When a nation develops a syndrome

I wanted to expand a little on some of my recent posts on the demographic problems Europe is currently facing. (I realise that this is the equivalent of describing being hit over the head by a burglar as a “social problem”. These issues are not just of abstract interest but will affect many ordinary people very seriously.)

In previous posts I have argued that the reason the Muslim migration is heading to Europe is that the European nations are relatively low birth rate areas which are rich enough to provide social services and will have at least low-level jobs for those who want them.

While I think this is true, there is really a whole complex of traits in the receiving countries which have led to this situation. And they feed off each other. Together they might be called a “syndrome”. For example, the reason these nations can provide generous social services is because they are rich. And the reason they are rich is partly that they have converted production to personal wealth and the ability to pay taxes, rather than, for example, choosing to have more children. In fact, they have had fewer children.

But the syndrome has deeper roots. Fundamentally it is a loss of morale. Rather than build for future generations, people have effectively chosen to “cash in” their patrimony during their own lives. Perhaps the archetypal figure and the clearest symptom of this syndrome is the young, nubile but childless woman. Let us look at her, sitting in her cafe at lunchtime …

She is young, healthy and quite pretty. She has a good job, which she is still excited by. She lost her virginity several years ago, and has had a number of relationships with attractive young men, but contraception has freed her from most of the risk of pregnancy. In any case, should she fall pregnant, she can easily find a legal abortion. If not a feminist, she nevertheless has many feminist opinions. She supports abortion, and probably affirmative action. And she believes that gender is a construct. Rather an enjoyable one, but only a construct. She believes in gay marriage. She has no commitment to her own ethnic group, having, as far as possible, a cosmopolitan attitude. She can imagine herself adopting a cute black baby one day, like that celebrity she read about. She has no problem with immigrants from foreign lands, believing that they will bring vibrancy to her own culture, which she considers to be sort of boring really.

She uses her mobile phone to talk to her friend about her business flight the next day, and they spend a little time agreeing on the evils of patriarchal capitalism.

She thinks the patriarchy deserves to die. She does not look for authority from men: not fathers, priests, pastors and certainly not husbands (although some of those radical Muslim guys are kind of sexy).

This woman is the problem.

A relevant article.

“Ayed correctly outlines the fact that Europe is facing demographic disaster because its citizens have stopped having children.

Italy’s current birth rate of 8.4 per 1,000 people is the lowest since 1861 and the picture is much the same across the rest of Europe, where population is only increasing as a result of mass immigration.

Birth rates in the west are far lower than those in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, which is where most of the migrants are coming from.”

My previous comments on this issue, especially the religious dimension here and here.

Another relevant article on the Swedes, who seem to have the “syndrome” very strongly.


16 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 21, 2015 at 7:02 am


    The Refugees Give Europe an Opportunity to Do Things Better says Robin Sclafani.


  2. And why is she like this? How did we get here. Perhaps a whisper might help. http://parzivalshorse.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/whispers-from-crypt-6.html


  3. Posted by Anonymous Reader on September 21, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    This could accurately describe many women in Japan. Yet Japan is not being inundated with colonizers, because the elites in Japan wish to remain Japanese. Unlike, say, Merkel and other EUCrats who clearly wish to “elect a new people” in Europe. Therefore this simplistic “low birth rates automatically cause colonizers to arrive” argument is once again shown to be false. For example, if colonizing Syrians had to beg in the streets of Malmo for food to avert starvation, there would be far fewer of them in that city. However the elites of Sweden have decided to feed, cloth and house virtually anyone from anywhere who can get across the Baltic to their country. The results are totally predictable; wave after wave of colonization from other countries.

    This is not to say there is no problem with the culture, Sir John Glubb spelled it out in The Fate of Empires back in the 1970’s. And yes, the women in particular are a problem in the short and long term. But the colonization of Europe is not caused by low birth rates per se. It is caused by policies enacted by the Davos elites that one could argue are treasonous. Because this current wave of colonization could be stopped in a fortnight, if the elites of the EU wished it to be so.


  4. Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 21, 2015 at 10:19 pm

    In line with the theme of this post, Roosh has just written this:



  5. Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 21, 2015 at 10:19 pm

  6. Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 22, 2015 at 3:21 am


    Puts the view that: “Culture is not some abstract cloud living apart from humans; it’s a part of humans and reflects genetic dispositions.”

    Incidentally, on the “gender is just a construct” view, I recently saw some episodes of Willander (the original Swedish version of this crime show set in Ystad, Sweden) and – despite Swedish feminist policies – the young women are portrayed at least as behaving just like they do elsewhere. That is, like girls.


  7. Posted by Slumlord on September 22, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    Julian, the fundamental problem isn’t really one of Childlessness. Japan being a case in point. The real problem is philosophical atomisation as everyone sees themselves as being effectively a sovereign individual and not as someone who subsists as part to a whole. Lounging poolside is what everyone in Europe wants to do.


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 22, 2015 at 1:21 pm

      Well, that is kind of what I have been saying recently. The highly individual (as opposed to communitarian) ethos of places like Europe perhaps leads to a lack of interest in having children, and also to what I have called a “syndrome” of willingness to tolerate migration from foreign places. But also, as I have said, there would be no migration if there were no disparity in wealth and population between the Third and First Worlds.

      In terms of Japan, ethnocentricity is certainly strong there, but as I have mentioned the place is an island and there are simply no potential migrants in the area.

      Moreover although countries like Mexico and Japan may now have low birthrates, they have attained very high populations. There is certainly none of the hollowing out yet that one sees in places like Spain, where I have read that whole villages are now empty.

      BUT what I don’t believe is that the whole European thing is an elite conspiracy. As I have pointed out, governments have to have some level of broad consent before they act (or choose not to act). And, of course, such governments can only dilute the existing population with people from elsewhere if such people exist in large numbers and have incentives to move.


      • Posted by Anonymous Reader on September 22, 2015 at 7:56 pm

        Well, that is kind of what I have been saying recently. The highly individual (as opposed to communitarian) ethos of places like Europe perhaps leads to a lack of interest in having children, and also to what I have called a “syndrome” of willingness to tolerate migration from foreign places.

        What, another move of the goalposts? First this migration of colonizers was only about birth rates. Then it was about birth rates and wealth. Now it’s about birth rates, wealth and a “syndrome”.

        But also, as I have said, there would be no migration if there were no disparity in wealth and population between the Third and First Worlds.

        Yes, that’s your second claim, the first move of the goalposts. There is a disparity in wealth and population growth between China and Burma. Yet there do not appear to be any substantial numbers of Burmese sneaking into China, perhaps because the PLA won’t let them do that? There is a rather large fence between Bangladesh and India, why do you suppose that is?

        And as I pointed out to you before, Mexico is quite content to allow poor people from Honduras, Guatamala and El Salvador transit Mexico on the way to El Norte, but treats any who attempt to remain in Mexico very harshly. Mexico has a lower birth rate than the Central American states and is richer, but there is no major problem with illegals in that country because the Mexican government takes action against them.

        It can readily be seen that low birth rate and even relative wealth difference need not result in colonization, when a government is determined to prevent it. Here, examine this database of birth rates:


        I believe the data comes from this location:

        Note again the birth rate of Algeria. Ask yourself why Africans from south of the Sahara are not entering Algeria in large numbers, if the “low birth rate” claim is true. Then repeat for “low birth rate and wealth disparity”. It still doesn’t hold up.

        Your claims seem to be falsified by facts.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 22, 2015 at 8:07 pm

        I have lost patience with this discussion. I have given my position, and you have yours. As I said at my other recent comment, I shall give you the last word and leave the issue up to any readers to decide for themselves.

        Thank you for your comments but no more please. I have other things to do than carry on a lengthy debate with someone who is determined to see only a conspiracy by elites.

        No more comments from you will be published on this matter.

  8. Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 23, 2015 at 4:55 am

    This by “mdavid” is relevant:


    “Roman Empire? Great Wall of China? Native Americans? People cannot (over time) prevent immigration. Put up walls, fences, whatever. It may work for this generation but not over time.

    If you don’t want to be overrun, BREED. The rest is details …

    … Breeders will bury you. If your moral superiority does not include fulfilling God’s command to populate the earth…well, Faith without Works is dead.”


  9. As you say, the ready availability of social security payments is a major factor in attracting immigrants from N Africa and the M East. But the European workforce is falling, and the number of elderly is growing disportionately.

    Soon Europe simply won’t be able to continue these payments to the poor and the immigrants. And then the social upheavals will begin in earnest.


  10. Posted by Julian O'Dea on February 24, 2017 at 10:56 am

    I have now added an appropriate picture or meme above.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: