for immigranternes oprindelseslande er for lave. Vi har derfor valgt Alsagerskolens fertilitetsrater for oprindelsesnationerne og sat dem op mod den danske totale fødselsrate. Herved bliver den etnisk danske rate residual-beregnet til 9,38 i 2010. Fødselraten angiver antallet af fødte i befolkningen eller i en delbefolkning pr. 1000 pr. år.

Siden det såkaldte ‘systemskifte’ 2001 har fordelingen med udenlandsk oprindelse inklusive naturaliserede og deres børn udviklet således, når alle medregnes og vor korrigerende model anvendes, Tabel 1:

                       

Kilde: http://www.lilliput-information.com/perspektiv.pdf med bagvedliggende, rekonstruerende regneark, der netop er ajourført til og med 1. januar 2012.

DETTE HER SKAL VI HAVE EN FORKLARING PÅ HOS ENHVER AF DE INDVALGTE

Uanset statsgældskrisen har vi i hele perioden hørt, at det drejer sig om at få indvandrere til det danske arbejdsmarked – ‘der skal arbejdes noget mere’, forlyder det. 662.951 var ledige, udstødte eller sendt på førtidspension den 1. januar 2011, og virksomhederne lukker eller flytter fortsat i nye rekord-antal hvert år. Er det egnetheden til arbejdsmarkedet der betinger dette?? Arbejdsstyrken der udbyder sig på arbejdsmarkedet har udviklet sig mestendels nedad således fra 2006-2010: 2.789.845,  2.800.250,  2.711.054,  2.650.573,  2.620.321 (kilde: http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1366).

Folketallet derimod er steget fra 1. januar 2006 til 2012:  

5.427.459

5.447.084

5.475.791

5.511.451

5.534.738

5.560.628

5.580.516

Dels aldringen dels uegnetheden blandt de indvandrende og danskerne forklarer sammenhængen mellem en faldende arbejdstyrke og et stigende folketal.

1. Er egnetheden til det danske arbejdsmarked mere krævende end 662.951 1) i landet kunne leve op til i 2011, så finder vi det aldeles uforståeligt at 73-74%  (knap 3 ud af 4) af individerne med udenlandsk oprindelse i Danmark er immigranter repræsenterende lavere IQ-gennemsnit end det danske (næstsidste række i tabel 1). Det er tydeligt påvist internationalt, at IQ-gennemsnit er entydigt tæt forbundet med arbejdsmarkedsegnethed og produktivitet.

2. Når samtidig påvises af det offentlige selv, at netop individerne med ikke-vestlig oprindelse i gennemsnit søger tre gange eller oftere til de offentlige kasser i sammenligning med danskerne, så finder vi det ganske uforståeligt og stærkt foruroligende, at kursen ikke lægges drastisk om. Det skal særligt tages i betragtning, at de såkaldte sociale udgifter til 16-64 årige endog overstiger udgifterne, der er aldersbestemt folkepension, med mere end 140 mia. kr. og endda synes at vokse hurtigere end disse. D.v.s. det er dyrere at finansiere livet for individerne i de arbejdsdygtige aldre end 953.428 folkepensionister, der har ydet deres til gengæld (1. januar 2011), og forskellen øges tilmed år for år.

3. Danskere med omkring dansk gennemsnitsintelligens, og som er ved deres fulde fem tror jeg vil finde, at der er ikke nogen realistisk mening i en sådan samfundsindretning, som den beskrives sporadisk her fra en arbejdsmarked- og socialøkonomisk synsvinkel.

Når IQ-gennemsnittet blandt danskere er 97,4, hvori ligger da fordelen ved at øge antallet af immigranter med IQ<=89 med 75,8 pct., fra 191.181 til 336.023 (anden række i tabel 1.2) og endog øge andelen fra knap 42 pct. til knap 46 pct. af alle i perioden 1. januar 2001-2012 (tredje række i tabel 1.2)? Antallet af alle med lavere IQ-gennemsnit end danskerne er øget med 62 pct. i perioden, fra 331.960 til 537.936 (fjerdesidste række i tabel 1).

Grafisk illustration heraf

1) Anvendes Velfærdskommissionens information fra  maj 2004 og marts 2005, at ikke-vestlige indvandrere[i] og deres børn i gennemsnit forbruger 2,6 mill. kr. mere end de indbetaler til velfærden over livsforløbet, og at danskerne i gennemsnit forbruger 750.000 kr. mere end de indbetaler over livsforløbet, er forskellen er 2,6/0,75 = 3,47 gange. Dette medfører at af disse 662.951 (i første sætning under 1.) er ca. 1/3 eller 218.744 ikke-vestlige.

[i] Vestlige indvandrere indbetaler mere end de udbetales. Derfor bortses fra disse. Herved fører vor beregning til en mindre undervurdering af de ikke-vestliges forbrug.

 

HVEM GAVNER INDVANDRINGEN?

- kun landets fjender har vi lige set!

 

Af de udenlandske oprindelser oplistet i tabel 1 er antallene i tabel 2 de tildelte danske statsborgerskaber i perioden 1. januar 2001-2011 og det samlede tildelte antal 1. januar 1979-2011:

Den i forhold til de fremtidige krav mest ultimative beslutning som danske politikere kan tage ansvaret for er TILDELINGEN AF DANSKE STATSBORGERSKABER. Politikerne ynder ikke at have noget at lade hinanden høre. De deler så vidt muligt sol og vind lige, måske også for en sikkerheds skyld. Tabel 2 bekræfter det, og dens data er hentet fra Danmarks Statistiks Statistikbanken.

 

Tildelte danske statsborgerskaber i perioden 2001-2011 og i alt i perioden 1979-2011 fordelt på kontinenter/delkontinenter, Tabel 2:

Kilde: http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1366

42,2% af samtlige tildelte danske statsborgerskaber i hele perioden 1979-2011 blev tildelt af VK-regeringen med støtteparti på 10 år (med flertal det meste af tiden). Samme regering tildelte 45,1% af statsborgersagerne fra Sydvest- og Sydasien (Tyrkiet, Pakistan o.s.v.), 37,3% af samme sager fra Mellemøsten, men 61,7% af sagerne fra Afrika på 10 ud af i alt 32 år. Nogen vil sige det var meget godt gået. Andre vil sige de faktisk var værre end dem vi havde forud, for de lovede ikke det modsatte af det de leverede. Det sker først nu. Meningerne er delte, for det er bedst eller sikrest for ‘de ansvarlige’ uden reelt ansvar. Så går det hele stille og roligt som det plejer.

Kan det blive ved at gå? Næppe. Men lader de det bare gå som det kan? Ja!

De giver simpelthen landet væk (illustration)
Kendsgerninger der skal med i anklageskriftet

J. E. Vig, den 17. juni 2012

SVERIGEDEMOKRATERNAS JIMMIE ÅKESSON FORESLÅS BEKÆMPET MED GAS

“I Länstidningen, socialdemokratisk dagstidning i Östersund, framställs Sverigedemokraternas partiledare Jimmie Åkesson på bild som en kackerlacka. Bakom honom står en skadedjurssanerare iförd skyddsklädsel och gasmask och sprutar dödande giftgas ur ett aggregat märkt med samtliga sju andra riksdagspartiers partisymboler…”

Tegning: Kjell Nilsson-Mäki

——————————-
Dette er yderst betegnende og sammenfatter hele tidsbilledet af Elitens agt.

 

LINIEN ER LAGT, OGSÅ I TYSKLAND:

Henryk M. Broder über Hartz IV-Judenstern

Der rotversiffte deutsche Wutbürger kennt keine Grenzen mehr, wenn es um seine Interessen und um Geld geht. Die Leute haben jeden Maßstab und jeden Anstand verloren. Leben wir in einer Demokratie oder in einer Ochlokratie (= Pöbelherrschaft)? Henryk M. Boder berichtet über linksgesponserte Künstler, die in einen Judenstern Hartz IV geschrieben haben, was nur heißen kann, Sozialhilfebezügern geht es so schlecht, wie KZ-Insassen vor der Vergasung. Und Vergasung trifft haarscharf. [mehr]

SVENSK NYHEDSOPLÆSER SIGER FRA OG FORLADER LØGNENS SCENE

Uddrag af : http://snaphanen.dk/2012/11/25/sondagskronika-asiktsdiktaturen-sverige/

“Lisbeth Åkermans ständigt leende ansikte blir plötsligt allvarligt. Klockan är 19:58, det är två minuter kvar av kvällens Rapport. Dags för vädret som hon alltid brukar annonsera med en gladlynt kommentar. Men först har hon någonting att säga. Ingen i tv-studion är förberedd på vad som ska komma. En lätt skälvning skakar den slätkammade håruppsättningen när hon spänner de ljusblå ögonen i tv-tittarna och säger:

“Jag är ledsen över att behöva säga det här, men jag vill meddela att jag härmed säger upp min tjänst på Rapport och SVT. I åratal har jag suttit här och lett oavsett hur förljugna nyheter jag har förmedlat och hur mycket jag har sopat under mattan. Nu står jag inte ut längre. Jag klarar inte längre att ständigt servera politiskt vinklade nyheter och ljuga och mörklägga sanningen för er tittare. Jag orkar inte längre medverka i hetsjakten på ett demokratiskt valt riksdagsparti, och jag vägrar delta i grundlösa rasistbeskyllningar mot hela svenska folket. Nu har vi sugit på Breivikkaramellen i ett och ett halvt år, och den börjar smaka jävligt illa. Jag har helt enkelt fått nog. Varje kväll går jag hem från jobbet med en malande otäck känsla i magen. På nätterna har jag svårt att sova för det gnagande självföraktet. Visserligen har jag så bra betalt att jag har råd med en lägenhet i precis de rätta kvarteren på det journalisttäta Söder. Men vad hjälper det när jag tvingas delta i ett odemokratiskt och förljuget politiskt spel som får mig att må så dåligt?” “

OFFICIELT : SVERIGE HAVDE 26,6 pct. MED UDENLANSK BAGGRUND 31. DECEMBER 2011

31. december 2011
Udenlands fødte: 1.427.296
Indenlands fødte med to forældre født udenlands: 430.253
Indenlands fødte med en forældre født udenlands: 666.723

31. december 2011
Ialt med udenlands baggrund: 2.524.252
Folketal: 9.482.855

Andel af befolkningen: 26,6%

Vi mangler fødte i Sverige med forældre fødte i Sverige og en eller flere bedsteforældre født udenlands.

Ovenstående bygger på en officiel korrektion: http://www.ssd.scb.se/databaser/makro/Visavar.asp?yp=tansss&xu=C9233001&huvudtabell=UtlSvBakgTot&deltabell=R1&deltabellnamn=Antal+personer+med+utl%E4ndsk+eller+svensk+bakgrund+%28fin+indelning%29%2C+hela+riket%2C+efter+%E5lder+i+tio%E5rsklasser+och+k%F6n%2E+%C5r&omradekod=BE&omradetext=Befolkning&preskat=O&innehall=UtlSvBakg&starttid=2002&stopptid=2011&Prodid=BE0101&fromSok=&Fromwhere=S&lang=1&langdb=1

Hvordan det ser ud i Norge og Tyskland: http://danmark.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/de-kan-i-tyskland-og-i-norge-men-i-danmark/

——————-
Den 3. januar 2010 hævdede vi at Sveriges officielle andel dengang på 19% skulle ændres til 25-30%: http://danmark.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/sverige-har-haft-voldsom-befolkningsvaekst-i-2009/

REGIMET TEGNER SIG TYDELIGERE

What the campaigns to criminalize “Islamophobia” and “hate speech” are really all about

Sep 29, 2012 01:01 pm | Robert

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” — Voltaire (Thanks to Patricia)…

————————–

My supplement: “Do what I say, but don’t do what I do”

EN FJERDEDEL AF BØRNEFØDSLERNE I STORBRITANNIEN ER FREMMEDE KVINDERS – MEN I VIRKELIGHEDEN ER DET MEGET VÆRE END DAILY MAIL BESKRIVER

Quarter of Britain’s babies are born to foreign mothers – and this is where they all come from

• Most mothers came from Poland, India and Pakistan, figures reveal
• A total of 184,000 children born in these circumstances in NHS hospitals
• The overall 25.5% rate is the highest since records began in 1969
• In London in 2011 56.7% of new mums were originally from outside the UK
• Newham in London has a rate of 77% of foreign mothers
• The lowest levels were in the north-east of England
• Net migration is still at more than 200,000, much higher than the 2015 target of under 100,000

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2195695/Revealed-10-common-nationalities-foreign-born-mothers-gave-birth-NHS-hospitals-2011.html#ixzz27BF8hSdX

———————————————-

Danske kommentarer dækkende forholdene også i Sverige, Holland, Norge,Tyskland, Østrig og Danmark:

Antallet/andelen af børnefødsler blandt andengenerationsindvandrere (og senere) født i England ‘vælger vi naturligvis at se bort fra’, selvom netop anden og tredje generation er de dominerende blandt de fødende i disse år sammen med de nyligt indvandrede unge/yngre kvinder. ‘Daily Mail må gå ud fra at fødte i England simpelthen forvandles ved deres blotte fødsel på de Britiske Øer’, en del heraf tillige ved en juridisk afgrænsning, statsborgerskab ved naturalisation. Det er en så ultimativ forvandling, at de forvandledes egne fødsler herefter fastholder forvandlingen.

Det er en underlig verden: Dette svarer til et ‘fiskeri-stop-princip’ om, at det er helt fint at fiske karper i ferske, danske søer, og såfremt man fanger fisk i saltvand, da er disse andre fisk også karper.

Vi kan føje til: At havde de sidstnævnte været karper, ville de have været døde, eftersom karper kun lever i fersk vand. Lad nu være at søge nogle fortolkninger af ‘saltvandskarper’ og børnefødsler i overfølsomhedens lys. Det var kun for at lette forståelsen ved billedtegning for de kategori- og talsvage, som vi får flere og flere af.

Behovet for den nødvendige korrektion: http://www.lilliput-information.com/Befolkningsrelateret%20forskning%20i%20DK.pdf

Fremgangsmåden for såvidt angår danske forhold: http://www.lilliput-information.com/index-population-account-corrections.pdf

You get a shorter and also an additional version on : http://transeurabia.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/a-quarter-of-a-birth-cohort-are-births-to-foreign-woman-i-britain-you-read-but-it-is-much-more/

Sveriges kommuner och Landsting, SKL, vil have 10-doblet indvandringen

Tio gånger fler

(vort: om året)

Udregninger som Sveriges kommuner og Landsting, SKL, (svarende til den danske Kommunernes Landsforening) har gjort viser at Sverige som nation behøver en nettoindvandring på i gennemsnit 350. 000 personer pr. år frem til år 2035.

Ti procent arbejdskraftmangel i forhold til behovet er alternativet, hævdes det. Især pleje, omsorg og skoler kommer til at mangle arbejdskraft.

Kilde: http://www.helagotland.se/nyheter/artikel.aspx?articleid=7937850 

……………………………………………….

Hele den internationale verden af ikke-hjernedøde, som blot følger lidt med i informationerne om Vestens opløsning i indvandring, er ikke i tvivl om, at Sverige allerede med den nuværende indvandring får fremmedflertal inden 2050. Vi vurderer klart at manglerne på arbejdskraft i de nævnte sektorer, såfremt det måtte være 10 procent ikke spiller nogen særlig rolle. Andet bliver langt mere presserende. Vi siger som en tænksom, kommenterende nordmand:

Vinnings- og gjengkriminalitet, voldtekter, bruk av skytevåpen i det offentlige rom, samt segregering, nevnes ikke som en følge av innvandring fra forskjellige deler av verden på http://www.document.no/2012/09/sverige-trenger-tidobling-av-innvandringen . Her bliver der afgjort også brug for arbejdskraft. Skal vi mon i stedet påregne en 15- eller 20-dobling af indvandringen til Sverige i stedet, når hensyn tages hertil. En 10-dobling af indvandringen fordi måske 1/10 af behovet for arbejdskraft i nogle få ganskevist dominerende offentlige områder ikke kan tilfredsstilles vidner hos SKL om klar erkendelse hos af arbejdsmarkedsegnetheden blandt immigranterne. Det er selvfølgelig ganske udelukket at ledige svenskere kunne bestride nogle af disse jobs. Vi kan supplerende spørge hvorledes denne indvandring til fortrinsvis lediggang skal finansieres og hvordan den hidtidige indvandring fortsat skal, og også spørge hvorledes det kunne gå så galt? Hvem har ansvaret for at denne katastrofe er blevet sat igang og at den netop ikke er blevet opdaget i tide? Konklusion: ‘Når man har et problem er løsningen at problemet gøres større’

Vi kan supplerende spørge hvorledes denne indvandring til fortrinsvis lediggang skal finansieres og hvordan den hidtidige indvandring fortsat skal, og også spørge hvorledes det kunne gå så galt? Hvem har ansvaret for at denne katastrofe er blevet sat igang og at den netop ikke er blevet opdaget i tide?

SKANDALØS INTERNATIONAL OMTALE/BEHANDLING AF FERTILITETEN – fordi vi er de eneste der gør kvalificerede ophævelser

http://jyllands-posten.dk/uknews/article4527908.ece

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/archivestory.php/aid/563/Can_governments_influence_population_growth_.html

I England føder de indvandrede tre gange flere børn end den angelsaksiske befolkning (2007):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571969/Britains-highest-birth-rates-among-migrants.html#
A baby boom among immigrant families is driving the population to a record high, government figures will show this week.The figures, from the Office for National Statistics, will reveal that Britain’s highest birth rates are in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, both predominantly Muslim. The birth rate among women born in Pakistan but living in the UK is three times higher than that among British-born women, the figures will show. The evidence of a rising birth rate underlines last month’s official projections, first revealed in The Sunday Telegraph, which showed the population on course to rise to 77 million by the middle of the century, or even 91 million at the highest forecast.

The fertility rate – the average number of children a woman will bear in her lifetime – has risen to 1.87. Five years ago it reached a low of 1.63, well below the “replacement rate” needed to keep the population stable in the absence of immigration. Since then, a sharp increase in immigration has lifted the birth rate.

———————–

Vi må understrege at det netop refererede omhandler fødselsraterne, der er afhængige af alderfordelingen – ikke fertilitet.

I Canada falder/tilpasser immigranterne fertiliteten (2006): http://www.statcan.gc.ca/kits-trousses/issues-enjeux/c-g/c-g1-eng.htm

Sverige er dog et de morsommeste lande at læse om totalfertilteten i:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=sw&v=31 : 2003:1,54,  2004:1,66 …. 2007:1,67 …. 2011 1,67

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/total-fertility-rate-sweden-1970-2007/

1970 — 1.91
1971 — 1.96
1972 — 1.91
1973 — 1.86
1974 — 1.87
1975 — 1.77
1976 — 1.68
1977 — 1.64
1978 — 1.60
1979 — 1.66
1980 — 1.68
1981 — 1.63
1982 — 1.62
1983 — 1.61
1984 — 1.66
1985 — 1.74
1986 — 1.80
1987 — 1.84
1988 — 1.96
1989 — 2.01
1990 — 2.13
1991 — 2.11
1992 — 2.07
1993 — 1.98
1994 — 1.88
1995 — 1.73
1996 — 1.60
1997 — 1.53
1998 — 1.51
1999 — 1.50
2000 — 1.55
2001 — 1.57
2002 — 1.65
2003 — 1.72
2004 — 1.76
2005 — 1.77
2006 — 1.86
2007 — 1.88

Wikipedia melder om 1,93 i 2009

Verdensbanken på : http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN anfører: 1,9 fra 2002 til 2006 og 2,0 fra 2007 til 2011

http://www.scb.se/Pages/GsaSearch____287280.aspx?QueryTerm=total+fertilitet&PageIndex=1&hl=sv: 1,9849 i Sverige i 2009 og 1,8751 i Danmark i 2009

Nu melder DS selv om 1,84 i 2009, 1,88 i 2010, 1,76 i 2011 og 1,7332 i 2012 efter Danmark var blevet observeret af OECD at have sat rekord i hele den industrialiserede verden.

——————————————-

Afhængig af hvor meget det kan lykkes at forblinde offentligheden og de internationale organer med skrønen at flere offentlige tilskud og mere offentligt betalt lediggang i forbindelse med fødsler sammen de professionelle opgørelsesmageres ædle metier i organerne samlet fører til en reduktion i antallet af fødsler blandt immigranterne pr. administrativ indsats, kan løgnen fortsættes.

Supplement: http://danmark.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/forudsigelighed-og-ansvarlighed-dumstaedig-optimisme-og-blind-selv-opofring/

http://danmark.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/antal-boern-og-fremmedandel-der-lyves-groft-herom/