A thought occurred to me the other day. Lots of folks among the right make lots of noise about how low white fertility will spell the doom of the West. According to the doom-sayers, the higher birthrates of the filthy darkies, brownies and slanty-eyed devils from the East will inevitably make white people into minorities in their own lands, unless Joe and Jane Paleface start cranking out crotch-droppings ASAP. To this end, much agonizing is done in the right-o-sphere on the ways white fertility can be raised. I’m highly skeptical of these claims, considering they’re all based on linear demographic projections that assume social conditions will remain frozen in amber (which they never do), but I’ll play along and assume current trends are cause for concern.
I’ve stated in the past that it’s far easier to destroy then to create. In light of this truth, why bother trying to raise white birthrates? You rightists should be focusing your efforts on lowering non-white birthrates. And I’m not talking about forced sterilization or anything reprehensible like that, but identifying the conditions that have led to whites forsaking family for shallow pleasures and replicating them in third-world countries and communities. In other words, you fight them by forcing them to swallow the poison pill of sexual liberation that has so devastated your own cultures.
Let’s review. The current dystopia of the West is the result of the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse:
- Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).
- Easy peasy no-fault divorce.
- Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).
- Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.
Societies which lack any or all of the four horsemen have higher birthrates and more quickly growing populations then those that suffer from them all. Therefore, our objective is to bring the Sirens to the third world. But how? Advocatus Diaboli hinted at such an idea a while back, but I’ve got a fully fleshed-out plan the government can carry out.
We begin by mass airdropping “sexual humanitarian aid” packages into third world countries. Porn mags, hand lotion, and condoms for the guys, vibrators and the Pill for the girls. When Achmed from Fallujah gets a look at this month’s Playboy Centerfold, he’ll be too busy cranking his little Muhammad to spare a drop of love juice for his hairy, burqa-clad wife. And if Maria from Santo Domingo doesn’t have to worry about getting pregnant, she’ll be free to spend her quinceñera getting her Virgin Mary desecrated by all the hot boys in the barrio. It’ll be like a sweatier, sexier, more sallow-faced Berlin Airlift.
But merely mass exporting our tools of decadence won’t be enough. Give a man a back issue of Hustler and he’ll jerk off for a day; give him an internet connection and he’ll jerk off for a lifetime. Therefore, we should start constructing the physical and social infrastructure required to turn the teeming melanin-infused hordes of the world into the weak, hedonistic pieces of shit that we white people are. If we’re going to have a Berlin Airlift to give temporary relief, we need a Marshall Plan to affect long-range change in the third world. I propose we call it the Alexander Plan – take a guess why.
We start by getting the sanction of governments the world over to implement our plan. How? Simple – we require, as a condition for continuing to receive foreign aid, governments of developing countries to liberalize all laws pertaining to sex and marriage. Won’t legalize abortion and no-fault divorce? Ban porn sites from being viewed on the interwebs? No more evil colonial oppressor aid money for you! Given that the IMF has been able to force debtor countries like Argentina and Bolivia to upend their economies with neoliberal policies in exchange for financial assistance, getting the same governments to loosen up their marriage and divorce laws should be easy.
Next, we invest in constructing electrical grids and high-speed internet access in third-world countries, all the better to download Bangbros clips from The Pirate Bay. The erection and maintenance of these grids and networks can’t be entrusted to the kleptocrats in charge, so we fly in German and Japanese engineers to do all the legwork. We then subsidize the sale of laptops, smartphones, and broadband internet plans to the masses. We fund all of this ourselves, allowing us to not only sell our enemies the jizz-smeared rope with which they will hang themselves, but look like selfless saints in the process.
Finally, we offer up aid grants to encourage third-world women to pursue higher education, preferably in feminist institutions. When they graduate, we fund useless makework jobs to employ them and give them wealth and status they haven’t earned. With their hypergamous instincts eliminating ninety percent of their male peers as potential mates, a whole new generation of girls will head straight to the alpha cock carousel. To facilitate this, we give a massive grant to Planned Parenthood so they can construct free abortion clinics on every block from La Paz to Islamabad. Decline of civilization, here we come! (These proposals can also be implemented on a smaller scale in third-world immigrant communities in the West.)
Some of you will balk at my ideas. “Why the fuck should my money be pissed away on condoms and internet porn for third-worlders?”, you ask. Think of it this way – if you live in the West, your money is already being pissed away on third-worlders. Afghan war anyone? Operation Iraqi Freedom? Every other military operation the U.S. has fought in the past sixty-plus years? That’s trillions of dollars gone with nothing to show for it. And even if you don’t live in the U.S. (and even if you do), your government throws millions of dollars yearly at corrupt turd-world governments that only ends up lining the pockets of the people in charge. My proposals will replace those failed operations and will not only be cheaper, they will actually work.
My plan is genius, which is why it will never be implemented. Neither side of the political spectrum will find it palatable. Liberals will reject my proposals because they will destroy the “vibrant” cultures of the turd world with Western imperialism. Conservatives will reject my proposals because they’re anachronistically moralizing, dysfunctional prudes who oppose abortion and contraception and think anything outside of missionary sex through a garbage bag is immoral and degenerate. Hence the white race will be outbred into extinction because of the stubbornness and ignorance of the people who claim to want to save it.
{ 65 comments… read them below or add one }
Perhaps it is my lingering nihilistic tendencies, but I think that once you dehumanize people at one stage of development, you have opened the door to dehumanizing everyone. If the unborn are fair game, then so are the elderly, the perpetually sick and the congenitally useless.
If the unborn are fair game, then so are the elderly, the perpetually sick and the congenitally useless.
What about… the undead?
My plan is genius, which is why it will never be implemented.
Wrong. It is implemented. Being an European and having been living in Central America for ten years, I have seen it with my own eyes.
[Maybe in one part of the world. But my dream is to see it everywhere, from Africa to the Middle East to Southeast Asia. - ed.]
Liberals will reject my proposals because they will destroy the “vibrant†cultures of the turd world with Western imperialism.
Liberals don’t give a damn about other cultures in developing countries. They do it in America in order to destroy the American traditional culture (if you have a lot of different cultures, you can press for a lowest denominator, which is liberal anything-goes). But, in other countries, they are destroying the local traditional cultures.
We start by mass airdropping “sexual humanitarian aid†packages into third world countries. [..]
Well, this is happening…sort of. Condoms are very cheap here. America (NGOs? government? Planned Parenthood?) gives tons of them for free (I guess it is a way to prevent illegal immigration). “Profamily” hospitals (kind of the “Planned Parenthood” local equivalent) sell 100 condoms for only $3 (I buy them in packs of 100: I am lazy and I don’t want to go back to the “Profamily” hospital often). They gave it for free for a while but they discovered that people abused.
give him an internet connection [..] infrastructure required to turn the teeming melanin-infused hordes of the world into the weak, hedonistic pieces of shit that we white people are.
American slutty culture is exported everywhere in the world through movies, satellite TV and the Internet. Here in Central America, where I live, women used to be less slutty ten years ago than now. Now more are less promiscuous, less traditional. The process is not as advanced as in America but it is well under way. Ten years ago, sexuality was taboo in the media. Now there are radio programs where women explain sexual sluttinness with total openness.
We start by getting the sanction of governments the world over to implement our plan. How? Simple – we require, as a condition for continuing to receive foreign aid, governments of developing countries to liberalize all laws pertaining to sex and marriage.
Well this is done in a covert way. United Nations (I worked for its local office for some months) masks it as “reproductive choices and reproductive health for women”, which translate in promotion of contraceptives, abortion, feminism and so on. No aid package is complete with some of this crap.
Next, we invest in constructing electrical grids and high-speed internet access in third-world countries,
Internet is expanding in the third-world. I have high-speed access but even the poor can have it. I have a female friend who is very poor and lives in a slum in conditions of extreme poverty but has a used computer (more than ten years) and a slow Internet connection for $5 a month. This is enough for her.
Finally, we offer up aid grants to encourage third-world women to pursue higher education, preferably in feminist institutions.When they graduate, we fund useless makework jobs to employ them and give them wealth and status they haven’t earned.
This is also been done. This is the goal of many NGOs who work here. Give education to women. Then women end up as a single mothers, working as a secretaries (for example, I have a very poor female friend who is studying in the National University: International Relations, and she will end up as a secretary because this kind of glamorous jobs are scarce here).
So women do not end in a glamorous career as in America, but earning the minimal wage. With this minimal wage, they take care of their children. But here people are not ambitious so there are a lot of very poor single women.
My girlfriend is studying in the Public University and she has a class of “Individual Development” where she is fed all the feminist crap. I have to neutralize with arguments every day.
With their hypergamous instincts eliminating ninety percent of their male peers as potential mates, a whole new generation of girls will head straight to the alpha cock carousel.
This is also done. Most young women end up as a single mothers because the (Latin) alpha impregnates them and dumps them. I know lots of examples. Some of them very close to me. Some of them where the woman gets pregnant in order to trap the alpha. It always fails.
Central America used to be filled by families (with lots of kids). Now it is filled with single mothers with one or two kids. (Some families too but far less than before).
The result: lower birthrates. The birthrate has dropped dramatically in Central America. It is the same of the Muslim world: Argelia and Iran have below-replacement birthrates.
Of course, the birthrite won’t be as low as the Western world, because, to be so, developing countries will have to have access to the wealth of developing countries. So they will always be a differential and the replacement of white people will continue, although at a much slower pace.
Sorry, my last paragraph is wrong. It reads this way (Excuse me for my English: it is not my native language):
Of course, the birthrate won’t be as low as the Western world, because, to be so, developing countries will have to have access to the wealth of developed countries. So they will always be a differential and the replacement of white people will continue, although at a much slower pace.
Yeah, I tangled with some paleocons over some Gamish matters. For all their ostensible concerns regarding declining white western birth rates, they’re remarkably disinterested in the mating realities of 20 something guys and gals.
A modern-day modest proposal; love it.
You know what we tell white people? “Don’t have kids if you can’t afford them.” You know what those other cultures tell each other? “Don’t get a house/car/etc. if you don’t have enough kids for them.” One of these paradigms is on the verge of swallowing up the other. One of these messages is demonstrating itself to be inherently more evolutionarily sound.
Yeah, I tangled with some paleocons over some Gamish matters.
Please tell me that Gamish rhymes with Amish.
or all their ostensible concerns regarding declining white western birth rates, they’re remarkably disinterested in the mating realities of 20 something guys and gals.
Perhaps they don’t find Game a satisfying alternative, a position I understand. They want to get rid of the root problem, not engage in a band-aid solution.
Some of the behaviors that surround game actually serve to prolong the problem by encouraging men to try to have the best of both worlds. As with careers and child-bearing for women, there is a cost there, even if it’s just in wasted mental imagery.
I look at a lot of the effort that seems to be involved in some of these blogs about how to score and I think it’s a waste of time to worry that much about women and what they want as a group.
mental energy***
I need to lay off the coffee…
Perhaps they don’t find Game a satisfying alternative, a position I understand. They want to get rid of the root problem, not engage in a band-aid solution.<<<<<<
In my experience I wasn't defending Game as anything more than adaptation to current mores (and fwiw, I don't think Game is any kind of fix for anything other than for a few individuals to get a bit of younger and tighter trim).
Some of the folks I was arguing with were in denial that there has been any change in sexual mores over the last 40 years…..that is, it's not fair to say that they want to get rid of the root problem — if that were the case they'd be looking for the root problem.
They’re already on to you. Watch this public service announcement by the Hamas explaining how internet porn and Facebook leads to drugs, collaboration with Israel and finally the gallows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv-Di8KPIeI
Maybe we should train people in Arabic and Islamic scholarship and use them as propaganda pieces to influence Muslim society. In effect, we should create our own version of Hezbollah and Hamas to influence and effectively control the Muslim population with teachings of the Koran that benefit Westernization.
“effectively control the Muslim population with teachings of the Koran that benefit Westernization.”
Like what?
this part is GENIUS – “encourage third-world women to pursue higher education, preferably in feminist institutions”
Like what?
I wish one can say specifically, but there needs to be some attempt at creating a Koran that isn’t viewed literally, but figuratively in order to weaken and water down the portions that are used as justifications for jihad and other actions against infidels & non-believers.
What about voluntary, paid sterilization? Third worlders have lower IQ, which means a diminished capacity for abstract thinking. Which is to say that a big fat check will far outweigh the cons of sterilization. They’ll sterilize themselves for a new set of spinnaz or gold chains.
The plan is fundamentally flawed because sexual liberation only cuts the birthrates of those with IQs above 100. American inner cities and sub-Saharan Africa are essentially already sexually liberated and show no sign of demographic collapse.
[Maybe in one part of the world. But my dream is to see it everywhere, from Africa to the Middle East to Southeast Asia. - ed.]
Oh. It is being implemented, don’t worry about that. International organizations take care of that. Obviously there are countries where it is easier and steps can be more bold. But the agenda is one and it is global.
See for example goal 3A and goal 5B in Millenium Development Goals (the objetives of United Nations). It is the same you have written here but with other language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals
In Islamic countries goes little by little and it will take lots of time (but the birthrate in Islamic countries have decreased significantly: proof that it is working). In other places it is faster.
But, slowly or quickly, the change is only one way. The spread of feminism and slutdom (and low birthrates) is only question of time. All the things about promoting the empowerment of women, reproductive health or similar are only euphemism for your plan. Remember my words and see the birthrates in twenty years (or simply see the birthrates of twenty years ago).
Good plan. When it comes to the sexual emancipation of women in third world countries you need to get the feminist juggernaut working for you. Say it is about women’s rights and dignity etc. Feminists are not logical but are swayed by sophistic emotion in their crusted hearts. Call anyone who objects a misogynist and a sexist who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant.
It won’t work because it has not worked in the US with second/third/fourth generation Mexicans, who have an INCREASE in fertility around 3 to about 5, or Blacks, who have a slight increase in fertility to around 2.5 or os.
Left out is the relative Alphaness of men. Black and Hispanic gang members may not have jobs, but they are plenty attractive to women in the US who have easy access to birth control, anonymous urban living, greater economic opportunity, and no-fault divorce. Black and Hispanic women are notorious for not getting married, and very high rates of illegitimacy. Among Hispanic women, it has changed from 17% in 1981, to over 50% today, WITH a marked increase in birth-rate.
Arizona has changed from a place where Whites were the overwhelming majority to one where the future citizens will be overwhelmingly Mexican, in California Whites were 70% of the population in 1980, and will overtaken as the majority population by Mexicans in 2016!
It seems the factors limiting White birthrates globally are the relative Alpha-ness of the average White guy. Which is not very Alpha. Make men Alpha enough and women will happily have bad-boy spawn at multiple intervals, as seen in the Black and Hispanic communities.
I’d argue the opposite — that White guys should thug it up, become total thugs, and thus make all their women happy by offering a more Alpha opportunity. Will this make all European and Anglosphere nations into something akin to Tijuana or Cuidad Juarez? With infrastructure and living standards of those places, and their murder rates? Sure.
But women would not have it any other way.
I suspect, based on real-life experience and anecdotal info, that the birth-rate for Mexican-Americans is much higher than amongst native Mexicans. This may not have been the case in the distant past, but it is definitely so now. Many of my younger relatives in Mexico have smaller families than their American-born counterparts.
Find a way to simply and cheaply reverse the “ghetto-ization” process, and I think you might be on to a winner!
Implement this plan among peoples who produce the ugliest women and work your way up.
I think it has nothing to do with degeneracy or anything. It is rather a demographic transition which all countries will achieve, hopefully. Atleast those with functioning infrastructure, governance structures. People will have less children when they see that the cost of bringing up children, educating them, giving them a headstart in life takes a lot of effort and money. In some ways, development is the best contraceptive. Think of Tunisia and Iran. See the demographic changes. There is nothing black or white about it. Its human. I write this as an Indian. I think Ferdinand, in your bemoaning, you often forget that perhaps in some ways if things work out, many people will like to live the way you whites do. I don’t know thy whites grumble, when they are far more fortunate than blacks and browns. And problems in life never really go away, they keep changing and coming.
Oh. It is being implemented, don’t worry about that. International organizations take care of that. Obviously there are countries where it is easier and steps can be more bold. But the agenda is one and it is global.
I’m 100% in favor of this agenda. I think its truly a wonderful thing and I think it should be promoted as much as possible. Also, I think anyone who believes in the limits to growth worldview (resource limits, etc.) should be very happy about this agenda and should want to promote it as much as possible.
I think anyone who does not like this agenda AND, at the same time, believes in the limits to growth worldview, has to be brain damaged. To believe both of these is logically inconsistent, since population growth is the root of all resource consumption and environmental degradation.
I am sick of people going on and on about resource limits and environmental problems while refusing to talk about controlling population growth.
I love it, this is genius.
Maybe we should train people in Arabic and Islamic scholarship and use them as propaganda pieces to influence Muslim society. In effect, we should create our own version of Hezbollah and Hamas to influence and effectively control the Muslim population with teachings of the Koran that benefit Westernization.
The problem is that when you go to learn Arabic or study Islam in the United States, you’re learning it from exactly the people who are most committed to the opposing cause. All the lessons and lesson materials for learning and practicing Arabic contribute to a giant indoctrination such that it’s impossible to become conversant in Arabic in the US without becoming at the same time significantly more sympathetic to what Arabs and Muslims say about themselves and about the west.
Your plan is redundant and unnecessary. Redundant because, like people have been pointing out, it’s already in full effect in the Islamic world. Everybody in Iraq has a sattelite connection, a Chinese smartphone full of porn, and the desire for more Western shit. The women watch the same shit that ours do, and imbibe the same cultural values. What, you thought Osama just declared war on us for no reason? In the long run, our export and coastal culture is not compatible with any traditional one, and it’s not just a question of new culture; it’s a question of population size shrinking.
It’s unnecessary because while whites as a whole have tanking birth rates, not all white populations do. Look at the Mormons, who seem to have developed some immunity to our toxic culture.
All this can be achieved simply by incentivizing developing countries to adopt market capitalism. It makes educating and employing women a necessity. The collapse of birth rates is a logical consequence.
Yes, Osama’s kamikaze pilots were saying – in their inarticulate way – that these ideas are already being implemented on them and they dont like it. But their resistence is futile. Obama’s son is a British playboy. Obama has forty sons but will have fewer grandsons.
As other’s have pointed out, this plan is already underway in most “turd world countries” (love that, by the way). Planned Parenthood is an enormous, American-government funded, international agency of infertility. Check out their interactive map. They are very nearly everywhere, doing their good deeds for the masses. Every half-assed shanty town has a clinic and a church. Take your pick. Look at the way they descended upon Haiti (which the Spearhead documented) like vultures.
Someone mentioned sterilization (tubal ligation), but that is already the world’s most widespread method of birth control (33% of married women have been “fixed”). Remember that many poorer women do not have access to regular health care, so they prefer to have one surgery done, than worry about running out of pills out in the boondocks. And it is useful in limiting, rather than spacing children, which is what most married women actually want.
As B said, one of the things the Muslim fundamentalists complain about is the way that the West’s influence has poisoned their own cultures with sterile decadence. Don’t be fooled by the garb; wearing a head scarf does not make you chaste. Mormons and traditional Catholics don’t cover their heads or wear odd clothes, and their birth rate is higher than in many third (or second, which is what I think you actually mean) world countries.
Iran, for example, is a cesspool of feminism and consumerism, and has a fertility rate of only 1.8. The fertility rate is crashing everywhere else, as well. Egypt has gone from 6.65 in 1960 to 2.86 today. Saudia Arabia went from 7.22 to 3.12 in the same time frame. Indonesia went from 5.67 to 2.17. Mexico went from 6.78 to 2.1.
As someone else noted, the American Mexicans are more fertile than the Mexican Mexicans. They’re also generally more religious and socially conservative. Remember that emigrants tend to comprise the best of the poor. The least ambitious people tend to stay behind. And what drives ambition more than a belief in Providence, and a desire to earn enough income to establish and maintain a family? The people who don’t care about those things don’t risk drowning in the Rio Grande. They’re already at home, drunk, and jacking off to porn.
But the way you wrote it up like satire was very amusing, and gave me something to smile about this morning. Thank you.
The fastest-reproducing minority populations are in the West. That’s the whole issue. They’re leaving their dying-and-shrinking lands and traveling to the West, where their reproductive rate actually increases and is generally faster than the local population.
Furthermore, demographic predictions are not all necessary linear and oversimplified. Population both grows and declines exponentially, so the dynamic is more complicated than that. I know that the German Family Ministry has done the math and figured out that even if all child-bearing German women immediately dropped everything and doubled their fertility rate (a big if), it would still take over 20 years for the population to stop declining. The women who would be reproducing were never born to begin with, and those who are still in reproductive age tend toward the end of that age (as in, they are mostly over 30), and are therefore less fertile. Even if they wanted to increase their fertility dramatically, they probably couldn’t do it, and it wouldn’t have much effect anyway.
All the minorities have to do is allow their reproductive rate to decline slowly and they’ll still end up in the majority. The white Westernhood is effectively dead, and it’s resurgence can only come from those subgroups (the Amish, the Mormons, traditional Catholics, Orthodox Jews, devout Protestants) that are currently experiencing rapidly growing populations. They’re the only ones that have — and will have — enough young, fertile women to compete.
As for conservatives being prudish, I’d have to take issue with that assumption. It’s true that they often act prudish and speak in a prudish manner. But — at least among the married — it’s been my impression that the conservative men are the only ones getting any kind of quality and generous sex from their wives. Feminist wives aren’t generally giving it up, and then only reluctantly, and with a wagon-load of restrictions, caveats, and chronic headaches.
Of course, if you mean that conservatives are more prudish than prostitutes (and the many modern women imitating them), then I’d have to agree.
Planned Parenthood seems to be following the old Malthusian dogma that overpopulation causes poverty and backwardness. We should consider the possibility that it is actually the other way around. Poor people in agricultural societies have many children mainly because they a) depend on their labour on the fields and sweatshops b) rely on their children to care for them when they get old since there is no social safety net or pension system. Give them more economic opportunities and their fertility rate will drop. Trying to reduce their fertility by giving them condoms, sterilizing them etc. won’t alleviate the poverty which is the cause of their problems in the first place. An American strategist called Thomas Barnett has written about this in one of his books.
It means that there are fewer poor people, but those people who are born live just as crappy lives as their predecessors.
At any rate, no society can experience long-term ascendancy without a growing population. Even if you get very nearly everyone on the planet to join you in demographic-suicide, all it takes is some subculture, somewhere bucking that trend to quickly overrun the rest of the dying, geriatric planet.
In the short-to-medium term, it can be a societal advantage. But that usually ends within a generation, or two. At some point, you just need babies. The one with the most healthy babies wins. That’s the second part. You need the patriarchy in order ensure that your offspring are superior to those of your societal competition. Children only need so much prosperity in order to thrive. Once you hit that sweet-spot, your resources are better spent making more children, than buying them designer clothes or sending them off to Aspen for winter break.
But once a culture becomes wealthy enough, feminism and hedonism spring up. Then the quality of the offspring begins to decline steadily. This leads the society into decline, whether genteel or abrupt.
u racist or sumthin dawg?
It means that there are fewer poor people, but those people who are born live just as crappy lives as their predecessors.
Actually, if there are less people in these poor societies, it decreases the supply of labour which should theoretically increase their value as workers and allow them to command higher wages. In turn, their governments can dedicate more resources to them which should allow for greater increased in their output as well. So we can increase the standard of living of the poor by having less poor to share the resources given to them.
But once a culture becomes wealthy enough, feminism and hedonism spring up.
Arguably, what’s the point of becoming a superior civilization when you can’t enjoy the fruits of it?
all it takes is some subculture, somewhere bucking that trend to quickly overrun the rest of the dying, geriatric planet
You find them and wipe them out. It is that simple. Even if they do buck the trend, they’ll inherit resource deprived planet, and they’ll lack the skills and ability to do anything but live inferior lives to the larger culture that proceeded them. One may argue that pure numbers are enough, but quite frankly, it’s quality that’s most important, and that’s something that these sub-cultures will never have.
Are you saying that Mormons are “lower quality”? You’re kidding, right? Not all subcultures consist of the starving and illiterate.
So we can increase the standard of living of the poor by having less poor to share the resources given to them.
False. The resources have to be created first, and then the poor can live off of them. Look at China and Eastern Europe. They are growing old before they are rich. If you grow rich first, and then old, you can live off of your previous wealth. But what do you live off of if you are poor and old? Expect mass poverty in old age in such countries.
Are you saying that Mormons are “lower quality� You’re kidding, right? Not all subcultures consist of the starving and illiterate.
They’re not lower quality as they’re a relatively high IQ group, but I just don’t see how they would be able maintain a high standard of living with high birthrates with depleted resources. Effectively, they’re winning a game where the loser inherits an empty husk of a planet.
Look at China and Eastern Europe. They are growing old before they are rich.
Arguably, they’re richer now than they’ve ever been. The problem is that if the Chinese didn’t curb their birth rates, they’d be like India where there are just too many poor people soaking up the economic growth to have any real effect in terms of standard of living. Instead of building near Western grade infrastucture, they’d end up blowing the money on the meager subsistence of their citizenry.
Expect mass poverty in old age in such countries.
Given Chinese savings rates, they may actually be able to luck out on that count. They’ll still live better than their Indian counterparts.
…all it takes is some subculture, somewhere bucking that trend to quickly overrun the rest of the dying, geriatric planet…
All it takes is a few neutron bombs or a genetically engineering designer virus to exterminate that sub-culture – problem solved.
One may argue that pure numbers are enough, but quite frankly, it’s quality that’s most important, and that’s something that these sub-cultures will never have.
Quality is always preferable to quantity. I know some people are slow on the uptake about this. Besides, sooner or later, science will discover or invent a cure for aging and the whole conventional life cycle thing will go the way of the horse and buggy.
I think that the worldwide adoption of the smartphone will hasten the global collapse of birthrates. Because wireless infrastructure is far cheaper to roll out than landlines, developing countries have transitioned from having no long-distance telecommunications at all to having mobile phones and satellite television without the intermediate steps that we experienced. Although mobile phones have proliferated throughout Asia and Africa, I think we’ll start to see an even more dramatic change once the Android phones and iPhones start making inroads. Those aren’t just communication devices — those are all-in-one gaming, video, music, and porn watching devices. People in third world countries will be able absorb far greater spectrum of pop culture than Americans and Europeans were able to even as late as the 1990s, and for a far lower cost.
I have never taken the alarmist “creeping Islamofascism” blogs seriously, mainly because I regard Islam to be utterly feeble in the face of the expansion of global pop culture. Video games, television, movies, pop music, sports and pornography appeal to the most basic human desires for status competition, entertainment, and sex. Religion appeals to our need for security, which is why many will continue to attempt to be devout Christians or Muslims, even while engaging in 8 hour gaming marathons or 1 hour internet porn wankathons. However, Christianity is a shell of its former self, and soon, Islam will also be.
All it takes is a few neutron bombs or a genetically engineering designer virus to exterminate that sub-culture – problem solved.
So you’re going to bomb your own country, fight wars with a military made up largely of your enemies, and infect your neighbors who have a similar genetic makeup to your own? Smart move.
So you’re going to bomb your own country, fight wars with a military made up largely of your enemies, and infect your neighbors who have a similar genetic makeup to your own? Smart move.
No. My bio and nano weapons will be more targeted.
Abelard-your pussy culture can’t even get enough gumption together to put down the PS3 and Sex and the City box set and make a few babies, but all of a sudden is gonna make like Darth Vader with the neutron bombs?
Fuck outta heah.
“Black” Obama wants abortion in the Third World. “White” Bush didn’t.
B says:
June 17, 2010 at 5:43 am
Abelard-your pussy culture can’t even get enough gumption together to put down the PS3 and Sex and the City box set and make a few babies, but all of a sudden is gonna make like Darth Vader with the neutron bombs?
Fuck outta heah.
Israel is pretty ruthless.
Abelard-your pussy culture can’t even get enough gumption together to put down the PS3 and Sex and the City box set and make a few babies,
B:
I don’t play computer games nor do I watch “Sex and the City”.
I lived in Japan for 9 years and can speak Japanese. I developed new thin-film materials (similar to semiconductors) for industrial applications and did try to start a company in Malaysia. I have done industrial automation (PLC-based, not DCS) and have sold analytical instrument (scanning probe microscopy) in the U.S. and Asia. I used to mountain climb and do scuba dive whenever I am in a tropical place (which is about 2X per year). I lift weights (4x a week) and swim a mile (3x a week). I am also into cryonics and radical life extension (transhumanism).
All of this makes me more studly than you could ever possibly imagine.
Isn’t being afraid of death and refusing to reproduce the exact opposite of studly? Doesn’t the whole concept of “stud” have to do with selfless courageousness, and propagation of the species?
Just asking…
I’ve been everywhere from South America to Northern Europe, from the Middle East to the Far East – and it’s all there.
The difference is in the face of all this, they still RESPECT THEIR ELDERS, honor their parents and obey them even as adults and the elders and parents say “get married and have kids” …. no matter how much porn they watch or how many condoms are available or how many baby girls they abort (because they want sons).
So basically the issue is how much influence do our elders have over us in the US (and what are their values).
[Note: "Internationalist" is the infamous troll known as "Desi". See here as to why she should be ignored. - ed.]
“However, Christianity is a shell of its former self, and soon, Islam will also be.”
We suffer everyday
What is it for?
We’ve crushed everything I can see
In this morning selfishly
How we’ve failed
Now that we’ve chosen to take all we can
This shade of autumn
A stale bitter end…
“However, Christianity is a shell of its former self, and soon, Islam will also be.â€
No it won’t.
“Quality is always preferable to quantity.”
Yeah, look how much good the higher IQs of the Europeans in South Africa are doing them!
Who need quantity when you have quality!!
Idiot…
Quality is always preferable to quantity.
The question is: are their children actually higher quality? Children’s “quality” can only be defined by their reproductive success; the ability to produce an abundance of healthy and fertile offspring.
No right-thinking person would argue that those children are actually higher quality. So their son drives a Porsche instead of a Ford. So their daughter has a doctorate in law, rather than a job as a paralegal. So their one-and-only grandchild will attend a prestigious prep school, rather than be homeschooled.
Ever heard of diminishing returns on investment? There’s a point where you’ve spent enough on one child that you’d be better off saving the rest and investing it in an additional child. Once you hit the solid middle class, the rest of the money is rather pointless for your reproductive success. The amount you need to raise “successful” children is actually surprisingly low. Basic medical care, abundant food and nutrition, sound housing, adequate clothing, homeschooling, etc.
Children are cheap enough for most middle-class families to be able to afford a gaggle of them, as long as the wife doesn’t work (day care costs would make the children prohibitively expensive). We didn’t even bother with a crib, a stroller, or formula. Breastfeeding, babywearing, and a co-sleeping cost next-to-nothing and you don’t have to re-invest with each child. If you space your kids out at least 18 months between, you can reuse almost everything. Just buy clothes in neutral colors, and stick to basic toys like LEGOs, wooden blocks, tricycles, balls, etc.
Some people claim children are expensive, but that’s because they insist on buying a lot of useless crap for their kids. Blinking/flashing toys, expensive gaming equipment, expensive private schools, designer clothes, etc. Poor people have a lot of kids because kids are cheap. But their kids could use a bit more investment, to achieve “highest quality”. If middle class people had a lot of kids, they’d be maxing out their reproductive possibilities. If upper-class people dropped the expensive private school and McMansion, and the wife stayed home and homeschooled, they’d have could have more kids and the kids would be of higher quality. An increasing number of them are making this calculation (as did we), which is why homeschooling is advancing rapidly among all economic classes.
Besides, sooner or later, science will discover or invent a cure for aging and the whole conventional life cycle thing will go the way of the horse and buggy.
That won’t help you when you’re being overrun by the more fertile foreigners and get hacked to death. I suppose they could sew you back together and wave a magic science wand over you.
“That won’t help you when you’re being overrun by the more fertile foreigners and get hacked to death. I suppose they could sew you back together and wave a magic science wand over you.”
Trouble is the scientists will also be hacked to death.
The scientists, arguably, will be the the first ones hacked to death. Threat eliminated. Next.
The question is: are their children actually higher quality?
If we stick with a strictly biological perspective, yes, but not much better. If we stick with acceptance by proper middle class society, then yes, they are of much higher quality.
There’s a point where you’ve spent enough on one child that you’d be better off saving the rest and investing it in an additional child.
Or you could merely keep the money for yourself? Alte, my dear, I’ve learned the hard way that there is never enough money to spend.
Some people claim children are expensive, but that’s because they insist on buying a lot of useless crap for their kids.
Well, the problem is that if one wants to maintain high standard of living for both the parent and child, then the income being generated by the parents must be increased to do so. You seem to have little desire to become a member of the “real” middle class, so of course, you’re willing to take that hit to your income in order to have children. Some of us in contrast want to be able to have children with no affect on our lifestyles, so we can remain middle class, lest we fall in status and feel ashamed and embarrassed. And some of us just want to spoil our children so they can have more stuff than we did, so they won’t be the loser kid going to school in the loser car and agonizing over not having nice stuff like their friends.
Breastfeeding, babywearing, and a co-sleeping cost next-to-nothing and you don’t have to re-invest with each child.
Athena’s ex-boyfriend suggested something like that, and she went ballistic because she in her words “wasn’t raised that way”. I couldn’t do that either as I grew up with cribs, strollers, and formula.
If upper-class people dropped the expensive private school and McMansion, and the wife stayed home and homeschooled
They’d no longer be upper class, but merely proles. As for home schooling, based on what you’re written here, I think you’re too crazy to be teaching children. :-)
Regardless, there’s a part of me that accepts that idea that people may want to educate their children on their own, but there’s another part of me that thinks your all a bunch of weirdo hippies or crazy religious people afraid that your children may think independent thoughts or see dirty people of another Christian faith. Mind you, I went to Catholic school* for twelve years because my mom was a product of private schools back in Haiti, and the public schools in NYC are questionable even in working-middle class black areas.
*I’m also a liberal that’s pro-charter schools.
“Regardless, there’s a part of me that accepts that idea that people may want to educate their children on their own, but there’s another part of me that thinks your all a bunch of weirdo hippies or crazy religious people afraid that your children may think independent thoughts or see dirty people of another Christian faith.”
Hey there. Christians aren’t the only ones who homeschool. Hare Krishnas are going on 3 generations of homeschooled kids now (many go on to University and careers, one running for congress or senate in her state in fact) and there are some other non-Christian religionists and even non-religious people doing it.
[Note: "Internationalist" is the infamous troll known as "Desi". See here as to why she should be ignored. - ed.]
Homeschooling is the domain of the Heavy Investors. People who are willing to donate time and energy (worth more than money now) to the raising of their children.
There are a lot of hippie-types, devout religious people (of all faiths, not just Christians), etc. College professors and teachers actually make up the largest single group, because they are convinced of the educational advantage it has been proven to provide.
Alte, my dear, I’ve learned the hard way that there is never enough money to spend.
Touche.
I’m a bit of a homebody. I spent yesterday working on my garden. Canning mulberry jelly (yum!), planting tomatoes, beans, cukes, and squash, harvesting kale, hanging up laundry, shelling peas on the garden bench, digging in the dirt, playing in the kiddie-pool, and laughing at the children’s berry juice-covered faces. You couldn’t pay me enough to give that up. Not for a million dollars.
My ex-boyfriend was a millionaire (no kidding), but he didn’t want to have children. So I dumped him and married a guy driving a 12-year-old Golf who wanted me to be a homemaker. Money doesn’t appeal to me beyond its most basic utilitarian value, which is probably why we have so much of it. I’m very thrifty, simply because I hardly ever buy anything.
Anyway, I have everything I need already. When me husband asks me what I want for my birthday, I usually draw a blank. I really can’t think of anything other than books. I don’t like jewelry, don’t care about cars, we already take vacations, I think most restaurant food tastes gross, I’m tired of “going out”, etc. I already have a pool in my backyard, too. What in the world would I do with more money? Buy more of the same, in the shinier, newer version? No thanks.
One thing about homeschooled kids though, some of them, quite a bit actually, find it hard to deal with the “real world” outside of their home once they become adults and have to earn money. Unless their parents own some sort of business which they can just fit into. The homeschooled kids I know are A LOT LESS MATERIALISTIC than your average public and private school kids and that in turn often makes them less materialistic adults (or it can go the opposite direction). The non-materialistic kids that do stay non-materialistic just don’t have the “drive” that materialistic people have to “make it” in this fast-paced concrete-jungle world.
Even if the kids rebel and go through a young adult period of having wild sex, doing drugs and other stuff their parents tried to protect them from in homeschool, STILL, they are just not high-powered-career types.
That’s not a bad thing at all, mind you. It just makes it difficult to find a “niche” here that you feel comfortable in AND which can make you money.
Some of the adults I know who were homeschooled as kids kind of live semi-communally together, and several of them are on government welfare and food stamps.
[Note: "Internationalist" is the infamous troll known as "Desi". See here as to why she should be ignored. - ed.]
So they reflect the general population?
You couldn’t pay me enough to give that up. Not for a million dollars.
I’ve always wondered about that. Would I give up my memories and the emotional benefits derived from it for a sizable sum of money? There are a few times where I’ve said yes*, and increasingly as I watch the bank account dwindle, I think about it, but there are other times where I say no because being rich doesn’t magically make one emotionally secure. I just want to be financially AND emotionally secure, and I think the only people capable of that are those born with large trust funds that can pay basic expenses and allows the receiver to life as freely as possible. The rest of us who work can never be truly happy.
*In my darker moments though, I wish the mothers of niece, nephew, and goddaughter had abortions. They’re cute and they hug me, but I have little hope for their future.
So I dumped him and married a guy driving a 12-year-old Golf who wanted me to be a homemaker.
Maybe you should have thrown yourself at an upper middle class guy who drives purchases a new S-Class every three years who wants kids? One could argue that from a purely secular and egalitarian standpoint, I don’t know why you’d throw away your life on somebody who drives an old Golf around, but you’re rather iconoclastic and religious, and your husband fits into your view of how the world works. So yes, your marriage works out, but I’m wondering how you chose money over love when money is a far more practical concern. Of course, I’m a materialistic bastard who will probably never be happy.
It’s funny since I make fun of you for being a “lazy golddigger” for not working outside of home, yet you’re not the type to go blow your husband’s money on expensive gaudy crap to show off to other women…
I’m very thrifty, simply because I hardly ever buy anything.
I’m stingy, but that’s because I end up spending my money on big ticket purchases to make up for it. So I’ll stay at home, eat cheap fast food, but want to go on vacation to ride trains in another city or buy a 22 inch LCD designed for photo editing.
Maybe you should have thrown yourself at an upper middle class guy who drives purchases a new S-Class every three years who wants kids?
Because my cousin married him. :-)
Because my husband turns me on, of course. I wanted to be with him and I didn’t want anyone else to be with him, so I had to tie him down somehow. Same reason my mother dumped the rich white guy she was engaged to and married a poor black guy. Cause he was hot. After spending 5 minutes with each guy, every woman would judged her to have made a wise choice. Even my German cousins all had crushes on him.
Women either marry for love or money. I don’t care that much about money, because money can’t buy me love. I just need enough to eat and keep the Internet going.
We also just know how to pick ‘em. It’s better to marry a relatively poor guy and hang onto his side as he climbs his way up, rather than marry a rich man and watch his attentions dwindle as you age.
yet you’re not the type to go blow your husband’s money on expensive gaudy crap to show off to other women
Why bother? My husband’s hot, so they’re already drooling in envy. :-) You just can’t beat that, especially nowadays when so many men are total schmucks. 1 alpha in the hand is worth 1 million dollars in the bank. You can quote me on that.
And now I shall go outside and water my garden.
Alte, if these homeschooled (now) adults reflect the rest of the nation, that is not really an accomplishment. Many homeschooling parents are idealists who think their kids are going to “change the world” or at the very least contribute significantly to it in a unique way. If they turn out to be just as damaged and dysfunctional as everyone else, what’s the point?
What I see amongst White and Black American homeschooled kids – many of them end up getting into the kinds of stuff and situations their (very often religious) parents don’t want them too – and then settling down into a semi-communal, hippie-style life with government assitance.
On the OTHER hand – the ASIAN public school kids manage to stay out of trouble, get awesome grades, go on to University and good-paying careers and traditional, stable marriages and families — all without having to have radical, religious, homeschooling parents.
[Note: "Internationalist" is the infamous troll known as "Desi". See here as to why she should be ignored. - ed.]
Because my husband turns me on, of course.
Women will do anything for man that turns her own. OTOH, I worshiped a chubby white girl that was smarter and better than me who hugged me whenever we met. Regardless, I’m surprised that your mother would turn down a rich guy for a poor black guy even if her turned her on when there are far more practical matters in life to deal with. I’m amazed that your grandparents would tolerate that.
Women either marry for love or money.
They marry alphas for love, and betas for money. I have nothing wrong with the former, but I despise the latter.
It’s better to marry a relatively poor guy and hang onto his side as he climbs his way up, rather than marry a rich man and watch his attentions dwindle as you age.
It’s funny as I think of those women as golddiggers too. I view them as venture capitalists looking for a naive young man with talents and hoping that buying when he’s cheap and at the bottom will reap rewards when he becomes successful. Of course, when his skills don’t pan out and he remains a mundane boring man, she becomes a bitter angry women searching for tingle (and cash) elsewhere.
Just ban her. I did that right away after starting my blog since she couldn’t stop posting inane crap under a bajillion different names. She’s a troll and nothing else.
[Not necessary. Whenever I expose her, she vanishes. It's like she's afraid of me... - ed.]
FB,
You fail to recognize that some of those “turd” worlders could be your allies against Islam.
And the next point is the affinity of people to culture. Look at the muslim world, their birth rate has not abated inspite of birth control or feminist education. In fact, few of these college educated women have become jihadi “wives”, whose aim is to marry a “jihadi martyr”.
{ 3 trackbacks }