Posted on 11/19/2018 7:41:11 PM PST by Phillyred
Emmanuel Macron, the newly elected French president, has no children; German chancellor Angela Merkel has no children. British prime minister, Theresa May has no children; Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni has no children; Hollands, prime minister, Mark Rutte, Swedens Stefan Löfven, Luxembourgs Xavier Bettel, and Scotlands, first minster Nicola Sturgeon all have no children.
The list goes on Latvias childless president is Raimonds Vējonis, Lithuanias childless president is Dalia Grybauskaitė, and Romanias childless president is Klaus Werner Iohannis. And, Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission too, has no children and is family-less.
So to put it rather bluntly: a grossly disproportionate number of the people making serious decisions about Europes future have no direct personal sibling, child or grandchildrens interests at stake in that future. They are not part of a family and have come to see all their attention focused on one dominant and all-powerful social unit to which they pay obeisance and give their complete and devoted attention: The State.
The demographics look problematic. Among native Europeans, the birthrate is currently between 0.2 and 1.1. Europe is not replicating itself and will, if trends are extrapolatedcease to exist.
The numbers are disturbing combining an ageing population, very low birth rates and an inability to pay for their rich benefits: what will come of Europe?
Why precisely, is the family dead or dying in Europe and the west?
In the western world, the traditional family continues to crumble and unravel anyone who defends past tradition (300,000 years of pre-recorded oral and actual history) is ridiculed and rejected as we give up hope and resign in despair to a future without family or its attendant values. Speaking up for the family has almost no constituency and makes one look nostalgic at best and retrograde...
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Yep....
“But in the last fifty years, the welfare state has done everything in its power to break it up. Dividing families, encouraging divorce, supporting abortion, coercing fatherlessness, and building dependencies, the state has not idly watched in the demise of the family structure: it has been the active and primary cause of its very plight.”
Ah, but they've got plenty of muzzies, and the muzzies know how to make babies!
The Amish and old order Mennonites are having a population explosion. Look it up. My theory is that they are one of the very very few that still haven’t accepted birth control within marriage, and they haven’t exposed themselves to popular digital/electronic/ media during the last 50 + years.
Freegards
well, gee, after 30 years of force-feeding people that having children would destroy the planet and they would live miserable little lives, it’s no surprise that the ‘college educated’ would buy into that.
In America we were asked to limit our children, so we could preserve our country and resources for our grandchildren who could go to smaller schools which would enhance learning. Our footprint on the world would be less, and that was a good thing, not only for the planet, but to preserve our natural and national treasures - those same resources and schools now being eaten up by illegals, who we are supposed to accept now because ‘we need people’.
But the question isn’t asked - what’s so wrong with a smaller population country? Why is it something that now needs to be fixed? Why is a population drop such an emergency? Because it isn’t. But guilt-trip articles meant to gain sympathy for forced migration do seem to be everywhere.
The average muslin woman in Europe has 6 children.
Being childless is a most distinctive lens to look through, causing a person to either not care about families or to see families as a problem to be solved.
Once you have separated yourself from the idea that children are a blessing from God why have them if it is inconvenient in any way?
Islam is a satanic religion, the preeminent embodiment of the spirit of antichrist at this time in the world just going by the numbers claimed ... but even still Muslims are frequently more righteous than the Cultural Marxist and the civilizationally suicidal technocrats.
Or as Christ would say, if the light within you is darkness how great is that darkness?
Lennon’s Imagine posited that if only we could rid ourselves of all the old hopes and dreams we would arrive at a world free from conflict but instead all such men will find are the dust and ashes of fading humanity, their art becoming ugly and corrupt, their ambitions in-vain and even suicidal. They murder their posterity and rob those that survive of magnanimity and virtue, replacing them with the prideful but empty platitudes about being nice and tolerant.
Lewis wrote of the avante-garde of these as the Clevers and after them (since the counterparts tothe Clevers in the real world will not, it turns out, reproduce) comes only Mr Savages’ dwarves ... yet all are servants of the spirit of the age.
Indeed. I would say it will be good for tourism... fewer locals rousting about. But they are filling the void with muzzle immigrants and assimilation is not even attempted. It will be ugly.
Why precisely, is the family dead or dying in Europe and the west? ///////////////
Young people in western Europe have to pay such obscene taxes to support the welfare state, that they have little left over to start families.
Trump on the other hand does not have this problem.
“Young people in western Europe have to pay such obscene taxes to support the welfare state, that they have little left over to start families.”
Well, if they’re so stupid that they think that thing is a coin slot, they SHOULDN’T have kids. Probably liberals.
I sometimes wonder if this is truly Hitler’s legacy more than anything.
He forever made it so that Europeans standing up for their culture would be vilified.
I don’t get the math. 2 kids = 1 parent each; 1 kid = 2 parents. If the parent survives beyond age 50 and has no nestegg, and if they do have a nestegg, allowing that parents, not the grandchildren, support the parent’s parent, aka grandparent. Add a spouse and you still get 1 parent each or less if the spouse comes from a larger family.
I can remember a story I saw here about a young German couple that went to a doctor a few years after being married to complain about not having children. The doctor asked them if they were intimate. They did not know what that meant.
But people trust them to give a crap about their families. Sure, that’s gonna happen...
Emmanuel Macron, the newly elected French president, has no children; German chancellor Angela Merkel has no children. British prime minister, Theresa May has no children; Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni has no children; Hollands, prime minister, Mark Rutte, Swedens Stefan Löfven, Luxembourgs Xavier Bettel, and Scotlands, first minster Nicola Sturgeon -- all have no children. The list goes on
And bringing in millions of third world jihadists who have to be supported on the dole means, lawabiding native citizens curtail their own family sizes.
Neither calculation is correct.
The simplified case is that a birth rate of 2.0 children per woman (on average) results in a steady population. Ie., each generation is the same in numbers as the last, so, each individual on average will end up with one elderly person to support, for however long that elderly person is essentially non-productive or has run out their nest egg, but is hanging in there.
If the birth rate is 0.5, then each generation is 1/2 the numbers of the last, and each individual ends up with, on average, two elderly persons to support.
This will be countered somewhat by less children to support, in the 2nd case, however, on average, children are much healthier and cheaper to support than elders.
The problem of a low birthrate is compounded somewhat if generations get longer, and ditto for longer life expectancy, if productive life does not increase by the same amount: If on average parents of age 50+ are still supporting their kids (for or in college, or whatever) AND also supporting elders, for the average person, their standard of life will go in the crapper. (I have personal experience with this!)
Also consider that these societies almost invariably are quite generous to a large portion of their society that are of productive age, but are not productive. This increases pressure on the birthrate (people can’t afford kids). Taken all together, these societies then decide they need to import labor: The country may survive economically for a while (esp. if the US is providing most of their defense!), but once they start importing en masse cultures who wish to impose even greater negatives, the situation may become unrecoverable.
Correction, - I ran my sentences together somehow. Should be:
If the birth rate is 1.0 children per woman, then each generation is roughly 1/2 the numbers of the last, and each individual ends up with, on average, two elderly persons to support. If the birth rate is 0.5 children per woman, then each generation is roughly 1/4 the numbers of the last, and each individual ends up with, on average, four elderly persons to support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.