Estupidez sin fronteras
Stupidity Without Borders – The Alliance of Utopias
From the desk of Fjordman on Mon, 2006-07-17 08:38
The 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries have witnessed the most spectacular population growth in human history, most of it in Third World countries. The world’s population, estimated at 6.4 billion in 2006, grows by more than 70 million people per year. In sixty years, Brazil’s population has increased by 318 per cent; Ethiopia’s by 50% per cent. There are now 73 million people in Ethiopia – more than the population of Britain or France.
el siglo 20 y los comienzos del 21 han atestiguado el mas espectacular aumento de poblacion en la historia humana, la mayoria en el tercer mundo. la poblacion mundial estimada en 6,4 billones (usa) en 2006 ,crece mas de 70 millones al año. en 60 años brasil ha aumentado un 318%, ethipia un 503%. hya ahora 73 millones de etiopes mas que la poblacion de inglaterra o de francia.
At the same time, many of the most economically successful countries, both in the East and in the West, have problems with ageing or declining populations. At its peak around 1910, one-quarter of the world’s population lived in Europe or North America. Today the percentage has probably declined to about one-eighth. South Korea’s birthrate has dropped to the point where the average Korean woman is expected to have only one child throughout her life. The U.S. still has a birthrate of more than two, while the U.K. saw births inch up from 1.63 to 1.74 and Germany from 1.34 to 1.37 in the same period. The low birthrate problem in Asia is rooted in women’s rising social and economic standing. Japan’s birthrate was 1.28, comparable to Taiwan’s 1.22, and Hong Kong’s 0.94.
“Europe and Japan are now facing a population problem that is unprecedented in human history,” said Bill Butz, president of the Population Reference Bureau. Countries have lost people because of wars, disease and natural disasters but never because women stopped having enough children. Japan announced that its population had shrunk in 2005 for the first time, and that it was now the world’s most elderly nation. Italy was second. On average, women must have 2.1 children in their lifetimes for a society to replenish itself, accounting for infant mortality and other factors. Only one country in Europe – Muslim Albania – has a fertility rate above 2. Russia’s fertility rate is 1.28.
Writer Spengler in the Asia Times Online commented that demography is destiny: “Never in recorded history have prosperous and peaceful nations chosen to disappear from the face of the earth. Yet that is what the Europeans have chosen to do. Back in 1348 Europe suffered the Black Death.” “The plague reduced the estimated European population by about a third. In the next 50 years, Europe’s population will relive – in slow motion – that plague demography, losing about a fifth of its population by 2050.”
It’s numbers like these that have prompted Singapore’s former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to state that “it’s demography, and not democracy, that will be the critical factor shaping growth and security in the 21st century. High rates of births are contributing to the booming populations which are dragging down developing nations. Meanwhile falling birth rates are sapping the growth of developed nations.” “Although migration is one option developed countries are looking at to keep their economies vibrant,” Lee said, “it might not solve all their troubles and might even breed social tensions.” According to him, governments may not be able to afford to keep out of personal issues like sex, marriage and procreation much longer.
Historian Niall Ferguson reveals how Islam is winning the numbers game. “If fertility persisted at such low levels, within 50 years Spain’s population would decline by 3-4 million, Italy’s by a fifth. Not even two World Wars had inflicted such an absolute decline in population.” “In 1950 there had been three times as many people in Britain as in Iran. By 1995 the population of Iran had overtaken that of Britain. By 2050, the population of Iran could be more than 50 per cent larger. At the time of writing, the annual rate of population growth is more than seven times higher in Iran than in Britain.”
el historiador Nial Fergusson nos revela como el islam esta ganando el juego de las cifras."si la fertilidad sigue en estos niveles tan bajos , en 50 años la poblacion de españa bajara en 3-4 millones , la de italia un quinto. en 1950 habia en inglaterra 3 veces mas gente q en iran. en 1995 la poblacion de iran supero a la de inglaterra. en el 2050 la poblacion irani podria ser un 505 mayor. en estos momentos la tasa de crecimiento poblacional es mas de 7 veces amyor en iran q en inglaterra.
Even in developing countries such as fast-evolving China, population growth is falling, and in the Indian subcontinent, Muslims have higher growth rates than Hindus or other non-Muslims. We thus have a situation with an explosive population growth in failed countries, while many of the most economically and technologically advanced nations, Eastern and Western, have stagnating populations. This strange and possibly unprecedented situation, which could perhaps be labelled “survival of the least fit”, will have dramatic consequences for the world. It is already producing the largest migration waves in history, threatening to swamp islands of prosperity in a sea of poverty.
Lenin stated that “Marxism is based on internationalism or it is nothing.” “The emancipation of the workers is not a local, nor a national, but an international problem,” wrote Marx. Karl Marx has defined the essence of Socialism as abolishing private property.
Let’s assume for a moment that a country can be treated as the “property” of its citizens. Its inhabitants are responsible for creating its infrastructure. They have built its roads and communications, its schools, universities and medical facilities. They have created its political institutions and instilled in its people the mental capacities needed for upholding them. Is it then wrong for the citizens of this country to want to enjoy the benefits of what they have themselves created?
asumamos por un momento q un pais es propiedad de sus ciudadanos.sus habitantes son responsables de crear la infrraestructura. han creado carreteras, comuniciones,escuelas, universidades y hospitales. han creado sus instituciones politicas y enseñado a su gente a mantenerlas. esta mal que los ciudadanos de ese pais quieran disfrutar de los beneficios que ellos han creado?
According to Marxist logic, yes.
segun la logica Marxista si
Imagine you have two such houses next to each other. In House A, the inhabitants have over a period of generations created a tidy and functioning household. They have limited their number of children because they wanted to give all of them a proper education. In House B, the inhabitants live in a dysfunctional household with too many children who have received little higher education. One day they decide to move to their neighbors’. Many of the inhabitants of House A are protesting, but some of them think this might be a good idea. There is room for more people in House A, they say. In addition to this, Amnesty International, the United Nations and others claim that it is “racist” and “against international law” for the inhabitants of House A to expel the intruders. Pretty soon, House A has been turned into an overpopulated and dysfunctional household just like House B.
This is what is happening to the West today. Europe could become a failed continent itself, importing the problems of Africa and the Islamic world. The notion that everybody should be free to move anywhere they want to, and that preventing them from moving into your home is “racism, xenophobia and bigotry,” is the Communism of the 21st century. And it will probably have the same effect, only on an even large scale.
Communism creates poverty because when people don’t own property, they cannot plan for the future. If you and your children cannot enjoy the fruits of your efforts and work, but have to watch others take it away, you will no longer bother to go the extra mile or mobilize your full creativity to generate improvements.
Unrestricted immigration from failed states will eventually destroy global centres of excellence, the same way Communism did. This is definitely bad for the people who will lose what were once functioning countries, but in the long run bad for everybody else, too. It will deprive the inhabitants of Third World countries of the incentives needed to change their own nations if they can simply move somewhere else and refrain from confronting the reasons for their failures.
Many pro-immigrationists use slogans such as “No human is illegal” to argue that immigrants who have entered a country illegally should be allowed to stay. But countries which don’t differentiate between citizens and non-citizens cannot long survive. A favorite quotation in the US is from the poem The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus; a sonnet written in 1883 that is now engraved on a wall in the base of the Statue of Liberty:
muchos proinmigracionistas usan eslogans como "ningun humano es ilegal" para alegar que a los inmigrantes que han entrado en un pais ilegalmente debe permitirseles quedarse. pero los paises q no diferencian entre ciudadanos y no ciudadanos no sobreviven mucho tiempo.
----esta consigna se la deben dar en los foros esos q hacen en portoalegre, porque aqui en españa los sociacas dicen lo mismo "lo de ningun simio es ilegal" prueba de q esto esta organizado y dirigido .
“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
It’s a great poem, but it’s just that, a poem. The global population today is 6.5 billion, and will rise to 8, 9 or even 10 billion in the near future. The “poor and wretched” of the earth make up literally billions of people. Should they all move to the USA? How many people can Americans take in before their country falls apart? If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act from 2006 will allow an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years. Can any nation possibly assimilate such a large number of people in such as short period of time?
The mantra that “diversity is enriching” does not have any real basis in facts. The logic behind this line of thinking is that receiving impulses and ideas from as many different cultures as possible is to your advantage. First of all, not all “cultural impulses” are equally beneficial, as can be witnessed by the rise in honor killings in the West because of Muslim immigration. And second of all: Why should this be an argument in favor of immigration? We have the Internet, global television and travel around the world much more frequently than ever before. We probably receive more information and “cultural impulses” than we are able to digest.
There are more than 20 member countries in the Arab League. Does “cultural diversity” increase globally if, say, Denmark becomes Arabized due to immigration? You would then get just another Arab country, while the only Denmark in existence would be erased. If “cultural diversity” is our yardstick, today’s Muslim immigration to Europe is a disaster. We are replacing unique cultures developed over centuries with burkas and sharia.
Clásico
Freak
Veterano
Novato de mierda
Freak total
Asiduo
