Thursday, April 17, 2008

Demographic Genocide

In the comments on last night’s post about the the dire situation of bloggers in Sweden, Skalman gave a concise and lucid description of the demographic mess that the Swedes find themselves in.

It’s worth reproducing here in its entirety. I’ve edited it slightly for spelling, punctuation, and clarity.

Sweden Umma

Not all of us are interested in committing demographic suicide. However: you miss a few vital points here that can explain the low birthrates of the native Swedes and other Europeans.

One: High taxes. The tax pressure in Sweden and in the rest of Europe makes a lot of people crumble. As an example: Every dollar I make costs my employer (at least) two dollars because he has to pay a fee (tax) to the state that is just about equal to what I earn. On top of that he has to pay VAT (25%), energy tax (even VAT on the energy tax [I know, it’s madness]), environmental tax and so on when he buys raw material and electricity to run the machines.

On top of this he also has to pay a state tax of 30% of the yearly profit.

When I get my salary I, for a starter, will have to pay 30% in tax. I will have to pay VAT (25%) whenever I buy something and when I buy gasoline ($2/liter) only about 25% is an actual cost for the fuel and the remaining 75% of the price is made up of different taxes such as energy tax, environmental tax and on top of that VAT.

The total tax pressure here are estimated to a total of about 70% of the monthly wages.

The taxpayers carry such a heavy burden that every child is a question of economy. This is in large part due to the fact that we, as taxpayers, have to support at least 60,000 new “Swedes” every year and this has been going on for the last thirty or so years, and it is now taking a tremendous toll on ordinary people’s income.

At the same time we see a decrease in the resources of the National Health Service, public schools, the judicial system, military, and so on.

The reason for not making babies in Europe is, to make it short, that we have to support a large number of cuckoo-babies that our leaders and moral elite have forced upon us without really asking for our permission and at the same time they (and a bunch of others) have managed to build a system of oppression that effectively deals with anyone daring to question this madness.

Finally, hoping that all this text has made some impression other than confused, I will give you an example:
- - - - - - - - -
My wife and I, together earning more than average here, are in the position that we have to ask ourselves if we can afford to have a third child, because when my wife (pediatrician) is home for maternity leave we lose about $2000 every month. Not one single family with income such as ours is able to sustain their normal life with such a loss.

As an opposite example: Any family on social welfare can have as many babies as they like and do not have to ask themselves whether they can afford it or not. The welfare system takes care of it all, and if they need a bigger apartment, that is paid for by the social security system even if this happens to be a family with (already) fifteen children.

They can have as many babies as they want and the expenses are paid for by me and other taxpayers who at the same time can’t afford to have babies of our own since we have to pay for imported cuckoos.

There you have a strong reason for the demographic suicide that you write about. To me, living in the midst of this upcoming hell, it looks more like demographic genocide than anything else.


Skalman said...

Thanks Baron. I hope you and others find it useful as a piece of information to understand exactly how todays Europe really looks like and why things are like they are.

Thanks for correcting my english. Since english is not my first language and not even my second (I guess that would be danish)there are sometimes mistakes, minor and major.

For you and for the rest out there: Thanks, and keep up the good work.

Baron Bodissey said...

Skalman --

Your English is excellent. All my changes were minor; I hardly had to correct anything.

Thanks very much for contributing. We need all the news from Sweden that we can get.

Lombard1985 said...

That really puts things in perspective, Skalman.

After reading this, I can't help but wonder what native Swedes will do when the welfare state collapes (as Fjordman predicts will happen in the not too distant future).

Any thoughts, Baron? Anyone?

Risto A. said...

Well, gotta give a credit. Swedes got far without having to engage in battle.
When they must, when the bottom of the barrel of welfarism (communism) is located, it ain't easy war.
- Guerilla warfare like Iraq, or at best, similar to israel-palestine conflict, rages on and on until wings of heaven descends.

Forexample yogoslavia conflict, it really is not gonna go away. It is at this "peacefull" phace, because of international pressure, but when this pressure is removed due to other escalations, it sparks again. Such is the nature of ethnic based conflicts.

National states with strong majority of similar people is the only vehicle to get into a peacefull state and into peacefull internationalism.

Lugundum said...

Thanks for interesting article. I hope you will succeed with your third child, Skalman.

However, and it should be stressed here, there are some systems allowing for higher birth rates even among educated middle class people. For example salary for your wife during her maternity leave based on her wage a pediatrician.

BTW, Lombard1985, any chance you are indeed from Lombardy? :)

Lombard1985 said...


Actually I was born here in America, but my father emigrated from Lombardy. As a result, I have duel citizenship. It'll come in handy if/when I decide to move there. But that's a story for another time.

Diamed said...

If you do have a third child, I'm sure the daughter would be beautiful and the son would be brave. God bless.

Anonymous said...

Long time ago, I escaped Communist E-Europe and was accepted to scandinavia for asylum, where I escaped from for taxing to death and came to N.America. What a releaf - but the rubber barons are after as here too...

ScottSA said...

Thanks Baron and Dymph for allowing this line of inquiry here. As much as no one seems to want to be known as a "racist," it is long overdue in western society. White guilt will destroy the west if we don't shake it off soon. To %$&%$ with Charles and his mobsquad.

Skalman said...

Lombard 1985 and risto:

The welfare is, as Fjordman has predicted, very likely to fall apart. It only takes simple maths to realise it.

No economic system, no matter how robust it is, will in the end survive a yearly addition of some small 100.000 people that are withdrawing from it if it is not at the same time getting an influx of at least twice as many who adds to the system. There you have the situation of todays swedish welfare system.

When the bottom of the barrel is found it will inevitable lead to havoc and destruction due to violent protests from the ones previously benefiting from the system. After all, who wants to be hungry and unclothed?

The ones normally paying the bills, meaning the taxpayers, are already on the virge of a rage because of the high taxation and if they are to be forced to pay even more of their income in tax there will also be protests. Enough is as we all know enough!

As bad ist may sound I almost hope for such a collapse since it may be the only way out of the current situation given that the present politicians are not exchanged for something better and with more spine and courage.

One of the advantages here is that a guerilla style warfare is not very likely. All the foreigners are more or less gathered in their own parts of the various cities and the chance of their escape should it get messy is not very big. In such a scenario it is more likely that Sweden, or any other european country with a similar situation, should suffer from mujaheddins coming from the outside.

Lugundum: Yes, we have a system where both parents get money from the welfare system when home on maternity/paternity leave. There is however a kind of a "roof" in the system that prevents you from getting full payment in relation to what you actually pay to the system.

An explaining example:
If someone with a "normal" salary of about $3.200/month is home taking care of their newborn they get a maximum of 80% af their salary from the system.

If someone, like my wife, who earns about $8.000/month is home taking care of a newborn they get a maximum of about $4000. As you all can see this is merely 50% of the normal salary. In spite of this we all pay the same percentage of our wages to the system(which I consider to be fair) and in my opinion it would only be fair if you also have the possibility to witdraw on equal terms which is obviously not the case.

This is on the other hand not anything that afflicts the "normal" welfare receiver who still does not have to care the least about this. They still receive a standard sum for each new child and also have the possibility to receive extra welfare to buy clothes, food and equipment needed for the baby(eg baby carriage, bed).

Things are just not on equal terms here and that really makes at least me pi**ed off. This especially seen in the light that this affects the total amount of resources that can be spent on the native population(eg defense, police force, health service etc).

So, to make another statement. Not all of the europeans are spineless amoebas beyond all help. We wish to fight our own extinction but are in many ways backbound by laws, media, politicians and the moral elite. In many ways it would alse be a huge lack of weaponry should it come to an armed conflict which I personally belive to be more and more likely every year even though I don´t like the thought. The arms regulation laws are not as liberal here as in the US, unfortunately.

To the rest of you: Thanks for the kind wishes.

pasta said...


There is some truth in this, however, even people in parts of the world which have neither large numbers of cuckoo-babies nor much of a welfare system, don't get enough babies, either. The fertility rate of Japan (1.23) or Hong Kong (0.98) is far lower than Sweden's (1.66).

Fertility rates of all countries of the world can be found here.

We just have to face the fact, that children are just too much of an economic risk and a burden, and with convenient and reliable contraception available, it makes sense for modern people to just decide against having lots of them. The ancient civilizations of the Greeks and the Romans perished for the same reason - not enough babies.

The policy of Sweden and other European nations to introduce financial incentives for having children is a step in the right direction, although it is yet far from being sufficient. It is also unfortunate that it is directed at all parts of the population indiscriminately. Instead the indigenous and economically productive parts of the population should be encouraged more to have children while the immigrants and economically dependents should be discouraged or outright prohibited from procreating.

Germany took a shy and totally insufficient step into the right direction by paying wealthy parents a higher amount of childcare subsidy than poor parents.

ln said...

As a dumb, bloody, taxburdened Swede myself I am broken-hearted, and I am weeping, there are tears all over my keyboard, after having red about poor skalman's and his wife's (the now world-known pediatrician) difficulties to give birth to the third child. No wonder that we as a nation are dying out.
As everybody understands skalman's financial problems couldn't be worse anywhere else. *Exile* must stand next in turn. Why not try Great Britten?
Here is a small fore-taste:

Skalman said...


Good comment. I agree nearly totally.

The low fertility rate of developed countries/areas such as Japan and Hongkong are as you write a question of economy. That much is absolutely true. BUT....

In Japan and Hongkong they don´t have nearly 100.000 new cuckoos each year that are to be supported through transfers from the working classes.

This I totally agree with:"Instead the indigenous and economically productive parts of the population should be encouraged more to have children while the immigrants and economically dependents should be discouraged or outright prohibited from procreating.

What we are doing right now is that we are reversing the evolution. The ones most fit/ambitious/intelligent decrease their number of children while, on the other hand, the ones less fit continue to raise the amount of children they get. In the ends this leads to stagnation and violence and a decivilistaion of the entire western world. My worst fears are that within a century we will see another world war consisting of minor, but bloody, skirmishes between different factions who are in turn cooperating worldwide.

The outcome of such a war could be, to say the least, devastating for civilisation as we know it..

Skalman said...


I didn´t ask for sympathy. I was merely explaining the situation I, and many others, are in. don´t have any financial problems. I work full time and also run a small company on the side so money is not the issue right now. When it comes to having another baby it would be due to the irregularities and unjustices in the system.

And yes. Exile has been on my mind.
Great Britain is not an option. From the ashes into the fire? I think not.

I have tried to give my opinion on why we as a nation are dying together with the rest of Europe. Perhaps you could give us your opininon? Given, of course, that you have any except picking on those who have? Or are you perhaps one of the "do-gooders" whose opinions are the reason we face the kind of future we are? Don´t come crying to me when it´s your turn to get ears deep into the quicksand you´ve helped create.

So, please. Save your sarcasms for someone else. I dont give a sh*t...

laller said...

Why is it always taxes and welfare that gets blamed for the low birth-rate?
What about the fact that people aren't in a hurry to have babies? If I remember correctly, the average age of first-time mothers in Denmark is somewhere around 30. That's old. Infact, according to "specialists", it's too old. And it isn't because of taxes or welfare that the age is so high, it's because people want to establish careers and what not first. (and let's not forget about the declining quality of semen...)

It's much too simple to blame taxes for the low birthrates.

Skalman said...

Not taxes in itself. Not welfare. Those are not in themselves necessarily a reason behind low birthrates.

The reason behind high taxes. If the taxes had been lower I and my wife could have had our first son several years earlier but because we had no possibility to survive on my salary alone AND at the same time support a baby that was not an option.

As she was studying at the time we simply couldn´t afford having a baby even if we had wanted to.

Then we come to the next step. Why are the taxes so high? Where do the money go? It´s not returned to the ones paying them. They are not used for the defense forces. They are not used to increase the number of police officers in a country with alarmingly high, and rising, crime rates. They are not used to reinforce the resources of a health service already on its knees and it surely isn´t used to improve the constantly sinking grades of students.

Elderly people die because they do not get the proper care in seniorhomes and young children are crowding way too small buildings in kindergartens and are looked after by too few teachers.

The reason people want to establish careers is because they want to make sure they can support a baby. Having children without means of supporting them is in my opinion irresponsible. Those means would be easier to get if the taxpayers didn´t have to pay for an additional 60.000-100.000 cuckoos each year.

As a comment about Denmark. Denmark has one of the highest tax rates in the world togehter with Sweden.

Lugundum said...

Skalman, whilst I understand that you are annoyed when struggling with bureaucracy in your expensive social state I should also point out that you are in fact still living on the brighter shores of life. I think you should consider fourth child :-).

Anyway, I'm from the Czech Republic and we are now being flooded with immigrants faster than Sweden (based on stats. for 2007). And you are luckier than us Czechs as you have at least got your sverigedemokraterna. So I hope all Swedish folk reading this blog is aware of them, is supporting them and is voting for them - together with your families.

Because all western countries are now plagued by mass immigration and destruction of their cultures and societies. There is simply nowhere to flee.

Skalman said...


You are absolutely correct in your statement that I, after all, live on the brighter shores of this planet. Compared to the Czech republic I guess that Sweden still stands out but your pursue of welfare makes you close in on us. That is a well deserved reward.

The fact that Sweden still is a relatively bright shore doesn´t take away the fact that we, as a country, are rapidly going downhill in almost every area of society and a large part of it is the mass immigration of people who do not either want nor can´t assimilate but on the contrary demand, demand and demand.

The tide is, even if it goes slow, turning.

Lugundum said...

Skalman, I have been to Sweden repeatedly and among others I have visited Malmo even though only for a short time.

I think you deserve significantly better and I wish to see your country rich, successful and full of (your) children. So, for the starters, make sverigedemokraterna double-digit party after your next general elections. Hell, we need them, too!

John said...


I absolutely understand your problems. The fact that you point out how you and your wife have to make the hard decision that you cannot afford a child is the same all over. I live in the US and I know a lot of families that decide they cannot afford more children. And every one of them are educated working parents who believe they should be responsible parents.

I wish you the best of luck, and hope you can find a way to have your third child.

Gringo_Malo said...

Pardon me for pointing out a simple and obvious way for Skalman and his wife to have a third, fourth, fifth child, and so on. They need only quit working and join the ranks of the welfare parasites. Admittedly, this might be easier for them if they were non-white. That certainly seems to be true here in America, but I wouldn't bother to get out of bed in the morning if the government took 70% of my meager salary. That's why socialism never works.

laller said...


Are you sure you can't afford another child? Are you sure the problem isn't that you and your children expect a certain level of consumption? (Maybe you could even find a larger and/or cheaper house/flat to live in?)
In Denmark we hear of kids using thousands of kroner each month on (designer) clothes and other luxury items. It stands to reason that if you let your kids use a large part of your income, then you won't have alot left over. And if you can't conceive of the notion to lower consumption, then ofcourse it will appear that there isn't enough money for more children.

When it comes to finances the problem isn't that people don't have enough money, but that they've become accustomed to a certain level of consumption. The vast majority of people would have more than enough money for more children, if they'd just lower their consumption.
Most choices in life require that you compromise, but it would seem that most people don't want to.

Skalman said...


Yes. I´m pretty sure. Any which way I look I can´t find a way to accomplish this in any other way than setting myself and my family in a too small, too expensive flat in a too bad area. We also have our jobs in different locations which gives us a commuters cost no matter what we do except change jobs. And if we are required to change jobs just because we´re about to have another child it seems rather far-fetched.

I now live in a pretty normal house at average cost, don´t have any expensive habits and drive a low cost standard car. My children are five and three years old so they don´t spend thousands of kronor on luxury consumption.
The little guy inherits clothes from his brother and they´re not receiving shiploads of toys or anything else.

I don´t have any luxurious electronic gadgets(my TV is for example over ten years old) and I´m not having any expensive hobbies.

As I mentioned previously I also run a small company on the side. Money is not the issue right now. BUT. When it comes to having another child things get messier. We lose 24.000 kronor every month my wife stays home and that is a severe loss for anyone isn´t it?

I have merely been pointing out that the system of today is rather unfair as it rewards those who have not helped funding it and punishes those who wants to support themselves. At the same time we get reports that we do not make enough babies and thus have to import "breeders". To me it just makes no sense.

laine said...

It sounds as though the justification given by most western politicians for immigration "that we need more workers" is just BS as there are no safeguards in place to make sure the immigrants are actually workers, not shirkers and don't bring their elderly relatives with them, cancelling out their efforts if they do work.

No country needs to import immigrants to balloon their welfare rolls.

Why allow in people who have no education, do not speak the language, are not known for their work ethic, practise polygamy and/or hold beliefs that are completely contradictory to the host country's?

Is Sweden a Welfare department for the Muslim world? Must it cater to their needs rather than its own?

This is cultural suicide, pure and simple.

Lugundum said...

Laine, immigration propaganda is a pure nonsense. Look at Japan: they have got lower natality than almost all European countries for the last 30 years, they have got almost nil immigration and their society, infrastructure and economy are working fine.

On the contrary, in Europe we have got mass immigration in order to be saved as elders and we are paying record sum to those "workers" on social securities and health care. Count criminality, overloaded infrastructure and ghettoization to that as indirect costs. And whilst old people are dying without help in dirty hospitals, politicians are paying billions of Euros to renovate city quarters devastated by life-style of many of those "new workers".

The whole immigration issue is a scam and Ponzi scheme and only enterpreneurs are happy with that as it helps them depress wages thanks to the cheap labor force. They are not paying all those social payments for unemployed people. Middle class is.

VinceP1974 said...

Japan has serious problems.. they're in a mad rush to build robots to do the tasks that there will be no one around to perform.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Japan's main problem is an ageing population. Now unlike the UK, japan is massively overpopulated and it does need to reduce that population somehow - and that's happening, though it has implications for care of the elderly. They aren't importing huge immigrant populations, they don't have much of a welfare system, so any population reduction will not be replaced with immigrant populations. They're mechanising because they want to maintain their current productivity without maintaining their current population. I personally think that's quite sensible because Japan is simply not able to feed itself and has to import food. Give it another 30 years, I reckon Japan's population will start to level off again, and by then they'll be living the life of riley, because their national character somehow seems incompatible with near-eastern and western religions.