Canada is making the exact same mistake though, and the US has mass immigration from Mexico that I think Pres. Trump has only partially managed to reduce so far.

Yes, I've heard that Canada and even Australia are following that same path of social welfare. But they at least have a few more decades to go. Those countries are based on immigration, and they've always done it right: The selection is done at the border. Not anyone gets in just because he wants to. The loser magnet 'social welfare' has just recently been turned on over there, but in Europe it is turned fully on since the early sixties or seventies respectively. That's over fifty years of inviting freeloaders from all over the world for 'free lunch' - and as we all know there is no such thing...

In the US the situation is somewhat different. There is no real welfare system, and this is exactly what saves them. This is what should be reduced, instead of trying to reduce immigration. Nobody goes to America expecting to get paid for breathing and breeding. Losers stay away from America, because the rules are simple: "You're on your own, buddy. You do something, you get somewhere, you do nothing, you can go and live under a bridge."

Highly qualified people are standing in line to go to America, because salaries are high and deductions are low. Europe, on the other hand, attracts losers, and losers only. No highly qualified individual has any reason to go to Europe. What for? To feed the ever growing welfare-dependent population, generation after generation, because it simply doesn't make sense for the lower qualified to go for a job? Who is stupid enough to work full time for minimum wage if you can get more money and less expenses by producing some kids and living on welfare?

Why should a Chinese IT-specialist go to London, Paris or Berlin, and have half his salary confiscated, if all he needs to do is to cough and he'll get an offer from Silicon Valley? Why, on the other hand, should some dude from Nigeria bother carrying bricks on a construction site in Europe for minimum wage if he can just stay at his home that's paid for by the tax payer and receive child benefits? By the way: The US is the only Western country that has a birth rate of more than two children per woman (2.1), and this is because the ones who work do not have to pay for the kids of those who don't.

So, you're left really with only Eastern European countries like Hungary and Poland and the Far East that are working against the tide. Even those countries have a lower than replacement birth rate but at least they are ready to defend their borders.

That might look like that, but once Western Europe is financially bled white and welfare can't be paid anymore, the Zombie Apocalypse will reach Eastern Europe, as well. They have no personnel to defend their borders, either. Plus, their young people have been leaving those countries for decades to seek for jobs abroad, while they have an increasing influx of retirees that go to Eastern Europe to seek for peace and quietness, and some even because their pension is not enough anymore to spend their last years in the country they worked for all their lives.

As far as your comment:

By now it is impossible to reverse, because that would mean increasing the birth rate from 0.9 to 4 children per woman.

I question that we absolutely can't reverse it because there is no physical reason why we can't increase the birth rate, we simply have to discover the will to do so.

Well, considering the fact that the white European woman is above the age of forty, there actually is a very biological reason why this is not going to work. I was talking about four children per woman in average that would be needed if you wanted to reverse it within a quarter of a century. This rate is impossible to achieve by now, for biological reasons alone. But even if it was, we have to consider the societal reasons: When do middle class European women initialize the reproductive sequence? About a hundred years ago with around 18. This has almost doubled, and today she spends her most fertile years preparing for the competition on the labor market. It is at the age of 32 that those women usually start planning their first kid. These women usually have a single child, or two at most, if it's not for biological reasons, then it is for financial ones.

The welfare-dependent woman that doesn't have the skills necessary to compete in the workforce, already started with 20 and has three or four kids by that time. Kids that are highly likely to end up following their parents career path, which means, you have one middle class kid having to pay for three lower class kids. 34% of those kids consider leaving the country for good. This is the situation in Germany, but the figures are very similar throughout Europe.

I think current cultural norms are a factor in the low birth rate, and cultural norms are one thing you can change.

I think that this is even more difficult to change than the biological issue. When I grew up it was considered normal that Daddy would go to work and Mum stayed at home. This is not the standard in Western countries anymore.

The economic collapse is a mathematical certainty. It is in the DNA of the financial system, in which money is created out of debt and must be paid back with interests. This means that the debt in the system grows exponentially, while the amount of money in circulation grows in a linear way. It is impossible to pay back all the debts, and therefore the whole system is built to collapse. And when it collapses the wealth gets redistributed from the masses to the banks. This is called a reset. The last one was in 1948.

I fear that an economic collapse may bring civil conflict in Europe because so many people who appear to be disposed to violence have been stupidly let in and are dependent on the state.

Every economic collapse comes with conflicts. The last one we call "World War II". This brought fundamental changes to society in every aspect. It is the global financial fabric that shapes the society, and it doesn't happen due to an unexpected concatenation of events alone. At every reset, this fabric is also improved according to the goals and interests of the One Percent.

Please don't misunderstand me I share your gloomy assessment of where we are heading if we don't change course, and change is becoming more difficult

It is like a sinking ship. The more water came in, the more likely the vessel is to sink. At a certain point, no matter what you so, the ship will founder. This is called the point of no return, and according to different analysts, the demographic capitulation of Europe was in the late 70s. The point of no return was passed in the late 90s, as from then on the changes in the fabric of society were no longer reversible, even if not one single foreigner came to Europe ever since. This is why I advocate looking for a lifeboat rather than trying to seal the leakage. See, after hitting the iceberg, it took the Titanic over two hours until the fore deck of the Titanic touched the surface. There were people that thought that it would take another two hours for the other half of the ship to disappear in the Atlantic. They didn't understand the exponential function behind the whole thing. It took Europe about sixty years to get to this point. It will not take another sixty until it is gone.

As for drinking beer and sharing ideas, well that is just what we're doing here

Yes. About a hundred years too late, I'm afraid. Sorry to say, but by shooting at each other, our grandparents did a great disservice to Europe, because "within three decades Europe went from ruling the world to occupied territory" - George Friedman (Stratfor).

I see that as a little cause for hope as well.

So then, the slogan now is the same it was after the last lifeboat had pulled away from the Titanic: Save yourself if you can. Never mind the others. They will be fine. Look around, talk to people. They are not worried about where they are headed. Why should you be?

The difference between now and the past is that we have this fantastic means of communication now so the people who see what's coming can at least start to plan ahead and try to organize for the aftermath.

That is correct and this is also the only thing one can do. I just think the easiest way to do so is to look for a better place. I'll finish with another quote from George Friedman - if you have nothing to do I recommend watching this video. It ends with the words:

What happens in this Europe? Most people would say 'nothing', because people always thing nothing will happen. Listen to the artillery fire in the East. Those are the drumbeats of the future.

_{George Friedman about the emerging crisis in Europe}