You keep downing the Dutch, but this is concrete evidence of a turn.

It might be the kind of extremism that we don't want. A bunch of armed skinheads, dressed in matching uniforms, marching down the main drag of Amsterdam shouting racist slogans is not a good thing for you and me, Robert.

The sad part is that they are a desperate response to a complete failure of the political system to address real concerns, not unlike the electoral success of Haider's party in Austria or the VB in Vlanderen.

There you go, bart, justify them.

The Dutch want to preserve their society and culture from being destroyed by the barbaric Muslim horde. There is nothing wrong with that. If the people who legitimately oppose the Muslim terrorists are automatically labelled as 'racists', they will at some point feel no need to not be racists. And that is not a good outcome for anyone.

At least in Holland, the van Gogh and Fortuyn murders have had the effect of causing a fair percentage of the elites to change their minds about the Muslim infestation. So maybe Holland will lead the way and ship the barbarians back to the Barbary Coast from whence they came, saving their nation.

Mr. Judd;

So if some one told you "if you fail to address your lack of exercise, you'll have a heart attack" he would be justifying the heart attack? Perhaps, though, he would simply be pointing the consequences of inaction.

What makes more sense than to react to madness with more madness?

The authorities have deserted reason and given over to the demands of an alien culture bent on the destruction of their host peoples and their way of life.

What other course do these people have but to take to the streets? Isn't that what we did when we had had enough of English tyranny?

aog:

Yes, my failure to exercise justifies my heart attack. Telling me the failure isn't my fault is counterproductive.

bart:

There's little evidence that they do. If you don't produce a succeeding generation you've kissed off the future.

erp:

The Dutch have no culture left to defend.

OJ,

Your comment is appallingly ignorant and merely proves the old adage 'Travel broadens the mind.' Holland is a fascinating place with a great culture and history, and I've regretted not spending more than a few weeks there.

The Dutch have a low birth rate because the taxes are so prohibitive that the cost of raising kids is too high, much the same way the middle-class Americans aren't having enough kids. It is no moral failing.

children are a choice, not an economic diktat. Choosing not to have them is nihilist.

"children are a choice, not an economic diktat. Choosing not to have them is nihilist"

Would make a great bumper sticker. Too bad it is not based in reality. Having children have been an economic diktat sense the the start of civilization.

Then why did such varied cultures produce so many?

Because they had infant mortality rates of about 90% by age 5.

Because they lacked social safety nets so that parents had to rely on their children for support if they survived to old age, the more children the more support.

Because they lacked other options of things to do, the long, snowy Quebec winters certainly had some connection to the fact that the province for decades had the highest percentage of families with 10+ kids than any other place in the world.

Because they were able to be one-income families or were subsistence farmers working out of the house so everyone had to contribute to the family well-being, but could do so in a way organized to enable families to raise kids.

There are lots of reasons, none of which are apposite today in a modern, post-industrial state.

So it had nothing to do with economic diktats.

Impoverished places have lots of kids most of whom get treated like crap, wealthy ones don't but those they do have mostly get showered with goods and attention. First world societies aren't troubled by feral children roaming the streets of urban areas committing all manner of crimes. Third world societies from Calcutta to Bogota are. That should tell you something about why societies have kids.

We have kids. Europe had kids when it was great. It's stopped as it declined. That should tell you something about childless societies. And yourself.

France has had a low birthrate since the 18th century and its population is not twice the size it was at the time of the French Revolution. There are areas like Picardy which have fewer people today than they had before the Black Death. It would take a pretty churlish individual to deny French greatness throughout the 19th century and into the 20th.

As contraception was rare, the French male population generally married late, especially in the middle classes. A significant age difference between spouses is the basis of much of the drama in 19th century French Literature, e.g. Madame Bovary.

Europe's got its problems but it's still better than Rio, Bogota and Calcutta.