En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

samedi, 14 mars 2020

It’s Population, Stupid: Gunnar Heinsohn’s Söhne & Weltmacht


It’s Population, Stupid:
Gunnar Heinsohn’s Söhne & Weltmacht

Gunnar Heinsohn
Söhne und Weltmacht: Terror im Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen
Zürich, Switzerland: Orell Füssli Verlag, 2020 (2003)

41v2Fuirz6L.jpgRobert Malthus’s essay on population growth is widely known and widely refuted, mostly by commentators who have not read it. In his Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus argued that population growth undermined the achievements which technology had brought and was bringing to human society and ironically had first made that population growth possible. Populations, he wrote, increased faster than the rate of increase in food production necessary to keep pace with the demand for more food. According to Malthus, this discrepancy between supply and demand would lead inevitably to a decline in living standards and to famine. That Malthus’s prediction proved (broadly) not to be the case in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is largely due to the fact that human societies have vastly improved agricultural efficiency and available agricultural land far in excess of the slow growth in food production which Malthus had projected. This improvement in food production to meet the demands of growing populations could only be achieved, and was only achieved, by improved logistics, improved science, and exploiting nature — not only more efficiently, but also more extensively. The fear of famine and outbreaks of famine have continued down to the present day, however, and although Malthus is officially repudiated, his ghost has not been lain to rest. The burden put upon nature incurred by meeting the challenge of the appetites of the human population increase continues to this day. Has Malthus been proved entirely wrong, and is his thesis applicable in relation to challenges other than that of famine?

Söhne und Weltmacht by Gunnar Heinsohn, professor at the University of Bremen, is written in the Malthusian tradition of seeking in demographics the key to understanding social and political challenges. It is the principal argument of Söhne und Weltmacht that it is neither a struggle for resources, nor of religion, nor a conspiracy, that is the principal driving force of terror and war, but rather a surplus of young men who, by virtue of a demographic spike, are too many competing for too few positions in their own communities.

More exactly, according to Heinsohn, it is a diminished opportunity to obtain “property benefit” (Eigentumsprämie), a key term in Heinsohn’s argument. This book is Walt Whitman’s cry of “Go West, young man!” with a vengeance. A society whose population increase, or more exactly, increase in young men, cannot be met by a commensurate increase in opportunities for those young men to thrive by obtaining property benefits and social standing, is the major trigger of terrorism, war, colonialism, and mass emigration. This is a startling thesis, but it is argued cogently and with abundant recourse to evidence. Indeed, Heinsohn’s work abounds with references, citations, and graphs and tables to support the main thesis.

Here is one historical case which Heinsohn examines: Nepal. How could it be, he asks, that Nepal changed almost overnight from a happy hippy Mecca, where the stardust children of the West sought enlightenment and inspiration in the 1960s and 1970s, into a land racked by civil war, strife and terrorism in the 1990s? What was the cause of the Maoist rebellion? Standards of living? The oppression and solidification of the proletariat, in accordance with Marxist theory? The desperation of famine, in accordance with Malthusian theory? None of that. The people were not starving and living standards were in fact rising. The population was not desperate or threatened from outside. Journalists speculated on Chinese influence undermining the small land by infiltrating it with Maoist revolutionary theory. Heinsohn comments on the theory of Maoist subversion laconically:

If Bakunin’s work had been widely read in Nepal instead of Mao’s, the media might be reporting about anarchists against the police instead of Maoists against the police. Young people will always find something. Irony to one side, the killers took great chunks out of their differentiated convictions. They not only attacked feudalists and fascists but the national Marxist-Leninist movement as well as the united Marxist-Leninists and finally, the Indian army. (p. 105)


The real reason for the upsurge in conflict is clear to Heinsohn:

Rising from 8.5 to 26 million, the population tripled from 1950 to 2005. In 1995 and 2000 the children bulge was at 41%. With over 4000 deaths between November 2001 and January 2003 talks over a ceasefire between the authorities and the insurgents began. Were the talks to collapse, so the Minister of Culture Kuber Prasad Scharma at the end of May 2003, the country would be facing “Cambodian relations” viz. genocide. Peace was finally concluded on November 21st, 2006. The conflict had cost near to 18,000 lives.

Then Heinsohn throws in his final comment, the fact which for him is decisive and not brought into calculations of war and peace: namely, the falling birth rate. “From 6 children per woman between 1950 and 1985, the birth rate had fallen to under two by 2020.” (pp 105-106).

What is the “children bulge” referred to here? Heinsohn has much to say about what he calls demographic “bulges”: youth bulge, baby bulge, children bulge. A bulge refers simply to a disproportionate dominance by one age group in a nation’s or group’s demographic structure. A youth bulge is defined by this writer as follows:

The existence of a youth bulge results from the places which are becoming available to the number of places which sons who are becoming adults demand.” (p. 55) It is the existence of a baby bulge becoming a youth bulge (a baby bulge does not necessarily become a youth bulge if there is a high infant mortality rate) which is the prime course, Heinsohn argues, of “migration, crime, mass flight, prostitution, forced labor, murder, gang crime, terror, putsches, revolutions, civil war, expulsions of groups, genocide. . . As a rule of thumb: nations with 30 to 50% of their populations under 15 years of age will be experiencing one or more of these. (p. 115)

The Biblical tale of Cain and Able is, for Heinsohn, a fable that tells the story of a fundamental truth. Two brothers competing for one position, one recognition, one property benefit, must emigrate, colonize or kill one another.

Heinsohn also refers to what he calls the Kriegsindex (war index). This is the yardstick he has devised to measure the military potential of a group in terms of its manpower by comparing the number of 55 to 59 year-olds to the number of youths between 15 and 19 in the studied group. If the number of 15-19 year-olds is higher than the number of 55-59 year-olds, the war index is positive, and negative in the reverse case. So if there are 1000 old people to 2000 youths, the war index is 2+. The US-Vietnam conflict cost nearly a million lives, of which an astonishing 95% were North Vietnamese, but the Vietnamese war index was 4 to the American 2. The North Vietnamese could afford their losses better than the Americans.

An objection can certainly be made that Heinsohn ignores the factor of technical superiority — possession of the atomic bomb, for example — to counteract or even nullify the war index factor. However, in the great majority of conflicts that have taken place since the Second World War, the superiority of military hardware does not seem to have played the decisive role which might be expected of it. As for atomic confrontation, the wars since the Second World War have been wars of proxy insofar as the nuclear powers were involved. Arguably, Israel is the one country that keeps numerically superior forces at bay by its possession of the technology to destroy entire nations, but it also has a high war index.

The objection can be made that in terms of conflicts between major powers, the war index factor may play a less considerable role. My impression is that Heinsohn indeed tends to gloss over facts and factors such as firepower superiority which might weigh against his principle theory of youth bulges and war. However, it is questionable how far even a nuclear deterrent can stop a human tidal wave which has reached a vastly disproportionate superiority in numbers. Was it not Mao Tse Tung who once callously remarked that in the event of nuclear war, China would win simply by virtue of its huge population? One of Heinsohn’s many statistics, extrapolated from data provided by the World Bank for 2020, is that the proportion of children under 15 years old from nations with a children bulge (30-50% of the population) in relation to children in the United States is 1.3 billion to 61 million.

We should, of course, be aware of statistics. Heinsohn offers his readers an abundance of them, but are they conclusive? It may be that hikes in the population are not the direct cause of the factors he describes, but bring about developments which trigger them. Yet even to admit that populations hikes are the indirect rather than direct cause of war and famine is still to admit that they play a decisive role, and to argue that the effect is indirect would be to qualify Heinsohn’s thesis without in any way refuting it.


A further controversial argument of this book is that dictatorship and children bulges tend to accompany one another. Heinsohn notes that the Algerian military overruled unwelcome election results in 1991 at a time when the population had more than doubled, rising between 1960 and 1990 from 10 to 25 million. More people were killed in the course of internal conflict in Algeria between 1992 and 2002 (180,000) than in Arab-Israeli wars over the same period. (p. 116) Algeria used to record a birth rate of 6 to 8 children per mother; the birth rate has fallen in recent years to 3 children per mother. Heinsohn feels it unnecessary to point out that conflict has subsided in Algeria since the beginning of this century. The reader gets the point.

The core argument of the book is, therefore, that problems of war and famine are demographic — not climatic or economic in the traditional sense of rich and poor. It is certainly the case that the role of population is rarely treated earnestly by political and economic writers, professors, and journalists. This reviewer shares Heinsohn’s belief that exponential population growth lies behind many major global challenges, if not all of them, and the current system of ignoring population and seeking solutions to problems such as pollution in tackling secondary causes (e.g. global warming) is to evade the real challenge.

Heinsohn’s message about war can be summed up thus: “It’s population, stupid.”

A table on pages 120-127 highlights a remarkably regular congruence between nations where armed conflict dominates and/or the murder rate is higher than the global average, and nations with an above-average youth/children bulge. In fact, Heinsohn can find very few conflicts, widespread acts of terrorism, high crime rates, or acts of genocide which do not find their origin one way or another in the struggle of a youth bulge cohort to obtain their Eigentumsprämie.

This leads to the deeply pessimistic conclusion that populations without youth bulges — those either with declining birth rates or which achieve an equilibrium of births to deaths, a picture of stability — will be considerably more pacifistic than societies with a youth bulge, but such societies are victims waiting to be discovered. History would seem to bear this out: Societies with stable populations do seem to be more pacifistic than those with growing populations, and therefore more likely to fall victim to them. The Indians of the Caribbean falling victim to the Europeans or the Bushmen falling victim to the Bantu are obvious cases that come to mind. It seems to be that all human societies are condemned to take part in a sort of cradle race to outbreed and thereby dominate one another. Irish nationalists have long been aware of the population factor in overcoming Protestant and British rule and uniting Ireland, although they remain willfully ignorant of the cradle challenge Ireland is itself now facing from Black immigrants.

Söhne und Weltmacht may be criticized for being less than systematic in the development of its argument. The argument is based not so much on theory or a model of society as evidence. Historical cases accompanied by tables are presented to the reader and thereafter evidence is cited to show the validity of the argument, but the theory is not examined in depth, nor are contrary interpretations of the cause of war and terrorism examined at all. Heinsohn is saying in effect that the “coincidence” of correlation between youth bulge and war is so overwhelming that it would be the onus of a skeptic to provide an alternative interpretation.

The evidence of what Heinsohn is claiming is plentiful and strong. The reader may be forgiven for wondering why the argument has not been put forward previously, or even debated previously, if it is all so obvious. Heinsohn says (and here we are with Malthus again) that in societies or countries with soaring birth rates, there will be too few prestigious positions (defined in terms of property right) to content aspiring male youth, too little opportunity to devote energy to worthwhile enterprises, there will be diminishing resources available to rising numbers of young men, and that will lead to internal conflict over the scarce resources or emigration or both. It is not that favorite explanation offered by NGO charities, a “poverty trap,” which triggers mass emigration.

Against the belief that low living standards are the prime force prompting conflict, Heinsohn notes that the standard of living of the Ivory Coast, for example, was rising before it entered into its main period of conflict — in fact, the standard of living actually declined as a result of civil war. Conflicts negatively affect standards of living, and it is not poverty alone which causes conflict, so Heinsohn. Conflict, he argues, is caused by rising expectations that cannot be met fast enough.

Heinsohn also looks at the expansion and global dominance of Europe from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century. When Europe’s expansion began at the very end of the fifteenth century, the population was, as a result of widespread pestilence, actually lower than it had been previously (60 million in 1500 compared to 90 million in 1340). What took place was not a simple increase in total population compared to the past, but a dramatic change in the median age of European populations. Large numbers of children were growing up without prospects. It was not only or even principally acres which were not available, but prestige and ownership (Eigentumsprämie). Heinsohn is at pains to argue that this is not simply a matter of “Lebensraum“. He also ignores those cases where expansion or migration will be more convincingly interpreted as just that: diminishing living space under the pressure of rising population. Ireland and Germany in the nineteenth century would be obvious cases, and after the Great Famine, the Irish emigrated out of economic compulsion. Even here, however, it is certainly the case that the plight of the Irish was more perilous because of their high fertility at the time of the Great Famine.

35987323z.jpgAnother highly interesting factor highlighted in this book is the notion of the sanctity of life. From the end of the Roman Empire to the sixteenth century, Europe did not experience a dramatic increase in population nor did it experience a birth rate anything like as high as that which began suddenly at the end of the fifteenth century and continued down to the twentieth century. What had happened? According to Heinsohn, the notion of the “sanctity of life” and hostility towards contraception, infanticide, and abortion of an intensity not seen since the days of Rome (but highly characteristic of Islamic society) began at the end of the fifteenth century — and it is at the end of the fifteenth century that Europe set out on a course of world conquest. The writer refers to well-documented evidence from several English counties. On the basis of this evidence, between 1441 and 1465, 100 fathers were leaving 110 surviving sons. Between 1491 and 1505 a dramatic change had taken place: 100 fathers were leaving behind them 202 surviving sons. By the nineteenth century, between 5 and 6.5 children per mother were being raised in Europe, a rate only reached in the last century by twenty-four states in Sub-Saharan Africa and Afghanistan.

At exactly the same time as the hike in the European birth rate, the great witch hunts and trials began, which were to cost the lives of up to 100,000 women. Experts are at a loss to explain the ferocity, extent, and above all, suddenness of the persecution of witches. Heinsohn offers a fascinating and persuasive interpretation. Many observers have pointed out the connection between fear and hatred of witches and rumors of infanticide and other “ungodly” practices by midwives. In Heinsohn’s interpretation, the target of the persecution of witches was in large part an assault on the medical knowledge which midwives possessed and utilized, including knowledge relating to contraception and birth control. The witch trials, in Heinsohn’s thought-provoking interpretation, were first and foremost an assault on nature-based science by a Church and state whose new piety sought to extirpate all activity which could prevent human reproduction. It may be that neither Church nor State were consciously promoting a population surge, but that is the effective result of their measures. Consciously induced or unconsciously, the fact remains, cited by Heinsohn, that between 1000 and 1500 two to three women were being born per woman and after 1500 that figure rose abruptly to 5-7 children (p. 14).

In 1484, Innocent VIII issued his famous Bull against contraception, and a condemnation of contraception has been characteristic of the Roman Catholic faith ever since. Contraception and abortion were subject to capital laws. “Witches” were closely associated with those who sought to provide women with the means to exercise birth control. The persecution of witches, by Protestant and Catholic alike, was the assertion of the will to “go forth and multiply.” All sexual pleasure which was not conducted under the bonds of holy matrimony and for the purposes of reproduction was condemned as sinful and often punishable by death.

Heinsohn does not state but strongly implies that were it not for the opportunities offered in the nineteenth century for expansion and relief of the youth bulge by means of colonial expansion and deportation, the nineteenth century would not have been the relatively peaceful century for Europe that it became. The colonies were a release valve. By 1914, there were no more lands to colonize. In the twentieth century, European countries including Russia had cannon fodder at home to spend. Heinsohn’s system and message are emphatic and coldly cynical:

It was the strictly enforced penalties for birth control which can explain the fact that regardless of all emigration, wars, epidemics and high infant mortality, the European population explosion in this time did not once let up, reaching (with Russia) nearly 500 million by 1915 and it could afford the cannon fodder of 8 million in the Great War. After the Second World War, the Western powers continued to build the most deadly weapons but could no longer raise enough sons. This, along with the threat of assured mutual destruction through nuclear war, and not any supposed process of increased sensitivity and scrupulousness, is the not very noble reason why the numbers of Europeans dead in battle has fallen so low. (p. 150)

Hans Grimm’s Volk ohne Raum, a novel written in 1926 which portrayed Germany as a country suffering from overpopulation and therefore a lack of living space (Lebensraum) accords entirely with Heinsohn’s thesis. Once it was Europe’s turn. Now it is the turn of non-European peoples with great youth bulges, warring against one another and seeking their fortunes in other lands, especially when in those lands, the indigenous population cannot challenge them with expendable sons of its own. The bitter truth, argues Heinsohn, is that societies with high youth bulges can — in terms of human material — literally afford to go to war. Islamic martyrs nearly always possess siblings to mourn their passing and to swear revenge. If there were a white resistance movement with the same resolution and determination to die for its cause in martyrdom, there would nevertheless be no brothers to mourn and swear revenge for the fallen. In numbers is strength. Heinsohn is serving up an old socialist truism here, but it is one that needs to be restated. Many people have lost sight of it in efforts to obfuscate the challenge of the ambitious millions of the world with humanist hand ringing about the calamity of war. The success of the white race in conquering the world was not, according to Heinsohn, due to racial superiority, as Gobineau among many other racial supremacy theorists have argued. European world domination was maintained and caused by its youth bulge. (p. 153)

Heinsohn does not pretend that a youth bulge alone explains the expansionist or imperialist development of any people, but he claims that a youth bulge is a precondition for such a development. If his argument is correct, then the white race can offer no effective policy for its own survival in the face of expansionist challenges without a reproductive riposte commensurate to that of Islamic or African migrants. This is not only for the obvious reason of numbers and proportional weight of influence, but also by virtue of the fact that according to Heinsohn, no group of people is sociologically and perhaps not biologically triggered to expand or even seek conflict without the assurance that there are sufficient sons to take the place of those who fall in war.

28055.jpgIt is worth noting the paradox that only does the white race have far fewer children per capita than other races, but those who are most conscious of the demographic decline and most readily deplore it themselves usually have few or no children at all.

Heinsohn’s book belongs to a long tradition of culturally pessimistic “realist” writings, which include Hobbes, Malthus, Spengler, and more recently Huntingdon and Rolf Peter Sieferle, whose Epochenwechsel I have reviewed for Counter-Currents. The core of Heinsohn’s argument is very simple and very persuasive. Towards the end of his book, which consists largely of cases of conflict which can be explained by his theory and tables to illustrate those cases, he notes: “If Germany had increased its population between 1950 and 2020 at the same rate as The Gaza strip, (0.2-2 million), it would not have a population of 83 million today, but 700 million, and 90 million of those would be between 15 and 29 years old.” (p. 231)

There is nothing original in stating that wars can be won through the cradle, but Heinsohn goes further. He argues that all wars are caused by the cradle. He posits no conspiracy (the book is without so much as a hint of a conspiracy). However, politicians do blatantly, as in the case of President Erdogan of Turkey, call for the mothers of the homeland to be fruitful and have many children as a duty to the nation. Ho Chi Minh (quoted by Heinsohn) famously boasted that he would defeat the French because Vietnam had more sons ready for sacrifice than France had. France’s war index at the end of the Second World War was 1.6, meaning that for 1000 men between 55 and 59 there were 1600 young men between 15 and 19, but on the Vietnamese side there were 3000, twice as many. With a war index of 3, Vietnam enjoyed the advantage of being able to draw on a far larger supply of human beings to sacrifice (p. 28).

Heinsohn does not make clear the extent to which youth bulges are created intentionally and I would have appreciated an examination of this point. Was, for example, the Church with its edicts against homosexuality,

infanticide, and contraception, consciously seeking to boost the population, or was this the incidental consequence of measures which had other motivations? Heinsohn would probably say that it is not important to know. He certainly implies with his description of the anti-contraceptive mores and laws of Europe (surprisingly and disappointingly, he spends comparatively little time in discussing similar edicts and laws in Islamic countries) that higher fertility is increased through the express design of religious and political leaders, but he also notes several times the role played by medical discovery and improved hygiene in lowering infant mortality.

Europeans have played the major, if not exclusive, role in boosting Africa’s population, first by medical and prophylactic intervention and care and second by the import of religious strictures and penalties against non-reproductive sexual activity — strictures which, in the meantime, have been widely rejected by more liberal and religiously skeptical European populations. There are measures which undoubtedly have nothing to do with the express wish for any increase in population, but which will nevertheless have exactly that effect; another example is the legalization of abortion in Japan in 1949. (Heinsohn refers to abortion in this book, somewhat misleadingly and presumably for reasons of his own belief, as “infanticide”.)

While Heinsohn writes about various triggers that cause youth bulges, he has little to say about what prevents them or reduces them. It seems that they slow down when the demands of youth are satisfied and where having children is an impediment to career advancement instead of an investment in the future. What, exactly, is it that the superfluous sons of a youth bulge desperately seek and go to war in order to obtain? Here our writer becomes — at least to this reviewer’s thinking — a trifle obscure and difficult to follow. What the superfluous sons of the youth bulge seek, already mentioned in this review, is what Heinsohn calls Eigentumsprämie. This word is not easy to translate into English, all the more as it is a word of Heinsohn’s own invention! It may be translated as “ownership (or title-holding) preference” or  “ownership benefit.” Keynes’ “Liquidity Preference” comes to mind, a term which is commonly rendered in German as Liquiditätsprämie. For Heinsohn, the difference between ownership of property (Eigentum) and possession (Besitz) is crucial to an understanding of the motivation of the young men who fight in wars. He relies on a thesis expounded in another of his works: Eigentum, Zins, und Geld (Ownership, Interest, and Money) which holds that a concept of ownership precedes trade and is a precondition of trade and of the need for a token to denote ownership, namely money. Whatever they may formally possess, young men in any society seek ownership in order to establish themselves.

6801886_9783928852340_xl.jpgIt is fourteen years since the renowned philosopher Peter Sloterdijk opined enthusiastically in the pages of the Kölner Stadt Anzeiger that Söhne und Weltmacht would become required reading for politicians and journalists. His prediction has not been fulfilled, and this new and updated edition has been published by a small Swiss imprint. The fact is that books like Söhne und Weltmacht cannot expect to receive much attention from journalists or politicians. They point to truths which the presently-dominating ideology is loathe to review or discuss.

Gunnar Heinsohn focuses on population increase as a key to understanding the world and believes that it is in population hikes that we will find an explanation for many of the woes of the modern world. The title of one chapter of this book, “Africa’s banner of victory: reproduction,” is worth a score of soul-searching mainstream talk shows. Millions without perspective are ready to die to obtain respect and standing in the world. If they cannot do so, they readily grasp violence, not out of need, religious piety, or political orthodoxy, but out of deep internal compulsion. The project of this book is to show the reader what that means and has always meant for human beings in real terms.

It is a pity that Peter Sloterdijk was wrong.

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: https://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2020/03/its-the-population-stupid-gunnar-heinsohns-sohne-und-weltmacht/

URLs in this post:

[1] here: https://www.counter-currents.com/the-white-nationalist-manifesto-order/

[2] here: https://www.counter-currents.com/new-right-vs-old-right-order/

[3] here: https://www.counter-currents.com/sexual-utopia-in-power-order/


00:09 Publié dans Actualité, Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : livre, démographie, populations, gunnar heinsohn | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

samedi, 30 décembre 2017

The Mechanics of Population Exchange


The Mechanics of Population Exchange

The following essay by Christian Zeitz and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was originally written in German, and has been kindly translated into English by JLH.

by Christian Zeitz and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Ex: http://www.gatesofvienna.net

By and large, public discussions about the background and causes of the so-called refugee crisis in Europe have awakened false perceptions. Even before the great onrush of so-called refugees the summer of 2015, there was the idea that Europe could be duty-bound to open all borders uncontrolled and grant mass immigrants an unrestricted claim to European hospitality — the minorities program of left-extremists of the “No borders” and “Refugees welcome” faction. Powerful, virtually physical pressure was created by dramatic pictures of desperate families at border fences and doomed passengers in overfilled rubber rafts, and this caused a psychic tipping in much of the population. In a frantic blend of sympathy and fear at the uncontrollable, actual and potential violence of fast-approaching immigrant armies, the majority population began reluctantly to accept the lasting residency and need for support of great masses of culture-alien immigrants.

After the first long while and the attempts by states to create the structures and wherewithal of so-called integration, the situation took on an initial appearance of normality. The mood of the people of Germany and Austria began to change when phenomena that had long been warned against became valid for the public on New Year’s Eve, 2015-2016. Rapes and other sexual assaults, enormous financial expenditures for first responders, permanent accommodations and attempts at so-called integration were from this time on not forbidden topics. After the original, publicly-regulated helpful hands euphoria, reactions from skepticism to rejection began to spread in social discourse. With every media report of sexual attacks, crimes concerning property and actions democratizing a lack of desire to integrate, passive resistance began to form in much of the population. Doubt about the general manageability articulated at first by such politicians as are called in public discourse “xenophobes” and “racists” began in the second half of 2016 to become a common public tendency.

Although the relevant studies and analyses during the crisis and up to date proceed on the assumption that the number of those wanting to emigrate from the African continent and the Near East is in the area of the upper double-digit millions, the stream of refugees has seemed to decrease markedly at this time. In the meantime, political discourse in Europe with regard to new arrivals is almost exclusively of “family reunification.” So has the refugee crisis been handled? Can this discussion politically return to the accustomed agenda? The facts say otherwise.

From the point of view of European elites, 2017 was a pivotal year. And a hurdle that absolutely had to be cleared. Decisive elections could have had the potential of drastically changing the political landscape: Holland, France, Germany, Austria — the political resistance was well positioned and posed a great danger to the protagonists of the “welcoming culture.” The elites’ language and political marketing had to adapt to this danger. Accordingly, it became acceptable to entertain ideas of limiting immigration, for security and defense of national boundaries, and requiring the acquisition of Western cultural standards by the welcomed “new citizens.” All the campaigns in the above-mentioned countries were characterized by placation, supposed self-criticism and involvement in the “justified fears” of the populace. And all of these campaigns had succeeded with these ideas.

Now that supposed normality seems to have found its way back into the political reality of European countries, the elites can get back to work on their long-term plans undisturbed. What are these plans? Answering this question requires an explanation of the apparent contradiction between the claims of the mass phenomena of millions of willing immigrants and the present slackening of the actual flow of immigrants. The only logical explanation for this phenomenon is that the political elites themselves are able to open and close the floodgates more or less as they please. This accords completely with the general statements of the elites’ representatives. Migration [they say] is in general unavoidable, unless its causes are eliminated. Causes listed are a multitude of universal problems, which are described in public discourse as downright apocalyptic: permanent martial conflicts and other violent crises, impoverishment, lack of means to earn a living, mass unemployment, cultural regression, universal injustice and the effects of climate change. On the other side of the scale, it is constantly maintained that an influx of workers to European societies threatened with extinction is absolutely necessary.

“Migration is without any alternative; it’s smart to manage it,” is the title of the programmatic article which multi-millionaire and “global philanthropist” George Soros professed as a guiding maxim in the summer of 2016. The thrust of his thinking converges exactly with the concepts of the operators of a European superstate. They are aware that reaching their goal of a “United States of Europe” means no more national borders and replacement of the national states by a pan-European people. Replacement of peoples, a multicultural society and the goals of a globalized world in which a limited number of players make this planet’s decisions are complementary elements of the same agenda. This agenda is the one the elites are applying to the pressure points in the flooding of Europe by culturally alien multitudes.


This analysis does not contradict the fact that Islam and its violent, expansionist claim represent a unique force. All connoisseurs of the Islamic teachings know that “emigration” is a variation of jihad, and under certain conditions a duty for Muslims. So it is not surprising that the two driving forces of massive folk migration and the resultant replacement of peoples — Islam and culturally socialist globalism — work together so effectively and converge tactically on the political plane.

jeudi, 20 mars 2014

Worse Than the Black Death?


Worse Than the Black Death?
The “Second Demographic Transition”

By Andrew Hamilton 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

This article should be read in conjunction with my brief essay “On Family” [2] (2014).

In the 1300s, the Black Death (bubonic plague), possibly history’s greatest demographic catastrophe, killed between 30 to 60 percent of the earth’s white population within a few short years.[1] Today our people are facing an even greater calamity: extinction.

While some readers are doubtless familiar with the well-known demographic transition model (DTM) [3] formulated shortly after WWII, fewer have heard of second demographic transition (SDT) theory, originally advanced in 1986. Its central focus is permanent or structural sub-replacement fertility and the related phenomena—which it views as contributing to radical population decline—of family breakdown and associated ideologies and attitudes downplaying the importance of children, family, and marriage.

Because adherents of SDT view the current period—correctly, in my opinion—as a new demographic phenomenon, they refer to the older theory as the “first demographic transition” rather than the “demographic transition model.” Although there were temporary cases of below replacement fertility during the first transition, these invariably corresponded to exceptional circumstances, such as deep economic crises or war.

According to the co-founder of SDT theory, Dirk van de Kaa, emeritus Professor of Demography at the University of Amsterdam:

If now asked to define the essential difference between the first and second demographic transitions, I would simply say that while the first, the traditional demographic transition, was a long term consequence of the decline in mortality, the second transition should be interpreted as a consequence of fertility declining way below the levels long thought plausible. . . . [Over time,] the number of women of reproductive age will be comparatively small and the number of children born to them will, most likely, remain below replacement level. Three decades of fertility decline have already affected the age structure of most industrialized countries [N.B.—as of 2002: so, 1970–2002; in 2014 we have passed the four decade mark]. . . .

The two transitions appeared to be founded on different family models. . . . In fact, while during the first transition the family became a stronger institution, the weakening of that institution was considered to be characteristic of the second transition. (pp. 2–3, 6)

Clearly, the earlier model worked for us; the second has proved disastrous.

Here, and throughout the remainder of this essay, short-form references to “Van de Kaa” followed by specific page numbers are to Dirk J. van de Kaa, “The Idea of a Second Demographic Transition in Industrialized Countries [4].” Paper presented at the Sixth Welfare Policy Seminar of the National Institute of Population and Social Security, Tokyo, Japan (January 29, 2002), 34 pp.

Ron Lesthaeghe, The Second Demographic Transition Chart [5]A key feature of the SDT is the belief that population collapse has not been due solely to socioeconomic factors (i.e., purely materialist causes), but is equally the consequence of anti-natalist, anti-family, and feminist ideology (although proponents do not call them that, of course). Since 1960 the West has experienced later marriage, lower marriage rates, increased marital instability (more divorce, cohabitation, and single parenthood), massive decline in fertility, and miscegenation both inside and outside of marriage.

Of course, SDT proponents—well-heeled academics and globalist functionaries—are delighted that anti-family ideology and replacement migration have pushed the white race to the brink of extinction.

Nevertheless, the theory was developed in direct response to the sudden onset of sub-replacement fertility, which began among whites in the First World around 1965. White population collapse was not anticipated by the original demographic transition model, which predicted population stability (replacement fertility) and the persistence of Western marital and family patterns.

It is important to understand that second demographic transition analysis is not marginal.

The European Association for Population Studies, a group of academic demographers that has NGO Consultative Status with the Council of Europe, asserts that SDT [6] “has profoundly influenced research on family and fertility behavior. It can be argued that presently, it constitutes ‘the’ mainstream concept among population scholars dealing with demographic change in European societies.”

University of Oxford demographer David Coleman calls SDT “the most frequently used and cited model of demographic change in the Western world at the present time.”[2]

In 2004, Ron Lesthaeghe—emeritus Professor of Demography at the Free University of Brussels, the other Dutch-speaking (but in his case Belgian) co-founder of the theory—was ranked tenth [7] among the most influential demographers in the world from 1950–2000 by 637 of his professional colleagues.

Revolutionary Change

The speed with which white fertility plunged below replacement, and the precision with which its onset can be marked, is well-captured in a statement by Dirk van de Kaa:

The spectacular decline of period total fertility rates in Europe immediately after 1965 struck the region as unexpectedly as a bolt of lightning coming from a blue, clear sky. No one had predicted that sudden shift. In fact, the population projections of the time customarily assumed a continuation of the, in hindsight, unusually high [white] fertility levels of the early 1960s. That within a few years fertility would drop below replacement level had not been imagined. (p. 6)

In a footnote he added: “The Netherlands offers a good illustration in that regard. The projections with 1965 as the base year concluded that the total size of the population would increase rapidly. A growth from 12.38 to nearly 21 million by the year 2000 appeared likely. The observed figure on 1 January 2000 was 15.9 million.” (p. 6)

What he does not say is that the latter figure includes large numbers of imported non-whites, their offspring, and, by 2000, grandchildren, etc., not to mention part-white hybrids. 15.9 million was not the number of white Netherlanders. One must keep this distinction in mind whenever raw numbers are cited. Aggregate numbers must be associated with their corresponding dates to form a rough estimate of the size of white (or non-white, including racially mixed) population(s).

Across the white world, “the decade and a half between 1965 and 1980 were the most crucial. By 1990 only a few of the more traditional countries had not seen their fertility drop below replacement. . . A reversal of the steady downward trend has not been observed anywhere.” (p. 12)

Van de Kaa and Lesthaeghe introduced the idea of the second demographic transition in 1986 in “Twee Demografische Transities?” (“Two Demographic Transitions?”) in D. J. van de Kaa and R. Lesthaeghe, eds., Bevolking: Groei en Krimp (Population: Growth and Decline)(Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1986), pp. 9–24.

Recalling their conversations while formulating the SDT hypothesis, Van de Kaa said, “To our growing amazement and excitement we noted that in both countries [Belgium and Holland] almost every variable in the field of fertility and family formation had undergone very significant changes since the mid-1960s. It seemed as if a new transition had been taking place under our very eyes!” (p. 4)

Again emphasizing the revolutionary nature of the change, Van de Kaa comments upon “the spectacular shift in period fertility that has occurred in the industrialized societies in the thirty years from 1970 to 2000,” adding, “Its amazing simultaneity, first in the countries of Northern and Western Europe, slightly later in Southern Europe, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 also in the former socialist countries, cannot possibly be accidental.” (pp. 10–11; emphasis added)

The Role of Ideology in Population Decline

A major factor contributing to fertility decline is attitudinal or ideological. Revolutionary ideological change was a major factor in the decline of marriage and family, the rise of divorce, the spread of birth control (including oral contraception and legalized abortion), widespread cohabitation in lieu of marriage, extramarital childbirth, and extensive miscegenation.

During the first demographic transition, social solidarity was central, as was the idea of the family. All religious and political institutions, from churches to Socialist, Liberal, and even Communist parties, remained committed to the organic Western family. (Lesthaeghe, pp. 3-4)

Here, and throughout the remainder of this essay, short-form references to “Lesthaeghe” followed by specific page numbers are to Ron Lesthaeghe, “Second Demographic Transition [8],” Basil Blackwell. This is a brief, 7-page encyclopedia-style introduction to the topic in Word format.

In the words of Van de Kaa, the new dispensation has been generated in part by radical changes in value systems, worldview (Weltanschauung), and the spirit of the age (Zeitgeist) that have radically transformed basic norms governing politics, work, religion, family, and sexual behavior.

It is a state of mind, whereby people question the validity of the metanarratives, the grand stories, underpinning the modern [i.e., white, pro-family] period. The belief in progress, in the value of working diligently, in the need to honour the elderly, in the nation state and its sovereignty, and so on and so forth, weakens or evaporates even. (p. 26)

Three cultural-ideological factors propelling population decline in the 1960s were the “contraceptive revolution,” the “sexual revolution with declining ages at first sexual intercourse,” and “the gender revolution questioning the sole breadwinner household model and the gender division of labor,” all leading to “an overhaul of the normative structure.” (Lesthaeghe, p. 3)

In truth, the second transition had a pronounced top-down, “revolution from above” ideological-cultural element, and was not simply a passive, out-of-the-blue, inexplicable upheaval, as SDT theory slyly implies.

The overall outcome of this with respect to fertility is postponement: mean ages at first parenthood rise, opportunities for childbearing are lost due to higher divorce, the share of childless women increases, and higher parity births (4+) become rare. The net result is structural and long term below replacement fertility. (Lesthaeghe, p. 3. Emphases added.)

The changes associated with reproductive collapse were accompanied by widespread “disengagement from civic, professional or community-oriented associations” (Lesthaeghe, p. 4). This is clearly what Robert Putnam [9], the author of Bowling Alone (2000), describes as a decline in social capital.

Marriage & Divorce

The 1950s and early 1960s are described as “the golden age of marriage” by both Van de Kaa (p. 15) and David Coleman in his Oxford lecture. Virtually everyone entered into marriage when society was still white and demographically replacing itself.

Contrariwise, a strong increase in divorce is characteristic of the second transition.

A crucial element from a demographic point of view is that man-woman relations are increasingly seen as a means of reciprocal emotional enrichment to which the birth of children may, or may not, be considered to be contributing. The relationships are expected to be based on love and mutual attraction, are entered into freely and come to an end once they are lastingly disrupted, whether they have the form of a stable union [unmarried cohabitation] or a marriage. (Van de Kaa, p. 7)

Though many men and women say they want two or more children when surveyed, that reality will be precluded for many by the harsh, disruptive consequences of separation or divorce, which are often emotionally draining and expensive.

A chart in Van de Kaa (Figure 5, p. 17, not reproduced here) shows the US as having the highest divorce rate of any country listed in 1999 (around 58%), though I recall reading elsewhere that Scandinavia’s divorce rates were as high as 70%. In Van de Kaa’s chart the Nordic countries ranged between 40–53% in 1999. Divorce rates in all nations leapt since 1980, the rates for which are also shown. Italy’s divorce rate was lowest at 10% in 1999.

Children in Marriage

Until recently, reproduction took place almost entirely within the family. “Historically, levels of illegitimate fertility [‘fertility outside of marriage’] in the West have been insignificant as (at least until the last few decades) the vast majority of reproduction has occurred within the context of marriage.” (Massimo Livi-Bacci, A Concise History of World Population, 4th ed., 2007, p. 240, n. 14. Emphasis added. Livi-Bacci is Professor of Demography at the University of Florence.)

Reproduction within marriage is no longer universal. Large numbers of children are now born out of wedlock.


Since the 1970s, unmarried cohabitation has replaced marriage as the most frequent type of first union among whites. Cohabitation is also increasingly viewed as a socially acceptable alternative to marriage, and preferred by the widowed and the divorced as well.

According to Great Britain’s Office of National Statistics [10], as of 2012, cohabitation was the fastest growing “family type” in the UK.

Australia: Percentage of marriages preceded by cohabitation, 1975–2008 (Source: Australian Government: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014) [11]

Australia: Percentage of marriages preceded by cohabitation, 1975–2008 (Source: Australian Government: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014)

As seen in the accompanying chart, the figure for premarital cohabitation in Australia rises steadily from 16% in 1975 to 77.7% in 2008. The 1975 starting point (16%) is misleading in the context of our discussion, because in the preceding years cohabitation had already jumped sharply from low historical norms.

In such a regime, people behave as if their current romantic relationship will last forever, and genuinely hope it will, yet continue searching for another love perceived to be closer to the ideal. But new relationships turn out to be limited in duration as well. For example, a divorcee, age 34 (an anonymous woman described by her Israeli psychologist [12], a former president of the University of Haifa), who was still young enough to have two or three children, had engaged in four “long-term” consecutive romantic relationships, two of them in the form of marriage. Like many people, she continued to search for greater novelty and romantic excitement outside each relationship while she was in it, even if this was done more or less instinctively and unconsciously.

Thus, a strong increase in the dissolution of non-marital cohabiting unions is also characteristic of the second transition.

Births to Unmarried Women

The proportion of extra-marital births has risen sharply during the second transition.

Surveys show a sharp decline in the age at first sexual intercourse for both men and women. Men born in 1972–73 first experienced sex while younger than 18, and invariably at a lower age than men born in the period 1932–1941. Women born 1932–1941 were over 20, on average, when they had their first sexual encounter, while girls born in the early 1970s did so at an average age no higher than 16–17. (Van de Kaa, p. 18)

The proportion of out of wedlock births has surged. Again using Australia as an example, throughout most of the 20th century (the chart, note, goes back as far as 1901), only 4–6% of all babies were born outside of marriage. Abortion was illegal, and therefore unavailable as a means of birth control for pregnant women. As late as 1960 only 4.8% of babies were born out of wedlock. That proportion nearly doubled to 8.3% in 1970, and increased again to 12.4% by 1980. In 2000, 29.3% of all babies were born out of wedlock, and in 2008 34.4% (more than one-third).

Australia: Percentage of births outside marriage, 1901–2007 (Source: Australian Government: Australian Institute of Family Studies, October 2010) [13]

Australia: Percentage of births outside marriage, 1901–2007 (Source: Australian Government: Australian Institute of Family Studies, October 2010)

Of course, many children born within marriage will experience divorce and subsequent single-parent households, the remarriage or cohabitation of their biological parent(s) with other people, and the need to “blend” with any children or other on-scene relatives of their parents’ later partner(s). It is presumably all very confusing and emotionally unsettling.

Table 3 in Van de Kaa, p. 14 (not shown here), calculates the percentage of extra-marital births to all births in 29 advanced countries for the years 1965, 1980, and 1999 respectively. The lowest was 1.1% in Greece (1970), 4% by 1999. The highest was 13.8% in Sweden (1965), 55.3% (i.e., well over half of all births) by 1999. (Remember, 1999 is already 15 years ago, and everything is moving at tremendous speed.) Estonia was similar to Sweden, with 14.8% of all births extramarital in 1965, and 54% by 1999. Other countries fell between the two extremes, though Greece was an outlier on the low end.

According to one source, from 1960 to 2006 the percent of all births to unmarried women in the United States increased 626%. Although the total percentage of unmarried births to blacks was twice that to white women, actual percentage increases were largest among non-black populations: All races: 626% increase (1960–2006), blacks: 99% increase (1969–2006), whites: 1,291% increase (1960–2006). (“The Contraceptive Revolution and the Second Demographic Transition: An Economic Model of Sex, Fertility, and Marriage [14],” 2012, p. 3)

Replacement Migration

In the second transition, sub-replacement fertility is viewed as a permanent (structural, long-term) feature of white populations. It is linked to a multitude of living arrangements other than marriage, and a disconnect that occurs between marriage and procreation. Collapsing populations are offset by massive Third World immigration—the course chosen by anti-white elites. Note that immigration restrictions were struck down, and the importation of non-whites begun, before white populations started to collapse.

Yet Lesthaeghe invokes sub-replacement fertility as a justification for “replacement migration” (his term; Van de Kaa refers to mass immigration as “compensatory”). Replacement migration [15] is the program to replace existing white populations worldwide with Third World non-white populations through mass immigration. It has been going on for decades now, and the endgame is finally in sight for its proponents. Replacement migration, of course, is genocide, a crime against humanity.

A stable population corresponding to replacement fertility (just over two children on average) would mean “no ‘demographic’ need for sustained immigration.” But massive white population decline requires huge migration streams to “stabilize population sizes,” thereby leading to “the further growth of ‘multicultural societies’” and “integration of immigrants and other cultures” (Lesthaeghe, p. 1).

Author Edmund Connelly [16] has drawn my attention to the fact that Japan suffers many of the same fertility and population problems as the West, but has spared itself the insanity of mass immigration. There is no “demographic need” for replacement migration. It is a ruling class want, that is all.


SDT theory heavily emphasizes First World aging in what are now mixed race nations. The great majority of the elderly, of course, are white. By the late 1990s, life expectancy at birth had risen to 75 years for men and over 80 for women. (Van de Kaa, p. 19) But theorists seem eager to anticipate a future problem of the “oldest old”—people over 85. They dubiously project that medical advances and their ready availability to the elderly will extend lifespans indefinitely. (Adopting such a position, of course, also “justifies” increasing immigration even further.)

Real-world experience provides a far less abstract and sanguine view. It is hard even now to cajole or compel the system to respond to the needs of the elderly. Much sooner than you’d think, institutions become noticeably resistant to treating the aged as they would anybody else, often precipitating a cascade of further problems that result in a foreshortening rather than extension of life.

Furthermore, it is difficult not to believe that a Jewish and non-white—indeed, a virulently anti-white—social system will more and more withdraw medical care from and annul social insurance promises made to whites during their working years in prosperous times, particularly when the elderly are in no position to fight back.

Therefore, the lifespans of whites are likely to shorten rather than stay the same, much less lengthen, as time goes by. An expeditious but quiet removal of the aged through attrition from the population is just too easy a method to alleviate intractable fiscal burdens, and is consistent with prevailing ideological norms as well, as periodic outbursts of virulent racial hatred from the mass media of news and entertainment, and Jewish spokesmen such as Susan Sontag, Tim Wise, and Noel Ignatiev, make all too clear.

Adherents of the belief set characteristic of Communism, Zionism, and US-UN-EU-style “democracy” are not renowned for their humanitarianism.

Miscellaneous Elements

A number of other components of SDT can be dealt with very briefly.

The theory, like demography generally, treats human races as interchangeable. It examines only raw population statistics within officially demarcated political boundaries, usually nations. Of course, the truth is that races are not fungible. For example, white fertility is much lower than the fertility of colored populations imported into our homelands to replace us.

SDT, like the original demographic transition model, is universalist. Proponents view it as applicable to all races, populations, and nations on earth, when it might simply constitute a good description of what happened to white Europeans.

The authors provide a Maslovian theoretical underpinning to explain the anti-family ideologies that promote non-reproductive behavior. This is based upon an odd reading of Jewish psychologist Abraham Maslow’s well-known hierarchy of needs theory. Proponents of SDT view social atomization and the destruction of the family as fulfilling “higher-order” self-actualization needs of individuals at the pinnacle of Maslow’s pyramid.

Readers who desire more background on this aspect of the theory, which is important to its proponents but irrelevant to me, can listen to the portion of David Coleman’s lecture discussing it; he provides a very clear summary. They can also glance over the “Societal Background” section of Ron Lesthaeghe’s accompanying overview chart contrasting the FDT with the SDT.

Finally, the SDT correctly considers modern contraception and abortion as central to causing sub-replacement fertility. This topic, however, is too broad to deal with here, so I will try to address it in a future essay.


Whites today are confronted with a rapidly diminishing population many of whose members have never experienced intact families while young, much less lived in a white society. There is no precedent for such a development encompassing an entire global population.

In an interview with an anti-white academic who spent years studying “haters” (racially aware whites), the SPLC, a powerful Jewish hate group with strong ties to the media, academia, and secret police, expressed puzzlement over why a handful of whites, unlike the overwhelming majority of their fellows, oppose Jewish dominance, totalitarianism, white dispossession, and the cultural and biological genocide of their race and civilization. What, they asked, motivates such perverse beliefs?

One of the professor’s answers was that “haters” often come from broken homes. Indeed, it seems indisputable, based upon SDT analysis, that this must be the case—as it is true also for an expanding lumpen population of aracial, degraded whites, and affluent “anti-racists” who loyally serve the Jews and government. The truth is, almost no whites have escaped the harmful effects of the disintegration of the Western family over the past five decades (half a century). Everyone is stranded in new terrain. Most don’t even know what they’ve lost.

Any action, or plans for a free, progressive future following liberation, must take into account the catastrophic consequences of family destruction, and the evaporation of social capital that accompanied it.

Whites everywhere are perilously close to nonexistence as a group in any meaningful sense of the term. Our race’s gravest crisis is at hand.


1. Ole J. Benedictow, author of The Black Death, 13461353: The Complete History (2004), writes: [17] “Researchers generally used to agree that the Black Death swept away 20–30 per cent of Europe’s population. However, up to 1960 there were only a few studies of mortality among ordinary people, so the basis for this assessment was weak. From 1960, a great number of mortality studies from various parts of Europe were published. These have been collated and it is now clear that the earlier estimates of mortality need to be doubled. . . . A historical turning point, as well as a vast human tragedy, the Black Death of 1346–53 is unparalleled in human history.”

2. Coleman makes this statement in Lecture 3, “The ‘Second Demographic Transition:’ New Forms of Family” [18] (at approximately 34:38), one of a series of 11 hour-long lectures comprising his freshman-level Oxford University course, “Demographic Trends and Problems of the Modern World.” [19] All 11 talks can be viewed online through Oxford’s Open Academy program. Readers may be interested to learn that Oxford social science lectures closely resemble social science lectures at less exclusive universities.

Coleman, 67, is a member of the Galton Institute (formerly the Eugenics Society) and has written for its Newsletter (e.g., “Replacement Migration [20],” March 2001). He is an advisor to Migration Watch UK [21], which he helped found. Last year he told the Independent (UK) that white Britons will be a minority before 2070 [22]. Unsurprisingly, anti-white elites have attacked him as a “racist.” (E.g., “Watching David Coleman [23],” Guardian [UK], March 16, 2007.)




Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com


URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/03/worse-than-the-black-death-the-second-demographic-transition/


URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/the-black-death-plaque.jpg

[2] “On Family”: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/03/on-family/

[3] demographic transition model (DTM): http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/02/holes-in-the-demographic-transition-model/

[4] The Idea of a Second Demographic Transition in Industrialized Countries: http://websv.ipss.go.jp/webj-ad/WebJournal.files/population/2003_4/Kaa.pdf

[5] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Ron-Lesthaeghe-The-Second-Demographic-Transition-Chart3.jpg

[6] asserts that SDT: http://www.eaps.nl/index.php?q=scientific-activities/working-groups/second-demographic-transition-europe-completed

[7] was ranked tenth: http://www.vub.ac.be/SOCO/Lesthaeghe.htm

[8] Second Demographic Transition: http://www.vub.ac.be/SOCO/ron/final_textSDTBasilBlackwellEncyclop.doc

[9] Robert Putnam: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/10/a-wasp-jew-harvard-universitys-robert-d-putnam/

[10] According to Great Britain’s Office of National Statistics: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2012/cohabitation-rpt.html

[11] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Australia-Percentage-of-marriages-preceded-by-cohabitation-1975-2008.gif

[12] described by her Israeli psychologist: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200810/is-serial-monogamy-worth-pursuing

[13] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Australia-Percentage-of-Births-Outside-Marriage-1901-20071.jpg

[14] The Contraceptive Revolution and the Second Demographic Transition: An Economic Model of Sex, Fertility, and Marriage: http://mysite.avemaria.edu/jburke/working-papers/WP1003-Burke-Pakaluk-Contraceptive-Revolution.pdf

[15] Replacement migration: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/02/replacement-migration/

[16] Edmund Connelly: http://www.counter-currents.com/tag/edmund-connelly/

[17] writes:: http://www.historytoday.com/ole-j-benedictow/black-death-greatest-catastrophe-ever

[18] “The ‘Second Demographic Transition:’ New Forms of Family”: http://theopenacademy.com/content/lecture-3-second-demographic-transition-new-forms-family

[19] Demographic Trends and Problems of the Modern World.”: http://theopenacademy.com/content/demographic-trends-and-problems-modern-world

[20] Replacement Migration: http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0103/replacement_migration.htm

[21] Migration Watch UK: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

[22] white Britons will be a minority before 2070: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-britons-will-be-minority-before-2070-says-professor-8600262.html

[23] Watching David Coleman: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/16/watchingdavidcoleman1