Brazilification
Given present demographic trends, that is immigration and the birth rates of different ethnic groups, the data clearly points towards what I call Brazilification, i.e. Western countries eventually getting the demographics of Brazil.
Now, Brazil as a country has a lot going for it; that with nice beaches and hot girls. But its demographics and its politics aren't precisely one of its strengths. Nor its murder and mugging rate. For some reason Rio de Janeiro was chosen to host the 2016 Olympics, and man, the thing is not looking good.
brazilian-police-welcome-hell-sign-640x480
I had thought that the Brazil government wasn't that stupid, and that the armed forces, if only them alone, had to enjoy high status and good pay. But no, apparently the Brazil government really is that stupid. How does that look for Brazilification of the Western world?
https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/750129507420495872
Who knows, who knows. The French are quite fond of striking too! Right now I guess this troops are well paid; but hungry and unpaid French troops holding machine guns in central Paris; well that would be something. France doesn't have a tradition of military coups; not since the great man. But one's gotta eat.
Brexit has made a lot of people write about how it symbolized the end of an era of ever greater integration and trade globalization. Now the trend is broken. The Olympic games are also a very powerful symbol of globalization, and the recent games have shown also signs of breakdown; billions stolen by corruption rackets; countries left with tons of debt and useless buildings left to decay. It won't be long until some Olympic Games really bomb it, and the whole thing is abolished for good. Now that would be a fine symbol of the end of an era.
66 comments
Once at the Olympic Games, Germany was represented by German athletes, Italy by Italian athletes, the Netherlands by Dutch athletes, Belgium by Flemish and Walloon athletes, and so on. France and the United States sent biracial teams, and that's what made them distinctive. The ill-fed Third World did not send much. Nowadays, every national team has a 100-meter sprinter from Jamaica. Back then, you had young amateurs in competition, the sons of aristocrats, often even the sons or grandsons of Norman-blooded European nobility. Now, you have some felonious negro with a fast red car and a thick gold chain, a professional athlete whose leering visage disgraces the packaging of your underarm deodorant. The magic is gone. (The above is for regular readers of this blog. This parenthetical note is for polite whites who have stumbled in here. It is not very nice to speak of a "felonious negro with a fast red car and a thick gold chain," is it? Nor to suggest that he "leers." But the trouble is that that isn't much of an exaggeration, either. My words are racist, of course, but blacks are not holy personages; they, too, can be mocked en bloc. If you suspect that I held a special grudge against black sprinters from Jamaica, then you would be missing my point, which is that televising a glittering international festival every four years for the banal purpose of worshiping, once again, the glory of the athletic negro form—well, it's more than a bit silly. Our real problem is that European man, 28 percent of the world's population as recently as 1950, will on present trend drop to an aging 10 percent by 2060. This catastrophic present trend might be broken if European man only rediscovered his swagger, though, mightn't it? Maybe European man should do that. I believe that he will. Don't you? (We whites can debate, at leisure, how nice it is to speak of felonies, red cars, gold chains and black men once we have stabilized our own demographics and found again practical means of insulating ourselves and our own from negro felony. Until then, if you believe that the racists are the problem—well, candidly, you're frantic and very, very confused.)
An interesting side-note brought to mind by your mention of the French: I have it on decent authority (to wit, liasing with a French military base in Tchad) that the French officer corps is largely white, observant Catholic, and (by present French standards) reactionary in its politics. Makes me wonder about the trajectory of France.
A "largely white" officer corps in a major European Nation makes me wonder about the trajectory too. That's much worse than I had feared. I had assumed the officer corps is white.
The military is a fairly prole, low-status institution, and diverse kids are, lets face it, more manly in their disposition on average. The ranks of the French army must be quite diverse by now.
Of course, in the U.S. military, the "diversity" tends to be concentrated in the non-combat arms, while those who actually pull triggers and launch missiles are still overwhelmingly white. Is this true of the French military? I have no idea, but it might be important...
Well the actual combat units running the African uranium supply lines may be white by necessity; but garrisoning the homeland? And of course a large bunch of the officer ranks are political promotions, and in today's climate, diversity is a genetic badge of loyalty to the government.
Let's also be clear here: Tchad isn't exactly a prestigious appointment. Like N'Djamena, you don't have to piss anyone off to go there, but nobody wants to.
France apparently doesn't allow demography so short knowing someone there, its going to be hard to find out. In the US its not as much race but culture. The US officer core is mostly very liberal, all college educated. This is why General Mattias seemed so unusual. The professional enlisted , more than the one term types are generally very Conservative ranging from .alt right to just NCIS Conservative or at the bottom pragmatic.
Do we have any good examples of demographic recovery? It seems like high tfr is something that is difficult/impossible to restore. I'm most interested in places like Japan, where immigration is low. If there exists a subpopulation of Japanese with high fertility, there's a decent shot at rebound. It seems plausible that the two most significant downward pressures are population density and feminism.
I've been looking for that for quite some time now; but there isn't. Nothing there. Japan just doesn't have coherent subpopulations, of any sort. No religion, cult or regional area has noticeably higher fertility. The country is stupidly uniform. The Okinawans kinda do breed a bit more, at 1.8 TFR, but that's not that much of a difference, and it's not like they're flooding the mainland. Chinese TFR fell pretty hard after the fall of the empire in 1911; then Mao called the people to breed and man, did they breed. I'd rather not hope for a Mao, though.
Demographic recovery is rather common after a disaster like the black plague or the 30 year war. In these cases population dropped without a drop in fertility; recovery from a drop in fertility is more difficult. Reason for hope might be that the low fertility is a social thing which implies that it can change immediately if social conditions change. A marked increase in fertility in response to a change in social conditions has happed before, e.g. in European polulations that emigrated to the US or Canada in the last centuries.
I'm thinking less of a cultural subpopulation and more a significant set of outliers. Are there Hokkaido pioneer families with 8 kids (or something comparable)?
Nope. Nothing. At any rate they'd need some cultural identity to keep doing whatever it is they do. But Japan has an American-imposed religion law, with myriad of small wacky cults doing their thing: none of them has higher than average fertility.
That's disappointing. I'm generally pretty fond of the Japanese, and am rooting for them. I went through a period where I thought everything could be explained through simple genetic explanations and figured modernity was just a big selection pressure for innate fecundity. I fully expected a big die off for most populations, but a rebound as some sort of "really want to have kids" mutation would crop up everywhere. Is there any sense amongst leadership that encouraging fertility might be a good idea? I know the French have had close to zero success incentivizing kids, but East Asians seem better at doing what their leaders tell them than Europeans.
"I fully expected a big die off for most populations, but a rebound as some sort of “really want to have kids” mutation would crop up everywhere." It is happening. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=breeding fetish Google it, but the results are NSFW.
Well I'm quite fond of the lot too. There are people with 5 kids, but not many, and certainly not a coherent culture which is likely to transmit down to their kids and keep on the process. I'm not sure "really like children" is a stable personality trait likely to sprung up genetically. What is rather more likely is a die off for some decades, a semi-collapse of the world economy, and poverty and war making children profitable again. Perhaps during our lifetimes, or shortly afterwards. By the way East Asian obedience is way overrated. East Asians are collectivistic; they follow the ingroup, but hierarchy they're actually pretty bad at. They follow their immediate commanders but completely ignore their generals.
>Well I’m quite fond of the lot too. There are people with 5 kids, but not many, and certainly not a coherent culture which is likely to transmit down to their kids and keep on the process. >I’m not sure “really like children” is a stable personality trait likely to sprung up genetically. Well, given that we know that everything is heritable, I am sort of expecting that whatever causes high fertility in these unorganized elements - it might not literally be "really want to have children"; maybe some kind of urban-fertility adaptation where they instinctively regard conditions to be right for babymaking where most of their peers find the conditions inappropriate - will be transmitted to their descendants. Their offspring will predominantly form the Japanese nation in the future.
It's not the job of a soldier to follow the general. He has his immediate superior officer, or more frequently sergeant, to follow. Non-immediate superiors normally don't order non-immediate subordinates around, they are required to give orders down the command chain, and if they skip that in extreme emergency the military codes oblige them to inform the immediate superior (who is by construction their own subordinate) they have skipped over, and you can imagine no one likes that. Are you thinking here primarily of the pre-WWII Japanese militarism?
Yes, and modern corporations, which are often compared. See たこつぼ構造、下意上達. I guess the point is that nobody obeys the generals. People in command of the front (or the factories) conspire to fool their superiors far in their offices so they get to call the shots by producing an endless string of faits accomplis.
@spandrell: I did not know that nobody obeys the generals. Even without taking the word "nobody" too literally, is it true that nobody obeys?
In my real life, in part, I happen to be a first-line supervisor, a person "in command of the front (or the factory)." I do not, as far as I know, conspire to fool my superiors. Not a particularly perceptive person, I might just be missing it, but I do not believe that most of my organizational peers conspire to fool their superiors, either—nor (as far as I know) do most of my subordinates conspire very much to fool me. What have I missed?
I meant it's a particular Japanese cultural trait.
Actually thanks for letting me post so much spandrell , I've been stewing on this issue for quite a while and I think I've got most of it figured out. The world economy isn't going to collapse from low birth rates. 1st poverty and war making children more profitable? nope. A move to a low tech agrarian economy will in some cases . However tractors beat farmhands and we can in fact run tractors on crops if we have too, In any case historically population growth was very slow so despite large families because more children died. That's not a growth based solution Mainly what caused population growth was religious momentum (i.e custom) combined with technological improvement (antibiotics mostly) Baring a tech collapse that somehow doesn't cull most of the human race , we aren't going to have those conditions again. The religious capital is pretty gone and even the groups that normally have larger families are seeing shrinkage. Evangelical Christians have low retention and LDS while above replacement aren't growing as a faith . Even Muslims are starting to see a population growth decrease and some like Iran are already a European levels. The singular exception seems to be fundamentalist Jews but they aren't numerous and I can't imagine getting any modern society to the level of austerity they voluntarily practice. Also the ones in Israel don't participate in the common defense either. They are not a social asset in the mind of many there. Population issues are just a matter of social carrying capacity, current and likely future human social models don't support populations this large among populations with long time preferences and 3 digit IQ's. . If there is a collapse you won't get a virtue increase but a decrease as women turn to whoring or defacto polygamy with wealthy men or marriage outsiders since local men will be unable to care for them. You certainly won't get many children as our economic collapses have shown where every time the economy grossly shrunk it went below replacement Note here 1931 to 1939, the great depression all way below replacement . I am not as sure about 1940 or so, it was 2.5 but infant mortality was much higher so it might be at or below replacement and note the USG was basically employing every male in the war effort and wars tend to increase the value of children. Well they did, future wars won't. We got another population implosion in 1970 or so when the economy started to slide (and modernity kicked in) and it basically never recovered since the percent of wages as GDP became half what it was . Between social changes and the economy we've had 40 years of below or near below replacement White fertility with only a couple of years of actual replacement levels. I doubt it ever will recover till the economy or society changes and I don't see anyone with the ability to enforce it. If things get really crappy, people aren't going to want large families since they won't be able to support themselves much less many children Riding that out will require a heavy boot on a lot of necks and people in charge far smarter than we have now. Oh and one caveat, in a true apocalypse where clans mean survival, birth rates will be much higher however the actual population will be much lower as such a society can't physically support a large population.
Nice image. I looked up a couple of 池田信夫's articles on it. Insiders probably overestimate the degree of slipperiness, though. Overestimating the defects in one's constitution is bread and butter for some and a Schelling point for others. How the hell could e.g. MITI function if nobody obeyed their orders? Still, it seems the whole doesn't work out too badly, and reading Burke's Reflections I have the impression that British parliamentary system was a fine case of たこつぼ in its heyday. Certainly such a system does not lack flexibility. 池田 seems to think so too.
I missed the second half of your comment here, but Mao can easily be seen as a religious revival, leading us back to: we need a new religion. I don't think Islam is it, though. Educated, better off Muslims have TFRs as low as anyone. Turkey is going to be Kurdish, Persia is going to be empty, etc. if trends continue.
Do trends continue?
I gotta write a post about Islam to tie the loose ends I've been leaving around. Persia will be ok, though. TFR 1.8 is enough to keep it full for 1,000 years.
As it is I suspect TfR won't recover but in truth were it not for mass migration by low IQ short term time preference people or immoral smarties it wouldn't matter. If current American/European demography looked like 1950 and we held border we could get the population decline by half or more without a problem. This would out the US at around its population in 1960 which is fine. Stabilization much less growth can't happen without pretty massive population decline. Modern societies are too urbanized and every nation is grossly overcrowded for its social carrying capacity. Simply, developed societies don't need or have a place for as many citizens as they once did, they aren't needed for force projection, religious ideology, labor force or really any other reasons anyone can think of other than maybe as consumers or for the elite to have people to rule. Basically modernity is an efficiency trap and in not more than a few decades at current rate, more than half the population will be utterly superfluous having no value is labor, citizens or any other purpose. If they are smart and self preserving they'll probably have to basically smash the current system to pieces to survive. China I don't think is in the same trap though, its a technological society but it has a different philosophy than modernity . That's your field of expertise not mine so I'll leave commentary on that to you I would suggest that China is fine with occupying people unlike the West and wants more citizens. The Wests "leaders" though are caught between a hammer and an anvil, they want more cheap labor for things that still need human labor or where its cheaper than machines, need consumers badly to be rich and of course need status props. They hate accountability and being made to be capable and honest though in deep down inside subconsciously would really like to go Georgia Guidestones or Moonraker and be rid of the troublesome citizenry. They can't do both of course so they choose to let the population of people who can sustain the culture decline and the ones who can't rise, well till it doesn't. This is a suicide course but better to reign in hell and all that.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0719/opinions-china-immigration-illegal-aliens-heads-up.html
Hear, hear!
A. B.: Like all your comments, this too is a good one, but may I question you on just one point? Are you sure that the West's leaders, or anyone else, "needs consumers"? Still, this was well put:
"Do we have any good examples of demographic recovery? It seems like high tfr is something that is difficult/impossible to restore. " one example. Feudal Japan's ruling elite went from very low tfr to very high tfr. But the normal outcome is that low tfr peoples simply disappear from history.
Ref?
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
On the plus side, Brazil's southernmost states are over 80% white, and seem rather nice. A global economic reset is unavoidable at this point, and a few cold winters without EBT cards will do much to reduce the monkey population. I don't know or care who will rule the tropics; it's not the white man's natural habitat. During an economic collapse, it's not safe for women to walk outside alone. That's the end of feminism, which means that white women will no longer be too busy with their careers to marry white men and bear white children.
That isn't how it works. Economic collapses mean people stop having babies. Full stop. During the great depression the US birth rate dropped well below replacement without the pill (it was 2.0 with a much higher infant mortality) and it stayed far below for 10 years It hit around 2.5 during massive wealth redistribution via the war but the 2.5 TfR was maybe just at replacement or below it since our infant morality was 8 times current . It didn't get high until the economy rebounded and this combined with a fortuitous decline in mortality enabled the baby boom. Once the economy goes bye bye, you'll end up with a worse TfR not a better one.
spandrell I had thought that the Brazil government wasn’t that stupid, and that the armed forces, if only them alone, had to enjoy high status and good pay. that's a category error: the police ARE NOT the armed forces. i have no knowledge of the pay structure / status of the Brazilian Army, but domestic police and the military are entirely different things. ie - the police can be kept in line via threats of deploying the troops. once the .gov tries deploying some troops to keep OTHER troops in line, then you know they've got serious problems.
Surely the police have some sort of leverage? Don't they get to keep the drugs they take from dealers after every crackdown? That's serious money.
i've no doubt that they do, this is South America after all. BUT, if they're raking in beaucoup bucks off the drug trade, they don't really need paying at all, now do they? the firefighters are in a rather more serious pickle. bout the only thing they can do is ... refuse to put out the fires destroying the homes of their friends and neighbors? you see their problem. but this has nothing to do with your original characterization; IF the .gov still has full control of the military ( and thence, the heavy weaponry ) THEN the .gov will not often be successfully challenged or overthrown is Brazil still paying their *soldiers*? that is the critical question. firemen and police don't amount to much more than civil servants who wear uniforms. the oligarchs can get by without keeping up with their salaries. if things in Brazil have gotten bad enough that pay is being held to even SOME of the troops, you know that things are headed a really, really bad way. spandrell Don’t they get to keep the drugs they take from dealers after every crackdown? Asset Forfeiture, which is the term for what you're talking about in the States, is generally considered an application of Civil Law ( as opposed to Criminal ) which is how pigs can get away with simply seizing your shit and then making you 'prove' that you weren't committing a criminal act. the specific law about this is going to vary from state to state and nation to nation, so i have no idea what they're doing in Brazil.
"once the .gov tries deploying some troops to keep OTHER troops in line, then you know they’ve got serious problems." This is exactly what convinced the Brits to leave India just after World War2. Smart Cookies those Brits. They've proved it again with Brexit.
Last time the security forces had high pay and high social status in Brazil, they just ended up enacting coup d'etats and assuming direct rule of the country. The political class doesn't want to repeat that mistake, so since the 80s they are carefully impoverishing and demonizing the armed forces and the state military polices.
That's very Song Dynasty.
Bettega July 5, 2016 at 19:17 The political class doesn’t want to repeat that mistake, so since the 80s they are carefully impoverishing and demonizing the armed forces and the state military polices.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVmC0ktznNo&feature=youtu.be&t=1m8s if that is actually what the political class is doing, that's incredibly stupid. that only works until the military figures out that, hey looky there, i pull this trigger and dumbshit asshole who was hassling me has his brains splattered all over the wall. there have to be at least SOME 'elite' units who get all the spoils and, therefore, have a reason to be loyal.
Not really. Read my comment below. Low status for military ensures you get an army that is excellent at following orders and internal security but useless against external invasion. External invasions are not a threat anymore. You do the math. As Spandrell says, remember the Song Dynasty?
"so since the 80s they are carefully impoverishing and demonizing the armed forces and the state military polices." Generally, High pay and status attracts more high IQ people. It also attracts people who are willing to take risks. And No (quasi-corrupt) Civilian government wants high IQ risk takers in the military. You get a thinking military. That is a recipe for a military Coup. So the Brazilian government is doing this exactly right. This is exactly what the Indian government does as well. Carefully impoverishing, demonizing and subtly humiliating the armed forces keeps the High IQ initiative grabbing risk takers away. You end up with a military that cannot think but will obey any order. You get a military that cannot protect against an invasion, but is excellent at firing on unarmed protestors without questioning the order. Who wants a military to take on external invaders these days? The days of outright Invasions and conquest are past. The fact that women are now allowed in combat battalions proves that combat battalions are not required anymore. So the name of the game is internal security. The Brazilian Government has the right idea.
Broaden it out a bit. This is what every functional country with the possible exception of Russia is doing. Not just Brazil. Which is going to backfire wondrously once someone figures out that everyone is playing the same strategy, including the United States.
There's always nukes.
Nukes are best used as a morale weapon rather than an actual one. I dread the day when the military brain drain has proceeded to the point where that's no longer remembered.
Good point.
I don't know about the armed forces, but the state military police gets around low pay by engaging in systematic corruption, including drug trade, protection rackets and direct territorial control over some favelas. "Elite Squad: The Enemy Within" has some information about this phenomenom. The movie is entertaining, but the previous one was better, it's said that the director wanted to make a movie depicting police brutality as bad, to make the people hate the police, but moviegoers loved it, and made the brutal cop of the first film a folk hero, so he made his sequel with corrupt cops as villains and with a left-wing teacher cucking the "hero", but besides this petty revanchism of the director the depiction of the mafias led by policemen and their relation to politicians is quite good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite\_Squad:\_The\_Enemy\_Within
There is already buzz about Greece being granted permanent host status for the Olympic Games.
I think it's a great idea.
tfw I'm a non-white in Europe and I'm going to have 5 kids and there is nothing you can do about it
Do send a picture of your 5 kids when you have them.
btw London is Trinidad demographics not Brazil. South Asian Afro-Caribbean culture = our smelly brown capital. its not a bad look imo
curious though, why exactly is Brexit a trend against globalization? maybe my inferior behavioral genetics are getting in the way from understanding, but I was under the impression that EU regulations protected many manufacturing jobs from being outsourced to China against the UK government's will & it is unlikely that there will be a serious change in immigration to the point you couldn't argue that UK will have significantly different demographics afterwards. seems like a whingy protest vote that wouldn't happen if Cameron wasn't such an out-of-touch boffin that won't steer anything away from the neoliberal status quo if you don't mind culturally marxist meme speak or what have you. mainly just disappointing because there won't be the NHS bennies we were promised
Of course the government might not fix immigration, but they are very aware that the vote was what it was. Articles all over the world are writing about how immigration have pissed the people so much they are voting against our dear neoliberalism. At any rate the idea that national sovereignty is a good thing might potentially lead to, you know, national sovereignty. The UK may choose not do much with it, but the cat is out of the bag now.
No not really, the same people would vote for a second Thatcher if they used the right buzzwords. The media trying to frame anti-immigration ideologues as being a part of some brave working class struggle doesn't really reflect reality. "Nation sovereignty" is a meme, it doesn't mean anything other than more of the same with a different label on.
Everything is a meme. Until it isn't.
Not everything is a meme and most memes are constant
Brazilfication is already a reality in the US, France, UK,.. but is going be even worse for them because the coloreds will want their wealth.
You mean it's gonna be even worse for them because they will have Brazilifcation Islam. At least Brazil does not have to deal with Islam.
You sure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism\_in\_Brazil#Islamic\_terror\_groups
you're kidding yourself if you think North America and West Europe will end up like Brazil. they will have none of its vivacity, all of its vulgarity, none of its tension-alleviating myths (hey we're all mixed, never mind how different the people on TV look from you). no, your future is much drearier, colder, and bloodier.
Not sure if you've seen this Spandrell, very Weissesque https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/nyborg-2011-the-decay-of-western-civilization-double-relaxed-darwinian-selection.pdf
Lol, that guy has some balls.
[…] there is the obvious geopolitical situation. If Rio de Janeiro indeed represents a city of the New World it is not a new world I look forward […]