Babies Win Wars

This is an interesting piece and one that basically tell us that the European is worried about his survival via the lack of white folk having babies. I will post what I blogged about this piece after the article.

===========================================

Babies Win Wars
By GUNNAR HEINSOHN
March 6, 2006

Dying nations are usually defined as those with fertility rates of 1.5 or lower. By that measure, 30 European countries are either dying today or -- like France -- seeing their cultures and populations transformed by growing ethnic and religious minorities.

Europe is shrinking just as the population in Islamic, African and Asian countries is exploding. In 2020, there will be one billion "fighting-age" men (ages 15-29) world-wide; only 65 million will be Europeans. At the same time, the Muslim world will have 300 million males, often with limited opportunities at home.

Little can be done to reverse Europe's demographic fate. Germany's 80 million inhabitants would need 750,000 skilled immigrants every year up to 2050 to offset the declining fertility rate that started in 1975. Even if such an unrealistic immigration level could somehow be achieved (only 10,000 skilled immigrants a year are arriving now), Germany's median age would still jump to 52 from 42 while ethnic Germans would become a minority in their own country.

This isn't the first time Europe has found itself tottering on the edge of extinction. Throughout the 1400s, outbreaks of bubonic plague and pressure from conquering Muslim armies reduced Europe's population to 40 million from 70 million. In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII responded to the crisis by decreeing the death penalty for "persons of both sexes who by accursed charms and crafts, enormities and horrid offenses, slay infants yet in the mother's womb (or who) hinder women from conceiving." Midwives, who were also experts in birth control and abortion, were prosecuted and killed.

The results were immediate, producing fertility rates as high as in Gaza or Niger today. By 1510, the number of male births in England had almost doubled. After 1500 and right up to 1914, West European women raised on average about six children, twice as many as during the Middle Ages.

The European economy couldn't keep up. Because a father's land went to his oldest son, the younger brothers were often left to fend for themselves. They quickly found an outlet. In the 16th century, Spain called its young conquistadors "Secundones," second sons, those who don't inherit. Starting with Columbus' second voyage (1493), Europe's surplus males (representing about 10% of the world's fighting-age males at the time) began the conquest of the world. And despite their wars around the globe and the 80 million who died in Europe's domestic wars and genocides, their population rose tenfold to 400 million. The original population bomb was a weapon made in Europe. Over the next few centuries, Europeans took control of 90% of the globe.

Who was to be master in Europe? In the early 1800s, France, West Europe's most populous nation for 800 years, made its last bid. At the time of Waterloo, France was able to draw on 5% of the world's males of fighting age. It took an alliance of Great Britain (10 million people) and Prussia (also 10 million) to prevail over France's 27 million. After 1861, Germany passed France's population and shortly afterwards defeated its neighbor across the Rhine. At the beginning of the 20th century, Europe's share of fighting age males had grown to 35%, with 10% belonging to the empires of Berlin and Vienna alone. In 1914 these two behemoths used their population advantage to make a bid for world supremacy. But their campaign to capture Eurasia's land mass failed to take account of a newcomer to the world stage. Though separated by an ocean, the U.S. commanded about the same demographic and industrial potential.

Japan, Italy and Germany became the last great powers that tried -- and failed -- to take territories away from other leading powers. After 1945 Europe lost every war it fought, from Indochina, to Algeria to Timor. Euphemisms such as "emancipation of the colonies" hide the true causes behind this chain of defeats. If Europeans had continued to multiply like in its imperialistic prime, the world would still tremble before their armies. In just 100 years, Muslim countries have duplicated the tenfold growth that Europe experienced between 1500-1900. In the last century, the Muslim population skyrocketed to 1.4 billion from 140 million.

If Europe had merely matched the fourfold increase of the United States (to 300 million from 75 million between 1900-2006), the continent's 1.6 billion would still dwarf China (1.3 billion) and India (1.1 billion). Yet, Europe's share of the world's fighting-age males, which stood at 27% in 1914, is lower today (9%) than it was in 1500 (11%). Thus, the new clothes of European "pacifism" and "soft power" conceal its naked weakness.

With a fertility rate at the 2.1 replacement level, the U.S. is still defendable. But how many times can America send out their only sons to prevent all those second, third or fourth sons from engaging in acts of violence abroad? In some ways, the faster Europe collapses the better it will be for the U.S., whose chances of defeating global terrorism would improve by a panic-driven influx of the Old World's best, brightest and bravest ready to strengthen it economically and militarily.

The alternative to the terrorism of the Islamist secundones will not be peace but -- as it was for their "Christianist" predecessors in Peru, Mexico and India -- conquest. Terror is merely conquest's little brother.
-------------------------
There are Negroes who will never fight for freedom. There are Negroes who will seek profit for themselves from the struggle. There are even some Negroes who will cooperate with the oppressors. The hammer blows of discrimination, poverty, and segregation must warp and corrupt some. No one can pretend that because a people may be oppressed, every individual member is virtuous and worthy. Martin Luther King

More to come later! Your Brother Faheem
Original Post
Oh, pooh! What would you expect from a German who advances the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, a man who until the 1950s denied the existence of the planet Venus, claiming it was a "comet" ejected from Jupiter.

What a ridiculous notion, the implication that numbers equal military superiority. The next world war, if there is one, will be the last. An article as absurd as Chinese General Zhu Chenghu's claim that China has enough people to survive an all-out nuclear war.

Doesn't anyone ever challenge you about this stuff on your blog?
quote:
The alternative to the terrorism of the Islamist secundones will not be peace but -- as it was for their "Christianist" predecessors in Peru, Mexico and India -- conquest. Terror is merely conquest's little brother.


I don't know if the numbers are correct, but the european intra-continental wars, and subsequent westward expansion, can no doubt be explained by "Secundones'" making a way for themselves in the world. But to compare european empire building to "Islamist 'Secundones'" is simple-minded.

There are no "Islamist 'Secundones'."
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:
Oh, pooh! What would you expect from a German who advances the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, a man who until the 1950s denied the existence of the planet Venus, claiming it was a "comet" ejected from Jupiter.

What a ridiculous notion, the implication that numbers equal military superiority. The next world war, if there is one, will be the last. An article as absurd as Chinese General Zhu Chenghu's claim that China has enough people to survive an all-out nuclear war.

Doesn't anyone ever challenge you about this stuff on your blog?


I doubt if anyone would argue that sheer numbers equal superirority, that would indeed be foolish, however the number of men in a battle is as important as the weponry they will be using. The winners of well over 90% of all wars won because they had more men to wage war with thus the notion as an absolute may be rediculous but numbers can not be dismissed. If all you got from the article was that numbers equal victory than you probably should read it again.
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:

I doubt if anyone would argue that sheer numbers equal superiority...

The author of the article did. That's what is being implied. He's re-fighting Waterloo.
quote:
... however the number of men in a battle is as important as the weaponry they will be using.

Paaleeeze. You can't be serious. You should discuss this theory with Donald Rumsfeld, who favors a smaller, more mobile, technologically advanced military. Also, if the Ayatollah Khomeini was still around, perhaps you could advise him on the wisdom of sending virtually unarmed troops against Saddam in the Persian Gulf War.

Weapons technology has generally always proven decisive, from the stone age, to the bronze age, iron age, the introduction of the stirrup in the west, the re-curve bow by the Huns, Greek-fire, the long bow by the English at Agincourt where 6000 English including 5000 archers defeated a French army of 25,000, to the tanks, Maxim guns, submarines of WWI, and the atomic bomb that ended WWII. The list is endless and would fill at least 20 screen pages.
quote:
The winners of well over 90% of all wars won because they had more men to wage war with thus the notion as an absolute may be ridiculous but numbers can not be dismissed.

That number is history, as in irrelevant. It can and was dismissed on July 16, 1945, at Alamogordo.

In 2002, The Bush Administration blocked UN attempts to ban the militarization of space. They didn't do it because they had nothing better to do: they plan to place all of the new laser weapons being developed, along with small, space-launched strategic nuclear missiles on stations circling the globe. And whoever controls the weaponization of space, controls the world.

And in the final analysis, any nation that has a nuclear force and is facing annihilation by a superior enemy, will use it. Period.
quote:
If all you got from the article was that numbers equal victory than you probably should read it again.

That's all there was. It's where the article was leading, implicit in the "decline of fighting age males" and your addendum "the U.S. is still defendable" because of its continued population growth and presumably, the maintenance of "fighting age males".
quote:
Dying nations are usually defined as those with fertility rates of 1.5 or lower. By that measure, 30 European countries are either dying today or -- like France -- seeing their cultures and populations transformed by growing ethnic and religious minorities.

Europe is shrinking just as the population in Islamic, African and Asian countries is exploding.

This is very interesting article. These three sentences in particular are the crux of the argument for "White Nationalism". They feel they are being out bred by the other races, while at the same time being integrated out of their own countries.

Particularly in Europe, their own self serving culture causes this, and it's starting to catch up to America as well. Their own capitalist economies require integration. They also tend toward pursuing careers and "doing their own thing" instead of having children and raising families. France has lowered itself to actually paying 'ethnic' (white) French couples to have children, which I think is silly. But, whatever... I don't really care how France chooses to solve it's problems. Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
I doubt if anyone would argue that sheer numbers equal superirority, that would indeed be foolish, however the number of men in a battle is as important as the weponry they will be using. The winners of well over 90% of all wars won because they had more men to wage war with thus the notion as an absolute may be rediculous but numbers can not be dismissed.

I think in more relevence to the article is how numbers reflect resources. War is, and has always been, about acquiring, maintaining, and managing resources. It's a scientific fact that for a particular group of animals to over populate, it must first have an over abundence of food. So, a country that boasts the most fighting men is likely to boast more of many of the things that win wars in terms of resources. Food, weapons, medicine, oil, metals, ect. are all factors in successful campaigns. Often times, winning battles is less about tactics and more about logistics.
Pace Tua,

Apparantly you think I am in agreement with the author of this article and I am defending him, which means you did not read what I wrote about the article on my blog, which makes it clear why you did not understand my first response in this thread.

Black Viking,

It is true that the European is worried about their numbers which is declining and they will be willing to do any and everything to prevent European global annihilation and or marginalization.
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:

Pace Tua,

Apparantly you think I am in agreement with the author of this article and I am defending him, which means you did not read what I wrote about the article on my blog, which makes it clear why you did not understand my first response in this thread.

You cited him in support of your comments, without checking his background or credentials. Anyone who believes the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky is a little off kilter, IMHO. Here is what some of Velikovsky contemporaries had to say about him:

"Reading something they can understand, that seems to make sense, that presents itself as technically competent, non-scientists are easily gulled by fake science." --Henry H. Bauer

"The less one knows about science, the more plausible Velikovsky's scenario appears...." --Leroy Ellenberger

"I would not trust any alleged citation by Velikovsky without checking the original printed sources." -- Michael Friedlander

Here are just a few of Velikovsky's ideas:

1. That the Deluge (Noah's Flood) had been caused by proto-Saturn entering a nova state, and ejecting much of its mass into space.

2. A suggestion that the planet Mercury was involved in the Tower of Babel catastrophe.

3. Jupiter had been the culprit for the catastrophe which saw the destruction of the 'Cities of the Plain' (Sodom and Gomorrah).

4. A comet or comet-like object, having been ejected from Jupiter, stopped the Earth's rotation for a while.

Velikovsky was a catastophist, a latter-day Nostradamus, and Gunnar Heinsohn is his devotee. Before you cite someone in support of some preconceived notion, it might be well-advised to check the person's background, such as here...

http://www.jesus1053.com/l2-wahl/l2-autoren/l3-heinsohn/l3-heinsohn-engl.html, or here...
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/candaa.html or here http://www.maverickscience.com/History/history.html, or here...
http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/care.html

But than if you want to, on the internet I suppose you can find anyone or anything to support some preconceived assumption.
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:

That number is history, as in irrelevant. It can and was dismissed on July 16, 1945, at Alamogordo.



For the record, my reading of Faheem's post is not necessarily that he AGREES with the author's assertions; rather, I thought Fahemm was citing it as evidence of Europeans themselves being concerned about their shrinking population proportions. The article is being used to support that conclusion, not necessarily the conclusion that the author is correct.

However... if the argument is whether population = might, after reading the comments on all sides, I'm actually inclined, so far, to agree with the author! While the number of "fighting age men" alone may be insufficient on the battlefield against a technologically superior enemy, certainly a large part of the reason for that technological superiority lies in the larger population from which to draw people capable of devising the technology in the first place. When you have more than enough people to support an economy and the ordinary goings on of a society, all of the excess population has to go somewhere, and do something. A smaller USA probably couldn't have devised the atomic bomb. Hell, on the morning of Pearl Harbor, America's military was roughly the 40th in the world. It could not have climbed all the way to #1 as fast as it did without the men and women available to 1) populate the military; 2) work the raw materials necessary to provide the military with what it needed to compete against the Axis powers; 3) design and develop a winning war machine; and 4) to keep things moving on the home front.

And as the author alludes to re: the Spanish secondones; once you have enough people to carry on the ordinary functions of society (i.e., the 1st-born sons), those others have to do something.

I'll check for more on this thread, but so far, I can't diss the author's assertions.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

I thought Fahemm was citing it as evidence of Europeans themselves being concerned about their shrinking population proportions. The article is being used to support that conclusion, not necessarily the conclusion that the author is correct.

Oh? So the author is incorrect, but Fahemm's conclusion based on the authors incorrect statements, is correct. What kind of gibberish is this?
quote:

...a large part of the reason for that technological superiority lies in the larger population from which to draw people capable of devising the technology in the first place. When you have more than enough people to support an economy and the ordinary goings on of a society, all of the excess population has to go somewhere, and do something.

If this were true, we'd all be speaking Mandarin Chinese or Hindi right now. A large part of military superiority comes from an uncompromising willingness to kill people.
quote:
Hell, on the morning of Pearl Harbor, America's military was roughly the 40th in the world. It could not have climbed all the way to #1 as fast as it did without the men and women available to 1) populate the military; 2) work the raw materials necessary to provide the military with what it needed to compete against the Axis powers; 3) design and develop a winning war machine; and 4) to keep things moving on the home front.

All from a relatively small population. Make up your mind!
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

I thought Fahemm was citing it as evidence of Europeans themselves being concerned about their shrinking population proportions. The article is being used to support that conclusion, not necessarily the conclusion that the author is correct.

Oh? So the author is incorrect, but Fahemm's conclusion based on the authors incorrect statements, is correct. What kind of gibberish is this?


You're not catching what I'm saying. If the statement is, "European is worried about his survival via the lack of white folk having babies," the article is offered as evidence of that European concern. Not that the European concern is warranted, but that the European concern exists. Got it?

quote:
quote:

...a large part of the reason for that technological superiority lies in the larger population from which to draw people capable of devising the technology in the first place. When you have more than enough people to support an economy and the ordinary goings on of a society, all of the excess population has to go somewhere, and do something.

If this were true, we'd all be speaking Mandarin Chinese or Hindi right now. A large part of military superiority comes from an uncompromising willingness to kill people.


Fair point. However, all signs seem to indicate that this will be a telling century on that end. Also, I wonder which one would be more catalytic, if either: the size of the population, or the magnitude of its growth over a set time?

quote:
quote:
Hell, on the morning of Pearl Harbor, America's military was roughly the 40th in the world. It could not have climbed all the way to #1 as fast as it did without the men and women available to 1) populate the military; 2) work the raw materials necessary to provide the military with what it needed to compete against the Axis powers; 3) design and develop a winning war machine; and 4) to keep things moving on the home front.

All from a relatively small population. Make up your mind!
[/quote] No, the US had a pretty large population then. But maybe more significantly, it had a population that had exploded in growth in a very short time.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

I thought Fahemm was citing it as evidence of Europeans themselves being concerned about their shrinking population proportions. The article is being used to support that conclusion, not necessarily the conclusion that the author is correct.

Oh? So the author is incorrect, but Fahemm's conclusion based on the authors incorrect statements, is correct. What kind of gibberish is this?


You're not catching what I'm saying. If the statement is, "European is worried about his survival via the lack of white folk having babies," the article is offered as evidence of that European concern. Not that the European concern is warranted, but that the European concern exists. Got it?



That's just it, he has not defined what it is he believes my conclusion is, thus it is difficult for him to make sense of what you are saying because he have yet to understand what my position on this matter is, he just keep rambling on, so we must start at the begining where the apparant confusion began. So i ask again Pace Tua, what comments of mine are you refering to when you say I cited the authors words to back up my point?
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

You're not catching what I'm saying. If the statement is, "European is worried about his survival via the lack of white folk having babies," the article is offered as evidence of that European concern. Not that the European concern is warranted, but that the European concern exists. Got it?



And are you missing what I'm saying? Is this not a quote from the beginning of the post?

"This is an interesting piece and one that basically tell us that the European is worried about his survival via the lack of white folk having babies."

This is followed by an article by Gunnar Heinsohn. Gee, I'm sorry. I assumed the article was being offered in support of the introductory sentence. Maybe Faheem just posted Mr. Heinsohn's article as a passing thought.


quote:
No, the US had a pretty large population then. But maybe more significantly, it had a population that had exploded in growth in a very short time.

Not in relative terms. The population of China, India, Russia, at least, outnumbered the population of the US.

And no, it didn't "explode". The population of the US went from 133M in 1940 to 139M in 1945. Six million is an explosion? You know, you can look up this stuff just as easy as I can. Give it a try.

BTW:

Germany overran most of Western Europe and a large chunk of the Soviet Union in 1939 with a population of 80M.

Japan overran all of SE Asia, a huge chunk of China, and most of the South-Pacific Islands by 1940 with a population of 71M.

Japan defeated Russia in 1904-1905 with a population of 43M. Compare that to Russia's population at the time of 132M.

And in 1917, the Germans forced the surrender of a vastly superior number of Russians on the eastern front. Oh, and significantly, the Russian troops were poorly equipped. I hope I don't have to explain that.

The list is endless.
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:

And are you missing what I'm saying? Is this not a quote from the beginning of the post?

"This is an interesting piece and one that basically tell us that the European is worried about his survival via the lack of white folk having babies."

This is followed by an article by Gunnar Heinsohn. Gee, I'm sorry. I assumed the article was being offered in support of the introductory sentence. Maybe Faheem just posted Mr. Heinsohn's article as a passing thought.




My statement was a statement of fact, that informs the would be reader about arguements being made in the op-ed that follows it. What is there to dispute with? Did I lie about what followed my comments?
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

You're not catching what I'm saying. If the statement is, "European is worried about his survival via the lack of white folk having babies," the article is offered as evidence of that European concern. Not that the European concern is warranted, but that the European concern exists. Got it?



And are you missing what I'm saying? Is this not a quote from the beginning of the post?

"This is an interesting piece and one that basically tell us that the European is worried about his survival via the lack of white folk having babies."

This is followed by an article by Gunnar Heinsohn. Gee, I'm sorry. I assumed the article was being offered in support of the introductory sentence. Maybe Faheem just posted Mr. Heinsohn's article as a passing thought.


Exactly, you finally catch on, I hope. Faheem stated that "The European is worried," and then he posted an article as an example of that worry, in support of the statement that the European is worried. It's kinda like saying, "Pace Tua posts on AA.org," and then providing support for that statement by providing a link to a Pace Tua post on aa.org. I'm glad to see you understand now.


quote:
quote:
No, the US had a pretty large population then. But maybe more significantly, it had a population that had exploded in growth in a very short time.

Not in relative terms. The population of China, India, Russia, at least, outnumbered the population of the US.

And no, it didn't "explode". The population of the US went from 133M in 1940 to 139M in 1945. Six million is an explosion? You know, you can look up this stuff just as easy as I can. Give it a try.


In 1900, the US population stood at 76,212,168. By 1920, it reached 106,021,537. Source. That would constitute nearly a 40% increase in 20 years. That is a tremendous increase. No other country in the world of any note could match that. This may have had a lot to do with why, 20 years later (with yet another staggering increase in population under its belt) this country was able to marshal so much power when it absolutely needed to.

And interestingly, all of the examples you cite, except the Russo-Japanese war, are short lived considering all of your examples ended up losing the war... I'm not that interested in debating the subject (because I clearly indicated that it was really just something to think about, not something to wholeheartedly embrace), but it's all about opening ones mind. That's what I'm doing. You don't have to if you don't want to...

Add Reply

×
×
×
×