An interesting site isÂ http://www.un.org/popin/Â which contains demographic information for various nations. Of particular interest are the population projections. What I have done here is chart, for European nations, the projected population for the year 2050 divided by the population in the year 2000 x 100. Thus, a rating of 100 = an unchanged population. A rating of 110 means that the population in 2050 is projected to be 110% of that in 2000. A rating of 80 means that the projected population in 2050 will be 80% of that in 2000. Keeping in mind that these are estimated projections, based on a number of variables, we observe the following data (based on a “medium-fertility variant”):
|Andorra 224||Slovakia 87|
|Luxembourg 164||Germany 86|
|Ireland 141||Poland 86|
|Albania 125||Yugoslavia 86|
|Iceland 119||Greece 85|
|Liechtenstein 118||Belarus 82|
|San Marino 111||Czechia 82|
|Norway 109||Lithuania 81|
|France 104||Romania 81|
|Malta 103||Austria 80|
|Holy See 100||Spain 78|
|Netherlands 100||Switzerland 78|
|UK 99||Slovenia 77|
|Denmark 95||Hungary 75|
|Belgium 94||Italy 75|
|Finland 91||Latvia 72|
|Croatia 90||Russia 72|
|Portugal 90||Ukraine 60|
|Sweden 88||Bulgaria 57|
|Bosnia 87||Estonia 54|
Some comments are in order. First, the relatively high numbers for the very small nations are due to, most probably, high projected growth due to current extensive immigration to those nations (attracted by economics, climate, etc.), and the small baseline populations of these nations in 2000 – not due to high fertility rates. Thus, Luxembourg has fertility at below replacement, but is still projected to grow (164).Â A much bigger problem with these data is that they do not distinguish between natives and immigrants, between indigenous Europeans and non-Europeans.Â Thus, the raw numbers given include non-Europeans and thus underestimate the problem. For example, it seems that France, the Netherlands, and the UK will have essentially stable populations (keep in mind that the non-European world, in comparison, is projected to increase substantially). However, all three nations have large non-European minority populations, which are increasing and have high fertility. Thus, these “stable” populations reflect a displacement of Europeans by non-Europeans; the indigenous inhabitants of those nations are being replaced by immigrants and their descendants. The situations in nations like Germany and Sweden are especially frightening, because they combine a net decrease in overall population with large, highly fertile non-European immigrant minorities. Thus, the actual decline in indigenous population will be much more marked than shown here. Racial mixing will also contribute to these real declines in indigenous populations in all European nations. Of course, these considerations doÂ notÂ only apply to Northwest Europe. The nations of Southern Europe are now experiencing a large influx of alien immigration.
In Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece, this alien influx has led to an increase in nationalist sentiment. All these nations have right-wing parties, of varying success, opposed to these demographic changes, similar to what is seen in other areas of Europe.
This brings up an crucially important point. Contrary to what some may assert, it isÂ notÂ true that only Northern Europeans (or NW Europeans) are threatened by demographic disaster. Looking at the chart, I observe that nations of Southern Europe are well represented at the bottom of the population projections, and these include many of the same nations that are also victimized by alien immigration. Thus, the very alarming numbers for these nations are also an underestimation of the crisis which is taking place. The same can be said of certain Central and Eastern European nations as well.
For example, Slovakia is at near the middle/bottom, with an 87 rating. However, I have read (I believe it was in a National Geographic article) that in about 60 years the Gypsy population of Slovakia will out-number native Slovaks. Thus, “87” is not a real view of the problem; the Central European Slovaks are in big trouble. Hungary and Romania have many Gypsies as well. Perhaps worst off of all is the Sudeuropid nation of Bulgaria, which is second only to Estonia for lowest projected population percentage. Unlike Estonia however, Bulgaria is home to large populations of non-European minorities – Gypsies and Turks – and these minorities are much more fertile than the declining Bulgarian population. Thus, not only will the population of that nation decline by 43% (!) in the next half-century, but the number of actual Bulgarians will decline to an even smaller fraction of the population. In fact, it is the SE Bulgarians who may become the first European people to vanish from the face of the Earth. Nordicists may not care, but true Euro-preservationists should.
S/C/E-Euro nations face an additional problem since they are geographically closer to the non-European world. Thus, the demographic collapse of Russia and the Ukraine must be seen in the context of over-crowded, land-hungry Chinese and non-European islamic inmigrants, who will begin to look closely at the lands inhabited by dwindling numbers of Slavs. That a large nation such as Italy has such a low population projection (75), coupled with immigration, and a non-fertile and aging indigenous population, puts the natives of that country in danger from the inmigrants from Africa and the Near East. One would think that some would be concerned, if for no other reason than “selfish” worries. After all, the non-European hordes will not be content to stop with Russia and Italy; they would want to join their immigrant kinsmen already living in NW Europe. A colored “beach-head” in S/C/E-Europe will spell eventual doom for NW Euros. Russian and Italian nationalists can respect the preservationist desires of NW Euro nationalists, but a Nigerian or Chinese or an Arab will not. What do coloreds care about Europe, other than to indulge their fervent desire to see it destroyed (after they have lived off the fat of the land)? Thus, contrary to what some may say,Â ALLof Europe is endangered and in dire need of preservationism, and what happens in one European nation can effect them all. And this all applies to Euro-Americans as well.
Another point observed from the UN site is that all European nations share certain demographic traits in common. They have low fertility, and they also have relatively low sex ratios (4). This is in contrast to many other nations; thus, we can see that the nations of Southern Europe share with North and Central Europe some key reproductive characteristics (low fertility, low sex ratio) that distinguish them from non-European Caucasians (high fertility, high sex ratio). Thus, Europeans share a common extended phenotype, compared to other Caucasians, in the all-important realm of demographics and reproduction.
In summary, these data support the thesis thatÂ ALLÂ peoples of European descent are in a demographically perilous situation, andÂ ALLÂ need preservation. Those who claim otherwise are simply and objectively incorrect.