Land Barons Committed Genocide Against Whites During the Peak of Boomer Fertility

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 24, 2006, 01:38 AM | #

Excellent log entry. 

I also call it genocide.  And it’s deliberate, of course—grasping that fundamental fact is essential.  It’s all been carefully planned.

Posted by Voice on July 24, 2006, 02:51 AM | #

JB,

Excellent essay and although I am not an economist, I think you assumptions based on dual income Vs historical single income is correct.

Taking liberty as an economist, you could call this measurement the “Bowery Household income and misery index”.  hehehe

I was just thinking the same thing last week(albeit with far less analysis) that Real GDP was falling like a rock from the good ole days when my mom stayed at home and my father was ONLY(teaching Homer and Chaucer and being published on his analysis) a high school teacher making $22k a year while we lived in a beautiful 5 bedroom home!(Late 60’s and early 70’s)

But I checked out mainstream real GDP index and found we are all twice as well off as we were in those times!

http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/gdp_answer.php?CHKnominalGDP=on&CHKrealGDP=on&CHKGDPdeflator=on&CHKpopulation=on&CHKnominalGDP_percap=on&CHKrealGDP_percap=on&year1=1950&year2=2005

What a load of rubbish.  I would also submit there are many higher fixed costs compared to income, with health care being the 800 pound gorilla.

Although not your intention, this analysis makes guys like Sailer look like lightweights.  I have a feeling we will see this essay show up in a slightly different format(no mention of race replacement and genocide of course) somewhere else real soon…

Posted by On Holliday on July 24, 2006, 02:38 PM | #

http://www.vdare.com/pb/spiral_of_silence.htm
“The older generation of white male managers has compromised, Lynch argues, because they think quotas will fall only on the younger, baby-boom generation.”

Indeed.  And we hear older white “conservatives” telling us that things “have never been better”, while white boomers and their families (what little they have) are suffering terribly the consequences of the policies promoted by representatives of the older generation.

Posted by James Bowery on July 24, 2006, 04:15 PM | #

Voice said: ”I would also submit there are many higher fixed costs compared to income, with health care being the 800 pound gorilla.”

The main reason I didn’t bother with healthcare costs is that evolutonarily speaking we can still have children without doctors.  The economics of vital statistics are pretty immune to whether you can afford “healthcare” or not.  They are _not_ immune to fundamentals like territory and tools of survival, which automobiles have become.

The main way our ancestors compensated for the health risks to children was to have more of them so there could be a higher mortality rate.  There is this cowardly view that has taken hold of the society that thinks it is more important to have a low mortality rate than it is to have children—and that view certainly didn’t originate with the folks who suffered a 25% mortality rate in the first year they migrated to the New World from the British Isles.

Posted by Voice on July 24, 2006, 09:22 PM | #

JB

I can understand your reasoning but the Middle to Lower Class whites($40-$100k) can’t afford to 3+ children.  There are loads of couples in my neighborhood that have to stop because of $3-$4k bill for each child they have to pay to have a child--this includes pre-natal care etc.

Whether or not they should get all the tests is another argument but this does have an impact.

Posted by James Bowery on July 24, 2006, 10:18 PM | #

Voice:  There is a point to the costs of ob-gyn when the government mandates certain standards of care.  The Amish in Missouri near a friend’s farm started having severe alcoholism problems when the government forced them to start either paying for ob-gyn care or accept government charity.  The men were forced to find more cash than they historically had to for reproduction since they relied on Amish midwives.

This was a direct biological attack on their reproduction.

It’s had to see how to incorporate this cost properly.

Posted by ben tillman on July 25, 2006, 01:49 PM | #

Don’t overlook the costs stemming from forced desegregation.  Millions of parents now have to incur the expense of private schooling or substantial non-productive commuting time.

Posted by On Holliday on July 25, 2006, 03:02 PM | #

“substantial non-productive commuting time.”

I laugh every time I hear some sort of commentary or editorial about “long commutes” and the negative consequences of such that does not mention race.

Ever-expanding suburbia - another subject of endless commentary - which itself leads to the commutes is no more or no less a function of white flight and colored pursuit.

Posted by Steve on November 25, 2006, 04:55 PM | #

Some other things to consider. What was the homeownership rate in 1954. I’m guessing it was a good deal lower than it is now. Another thing is that in 1954 very few families owned more than one car.  On the other hand most if not all of America’s urban centers were predominantly white, meaning less home ownership and less need for cars.  Also less need for private schools. Just thought I’d throw in those variables for consideration.