How dangerous are demographically armed societies?

Monaco has the oldest median age: 52.3 years.
Niger has the youngest median age: 15.2 years.

Population growth 1990–2012 (%):

Africa: 73.3%
Middle East: 68.2%
Asia (excl. China): 42.8%
China: 19.0%
OECD Americas: 27.9%
Non-OECD Americas: 36.6%
OECD Europe: 11.5%
OECD Asia Oceania: 11.1%
Non-OECD Europe and Eurasia: -0.8%

Link to the source.

The change of the world poulation from 1950 to 2100:

Link to the source.

The world population from 1 AD to 2050:


The “demographic transition” model:

Link to the source.

In Gunnar Heinsohn’s book “Menschenproduktion”, published in 1979, is mentioned that from a later view the graph of the world population development could look like this:


Most of the global population growth comes from the least developed countries:

I want to give you some links, because they may be interesting for this thread too:

The societies with the lowest fertility are not the wealthiest societies:

Not as dangerous as countries which don’t produce any comedians, like Germany, for example. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

They produced Karl Marx and Fred Nietzsche, didn’t they.

Yeah, their philosophy was a big joke wasn’t it! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

James, do you know the German humorist, poet, illustrator, painter, and inventor of comics and written comedy: H. C. Wilhelm Busch? He was born in 1832, thus a contemporary of both Karl Marx and Fiedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, and of course: Busch did not take them as serious as most of the ILP members do. H. C. Wilhelm Busch published his first comic illustrated cautionary tales in 1859 when Marx published his “Kritik der politischen Ökonomie”.

Some impressions:

Back to the topic:

If the demographically armed societies are going to remain dangerous, then Europeans will perhaps leave Europe and go to those dangerous countries with racism politics, for example: Australia and New Zealand. These racism countries welcome only those humans who have enough money to enrich these racism countries. These racism countries are the real dangerous countries, especially of the near future, and will become even more dangerous than the current demographically armed societies.

When was it? I mean: When did the USA start to import vast numbers of people from Niger?

And by the way: How many have they imported till now?

Look here for the answer.

Economic interests, especially monetary interests have become dominant. So politics is dominated by monetary interests. Actually, we do not have national politics or European politics, we only have globalistic politics, and this politics is monetary politics, because it is determined by monetary interests.

Why do we - for example - have such a global immigration into Western countries?

  1. The globalists are interested in a great crisis with a great war, because they gain from it very much. Result: They become more powerful.
  2. The large companies are interested in cheap workers. Result: They become more powerful.
  3. The immigrants are interested in using their children as demographic weapons for the conquest of all Western countries and in becoming as wealthy as the Westerners. Result: They become more powerful.
  4. The politicians of the Western countries are interested in continuance in their offices; so they have to support the other three main interests (see: 1), 2), 3)). Result: They remain as powerful as they are.

The first two (see: 1), 2)) are super organisms.
The last two (see: 3), 4)) are organisms and “organs like puppets on a string” of the first two (see: 1), 2)).

So the losers of this four groups are the politicians of the western countries (=> 4)).

And the only thing these “losers” can do is to obey and to discriminate and fight against the people who originally come from western countries and have elected this “losers”.


They and the people who elected them obey their globalists. So almost all of the western people obey their globalists - except those who offer resistance, of course.