You voted for common sense and you got something you didn't expect. You got people arriving and then more people who will, by sheer weight of numbers, crowd you out. More and more people who will arrive on these shores who have no alliance, no sympathy or very little commonality with you and yours. Your homeland, your culture and your heritage is of no interest and little value to the newcomers: everything you hold dear is merely something regarded as a convenient stepping stone to other demands and needs.
Worse of all, we voted via democracy for an elite class who were eager to bring about this change in our demographics. We don't know why they do it and we have not the slightest idea why it is so important to them, but it is. They work hard to persuade you it is in your interest, but they know that it isn't. They don't exactly lie but then they don't have to, because they don't tell the truth.
This is a puzzle that will, I expect, bedevil historians in years to come -- at least if they are allowed to examine this aspect of life in the 21st century. As the winners get to write the history books they can also set agenda for what is being written, and chances are they won't want much of the truth emerging. Or the demographics will have changed so much that it is actually immaterial what happened in the past, other than approved mythical tales from some ancient fiction.
You and yours will be a history easily forgotten and though our overpaid, underworked elite who brought this about will also be long forgotten it will be of no consolation to what may survive from your bloodline.
What am I talking about? The change in your immediate world. It is one of demographics, and the outlook is not good.
Take for example the work of Danish psychologist Helmuth Nyborg. Don't worry that you have never heard of him; you need to worry about his message from his studies.
Nyborg, living among a changing world within Denmark, has examined the projections of population growth in his own country. Now you may say that you don't care about Denmark, but we are closer to them than we might think, and what is happening there is quite likely to happen here.
What Nyborg has found is that there will come a point in Denmark's future where there will be a tipping point and Denmark will cease -- sometime around the year 2085 -- to be a first world country and become, simply by the make-up of the population and its attendant IQ, a third world country.
The indigenous peoples of that peninsula and all its islands will by then have been crowded out by immigrants with traditionally lower IQs than native-born Danes. These people, with lower intelligence, will not do as much wealth-creating work (they may work hard and work cheerfully in less-demanding jobs but unlikely to be in employment that will create a wealth that all can share) and as native-born Danes decline so will the tax revenues, which makes investments in education, health and infrastructure less and less possible. Curiously, the thing that attracted many immigrants to Denmark was a higher standard of living and liberal benefits; once that can't be provided towards the end of the 21st century it is a moot point whether these 'temporary dwellers' will return to their former homelands.
After all, if there is no money easily available you might not want to try to live in an essentially colder climate.
As already observed from studies in Norway, Nyborg's findings are that the collective level of IQ is falling as more immigrants arrive from overseas, especially those from sub-Sahara countries and parts of southern (though not eastern) Asia as well as Latin America. Before we go any further let me say I am fully aware that IQ is becoming a discredited measure of intelligence, and I am equally aware that projections and predictions have a habit of going wrong. The future is never what we think it will be, though history has shown that people can be just as thick tomorrow as they were yesterday.
I also am aware that Nyborg's work has been called into question on the basis of complaints -- one of which was a valid question of how he converted fertility rates to birth rates. In fact, without probing his formulae I would go so far as to say a projection from now is altered as money lessens. Each loss in tax revenue eventually dissuades people on lower incomes from having babies as the tax-breaks and benefits are withdrawn. If there is no money to pay people to have babies even the sexually active find ways to avoid it.
However there is no doubt that a decline in the birth rate of native Danes will occur. There is always the issue that some responsible parents prefer not to bring children into volatile society, so a decline in birth rate could well be further affected by perceptions of threat and insecurity. When the police can't protect and the courts won't and the politicians actively work against its citizens, then having children is a risk some would rather not take. Not unless, like the self-satisfied elite who rule us, you can afford a bolt-hole to run to when it all goes wrong.
Nyborg and other researchers may well be wrong in some fine detail, but he alone may be worryingly right in the general sweep of it all. Basically, if you import people with larger families and lower intelligence (however you measure it) then the more that is taken from society and not replaced with equal or better will result in a decline.
So, if that is Denmark, then what of us? Do we do it differently here?
Do we have more to look forward to of the thick, the thin and the fertile here in the UK?
As already observed from studies in Norway, Nyborg's findings are that the collective level of IQ is falling as more immigrants arrive from overseas, especially those from sub-Sahara countries and parts of southern (though not eastern) Asia as well as Latin America. Before we go any further let me say I am fully aware that IQ is becoming a discredited measure of intelligence, and I am equally aware that projections and predictions have a habit of going wrong. The future is never what we think it will be, though history has shown that people can be just as thick tomorrow as they were yesterday.
I also am aware that Nyborg's work has been called into question on the basis of complaints -- one of which was a valid question of how he converted fertility rates to birth rates. In fact, without probing his formulae I would go so far as to say a projection from now is altered as money lessens. Each loss in tax revenue eventually dissuades people on lower incomes from having babies as the tax-breaks and benefits are withdrawn. If there is no money to pay people to have babies even the sexually active find ways to avoid it.
However there is no doubt that a decline in the birth rate of native Danes will occur. There is always the issue that some responsible parents prefer not to bring children into volatile society, so a decline in birth rate could well be further affected by perceptions of threat and insecurity. When the police can't protect and the courts won't and the politicians actively work against its citizens, then having children is a risk some would rather not take. Not unless, like the self-satisfied elite who rule us, you can afford a bolt-hole to run to when it all goes wrong.
Nyborg and other researchers may well be wrong in some fine detail, but he alone may be worryingly right in the general sweep of it all. Basically, if you import people with larger families and lower intelligence (however you measure it) then the more that is taken from society and not replaced with equal or better will result in a decline.
So, if that is Denmark, then what of us? Do we do it differently here?
Do we have more to look forward to of the thick, the thin and the fertile here in the UK?
No comments:
Post a Comment