European Defence Agency paints grim picture of future

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 25 October 2006 22:41.

The European Defence Agency employs a number of analysts whose function is “long vision” - looking into the future of Europe from a defence perspective. The IHR circularised this summary by EU Business of one of these guys’ reports.

There’s nothing in the demographic aspects of it that aren’t familiar fare to MR readers. But, of course, the EDA reports directly to the highest echelons of European political life. EU Business, meanwhile, is well-read by corporate and financial Europe.

These two sectors - fundamentally, the European political Establishment and European finance and capital - don’t get their opinion from VDare or Amren. But they are getting the raw facts. What they make of them, however, is another matter.

Here’s the first half of the text from the EU Business article:-

The European Union will become older, poorer and increasingly vulnerable to wide-scale immigration from its neighbours, according to a new European Defence Agency report.

The agency also highlights the problems of increasing unemployment and desertification in its 32-page “long-term vision” for European defence needs which will be presented to EU defence ministers meeting in Finland on Tuesday.

The document, described by one diplomat as “pretty bleak”, is the result of a year’s work identifying the main trends for EU member nations and their defence needs.

The overall picture is of an aging, less prosperous Europe surrounded by regions—Africa, Middle East, Russia—“which may be struggling to cope with the consequences of globalisation”.

The average age of Europeans, who will only make up six percent of the global population, will rise to 45, while in Africa the average will be 22 years old.

The African population will pass 1.3 billion by 2025 (up 48 percent) with the Middle East seeing a similar percentage rise, according to the report.

Given increased desertificiation and high unemployment, especially in Africa, “the implications for despair, humanitarian disaster and migratory pressures are obvious”, the report asserts.

Europe’s fragility will be aggravated by its increasing dependence on imports of oil and gas, it added.

Its ally America, focussing all its attention on the rising giant of Asia, will tend to distance itself more and more from Europe, according to the EDA.

“Relatively poorer, older and more anxious about its security, Europe may also find itself increasingly alone in confronting the problems of a difficult neighbourhood.”

The “long-term vision” report is, I guess, not yet on the EDA website - or if it is I missed it. If you happen to come across it please post the link.

Tags: European Union

Comments:

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:54 | #

Ya know,GW,it makes one shake their head in amazement.The possibility that we [the great unwashed]Redneck anti-immigrant,racialist,Christians,were correct in espousing “White Countrys for White People”,will prove correct,and we will all descend into the Turd-World of Globalism,brought upon us by the [blanks] in Academia and Government.The only problem now is that it will take CWII to correct the situation,and there is not testosterone enough left in the White gonads to handle that.Since I’m 67,I’ll leave the end result to you-but my guns are loaded and my powder dry!Semper Fi !

Posted by Wodin on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:56 | #

“The European Union will become older, poorer and increasingly vulnerable to wide-scale immigration from its neighbours, according to a new European Defence Agency report.”

The EU won’t become “increasingly vulnerable to wide-scale immigration by its neighbours” unless it chooses to do so, based on its laws—and recently, most big EU nations (except for Britain) have passed tough laws that crack down on immigration by non-Europeans. These days, the laws of Denmark, Germany, Austria, Denmark, even France and Austria converge on restricting immigration basically to educated Whites.

The problem with so many of these damn position papers that lament the “aging of the population” is that they almost inevitably (they or their corollaries) suggest “solving” the problem by encouraging massive Third-World immigration. North America is encountering the same aging demographics issue as Western Europe, but in North America the problem is masked by the importation of tens of millions of non-White Third-Worlders with higher birth rates. So, the White birth rate in the US and Canada continues to plummet as in Europe, but the difference is that Whites become a minority in the US, while remaining a majority in most of Europe—maybe to shrink a little in absolute numbers but ultimately to recover, as they have in the past.

Economist idiots make way too much about “the aging of the population.” Of course populations throughout the world are going to age and stagnate b/c they’re going to stabilize—we can’t have infinite population growth in a world of finite resources, so all countries are going to hit a max, and they’ll age a bit in the process. In the midst of this, many countries, such as a good number in Europe, will stagnate their populations or even slip back—this is hardly unusual and has happened in prior centuries, even without the effects of war. After a generation or two, those less inclined to procreate won’t, while those more inclined will pick back up and dominate the population. It’s nature’s corrective, and it enables a population to stabilize while Whites remain a safe majority.

It’s the US and Canada (and possibly the UK if they continue to stupidly follow the US example), facing the same sort of demographic challenge as Europe, that are deciding to commit suicide rather than to calmly allow their populations to stabilize. The notion of higher fecundity in the US vs. Europe is a total myth—the White population in the US has a little higher than the median TFR of Europe (about 1.5-1.6). In states such as California, New Mexico, Illinois, Michigan and Arizona, basically states with an anti-White culture and often a White minority already, the White fertility rate is often down to 1.2 or 1.3. This wouldn’t be that big of a problem if we just ride it out—our population will stabilize, but we’ll be fine. But the imperialists in control of both US parties and the media, can’t have that—they have to flood the current population and turn is into a tiny minority in our own land.

So as a result, we get a higher population, more environmental ruin, greater dependence on foreign oil (rapid population growth = much greater dependence on Saudi oil), increased crime and racial tensions, and the reduction of America’s Whites to a pathetic, powerless minority.

I don’t like where this is leading but we have to acknowledge the truth here as some others have been pointing out—Whites in North America are basically vanishing and increasingly being marginalized, and soon, we won’t even be the majority. This is why I’m starting to agree with the suspicions of a few others here—the future for our people probably resides in a few countries in the central plain of Europe, and maybe a separate nation carved out of the current USA. Probably German Europe, some portions of Latin Europe will be our future, and possibly a statelet we carve out for ourselves in this Continent, once the shite hits the fan in about 15 years and Whites in this country realize the depth of our demographic predicament. A number of my own acquaintances have already started emigrating, we may ourselves in about 5 years—I’ve been visiting the German and Italian sections of the bookshops a lot more these days.

Posted by Amalek on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:53 | #

Steve Sailer at VDARE calls attention to The Economist’s survey of cognitive capital, and who’s got it:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/061015_iq.htm

The Economist preens itself on being the breviary for rootless cosmopolitans with time on their hands in the airport lounge or hotel reception area. So its timid tilt towards race realism in recent issues is auspicious in a GNXP-ish way—even if it can’t bear to admit that there’s more to life, culture and social peace than smart folks of all hues rubbing shoulders behind CCTV-controlled gates.

The Economist covered the Harpending/Cochran thesis about Ashkenazi Jewish IQ and disease vulnerability when most MSM wouldn’t touch it. Having been fooled by the ‘smart states vote Democrat’ tabular hoax, this most self-regarding of weeklies seems to have had a rethink about which ‘ethnicities’ are going to make hay in the knowledge-based economies of tomorrow—and why. By 2050 half of Americans will have IQs appreciably below 100 if the Census Bureau is on target.

As Sailer says, the ‘masters of the universe’ (NWO mavens) have to be up to speed on where the quick-witted, competent, morally coherent, self-disciplined workers of the world are and aren’t. Financial capital has to get friendly with the cognitive kind. Perhaps Forbes, which is yet more aggressive about moneymaking, will also dip a toe in the water soon. Or even—miracles can happen—the Wall Street Journal?

Posted by Wolfie on Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:05 | #

The high taxation principals of the EU have a lot to do with this. Middle-class Europeans limit their family size according to what they can afford after tax.

This tax revenue is then disproportionately squandered to support larger immigrant families who are prepared to bare a lower standard of living.

It would help if our women were prepared to endure a lower standard of living in order to foster a larger family but their obsession with the consumer culture prevents this compromise.